36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 41
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 16, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| NATIONAL SECURITY
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1010
1015
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1020
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1025
1030
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1035
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1040
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1045
| Mr. George Proud |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Library of Parliament
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1050
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-409. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1055
| CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
|
| Bill C-410. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1100
| PETITIONS
|
| Belgrade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| United States Army School of the Americas
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Auto Industry
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1105
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Charter of Rights and Freedoms
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Canada Post Corporation Act
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Pensions
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Marriage
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Rights of Children
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1110
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| The Family
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Old Age Security
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Charter of Rights and Freedoms
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Nisga'a Treaty
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1115
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Via Rail
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Falun Gong Practitioners
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Animal Protection Legislation
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Children
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Charter of Rights and Freedoms
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1120
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Pornography
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| World Trade Organization
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Conscience Rights
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1125
| Taxation
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Charter of Rights and Freedoms
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1200
| The Deputy Speaker |
1205
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1305
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1310
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1315
1320
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1325
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1330
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1335
1340
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1345
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ARTS EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1400
| MUSCULO-SKELETAL CONDITIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| SANDRINE'S GIFT OF LIFE
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| WESTJET AIRLINES
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| CLARITY ACT
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| CAROLINE BRUNET
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1405
| JEROME LAPER
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| BILINGUALISM
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| HUMANITARIAN WORKERS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1410
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| FLIGHT TRAINING
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| BILL C-20
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1415
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| PORT OF HALIFAX
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1435
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1450
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1455
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FRANCOPHONE GAMES
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1500
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1510
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1515
1520
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1525
1530
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1535
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1540
1545
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1550
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1555
1600
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1605
1610
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1615
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1620
1625
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1630
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1635
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1640
1645
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1650
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1655
1700
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Speaker |
1705
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Speaker |
1720
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1725
1730
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1735
1740
| Mr. John Bryden |
1745
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1750
1755
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1800
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1805
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
|
| Bill C-226. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1810
1815
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1820
1825
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1830
1835
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1840
1845
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1850
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1855
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1900
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Equality
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1905
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Gun Control
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1910
| Mr. John Maloney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 41
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 16, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
Canadian Tourism Commission's annual report for 1998-99 entitled
“Transition”.
* * *
NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present to parliament the
solicitor general's annual statement on national security.
Public safety is the mission of my ministry and it has been a
priority of the government since we took office. The Prime
Minister has said that safe streets are one of the things that
define the health of a nation.
In the Speech from the Throne the government said it would
continue to work to fight criminal activity which is becoming
more global in scope, including money laundering, terrorism and
the smuggling of people, drugs and guns.
Today I will focus on the government's response to the report of
the Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence. The
special committee, chaired by Senator Kelly, conducted a review
of our security and intelligence sector and released its final
report earlier this year. We studied the report and
recommendations and prepared a response which I will be tabling
today.
I was pleased to see the strong support of the government's
progress on security and intelligence matters, but the committee
quite rightly pointed out that Canada like other democracies
needs to stay alert to emerging threats and to take appropriate
action.
1010
Our security is something that we cannot take for granted. It
depends on a strong security intelligence capability, law
enforcement readiness and international co-operation. Our
national law and security agencies have effective mechanisms in
place to meet their intelligence requirements.
On the international front Canada has been working hard with
like-minded nations with the leadership of the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a co-operative effort to share
intelligence and deny terrorists the support and sanctuary they
need for their operations.
The committee noted the close co-operation between Canada and
the U.S. to ensure our special border relationship remains up to
the task of detecting terrorists and organized criminals who move
between our countries.
The cross-border crime forum has helped both countries improve
security and law enforcement along our borders. For example, I
announced last April an extra $15 million a year to post 100 more
RCMP officers at three of our largest international airports.
While Canada has been relatively free from terrorists attacks, in
today's world we must be watchful and prepared.
The committee also praised the government's work on the national
counterterrorism plan developed in co-operation with other
jurisdictions. It is the key crisis management plan for
responding to terrorist incidents, setting lines of communication
and policy direction to guide first responders, senior government
officials and ministers.
The committee was pleased with steps taken to develop the
operational readiness program but noted the requirement to do
more in this area. We are looking at strengthening the program
to ensure a national level of readiness. Through workshops,
seminars and exercises to strengthen our counterterrorism
response capacity, these activities aim to raise awareness and
interagency co-operation on the threat of terrorists or criminal
use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in Canada.
The threat of such use is considered low, but all jurisdictions
in Canada should still have a capacity to respond to the
consequences of the uses of these weapons. That is why the
government will lead consultations with other jurisdictions on a
national strategy to strengthen Canada's capacity to respond to
potential terrorist incidents.
Emerging technologies also present challenges to our efforts to
ensure public safety and security. New technologies such as
wireless telephones, Internet and cryptography are being used in
both traditional and new types of criminal and terrorist
activities. The government is dealing with this issue.
Protecting Canada's critical infrastructure is a vital issue, and
we are addressing it.
The government is committed to working to develop the best
possible options to ensure public safety and security, but in
addition to being safe Canadians need to feel that their security
agencies are working well.
Canada has arguably the best and most effective review and
accountability framework in the world in the security
intelligence sector. The Security Intelligence Review Committee,
an arm's length review body, issues an annual report on CSIS
operations that is tabled in parliament. The inspector general
of CSIS provides an additional level of security and ministers
are directly responsible to parliament.
1015
The committee noted that the public and parliamentary awareness
of the activities of our security intelligence agencies is
essential in a democracy.
SIRC's annual reports, this annual statement and the committee
reports from the other place demonstrate important efforts to
raise the knowledge and close involvement of parliament in the
reviewing the security intelligence sector.
As we enter the new millennium, Canadians need to know that
their government is protecting them and their national interests.
I am pleased to note that the special committee recognized the
significant progress made to improve our counterterrorism
readiness and threat assessment capability. The chair and
members of the committee should be congratulated on their hard
work and on a report that highlights a number of important
national security issues.
In closing, our security intelligence and police forces face
many new challenges as we enter the new millennium. CSIS, the
RCMP and other federal agencies are working around the clock to
preserve public safety. I can assure the House that the
government will continue to support them.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as the solicitor general critic for Her Majesty's Official
Opposition I find it very interesting to listen to the solicitor
general's report to the House.
He reported on December 3, 1998. At that time I said that
criminals involved in organized crime have successfully landed in
Canada without any opposition due to our lax immigration policy
and inadequate screening. Organized crime with foreign origins
poses a serious threat in many metropolitan areas of Canada,
particularly on the west coast.
The danger imposed by modern day organized crime is a serious
and destructive force. It imperils the security of our citizens
and our nation. This threat attacks us on our streets, in our
businesses and in our schoolyards. Organized crime is a threat
to our economic sovereignty because the cost of organized crime
in our society is astronomical.
The counterattack will require additional resources, legislation
and co-operation provincially, federally and internationally.
Canada cannot afford the continuing lip service the government is
providing to the problem. We need resources. We need action.
We need it now. Canadians will feel safe and confident only when
these resources are committed to this attack. Crime is
organized. So should government efforts be.
Those were my words exactly a year ago. Unfortunately the words
of the solicitor general today belie what has happened in the
intervening period of time. We have discovered in the
intervening year that in the early 1990s there was a compromise
of CAIPS, the computer system in our Hong Kong office. This led
to very free access to organized crime to be able to move its
people into our society.
There was an RCMP review of the compromise of the CAIPS system
which led to the Sidewinder project, a joint project of CSIS and
the RCMP. That project was making strong headway during the
mid-1990s, right up to the point when CSIS decided not only to
shut it down but to shred every piece of information that was in
the project.
Corporal Robert Read, whom I brought to the attention of the
solicitor general repeatedly in the House, did a review of the
review of the project and arrived at some very bad conclusions.
We also understand that in 1996 CSIS lost a disk of very highly
classified information in a phone booth. SIRC did the review the
solicitor general has referred to in the House but interestingly
the person who found the disk was never interviewed by SIRC.
This year there was a loss of a briefcase by one of the
operatives of CSIS. The CSIS director informed the solicitor
general but the solicitor general, in his questionable wisdom,
did not inform SIRC that would be responsible for reviewing the
entire disastrous affair.
1020
On the legislative front I quote the minister on December 3,
1998 when he said “Early in the new year, 1999, the government
will introduce legislation to curb money laundering”.
It did not happen early in 1999. In fact it happened in May
1999, but due to the agenda of the government that legislation
ended up dying on the order paper. This vital legislation that
was supposed to have been introduced, according to the words of
the solicitor general, in early 1999 was finally reintroduced for
passage by the House on December 15. December 15, I remind the
solicitor general, is not early 1999.
He tells us he is spending $15 million to put 100 officers at
international airports. That is terrific except that the
province of British Columbia alone has a shortage of 500 members
at this point. His $15 million for 100 officers at airports is
very shallow.
We have traditions in the House. For example, a meaningful
tradition is when the mace is brought into the House by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, followed by the Speaker. This is to say that
the people of Canada have given authority to the House to do
something. That is a meaningful tradition. What I am talking
about now is a meaningless tradition. The meaningless tradition
of this and previous Liberal solicitor generals with statements
that are vacuous, meaningless mumblings simply form part of the
tradition. Those are my comments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
believe I am entitled to say today that, with the exception of
the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, the department that
is the most topsy-turvy, the one that is in the most turmoil and
surrounded with the most controversy, the most disliked, is the
Department of the Solicitor General.
Reporting to the solicitor general, in addition to the
department itself, are the RCMP, Correctional Services Canada,
the National Parole Board, CSIS, the Office of the Correctional
Investigator, the RCMP External Review Committee and the RCMP
Public Complaints Commission. Out of all these, is there any
one that is operating properly? One wonders.
What, for example, is going on with our secret agents? How can
our secret agents be losing documents by having their cars
broken into or by leaving them in phone booths?
How could students end up being pepper sprayed during Suharto's
visit to Canada? How can prisoners find it so easy to escape?
How can there still be drug dealing inside our prisons? What
about the mess within the National Parole Board, whose board
members themselves, duly appointed by this government, are
telling us that a major cleanup is needed?
How is it that the auditor general, in his most recent report of
November 1999, is still obliged to call the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission to task, as well as the Office of the
Correctional Investigator. He comments, moreover:
With a budget of $1.8 million, one might have expected inmates
and staff to at least know what this office does on their
behalf. It seems to me that things are far from clear. This
leads me to conclude that the government is not all that clear
in its supposed search for clarity. Hon. members will realize
what I am getting at.
Let me give an example of a clause that illustrates my point. I
will read the whole thing and it will not be over until I say
end of sentence.
1025
I begin:
2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum
relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to
enter into negotiations on the terms of which that province
might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall,
except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a
referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution,
set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances,
there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority
of the population of that province that the province cease to be
part of Canada.
All of this is a single sentence.
Members will have noticed that in that one sentence, the word
clear or its derivatives is used four times. I say or its
derivatives, because the term déclaré in French is a derivative
of the word clair, in my opinion.
I consulted a French etymological dictionary to find out if this
was indeed the case. I found the dictionary of Jacqueline
Picoche here, in the Library of Parliament. Ms. Picoche is a
grammar research associate and has a doctorate in literature.
If we look at the word clear, we see that it has two origins, a
Greek one and a Latin one. Which is most appropriate in the
present case? That is the question, but I am inclined to say the
Latin one. However, I would rather rely on Ms. Picoche who tells
us that in Greek, the origin is kalein—and now I need my
glasses—the derivative is parakalein: to call for help, hence the
word paraklêtos which means lawyer, protector, comforter,
intercessor. There is also another derivative, ekklêsia,
assembly by convocation, then congregation of the faithful and
the place where that assembly meets, hence the adjective
ekklêsiastikos.
The Latin root is calare, to proclaim, convoke, from which is
derived intercalare, to proclaim an additional day or month to
compensate for the discrepancies in the ancient Roman calendar.
The verb calare must have had a variation, calere, from which is
derived calendàe, first day of the month, and in turn
calendarium, agenda. And, in low Latin, calendar must have been
a feminine, plural, verbal adjective in noun form; its root cal
appearing as cil when combined with other roots, producing
concilium derived from concalium, convocation or assembly, from
which is formed conciliabulum, meeting place, and the verbs
conciliare and reconciliare, to gather and to reconcile.
The verb calare is combined with the archaic agent word calator,
which appears in classical Latin as the second element, in a
diminutive form, in nomenclàtor, a slave whose job it was to
remind his Roman master of the names of his clients at meetings.
I also have other derivatives, such as clamare, to shout, from
which is derived clamor, as well as clamoris, shouting.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I have only one minute
left. But I cannot explain all this all this in one minute; it
is not possible.
I would also like to mention verbs like dêclamare, to speak
aloud; exclamare, to exclaim; proclamare, to plead loudly;
reclamare, to cry out in indignation. Then there is clarus,
clear or illustrious, an adjective that must have been used
originally to describe the voice or sounds and have meant suited
to call.
There are also families of words such as the clarus family,
which also includes the word clarine, a bell for livestock.
I will close with clarifier, or clarify, which means to make
clear. I hope I have been clear enough myself and that, from
now on, in the House things will be unassailably clear.
1030
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I am
quite sure that the House was pretty amazed by the speech made
by my hon. colleague. I am also convinced that the House will
give its unanimous consent to letting my hon. colleague have at
least 15 minutes to complete her speech, which, in my
opinion, was very enlightening for the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask to share my time with my Bloc colleague.
We have been talking a lot about clarity in the last number of
days. One thing is very clear and that is this is probably the
most poorly written and vacuous report we have ever received from
the solicitor general's department. We do know one thing—
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is having great
difficulty hearing what the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has to say.
[English]
I hope hon. members can contain themselves. I know everyone
will want to hear his remarks.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear.
There is an astronomical void in the solicitor general's
department and it begins at the top.
This document indicates quite clearly that the department is on
complete auto pilot. We see meaningless comments littered
throughout this document with respect to the priorities of the
government and the department.
We know that cost cutting is the actual priority of the
department. Although we hear time and time again about public
safety being the number one priority, it has become clear that it
does not even appear to rank in the top 10 when we look at this
document and what is being done by the department.
There is a place in society for private security, but private
security should certainly not be replacing our police forces.
This seems to be a direction in which the department is headed.
The tabling of responses often comes after the fact, as we have
seen in the case of leaked information in 1996 when a CSIS agent
left sensitive CSIS documents on a disk in a phone booth. Almost
two years later a report was filed. This report is even less
relevant than the report filed on that lost information.
On the more recent leak that occurred at a hockey game in
Toronto, I would think the solicitor general would be prepared to
stand in his place to say “The puck stops here. I am head of
this department. I will get to the bottom of this”.
We know that it took almost a month before there was any action
by the department. There was no action whatsoever against the
director of CSIS who was complicit with the solicitor general in
keeping this information from SIRC, the watchdog that is supposed
to oversee the actions of CSIS.
That information came to the attention of the head of SIRC
through no other source than the Globe and Mail, which
belays again the fact that quite clearly these very
interconnected and supposedly co-operative departments are not
co-operating at all. In fact they are operating in little
fiefdoms separate from one another in an effort perhaps to try to
compete for scarce resources. Perhaps they simply do not
communicate because they are not getting any direction from the
head of the department.
The solicitor general was armed with the information of the leak
and chose not to pass that on to the head of SIRC. We know that
he did not even pass it on to the Prime Minister although the
Prime Minister was overseas and making comments about this not
being a serious matter, that he was not too concerned about it,
and that it was something that should not preoccupy Canadians.
Yet he did not even have the information from the solicitor
general.
It is an absolutely shocking revelation that this is going on at
a time when we know that our borders and our coastlines are being
inundated with the entrance of illegal immigrants and that
organized crime is on the rise in this country.
I spoke to a member of the RCMP from Montreal very recently who
was involved in internal operations. He told me that there has
been a doubling of clubhouses of Hell's Angels in and around the
city of Montreal in the past six months.
We know that on both coasts the same is happening. The Russian
Mafia, the Asian Mafia and our age old motorcycle gangs are all
on the rise. All this is going on and the solicitor general
persists in contemplating cuts to detachments.
1035
We know that for a period of time on his watch our national
training facility in Saskatchewan was closed. Very recently we
had the rights of RCMP advertising turned backed over from the
Disney corporation. The government is running this most serious
and necessary department like a Mickey Mouse operation, so it is
very ironic that Disney held the rights to the department.
What does the solicitor general do today? He comes before the
House and tables a report that is littered with meaningless
platitudes. A grade nine student could have come up with a
better document to set out the current situation within our
national security.
The solicitor general took great licence with the word
“immediately” when he spoke of the theft of the documents from
a car outside a hockey rink in Toronto. He told the House that
he had informed the director of his department immediately. Weeks
had gone by before the matter was even brought before the House,
and it was not brought about because the solicitor general took
any action whatsoever. Why were CSIS and and SIRC not brought to
task over their handling of this? Serious communication
breakdowns occurred.
We know the RCMP and CSIS do not communicate well already.
Obviously the solicitor general does not communicate well with
his own department or with the prime minister. We saw the worst
breach of national security in 15 years. Obviously our partners
outside our borders, MI5, the CIA, the FBI and other national
security agencies, are looking at Canada right now with a very
jaded view as a result of the way we have handled matters in the
last six months.
When will we get some accountability and some responsibility
from this department and particularly this minister? It is
obvious that the shortcomings of CSIS senior managers were seen
directly without the discovery of the mishaps. Yet the CSIS
director has had no accounting and has never appeared before a
parliamentary committee with any substance. In fact when he does
come, he folds his arms and says “Gee, I would like to tell you
more but I would have to kill you”. This is the attitude and
the type of response we get from the director of national
security to members of the House who are elected to serve the
people of Canada.
The former CSIS chief of strategic planning criticized the way
the matter was being handled by the government. This department
and this office are on complete auto pilot. This latest fiasco
is an international embarrassment. There is no mention
whatsoever in this document, not even an acknowledgement, that
there are problems within the department. This document
completely betrays the fact that this department is out of
control.
CSIS and the RCMP in particular have had their budgets cut to
ribbons by the government. Agents and officers are working
overtime and working with extremely large workloads. The
National Post reported that this was the fourth time in the
last four years that CSIS and the RCMP had lost documents as a
result of who knows what.
Canadians are worried about personal and national security. They
should get little solace or little comfort from the document
tabled today by the solicitor general and his hollow, meaningless
comments in this regard.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to follow the comments of my hon. colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who I think stated the case
quite eloquently as to the problems with this report.
I taught in a university for a little while. When students did
not have a whole lot to say, there were a few tricks they would
use. They would take their paper and double space it, increase
the size of the font and pass it in, thinking that maybe they
could trick the teacher into thinking there was something of
substance there.
I think the solicitor general has learned the same trick,
because what we have presented to us today is a seven page
statement on national security that for the most part is full of
rhetoric. If we want to contrast the progress of the government
we should contrast it with the statement from last year.
1040
Let me talk about some of the things the solicitor general said
in his statement last year. He talked about how one shipment of
heroin landed successfully in Canada could lead to numerous
deaths and human suffering in cities like Vancouver. My
colleague from Burnaby—Douglas is here.
What action have we seen taken to stop the importation of drugs
into cities like Vancouver? Absolutely nothing. It has come to
the point where my colleague who represents Vancouver East has
had to stand in the House to talk about the way the drug trade in
heroin is wide open like an old fashioned farmers market in the
city of Vancouver. Although the government recognized the
problem a year ago, not a single thing has been done.
Let us look at what else was in the report from last year. Last
year the solicitor general talked about creating a seamless net
against organized crime. The seamless net has some pretty big
holes in it, because this year we know of recent arrests and that
a major organized crime ring dealing in bank and credit card
fraud has been exposed.
How are Canadians expected to feel secure when the ports on both
coasts and the border along the United States are not safe from
organized crime? We know this is happening because even with its
limited resources the RCMP has exposed rings that are using debit
cards in fraud and are importing drugs into cities like Vancouver
and Halifax. My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
has mentioned the motorcycle gangs that have increased in cities
like Montreal.
When it comes to personal safety Canadians have every right to
be concerned. When it comes to combating organized crime the
people who live along our borders and coasts have every right to
ask the government what measures it has taken to protect them. In
reality, the measures taken have been to cut and gut the RCMP.
My colleagues from Kamloops, Regina and Burnaby have had to
stand in the House to pressure and plead with the solicitor
general to ensure that programs in Regina like the training
centre for the RCMP not be shut down. My colleagues from Burnaby
and Kamloops have had to stand in the House to plead for
additional funding so their communities could have some RCMP
presence where there are perhaps one or two for thousands of
citizens.
This is what the government calls a statement on national
security. National security is in real trouble. I made the
point two years ago that the disbandment of the ports police
would lead to an infestation of drugs on either side of the
country through the ports. Cutting the RCMP, disbanding the
ports police, and leaving it to our customs officers who have
also been gutted in the government's race to build a surplus to
try to deal with a sophisticated and powerful international
network of organized crime just does not cut it. It does not cut
it for the Canadians who live in Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver,
Burnaby, Windsor, or anywhere along the border with the United
States where we know that organized crime is winning the war.
I suppose I thank the solicitor general for tabling his report.
However, as I said, sometimes I would get such papers when I was
teaching in university and unfortunately with the double spacing,
the large font and because it does not say much, it would get a
failing grade. At this point I think that is what Canadian
citizens would have to give the government.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present
to the House, in both official languages, two reports of the
Canadian delegation to the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association.
1045
The first report relates to the second parliamentary conference
of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or
OSCE, on “Sub-regional Economic Cooperation Processes in Europe
Faced with the New Challenges”, that was held from October 13 to
15, 1999 in Nantes, France.
[English]
The second report relates to the attendance of the Canadian
delegation at the expanded bureau meeting of the summit of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It was a
parliamentary assembly meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, from November
17 to November 19, 1999.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the third report of the
Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the 45th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands from November 11 to November
15, 1999.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the report of
the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union.
[Translation]
The group represented Canada at the 102nd Interparliamentary
Conference held from October 10 to 16, 1999, in Berlin, Germany.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the report of
the 29th annual meeting of the Canadian group of the
Canada-France Interparliamentary Association held from September
8 to September 15, 1999 in Montreal, Laval, Ottawa, Vancouver
and Victoria.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
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 second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade entitled “Exporting in the
Canadian Interest: Reviewing the Export Development Act”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to the report.
This is an important and particularly significant report. I am
sure you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that it is important
the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade be presented on what will either be the
ultimate or penultimate day of this sitting of the House of
Commons in this century.
It is understandable that members of the House would receive
this report with the understanding that it is the work of perhaps
the most active committee with the best committee members in the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: We will not go on at length on that
subject, but I am sure the hon. member is doing the right thing.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on
the Library of Parliament establishing the mandate of the
committee, its quorum and its entitlement to sit during sittings
of the Senate. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move
concurrence in the report later today.
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has completed
its study of the implications of the September 17 supreme court
decision in R. v Marshall on the management of fisheries in the
Atlantic region and tables its report. Notwithstanding Standing
Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a
comprehensive response thereto within 45 days.
I particularly thank committee members and the staff of the
committee for their very hard work. They worked late hours
trying to get this committee report completed in time. That
includes Publication Services; Alan Nixon, the researcher; Bill
Farrell, the clerk; France Lewis, the clerk's administrative
assistant; Nathalie Labelle, the administrative officer; and
Michael O'Neill.
1050
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, just for clarification, is there opportunity for the
official opposition to make comment on the tabling of the
fisheries report?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there a minority report from the
official opposition appended to the report?
Mr. John Duncan: Yes, there is.
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member on a
brief comment.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a
minute of the time of the House to mention that the committee
report is a very good one, but we have also appended a very good
minority report.
It is important to point out that the government cannot abandon
its responsibility, not only to the ramifications of the Marshall
decision but to existing traditional fishermen involved in the
Atlantic fishery, the maritime fishery.
We have emphasized some points in our minority report such as
the importance of proportionality in terms of how much licensing
is turned into aboriginal licensing within the all Canadian
commercial fishery. Conservation is obviously important so we
want one set of rules for one commercial fishery. We would like
to see many of the rules, for example those on the food fishery,
tightened up to simplify enforcement.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok rising on the same point?
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: According to the standing orders, a member
of the official opposition may present a minority report to the
House with a brief explanation.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to speak?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois is
tabling a supplementary opinion to the one the standing
committee on fisheries tabled this morning.
What I wish to remind the House, which I thank for the unanimous
consent, is that from this moment on, the government must
specify with which aboriginal people there are negotiations
under way. An exhaustive list of the bands involved in
negotiations must be published.
Second, in order to prove the government's good faith,
provisional agreements must be negotiated and in place by the
spring of 2000.
The point I would like to add before concluding is that the
keystone of the Marshall decision is the notion of moderate
livelihood. The report does not go far enough in this regard.
I ask that the department responsible for aboriginal affairs
determine who is going to co-ordinate the examination of the
concept of moderate livelihood. I would like to know what the
parameters will be, and the timetable for this.
As a matter of parliamentary privilege, next time around, I
would appreciate it if more budget were allocated to the
Standing Committee on Fisheries so that a translator can also be
assigned to us when the committee travels. Extra effort was
required of Bloc members to work in both languages on a very
specialized subject, because the vocabularies differ greatly
from one language to the other.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-409, an act to provide for the expiry
of gun control legislation that is not proven effective within
five years of coming into force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing this bill for
the third time since I have become a member of parliament. I
would like to thank the member for Lakeland for seconding my
firearms law sunset act. I would also like to thank Canadians
from coast to coast, right across Canada, who have supported this
bill.
For the last 20 years government has established an unimpressive
track record of passing costly, ineffective gun control laws.
When its ineffective laws do not reduce the criminal use of
firearms, it passes more ineffective gun control laws.
1055
The firearms law sunset act which I am introducing today
guarantees that scarce tax dollars will only be spent on gun
control measures that actually work. My sunset law would require
the automatic repeal of any gun control measure after five years
from the date of implementation, unless it can pass the public
safety test administered by the Auditor General of Canada which
proves the measure is cost effective in achieving its stated
objective.
I believe all laws that we pass in the House must be cost
effective at achieving this goal. Sunset provisions are the only
way of guaranteeing this.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-410, an act to prohibit the export of
water from Canada by pipeline, railway tank car, tank truck,
tanker or interbasin transfers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced during the last
session but died on the order paper due to the prorogation of
parliament. I am reintroducing it today.
The bill provides a prohibition on exports of water from Canada
by pipeline, railway tank car, tank truck, tanker or interbasin
transfers.
[Translation]
Under this bill, water means surface or groundwater, but does
not include water packaged as a beverage.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives
its consent, I would move that the first report of the Standing
Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, presented to the
House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. deputy government whip
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I move that the first
report of the Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations
establishing quorum and the committee's mandate be concurred in
without debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. deputy government whip
have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to adopt without debate the second report
of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons on Official Languages. This report, which was tabled in
the House yesterday, urges the Government of Ontario to declare
Canada's capital city officially bilingual.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If I heard correctly, it is the Reform Party that refused to—
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not need to know who said no.
The only question is to know if there is unanimous consent.
Without unanimous consent, we cannot have a debate on this
issue.
* * *
1100
[English]
PETITIONS
BELGRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning.
The first petition relates to the reopening of the embassy in
Belgrade. This is causing great hardship for many Canadians and
their relatives. It is important that this embassy be reopened
as soon as possible. I support this petition on behalf of my
petitioners.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will want to set an
example. He knows he cannot state his opposition to or support
of a petition. I hope he will comply with the rules in that
regard.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition calls on the House to work for the
conclusion in the year 2000 of an international convention that
will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons. In that context, you, Mr. Speaker, will have noticed
that our Minister of Foreign Affairs is reported in today's press
as having achieved NATO's approval of this matter.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to say to hon. members that we
have 15 minutes for petitions and there are many members who wish
to present, so I know they will want to make their presentations
succinct in accordance with the rules.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a number of petitions, but they are only on three
subjects. The first petition contains tens of thousands of
signatures with respect to the law on child pornography.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to invoke the
notwithstanding clause to protect children and to make this a
priority in British Columbia and other parts of the country. It
has gone to the court of appeal in British Columbia. There is no
valid law for the possession of child pornography. It is legal
to use it in British Columbia and the residents of Canada are
absolutely appalled.
The petitioners want the Government of Canada to do something
about it now.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my next petition is with regard to immigration. I have a number
of them which adds to the thousands and thousands of signatures
already.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to immediately
change the law so that people who are not genuine refugees would
be sent home without delay. We saw this last summer with boat
people arriving on our shores. This problem continues every
single day in our airports.
The petitioners want the Government of Canada to do something
immediately.
TAXATION
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a number of petitions with respect to our taxes.
The petitioners are absolutely sick to death with the billions
of dollars the government is collecting in taxes. They are
calling for immediate tax relief.
The petitioners are absolutely demanding that the government
give them immediate tax relief that they can see. They are tired
of the promises that are unclear while their take home pay goes
down and their taxes go up.
They are calling on the government to do something immediately.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present a petition signed by 5,972 people from my riding who
are calling on the government to legislate on the mandatory
monitoring of genetically modified organisms.
These are just some of the people who signed this petition. I
would like to name them all, but others will join them since the
petition is still circulating.
[English]
UNITED STATES ARMY SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of thousands and
perhaps millions of Canadians.
The petition notes that the United States Army School of the
Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia has, for many years, been
training military personnel from Central and South America. They
note that a number of perpetrators of very serious human rights
abuses, including the death of Archbishop Romero, a number of
U.S. church women and the El Mosote massacre of 900 people, were
graduates of the school, and that at least 13 of the Mexican
military officers who were involved in the massacre of dozens of
people in Chiapas, Mexico were trained in their tactics at the
U.S. school of the Americas.
Therefore, they pray that parliament support negotiations and
diplomatic measures to ensure the abolition of the U.S. Army
School of the Americas and encourage improvement in the human and
democratic rights of our fellow citizens of the Americas.
AUTO INDUSTRY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
two petitions signed by residents of Seaforth, Goderich and Grand
Bend who urge the government to support the auto industry in its
clean fuel program and implement new fuel standards for gasoline
with zero MMT.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): The
third petition, signed by residents of Forest and Thedford, urges
the government to defend section 43 of the criminal code and
affirm the duty of parents to raise their children appropriately.
1105
THE SENATE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present today.
The first petition is on behalf of the people of Medicine Hat
who are calling on parliament to commit to a triple-E senate
immediately and to permit the election of senators in our
province of Alberta.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition calls on parliament to retain the supremacy of
God within the charter of rights and freedoms. It was signed by
several hundred people from the riding of Medicine Hat.
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition I present today contains the names of hundreds of
thousands of people from across the country calling on the
government to immediately cut taxes by at least 25%. The
petition actually contains one million names.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition on behalf of people who support
research on the bio-artificial kidney. These people point out
that kidney dialysis and transplants are successful for some
people, but the bio-artificial kidney offers great hope for many
others.
The petitioners call on parliament to work toward and support
the bio-artificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the
need for dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from
kidney disease.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition to present on behalf of people who are concerned
about the children in Iraq.
They call on parliament to strongly appeal to the United
Nations, the United States and Britain to reject any further
military action. They ask Canada to work toward the elimination
of sanctions and the establishment of reasonable relations with
Iraq.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table a petition from citizens of my
riding who are calling upon parliament to repeal paragraph 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
[English]
PENSIONS
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present petitions signed by
hundreds of constituents in Windsor West.
The first petition calls on parliament to halt the plan to
appropriate public pension funds.
MARRIAGE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition asks parliament to define in statute the definition of
marriage.
TAXATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition from many of my own residents and others from
British Columbia who call on the finance minister to reduce taxes
by at least 25%. They pray that the minister will consider that
in the next budget.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
pleasure of presenting a petition from constituents who want to
bring to the attention of the House that one in five Canadian
children live in poverty. They would also like to remind
parliamentarians that on November 24, 1989, the House of Commons
unanimously resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year
2000. Since 1989, the number of poor children in Canada has
increased by 60%.
Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to use federal
budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. At the beginning you said there would be 15 minutes for
petitions. I think if you seek it from all sides, you will find
unanimous consent to extend the time for petitions for this
morning only.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement to extend the
time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition signed by 157 students from the
Quatre Vents school in Beauport, during a class of teacher
Léo-Paul Thomassin, where the issue of democracy and respect for
the rights of children was raised.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to promote the
respect of children's rights, as recognized in the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, which urges participating states to
ensure the implementation of certain articles, including
articles 27.1, 27.3, 34 and 35, and to ask the United States to
ratify that convention.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased this morning to present identical petitions
containing about 10,000 signatures. They call on the federal
government to not impose a tax on video rentals.
1110
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my privilege to table two petitions on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition requests that parliament pass legislation
recognizing human fetuses as persons.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition concerns children having a need and a moral right
to be loved by both parents. The petitioners are saying that no
parent should lose custody of a child, that no parent should be
allowed to seriously obstruct a child's relationship with another
parent, and other related issues. I am proud to table both of
these petitions.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36, containing 54
signatures.
The petitioners call on parliament to affirm the duty and
responsibility of parents to raise their children, and for the
Department of Justice to vigorously defend section 43 of the
Criminal Code.
OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to present a petition with 300 signatures of
concerned Canadians.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the
discrimination they declare is caused by Canada's old age
security system. They say that the act discriminates against
seniors from certain countries.
They therefore call on parliament to grant old age security
benefits to all seniors over the age of 65 years, irrespective of
the country of origin.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
submit four petitions containing about 230 signatures of
concerned Canadians, mostly from my riding of Surrey Central.
The petitioners call on parliament to oppose any amendments to
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal
legislation that would provide for the exclusion of a reference
to the supremacy of God.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present 12 petitions with about 400 signatures of concerned
Canadians, mostly from the riding of Surrey Central.
The petitioners feel that the illegal immigrants who arrived off
the coast of Vancouver are causing undue hardship for honest,
bona fide refugees.
They maintain that our immigration laws encourage international
people smugglers to target Canada. They call on parliament to
enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing
refugees. They want to provide for the deportation of those who
are obviously and flagrantly abusing the system.
The petitioners want legislation that requires refugee claimants
to demonstrate through identification documentation, rather than
by other means, that they are fleeing general and political
prosecution, or they would face immediate deportation.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a petition from the people of the Haliburton-Minden area
calling on parliament to retain section 43 of Canada's Criminal
Code as it is currently worded.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a
petition signed by constituents in my riding regarding mail
delivery on rural routes.
We know that Canada Post rural route mail carriers work under
conditions of another era, particularly when it comes to
salaries and the right to collective bargaining.
This petition is calling upon parliament to repeal paragraph
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, and I support this
request by constituents in my riding of Châteauguay.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition to present to
the House on behalf of the constituents of Stoney Creek.
The petitioners are against child pornography and call on the
government to enact the notwithstanding clause to protect the
most vulnerable members of our society from child and sexual
abuse.
TAXATION
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to add to the
petitions by the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the federal government are
considering a proposal to place a 3.5% levy tax on video
distribution. The petitioners ask that the government and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage not enact the legislation.
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three petitions. The first
petition is signed by persons mostly from the Vernon and
Armstrong areas of my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
The petitioners ask parliament to reject the Nisga'a treaty
because it may divide Canadians forever.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition was signed by 244 persons from my
riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
The petitioners ask parliament to change Canada's immigration
laws to quickly separate genuine refugees from those trying to
take advantage of our system.
TAXATION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my third petition is literally signed by thousands and
thousands of people, mostly from Okanagan—Shuswap.
The petitioners ask for tax relief of 25% over the next three
years leading the way to job creation, economic growth and
reduction of poverty.
1115
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition calling for the abolition
of nuclear warfare which has been signed by residents of British
Columbia: “We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the
attention of the House to the following: Whereas the continued
existence”—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that
she cannot read the petition. She must give a brief summary of
it. I hope that is what she will do.
Ms. Sophia Leung: These residents of British Columbia
would like to send a petition to the attention of the House of
Commons to abolish nuclear weapons.
The Deputy Speaker: The 15 minutes for presentation of
petitions has now expired. Is there consent to continue with
this for five more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
VIA RAIL
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table
a petition signed by several hundred inhabitants of the riding
of Drummond, who are unhappy that the members of the public
concerned were not consulted with respect to Via Rail changes,
and who hope that the management of Via Rail, which is a crown
corporation, will never again make any decisions that are not in
their best interests.
Given that Via Rail receives millions of dollars in subsidies,
and given that this is taxpayers' money, taxpayers are entitled
to receive the services for which they have paid. I support
this petition.
[English]
FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition that calls upon the Parliament of Canada to
strongly urge the Chinese government to stop the persecution and
brutal treatment of Falun Gong practitioners immediately.
ANIMAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition that calls upon parliament to enact animal
protection legislation.
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition that urges parliament to fulfill the promise in
1989 by the House of Commons to end child poverty by the year
2000.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of tabling a petition signed by some sixty of my
constituents, who are employed by the private sector delivering
mail in rural regions, but who are not entitled to collective
bargaining as public sector workers are.
They are asking that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act be repealed.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I have a large number of
petitions.
The first group of petitions is on behalf of tens of thousands
of Canadians from across Canada who urge parliament to take all
necessary measures to ensure the possession of child pornography
remains a serious criminal offence, and that the federal police
forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of our children.
The existence of child pornography places children at risk of
exploitation and sexual abuse. The recent court of appeal
decision in B.C. is of great concern. The petitioners want the
notwithstanding clause to be invoked to protect our children.
ABORTION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next group of petitions that I am pleased to present
today are from 255 concerned Canadians who wish to draw to the
attention of parliament that over 100,000 therapeutic abortions
are performed each year in Canada costing over $50 million per
year.
These petitioners and all Canadians deserve to have a voice on
how their health care dollars are spent and which health care
procedures they consider essential. They call upon parliament to
support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of
the next general election to determine whether or not Canadians
are in favour of government funding for abortion on demand.
CHILDREN
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions signed by 299
concerned citizens from across Canada.
They call on the government to reassure Canadian families and
reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9,
1998 that concern the convention on the rights of the child, that
it undermines the role of parents, it is unwarranted and concerns
that the government intends to remove section 43 are unwarranted.
These citizens recognize that the family is the fundamental unit
of society and the natural environment for the growth and
well-being of children and it should be protected.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting another petition
containing 203 signatures of Canadians from coast to coast who
wish to add parental rights, responsibilities and liberty to the
charter of rights and freedoms.
1120
These petitioners call on government to amend section 7 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the
fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference of the state. I will not go through this all,
but—
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I think we must move on to another member
now.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today I am presenting a petition signed by 83 of my constituents
requesting that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation
Act be repealed.
My colleague, the member for Champlain, Post Office critic, and
all other Bloc Quebecois members, myself included, strongly
support the petitioners' request.
[English]
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have thousands of signatures here from across Canada
all related to the disgust that parents have with the current
state of pornography in Canada. I am pleased to present these
from all provinces of Canada. There are thousands of signatures.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
present a petition signed by approximately 400 people asking
that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act be
repealed.
These people support letter carriers in rural municipalities who
are working under conditions much like those of the middle of
the last century as described by Émile Zola in Germinal.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The time for presentation of
petitions has expired even as extended.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In
presenting my petition, I made an error, and spoke of the hon.
member for Champlain, when it ought to have been the hon. member
for Chambly.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: We have more people rising on
petitions. Is there consent to extend the time to allow the
members now rising to finish this off?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from many residents
of my constituency and other citizens of Winnipeg. They are very
concerned about the millennium round of World Trade Organization
talks and the Liberal government's willingness to participate in
a process giving foreign companies the right to deliver health
care, education and transportation services.
The petitioners offer to the government recommendations for
taking into account any future negotiations and talks. They
include binding and enforceable rules to protect human rights,
labour standards, cultural diversity and environment, a carve out
of health care, education and culture, a more open and inclusive
model for the WTO and an alternative model of globalization that
ensures the ability of governments to act in the public interest.
CONSCIENCE RIGHTS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the opportunity to present a petition today from citizens
across Canada. They are noting a long history of recognizing the
rights of freedom of religion and conscience rights in our
country.
They draw attention to the fact that health care workers and
those seeking training for a career in the health care system
have had some of those rights stripped away from them in medical
facilities and educational institutes. Examples are nurses and
others who have been required to assist in abortion procedures
against their deeply held religious and moral convictions. The
petitioners ask that parliament enact legislation against such
violations of conscience rights by administrators in medical
facilities and educational facilities.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to present a petition on behalf of thousands of
constituents. They are calling upon parliament to ensure that
emergency compensation is immediately delivered to farmers who
have not been served by AIDA and immediately launch an
international campaign against foreign subsidies, to immediately
provide tax relief, lower input costs, reduce user fees and
address the inadequacies of the farm safety net program.
1125
TAXATION
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.
The first petition requests that parliament give Canadian
taxpayers a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in
federal taxes over the next three years.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition calls upon parliament to enact
immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees
to allow for the deportation of obvious and blatant abuses of the
system.
TAXATION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 35
of my constituents requesting that parliament give Canadian
taxpayers tax relief in the next federal budget. I cannot go
through all of the petition, but the petitioners see that the tax
burden on the average Canadian family has skyrocketed 30% and
that taxes have grown from $9.4 billion to $20.9 billion. They
have expressed concern about that.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next three petitions are mainly from people in
Ontario on what has been called the spanking law, section 43 of
the criminal code.
The petitioners believe that Canadians have the fundamental
right as individuals to pursue family life free from undue
interference by the state. They request that parliament insist
to maintain the time honoured rules of common law and the
criminal code and uphold the rights of parents to discipline
their children by use of physical force that does not exceed
reasonable limits under the circumstances.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last group of petitions I have contains 203
signatures from Canadians from coast to coast. They want to add
parental rights, responsibilities and liberties to the charter of
rights and freedoms. They call on government to amend section 7
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the
fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference of the state. Again, I will not go through the
whole petition because time does not permit me to do so.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4, 18, 34, 38
and 42.
.[Text]
Question No. 4—Mr. Rick Borotsik:
What programs are currently available to provide assistance to
fruit growers converting their old tree stock to new varieties?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-food, Lib.): The farm improvement and Marketing
Cooperatives Loans Act, FIMCLA, can provide assistance to fruit
growers with the purchase and planting of fruit trees for new
varieties. Conditions of the loan are summarized as follows: the
maximum term is ten years; the cost of loan is either prime rate
plus 1% or at a fixed rate equal to the residential mortgage rate
plus 1%; loans must not exceed 80% of the value of the asset
being financed; the maximum loan is $250,000.
Fruit growers can plant now, pay later through an FCC loan.
Farm Credit Corporation, FCC, has expanded the plant now pay
later loan to include all fruit and berry varieties grown for
commercial production across Canada. This unique loan was
originally introduced in 1996 to help vineyard expansion projects
in Ontario and British Columbia. Fruit growers can use the loan
to renovate or expand orchards, vineyards, berry farms or other
types of production that take several years to yield a comercial
crop. The loan allows clients to better manage their cash flow.
It offers flexible terms and conditions to match production
cycles and an amortization period that matches the life cycle of
farms.
Repayment options include total payment deferral for up to three
years or interest only payments for the first five years. With the
deferral option, no payments are required in the first three
growing seasons including the replant year. Interest that accrues
during this period is capitalized at the end of the third growing
season. in year four, an interest only payment is made and in
year five blended payments begin with up to 20 years to repay.
For example, a loan of $25,000 accrues approximately $5,000 of
interest in three years. Thus at the end of three years, the loan
becomes $30,000. Payments are then based on this loan amount and
may be made annually. The loan covers all planting costs
including the costs of drainage, land improvement, plants,
planting costs, trellising, irrigation and maintenance in the
first three years.
Those eligible for the loan include producers of grapes, apples
and pears, tender fruit trees, including peaches, nectarines,
apricots, cherries and plums, and all berries, including
rasberries, blueberries, saskatoon berries and cranberries.
The plant now pay later loan was initiated through consultation
with primary producers and agricultural groups to develop an
innovative lending product that addresses specific financing
needs.
Question No. 18—Mr. Eric Lowther:
In each year since 1982: (a) how many federal laws had their
validity challenged in the courts for alleged violation of the
charter of rights and freedoms; (b) what were the names of each
of these cases; (c) in how many such cases did the party
challenging the law receive funding through the federal court
challenges program, and which cases were they; (d) what was the
outcome of each of these cases at all levels: trial, appeal and
supreme court; (e) what was the remedy utilized by the court in
cases where the federal government lost its defence of the law;
and (f) in which of these cases did counsel representing Canada
concede that there had been a breach of the charter?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I
am informed as follows:
Justice Canada
Jurisprudence under
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is extensive. Federal
and provincial statutes, as well as the actions of governmental
actors, have been challenged before all manner of administrative
tribunal and before every level of court. All the information
that has been requested is contained in publicly available
documents. The Department of Justice does not keep specific
statistics on the number of federal laws that have been
challenged in the courts for alleged violation of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982. For example, to
determine the federal position in each of these cases, it would
be necessary to conduct a manual search of the Department of
Justice files on each particular case, at each level of court.
Additional sources of information which may be of assistance
are: the Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest, a digest of
important Charter cases, is available on line at the following
Internet site:
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Publications/CCDL/deveng/charterdigest/cdtoc.htm.
http://www.law.utoronto.ca/conlit/biblioq2.htm#A4.1 is another
useful Internet site for research on the charter.
Quick law QL provides two relevent databases:
CRC—charter of rights cases. Summaries of court decisions on
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from 1982 to 1992.
CJ—Canadian Judgments. Global database. Contains full text of
the Supreme Court of Canada, SCC, judgments since 1985,
SCJ—supreme court judgements and full text of decisions of most
provincial court cases since 1986.
Consultations may also be conducted at the University of
Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4.
The Law Library is located on the main floor, Professional
Faculties Building B, telephone (403) 220-7274. Also noteworthy
is the Law Society Library, Queen's Bench, located on the 7th
floor, 611—4th Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2P 1T5 and can be
reached at telephone (403) 297-6148.
Academic consideration of the charter and its impact in Canada
is substantial. The hon. member may find an article by Professors
F.L. Morton et al. entitled “Judicial Nullification of Statutes
Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982-88” (1990), 28
Alta L. Rev. 396 to be of particular interest. The article
assesses the effect of the charter on federal and provincial
legislation and analyses all reported federal and provincial
appellate decisions between 1982-88 in which a statute was
declared wholly or partially invalid due to a charter violation.
The hon. member may also wish to consult David Schneiderman &
Kate Sutherland, Charting the Consequences: The Impact of
Charter Rights on Canadian Law and Politics (Toronto: 1997).
Canadian Heritage
(c) Since its inception in 1978, the scope and mandate of the
court challenges program has evolved significantly. Originally
established to fund test cases on constitutionally protected
language rights, the program today covers charter equality based
challenges of legislation, programs and policies of the federal
government as well as federal and provincial legislation,
policies and programs involving constitutionally protected
language rights. The program has been administered at arm's
length from government by five consecutive managing
organizations. By negotiated agreement, the closed files were
sealed and sent to Public Archives and cannot be accessed by
government. As a consequence, except for illustrative individual
cases incorporated in the court challenges program annual
reports, it is impossible to identify court cases that received
financial assistance from the program. Those annual reports are
public and can be found in public libraries.
(d) Since it is not possible to identify individual cases having
received financial assistance from the court challenges program,
one can only speculate on the effective impact of such funding on
the jurisprudence trend in the areas of linguistic and equality
rights. The evaluation report of the program for the period
1994-97 presents the most comprehensive assessment of impact for
the review period and very few court cases are identified in its
pages. To obtain a copy of this report, write to the Department
of Canadian Heritage at 15 Eddy Street, Hull, Quebec K1A 0M5 or
call (819) 997-0055.
Question No. 34—Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Regarding the Health Canada food directorate's allocation of
resources: (a) how much of the total $11.5 million HPB special
allocation to strengthen food safety/nutritional deficiencies in
1999-2000 will go directly to the food directorate budget and of
that amount how much has been spent to date; (b) how many full
time permanent positions have been restored in the food
directorate as a result of the additional budget allocation and
what is the breakdown of those positions by job title; (c) how
much of the total $65 million three year (1999-2000, 2000-01,
2001-02) HPB special allocation to strengthen food
safety/nutritional deficiencies will go directly to the food
directorate budget; and (d) how much of the 1999-2000 food
directorate budget is allocated to permanent safety research
activities dealing with topics related to genetically modified
foods and what is the breakdown by activity?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): (a) The food directorate
will recive $7.7 million in 1999-2000 including $1.2 million for
accommodation, communications, employee benefits, and other
overhead expenses. As of October 3, 1999, the directorate had
spent $3.2 million.
(b) By the end of year three of the funding, the food directorate
plans to have staffed 52 positions. We are unable at this time to
give actual position titles. It is anticipated that 25 will be
staffed in year one, 10 in year two, and 17 in year three.
(c) The food directorate is scheduled to receive $7.7 million in
year one, $9.2 million in year two, and $12.1 million in year
three.
(d) There is currently one ongoing research project on a topic
related to genetically modified foods with a planned expenditure
in 1999-2000 of $166,389.
Question No. 38—Mr. John Reynolds:
With regards to the works of native art purchased by the
department of Indian and northern affairs over the last 10 fiscal
years: (a) what was the total amount spent on those purchases;
(b) in what locations are those works of art displayed and
(c) how many works of arts are displayed at each location?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): The Indian Art Centre of the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, DIAND, is a longstanding
cultural centre which supports and promotes the visual arts of
first nations in Canada. The centre was created in 1965 to
support the development of aboriginal artist working in the
traditional art forms, as well as those working in the
contemporary fine arts including painting, drawing, prints making,
sculpture and photography.
(a) The total amount spent on these purchases over the last 10
fiscal years was $96,430.25.
(b) Seven hundred and twelve works were purchased to be
displayed in the headquarters and regional offices throughout the
department of Indians Affairs and Northern Development, as well
as in travelling exhibitions and two native art collections, the
Alberta collection and the Indian Art Collection Vault.
(c) Locations:
Regional Offices—47
Travelling Exhibitions—27
Headquarters—252
Alberta Collection (Headquarters)—227
Indian Art Collection Vault—159
Total—712
Question No. 42—Mr. Gerald Keddy:
Has the federal government established a plan for turning the
500,000 hectare Stoltmann Wilderness protected area in British
Columbia into a national park, and if so, what is that plan?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, the federal government has not
established a plan for turning the Randy Stoltmann Wilderness
Area in British Columbia into a national park.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 26 and 33 could be made orders for return, these
returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 26—Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
What is the complete listing of veterinary drugs approved in
Canada for use in food-producing animals (by species)?
Return tabled.
Question No. 33—Mr. John Duncan:
With respect to non-Canadian visitors (not immigrants) for each
of the last five calendar years (broken down by citizenship or
nationality): (a) how many visitors entered Canada; (b) how many
visitors were issued visitor's visas pursuant to section 9 of the
Immigration Act of Canada; (c) how many of those visitor's visas
were issued to visitors who had criminal records (broken down by
summary conviction and indictable offences); (d) how many
visitor's visas were denied and of those how many were denied on
the basis of the applicant having a criminal record (broken down
by summary conviction and indictable offences); (e) how many
visitors who had criminal records (broken down by summary
conviction and indictable offences) were knowingly permitted and
denied entry under the immigration officer's discretion pursuant
to section 19(3) of the Immigration Act of Canada?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That this House take note of the first report of the Standing
Committee on Finance, presented to the House on Friday, December
10, 1999.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 37 minutes.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 11 years ago when I was first elected, the then Leader
of the Official Opposition told me that I should spend the first
few years of my political career listening to the people of
Canada, travelling the country region by region, understanding
the issues and appreciating the diversity of opinion which is
expressed daily throughout our country. For the past 11 years I
have done just that.
I have been across the country many times and have spoken with
thousands of Canadians from every region and every walk of life.
For me it has been a continuous national dialogue. In fact, it
is their stories and their voices that have inspired me to make a
long term commitment to a larger cause, that is, preserving the
hope of Canadians that tomorrow can indeed be better than today
and more important, that we all have an obligation to make it so.
As we prepare to welcome in a new century, there is much to
celebrate about Canada. We have shown the world how to balance
freedom with compassion and tradition with innovation, how to
provide health care to all our citizens and how to treat our
senior citizens with the respect and dignity they deserve.
In a world darkened by conflicts that literally tear nations
apart, our country has stood as an example of how people of
different cultural backgrounds can live and work together in
harmony.
1130
There is no question in my mind that Canada's greatest strength
is in fact her people, the people who have settled and developed
this country. Thanks to their imagination and determination,
Canada has always moved forward, going from being an agrarian
society to a leading industrial power during and after the second
world war.
Our country has continued to push ahead with innovation in the
years since, capturing leadership positions in such areas as
telecommunications, aerospace and information technology.
All of this does not mean that we have not had our challenges,
but what it does mean is that every time we have been challenged
as a country the people of Canada have risen to the challenge.
It was not long ago that the international community doubted our
ability to remain a player in the global economy. I am sure we
all remember in the House in 1994 when the Wall Street
Journal compared us to a third world economy. We as Canadians
could have given up, but we did not. That is not the Canadian
way. Instead, we rolled up our sleeves and we turned our country
around. We made an impressive comeback.
Today we have the best fiscal health of the G-7. We have
eliminated a $42 billion deficit. We have balanced our books.
We are paying down our public debt. We have begun to lower
taxes. Our inflation rate is the lowest since the 1960s. Our
interest rates are also the lowest in decades and, thanks to a
dynamic private sector, over 1.7 million jobs have been created
since the government took office in 1993.
What a difference six years have made. Recently the
Financial Times of London referred to Canada as the top dog
of the G-7. We are doing much better.
In the new global economy there is really not too much time to
stop and congratulate ourselves on our success. Canadians know
that. That is why they want an agenda that will see them enjoy
more opportunity, a higher standard of living and an even better
quality of life in the new century. In order to achieve all
this, however, we need a clear vision for the future.
There is no doubt in my mind that Canada stands at the threshold
of a new century. Within a few days our nation will enter a new
era, a new millennium.
This fall marked the sixth time that the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Finance sought the advice of Canadians in
advance of the federal budget. It was the third time that I
participated as chair of the committee. In a very short time I
have seen the mood of the country and Canadians change, becoming
increasingly optimistic about the prospects of the future.
The committee's report, entitled “Budget 2000—New Era—New
Plan”, is the result of our continuing conversations with
Canadians, a national dialogue that has helped us to understand
our fellow citizens' values and priorities and how the federal
budget should reflect them.
Canadians want an agenda that will see them enjoy more
opportunities, a higher standard of living. In order to achieve
all this we have put together, through our prebudget consultation
report, a road map that will in fact achieve this vision. This
plan fosters sound financial management, promotes economic growth
and a better standard of living by cutting taxes, makes our
economy more competitive and ensures that Canadians will enjoy
greater security and expanded opportunities. It is my hope that
this plan will inspire Canadians to confidently believe that
indeed tomorrow can be better than today.
While conducting our prebudget consultation the finance
committee heard from a broad range of witnesses. We listened to
organizations representing businesses, children, industry, arts,
culture and farmers.
We heard from educators, health care workers, economists and
individual municipalities. We reached out to every single
section of this great country.
1135
The committee crossed Canada and spoke with advocates who said
that we need greater support for the homeless, public
transportation and research and development. Very importantly,
we met with individual Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
At this point I really ought to be thanking the members of
parliament who held town hall meetings across the country and who
took the time to listen to their constituents, as well as the
members of the committee who worked very hard to put the report
together.
I also want to say that I firmly believe that this report
clearly reflects the values and priorities of Canadians.
Canadians are very happy with the fact that we have ended an era
of skyrocketing deficits and public debt for good, that we have
brought down back to back balanced budgets for the first time
since 1951-52, and that we have put the debt to GDP ratio on a
permanent downward track. The fiscal turnaround, coupled with
low inflation and interest rates, has really helped this country
to create over 1.7 million jobs and to bring back prosperity to
the people of Canada.
There was also very strong support for measures taken by the
government, whether we are referring to the $16.5 billion tax cut
that was introduced or the investments we have made in innovation
and skills development through the Canada foundation for
innovation and the Canada millennium scholarship fund. There was
also very strong support from the people of Canada for the extra
commitment made by the government to provide an additional $11.5
billion over five years to the provinces and territories
specifically for health care.
One of the issues that was raised often and was strongly
supported was the national child benefit, not to mention the
appreciation of Canadians for the government modernizing the
employment insurance program.
The committee is committed to making sure that we are never
going to let the nation's finances get out of control again. We
will keep the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track.
The committee also introduced a multi-year plan for tax
reduction, which I will elaborate later.
The role of government is to continue to create opportunities
for Canadians, to access foreign markets and to promote Canada as
an ideal place in which to invest.
The people of Canada also called for further investment for
lifelong learning to continue to build the most highly skilled
workforce in the world, and that is one of the greatest
advantages that this country has in the knowledge based economy.
Let us talk about an issue that is extremely important to the
people of Canada, that is, the issue of health care. In the 1999
budget, as I said earlier, the government made the largest single
new investment since coming to office by committing $11.5 billion
over five years. As well, the Prime Minister chaired the
national forum on health and implemented key recommendations of
the forum, including the health transition fund, the Canada
health information service, the community action program for
children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program. These
programs and the balanced approach by the government to these
issues were also applauded by the people of Canada.
One of the greatest resources a country has is its
people.
We have the thrust of the Canada opportunities strategy, a
comprehensive plan to provide Canadians with greater and more
affordable access to education and skills, the millennium
scholarship fund, the tax relief on interest payments on student
loans, the Canada education savings grant, the work done on
SchoolNet, which has connected every public school and library in
Canada to the Internet, the first nation in the world to
accomplish this, the community access program, which will have
public Internet sites connected to 10,000 rural and urban sites
by the year 2000, and computers for schools, whose goal is to
provide 250,000 computers for Canadian schools by the year 2000,
which is 60% complete. These measures taken by the government
have certainly been welcomed.
1140
The issue of children and families came up during the prebudget
consultation hearings. There was support for the national child
benefit. Many referred to it as the most innovative of national
social programs in this generation. Many other projects like the
aboriginal head start initiative, the Canadian prenatal nutrition
program and the community action program for children were also
supported.
I will put this debate in its proper context. In my opening
remarks I talked about a higher standard of living for Canadians.
There is a responsibility on the part of government to use all of
its levers to make sure that Canadians will enjoy a higher
standard of living and a better quality of life in the new
millennium. It is important to have a well set and well thought
out strategy to achieve these ends.
The government, as is reflected in the prebudget consultation
report “A new era—A new plan”, has those levers. We as
members of the committee ask the government to act on these
particular issues.
If we want to generate the type of wealth and the type of
economic growth required to address all the social issues and
challenges we heard about from coast to coast to coast, then
there is no question in my mind that the only way we can do that
is to put a plan together that speaks to the issue of improving
the standard of living for people.
What are the components of this strategy? Where should the
government go to make sure that we as individual Canadians will
enjoy a higher standard of living?
Let us look at fiscal and monetary policy. If there is one area
in which this government has done well, and about which we can
say we are heading in the right direction, it is the area of
fiscal and monetary policy.
Canadians may ask why it is an important component of the
finance committee's strategy to improve the standard of living
for Canadians. A stable macroeconomic environment with low
inflation brings lower interest rates and boosts confidence. It
encourages investment, which enhances productivity growth and
boosts employment.
It is very clear that any government, here in Canada or abroad,
must get those fundamentals right. As we enjoy the low interest
rates and the great boom we have had in employment growth, we
must recognize that this is not something we do on a part time
basis. We must remain vigilant.
We must make sure that the debt continues to go in a downward
projection because it is very important not only for Canadians
but people throughout the world to recognize that Canada has its
economic fundamentals right.
1145
What have been the accomplishments of the government? The
deficit has been eliminated. We now have a surplus. This is one
of the major reasons we travelled across the country seeking
input and asking Canadians what the priorities should be, what
were their values as Canadians and where we should make
investments.
As I stated earlier the debt to GDP ratio is clearly on a
downward path. It is also important to note that provinces have
had substantial fiscal progress in the past five years, not to
mention that we are benefiting from the low inflation of the
1990s.
What does this mean to everyday Canadians? When Canadians
renewed their mortgages they understood the actual meaning. They
understood the difference between the theory of fiscal
responsibility and the practice. Throughout the country people
are happy with the fact that they are finally regaining some
financial freedom to make decisions that are right for them and
their families.
Another lever the federal government has to deal with is the
issue of taxation policy. Everywhere we went throughout the
country, whether I was talking with someone in a coffee shop or
at my local parish or visiting workers in factories it did not
matter to whomever I spoke. Canadians want tax cuts and
Canadians deserve tax cuts.
Why is that? It is because Canadians have worked very hard for
a number of years to defeat the deficit. It is thanks to the
hard work of Canadians that today we enjoy a surplus. It is
right for the federal government to help Canadians restore some
of their lost disposable income.
With the exception of the past two or three years during which
people have begun to feel the impact of federal government
policies, they have seen their incomes go up. It is also
important to note that for the past 10 years the average
disposable income in Canada has gone down. It is our
responsibility as members of the House, trusted legislators of
the country, to restore some of that disposable income so
Canadians can begin to understand that their sacrifices are
rewarded.
Tax policy in a country that is dedicated to improving the
standard of living of people is extremely important. Taxes can
affect the allocation of resources and alter the incentives to
work, to save and to invest. I emphasize this point because it
is part of the $46 billion tax cut plan the finance committee
tabled in the House of Commons.
It is important to understand the components of the plan because
they take into consideration that tax cuts should not only cater
to a section of Canadian society. Tax cuts belong to all
Canadians.
1150
What did the finance committee that is reflecting the needs,
desires and aspirations of Canadians say about tax cuts? The
first measure was to increase the basic and spousal amounts by
15%, raising the limit to $8,200. That is the amount of money
people can earn tax free.
Why is this news so great for Canadians? It is because over
half a million people will not be paying taxes any more. They
will be off the tax rolls as a result of this measure. Is that
important? It is. I have spoken to those individuals who are
paying taxes on relatively low incomes. It is not who says what
that really makes the difference. We have to do what is right
for the people of Canada.
When we increase the thresholds by 15%, when we increase them
from $29,000 to $34,000 and $60,000 to $68,000, what are we
doing? In technical terms we are compensating for inflation. We
are reducing marginal tax rates. We are reducing the one
earner-two earner tax disparity. What is really important is
that it is fair. Canadians will benefit from it. Canadians will
have more money in their pockets to realize their dreams and
their families dreams.
They also appreciate that if they work hard, take risks and make
the necessary effort in a country like Canada then they will be
rewarded. When this type of philosophy takes hold and when
governments reflect the thrust of the argument I have outlined, I
sense that there will be energy within the people of Canada to
become more entrepreneurial and take greater risks because they
know they will be rewarded for their efforts.
In many speeches in the House we talk about Canada's hard
working middle class. We have to put our words into action. For
this reason the finance committee recommended that we reduce the
middle tax rate by three percentage points to 23% over the next
five years. This will lower the taxes paid by middle income
Canadians. This point has been raised in every town hall meeting
that members of parliament have held across the country.
We must also eliminate the 5% surtax by gradually increasing the
threshold. Why does the finance committee want the surtax to be
eliminated? There can be tax reform and tax cuts but in this
case it is also the issue of governance. The surtax was
introduced when we were in a deficit position.
Now that we have a balanced budget, now that we have a surplus,
we as legislators must get rid of the surtax because it makes
great economic sense but it is also a question of governance, of
acting on a promise that was made.
1155
Families and children are very important to the social and
economic fibre of the country. Any budget that does not address
this issue would fail. It is for this reason that the finance
committee once again made a recommendation which would lower over
a five year period the CTB phaseout rate by one-half to 2.5% for
families with more than one child and 1.25% for families with one
child.
That is kind of a technical version of this recommendation. What
this means in real life is that more families will be helped to
raise their children, that more families will have greater
disposable income to do what they need to do. They will have
more disposable income to get ahead and to make the personal wise
investments they need to make.
I also want to be very clear that on these issues I have been
talking about the personal side—
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. Unless I am mistaken, Standing Order 43 relating
to the process of debate states that the first person speaking
for the government—if he is the Prime Minister—the Leader of the
Opposition, a minister moving a government order, and the member
speaking in reply immediately after such a minister have no time
limit.
As far as I can tell, the hon. member across the floor is not
the Prime Minister, nor the Leader of the Opposition nor the
minister proposing the motion, nor the member speaking in reply
immediately after the minister, and thus ought not to be exempt
from a time limit. He should have 20 minutes like the rest of
us.
The Deputy Speaker: The point of order raised by the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is a very strict reading of Standing
Order 43.
[English]
It has been the practice for many years in the House for the
first person speaking on behalf of the government following the
proposal of a motion to have unlimited time and the first member
of the opposition speaking in reply to have similarly unlimited
time. That has been the invariable practice.
I recall having had that opportunity to speak, and accordingly
the Chair has interpreted this as applying to the hon. member for
Vaughan—King—Aurora who is the first member speaking on the
motion following it being put by a minister who did not speak.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, even in the Projected Order of
Business, Standing Order 43 is specified.
If what is meant to guide us in the process of debate is
obsolete, and tradition allows us to do the opposite of what it
says, things are all wrong.
From what I have seen in the past, Standing Order 43 has applied
when the speakers involved were the Prime Minister, the Leader
of the Opposition, the minister making the motion or the member
speaking in reply to the government. They had an unlimited
amount of time but not an ordinary member of the House. It is
all very well that the member in question is the chair of the
Standing Committee on Finance but that is not covered by the
standing orders.
As far as I can recall, this standing order has always been
applied in relation to the work of the finance committee.
1200
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
For the Speaker's information and for members of the House, I
remember very recently the Speaker ruling on another matter
having to do with splitting speeches in the House. At that time
when he gave his ruling on that point, he did mention that
convention will supersede the standing orders in longstanding
practices and traditions.
I think that might be something to consider in regard to this
point as well.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has carefully
considered the matter. I have had recourse to the Annotated
Standing Orders of the House of Commons where, if hon. members
looked, they would see it is stated quite clearly that in
instances where the parliamentary secretary makes the first
speech on behalf of the government, he or she has unlimited time,
as well as the opposition member replying immediately thereafter.
I am aware that the hon. member is not the parliamentary
secretary. The difficulty with the position advanced by the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is that the member speaking
immediately after the minister would be the hon. member for
Vaughan—King—Aurora. He would therefore have unlimited time on
that guise if he were not the first person speaking for the
government.
The hon. member would find himself in the position where the
hon. member for Vaughan—King—Aurora would have unlimited time
because he is the first person speaking in reply to the
government, and then the opposition would not get a similar
opportunity. In the opinion of the Chair, this is not the result
that should obtain in this case. In the opinion of the Chair,
there should be two speeches of unlimited time.
Accordingly, I feel that it is appropriate that even though the
member is not the parliamentary secretary, it has been the
practice consistently in the use of this rule that when a
government motion is moved, the first person speaking has
unlimited time, as does the second.
The hon. member for Vaughan—King—Aurora is the first person
speaking on the motion. Accordingly, I believe the ruling that
he has unlimited time is correct in the circumstances. I
propose, since we have already exceeded the 20 minutes by some
measure, to allow him to complete his speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I respect your decision, but if this is the case, it would be a
good idea to amend Standing Order 43. If we adhere strictly to the
standing orders but they begin to change the rules along the
way, like they are trying to do with the bill to establish a
framework for the Quebec referendum, then nothing makes sense
any more.
The Deputy Speaker: I take note of the hon. member's suggestion.
I hope he will make his suggestion to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. If the committee tables a report,
changes will no doubt be made to the standing orders. This would
be helpful to everyone.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I probably would
have finished my speech by the time this decision was rendered
but having said that, this is another case in point where
Canada's productivity rate could have been helped if we had just
got down to business instead of wasting a lot of time on that
issue.
I want to go back to the point about the Canada tax benefit.
I do not want to lose the opportunity to say that this particular
measure will extend the number of families that will benefit from
it. It will also bring in many more middle class families that
have not been able to access the Canada child tax benefit. This
will literally help millions of families.
1205
Most of my comments this morning have dealt with the personal
side of taxation. We live in a globally competitive economy.
Business, commerce, is very much a part of our everyday existence
as a nation. Budgets should also take into consideration the
important role businesses play in our economy.
It is for that reason the finance committee for example would
like to reduce EI premiums by 40 cents over four years. At
maturity this would be a $3.1 billion cut. It will reduce the
marginal tax rates. It will reduce the amount of profit
insensitive taxes faced by business. Workers will also benefit
from this cut. We need to begin with some profound reform of the
business tax system and we say that.
We also would like to increase the RRSP limit by a total of
$2,000 over a five year period. We want to lower the general
corporate rate by five percentage points over five years. This
will help restore tax neutrality. It will provide our businesses
with greater international competitiveness and it will stop
penalizing new economy firms.
Other measures in this tax package include increasing the
foreign content from 20% to 30%. This will increase returns to
retirement savings at reduced risk. We also want to lower the
inclusion rate for donation of appreciable property which will
promote charitable giving, consider expanding eligible properties
for a lower inclusion rate, and as I said earlier, also work with
the provinces to establish a common capital tax base.
Given the fact that I am very sensitive to the time I have taken
thus far, I would like to say that this $46 billion tax cut
package is clearly an indication to the people of Canada and the
businesses of the country that this government, or this
committee, is very serious about establishing a competitive tax
regime, about rewarding Canadians for their effort.
Only because I am mindful of the time, I will end now and say
very simply that “Budget 2000—New Era, New Plan”, the report
of the finance committee, is an excellent road map. I hope the
Minister of Finance will seriously consider its elements.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise again and debate the issue of the prebudget
report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Yesterday I stood and delivered a speech which I thought was my
response to this issue but as it turned out, it was not.
Nevertheless I am happy to be here again today to address some of
the issues that my friend has raised and which are contained in
the report.
The first point I want to make is the same one I made yesterday.
The basis of the entire report is a faulty one.
It is so glaring a contradiction it is almost surprising that my
friend across the way and other Liberal members of parliament are
able to stand in this place and make a spirited case for what
they believe in. It is that bold.
1210
The essence of the contradiction is that on the one hand the
government is calling for a $46 billion in tax relief, which of
course is laudable and the Reform Party completely and
unequivocally supports that. In fact we have championed tax
relief for 12 years, ever since we came into being. I am proud
of that fact and I would like to think we have helped influence
the government to start to think about these things. The
contradiction is that on the one hand the government calls for
tax relief of that scale, and on the other hand it says it will
maintain its 50:50 spending promise, which means that 50% of any
future surplus would go to new program spending.
The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot have its
cake and eat it too. Government members cannot speak out of both
sides of their mouths, but that is what they are trying valiantly
to do. We cannot let them get away with that. It is double-talk.
That is all there is to it. It is just an attempt to win over
all the various constituencies at once, even though they are
recommending things that are completely contradictory. They
cannot get away with that.
This is a pattern from the government. We have seen it over and
over again. I would categorize it as Liberal rhetoric versus the
Liberal record. We see completely different things when we
compare the record to the rhetoric. The Liberals speak on one
level that is completely disconnected from the reality the rest
of the country has to live with. It is as though they are in
court somewhere completely cut off from the rest of the
population. I would suggest that is exactly the case. I think
it was reflected in the statement the member for
Vaughan—King—Aurora just delivered in the House.
I want to run through the Liberal record to underline what I
have just said. When we run through the bare facts, people will
see very clearly that what my friend has just delivered here in
the House was a lot of rhetoric. He can say all he wants about
how he feels it is important to cut taxes, to be more productive
as a country, to deal with the debt as an important issue and to
re-allocate spending because we do not want to see money wasted
on projects that are not important. He can say those things, but
if he never does anything about them, they are empty words. They
are hollow husks. I submit that is exactly the case here.
I want to run through some of the facts so that members in this
place and people watching can draw their own conclusions.
My friend said that he wants to see tax relief and he has made
an argument for that. I remind members that the government has
been in power for six years, that we have had a balanced budget
for two and a half years going on to three years now, but still
we have had no tax relief. I know my friends across the way will
say that we have had tax relief. It is simply not so. Here are
the facts.
The OECD in its reports that came out in June and September said
that Canada must cut taxes, that taxes in Canada are growing with
every passing day. Three or four days before the finance
minister delivered his fiscal and economic update in November,
the economics branch of the Toronto Dominion Bank delivered a
report. It showed that the federal government today takes more
money out of people's pockets than any federal government has
ever taken in the history of Canada. It showed an upward trend
too. In fact that will be realized on January 1 when the
government helps Canadians celebrate the new millennium with a
tax hike.
We will see the Canada pension plan taxes go up on January 1.
We will also see income taxes go up because of bracket creep.
Canadians will be poorer. The federal coffers will be enriched.
Unfortunately that is bad news for Canadians.
It puts the lie to what we have heard in this place, which is
that the government is somehow committed to lowering taxes. It
is completely the contrary.
What we are seeing are taxes ever ramping upward. That is a
shameful fact, but it is a fact.
1215
In Canada today the average family spends more on taxes than it
does on food, shelter and clothing. That is the Liberal record
versus the Liberal rhetoric. It is a fact that in Canada today
disposable income languishes. It has barely grown since the
recession of the 1990s and it is barely above where it stood in
1980.
Canadians are paying a dear price for the high tax record of the
government. When it says that it wants to cut taxes, we know by
its actions that tax cutting is very low on its priority list.
I want to talk about the government's record on the debt. In
Canada today we have a debt of $577 billion. That is a
staggering amount of money, 64% of GDP, which is one of the
highest levels of debt to GDP in the industrialized world, only
behind Italy in the G-7.
We also point out that in Canada today the finance minister cuts
a cheque for $40 billion a year to pay the interest on the debt.
That $40 billion is by far the largest payment that the
government makes of any kind. Old age security is about $23
billion or $24 billion a year. That is our most expensive social
program. Of course, the transfers to the provinces for health
care and education are much lower than that, certainly a lot
lower after the government cut transfers dramatically. They are
around $15 billion a year, much lower than what we pay in
interest on the debt.
The impact of that is that Canadians have to pay a big chunk of
their taxes toward the interest on the debt. One would think
that if the government truly was concerned about helping
Canadians and ensuring the long term fiscal stability of the
country that it would have some kind of plan to pay down the
debt. What is its plan?
The plan is that if there is any money left over after it has
gone on its spending sprees, then it will pay down some debt. We
have the situation now where, after having run on paper what
should have been big surpluses, the government has paid down $3
billion one year and $3 billion another year toward the debt.
At that rate it will take approximately 190 years to deal with
the problem of the debt. I do not think Canadians want to wait
that long. I think they want to deal with this issue now.
The federal government should take a look at what happened in
Alberta, where the government poured billions upon billions of
dollars into beating down a huge debt, the result being that it
has one of the healthiest economies in Canada and in North
America. In Alberta we are seeing jobs created with every
passing day. People are coming from across the country to enjoy
the fruits of the Alberta advantage. It truly is a spectacular
and amazing success story. My friends across the way should pay
attention because they would learn a tremendous amount.
My friends mentioned health care in Alberta. I point out that
even despite the big cuts of the federal government, which shut
down hospitals across the country and forced people to recuperate
in hallways, the Government of Alberta has actually raised its
health care spending to record heights. Alberta has never spent
more money on health care than it spends today. That is because
of the dramatic improvement in the fiscal situation in the
province of Alberta, due to the actions of the provincial
government, not the actions of this government.
I want to talk about the spending record of the government.
Today in Canada, and this may surprise some people, according to
the national accounts, all levels of government are spending more
money per person than has ever been spent before. That is a very
important point to make because when we have the debate about
what to do with the surplus that is coming our way, many people,
including members of the Liberal government, say that we have to
increase spending dramatically. The government has the 50:50
promise which, if enacted, and let us hope it does not keep this
promise either, would mean $47 billion in new spending.
We saw the headlines in the National Post. Amazingly,
that was the same number that the 50:50 formula would lead us to
if it were ever enacted.
1220
Forty-seven billion dollars in spending is a tremendous amount,
but according to the national accounts for all levels of
government, we have never spent more per person in Canada on
program spending than we are spending today. I would argue that
Canada does not need more spending because we have never spent
more.
We know that relative to other countries in the world we spend a
tremendous amount on programs of various kinds. I would argue
that if we have a big surplus coming our way and we have a
tremendous debt burden and extraordinarily high taxes, then it
makes sense to devote that money to lowering our debt and our tax
burden. To me that makes sense. I do not see why we would need
to go beyond the record high levels of spending in which we are
already engaging. Just because we are spending all that money
does not mean we could not spend it a lot better.
When I look at how this government spends, one of the things
that concerns me the most is its willingness to sacrifice
necessary things to unnecessary things, or high priority things
to low priority things.
Why does the government insist upon spending billions of dollars
in grants and subsidies for its political friends, while farmers,
for instance, in the prairies are left wanting? It makes no
sense. Why do my friends across the way insist on spending
billions of dollars on empire building for huge bureaucracies
that do not deliver any kind of service to the public, but which
burn up all that money, when those funds could be used for good
things like health care, education and restoring funding to
defence?
It is a shame that on the one hand the government stands at
every opportunity to take a bow for the work of our peacekeeping
troops around the world, while on the other hand it punishes them
by putting them into perilous situations without proper
equipment. That has to be the most hypocritical thing I have
ever seen, but the government does it day after day.
It is profoundly wrong that the government cloaks itself in the
proud heritage of the RCMP on the one hand, while on the other
hand it deprives it of the basic tools it needs to do the job. We
see more and more that investigations are being called off
because of cost. There is not enough money to finish the
investigations.
My colleague from Kootenay—Columbia is constantly pointing
these things out in the House of Commons, but sadly the
government does not get the message. It burns up billions of
dollars in wasteful areas and at the same time deprives necessary
programs of proper funding, which is fundamentally wrong.
As someone once said, those things that matter most should never
be at the mercy of those things that matter least. We should
engrave that over the doorways of the offices of many federal
departments because sadly that happens all too often.
Here is more on Liberal rhetoric versus the Liberal record. I
want to talk about productivity. My friend, the chair of the
finance committee, gave an impassioned speech in this place about
why we need to be more productive. He said that the government
is doing all kinds of things. But consider this. If the
government is so concerned about productivity, why did the
finance minister in his 1995 budget speech announce that he would
be hiring all kinds of auditors to audit businesses across the
country in order to scrape every nickel out of them, when they
were trying desperately to simply make a go of it?
My friend from Lakeland has raised the following issue in the
past, and he knows it is a fact because he has constituents
coming to him about it, as do I. They tell us that they are
being harassed by Revenue Canada. People who have never had a
problem with any kind of late payment are suddenly subject to
incredible, ridiculous scrutiny by people from Revenue Canada,
and they are tied up for days and days and weeks and weeks.
1225
We know about the chiropractor in Winnipeg who faced a negative
judgment by the tax courts. Revenue Canada's people swooped down
on his home, even taking the cereal out of the cupboard. They
took his 12 year old son's award for heroism, which was given to
him by the governor general. That is the real record of the
government.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The case to which the hon. member refers has been dealt
with by the courts and has been found to be untrue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is debate, not
a point of order.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I assert that it is true.
I would be happy to talk with my friend about it later.
That is only one example.
If we want to talk about productivity and helping business, we
should consider the situation in Alberta of Mr. Nickerson. Mr.
Nickerson mortgaged his home and his farm to purchase a limousine
from the United States, which he transformed and now calls the
longhorn limo. He brought the vehicle into Canada to rent it
out. He was making a living.
The limousine passed the Alberta transportation safety
inspection standards with flying colours. All of a sudden, the
people at Transport Canada got wind that Mr. Nickerson had become
a successful entrepreneur and they decided to impound his
limousine. They are not convinced that it will pass certain
safety standards. They will not tell him what the specific
problem is. In fact, the bureaucrat who made the decision, Mr.
Boily, decided that he would impound the car without having seen
it for himself and without providing any kind of detail on what
exactly was the problem.
This man basically mortgaged his entire life savings for this
business and now the government has snatched his dream away with
absolutely no explanation. Mr. Boily, who is 2,000 miles away,
will go home tonight and sit down with his family for dinner. It
is no sweat off his nose. But in Alberta, Mr. Nickerson has to
live with friends because he has lost his business.
This is the type of arbitrary, ridiculous regulation and
bureaucracy that people in this country run into all too often.
It is shameful that members across the way would sit and mock
this situation. It is shameful and they should be embarrassed.
Program after program which the government brings forward
retards productivity in Canada. The Liberals talk about a
productivity covenant. Virtually all of what members on the
other side do in some way gets in the way of business and making
the country more productive. Liberals find ways to build massive
bureaucracies which take days, weeks and months to make decisions
which people in the business world would make in a few minutes.
That slows things down. Is it any wonder we trail the United
States when it comes to productivity?
This has been pointed out by the Minister of Industry. My
friend across the way is heckling. Let him heckle the Minister
of Industry. He has pointed to the fact that Canada is falling
further and further behind the United States when it comes to
productivity. This means that our standard of living is falling
as well. Friends across the way know it. They are upset. I
have obviously touched a very sensitive area. They are very
upset about this.
If the Liberals are concerned they should talk to the Minister
of Industry because he raised it first in this place. The
minister pointed out that if our standard of living and our rate
of economic growth had stayed even with those of the United
States over the last many years, the average family of four in
Canada would have a standard of living $28,000 higher than it is
today. That is $7,000 a person.
My friend across the way doubts it, but I invite him to talk to
the industry minister because he raised it in this place.
1230
What is the impact of all this horrible Liberal record on
Canadians? It is absolutely devastating.
I will read into the record a couple of letters that I have
received from people across the country who are concerned about
where the government is going on the issue of taxes. The first
letter is from a gentleman from Clarenville, Newfoundland. He
writes:
I understand you were interested in how much taxes Canadians were
paying. Have a look at this. I work at the oil refinery at
Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland. Last month there was an error in
my paycheque due to a mix-up in the number of hours I had worked.
When the mix-up was straightened out, payroll issued me a
separate cheque to make up the difference. They owed for eight
hours regular time and sixteen hours overtime. My gross pay came
to $801.92. There was $536.20 taken out for income tax and
$10.42 for union dues. My net pay was $255.30. This is a tax
rate of 67%.
I invite my friend over there, who thinks of himself as an
expert on these things, to come and check the pay stub because he
is welcome to do it.
Mr. Paul Szabo: One pay stub doesn't show the whole
thing. Tell the truth.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Now, Mr. Speaker, they are justifying
it by saying that one pay stub does not tell the story. Over the
course of a year, the hon. member knows what the story is.
I will read another letter from a gentleman from Montrose, B.C.
who writes:
I have enclosed a copy of my two most recent pay stubs. I think
they stand as a good example of how high taxation rates in Canada
can be a disincentive to productive workers.
This is unbelievable, and I know my friend across the way will
heap scorn on it because it is profoundly embarrassing to his
government, but I will read on.
During the two week period ending November 5, 1999, I was paid
for 40 hours work, while in the following period, I was paid for
40.5 hours work, having put in a half hour overtime. The half
hour overtime increased my gross pay by $19.66. Amazingly, this
resulted in my federal income tax increasing by $20.13. In
effect, I paid (the Prime Minister) 47 cents for the privilege of
working a half hour overtime.
This is so incredible that one would think I am making it up. My
friend can come over and examine the pay stub. He is so
embarrassed his face is red with rage. I do not blame him. I
would be embarrassed if I was a Liberal as well.
The letter goes on to say:
I recognize that this is an anomaly caused by steps in the tax
tables, but the very fact that a step could result in an apparent
marginal tax rate of 102% tells me that our tax rates are too
high. As a resident of British Columbia with a good salary, my
actual marginal tax rate is well over 50% and the pay stub is
included.
I would be happy to table these letters in the House if my
friend would like. I will voluntarily table them for my friend
and he can have a look at them and explore them all he wants. I
offer these to the Clerk.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
for Medicine Hat requesting the unanimous consent of the House to
table the documents?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the
Liberal member for Provencher said “No, we won't allow that to
be tabled in the House of Commons”, because they are so
embarrassed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the member for
Medicine Hat is well aware, we do not refer to the absence or the
presence of any specific member during debate.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, I am here, Mr. Speaker, and I
hope that is okay.
Suffice to say that members across the way are profoundly
embarrassed by their record of taxation and they should be. Do
members know why? It is because people on the Liberal side of
the House spend hours, days, weeks professing how much they care.
They care so much.
They care about the poor, the downtrodden and the middle class.
My goodness, if words of concern were dollar bills, we would be
millionaires. We hear it every day from that side of the House.
We saw it in the throne speech. Oh, they care so much, but when
it comes down to action, my God, they tax the hide off people.
We see it every day. We get these kinds of letters every day.
1235
Because of bracket creep, on January 1, 85,000 low income
Canadians, who have never paid taxes in their life, will be
dragged onto the tax rolls for the first time. They will start
paying taxes. Six billion dollars a year is what this government
takes from Canadians who have incomes of less than $20,000 a
year. That is shameful. It is shocking.
The Liberals should be embarrassed, especially when they get up
and rant and rave about social justice and concern for the little
guy. No one should believe it. Those are empty words that we
hear over and over again from the people on the other side.
There is a better way of approaching this. The very first thing
that needs to be done is for them to quit pretending they care
about cutting taxes. They should admit that they have no
intention of cutting taxes in a substantial way and that they
will continue to spend because Liberals are tax and spend. It
seems to be something genetic.
What we ultimately want to see in Canada is a government that is
committed to cutting taxes, paying down debt and holding the line
on spending. We are already spending more than we have ever
spent before. We believe that is the real way to help people.
I will say a few words about how to help some of the people who
my friends across the way say they care so much about. How do we
help people who do not have skills and who really are people who
suffered over the last many years? The most obvious way is to
create so many jobs that we have three jobs chasing every person
instead of the other way around.
It is time to get this economy roaring so that we regain the
heritage that is ours, although unrealized over the last
generation. It is the heritage of an economy that is prospering
so much that Canadians can go out, sometimes get jobs without
many skills and be trained on the job.
My friend from Provencher can heckle all he wants. He can
heckle and make fun of people on the low end of the income scale,
but that is wrong.
What we are looking for is an economy that booms to the point
where if people do not have skills or perhaps have not finished
school, they can get a job and learn those skills on the job.
One of the most amazing examples of how that can happen is what
has happened in the boom in the United States in the last little
while. The United States has an unemployment rate of around
4.1%. Our rate is about 75% higher and 75% higher than our
historical average. We used to have an unemployment rate that
was lower than the United States.
What is happening now in the United States is that many people,
the ones who were often the last to benefit when something was
going well in the economy, are benefiting in a tremendous way.
The bottom 20% of the black community in the United States, in
terms of income, has traditionally been a group that was left out
whenever there was any kind of increase in prosperity. There is
no question that they were a downtrodden group. Since the economy
in the U.S. has taken off, because it has been unfettered to a
big degree by the regulations and taxes that we still bear, the
bottom 20% of that group has an unemployment rate of 6.9%, the
same unemployment rate that we have in Canada. These are the
poorest of the poor in the United States. These people, who
often have little skills, are now getting jobs, experience,
contacts and are regaining pride. In many cases, they have had to
rely on welfare in the past, but that is no longer the case. They
now have real hope.
Why are we denying that to people in Canada? There are many
places in this country where unemployment is through the roof.
Everyone is in the same boat in places like Newfoundland, Cape
Breton, parts of Quebec, the northern regions, the inner cities
and in parts of every province.
We see it all over the place in Canada. Why are we denying those
opportunities to people who need it most in Canada? We can do it
here as well. We do not have to be second cousins when it comes
to economic prosperity. We used to be the economic betters of
the United States. We have it within us to do that again.
1240
Why do we accept this malaise that we see coming from the
Liberal government, this mediocre approach to everything? Why
not cut taxes? Why not get the economy booming again and put
people back to work in droves? Why not do that? Mike Harris
does it in Ontario. They do it in Alberta. Why will the Liberal
government not do it?
We have an obligation as legislators in the country to do what
is right for Canadians. We are failing in that job. The Liberal
government has let people down. I members across the way will
not do it for themselves then they should do it for their
children and grandchildren. We have a moral obligation to leave
the country better than we found it.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to have a 10 minute question and answer period. The
government has probably been so damaged by this speech that it
should have a right to question—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As I should not have
been able to see the hon. member because he is not in his place,
we are going to ignore that because it did not really happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this last debate on the prebudget
consultations that have been going on since the beginning of
this session.
From the outset, I would like to thank the thousands of
Quebecers who, in September and October, contributed to one of
the largest democratic exercises undertaken by the Bloc
Quebecois, over the past two years now, which was meeting
Quebecers to ask for their opinions on the federal government's
budget.
This year in particular, we asked those whom we met all over
Quebec the following question: How should the Minister of
Finance use the huge surpluses that he generated at the expense
of the unemployed, the sick, the students, the provinces and
everyone, except itself?
I am also taking this opportunity to thank my leader, the member
for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, for giving us the opportunity to meet
our constituents and for having established a practice which, we
hope, will continue in the future. Finally, I would like to
thank my Bloc Quebecois colleagues for agreeing to take part in
this excellent exercise and for making a brilliant presentation
of the conclusions of these consultations.
These conclusions were collected in a synthesis report presented
by the Bloc Quebecois, through its leader and its finance critic
as well as the hon. member for Lévis, who took the opportunity
to promote a shipbuilding policy. I just wanted to point this
out to my fellow Quebecers that we delivered the goods by
tabling about three weeks ago on their behalf a document that
includes the consensus reached and their main priorities.
First of all, I want to go over the Minister of Finance's
estimates concerning the surpluses for the years to come. With
this minister, we have gotten used to the way he fiddles with
the real budget figures and his forecasts, first with regard to
the deficit and then with regard to the surplus. He has made us
very conservative, because his forecasts are very conservative,
but he has shown us in the past that he can be incredibly
secretive.
Often, he has even juggled the figures to prepare an extremely
summary and fragmented table regarding the options available to
the federal government in order to fight the poverty to which he
himself has contributed since 1994 by drastically cutting our
social programs and to support economic growth and job creation.
1245
When the Minister of Finance tells us in his economic update
that he expects a $95 billion surplus to be accumulated in the
next five years, the truth must be even more amazing. For this
year alone, the minister expects a $5 billion surplus. When he
comes up with these sorts of things, he shows little respect for
the public.
The federal government's surplus for the first eight months of
the current fiscal year is already $8 billion, that is $3 billion
over the minister's forecast surplus for the whole of this year.
We can expect that the surplus will easily top $12 billion this
year. This is more then twice what the minister had forecast.
That gives the government considerable leeway. As a matter of
fact, we did not wait. In September and October of this year, we
made our own projections regarding the current surplus, next
year's surplus and the leeway that could develop as a result and
be used to improve the Canadian economy and social programs.
We believe that, with part of this year's surplus and with next
year's surplus, which we think will reach $15 billion, and with
a tax reform, which would not take ten years but a few months to
achieve, the minister could have $25 billion to play with in the
next fiscal year.
We have consulted the people regarding this possibility.
Everywhere in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois, through its members
who work hard to defend Quebec's interests, has consulted
Quebecers regarding these projections and the use of that money.
Here are the main things on which people agree with regard to
the use of this enormous amount of leeway the federal government
has over the next year.
First, Quebecers have always believed—and they still do, as shown
in the latest survey—it is essential that the Minister of Finance
restore transfer payments to the provinces for health, higher
education and income security.
Second, it is important to return to a true employment insurance
plan, one that really helps the unemployed.
There is almost complete unanimity that the EI plan has to be
revamped, because it no longer covers all the people it should.
Third, we were hoping that there would be promising projects for
the financial and social economy. We are thinking in particular
of a real shipbuilding policy for Canada, which does not exist
at the present time, the construction of social housing, and
infrastructure programs, including highways.
Fourth, we called for a real tax cut for low and middle income
Canadians and Quebecers, not just window-dressing, but lasting
tax reform that would permanently end the injustices that have
hit middle income families particularly hard in recent years.
I will go through these four points, one by one, comparing them
with what the Liberal majority is proposing in its report.
First, there is the issue of social transfers. As I mentioned,
the consensus is clear that this is top on the priority list.
Quebecers want the CHST restored. It will take $3.7 billion
annually, starting next fiscal, to return to the level of the
transfer in 1993-94, before the Minister of Finance slashed the
payments that are used to help fund health and education.
Yesterday, I listened to the secretary of state say that cuts to
provincial social transfer payments were a athing of the past.
What hypocrisy, especially from the secretary of state. I hope
he has some idea of the figures. If not, his incompetence is
shocking.
The cuts announced by the Minister of Finance in 1994 are
ongoing and will continue to apply until 2003. Up until now, the
cumulative drastic cuts to education, health and income security
total $21.4 billion. By the year 2003, since the cuts are ongoing
and despite the fact that parts of the cuts were cancelled,
federal transfers to the provinces for health care, education
and income security will have been reduced by more than
$30 billion.
This is not a thing of the past. The cuts are still being made,
but in an underhanded way. As members know, we have gotten used
to the Minister of Finance's vile hypocrisy. He makes one
announcement only, but the cuts he announces are good for seven
or eight years, and he does not have to repeat them year after
year.
1250
What is so revolting is that, because of the drastic cuts made
by our Minister of Finance, a shipowner and a millionaire,
Quebec is out by $6.3 billion to pay for health care, higher
education and income security.
It comes to $860 per Quebecer and 37% of all the cuts made in
Canada. The Quebec population accounts for 24.5% of the Canadian
population, but the Government of Quebec was hit by 37% of the
cuts to the Canada health and social transfer.
No wonder our health sector is having problems. Although these
problems occur throughout the country, they hurt us a lot more.
And the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it before:
Quebec has to hurt. Well, the government is certainly on the
right track, particularly with its bill preventing Quebec from
using the democratic process freely in a referendum. If Quebec
has to hurt, the government is definitely on the right track.
This year alone, the Government of Quebec will have $1.7 billion
less for health, post-secondary education and welfare. Based on
the historic distribution before 1994, before the federal
government's contributions in those three sectors were
consolidated into a single transfer called the Canada social
transfer, here is what it looks like.
This year, the Government of Quebec will be short $875 million
in federal transfers for health. Do members know what such an
amount of money represents? It represents 3,000 jobs for
physicians. It represents 5,000 jobs for nurses. It is a lot of
money. And then people say that the Government of Quebec really
has lots of problems in the area of health. But it is this
government that is causing considerable harm to the sick in
Quebec and to the finances of the Government of Quebec.
Based on the historic distribution, $500 million of the $1.7
billion would have gone to education. Do members know what we
could do if we had $500 million more to put into education in
Quebec? We could hire 5,800 university professors.
And the cuts are a thing of the past? How hypocritical can one
get? In terms of income security, the Government of Quebec is
getting $325 million less to fight poverty in Quebec. Do members
have any idea what could be done with that money? It would mean
an additional $500 for each and every welfare recipient in
Quebec.
Of course, $500 a year is not a lot of money for a millionaire
like the Minister of Finance, but for those who are having
trouble making ends meet, who are struggling, $500 a year is a
fortune. And this is what they are being deprived of. Then the
government goes around bragging that cuts are a thing of the
past, that they have put their fiscal house in order and that
they are on the right track. Give me a break.
The report of the Liberal majority on the finance committee does
not recommend that the social transfers to the provinces be
restored. It does not say a word about poverty either, but I am
going to come back to that issue.
Second, the report says nothing about reinstating a real
employment insurance program. Despite the representations made
here and elsewhere in Canada and especially in the province of
Quebec where the Bloc carried out wide consultations, the report
of the Liberal majority on the finance committee does not
mention the need to reform the employment insurance program. It
is shocking.
Only 42% of the unemployed are eligible to benefits, even if
100% of the workers pay premiums. The situation for women is
even worse. Only 31% of them are eligible, but all of them do
pay premiums. They are going after the men and women who are
unemployed, as well as pregnant women.
Their benefits are being cut because they have been on
precautionary cessation of work under the CSST. Because the days
and hours during which they were covered by the CSST are not
factored in, they are not eligible to special benefits for
pregnant women. This is scandalous.
So, nothing on EI. The representations made by thousands of
Quebecers and Canadians were ignored.
Third, the structuring projects. I mentioned earlier that the
budget offers many great possibilities. The Minister of Finance
is hiding more surpluses. He is hiding facts about his real
leeway. He has much more flexibility than he cares to admit. He
has more leeway than he knows what to do with.
The liberal majority on the finance committee could have
suggested to spend more than $500 million a year on structuring
projects, on infrastructure projects. This is ridiculous.
1255
With the possibilities and flexibility anticipated for next year
and the subsequent two, the committee could have suggested
$3 billion a year, as we had. In this regard, we had the support
of all stakeholders in civil society, including employer
associations.
There is nothing either on structuring projects in support of a
real shipbuilding policy for Canada. My Bloc colleague from
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has worked very hard for many years
to promote such a policy. Canadians from sea to sea want a
national shipbuilding policy.
Not long ago, my colleague informed me that he had gained the
support of the Canadian Shipowners Association, of which our
finance minister is a member. No one is asking him to secure
privileges as a shipowner. There is a difference between passing
legislation that favours him and his companies, as he did two
years ago with Bill C-28, and developing a national shipbuilding
policy to help create jobs in Canada and ensure, for instance,
that the level of jobs at Lévis shipyards gets back to what it
was before, that is 5,000 jobs, if my memory serves me right.
An hon. member: Three thousand.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I am told there were three thousand. It is now
less than half. What we need is a new shipbuilding policy with
economic spinoffs. Not a word from the Liberals on that, though.
Everyone agrees there is a need, but the Liberal government is
turning a deaf ear.
Concerning social housing, it is a joke, there is nothing in
here. It only says that a report is expected from the minister
responsible for the homeless, who is still travelling all over
the country to hear comments. The government recently announced
that $500 million might be made available for community shelters
where the homeless could spend the night.
They earmark a mere $500 million to shelters. They completely
ignore the whole issue of social housing and overlook the fact
that there is a way of doing things. Opening shelters is one
thing, but support must also be provided to help the homeless
get out of that situation.
I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Quebec
for her excellent analysis on poverty, homelessness and federal
government policies. Since 1994, this irresponsible government
should have implemented policies and increased its contribution
over the years, using the tremendous surplus it generated last
year and will be generating in the coming years.
I also want to pay tribute to the members of the Accueil Bonneau
choir, who honoured us with a visit on the occasion of the tenth
anniversary of the anti-poverty motion passed by the House. They
gave a wonderful concert. I want to remind members once again
that it is because of the admirable work done by my colleague
from Quebec and by the Bloc Quebecois in their fight against
poverty. While we are fighting poverty, the government is creating
poverty. The Liberals create poverty.
With respect to tax cuts, I notice that the Liberal majority
members of the Standing Committee on Finance are the true
reflection of their government. These are people who put on a
big show, making suggestions that may look spectacular and
generous at first glance. At one point, they even got us
wondering if an election was not about to be called.
However, a closer look reveals a big problem with the tax
proposals put forward in the Liberal majority report on
taxation. In our consultations, Quebecers told us “Yes,
substantial tax cuts are required, but first tax tables and the
whole tax structure must be fully indexed”. Since 1985 tax
tables and tax structure are no longer indexed.
As long as this issue remains unsettled there will be no
lasting solution to the problem of tax fairness for all. We are
not talking here about insignificant amounts. Since 1994 the
bracket creep has resulted in extra tax revenues of $17.6 billion
for the federal government. It is unfair.
In the few minutes I have left let me explain what indexation
is all about.
1300
Let me put it simply, as we should always do in this kind of
demonstration. If a taxpayer earns $100 a week and his employer
gives him a $2 raise, his new salary is $102. But in the
economy, prices in general have gone up $3, which means that the
taxpayer is actually poorer.
After a $2 pay raise and a $3 overall price increase, this
taxpayer is in fact $1 poorer.
Full indexation of the tax tables and the tax structure as a
whole takes into consideration the fact that the taxpayer is
poorer and not richer, even with an income of $102 compared to
$100 the previous year.
So, this increase in poverty is taken into account and the
taxation level is reduced according to the inflation related
rise in poverty. This measure was abolished and, since 1974,
$17 billion in new taxes have been collected. The government
cannot be blamed for doing something to increase taxation, but
it can be blamed however for not reforming the tax system and
restoring the full indexation that was abolished in 1985.
Do you know what $17 billion represent? It is a lot of money.
With $17 billion, one could give around $2,400 to each of the
7 million Quebecers and that would make up for the money that was
stolen from them. It represents about twice the education budget
for Quebec and one hundred times its environment budget. It is a
lot of money.
The report does not address these issues but it does mention
the elimination of the 5% surtax. That measure, along with the
elimination of the 3% surtax announced in the last budget, will
greatly benefit those who earn $250,000 or more. It will give
them $9,300.
However, the taxpayers earning between $30,000 and $70,000 will
see their taxes reduced by only $200. Even by increasing the
ceiling to 15%, this solution will only last until 2001.
After 2001, without full indexing, our tax system will become
unfair again and taxpayers will continue to pay more taxes than
they normally should.
For all these reasons, we tabled a minority report, a dissenting
opinion based on what we heard when we went to meet the people,
putting our ideas together with theirs. We gathered different
priorities and views and presented them, the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and myself, to the Standing Committee on Finance on
behalf of Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. It
reminded me that we are in the House as members of parliament not
just to speak for our own communities but to represent all
regions of Canada when there is a particular crisis.
The problems we have had in terms of changing the fiscal
direction of the country have not just been difficult for the
province of Quebec. I acknowledge that we have problems in my
community of downtown Toronto with a lack of affordable shelter.
We have had lots of problems, but when we on this side of the
House as well as members of the New Democratic Party and members
of the Conservative Party stand, we speak for all Canadians.
It is terribly unfair that the member positions his criticisms
of us as a government. By the way, some of those criticisms can
be valid because we have had a very tough time with the economy.
He should also position them in a way that acknowledges the
province of Quebec over the last 10 or 12 years has been
classified through the economic formula as a have not province.
Those provinces in an advantaged position have transferred over
$100 billion. I have never heard any resentment on any side or
from any other members of parliament about the fact that those
transfers have been made, because that is the nature of a
federation.
I appeal to the member to consider that the House is the
boardroom of Canada. It is not just for us to come here and
speak only for those people who are in pain in Quebec.
1305
The member should start to realize that the special privilege
and responsibility of being in here is that it is as much my
responsibility to care about his constituents as it is his to
care about mine. We have to remind ourselves and Quebecers that
they are not a persecuted community or a persecuted province. In
fact all Canadians have shared happily with Quebecers over the
last number of years, and we will continue to do so long after
these separatists are put into extinction.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, there are three main points in
the member's question. First, yes, it has been more difficult
for Quebec because it had to absorb 37% of cuts in the Canada
social transfer, which is more than its percentage of the
Canadian population, that is 24.5%.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: You only care about Quebecers. Is
that it?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Second—if the member could stop shouting, I
would answer—the views I expressed on behalf of Quebecers, as
the Bloc Quebecois is called upon to do and will continue to do
and to fight for Quebecers in the years to come until we get out
of this federation, those views are the same as the ones we heard throughout
Canada. If they are not to be found in the Liberal majority
report, it is simply because the member and his colleagues did
not do their job. That is the problem.
Third, we have had quite enough of the kind of nonsense we have
just heard. The recent adjustment in equalization payments is
money that we were owed and that had not been given to us for
two years because the parameters involved in equalization had
not been properly assessed. That is the fact of the matter.
That money was owing to us and more is still owing.
To give but one example, the harmonization of the GST with the
provincial sales tax in the maritimes. Since the early 1990s,
we in Quebec have harmonized the GST and the Quebec sales tax.
We should be getting $2 billion for that and they are refusing
to hand it over.
As I have said, the effort we are being asked to make with
respect to the cuts has been $2 billion too high ever since
1994. That is another $2 billion they owe us, on top of the
rest.
Much more could be added. There are the R and D laboratories, the
productive spending in procurement of goods and services.
Anyway, it is pointless. We have been telling them this for 20
years now and they refuse to believe it, even to believe their
own statistics.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minority report of the Bloc Quebecois, and indeed the
member's speech, discussed very briefly the aspect of
deindexation. He noted in his dissenting report that the federal
government would collect an estimated $17.6 billion of additional
tax, thanks to non-indexation.
I will accept the numbers subject to check, but the budget
surplus in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1999, was $2.9
billion. Since we have balanced the budget the surpluses have
been quite modest. If deindexation had not been in place,
clearly the government still would have been reporting deficit
positions each and every year because of sheer size.
Does the member concede that deindexation or indexation is
simply a form of delivering tax cuts? Is he in favour of tax
cuts to the extent that they would put Canada back into a deficit
position?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I would,
however, like to correct the figures the member has given.
For the last fiscal year, 1998-99, the surplus is not $2.9
billion but over $9 billion. However, the Minister of Finance
took $6 billion away during that same fiscal year, unexpectedly,
and applied that amount to the debt right away.
Point one, situations can be corrected and so they should be.
The public finances must be put on a healthier footing, but
when that is done at the expense of one category of taxpayers
and the others are left to profit unduly from the taxation
system, and by that I mean the people with the highest incomes,
something is not working right.
We do not have to correct problems by creating injustice and by
maintaining that particular injustice.
It is all very well but the ones who have had to pay are the
people earning between $25,000 and $70,000 a year; those are the
families that have borne the brunt of it.
1310
People with incomes of $250,000 and up have not had to pay.
Point two, millionaires like the Minister of Finance have not
had to pay either. Point three, tax reform has been talked
about since 1996. Ideas had even been submitted to the Minister
of Finance and he applauded these suggestions. Since then, he
has been standing there with his hands in his pockets. He is
looking out for himself first and foremost, but he has done
nothing as far as the tax system is concerned.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the response to the member's question he reputed the $2.9
billion figure. The public accounts report—
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a point of
order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for his statement on what was said during the
prebudget consultations. This is very much like what was
said regarding the Canada social transfer in the meetings of the
committee on children and youth at risk. They were told to give
the missing money back to the provinces.
They created six years of social deficit and this gave rise to
poverty. Creating poverty has consequences, on the quality of
services in hospitals for example, on special support for
children who live in poverty and on thousands of women on
welfare having a little extra money. For them, it means having
more money to pay the rent and to buy groceries.
We heard a little earlier that the minister responsible for the
homeless is going to announce a $500 million program for their
benefit. What scares me is not the money to be invested in that
project but rather the way this program will be adapted to the
situation in Quebec. It is true that realities differ. We were
saying a while ago that there was a shortfall, that Quebec did
not get its fair share. In social housing, Quebec never received
its fair share. I would like my colleague to tell us if he is
worried about the federal government's flexibility.
As a matter of fact, the minister responsible for the homeless
will be judged on the way this money is given to the provinces
and on her flexibility with regard to the distribution of the
millions of dollars invested for the homeless. I would like my
colleague to comment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I believe that having $500
million is a good initiative but I am concerned as well.
We have seen this government increase the number of initiatives,
of structures and, ultimately, the amounts that should be used
to provide services to people were spent on buildings and public
servants.
Five hundred million dollars, that is good news, but it is not
enough. Most witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee
on Finance asked that 1% of the Canadian GDP be invested in
social housing and that homelessness be considered part of a
wider issue called social housing.
Since 1990, I was able to see, by looking at the numbers my
distinguished colleague gave us, that the number of households
that were putting more than 50% of their income into housing—these
households are virtually living in poverty—has increased
by 41%. The needs are great. The amount needed is $1.3 billion.
I am also concerned to see that the prerogatives and
jurisdictions of the Quebec government are respected. Through
the Société d'hypothèques du Québec, the Quebec government would
be able to administer a real program that would help the
homeless and people who are in need of social housing. We will
work hard to have these amounts increased and to ensure they can
be used effectively to get people off the street, to help and
support them during the transition.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle. It is an honour to speak in the House
for the first time. There is no higher calling than public
service and no higher place to serve than in the House of
Commons.
I begin by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to the people of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar who elected me in the byelection on
November 15. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to serve
them. I will do so with all my energy and to the best of my
ability.
I find it humbling to follow in the footsteps of the great
parliamentarians who have preceded me in this vast prairie
constituency. The list includes honourable social democrats such
as M. J. Coldwell, Woodrow Lloyd, Alf Gleave and Chris Axworthy.
It includes as well the Right Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn, a former
Progressive Conservative cabinet minister who later became our
governor general.
1315
Mr. Coldwell represented this riding in parliament from 1935 to
1958. He led the CCF in the 1940s and 1950s. He worked
tirelessly to bring about many of the great social advances that
have shaped our country. These include hospital and auto
insurance, pensions, family allowances, labour and welfare
reforms.
Woodrow Lloyd served Biggar in the Saskatchewan legislature for
20 years, from 1944 to 1964. In 1961 he succeeded Tommy Douglas
as premier. With great patience and great courage, Mr. Lloyd
prevailed over the tumultuous strike by Saskatchewan's doctors
the following year. Our cherished national medicare system is at
least in part Mr. Lloyd's gift to Canada.
M. J. Coldwell had an abiding commitment to social justice.
Woodrow Lloyd had a clear and ringing view of social democratic
philosophy. “Ours is not just a gimme or a gouge the rich
philosophy,” Woodrow Lloyd said. “It matches claims with
obligations, imposing on each of us a greater individual
responsibility than is imposed by other political parties”.
I am also guided by the legacy of Alf Gleave who represented the
Saskatoon-Biggar area in parliament from 1968 to 1974, and who
earlier was one of the pioneers of medicare. When Alf died last
summer, journalist Barry Wilson in his eulogy quoted Alf's own
words, summing up his life as a family man, a farmer and an
elected representative. “At the beginning of the century,” Alf
wrote, “the people who came to the prairies and those who
followed them, the next generation such as myself, made a more
secure and bountiful life here by working together, by sharing
the load”.
This need to balance claims and obligations, to work together
and to share the load has never been more relevant than it is
today, as the 20th century comes to an end and a new century and
a new millennium are about to dawn.
Nowhere is this need to work together more evident today than in
the farm crisis that now engulfs western Canada, a crisis that
tears at the heart of so many of the families I represent in
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. What my NDP colleagues have said so
often in the House is tragically true. That is that western
farmers are gripped by the worst crisis since the 1930s, and in
some respects, a crisis that is greater than that of the great
depression.
The pain and misery are unprecedented economically and
emotionally. Farm stress has reached epidemic proportions.
Families are disintegrating. Bankruptcy is driving people from
their homes and from their way of life.
An astonishing 46% of western farmers are now seriously
considering leaving the land. What this means, should it come to
pass, is a mass exodus of as many as 16,000 farmers across
Saskatchewan and Manitoba within the next short period of time.
The impact of this calamity would be unimaginable.
Why is this crisis occurring? It is happening because our
national government, in its cult-like adherence to the ideology
of free trade, has cut support for grain farmers by 60% over the
last eight years. The government has accepted the free market
mantra of the Business Council on National Issues and embraced
the global gospel of the World Trade Organization.
The Liberal government has played a destructive game giving away
much more in trade negotiations than it has gained in return.
Western farmers have been ambushed on the free market road.
Consider that European farmers receive 56 cents in support for
each dollar of wheat that is sold. American farmers get 38
cents. Canadian farmers today get a paltry 9 cents.
This is happening at a time of unprecedented federal wealth. Our
government, as we have heard here today, is projecting almost
$100 billion in surpluses over the next five years.
If he wanted to, the Prime Minister could deal with the farm
crisis and he would scarcely notice the amount of money that it
would take. But he refuses. He is caught like a deer in the
headlights on the free market road.
1320
I join with my NDP colleagues in pleading for a change of heart.
I urge the Prime Minister to return at least $1 billion of the
money that his government has scooped out of the Saskatchewan
economy in recent years. This is just 1% of his forecasted five
year surpluses. Farmers need help desperately and they need it
now.
This is an immediate measure. In the medium term the government
must re-examine the AIDA program to see if it can be fixed. In
the longer term, a combination of supports and cost cutting
measures and diversification will have to be adopted if western
agriculture is going to survive.
Unfortunately the deafening silence of the government in
response to the plea of farmers also extends in many cases to
society as a whole. We see this only too clearly in the majority
report of the Standing Committee on Finance with its empty
rationale recommending $46 billion in tax cuts for mainly high
income earners over the next few years. This is wrong as my
colleague the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle pointed out in his
minority report.
The finance committee report continues the bogus philosophy of
trickle down economics preached for the last 20 years by leaders
such as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush and Brian
Mulroney. This dreary message is always the same. It goes
something like this: give the horse enough oats and the sparrows
will eventually be fed. This has never been true and we will only
make matters worse if we repeat the same mistakes again and
again.
Tax cuts that benefit mainly the rich will widen the
unacceptable gap that already exists between the wealthy and the
poor in our society. This gap has gone from embarrassing to
offensive to downright obscene.
New Democrats advocate a fair and sane approach, one that will
work, if only the government will adopt it and implement it. We
believe that the surpluses projected over the next few years give
Canadians a rare opportunity to return to the philosophy of
redistributing income to those who need it most. We can undo the
damage that successive waves of government cutbacks have
inflicted on families, on public services and on living standards
in the 1990s.
There is only one real test of any economy that matters and that
is, does it serve its people? New Democrats believe that the
debate over surpluses must focus on improving the quality of life
for all Canadians. We can deal with the farm crisis, child
poverty and homelessness. We can give our children the best
possible start in life. We can preserve public health and expand
it to home care and pharmacare as the Liberals had promised to do
in 1993. We can foster world class education and training. We
can invest in roads and public transit. We can provide tax
relief by making an initial 1% cut in the GST. We can, as
Canada's churches have asked, have our country forgive the debt
owing to us by some of the world's poorest countries.
I commit myself, as my social democratic predecessors have done
before me, to work tirelessly to achieve these just and time
honoured goals. I will not rest and my predecessors will not
rest in peace until we have built Jerusalem in this green and
pleasant land.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to ask the hon. member his first question as a member
of the House. I congratulate him on his discourse today.
1325
My question for the hon. member is quite a simple one. He has
referred to the heritage of the social democrat movement. In
keeping with that, I would like him to reflect on the current
realities incumbent in that movement and what is happening in
both the U.K. and Germany with governments committed to corporate
tax reform and reduction.
The chancellor of the exchequer in the U.K. has moved to lower
corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes. The finance
minister in Germany reduced corporate taxes in the last budget.
Does the hon. member join his social democrat friends in other
countries?
In fact the economist for the Canadian Labour Congress who
recently spoke to the finance committee acknowledged that the
greatest level of economic growth of any type of tax reform would
come from reducing corporate taxes.
Does the hon. member agree with his social democrat friends that
Canada needs to reduce its corporate tax burden?
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I would refer him to a very fine piece
of literature, a document prepared for our national convention
last summer which talked about fiscal responsibility. I am sure
he might enjoy taking it home, reading it over Christmas and
having it at his bedside at all times.
In that document we talked about targeted tax cuts for middle
income and poorer Canadians. As I have just mentioned, we talked
about starting by reducing the GST.
An hon. member: The Tory tax.
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Yes, the Tory tax.
We believe that middle class and lower income Canadians need
some tax relief. We would not extend that blindly as the
previous Conservative and current Liberal governments have done
to tax relief for big corporations.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on the question of the GST, the hon. member will know that the
GST collected about $24 billion in the last fiscal period. That
means for each percentage point we are talking about just over
$3.5 billion.
Given the magnitude of the impact on reduced revenues of the
government and utilization of the surplus that would otherwise
exist, what exactly would the hon. member suggest we do in terms
of either forgoing debt repayment or forgoing increases to health
spending to be able to fund that significant tax reduction?
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I would respond to it briefly by making
two points.
First, I would refer to the surplus of almost $100 billion which
the Liberal government is proudly crowing about at the moment.
Second, I would remind him that it was his own party prior to
1993 which promised to get rid of the GST.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, my second question for the
newly minted member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is a very
simple one.
One thing I do respect about the New Democrats is their
consistency and sense of values and commitment to those values
over a period of time. That stands in stark contrast to the
Liberals.
The hon. member was quite right in pointing out that while he is
opposed to the GST and would like to reduce the GST, so were the
Liberals of similar persuasion before 1993. Let me suggest that
a potential replacement for those revenues may be gained from a
hypocrisy tax. If we were to have a hypocrisy tax that would be
levied on politicians who break red book promises, perhaps that
would be one way to help replace revenue from the GST.
I would appreciate his erudite views on my proposal for a
hypocrisy tax which would serve two functions. First it would
force Liberals to keep their promises for a change. Second, it
would raise those revenues to reduce the GST, as the hon. member
feels is important.
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member again for his question. I am sure that if our finance
critic had had his advice in hand, he would have included that
tax in his minority report.
While we are talking about a hypocrisy tax, I have just
recommended some literature to the hon. member for over the
Christmas holidays. I would refer him to a biography I wrote of
Allan Blakeney, a fellow Nova Scotian, called Promises to
Keep. Perhaps we would like to put that into the minority
report as well.
1330
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar on his maiden speech in the House of
Commons. He follows in the great tradition of prairie social
democrats such M. J. Coldwell, the second leader of the CCF in
Canada; Alf Gleave, a former national president of the Farmers
Union and member of the House of Commons for six years; and the
honourable Chris Axworthy, attorney general and justice minister
of the province of Saskatchewan, his immediate predecessor. I
welcome him to the House of Commons.
I was quite struck by the majority report of the finance
committee. I see my Liberal friends are probably even
astonishing you, Mr. Speaker, because they are recommending that
$46 billion or about half of the $95 billion surplus should go to
tax cuts.
My good red Tory friend from Nova Scotia talked about hypocrisy
tax in the red book promises. Perhaps that is why you are in the
chair today, Mr. Speaker, because you can remain neutral on the
breaking of a great Liberal principle of balance. Half of it was
to go into program spending and half into deficit reduction and
tax cuts. Now, afraid of the Leader of the Opposition, the
Liberal Party has become a very right wing Conservative Party and
is advocating putting half the surplus into tax cuts primarily
for wealthy people.
Who in the country has paid for the fight on the debt and the
deficit? Is it the Conrad Blacks of the world? Is it the
wealthy people of the world? Is it the wealthier banks or the
big firms in Canada? No. It is the ordinary people of the
country who have paid for the fight on the deficit through
cutbacks in health care, through cutbacks in education, through
cutbacks in our social programs, and through cutbacks imposed on
farmers. That is who has paid for the fight on the deficit. That
is who has paid for the debt. Now that we have a surplus it
seems to me the people who paid the price should reap the reward
of a fiscal surplus, the ordinary people of Canada.
The Liberal Party is afraid of the Reform Party and the Leader
of the Opposition and the tax cut agenda. I see across the way
the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who is shaking in his
chair in fear of the Reform Party. It is the same with the
Minister of Finance who is implementing the Reform Party policy
in terms of massive cutbacks in social programs like we never saw
from any Conservative Party in the history of Canada including
Brian Mulroney's.
That is exactly what has happened and there is no better example
of that than the 60% cutback in support to farmers by the Liberal
government across the way when their competitors in Europe and
the United States have not been cutting back but indeed have been
increasing support and subsidies to their farmers.
As the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar said, 56 cents of
a dollar in Europe will come from the treasury in Brussels and in
the United States 38 cents will come from the treasury in
Washington to support farmers. What is it in our country? It is
9 cents on the dollar.
The Reform Party has called for the end of all farm subsidies.
Now it is the Liberal Party that is implementing the Reform
policy to get rid of subsidies and support prices for our
farmers. Farmers are leaving the land. Farmers are going
bankrupt. We have heard time and time again that on the prairies
we need $1.3 billion of immediate aid, a trade equalization
payment to farmers to allow them to survive which would not even
bring us up to the American levels or the European levels. What
has the Liberal Party done? This message has fallen on deaf
ears.
We had in parliament in Ottawa a few weeks ago the premiers of
Manitoba and Saskatchewan, supported by all three political
parties in Manitoba, three political parties in Saskatchewan, the
farm organizations, the chambers of commerce and the trade
unions, with a joint position of solidarity in support of $1.3
billion for farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
What did the Liberal government say? It said nothing in terms of
extra assistance to farmers. No wonder the Liberals are hanging
their heads in shame.
1335
There was a throne speech back in October. I looked at it very
carefully and there was absolutely nothing in it, not even a
reference to the farm crisis. Where do these people live? They
do not know the real poor people who are facing problems.
Then a month later we got this media show by the Minister of
Finance. He flew to London, Ontario, to make a media statement.
Again many of the Liberal members are wondering why all this
money was spent for him to fly to London. A big schedule was
worked out for the Minister of Finance and he made a statement on
national television. In a 45 minute speech there was not one
reference to the farm crisis despite the suffering, the pain, the
demonstrations, the protests, the writings and the calls by the
united front across Saskatchewan and Manitoba for extra
assistance.
The Minister of Finance and the parliamentary committee on
finance are more Conservative than anything I saw with Brian
Mulroney or Conservative governments in the past. It is not just
the farm crisis. Let us look at what they have done to health
care. It is enough to tear our hair out. We have had the
biggest cutbacks in health care in the history of the country.
The cutback in federal funding to the provinces for health care
is causing problems today in hospitals and emergency rooms from
one part of the country to another. The closings of hospitals
and the lineups for surgery are because of the cutbacks by the
Minister of Finance.
Why is there silence on the backbench? The minister from the
Northwest Territories never gets up to defend health care. I
have never seen her get up to say that the Minister of Finance
should put more money into health care. She should be ashamed of
herself. She represents ordinary people and knows that people
are in lineups because of cutbacks in health care by the federal
government.
We have the farm crisis and the health care problem. Where are
the recommendations in this report for money for health care? We
have a $100 billion surplus, and what has been recommended for
health care? Nothing. Even the Canadian Medical Association is
saying that we need an extra $1.5 billion per year in health
care.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult
for the Chair to hear the debate. I know the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, in his most bombastic style, is being perhaps
a little provocative and is causing some uproar in the House, but
the Speaker has to be able to hear the remarks of the hon. member
who has the floor.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege. I am deeply offended by the references
made to me in a personal way. If my mandate and duties are being
called into question in a professional way, that is one thing,
but to be slandered by the member who has done nothing for native
people but use them for their votes is unacceptable.
The Deputy Speaker: I have not heard anything here about
a question of privilege. I suggest we move on.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I did not even mention
native people. I am not sure where that came from. I was saying
that the member across the way like other Liberal members is not
rising in the House of Commons and calling on the Minister of
Finance to put more money into health care. The record speaks
for itself.
The Liberal Party is implementing policies of the Leader of the
Opposition and the Reform Party which call for massive cutbacks
and a reduction of the role of government. That is exactly what
it is doing. They are setting the agenda and that party across
the way has implemented that agenda and knows it. That is why
its members are so sensitive.
It is not just health care and the farm crisis. Let us look at
what happened in terms of the cutbacks to education. The
government is not investing in education like it should be. That
is why we are falling behind in public support of education
almost every state in United States. That is what is happening
in Canada. If we had more federal moneys going to the provinces
for education we would have better training for our people. We
would have a more competitive and productive economy.
That is not happening because of the cutbacks and the priorities
of the government across the way.
1340
The important point about the finance committee report is that
it is supposed to be a framework and a vision for the next five
years. What will the government do? It will continue the same
right wing reactionary policies of the Reform Party in terms of
handing out more and more money to wealthy people. In fact, the
member for Calgary Southwest said at one time in the House that
Conrad Black deserved a tax cut. The Reform Party is not
implementing it but it is the Liberal Party across the way.
This is why we need a public debate in the country about our
real priorities. The priorities should be to invest in people,
to create more equality in people, to invest in the health care
system, to come to the assistance of prairie farmers and to
invest in the education system. Those should be our priorities
and they are not the priorities today.
We hear all this stuff about tax cuts. I remember the Liberals
in opposition, Mr. Speaker, and so do you. The member from the
Northwest Territories was there. I remember when Brian Mulroney
brought in the GST. I remember the Liberal Party saying in the
House that if Canadians elected the Liberal Party, and it is in
the red book, it would abolish the GST. Does everyone remember
that?
The only member who had some honour in that regard was the
former Deputy Prime Minister who resigned her seat and went to
her people in a byelection. The Liberals made that promise on
the GST. They promised to get rid of NAFTA, the free trade
agreement. They promised many other things that were in the red
book, and they broke those promises.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I hope you agree with me that what we
are seeing is a right wing agenda by the Minister of Finance
implementing the policies of the Reform Party of Canada.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In the member's presentation he indicated that the
Liberal government is implementing what Reform would like to have
implemented. I am deeply offended by that presentation.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member may be, but I do not
think that constitutes a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech made by my hon. colleague from the NDP,
who made a sad assessment of the current Liberal government's
record.
I would like him to say more on the social transfer. Quebec is
having a lot of trouble. The minister, Pauline Marois, is trying
in every way possible to find the money needed to provide
adequate health care to the people.
I would like to know if the member from the NDP believes that
these problems are in large part due to the Liberal government's
mismanagement since 1993.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this is a good question. In
1995, the current Minister of Finance cut more than $6 billion
from Canada's national health program. This is in sync with the
policy being put forward by the Reform Party.
The Minister of Finance, who is not a member of the Reform
Party, made the worst cuts ever to health care, at the national
level.
I remember very well when the national health program was
introduced under Mr. Pearson. The CCF with Woodrow Lloyd and
Tommy Douglas, from my province of Saskatchewan, were the first
ones to come up with the idea. It was created at the national
level by Mr. Pearson, a true Liberal. A true small “l” liberal,
not a capital “L” Liberal like the ones we have today. At the
time, the provinces and the federal government came to an
agreement whereby the federal government would pay one half of
the costs of the national health program, and the provinces, the
other half.
Where do we stand today? The federal government only pays 12% or
13% of the costs. There is no national unity. Our country has no
great vision. Where are the old Liberals? Where is the old
Liberal Party of Pierre Trudeau, of Mr. Pearson, of Laurier and
King? Where is that Liberal Party?
That Liberal Party has vanished completely. There is not a lot
of difference now between the Liberal Party and the Mr.
Manning's Reform Party. They are just about the same. We are
stuck here with a government that is more conservative than
Brian Mulroney's government was. Brian Mulroney never did such a
thing. The government of the current Prime Minister is the only
one to blame here.
1345
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member as well as the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
referred to a surplus approaching some $100 billion. The members
will well know that is a projected surplus over the next five
fiscal periods assuming no negative economic changes.
The economic and fiscal update shows that the surplus for the
last fiscal year reported on was $2.9 billion. It is estimated
to be $2 billion for the next fiscal year and $5.5 billion for
the year starting April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001.
Given that we are talking about the upcoming budget and
projecting for that year a $5.5 billion surplus, I would like to
ask the member about the recommendation to reduce the GST by 1%
which would cost almost $3.5 billion based on current revenue
production. That means of the $5.5 billion, $3.5 billion is
going to tax relief.
How does the member square that with his demands that there
should be relief for prairie farmers, for health care, for
post-secondary education and for children? The member cannot have
it all ways. Is he suggesting that the government should be
imprudent and go back into deficit financing?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my good
friend across the way who is an accountant interprets the numbers
in the way he does.
He knows that the projected surplus will be around $10 billion
in the next fiscal year. If we take into consideration the
contingency that the government is setting aside, if we take into
consideration the prudence that it is setting aside and if we
look at the history of the Minister of Finance, it might be even
more than $10 billion. The Minister of Finance consistently
underestimates the revenues of the Government of Canada, so there
may be more than $10 billion.
The member across the way knows that. He is an accountant. He
is a good member of the finance committee. Unfortunately he has
become very, very conservative in terms of the tax cut agenda for
wealthy people.
The GST cutback by one point will cost around $3 billion. That
is about 30% of the surplus. That is a good amount to put in tax
relief at the federal level at this time. Let us put most of the
rest of the money into programs that are needed by the people of
this country: health care, education, the farm crisis, the
homeless situation and a children's agenda. That is what the
people want.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise in the House to speak on the prebudget
consultation report.
Today is December 16, 1999. There are 14 days left in this
century, a century that was to have belonged to Canada. It is
important at this time that we reflect on what is occurring not
just within our borders but around the world.
The rate of global change facing Canadians is unprecedented. The
challenges facing Canadians and the potential opportunities
available to Canadians have never been greater. How are we doing
in this environment? The Liberals say that the fundamentals are
strong. The ex-patriot Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith
once said that one should beware of governments who claim that
the fundamentals are strong. That is an important bit of advice
to heed at this time.
In this new globally competitive, interconnected environment the
fundamentals are not simply esoteric statistics or unimportant
numbers. These are not distant trivia that we can afford to
ignore. We cannot afford to ignore what other countries are doing
to create environments for economic growth.
Let us look at those fundamentals the government boasts about.
We have an unemployment rate that is 70% higher than that of the
U.S. We have the highest personal income tax rates of any
country in the G-7. We have the second highest corporate tax
rates in the OECD, of those 31 countries. Last year we were
third highest but we are now second highest. Germany, a social
democratic country of the same brethren as the New Democratic
Party in this country, saw fit to reduce its corporate tax burden
and create federal levels of economic growth and opportunity in
Germany.
For the first time in the history of our country, our level of
personal debt on average in Canada is $43,200. For the first
time that is surpassing the average disposable income of
Canadians. In fact, we have the fastest growing levels of
personal debt of any country in the G-7. While the government
boasts about being in the black, Canadians are in the red to a
greater extent than they have ever been in the past.
1350
Personal disposable income in Canada has dropped by 8% since
1990. During the same period of time Americans have enjoyed a
10% increase. There has been a widening of the gap by about 10%
in terms of personal disposable income between ourselves and our
neighbours to the south.
The fastest growing economic engine is in the U.S. We have an
opportunity being a country that borders the U.S. to benefit from
that growth, but not if we continually focus on the policies of
the past and ignore the opportunities to build policies based on
the realities of the future.
Let us look at some other fundamental areas. Productivity
growth rates in Canada have been lagging behind those of the U.S.
In Canada the equities markets on the Toronto Stock Exchange have
had a relatively anemic growth compared to the robust growth in
the U.S. During the same period of time the TSE was required to
grow by 100%, the Dow Jones Index in New York grew by 300%. As
Americans are getting richer, Canadians are getting poorer.
Under this government since 1993 there has been a 10 cent drop
in the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. The Prime
Minister's response was typically erudite, that it would be good
for tourism. The logical corollary of his argument would be that
if we were to reduce the dollar to zero, we could become the
greatest exporting nation in the world. That logic simply does
not work. Most Canadians realize it is impossible to devalue our
way to prosperity.
The brain drain issue is a very important fundamental. It
involves the choices being made by some of the best and brightest
young people in Canada. According to the report by the
Conference Board of Canada last summer, the number of people
leaving Canada and seeking opportunities in the U.S. has grown
from 16,000 people per year a few years ago to 96,000 people per
year.
We see a very disturbing trend, the devouring of corporate
Canada. At the end of the 20th century, which was a century that
was supposed to belong to Canada, it is important to pause and
think about some of these things. It is sad that at the end of
the 20th century Canada no longer really belongs to us. That is
largely due to the fact that the government fails to accept some
of the market driven realities of a globally competitive
environment.
I will give the House an idea of the impact of the devouring of
corporate Canada. Back in 1994 the value of U.S. acquisitions of
Canadian companies was $5.6 billion. In 1998 the Canadian
corporate value purchased by Americans had grown to $16.1
billion. This year it is $25.6 billion. That is no accident. It
has a lot to do with the reduction in the value of the Canadian
dollar.
Let us look at some of the causes of the reduction in the
Canadian dollar, that 10 cent precipitous drop and decline in the
take home pay of Canadians since 1993. A lot of that has to do
with tax issues.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s Canada was able to maintain
approximately the same level of economic growth as the U.S.
During the same period of time we had a positive yield in that
our interest rates were marginally higher than those of the U.S.
yet we were able to maintain that similar level of economic
growth and prosperity.
However in the 1990s and particularly since the election of this
government, we have seen a gap between the currency values of the
two countries and for the first time in a long time Canada has a
negative yield. We have lower interest rates in Canada. We are
using monetary policy to compensate for some of the weak fiscal
policies of this country.
Part of the reason the Bank of Canada needs to do that is that
for the first time ever as a percentage of GDP in Canada, we are
at 38% of our GDP in taxes. Compare that to the U.S. which is at
28% of GDP in tax revenues. It is not sustainable. Effectively
we are heading toward a government that simply will not be able
to continue the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. The Bank of
Canada will not be able to continually use that mechanism.
We need strong fiscal mechanisms and levers to be implemented
now.
1355
Some of the victims of this devouring of corporate Canada
include the Canadian icon MacMillan Bloedel, Poco Petroleums
Limited, MetroNet Communications, JDS Fitel, Club Monaco, Noma
Industries, Newcourt Credit, Midland Walwyn, Peoples Jewellers
and Shoppers Drug Mart. Shoppers Drug Mart, Canada's drug store,
is now owned by KKR, Kohlbert Kravis and Roberts out of New York.
This is not a good trend for Canada.
It is very easy for us to do what the Liberals typically do in
this kind of situation and that is to try to demonize America, to
try to demonize the free market system and to try to somehow
create a bogeyman in the people who are logically taking
advantage of the situation that exists here. The fact is that in
a globally competitive environment, the responsibilities lie with
each government to create the levels of economic growth and
opportunity for their companies and individuals to succeed and
compete globally.
In that kind of environment the government is clearly failing.
It is exposing the nape of Canadian investors, Canadian business
people and Canadian individuals to the ferocity of global
competition without providing the economic growth levers and
productivity enhancement initiatives that they need.
This is in stark contrast to the previous government that had
the courage and vision to implement a free trade agreement that
this government has embraced and accepted as being good policy in
retrospect. The previous government not only had the courage to
eliminate the manufacturers' sales tax which was impeding growth
and impeding the ability for Canadian enterprises to compete and
succeed globally and replace it with the GST, it also deregulated
financial services, transportation and energy. All of these are
policies that this government embraces. All of them are policies
that have been credited by economists as having been largely
responsible for the ability for this government to eliminate the
deficit.
If we look at what the achievements of the government have been,
the only thing the finance minister can point to is the
elimination of the deficit. If we accept, as most economists
accept, that the elimination of the deficit was largely due to
the structural changes made to the Canadian economy by the
previous government—
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the
hon. member, but given the time, I think he would want to save
half of his time for after question period. He will have 10
minutes remaining in his remarks following question period today.
We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ARTS EDUCATION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Conference of the Arts and the University
of Ottawa recently announced their collaboration in co-hosting
the fourth national symposium on arts education entitled
“Sharing the Vision” which will take place in Ottawa in July
2000.
This annual symposium gathers artists, educators and students to
discuss how best to ensure that the arts are a fundamental and
sustained part of the Canadian school system for all students in
all schools. They know that children and young adults who study
music and the arts are creative, imaginative, possess strong
problem solving skills and actually score higher on a scholastic
admission test than students who are not exposed to the arts.
The government is committed to ensuring a higher quality of life
for our children. Our children learning in, through and about
the arts is of vital importance for their future. We must
continue to play a role in guaranteeing quality arts education
for all Canadian children in the new millennium.
* * *
CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as Christmas approaches it is a shame
that the 16,000 employees of Canadian Airlines International are
once again facing an uncertain future. Not only are their careers
being jeopardized, but they are also being used as a bargaining
chip in the negotiations between Air Canada and the federal
government.
While Canadian Airlines employees face an uncertain future,
their current dilemma is not of their making. As a perennial
underdog in Canada's air industry, these employees were always
able to provide top notch service in often trying and adverse
conditions.
1400
Today Canadian's employees continue to display their
professionalism and dedication as they serve the travelling
public.
The official opposition wants to take this opportunity to
recognize the outstanding efforts of the employees of Canadian
Airlines. We urge the federal government and Air Canada to
quickly and fairly resolve their differences and provide these
individuals with the stability they truly deserve.
* * *
[Translation]
MUSCULO-SKELETAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
hundreds of millions of people throughout the world suffer from
disabling musculo-skeletal conditions which are the most frequent
causes of serious chronic pain and disability.
The prediction is that human suffering will intensify as people
live longer and there are more and more accident victims.
The resulting health problems will create a major economic
burden which will force governments to spend more and could
eventually lead to patients being deprived of the treatment and
rehabilitation they require.
I wish to point out that the United Nations, through their
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have supported the proposal for
designation of the decade 2000-2010 as the decade devoted to
improving the quality of life of people throughout the world who
are suffering from conditions and injuries affecting the bones
and joints.
* * *
[English]
SANDRINE'S GIFT OF LIFE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as national co-chair, along with Sandrine's mother Diane and
broadcaster Don Cherry, I would like to thank my colleagues who
kindly supported the Sandrine family's Gift of Life organ donor
campaign.
Regardless of whether people have signed an organ donor card,
their families can override their wishes. However, it has been
shown that speaking to family members doubles the chance that
their final wishes will be fulfilled.
I am sure that my colleagues will join with me in urging all
Canadians to talk to their families about this important
decision. By doing so they will honour the memory of 11 year old
Sandrine Craig, whose death has inspired this national campaign.
* * *
WESTJET AIRLINES
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in the west and is
moving east at the speed of a jet plane.
Today I rise to offer congratulations to Calgary's WestJet
Airlines, which has announced that it is going to expand its
carefully managed operation eastward.
The WestJet success story began three short years ago with a
vision and has already served 1.6 million Canadians. Its
consistent down-home, casual approach and friendly western
service just keeps bringing the customers back.
As WestJet moves east, Canadians will benefit by having access
to this new alternative airline.
To which central Canadian city will it fly? Will it be Hamilton
or Montreal, Ottawa or even Toronto?
On behalf of my caucus colleagues and parliamentarians, I can
say that if WestJet chooses Ottawa we may see a lot more of each
other as we go west or east on WestJet.
* * *
CLARITY ACT
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the clarity act is about the very being of our
country and the fullest expression of responsible democracy. It
embodies the advisory judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada
respecting the rights and obligations of the federal and
provincial governments and the governed. It embodies in clarity
the binding relationship among them, including when a province
contemplates secession from Canada.
Ours is a country founded on shared values of federalism,
democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for
minorities. It was created on mutual consent out of the
diversity of our people—in culture, language, origin and
faith—and has continued to draw societal strength from it.
Resolute is my confidence that the clarity act, which speaks to
our Canadian values and identity, will reaffirm our faith as
Canadians in one Canada, united and strong.
* * *
[Translation]
CAROLINE BRUNET
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebecer
Caroline Brunet, the best kayaker in the world, has just been
named as the winner of the Lou Marsh trophy, awarded annually to
the top Canadian athlete of the year.
This athlete has been turning out exceptional performances for a
number of years. In the world kayak championships in Milan last
August, she captured three golds and one silver. Over the past
three years, Caroline Brunet has totalled no fewer than eight
gold medals in individual events in her discipline at the world
level.
1405
As well, she earned a silver in the sprint at the Atlanta
Olympics. This athlete has every chance of carrying off the
gold medal at the Sydney Olympic Games, and we fervently hope
she will. All Quebec is proud of Caroline Brunet. She is a
model of excellence for young people.
Caroline, congratulations on this new honour. Keep up your
amazing performances.
* * *
JEROME LAPER
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to acknowledge the achievements of a constituent in my riding of
Ahuntsic, Jerome Laper.
Mr. Laper used his time and expertise to help develop the
economy of another country. He worked for the volunteer
organization CESO.
[English]
He completed two assignments in Guyana. He increased sales for
a laundry detergent producer and for a coconut oil soap stock
producer. His expertise and his recommendations helped to
improve and increase sales for both producers.
I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Laper on his
achievements. I am proud that Canadians such as Mr. Laper work
not only to improve our country Canada, but also the world. His
accomplishments merit recognition by all parliamentarians.
[Translation]
Congratulations, Mr. Laper, and good luck in your future
endeavours.
* * *
PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1974, the
Portuguese community of the Outaouais region of Quebec built its
community centre called Les amis unis, in Hull. Since then, the
centre has contributed to the integration of the Portuguese
community into the Outaouais life, while preserving and
celebrating its beautiful traditions.
The centre has been a social bond in our region, while also
contributing to a better understanding among individuals and
communities.
We join in the celebration of this 25th anniversary, which not
only reflects the usefulness of the Portuguese centre Les amis
unis, but also the exceptional contribution of Portuguese
nationals to our region.
As the member representing the riding of Hull—Aylmer, I am
pleased to give my regards to the members of Les amis unis and
to say that I admire their work.
I wish them continued success. Viva o Centro português.
* * *
[English]
BILINGUALISM
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister wants to force official bilingualism on the new
amalgamated city of Ottawa. This city is in effect bilingual
today because the demand for services makes it an advantage for
citizens to be able speak and understand two languages.
I am personally attempting to become bilingual because I want
to, not because someone is forcing me. When the benefits of
speaking more than one language are forgotten and legislation is
used to force people, they rebel.
I reject the clumsy attempts of federal Liberals to order the
Ontario government to legislate Ottawa as officially bilingual.
Ottawa is now functionally bilingual, and so it should be.
If the Prime Minister wants to force bilingualism on the city of
Ottawa, he should try also to force official bilingualism on the
city of Hull. What is good for Ontario should be good for
Quebec.
My advice to the Prime Minister if he is not willing to do that
is to butt out.
* * *
HUMANITARIAN WORKERS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
even as representatives of the MFS were accepting their Nobel
Peace Prize in Oslo last week, two of their number were being
held hostage by rebel RUF fighters in Sierra Leone. The two
volunteers, a Belgium doctor, Patrick Cloos, and a German
logistician had been detained since December 6. They were being
held in Kailahun District by renegade RUF field commander Sam
Bockarie.
Only a few hours ago these two hostages were released and are
making their way back to Freetown by helicopter. One of the
hostages, Patrick Cloos, has a strong Canadian connection. In
fact, Mr. Cloos is based in Montreal and will be returning to
Canada in early January. His fiancée, who lives in Montreal,
will be leaving for Brussels to join him within the next few
days.
This incident is further evidence of the tremendous courage and
devotion to duty of MFS workers. It is also further evidence of
why countries like Canada must continue to work to ensure the
safety of humanitarian workers in war zones like Sierra Leone.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with his Bill C-20, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs puts me in mind of the Book of
Genesis.
In the beginning, the minister created rumours, squabbling and
division within the Liberal caucus. And the caucus was without
form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. But
fortunately the spirit of the minister moved upon the face of
the waters.
1410
Rising in his place in the House, the minister said “Let there
be light”. And in the middle of the thunder and lightning, Bill
C-20, a bright and shining star, emerged from the darkness.
As the only keeper of clarity, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs became the Creator.
In the Book of Genesis, on the seventh day, the Creator saw
everything that he had made and he was pleased with it. He
decided to rest.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can rest on one
condition only: that his bill, which is dust, returns to dust,
and that he gets rid—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today's Globe and Mail contains an article written
by former Supreme Court Justice Willard Estey in which he
expresses concern over the sellout of our Canadian economy to
foreigners.
It leads me to give the corporate sellout award for the month of
December to a company which has been responsible for the biggest
sellout in our Canadian economy.
Our first nominee is MacMillan Bloedel, which sold out to U.S.
forestry giant Weyerhauser for $2.4 billion U.S. The second
nominee is Unihost Corporation, which operates in the hotel
industry. It sold out to U.S. Westmount Partnership for $377
million. The third nominee is none other than People's
Jewellers, which sold out to the U.S. Zale company for $75
million.
I will now look at the envelope. The winner for the biggest
sellout of the month award for the month of December is
Weyerhauser, which gobbled up MacMillan Bloedel, one of Canada's
leading companies in the forestry industry.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am certain that all members of parliament will join with me in
thanking all those hard-working people who dedicate themselves to
making the House of Commons such an efficient institution.
It is no small feat to keep this place running. I extend my
thanks to the pages who jump when we call, the clerks who record
our every word, House of Commons staff who feed and clean up
after us, and printing and post office staff who help us to get
the word out.
Thanks as well to our security staff who protect us so that we
can continue to say such outrageous things.
[Translation]
To all these heroes, who toil in the shadows, and whose fine
work and devotion is too often left unsung, we offer our best
wishes on the eve of the new millennium
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on March 25 the minister responsible for homelessness promised
that she would have the homelessness problem solved within 30
days.
By tomorrow, when she makes her announcement, it will have been
267 days. She will announce some money for the homeless without
the participation of the provinces and the municipalities. She
will also make the announcement outside parliament, where MPs
cannot scrutinize her work, and on the quietest news day of the
week. I guess she is hoping that no one will be listening.
Since March the minister has spent over $1 million to hire 18
new staff members. According to access to information documents,
she also spent $54,000 redecorating her office. She has spent
$17,000 flying to China, Mexico and jetting herself around the
country. She has spent $30,000 on hotel rooms and over $16,000
on food and drink for herself. Her trip to China alone cost over
$19,000.
I do not know what the minister will announce tomorrow, but I
sure hope that she will treat Canada's homeless at least as well
as she has treated herself this year.
* * *
FLIGHT TRAINING
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 60
years ago, on December 17, 1939, Canada, the United Kingdom,
Australia and New Zealand joined together in Ottawa to sign the
British Commonwealth air training plan agreement.
A significant milestone for Canada, the air training plan became
one of the first symbols of our country's participation in the
second world war and was certainly one of Canada's most important
contributions to the ultimate victory.
Between 1940 and 1945 Canada became known as the aerodrome of
democracy, as 107 air training facilities were established across
the country to train more than 130,000 air and ground crews. Many
of them paid the ultimate price, fighting for the causes of
freedom, international peace and human dignity.
In many senses the training plan laid the foundation of our
longstanding co-operation with our allies on the European
continent and elsewhere around the world.
Today the tradition of training the world's best aviators lives
on with the government's commitment to the innovative NATO flying
training in Canada program.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Fédération des travailleuses et des travailleurs du Québec,
the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the
Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the Fédération des
femmes du Québec, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement
urbain, student federations, the Front commun des
assistés sociaux du Québec, all of Quebec is outraged that the
federal government wants to call the shots with respect to
Quebec's future.
1415
All of Quebec wants a sovereignist vote to carry the same weight
as a federalist vote. Let us be clear on this:
the people of Quebec may, in fact and in law, decide its own
future.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, a very serious issue is weighing heavily on the minds of
the Liberals. Committees have been instructed to study it.
Consultants have been hired to develop solutions. Ministers and
backbenchers are pitching ideas at every chance, all to save an
industry that was once at the core of our Canadian identity but
is now dominated by Americans and Europeans.
What issue is that? Is it agriculture or the farm crisis? No.
It is professional hockey and the campaign to cut even further
the taxes for millionaire hockey players and team owners. For
shame.
Thousands of farmers cannot afford to farm any more, but the
Liberal budget gave Canadian NHL players an average of $16,000 in
tax cuts this year alone. By providing entertainment expense
write-offs to buyers of corporate box seats and season tickets,
we already subsidize pro-hockey teams heavily from the federal
treasury.
The country has other priorities, like desperate farmers,
medicare, the homeless, the unemployed and amateur sport. Why
will the Liberals not stop being lackadaisical and start acting
on these very important issues?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
now know that the Prime Minister was involved in breaking the
rules governing the awarding of federal government grants in his
riding.
The departmental officials did not want to allow the grants, but
in a memo to a departmental official one of the HRD minister's
own staff instructed that the dollar amounts given to the two
hotels in the Prime Minister's riding had to be artificially
inflated. Why? The memo stated that it was to keep the same
amount suggested by the Prime Minister during discussions with
the promoters.
The Prime Minister said that he was just doing a good job as a
member of parliament. However, who really benefits when an MP
breaks the rules, twists the arms of the bureaucrats and forces
the ministerial staff to fudge their numbers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of my hon. friend's question is totally
wrong.
The Prime Minister is not personally involved. This matter was
dealt with by officials according to the structure of the
program. My hon. friend ought to withdraw his unwarranted slur
on the Prime Minister.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
said that the Prime Minister was involved and I will explain
further.
The human resources minister's staff was concerned because the
Prime Minister's announcements were forcing them to break the
rules. Robert Thériault wrote that it was a difficult decision
since they departed from regional guidelines. He said that they
would have liked to have given another answer but that he had no
choice. He had no choice because the Prime Minister promised the
promoters this pot of cash. The HRD minister got the marching
orders.
Why does the Prime Minister equate fudging the numbers or
skirting the rules with being a good member of parliament?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely false in
the assertions he is making.
Let us look at the whole story here. The transitional jobs fund
is there to help create jobs in areas of high unemployment. This
was an area of high unemployment. These projects had broad
public support. No moneys flowed until the appropriate approvals
were in place. Jobs were created.
That is the story. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not what it is all about. Creating jobs is not the issue
here. The problem is dealing with a bunch of very suspicious
characters in the Prime Minister's riding.
Pierre Thibault was one of the men the Prime Minister promised
the money to. Mr. Thibault is a self-confessed embezzler and a
suspect of ongoing criminal investigations.
René Fugère helped the Prime Minister broker that deal. He is
under investigation by the RCMP for illegal lobbying. He has
also received an $11,500 payback for arranging the last federal
grant.
Why does the Prime Minister's definition of being a good member
of parliament include making deals with criminals, suspected
criminals, breaking the government's own grant rules and allowing
paybacks to members of his own constituency association?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's assertions are totally unfounded.
The Prime Minister has not personally made deals with
questionable people. Again I ask the hon. member, if he has any
honour connected with his title, to withdraw those unwarranted
slurs on the Prime Minister.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
someone's honour is being questioned and it is the Prime
Minister's. The Prime—
1420
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask members to be very
judicious in your choice of words.
Mr. Monte Solberg: The Prime Minister promised the two
hotel owners pots of federal cash. They both got it in spite of
the fact that those grants broke the government's own rules.
Equally amazing, both of these people had very shady pasts.
Think about it, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister assured these
characters that they would get government grants. He then forced
the human resources minister to break the rules to ensure
success.
Why does the Prime Minister's Shawinigan job creation plan
involve nothing more than bullying ministers and conspiring with
shady characters?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at the people who supported
these programs: the mayor of Shawinigan; the provincial member,
Mr. Pinard, a péquiste and no friend of the Government of
Canada; members of the Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre; and the Quebec minister of employment.
Is the hon. member suggesting that these people are shady
characters?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they got no money. We know where the shady characters are.
The Prime Minister promised the convicted criminal owner of the
Grand-Mère Inn hundreds of thousands of dollars in government
grants. The Prime Minister then strong-armed the HRD minister to
ignore the government's own rules to ensure that the deal went
through. Not coincidentally, the Prime Minister owned a large
share of the golf course that neighbours the Grand-Mère Inn. In
other words, if the inn does well so does the golf course.
Was it in the Prime Minister's own financial interest that led
to irregular grants to the Grand-Mère Inn?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give a list of a number of people
and organizations who have supported these programs.
What is clear from the questions of opposition members is that
they do not accept that there are areas of high unemployment in
this country. They do not accept, as Canadians believe, that we
have a duty to work with those areas, whether it be in Atlantic
Canada, in Quebec, in Ontario or even in northern British
Columbia.
They do not accept that there is a way for the people of Canada
to help those who are less fortunate to benefit from the success
of this great nation, but we do.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
his bill, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is altering
the nature of the supreme court ruling or opinion on the
required majority.
Yesterday, we quoted a supreme court decision in which it is
stated that all votes must have equal value.
Does the minister realize that, with his bill, he is saying he
can decide that one vote has more value than another, something
which is indefensible in a democracy?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I answered that question yesterday.
A referendum is a consultation. A
consultation must be evaluated by the political authorities,
which must make that evaluation based on various criteria,
including the clarity of the question and the clarity of the
majority.
For something as serious and irreversible as secession, it is
the custom in a democracy to make such a change when there is a
consensus in a society to do it.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
the minister is saying is that he will not abide by a result of
50% plus one. The Prime Minister said the same thing. He is
nodding that he is of the same opinion.
In light of these statements, I say that his vote counts for
more than mine, that the vote of a federalist counts for more
than the vote of a sovereignist.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: In fact, in all his fine
speeches, he keeps telling us that his government will determine
the rules once the game is over—
Is this what he calls democracy? Really?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no change in the rules for the simple reason
that there is no rule on a required majority in a referendum,
neither in Quebec's Referendum Act, nor in Canadian federal law.
A referendum is a consultation, and we evaluate its result. If
the court insisted on the need for a clear majority by using the
expression 13 times, it is because a simple majority of 50% plus
one is not enough to break up a country.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may claim to be clarifying
matters, but everything he touches turns to confusion. While he
accuses others of ambiguity, he is threatening to trample the
basic rules of democracy.
Will the minister admit that the most anti-democratic provision
in his bill is the one allowing the federal parliament to
determine what constitutes a majority, a provision that Claude
Ryan has described as completely ridiculous.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that
the Government of Canada finds itself both agreeing and
disagreeing with Claude Ryan. Mr. Ryan has his own way of
thinking.
As for the question, Mr. Ryan suggested that it be adopted by
two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly and, as for
the majority, on August 21, 1998, Mr. Ryan said “It should
require 50% plus one, not of the votes cast, but of eligible
voters”.
If the Bloc Quebecois wants to accept these two suggestions made
by Mr. Ryan, let it so inform the House. Otherwise, it should
quit trying to ride on his coattails. It is a no go.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
nonetheless, Claude Ryan said that the majority provision in the
minister's bill was completely ridiculous. That is what he said
yesterday.
With the holiday season fast approaching, the minister knows
very well that his bill will be the topic of many a family
discussion in Quebec. Before breaking, can the minister tell us
clearly whether one sovereignist vote is equal to one federalist
vote? Can he finally give the House an answer?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first it was 1-0, then it was 2-0. Let them pull off
three wins in a row and we will talk.
In the meantime, Quebecers think that a clear question would
deal with separation rather than vague motions such as
sovereignty-partnership. The great majority think that a country
should not be broken up over a vote of 50% plus one.
And they think, as the member did when he was at university, that it
would be a poor idea to shift northern Quebec's aboriginals from
one country to another without even asking their opinion.
* * *
[English]
PORT OF HALIFAX
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Halifax port is an economic engine for the metro, for the
province and for the Atlantic region as a whole. But all of that
is threatened.
The transport minister appointed port authority has jacked up
the rent of a key terminal operator by 900%. That means that
workers will lose jobs, that international shippers will go
elsewhere and ultimately the region's economy will suffer.
My question to the minister is simple. Will the transport
minister commit today to help resolve this damaging dispute?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of this dispute. I should
tell my hon. friend that this matter is now before the courts.
Since legal action has been taken, it would be inappropriate for
me to say anything more.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
in this mess because of public policy.
Let me translate the minister's response. The Nova Scotia
economy is at risk and the Liberals do not care. That is what we
heard the minister say. That is not good enough because 7,000
jobs depend on the Halifax port. We know that number will grow
in the coming years but only if the port authority makes
decisions that put the community's interest first.
I ask again, will the minister stop making excuses and get on
with his responsibility to help resolve this dispute?
1430
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be completely unaware of
the purpose of the Canada Marine Act which was to transfer the
operations of these ports to local bodies, people who reflect the
local communities, including representatives from federal,
provincial and municipal governments.
The members of that port authority are outstanding citizens.
They have the ability to manage the port and to maximize the
advantage for the benefit of all people in Nova Scotia and indeed
of all Canada. I am sure they are doing that, but we should not
go down the route in the House of Commons of arguing about
something which is a legal dispute that will be resolved by the
courts.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, three months ago the government said that it would
provide Canadians access to all government services and programs
on the Internet by the year 2004. The secured channel project, a
$5 billion contract to build the electronic gateway, will be one
of the largest contracts ever awarded by the federal government.
Is the Minister of Public Works and Government Services aware
that André Ouellet, president of Canada Post, is negotiating
behind his back with senior officials and ministers that the
contract be given to Canada Post without ever going to public
tender?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows
Canada Post launched its electronic post office two weeks ago in
Toronto. Yes, it is in negotiations and the negotiations are
ongoing as to whether the government should use part of its
system.
Canada Post is a crown corporation and belongs to the Government
of Canada. It is normal that there should be some discussion
going on.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, typically that explains nothing. Surely the
minister is aware of treasury board guidelines requiring all
government contracts to go out for a competitive bid unless they
meet a very narrow criteria, or unless one's name is André
Ouellet.
Will the public works minister direct the president of Canada
Post to stop trying to sabotage the competitive bidding process
and guarantee that all other Canadian companies will have an
equal opportunity and equal chance to bid on this $5 billion
contract?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no process.
There is no competition out there. There is only discussion.
Instead of asking me to direct the Canada Post president, who is
trying to provide a good service for Canadians, the hon. member
should tell his lobbyist to stay out of trouble.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the funding going
to the Prime Minister's buddies is in direct contravention of
the rules.
It is obvious that the Prime Minister has forced his own
Minister of Human Resources Development to break the rules and
fiddle the figures.
Does the Prime Minister still believe that he has deceived
Canadians by telling them he never benefited from this affair?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see again that the
hon. member is absolutely wrong. What we have here is an
undertaking in an area of high unemployment with projects that
have actually created jobs.
Let me just quote local MNA Mr. Pinard, a député provincial
péquiste, who said:
I find it deplorable that rocks are being thrown at Mr. Chrétien
for having worked within government programs.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members not to use the names
of members who are sitting in the House.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as all
these people are referred to, I wonder if they knew what was
going on behind closed doors. Did those people who accepted this
proposition know what was happening? How can the government
stand to try to defend the indefensible?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member again about
the people in the community that supported these programs, such
as the mayor of Shawinigan; the provincial member, as I pointed
out; members of la Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre; and members of the caisses populaires. Yes, they
know their region. Yes, they know what undertakings will create
jobs in their region. Yes, they wrote to our department and
confirmed that this was an appropriate investment.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
He can say that his Bill C-20 is a bill on clarity, but the fact
is that the provisions on evaluation of the results thrust us
into vagueness and obscurity, and lay open to question the
universally accepted principle that all votes are equal.
1435
Does the minister not understand that 93.52% of registered
voters who cast ballots in the last referendum in Quebec did so
specifically because they were convinced that all votes were
equal?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all votes are of course equal, and after that the
outcome is evaluated.
Is the hon. member by any chance suggesting that every
referendum in Quebec in which there is a result of 50% plus one
ought to be acted on? If so, he ought to get on the phone right
away to the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is just one thing that is unclear for Quebec: the
convoluted arguments of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
I will ask him only one question through you, Mr. Speaker: is my
vote equal to his vote?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our votes are equal of course, which is what yielded
the 49.4% yes vote last time. As far as I know, the PQ
government was quick to say “until next time”. If it lost the
next time there was a referendum, would it say the same again?
It will start all over again.
The crux of the problem, however, is that if ever, after a yes
vote, separation were to occur, unfortunately, the people who
had voted no would not be able to say “until next time”. The
act would be irreversible, and would commit our children, our
children's children, and the generations after that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not know where it came from,
but I heard the word liar.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The other day the hon. member for
Roberval was among those who told us that the right to free
speech here in this House had to be protected. It must be
protected for all members.
I therefore ask all members never to use these words during oral
question period or during debate.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is attempting to throw up a smokescreen when
answering questions about shady deals in Shawinigan by pointing
to a handful of individuals who support the deal. There are
millions of Canadians who do not support it.
Let us review the facts. The Prime Minister promised a
convicted criminal and a confessed embezzler hundreds of
thousands of dollars in government grants. The deal was helped
along by René Fugère who is under RCMP investigation for illegal
lobbying. Not coincidentally the Prime Minister owned a large
share of the golf course which neighbours the Grand-Mère inn.
Is it not true that the Prime Minister's interest in these
dealings goes beyond simply creating jobs in his riding?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, it is not true.
1440
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister intervened to give a
convicted criminal access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in
taxpayer money. He discussed the deal with two shady characters,
and one of the criminals owns the hotel next to the Prime
Minister's old golf course.
Why does the Prime Minister insist that he was just being a good
MP when it is obvious to everyone that his dealings benefited him
politically?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is a captive of the clouds in his own
mind because it is obvious only to him that there was wrongdoing
by the Prime Minister. This is not true. This is not true.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
Mr. Trudeau pointed out in 1958:
In national politics, English Canadians have long behaved as if
they believed that democracy was not made for French Canadians.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that his
clarity bill perpetuates the same bias regarding the ability of
Quebecers to democratically decide their future?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we Quebecers are lucky enough to have two governments
and two parliaments that have constitutional powers, one in
Quebec City and one in Ottawa. These two parliaments have a
responsibility to never let us lose Canada in confusion.
As long as we want to stay in Canada we will stay, because we
built this country, and the national assembly will fulfil that
responsibility in its own fashion and so will the Parliament of
Canada.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are on the eve of the Christmas holiday. Quebec families will be
discussing the minister's bill when they get together.
Should that bill not be clear and should the minister not give a
nice present by clearly stating that in a future referendum no
vote will have more weight than another one and, therefore,
recognize the legitimacy of the 50% plus one rule?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that rule does not exist. It is not written anywhere in
the Quebec Referendum Act. In fact, the white paper that
underlies this act clearly states that the reason it is not
necessary to set a majority threshold is that the political
authorities will be able to evaluate the result on the basis of
what is at stake and of the clarity of the process.
Above all, we Quebecers like clarity. We are clearly saying that
we no longer want confusing questions like the one asked in 1995.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
how things change. When Brian Mulroney found himself in a
scandal Liberal rat packers were all over him. Today they
applaud and cheer a Prime Minister who negotiated taxpayer funded
grants for criminals and allowed a minister of the crown to break
the government's own rules by becoming associated with suspected
criminals who got secret commissions from these grants.
Will the government House leader or the minister of heritage
stand today to explain how this is any different from what they
used to raise hell about in the House?
The Speaker: I wish we would stay away from words like
hell and damn. We do not need them. We have other words we can
use.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at this another way. In
terms of these projects only 10% of the funding came from
transitional jobs funds. The rest came from private sector
investors, from private and public financial institutions, from
local communities and even from a union investment fund.
Is the hon. member suggesting that these people did not know
what they were doing or who they were partnering with? Is he
suggesting that they did not believe these projects were the
right thing to do in this region? They agreed that investments
by the federal government along with their investments was the
right thing to do to help create jobs in this area of very high
unemployment.
1445
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is
remaining quiet in this but let us look at some of the facts.
The ministry of human resources staffer Thériault made it very
clear to departmental personnel what they were up against. He
said the proposed grants broke the rules, needed to be
artificially inflated to meet the dollar amounts promised by the
Prime Minister and had to proceed no matter what.
Let me rephrase my question. Can the Minister of Canadian
Heritage or the House leader explain how this is any different
from what Brian Mulroney did which drove the Tories to two seats
in the House? How is what the Prime Minister is doing any
different from what Brian Mulroney did?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed that the member would be
complaining about members doing work to help constituents in
their ridings. Every single day this week the member has
privately crossed the floor to talk to me about a particular
project in his riding. It involves considerable expenditure of
the taxpayers' money but of course I want to consider it because
I respect the integrity of the member.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs claims to be piloting through a bill
on referendum clarity while telling us in the same breath that
the 1995 referendum was unclear.
How can the minister make such an erroneous statement when we
know that 93% of registered voters cast their ballot, that
thousands of Canadians attended a rally urging us to stay in
Canada, and that the Prime Minister himself said that the choice
was final, stay or leave?
How can he now say that the stakes were not clear?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member knows perfectly well that, if the question
had been about separation or independence, support would never
have been as high as 49%, and that, on October 30, 1995—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: On October 30, 1995, 49% of Quebecers were
not in favour of separation. Let us be honest—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Essex.
* * *
[English]
YEAR 2000
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the year
2000 is fast approaching and some Canadians still fear the
possibility of computer problems. Can the President of the
Treasury Board assure Canadians today that the government is
ready to deal with any potential problems?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague from Essex for the question. I know that as
chair of the industry committee she has been following this issue
very carefully.
The health, safety, security and well-being of Canadians remain
our priority. I am pleased to report that the government-wide
mission critical systems are over 99% ready. Although we do not
expect any major disruptions, we have developed contingency plans
so Canadians will continue to receive essential services in our
country. Indeed we work very closely with provincial governments
and the private sector.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage tries to deflect
accusations by saying that the Prime Minister was just being a
good MP. In the past, the Prime Minister himself has compared
the grants he has doled out in Shawinigan to the recipient who
got a grant in my riding.
1450
But here is the difference and let us be very clear about this.
I did not sell a money losing business to the recipient in my
riding. I did not even know the recipient personally. No person
from my riding association received an $11,000 payment for
landing the grant.
My question for the Prime Minister is, will he drop the charade
and just admit that this had little to do with jobs in his riding
but a lot to do with keeping his job in Ottawa?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is the hon. member saying he recommended a project and
he did not do anything about it? What is straightforward about
that. He owes more explanation to the House about what he did
with respect to that project. Why was he recommending something
without checking it out first?
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
issue is that René Fugère represented the Prime Minister in his
riding when he was out of town. He even spoke on his behalf. For
helping the Prime Minister broker a deal with shady hoteliers,
René Fugère got $11,500 and the Prime Minister does nothing about
it. Why does the Prime Minister turn a blind eye?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is making an unwarranted accusation
saying the Prime Minister was linked with every activity of Mr.
Fugère. There are investigations under way. We do not have the
conclusions of these investigations. I think the hon. member
should withdraw his unwarranted slur.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in a letter dated April 9, 1998 the health minister
acknowledged the difficulty of requiring drug companies to verify
safety and efficacy if drugs are approved conditionally. He
actually wrote “I do not think we should wait for such a
situation to occur. Rather we should put into place a new policy
and to follow as soon as possible with appropriate regulations”.
Twenty months after that we do not have regulations, only the
approval of six new drugs of dubious safety status.
Why is the Minister of Health condoning an unlawful policy? Why
has he neglected his role as guardian of Canada's much needed
health protection system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada gets pharmaceutical products into the hands or the
veins of patients as soon as possible, consistent with our being
assured that they are safe and effective.
Recently we do that more quickly than in the past because we
found ways within the law out of compassion for people who are
suffering or in the late stages of disease. We do that because
we want treatments in the hands of physicians and patients as
soon as possible and consistent with public safety.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, he did not answer the question why he is not operating
within the law. If compassion was his concern, he should have
ensured that the policy had the regulatory teeth necessary to
enforce it. Instead everything is in limbo and subject to abuse.
The fact of the matter is there is chaos in the minister's
department. There is lack of scientific capacity. There is a
backlog of submissions and his department is vulnerable to drug
company pressures.
Will the Minister of Health stop searching and reaching for
quick fixes outside the law and take control of his department to
ensure that the staff, the resources and the regulations are in
place to protect Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the health protection branch operates entirely within the law. We
operate motivated by compassion and concern for people who need
treatments. We always operate so as to safeguard public safety
and getting drugs on to the market that are effective.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has now
admitted that there are private discussions going on between the
government and Canada Post with respect to the secured channel
project. By this admission is the minister confirming that this
$5 billion contract will not go to public tender?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course we have
had discussions with Canada Post. Public works, Treasury Board
and other departments have daily discussions. Canada Post is a
crown corporation. It belongs to the Government of Canada and to
the people of Canada.
1455
Right now we are discussing a very important project that will
cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Before we go to tender we
want to make sure that we have the right program and the right
measure. This is a very important contract. I am not going to
take any direction from the private firms that would like to get
the project.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced on December
3 at an NGO meeting and later in response to a Liberal question
in the House that her department is starting a pilot project
whereby all refugee claimants will receive photo identification
cards for better access to social services. Is this also a pilot
project for exit controls? When was this project discussed at
the standing committee?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that as of
December 1 a pilot project which would ease through the
establishment of identification refugee claimants to the services
that they need was put in effect. This was as a result of
conversations particularly with the municipality of Toronto to
understand the stresses and pressures on shelter and hostel
systems. We will be evaluating this and after a period of three
months, we will know whether or not this is an effective measure
in responding to the needs of municipalities.
I want to thank the member for his question. I think this is
very important.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Sharpe board of inquiry is investigating serious health
problems with Canadian forces members. Today the board in its
provisional findings indicated it believes combat stress is the
most likely cause of symptoms in CF members who served in Croatia
and are now sick.
Would the minister please tell the House what action the
department is taking to help CF members who are suffering from
combat stress?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this report is an important step in
helping to ensure that corrective action is taken to ensure that
we look after the health care needs of our Canadian forces
personnel.
If any of our personnel serve overseas and they go over well but
come back sick, we need to look after them and give them the
support they and their families need in order to get better
again. That is a commitment of the government. It is a
commitment I make, to implement the recommendations of this
report as quickly as possible.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has said that everything is in order with respect to
grants given in the Prime Minister's riding.
We have access to information requests which detail that not
only did the officials in the HRD department have to inflate job
costs, they had to depart from the guidelines. They had no
choice in this matter. They had to adhere to the grants announced
by the Prime Minister in press conferences and private meetings
with the promoters.
After question period I will ask for permission to table these
documents. Will the government also table all the documents it
has surrounding these shady Shawinigan dealings?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House today the
number of partners that supported these projects in a riding of
high unemployment. I can only assume that members of the Reform
Party just do not accept that there are areas of high
unemployment, that they do not accept that the federal government
has a role to play to ensure that Canadians in these areas have
opportunities to find work. Reform Party members just do not
agree with what Canadians believe to be the duty of the
government. They want these areas to fester with levels of
unemployment that we just will not accept.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE GAMES
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what a surprise
this morning to learn that the federal government is refusing to
give French a clear priority status at the Francophone Games to
be held in Ottawa and Hull in 2001.
According to our information, these games were held in French in
Morocco and in Madagascar, where French is not even the official
language.
Is it too much to ask of the minister responsible that the
Francophone Games be held in French, please?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is ridiculous.
Obviously, the Francophone Games will be held in French. As for
the claim that they were solely in French in Madagascar, that is
incorrect.
* * *
1500
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Veterans Affairs has two important files on his desk
and I ask him if he will have cabinet deal with them today?
The first is to give approval to the compensation settlement
agreed upon by the merchant mariners. Second, the German
government appears to have made a decision to provide
compensation for some prisoners of war.
Is the minister aware of this and will he ensure that those
brave Canadian soldiers wrongfully sent to the Buchenwald
concentration camp will finally receive a just settlement beyond
the insulting pittance given a year ago? Will the minister and
his cabinet bring joy at Christmastime to the merchant mariners
and our Buchenwald survivors?
The Speaker: I am sure all of us want to hear what will
probably or possibly be the last question in this millennium.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the representatives of our
veterans organizations who came to an agreement last night and
presented to me a document today in which they are now all on
board representing all our veterans.
I remind the hon. member who asked the question that we have
arrived at this point because we have been careful and thorough.
The hon. member stands in this place today and says that because
Christmas is a-comin' he wants me to hop to the tune of Here
Comes Santa Claus.
That is not the Liberal way of doing things. The Liberal way of
doing things is to do it right and then we all sing the
Hallelujah Chorus.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34.1,
I have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian
interparliamentary union group which represented Canada at the
54th General Assembly of the United Nations, held in New York
from October 25 to 27, 1999.
I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to table this
report.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1505
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, during question period I
referred several times to and quoted from documents that I
received through access to information requests some time ago.
The government questioned the validity of some of the statements
I made. I would like to table those documents with the House now
so that they can be quoted accurately.
The Speaker: The hon. member needs unanimous consent. Is
it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Am I to understand that, when you ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to table a document, you wait until you get a “no”?
Because to my knowledge, you had the consent of the House
before.
The Speaker: There was a “no”. I heard it and I saw it. But the
answer to the hon. member's question is no.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I think we might have a few more questions in this millennium,
and here comes one right now. I am sure the government House
leader is ready for it.
The official opposition would like to know what the business of
the government would be for the rest of this week, and if it has
any idea or plan as to what it might be doing during the first
week back in the new year.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. Negotiations are presently proceeding among the
parties, but I would like to inform the House that this afternoon
we will continue the prebudget discussions.
Should the House sit tomorrow we would propose to call Bill
C-10, followed by the Senate amendments to Bill C-7. Then the
House would stand adjourned, whether we adjourn tomorrow or today
depending on negotiations, until February 7.
There are a number of bills that we will be proceeding with at
that time, most particularly Bill C-2, the Elections Act. Bill
C-20 is another possibility, but it is too early for the House to
determine the exact order at this point.
Legislation was tabled earlier today as well, but I would
endeavour to contact House leaders of all parties before the time
in question to ensure that they are informed of the program for
at least the first week, with a possibility of making a statement
on opening day to give the exact order for the first week.
In the event that this is the last sitting day of the millennium
I will take the opportunity to wish warm regards to everyone, and
should we come back tomorrow I will do it again.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure all hon. members in the House in the last couple of days
before the year ends believe the House should run more
efficiently and we should look through the lens of issues rather
than the lens of political stripes.
1510
I bring to the attention of the House an incident that occurred
at the scrutiny of regulations committee. This is a very unique
and important joint committee of the House of Commons and the
Senate. On Friday of last week I tabled a report and then I
asked for unanimous consent to move concurrence in the report.
The report was not concurred in because I could not get unanimous
consent.
Today the committee meeting could not be held simply because we
could not proceed with a reduced quorum. As a result the budget
could not be approved and during this holiday season the salaries
of legal counsel who are employees of the committee could not be
approved.
When we ask for unanimous consent it should not create a
situation where unanimous consent is refused because it is one
against the other. Some members of the House feel they have
different motives or different objectives. I seek some advice
from the Chair on how to resolve the issue.
The Speaker: Usually the House finds a way around
particular dilemmas. I do not have responses for every question
that is put, but do I understand that the hon. member wants to
ask for unanimous consent to table a document today? If so, I
want him to forthwith tell me that and what the document is. I
do not want any more debate on it. Is the hon. member seeking
unanimous consent?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the spirit of
the holiday season, if the House gives its consent I would move
that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee of Scrutiny
of Regulations, presented to the House earlier last week, be
concurred in.
The Speaker: We might get around to killing two birds
with one stone. As I understand it, and again I did not hear any
others, when the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel
asked to table his paper there was a no from over here. Am I to
understand then that the hon. member for
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel would be disposed to try again
after this one?
Mr. Maurice Dumas: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: We will deal with this one first.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I would like to settle this matter first.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Just a point of information, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I think I have a good idea to deal with all we have
to deal with today, if you will leave it with me.
[English]
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to deposit the
information today? Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the
delegation of the Canadian interparliamentary union group which
represented Canada at the 54th session of the United Nations
General Assembly held in New York City from October 25 to 27, 1999.
I ask for the consent of the House to table this document.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the House
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I
am getting, and it is contradictory, in the case of the hon.
member for Argenteuil—Papineau, we are talking about the tabling
of a report.
In the case of the hon. member for Surrey Central, it is
concurrence in a report. It is not the same thing. Correct me if
I am mistaken.
If the hon. member is asking for concurrence in that report
instead of tabling it, the answer is no, there is no consent.
This is what I wanted to say earlier but you were not
listening, Mr. Speaker. You are letting me down at the end of
this millennium. This is my last point of order.
1515
[English]
The Speaker: There is no other way to say this other than
I made a mistake. I wish the House would get me out of this jam
somehow. I understood that this was simply a request for
unanimous consent by the hon. member for Surrey Central to table
this document. In good faith I thought the two requests were the
same, but they were not the same.
Quite frankly, I do not know how to get out of this whole thing
because I just made a decision. I will let the whips get
together for a few minutes to see if they can come up with some
way out of it. If they can, I would appreciate it very
much. I will await their decision.
1520
There have been discussions among the whips, and thank God for
the whips. Let us see if we can get it right this time.
Colleagues, with your permission, I will start over. The hon.
member for Surrey Central, as I understand, wants concurrence in
a report. I will put that question first. Is there agreement
for concurrence in this report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Now I will deal with the question from the
hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau.
[Translation]
He only wanted to table the report of an interparliamentary
delegation.
[English]
I will now put that question. Is there agreement that he be
allowed to present his report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I now conclude my remarks after question
period.
Today's Globe and Mail editorial was very insightful. It
was entitled “The Surprising Legacy of the Minister of
Finance”. It describes the elimination of the deficit as the
single accomplishment of the Minister of Finance.
It says specifically that the finance minister's triumph on the
deficit is shadowed by wrongheaded policies elsewhere. Of
course, we have already established, as the Economist
magazine reported, that the credit for deficit reduction in
Canada belongs largely to the structural reforms made by the
previous government. Therefore, the finance minister cannot
really claim that one-hit wonder because he did not really author
that one success.
Although the finance minister would like to claim being a one-hit
wonder, he cannot claim even that to his credit.
1525
Let us look at some of the policies he has implemented. While
it is terrible for Liberals to shamelessly take Conservative
policies, to implement those policies and then to take credit for
the impact of those policies, what would be even worse would be
Liberals implementing their own policies. That is what I am
concerned about, because we are starting to see a few of those
policies rear their ugly heads.
A year ago, the finance made his no decision on the bank
mergers. What has been the impact of that decision? I described
earlier the complexities and challenges of the increasingly
interconnected, globally competitive environment. In that
environment, since the minister's decision, Canadian banks have
lost about $9 billion of shareholders' value. During the same
period, American banks have increased in value by about 10%.
Again, as Americans are getting richer, Canadians are getting
poorer.
In making his short-sighted decision on the bank mergers, and
refusing to stand up to the banks to defend the long term
interests of Canadians by negotiating a better deal on behalf of
Canadians in exchange for mergers on issues like jobs, services
to rural communities and those types of things, and in
unilaterally and arbitrarily saying no, the minister has
effectively put his own short term political interests and those
of his leadership aspirations ahead of the interests of the 7.5
million Canadians who own bank shares.
Yes, 7.5 million Canadians, directly or indirectly, own bank
shares and are depending on the returns of those shares for their
retirement funds. Again, that was the minister's decision on
those issues.
The minister has failed to address some of the major crises
facing Canada right now and the need for significant and
broadbased tax reform and tax reduction. On the personal side,
we need significant levels of tax reform. On the corporate side,
we have, as I mentioned earlier, the second highest corporate tax
rates of the 31 countries in the OECD. Last year Germany had the
second highest and we had the third. Germany now has the third
highest because it has reduced its corporate tax burden. This
country continues to cling to the notion that we can tax to death
our companies and our individuals and yet still enjoy some level
of economic growth.
In this current environment, we should be undertaking
significant levels of tax reform. We should be taking the same
courage and vision in our approach to policies that the previous
government took with policies, such as free trade, GST and
deregulation. In our dissenting report, we discussed the need
for broadbased and forward thinking tax reform both on the
personal and corporate side.
The government received an excellent report on corporate
taxation by the Mintz commission. It addressed many of the
significant flaws in our corporate tax system. If implemented,
it would address the distortionary nature of our corporate tax
system, the profit and sensitive taxes that currently create
significant distortions and damage productivity in Canada.
The Mintz report also identified the need to bring our corporate
tax regime more in line with those of other countries. At a time
when other countries are using corporate tax reform and personal
tax reform as vehicles and levers for economic growth, including
Ireland and the Scandinavian countries, this country continues to
cling to the past.
In our minority report, we identified that tax brackets should
be re-indexed. In fact, there is a consensus both on the left
and the right that we should be returning to full indexation of
the tax brackets. The Fraser Institute agrees with the Caledon
Institute in this case. The de-indexation of tax brackets took
place during a time of deficit financing in a very difficult
fiscal period. In a post-deficit time now more than ever, we
need to revisit and eliminate bracket creep which has
unfortunately brought more Canadians onto the tax rolls than we
have ever had before and we need to revisit that, eliminate
bracket creep and re-index tax brackets.
We need to lower the capital gains tax rates. I was pleased to
see that the finance committee report did address this to a
certain extent. We would go further. We would reduce the
capital gains inclusion rate to 50% from the current 75%.
The fact is that we could reduce our personal capital gains tax
rates to be equivalent with those of the U.S. It would cost
about $240 million per year. For the dramatic unlocking of
capital that would occur and for the economic growth that would
ensue with that type of visionary policy, $240 million per year
is a small price to pay.
1530
Unfortunately, public policy, in particular for the Liberal
government, is focused more often on perception rather than
reality. There is a stubborn intransigence in areas of capital
gains tax and corporate tax reform. That is why the government
has shelved the Mintz report and ignored many of its
recommendations.
We would like to see the government set and keep firm debt
reduction targets. This is very important. Our country is now
in a worse debt to GDP ratio situation than those countries of
the EU. We would not qualify under the Maastricht treaty to
participate in the common currency of Europe. This is comparing
Canada with bastions of fiscal fortitude like France. It is not
exactly a positive indicator that we have not been able to
maintain the same or lower debt to GDP ratios than our cousins in
Europe.
We would suggest that the foreign content limit be increased to
50% immediately, and ultimately be eliminated once we have had an
opportunity to evaluate the impact of it. The finance committee
is recommending some level of incremental increase over a period
of time.
I would argue that at this stage, with the dramatic infusion of
capital into the Canadian equity markets, with the Canada pension
plan funds and the superannuation funds that we are going to be
seeing, there has never been a better time than now to end this
economic imprisonment that forces Canadians to accept lower
returns, which have cost about $32,000 to the average RRSP over
time.
During a time when the Dow Jones has appreciated 300%, the TSC
has performed in many ways anemically, gaining about 100%. I
referred to it earlier as fiscal or economic imprisonment. I
think it is very important, in particular while the government
clings to the types of tax and regulatory policies that will
pummel initiatives in Canada, that it release Canadians and allow
them an opportunity to invest some of their hard earned dollars
to ensure that they can enjoy a relatively good quality of life
in the future.
We would suggest that the government take very seriously the
call for a national highway program and that it increase the
proportion of gas taxes that are currently returned to the
provinces for highway spending from the current 5%, which is the
lowest of any industrialized country, to about 15%.
This is an area of utmost importance. While there is some need
for new spending in some of the traditional areas such as health
care, and the farm crisis and the highway system need to be
addressed, the government should not engage in new spending
programs, including the child care initiative in which some
Liberal backbenchers want to engage.
At a time like this in Canada, when we have never faced more
fierce global competitiveness issues, we need to take time to
step back and evaluate what is happening in other countries.
Other countries are dramatically using innovative tax policies to
create levels of economic growth. Other countries are reducing
and maintaining lower levels of government spending and lower
levels of debt to create the economic environment that will
ensure growth.
Other countries are taking on regulatory burden. One of our
suggestions is that we have a regulatory budget to allow elected
members of the House to debate the merits of individual pieces of
regulation so that we do not see a continued growth of regulation
by stealth.
This is my last speech of this millennium in the House. I would
hope in the future, in the next millennium, that we would take
more seriously the competitiveness issues facing Canadians and
that we would actually lead the global environment to create a
better environment, instead of simply following and playing
catch-up, as the government seems want to do at this time.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank my friend for his thoughtful speech. He is a great
asset on the finance committee and thinks a lot about these
issues.
1535
I have a question for my friend. Many of his colleagues in the
Conservative Party have advocated enriching employment insurance
benefits. Would he tell me what his personal stand is on that
issue and what is the stance of his party?
If I do not have another opportunity, I also want to wish all
members a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Medicine Hat, my friend and colleague on the finance
committee, for his question.
Employment insurance benefits, particularly those relating to
seasonal workers, is a very important issue. The Liberals
slashed these benefits after 1995. That created a situation
which I do not think even the government expected, and the law of
unintended consequences kicked in.
In many cases the slashing of those EI benefits resulted in
people who worked seasonally going on provincial social
assistance rolls and not working at all. I would assume that the
hon. member would agree with me that that created a greater
reduction in productivity and human enrichment than would have
existed previously.
That being the case, my personal views on this would be that we
should investigate and revisit the notion of individual EI
accounts. There was a study done in the U.K. a couple of years
ago. It was reported in the Economist magazine in the fall
of 1997. It studied the idea of having individual EI accounts
that people would pay into over their lives. Some of the
contributions would be taken from those individual accounts to
top up those who draw more frequently.
That type of change would provide an incentive for people to not
draw frequently. It would have some of the impact which I
believe the Liberals were trying to seek in terms of reducing
abuse of the EI system by way of an incentive method, as opposed
to purely through a penalty or punishment oriented method that
ultimately did not have the effect Liberals wanted.
I am sure the hon. member agrees with me that shifting the
burden of social assistance to the provinces certainly did not
help in any way, shape or form. In fact it prevented many of
these people from participating in the workforce.
It is a complicated issue. There is not a simple, 12 second
answer to that. However, I would enjoy exploring the issue with
the hon. member at any time in the future.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I understand that this may be one of the last few days or
minutes that we have in the House.
A great amount of work has been expended by members from all
sides of the House in committee to come to an agreement on Bill
C-202, which is currently at report stage. It is a private
member's bill which deals with high speed chases. Given that
there is unanimity among the parties and the members, I would
seek unanimous consent to have the bill now read and determined
at third reading to pass on to the Senate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has asked for the unanimous consent of
the House to see Bill C-202 as having been read at third reading.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in the prebudget debate. I am sharing
my time with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville.
As the member for Vancouver Kingsway, I hosted a successful
prebudget consultation in my riding. I wanted to hear from
British Columbians their concerns and ideas on spending the
surplus. Those citizens discussed and shared what they believe
the priorities should be for the next fiscal year.
A clear priority which emerged from that discussion was the need
for tax cuts. However, tax cuts were not to be at the expense of
important social programs such as health, education and poverty.
Vancouver also faces the serious challenge of homelessness, and
many of my constituents expressed grave concerns about this
issue.
1540
I did not only listen to the people in my riding. As a member
of the all-party Standing Committee on Finance I was able to hear
from and speak with many Canadians from British Columbia, the
western provinces and indeed across the country. In this very
public consultation process we heard the needs and wishes of many
Canadians.
Canadians were very clear about the direction the next budget
should take. They want tax cuts and debt reduction. They want
infrastructure development and improvement in all provinces.
They want homelessness and affordable social housing needs to be
addressed. They want the serious shortfall in core funding for
universities and colleges to be reversed. Canadians, whether in
British Columbia or Newfoundland, know what they want and we
listened.
Members of the committee spent long and careful hours analyzing
and discussing what we heard. Our recommendations, based on what
we learned from the public consultations and town hall meetings
held in many ridings, including Vancouver Kingsway, are found in
our committee report which was tabled in the House of Commons
only a few days ago.
I would like to take a moment to commend the committee chair and
the members of the finance committee for their hard work and
dedication over the last few months of the prebudget consultation
process. I would also like to thank the hundreds of Canadians,
individuals and organizations, who took the time and effort to
participate in the prebudget consultation process. All made
highly valuable contributions to the shaping of the committee's
report and recommendations.
Tax reduction is a major part of the committee's
recommendations. We are suggesting that personal income tax
reform be given a high priority. Reduced personal income taxes
would mean that Canadians would keep more of their hard earned
dollars to invest and to spend in the economy. We want to see
the elimination of the 5% personal surtax. Along similar lines,
the child tax credit should be extended.
There is also a need for reduction in the business tax system.
Canadian businesses are competing globally and they must be
allowed the leeway to do so. During the public consultations we
were made clearly aware of how badly infrastructure
revitalization is needed. Comments were made by people from all
regions of Canada about how roads and highways are in dire need
of work.
As a nation which relies heavily on roadway transportation,
whether it is the automotive industry in Ontario or supplies
being transported to Fort Nelson, B.C., we must invest in
infrastructure. Therefore we have recommended a $2.5 billion
federal infrastructure program. Not only would such a program
mark an important contribution to the well-being and safety of
all Canadians, it would create hundreds of new jobs and stimulate
the local economy in many regions of the country.
On the issue of homelessness and affordable social housing,
Canadians are demanding action. The Minister of Labour has
undertaken a national survey to identify the challenges and the—
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I think that, if you count
heads, you will notice that we do not have a quorum in the
House. In order for our hon. colleague to deliver her speech in
front of the audience she so rightly deserves, I would ask that
you call in the members, so as to have a quorum.
1545
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We do not have a
quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would ask you to seek the unanimous consent of the House to
approve the motion that the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge put to the House earlier on Bill C-202.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, I
cannot ask for unanimous consent unless I know specifically what
we are talking about.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has
undertaken a national survey to identify the challenges and help
develop meaningful solutions. We must support her efforts.
I have personally visited the Portland Hotel Society in
Vancouver's downtown eastside, the poorest postal code in Canada.
This noteworthy organization works with poor and low income
individuals to provide housing and services. It tries to address
the needs of a group which faces numerous challenges such as drug
and alcohol abuse, HIV positive, mental illness, poverty and
social isolation.
Every day the personnel of the Portland Hotel Society work to
rescue those who have fallen through the cracks of our social
safety network. The manager of this affordable housing project
clearly expressed her concern for the plight of homeless
individuals. We must endeavour to build national partnerships to
address this urgent problem.
Increased support for post-secondary education in Canada is
needed. Education is an essential element to ensure that our
children will gain the knowledge to allow them to compete on an
equal footing in the new global economy. Knowledge is the key
for the 21st century. Canadian universities and colleges must
have a sustainable level of core funding.
I am pleased that the finance committee is recommending a
balanced approach for our budget to ensure solid fiscal health in
the future. It is clear our Liberal government not only listens
to Canadians for their financial interests and needs, we also
will build a better future for our younger generation.
May I take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues a very
happy holiday season.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the hon. member, my colleague on the finance
committee, has to do with the issue of leaky condominiums in
British Columbia.
On a recent visit there I met with some community groups. I was
disturbed to learn that 50,000 condominium owners in British
Columbia have been badly served by a systemic government failure
at the federal, provincial and municipal levels which has left
the 50,000 homeowners with repair bills in each case on average
of $24,000 to $25,000.
The PC Party of Canada supports allowing eligible homeowners to
withdraw up to $20,000 of their RRSPs without penalty for use in
repairs to be repaid over 15 years.
Additionally, we would support the government matching the
provincial government's sales tax relief with a GST rebate on
qualified repairs and renovations for leaky condominiums. We
would also allow an income tax deduction for repair expenses for
the condominium owners.
1550
Would the hon. member support these tax measures which would
address the issues for the leaky condominium owners?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his question. This is an issue of concern in B.C. and many
other places. As a matter of fact we in the B.C. caucus have
repeatedly tried to address this issue. In the meantime, we will
try to seek an increase in rent support. At the present time we
have $75 million. We are trying to see if this can be made
interest free. This is the direction we are planning to take and
this will help some of the needy tenants.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take particular exception to the
comments I have just heard.
The member mentioned the Liberal members from British Columbia.
I made a sincere attempt to get an all party, behind closed doors
meeting to see if we would get one voice from British Columbia so
we would not be fighting each other on the leaky condo issue. I
received a very curt letter from the chairman of the Liberal
caucus in British Columbia saying that they would have nothing to
do with it.
I would like the member to tell me why in trying to provide some
relief for leaky condo owners in British Columbia it is the
Liberal government that appears to be the sticky point. We want
some leadership from the government to pull all the players
together because it is a system-wide failure. It is a disaster
that is analogous to the ice storm in this end of the country.
I would like a clarification from the member. Why did the
Liberal caucus in British Columbia reject a sincere approach to
try and get one voice from British Columbia on this issue?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my
colleague for his efforts. I want the record to show that I do
recognize his efforts in trying to solve the leaking condominium
issue. We have not given up on this issue. We are still working
on it and we want to find the best solution. I thank the member
for his continued interest.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague is talking about the budget. I would ask
her how she, as a member from British Columbia, could possibly
defend the slash and burn approach the government has taken since
1993 in the areas of health care and education? The government
has removed approximately $21 billion in this area while
reinvesting, as the Liberals like to say, $11 billion. This
leaves a $10 billion shortfall. How can the member justify that?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, as we all know the
government has provided $11.5 billion over the next five years.
I do not think we are cutting. We are actually increasing the
transfer payments. In the meantime, we want all the provinces to
join together and work together.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will say at the outset that you need not apologize to me for
getting my point of order confused. I was a bit confused myself.
It was the spirit of the need for haste which threw me off.
I am very honoured to participate in the prebudget debate.
Having sat through the morning and now part of the afternoon on
this issue, a couple of things strike me and I want to point out
a few things. I am not on the finance committee. This is not an
apology, but I am trying to bring a different perspective to the
issue.
I have taken a quick look at the document we have been
referencing as well as the minority reports from the various
parties. It is very clear that it is an extremely hardworking
committee. Understandably and not surprisingly, various parties
are taking traditional stands on issues. I think if we put the
entire package together, including the minority reports, we have
a good handle on the numbers which make our economy work.
1555
On the issue of tax cuts, we have been around that a number of
times. That argument is over. It is very clear the government
needs to address the level of taxation.
We make a mistake if we assume that tax cuts are it. I do not
argue for a minute that tax cuts are not part of it; what I
suggest is that tax cuts are not all of it. What I am hearing
from some speakers is that this is somehow a panacea to make the
economy work in some magical way: let us eliminate government
altogether; let us cut taxes so much that we are actually giving
money to be Canadians. I do not know where this ridiculous
argument ends.
If we look at the forces at play in our economy today,
especially globalization, dismantling and devolving the federal
government at this time is sheer lunacy. It is very opportune
politics to go around and ask people if they think they pay too
much tax. We would have to go into many doughnut stores before
we would find somebody who said, “No, I want to pay more”.
It is fundamentally misleading to talk about American level
taxation unless we want to talk about American level social
spending. If Canadians are confronted with that reality they may
say that yes, everybody wants to pay less tax, but what they
really want is to get value for their expenditures. I want to
leave the numbers aside because it is not all about numbers.
I listened with great interest to my Reform colleague. I would
suggest to him that somehow burying our heads in a pail of
pay stubs is not going to provide the vision that Canadians will
require in terms of leadership from the federal government on the
verge of the new millennium. We have to look for that kind of
balance.
We certainly had a short term crisis. With a $42 billion
deficit we were essentially up to our ass in alligators, but we
are over that now. Through the fiscal management and commitment
of all Canadians and the hard work of the committee, we got
ourselves to a crossroads. The decisions we have to make at that
crossroads are whether we will continue to have our planning
horizon mirror the election cycle or will we think three, four,
five, six, seven generations down the line and start making some
of the decisions that will make our economy sustainable.
The number of people who are in on this debate is interesting.
It took the premier of Ontario all of 24 hours to break his
self-imposed rule that he was not going to comment on areas of
federal jurisdiction. The premier of Ontario is calling on the
federal government to put in a balanced budget law which
essentially makes it illegal to run a deficit. It is big brother
at its worst, that somehow we can come up with decision making
algorithms and eliminate the human side of government altogether,
that we can put these things in a formula and the computers will
govern the country for us.
Surprisingly I have to say that I agree with Mr. Harris. We
should not go into deficits in this country but I would argue
that his definition of deficit is far too narrow. I would gladly
support statutory regulations that prevent us from going into
social deficits and from going into environmental deficits as
well because that is where we have some very serious problems. I
would like us to address literacy issues with the same vigour
that we are addressing some of the tax reforms that members are
talking about today.
In terms of specific areas for tax reform, as a member of the
subcommittee on persons with disabilities I would offer as a
suggestion, and unfortunately it did not make the report, that we
need to look at the way the tax system treats people with
disabilities. They are required to use the medical exemption
which is an exemption designed for catastrophic health events in
a person's life on an ongoing basis. This is a very difficult
deduction for people with disabilities to make.
I hope and trust that our government, as we flavour the next
budget as a children's budget, will make sure we capture in that
envelope children with disabilities. It is important that all
Canadians share in the economic growth that we have been enjoying
in the last few years.
I listened with great interest to my Conservative colleague who
is, I understand, an economist. I am not, although I must say I
held up my end of the bell curve in a few economics classes. He
talked rather flippantly about having a hypocrisy tax on the
Liberals and somehow that would get us out of debt.
In all seriousness, I would suggest to him that maybe we should
put in place a failure to learn from one's mistakes tax because
of the Conservative's stand on the referendum law. That party's
members need to learn the lesson of sitting around the table with
separatists when trying to run this country. It is not too late
for them to change their mind. The Reform Party did it and it
seems to have worked. They need to come onboard, but I will
leave that alone because it is obviously salt in a widening
wound.
1600
I do want to recognize the NDP member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar on his maiden speech. I thought it
was an excellent speech. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle then
got up and again picked up on some very positive themes. They
are themes I am mirroring here today in terms of there being more
to it than economics and crunching the numbers.
The member from Regina then made a fatal mistake when he talked
about half the surplus going to spending, half going to debt
reduction and half going to tax reduction. Apart from being
impossible in terms of geometry, it is that third half of money
that the NDP does not have a sense of reality about. We have to
pay for these things. To somehow invent a new half, apart from
the fact that it defies the laws of physics, it also does not
resonate with voters. Having gone through the debt and the
deficit and the cycle of spending and taxing, the voters
understand that at the end of the day we have to pay the piper.
We cannot spend money we do not have. It is a rather old adage
but it does not hurt to remind ourselves of that from time to
time.
I will touch on the repeated references to the GDP. It is a
real fallacy in the country when we link our well-being to gross
domestic product. Economic indicators are important but they do
not tell the whole story.
Let us consider the fact that when children get asthma because
of air pollution, the price of their inhalers is added to the
GDP. When we have wells go bad in rural Canada because of
groundwater problems, rural Canadians buy bottled water, and that
is added to the GDP. When people replace stolen property or put
security systems in their homes, that increases our GDP. When
the insurance industry has to spend billions of dollars, as it
did in eastern Ontario after the ice storm, because of
increasingly violent weather events, our GDP goes up. When
planes crash off of Peggy's Cove, our GDP goes up. As a nation
and as the new millennium is looking us in the face, the beans
need to be counted but we do not govern by the numbers.
It is not unlike driving a bus full of Canadians barrelling down
the road, staring at the speedometer. From repeated
consultations I have had with groups across the country, the
people of Canada are looking out the windows. They are expecting
the government to take some leadership, certainly in the area of
sustainable economies, but they also want to see us move toward
sustainable social systems where all people share in the benefits
that are generated and certainly in sustainable environmental
policies. At the end of the day, air, water and soil are
fundamentally important to the well-being of Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, National Defence; the hon.
member for Halifax West, Equality; the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River, Gun Control.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time. I am pleased to
speak today on the prebudget allotted time. However, I have to
question this exercise which has gone on for months now. The
finance committee has travelled across the country hearing from
every group of the political spectrum. I was on this committee
for some of its travels and I sat through many of the hearings
here on the Hill.
The all-party Standing Committee on Finance has now filed its
prebudget report with the House. It is entitled “Budget 2000:
New Era, New Plan”, and has 45 recommendations. My prediction
is that the finance minister's budget will not resemble our
committee's recommendations, just as it has been every year with
the Liberals in government.
The feedback I received from across the country centred around
tax relief. Not every group that presented testimony called for
tax relief. Many Liberals and socialists were calling for
further program spending.
In fact, I am certain that some would like to see the entire
surplus put toward spending initiatives. They would choke us all
with big government. However, I would say that the majority
spoke passionately about the need for tax relief. Whether it was
relief on the capital gains tax, income tax or just taxes in
general, the theme was the same.
1605
Getting back to the committee, the members of parliament on both
sides of the House spent much time listening to the grassroots
tell them what was needed in the next federal budget. At the end
of the day, members will ask themselves if it was worth it. We
in the House know that the committee passed a controversial
amendment on the unwise 50:50 plan of spending balanced with tax
relief and debt reduction only to have this reversed the next
when the word came down.
Committees in this place are run like a dictatorship. It is the
government's way or it is no way. Canadians need to know that
their voices mean little to this administration as evidenced over
the years by what the government has brought forward in policy.
Walter Robinson of the Taxpayers Federation makes the parallel of
the prebudget to a Hollywood movie. The previews look really
good, but when we show up and pay we are really disappointed.
Reform has, from its inception, been calling for tax relief.
Reformers are not alone in this view. The Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants said that tax reduction would significantly
increase economic growth and employment. The Certified General
Accountants Association agree. The International Monetary Fund
is pushing for Canada to abandon its 50:50 plan and begin
tackling the $570 billion debt more aggressively, in addition to
giving extensive tax relief.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce does not want to see tax
reduction take a back seat to new program spending. The C.D.
Howe Institute says that Canadians are underemployed, overtaxed
and unproductive in comparison to many of our trading partners.
The OECD says that Ottawa should give the highest priority to
cutting personal taxes, accelerating its reductions in EI
surpluses and work with provincial governments to lower business
taxes.
These are respectable groups in the financial community. They
are all saying the same thing, of what is a wise course to build
a better country for everyone, especially for those of low or no
income. How can the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and
the caucus be so out of touch with reality?
Canadians know about the Liberal plan and they know that is much
about image, about favouring the sectors that support them and
about playing the role of benevolence to an electorate that is
supposed to be appreciatively grateful for what it has done for
them. In other words, the more surplus the more lolly the
ministers can dole out to friends in their ridings. A case in
point is the transitional jobs fund for which the Liberals'
behaviour with just that one program should be evidence enough
for them to be sent packing after the next election.
Reform has a great plan, a plan that will bring Canada back to
standing firmly on sound economics and fiscal responsibility,
capable of protecting Canadians from troubles in other countries.
Much of it has been laid out in the committee minority report and
I urge everyone to read it.
Many of my colleagues before me have spoken at length about our
plan, and I will try again to highlight a few of the points.
First, we would scrap the unwise 50:50 promise. I think if we
asked Liberal members today most would agree. Members across may
scoff at this, but if this were not true, why did such an
amendment pass the committee last week? This is an embarrassment
for them because they know we are correct. They know that the
Liberal members who voted in favour of scraping the 50:50 in
committee are correct. The kind of underhanded scheming that went
on in the finance committee to change it in the last minute was
deplorable.
Second, Reform would reduce the capital gains tax. I will refer
to the United States for a minute to show a chronology of what
happened when it tinkered with the capital gains tax rate.
Between 1970 and 1977, the capital gains tax in the United States
increased. Revenues collected from this tax decreased. In 1978,
the rate was cut sharply and revenues soared. In 1987, the rate
was raised again and revenues stagnated. In 1997, the rate was
in the 10% to 20% range and the result was that revenues from the
adjustment increased by 40%. The numbers do not lie. Why is the
minister and the government ignoring what is so plain and simple
to everyone else?
Third, Reform would eliminate bracket creep. I will read what
the OECD said about bracket creep. It stated:
The burden on Canadian taxpayers has increased over the last
several years largely as a result of a non-indexed tax system.
The lack of full indexation has pushed around 20 per cent of tax
filers into higher tax brackets over the past ten years,
resulting in increasing average tax rates at all income levels
(although proportionately more for low- and middle-income
individuals).
Let us say that the average worker receives a cost of living
raise, that person could possibly be moved into a higher tax
bracket, pay higher taxes and in fact probably never notice the
raise. That person may even see their income decrease.
In the past 12 years, bracket creep has pulled more than a
million low income Canadians into the income tax net. Most of
these are the working poor who, under the Reform plan, would pay
no tax.
1610
I find it interesting that the Liberals, who have always
pretended to take the side of the disadvantaged, would not be
doing everything in their power to eliminate bracket creep.
Reformers, on the other hand, are advocating fairness for
Canadians. Why will the Liberals not follow suit? They are
raising revenue via the back door. It is underhanded and it is
simply wrong.
Fourth, Reform would hold the line on spending. This is
something dear to the hearts of the Liberals, the desire to
spend. Next to the NDP, no other political party in the country
spends like the Liberals. Spending allows cabinet ministers to
dole out sweet deals to their supporters. We do not have to look
any further than the transitional jobs fund, a program for
creating jobs in federal ridings where the unemployment rate is
supposed to be above 12%. According to the national accounts of
Canada, government program spending has never been higher than it
is today.
Let us take a look at the numbers. In 1997-98, the Liberals
overspent by $2.95 billion or 2.79%. Budget 1997 planned
spending was $105.8 billion; actual spending was $108.8 billion.
It gets worse. In 1998-99, the Liberals overspent by $6.9
billion or 7%. Budget 1998 planned expenditures were $104.5
billion but actual spending was $111.4 billion.
In 1999-2000, all indications point again to overspending and a
budget plan that already has in it fat, questionable categories.
Farmers in the prairies are suffering, yet the government says
that it has no money. The RCMP is understaffed in British
Columbia, yet the government put millions into a flawed gun
registration program. The residential crisis of leaky condos in
British Columbia cries out for help, yet the Liberals are
nowhere.
Reform is not saying that government should not spend money.
What we are calling for is control on spending and a more
reasonable reallocation. Where is the expenditure management
program that was once in place? This needs to be a permanent
fixture whether or not there is a surplus.
I could go on and on about the fiscal mismanagement of the
Liberals since they took office in 1993. They are truly not wise
managers of the public trust. There needs to be a change in the
leadership of this country. I am not referring to the current
Prime Minister stepping down, for when I look at the team bench,
the replacements would not help very much. Canadians are asking
for a fundamental change in the direction of the country, not the
Liberal version of the so-called balance.
Let us reform the budget so that some day the working poor will
pay no income tax, so that some day seniors on fixed incomes will
no longer fear the taxman coming, so that some day all taxpayers
will pay the same percentage rate of taxation, so that some day
the federal government will live within modest means and help
rather than hurt, and so that some day we will have viable
universal medicare for everyone.
Reform's fiscal responsibility message has been virtually the
same since its inception. I can only imagine how strong Canada
would be today had our policies been put into place. Canada's
story is one of missed opportunity, but we are ready and we have
the plan. We have the vision, the vision to lead, the competence
to manage and the compassion to provide.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Following consultations among the
parties in the House, I think you would find unanimous consent
for the adoption of the following order.
I move:
That, for the remaining of this day's sitting, the Chair shall
not receive any dilatory motions or quorum calls, or any motion
to extend the hours of sitting.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
parliamentary secretary has put a motion before the House. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
speech of the hon. member opposite. Quite frankly, he has me
really confused.
I have read different media releases that the Reform Party has
put out and they are all contradictory. Reformers talk about
wanting to give a $2,500 tax break across the board to Canadians.
They want to put new spending into defence, education, health and
social services. Let us take a look at what they are talking
about, and then I will pose my question to the member.
In Canada there are 30 million people. Of those, there are 14
million taxpayers.
If we gave each taxpayer back $100 in a tax break across the
board, it would cost the federal government $1.4 billion.
1615
What is a hundred bucks? It is nothing. The taxpayer will
probably want $1,000 or close to the $2,500 the Reform Party is
talking about. That $1,000 would cost the Government of Canada
$14 billion. The $2,500 that the Reform Party is tossing about
would amount to almost $40 billion.
If the hon. member does all this spending and cuts all this
money out of revenue, does this mean to say that the Reform Party
will take Canada back into deficit spending?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I guess we have heard the
backward thinking of the Liberals who somehow think that ever
increasing higher taxes brings higher revenue. It is exactly the
opposite. I just pointed that out by using the American example.
We have to look at the unwise spending within the envelope. I
have pointed out how the Liberals cannot even keep to their own
projected budget, but we need reallocation of wiser spending
within that budget envelope.
We have to recount the story of the lost opportunity of growth
in the economy because of high taxes. It is not merely a dispute
or discussion over dividing up the size of my share of the pie
versus another portion of the pie. It is also how we grow a
bigger pie.
The issue at this point in international economics looking at
Canada's overall situation in the world economy is that we are
overtaxed. The highest priority at this point has to be giving
real tax relief to average Canadians.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again I am also a little baffled by my Liberal
colleague's inability to understand that the government is
responsible for spending.
He seems to believe that tax cuts cannot be given to individuals
because we have to keep spending more and more money. That is
the fallacy of the 50:50 plan over there. They continue on the
path of wanting to spend 50% of the surplus and on the path of a
lot of other wasteful spending that they are doing right now.
Would my hon. colleague expand on that misunderstanding? The
Liberal government just does not seem able to grasp that concept.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I will use the example of
medicare which is dear to the hearts of Canadians. When we
describe the difference between an American and a Canadian, we
often find Canadians saying that they have a wonderful medicare
program.
How do we provide safety and surety for medicare into the long
term to ensure that it will always be there? With increasing
demands, looking at the changing demographic characterization of
Canadian society, we will have quite an economic pressure on our
medicare plan.
Which party in the House will ensure in its economic plan that
we have viable universal medicare? It is the Reform plan, by
first of all going after tax reduction. That is how we will
ensure and guarantee that we have the available resources to pay
for medicare. In other words, we need a vibrant economy to
generate the wealth to pay for the social programs we so desire.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to the prebudget debate.
It is appropriate to mention that as we close the House that we
have some 4,500 Canadians serving abroad in the Canadian armed
forces on missions who will not be sharing this holiday season
with their families. I think the House would join me in
congratulating those members of the Canadian armed forces for
their hard work in the year 1999 and to wish them the very best
this holiday season.
My subject today on the prebudget debate will be defence.
In 1994 the federal government formed the special joint committee
to review Canada's defence policy to answer the question of what
principles, purposes and objectives should guide our government
in setting defence policy in a rapidly changing world.
1620
The special joint committee of which I was a member studied the
issue for eight months and literally interviewed hundreds of
witnesses from coast to coast and internationally. The special
joint committee concluded that there was a limit to which defence
spending cuts and personnel reductions could go without
compromising the combat capability of the Canadian armed forces.
We recommended to the Liberal government at that time in 1994
that the Department of National Defence should maintain a core
budget of at least $10.5 billion and personnel levels of the
regular force were not to fall below 66,700. I stress that at
that time these figures were absolute minimums. Any cuts below
these figures would require a corresponding decrease in the
commitments of our troops and any increase in commitments would
require additional funding to the department.
In response the Liberal government issued its 1994 white paper
which laid out the groundwork for its declared official defence
policy. In the document the government went to great lengths to
state officially that it was the policy of the Liberal government
to maintain combat capable forces. I quote from that 1994 white
paper which states:
The Government has concluded that the maintenance of
multipurpose, combat-capable forces is in the national interest.
It is only through the maintenance of such forces that Canada
will be able to retain the necessary degree of flexibility and
freedom of action when it comes to the defence of its interests
and the projection of its values abroad.
The white paper further states:
Canada needs armed forces that are able to operate with the
modern forces maintained by our allies and like-minded nations
against a capable opponent—that is, able to fight alongside the
best, against the best.
Since making these lofty proclamations the Liberal government
has broken its stated defence policy by consciously pursuing a
defence policy that has literally stripped the Canadian armed
forces of combat capability.
The Liberals have accomplished this in several ways. First,
they have begun to pursue a foreign policy based on the fluffy
and cuddly concept of soft power and human security. I will
quote the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the defence minister's
senior, who sees little value in the concept of a combat capable
force. In the 1997 issue of the International Journal he
stated:
A country's image is key to the use of soft power. An attractive
set of values and an image as a trustworthy partner encourages
other countries to consider and weigh our views.
He referred to soft power by saying that it:
The problem is that this idea of influencing other nations by
using Canada's image as a country full of nice folks with nice
values just does not work.
Let us look at how influential the foreign affairs minister was
with the military junta that took over Pakistan recently. Does
the Minister of Foreign Affairs really think Saddam Hussein or
Slobadan Milosevic will really mend their ways after hearing
about Canada's great values? It just will not happen.
Ironically even the creator of the soft power concept, Joseph
Nye, understood that soft power meant nothing without hard power
or military assets to back up that concept. Also the Liberal
government slashed defence spending a whopping 24% to just over
$9 billion, far below what was recommended in the 1994 special
joint committee report. This has literally gutted the Canadian
armed forces.
I believe many of my Liberal colleagues across the way, in
particular those who sit on the defence committee, would agree
with this point. The Liberal members, the Reform members and the
Conservative member supported the defence committee's first
report to the House calling for significant increases in defence
spending as a percentage of GDP over the next five years. The
finance committee has recognized the urgency of the situation and
has recommended a five year increase for national defence.
The results of these massive cuts to defence spending were very
predictable.
Personnel had to be cut to 60,000, far below that which we
recommended in the special joint committee and a dramatic drop
from the 87,000 personnel we had in 1987.
1625
According to the Conference of Defence Associations that
appeared before the defence committee today, this number has
fallen to about 56,000 or 57,000 because national defence cannot
afford to replace the people it is losing through attrition.
As we all know manpower is essential to our combat capability.
The army is particularly hard hit with personnel at only 65% of
what is needed to achieve combat capability. The Conference of
Defence Associations told the defence committee today that
Canada's forces would be hard pressed to fulfil the Liberal
government's 1994 white paper commitment to field a combat
capable brigade size force. It argued that the Canadian army is
really only combat capable at the company level, which is about
150 troops.
In Canada, with a population of some 30 million people, we are
only capable of fielding a company of 150 personnel that are
combat capable. We have seen how stretched our two battalions
are in Kosovo and Bosnia. We have to bring home our battalion of
1,300 troops from Kosovo because we cannot effectively sustain
two battalions in the region.
The army is getting so desperate that two weeks ago, members
might have read in the press, Colonel Howard Marsh advised the
government contrary to the government's own white paper on
defence that it should cut the army to 10,000 personnel from the
current 20,000 and make up the difference by using high tech
gadgets. This idea is absolutely ludicrous.
The Conference of Defence Associations stated today that even
with the army at its current size of 20,000 it is far too small.
High tech gadgets will not make up the difference for the crucial
role played by highly trained individuals in the army.
Just last month the Conference of Defence Associations stated
during hearings before the finance committee that the Canadian
forces were on the verge of a major breakdown in combat
capability, unless the defence budget was increased by at least
$500 million, climbing to $1.5 billion over the next few years.
It is important for me to mention again the mismanagement of the
Sea King helicopters by the Liberal government. We have been
waiting for six years for a replacement for the Sea King
helicopter. Canadians still wait and this is unacceptable. We
probably will not have replacement helicopters until the year
2008. They are literally falling apart. Pieces are flying
through the air from Sea King helicopters. They need to be
replaced and they need to be replaced now.
The Liberal government has broken its stated defence policy
which claims Canada must have combat capable forces. Instead the
Liberal government has consciously pursued a defence policy that
has stripped our Canadian forces of much of its combat
capability.
Before we get to the point of no return the official opposition
calls on the Liberal government to increase defence spending by
at least $2 billion over the next two years to reverse this
decline in the combat capability of the Canadian armed forces.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Okanagan—Coquihalla gave a very thoughtful speech. My
question has to do with some of the responses the member received
from the defence minister when it comes to questions of how
stretched Canada's military is.
Both in response to questions about our ability to do
peacekeeping and about our ability to keep the Sea King
helicopters in the air, the minister has always assured the
public that everything is okay and that they are not stretched
beyond their capacity.
I wonder if my friend would care to react to that. It sounds to
me like there is a contradiction. My friend is saying there is a
huge problem and the Minister of National Defence is saying there
is no problem.
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely
correct. The Minister of National Defence continually leads the
Canadian public to believe that we do not have a serious problem
with our defence forces and that every time a mission comes up it
seems Canada is able to respond very quickly.
The problem is that places tremendous stress on our troops. At
this time, some 4,500 army troops are serving outside the
country. That means three times that amount are needed to
maintain that 4,500 figure. The reason is that 4,500 people are
training to go on that mission, there are the 4,500 who are
deployed on that mission already, and then recuperation time is
needed, so there are another 4,500 people who have just returned
from the mission and are taking time with their families and
undergoing debriefing and training opportunities.
1630
The whole concept of Canada's always being there and deploying
more people with the budget constantly declining and the
government foisting more missions on the armed forces is a very
desperate situation that has come to a crossroads. We like to
point these things out constantly to the Canadian public, but we
always hear quite the opposite from the defence minister and the
foreign affairs minister that everything seems to be fine. The
Canadian public should realize this is a desperate situation.
The Canadian public has given its support to the Canadian armed
forces in the missions we operate in around the world. It is
time for the government to give the people in the Canadian armed
forces the tools they need to do their job, whether it be
peacekeeping or whether it be a combat role in hot spots around
the world.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the input from all
members as we continue this debate.
I am puzzled with the position of the Reform Party. In their
platform Reformers talked about tax reductions but not starting
until the year 2000. We would not have had any tax cuts at all.
The Liberal government has already implemented tax cuts of 10%.
In their platform they talk about a tax cut package that in the
third year of their proposal would cost the federal treasury $26
billion. They also talk about an equal amount against paying
down the debt. That is $26 billion in year three for tax cuts
and $26 billion for paying down the debt. If my arithmetic is
correct, that is $52 billion. When I look at the document
released by the finance minister a month ago and the surpluses
projected forward by 11 of Canada's leading economists, it shows
that in year three the surplus would be at a level of $12.5
billion.
Then the other Reform member was talking about increased
expenditure on defence. Other members of the Reform Party have
talked about increased expenditures on farm income relief. How
does the arithmetic add up? How does this package fit?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, the member has his facts and
figures wrong. As has been pointed out, we would have offered
tax relief in 1997 with the return of the $7 billion UI fund. To
get to the heart of the matter and how we can say that we want to
increase defence spending, we would not waste as much money as
the Liberal government wastes on unnecessary items.
I do not have to go very far back to remember a $25 million
program where we were giving out free flags to the Canadian
public when the people in Bosnia and Croatia did not have the
proper clothing to wear. The government wasted $25 million there
and sent our military personnel literally having to exchange
helmets and flak jackets as one unit was getting on the plane to
come home and the other unit was getting off the plane.
I would tell the government that its priority in spending is out
of whack 100%, it has been for years, the Canadian public has
financed the deficit reduction the government takes claim for,
and it is time to return that money to the Canadian public and
use the priorities we as the official opposition have suggested
to re-fund, for example in defence.
* * *
1635
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill
S-3, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols
between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria,
Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg for the
avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion
with respect to taxes on income, to which the concurrence of this
House is desired.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of an
intervention made earlier today by the official opposition member
for Surrey Central.
In discussions with the whips of all the parties I believe that
if the House would give its consent it would also agree to the
following motion:
That payment of the salaries of staff working under contract with
the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations be made
by the Committees and Legislative Services Branch of the House of
Commons on behalf of the standing joint committee until such time
as the standing joint committee is able to make such payments or
March 31, 2000, whichever is sooner.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion as presented by the chief government whip. Does the
chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I rise today to talk about the first report
of the Standing Committee on Finance.
First I would like to talk about the process because the content
of the report is only as good as the process that preceded it.
Coming from Women's College Hospital in Toronto where the motto
was non quo sed quomodo, it is not what we do but how, I would
like to celebrate the fact that this is a process by which our
Liberal government can be extraordinarily proud.
No longer, as with previous governments, does the budget get
written in secret after a series of one on one meetings with the
finance minister, clearly influenced only by those who were able
to secure such a meeting, largely because of their elevated
positions in society.
With all the committee hearings and submissions and the town
hall meetings held by 62 of our members of parliament, we feel
that Canadians have been properly consulted. It is not surprising
therefore that the Minister of Finance's budgets are so well
received when people can see their own advice in the budgets as
they are tabled.
As the member of parliament for St. Paul's I believe that the
best antidote to the cynicism and apathy that really threatens
our democracy is a commitment to real consultation and the
participation of citizens in the policy process. Citizen
engagement must be genuine and it is not good enough that
governments and parliamentarians consult. Citizens must feel that
they are being given the opportunity to actually shape public
policy.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oak
Ridges.
Peter Newman said that politics in Canada has always been the
art of making the necessary possible. Therefore deciding what is
necessary must be a political decision. Deciding what is
necessary must be done by politicians in true partnership with
the citizens.
The prebudget consultation is an excellent example of a process
whereby all Canadians have the opportunity to provide input into
the priorities that define our country. The budget making
process is where we receive input into the tools we have at our
disposal to help ensure that the necessary becomes possible: debt
retirement, taxation as well as tax relief, and strategic
investments in program spending.
This year I had the opportunity to chair four consultations on
the budget; a town hall in St. Paul's, an invitational round table
in St. Paul's, a special meeting of the Liberal women's caucus
with the finance minister, as well as yesterday's round table of
the subcommittee on persons with disabilities on the tax
treatment of persons with disabilities and families with children
with disabilities.
1640
The first such consultation which was submitted to the finance
committee was held in St. Paul's on November 8. The clear
consensus in the room was that affordable housing was
extraordinarily important to all issues around the true
disposable income of Canadians, and that all levels of government
must do whatever they can to make shelter possible for all
Canadians.
There was also a clear consensus on the need for proper tax
relief, that the amount of disposable income families have is for
snowsuits and snow boots for kids. Families, in particular low
and middle income families, need to have money to spend, and this
year as we focus on children it should be for their children.
There is no question that in terms of our economy the need for a
vibrant and accountable health care system was agreed upon by
everyone in the room, as well as employment strategies and a
focus on the environment.
While affordable housing and tax relief topped the list of
budgetary suggestions at the meeting, it was clear there were
underlying issues to be addressed. The constituents of St.
Paul's wanted to know that they were receiving good quality
social services for their tax investments. They were asking the
federal government to take the initiative in protecting the
things they value most as Canadians: access to shelter, a
quality health care system, employment, and protection of the
environment for future generations.
In this new age of surplus, constituents would like to see
measurable outcomes that demonstrate that their taxes are being
well spent. They would like to have confidence that we will
ensure that basic needs of all Canadians are met. They
understand that good social spending is also good economic
spending and economic policy and will result in a secure future
for all Canadians.
At our prebudget round table, it was interesting that a
consensus emerged on the need for the federal government to
articulate a clear, long term economic and social vision based on
Canadian values. Like the finance committee, they felt that we
should be rolling out a vision over more than one year. Their
issues of greatest concern were tax relief, debt reduction,
poverty, homelessness and the children's agenda.
All in attendance felt that the government must lead the way in
long term planning, setting outcomes and filling the gaps within
a framework that reflects Canadian values. They wanted to ensure
that good social policy was viewed as good economic policy. The
consensus was that in order for us to maintain a decent social
infrastructure, growing the pie and the economic strength of our
country are extraordinarily important in reaching that goal.
At the round table, they felt we must ensure that productivity
in the growth of the country occurs. It must be addressed in a
long term, systemic way. If the government were to articulate
long term plans, people would see their needs as being met. The
feeling was that the government must not expect to run every
aspect of life, but it must recognize clearly where it has a long
term impact and harmonize its actions with other levels and
partners to ensure its long term success. They wanted frequent
reviews of government programs to see how effective they have
been upon implementation to ensure that outcomes are being met.
We felt extremely heartened by the new efforts and initiatives
of the treasury board to look at outcomes and the performance
indicators of those outcomes in terms of the future of smart
spending in the country and in knowing that we will fund programs
only if they are shown to be, as we used to call in medicine,
evidence based practice.
At their meeting the Liberal women's caucus reflected what they
had been hearing in their constituencies. It was a very similar
shopping list in terms of the budget. A lot of those things have
been reflected in the finance committee report.
What was not in the finance committee report but the women's
caucus feels strongly about, is that all aspects of public
policy, in particular budget items, require a gender based
analysis. We must make sure that there is no discrimination of
gender by all policies and it must be done before things come to
the point of being a budget allocation. We were heartened by the
commitment of the Minister of Finance to meet with the Secretary
of State for the Status of Women and the President of the
Treasury Board to actually look at how that could be articulated.
1645
Yesterday it was extremely interesting to receive the experts on
the issue of tax and families with disabilities. I would like to
draw members' attention to some of the things that were
articulated at yesterday's meeting. I am thrilled that a lot of
these things were in the finance committee report, but I would
like to underline the things that we feel most strongly about or
that there would seem to be consensus at the round table about.
Defending the child tax deduction for parents of children with
disabilities would clearly benefit both low and middle income
earners. The experts wanted to see an index or an adjustment to
the various credits and deductions claimed by persons with
disabilities and their families to deal with the increasing cost
to them due to the lack of indexation. They wanted more
technical aids and services added to the list of expenses for the
medical expense tax credit. Clearly there was a consensus to
broaden the definition of eligibility in the disability tax
credit.
We are particularly concerned about people with cystic fibrosis.
For some reason in the current definition of disability, in
activities related to daily living, breathing has been left out.
People who have a great deal of difficulty breathing are not
included in the disability tax credit. We feel that is a modest
expansion that would seriously help the 600 to 900 adults with
cystic fibrosis to participate as full citizens.
We are requesting that the Canada study grants received by
persons with disabilities be not treated as taxable income.
There was interest in a new savings vehicle modelled on the
registered retirement savings plan that would encourage private
savings to support individuals with mental and physical
disabilities.
We think there should be more generous and consistent tax
treatment of the costs of attendant care and that the income tax
guide should be clarified so that taxpayers with disabilities and
their families can more clearly understand the applicable tax
measures and act accordingly.
We were thrilled to see in the finance committee report strong
support for the renewal of the opportunities fund, and we are
hoping for accessibility standards that would become benchmarks
in the national children's agenda.
It is extremely heartening to see so many of the social
infrastructure programs clearly identified in the finance
committee report.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her intervention.
I read the committee report with interest and I certainly want
to commend the members of the committee.
There was an aspect of the report that dealt with increased
savings for Canadians. Certainly we are all attempting to
encourage Canadians to increase their savings for retirement.
There was a recommendation in the report that called for an
additional $2,000 increase in the RRSP limits. The RRSP limits
are currently scheduled to increase by $1,000 increments, which
would give a $2,000 increase to the limits as they stand today.
Could the hon. member confirm for me whether the recommendation
of the committee would actually push these limits up to $17,500
over the five year period?
The hon. member often talks about smart spending. I want her to
focus on the health file for a second. The Canadian Healthcare
Association talks about investing money more strategically in
service delivery. I would like the hon. member to take a moment
to focus on smart spending and service delivery in the health
care file and describe for the House in some detail what she sees
as smart spending in the health care file.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to affirm
to the hon. member that the increase of $2,000, I believe, having
attended a great number of the finance committee meetings, was in
addition to the already scheduled increases. I think he will be
relieved to hear that.
In terms of smart spending in health care, I was extremely
interested in the brief of the Canadian Healthcare Association,
which said that putting more money into the health care system,
even if were available, would not be the answer.
1650
We are extremely worried that accountability in the health care
system is not there. As we know from some of the briefs, 60% of
the things that are being done in health care, as we speak, have
never been subjected to any sort of evidence based practice. As
was recommended in the finance committee report, we have to make
sure that there is money for information technology and the
ability to practise evidence based medicine as well as research
into health care delivery. We need proper data in terms of how
we deliver health care.
A lot of us were very impressed by the University of Ottawa and
Queen's University study of the sustainability of the health care
system. It showed that if we actually moved to best practices,
or moved people to the right level of care, there would be $7
billion in savings annually in Canada. Many briefs said that
this was not about dollars, it was about mismanagement. We need
a real system instead of this patchwork quilt of non-systems.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to participate in the debate on the upcoming year 2000
budget.
Through successive budgets the government has continued to build
on a strong fiscal foundation that began in 1993. At that time
our economic condition was in a serious state of disrepair. We
had a $42 billion deficit, high unemployment and sluggish
investor confidence.
Since 1993 the government has rolled up its sleeves and
presented to Canadians a clear vision of how to get things
straight. Canadians understood that large deficits and an
astronomical debt would cripple Canada for generations to come if
we did not act, and act we did. Canadians embraced the deficit
reduction strategies of the government. Together we have been
able to eliminate the deficit, bring in balanced budgets and
forecast further balanced budgets.
In 1998-99 Canada balanced the books for the first time since
1951-52. The government has continued to operate deficit free.
For the coming millennium we will continue our prudent spending,
continue to balance the books and offer Canadians further tax
cuts. I can think of no greater gift to offer young people, our
future generations, than a deficit free government, lower taxes
and a strong economic and fiscal atmosphere that supports growth
and development by continued investment in the talents of our
youth.
In February 2000 the Minister of Finance will continue on this
path by announcing further tax cuts for Canada. I have always
been a strong advocate of calling for tax cuts. Many of my
constituents want tax cuts as well. I recently conducted a
survey in my riding asking constituents what they would like to
see in the upcoming budget. Close to 75% of those who responded
chose tax cuts and debt reduction as the top two issues that
needed to be addressed in the upcoming federal budget. Continued
funding for health care in Canada ranked a close third, at 70%.
I would like to share some of the direct comments of my
constituents with the House today: “Lower taxes, both personal
and corporate, can help to create and retain jobs in Canada. Tax
cuts should focus more on lower and middle income people and
families”. “I believe lower national debts are a key
foundation to a stronger economy and the benefits of long term
growth. Get the debt behind us and Canada can become a stronger
nation”. “Continued fiscal responsibility, as already
demonstrated by Mr. Martin, is required”. “Seeing as children
and youth are our priority, the only responsible action in the
federal budget is to make debt payment the top and only priority
for surplus funds. It is not fair to the next generation to
burden them with debt created by this generation”.
It is clear that Canadians know what they want. They want a
fiscally responsible government which is willing to take action
to end the overspending of the past and to make sure that we have
cleared the slate for future generations. By getting our fiscal
house in order we can concentrate on other issues. We can create
an atmosphere where job creation strives and where Canadian
entrepreneurs can make their mark in the global economy.
1655
This past November the finance minister brought down his
economic and fiscal update. He noted that Canada's economy has
made tremendous strides. The economy is now forecast to grow by
3.6% this year, based on the average of private sector forecasts.
That is a significant jump from the 2% growth rate that
economists were forecasting just before last February's budget.
For the year 2000 the average growth forecast is 2.9%, again an
increase over the 2.5% predicted at the time of the budget. This
has brought our November 1999 unemployment rate down by 0.3
percentage points to 6.9%. That is the lowest level since August
1981.
Our future as a country is indeed bright. The government will
continue its commitment to Canadians through strong, continued
funding for our world renowned universal health care system. We
will provide tax cuts.
We also recognize that Canada is a place for business. We have
taken great strides to make this so. We recognize the value of
innovation, but we know that innovation does not just happen. It
requires an investment on our part. It requires infrastructure.
We are committed to building a society of security and
opportunity by helping Canadians to acquire education, knowledge
and skills.
We will provide continued funding to help our youth reach their
goals and dreams through the youth employment strategy, the
Canadian opportunities strategy and the Canada education savings
grant.
Finally, I want to speak briefly about another program. I fully
support the joint federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure
program. The Speech from the Throne committed the government to
developing a five year physical infrastructure plan with the
provinces and territories. It is a prime example of how
governments can work together for the good of all Canadians.
I look forward with great anticipation to the next federal
budget. As the first budget of our new millennium it will set a
benchmark for all future budgets. It will clearly demonstrate
our commitment to providing Canadians with an efficiently run,
fiscally responsible government, and continued investment in the
programs and services Canadians have come to expect and deserve.
1700
[Translation]
The Speaker: We have a about five minutes left before the time
provided for the royal assent. We could go to questions and
comments in the meantime.
If there are no questions or comments, we will be resuming
debate. The hon. member for Lotbinière.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
Is there not a standing order that would allow us to suspend the
sitting temporarily? I think it would be a shame for my
colleague from Lotbinière to begin his speech—unless he wants to
do so—only to be interrupted after one or two minutes.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if
there is time for questions and comments, I could pose a question
to the member for Oak Ridges.
The Speaker: What we will do is take a few minutes for
questions and comments, and after that I will go to the hon.
member for Lotbinière.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for Oak Ridges for his participation in this debate and for his
contribution to the thought process for the budget 2000.
I know the hon. member has been very much involved in municipal
affairs. I also know that he has taken an active interest in an
infrastructure program. In the throne speech, there was mention
that the government intends to move on an infrastructure program.
There have been representations by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities to proceed with an infrastructure program. It
talks about social infrastructure as well as physical
infrastructure.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on what he would
like to see if the government proceeds with an infrastructure
program.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
a national infrastructure program is critical for the economy,
for the environment and for the health of Canadians.
In 1983, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities proposed an
infrastructure program involving all orders of government in
the country. In 1993, the government adopted the national
infrastructure program of the FCM.
Traditional infrastructure is roads, sewers, bridges and water.
The announcement in the Speech from the Throne clearly indicates
all three orders of government participating. Municipally
driven is what I would like to see. I would like to see that we
are involving all orders of government in a process by which we
have at the moment basically a $40 billion deficit in
infrastructure in the areas that I have just outlined. There is
no question that over 125,000 direct and indirect jobs were
created by the last national infrastructure program.
One of the things that varies in the proposals in the Speech
from the Throne is that we actually have a blueprint for five
years. We think this is critical when we look at our
competition, the United States, Europe and elsewhere. I know that
every member in the House benefited from the national
infrastructure program. The mayors of the communities in these
members' ridings, including my good friends across the way in the
Reform Party, have benefited very much. There are some former
mayors over there.
The program delivered both in terms of job creation and in
speeding up needed infrastructure programs. I say to my hon.
friend that there is no question that by involving all orders of
government, we will be able to improve our economy by being able
to move people, certainly through roads being reconstructed—
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Government House
Ottawa
December 16, 1999
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio
Lamer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 16th day of December, 1999 at 5 p.m., for the
purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
* * *
1705
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of the House is desired.
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1720
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that when the
House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the
Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her
Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement among the Government
of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space
Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian
Federation, and the Government of the United States of America
concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station
and to make related amendments to other acts—Chapter 35.
Bill C-21, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 2000—Chapter 36.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in this most important debate. First of
all, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time
with my colleague from Jonquière.
After reading the report stemming from the prebudget hearings,
which was tabled in the House, one can tell that a great deal of
ambiguity remains concerning the direction the Minister of
Finance intends to take with the budget to be tabled on or about
February 22 or February 29, 2000.
Every year, the Bloc Quebecois brings out statistics to support
its criticism of what I always refer to as cooking the books,
something the Minister of Finance is indulging in with
increasing frequency.
For several years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for a
number of things, and I think that the Bloc Quebecois is the
party that best defends Quebec's interests. We have called for
tax cuts, a return to a real EI system, and the return of social
transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces; we have called
for support for productive projects, moderate debt reduction,
and significant efforts to combat poverty.
This is the gist of what the Bloc Quebecois puts forward
annually at this time of the year, when the chair of the
Standing Committee on Finance presents the committee's report.
In Lotbinière, as everywhere else, we took part in this
democratic process, in order to find out what the people of
Lotbinière wanted. Like all taxpayers in Quebec and in Canada,
the people in my riding want lower taxes, but not along the
lines the Minister of Finance is suggesting. We want tax cuts
for those who contributed most to helping the federal government
eliminate the deficit.
This means a tax cut targeted at the middle class. As for
middle class, let me explain what I mean. Statistically, middle
class in Canada means those earning between $30,000 and $70,000
a year.
In a riding like my own of Lotbinière, or like Jonquière or any
others with the same characteristics, semi-urban, semi-rural, the
middle class is not earning between $30,000 and $70,000 a year;
often it is earning $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000.
1725
These people often work 40 hours a week, at an hourly rate of
$8, $9 or $10, and have a lot of trouble making ends meet. They
are also greatly affected these days by the price of gasoline.
When travelling throughout Quebec, people probably notice that
the price of gasoline is quite high in urban centres like Quebec
City and Montreal. However, if they travel 100 or 150 kilometres
to regions like Jonquière, Rimouski and Abitibi, they will see
that the price of gasoline in these areas is very high. What
does that mean?
Ever since inflation started to skyrocket in the mid-seventies,
the price gasoline has had a major impact on the price of
consumer products.
When the price of gasoline goes up, the trucker who delivers the
goods has to increase his rate. Once on the shelves, the goods
have to be sold at a higher price, and the consumer who buys
them also has to pay more for gasoline.
This is a real problem for the regions. In the budget being
prepared for the year 2000, it is anticipated that the
government will include no measure to help these people, even
though we are now facing this indirect inflation created with
the complicity of the oil companies.
I will come back to this issue, because in the year 2000, as the
regional development critic for the Bloc Quebecois, along with
my hon. colleagues, we will be taking major action, including in
the energy sector, which will be discussed at some length.
We would not want to relive the situation we experienced in the
mid-1970s when inflation soared. We know what it did to the
economy of Quebec and Canada.
I would also like to talk about an issue near and dear to my
heart which, once again, goes unmentioned the report tabled by
the Standing Committee on Finance, namely employment insurance
reform. Over the last few weeks, I have been leading an
awareness campaign in the riding of Lotbinière, inviting people
to sign a petition condemning this situation.
Right now, within the riding of Lotbinière, there are two
different rates. The first one is 6.2%, which means that people
have to work 660 hours to be eligible for benefits.
At the other end of the riding, the rate is 11.2%. This means
that people need only work 490 hours. In the same riding, there
is a difference of 5%.
When people come to see us in our riding offices, it is
difficult to explain to them the injustice that comes from the
fact that the rate is based on the place of residence. This
means that, if two persons work for the same company and that
company closes down or experiences a slowdown, one person may be
eligible for benefits and the other may be penalized.
With the same rates, with the same rights, because of the
complexity of the map drawn by the Department of Human Resources
Development, some people in my riding are severely penalized.
As recently as this week, someone who thought he would be
eligible for benefits with his 635 hours learned that the rate
had changed.
It came down to 6.2%, and that person left with the sad news
that he needed 660 hours to be eligible for benefits. So he did
not have a choice, he had to turn to income security.
Sometimes the government is proud of the fact that the number of
people receiving employment insurance benefits is going down.
This is to be expected, because when unemployed workers no
longer have access to employment insurance, that have to turn to
income security. In the statistics, these people are no longer
considered to be part of the labour force. They have been
dropped from the statistics.
1730
Statistics are to be used with caution. Yes, the economy is
getting stronger. However, we must not forget the terrible
consequences of the employment insurance program. A lot of
people have to rely on income security now. It is a problem we
have in the riding of Lotbinière and in most Quebec ridings.
I want to thank all those who helped me with this initiative in
my riding, including the Caisses populaires that circulated the
petition and the municipalities that sent resolutions supporting
my initiative. Hundreds of people are still signing the petition
condemning this social injustice.
During the holidays, we will take a break, but in the year 2000,
we will be back at it and we intend to hand over to the Minister
of Human Resources Development a comprehensive report to make
her aware of the social injustice affecting the people of
Lotbinière.
The regions are also faced with problems at the municipal level.
When the new governor general delivered the throne speech, we
all expected the federal government to announce immediate
measures to help the municipalities. The President of the
Treasury Board herself told us that they had a project in mind
and she believed negotiations were under way.
Anyway, to sum it up, a project might be announced in November
or December 2000. There is a desperate need for action now. This
measure should already have been announced. Memorandums of
understanding should already be under negotiation.
Also, financial support for the municipalities should be
included in the February 2000 budget.
We know that the municipalities have to upgrade their
infrastructures and that we previously had three party
agreements between Quebec, Ottawa and the municipalities that
worked just fine. The federal government now has a surplus. I
think it is important that the surplus go to areas where the
people feel it is most needed: to help the unemployed, to
support municipalities and to restore transfers for health care
and education.
Our colleagues in the National Assembly, the health and social
services minister, Mrs. Marois, and the education minister,
François Legault, are having a lot of trouble running their
departments because of all the cuts the federal government has
made since 1993.
Representatives of the federal government say that it has
increased transfers. This is a joke, it is utter nonsense.
The government cut less than it was supposed to be. We know that
this government is quite good at marketing. These people are
trying to show us how good their government is.
I repeat that the government should reduce taxes to help the
middle class, come back to a real employment insurance program,
fully restore the social transfers to Quebec and the other
provinces, support the positive projects of the municipalities
and especially put significant effect into the fight against
poverty.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a certain sadness that I am rising today to take part in
the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance
because there is not much good news in this report tabled just
before Christmas. It does not contain many measures to alleviate
human suffering and to bring some hope that next year will be
better.
Once again, this report shows the contempt of the Liberal
government for the views expressed by the people and by the
witnesses who appeared before the finance committee or took part
in the prebudget consultations held by my colleagues, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois.
Instead of reporting accurately the views expressed by the
people who said they wanted surpluses to be reinvested in social
programs, the Liberal majority on the committee preferred to be
servile and to tell the minister only what he wanted to hear,
namely that he can keep his surpluses and use them as he sees
fit for measures that are not essential.
1735
The Standing Committee on Finance and the finance minister
deliberately ignore the reality that exists in many regions.
They prefer to hide their heads in the sand. The reality is that
the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider every
day.
I will say a few words about my region. Today, in my region, we
have to serve meals to children under 12 who, otherwise, would
not be able to take their classes or would get sick.
Some parents are no longer able to serve three meals a day to
their children, even if they themselves do not eat their fill.
That is the reality the Liberals are ignoring because they
prefer to talk about growth, about the economy and so on.
During that time, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, six soup kitchens are
helping people to survive all year long.
Today, La soupière de l'amitié of Arvida, in my riding, is
holding its eight fundraising campaign with the help of more
than 200 volunteers, who collect money to help the
underprivileged.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those volunteers
working on the campaign, under the auspices of honorary
president Monseigneur Jean-Guy Couture, and thank also the people
of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean for their generous support of the less
fortunate.
This government has abandoned the population. There is a growing
number of relief agencies and food banks. This situation should
not be tolerated. We should never get used to hardship.
However, it seems to be a sad reality: this government has
created more hardship.
During the prebudget hearings, I consulted with the people from
my constituency and from Chicoutimi. Incidentally, I would like
to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his document
containing realistic suggestions that take into account the real
concerns of ordinary people. The people told me that their
priorities, with respect to how the budget surpluses the finance
minister thinks are his own should be used, are different from
the federal government's priorities. They do not want the
Minister of Finance to loose sight of the fact that these
surpluses are the result of the considerable sacrifices he has
imposed through drastic cuts to social programs as well as of
not indexing the tax tables and taking money out of the pockets
of the middle class.
Incidentally, I thank the hon. member for Lotbinière for his
help in the consultations I have held in my riding. I
appreciated his co-operation. Many of my constituents have
suggested priorities, some of which I would like to mention
here.
Many of my constituents do not necessarily want tax reductions;
they would rather have the money used to ensure that quality
services continue to be provided to seniors, the sick and the
young. Many senior citizens who participated in my consultations
complained that the money they get from the government and the
level of taxation do not take into account the expenses people
who live alone are faced with, be it for maintenance or home
help, which increase substantially every year.
Many told me that the surplus in the EI fund should be used to
help communities through assistance and support programs for the
elderly, to help existing small businesses or new ones getting
started and to set up an EI fund for young people.
A number of people told me that the surplus the minister is
bragging about, which came straight out of the pockets of
ordinary citizens, should be used in part to set up assistance,
integration and adjustment programs for people between 50 and 60
who are out of work.
1740
I know of several 50 or 60 year old workers in my riding of
Jonquière who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs following
plant closures and who are left with nothing. They cannot get
training, because, as you know, after spending 30 years in a
plant, these older workers can hardly go back to school.
I think the government should be sensitive to the needs of these
people who are hurting badly. It should restore the POWA
program, or a new and improved program that better suited to
their situation.
Unfortunately, the government is once again turning a deaf ear.
It contends that there is nothing wrong, that nobody has to deal
with this problem on a daily basis. There are things we have to
do for the future. But right now, people are really stuck with
this problem, and families are facing considerable hardship.
Most of the people want the government to maintain its social
transfers. As you know, the federal government has been cutting
transfers to the provinces for social programs since 1993. Many
people were furious and spoke against EI, which brings nothing
but misery. Ten years ago, EI covered 80% of the workers who
lost their jobs. Nowadays, a mere 40% of the workers are
eligible, although all of them pay premiums.
I would like to point out that, since 1993, the Liberal
government's record with regard to the environment has been
dismal. Apart from engaging in jurisdictional wars with the
provinces and trying to impose national standards, the federal
government has not proposed any concrete measures to reduce
pollution.
Regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases, which affect the
climate, pollution and health, and involve considerable economic
costs, the federal government still has no clear plan and no
clear timetable to meet the objectives that it set for itself
under the Kyoto agreement.
Several environmental groups have adopted a more practical
approach and have proposed concrete measures to the Minister of
Finance to reduce pollution, such as investing in public transit
systems or encouraging the transportation of goods by train,
particularly by special railway cars that can carry trucks.
Finally, it is urgent that this government keep its promise to
invest in new depollution technologies. There is an approach
that we fully support, because it is a concrete measure that
would allow industries, farmers and municipalities to reduce
their levels of pollution when renewing their equipment or
infrastructure.
I will close by saying that in the Jonquière area, as shown in
a recent federal study, air pollution reaches very high levels.
We are all waiting anxiously for the federal government to
co-operate with industries, municipalities and the provincial
government to make the air cleaner, which would better reflect
the nature of our region.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member opposite for an excellent speech.
In Ontario, we have to deal with a premier, Mr. Mike Harris, who
is using money that should be going to social programs for other
purposes. Faced with a province that will not support social
programs, I wonder if the solution would not be for the federal
government to give more money to charitable and non-profit
organizations, which in turn could deliver social programs.
Would the hon. member opposite be comfortable with such a
solution?
1745
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As occupant of the chair,
this is the first time I hear the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington put a question in French. My
congratulations.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, before answering the
question, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member and I
encourage him to speak French more often in the new year to show
everyone that Canada is really a bilingual country, as the
Liberals like to put it.
I want to point out to the hon. member that community
organizations and transfers both come under provincial
jurisdiction. What have the Liberals done since 1993? They have
infringed upon jurisdictions when they had no reason to do so.
Everything that has to do with health care and the
municipalities also come under provincial jurisdiction. I
encourage my hon. colleague to tell his government, which has
way too much money, to give some back to the provinces. I am
sure they will ensure that the money goes to the people.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in the prebudget debate. As a member
of the finance committee since 1997 I have had the honour to
travel across Canada to listen to what Canadians from all walks
of life have to say.
I can carefully say that the mood of the Canadian people is that
they are quite relieved that the fiscal house of Canada is in
order. They are looking forward to more good news. To put it in
context, when I became a member of parliament in 1993 and the
government took office unemployment in Canada was 11.2%. In
addition, we were faced with a $42 billion deficit.
There is no doubt that each and every Canadian was called on to
bear a share of the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.
It was an imperative. Not only was unemployment high, not only
did we have this deficit, but the debt to GDP was rising. It
meant that there was pressure on interest rates. It was a
scenario that was not sustainable.
As a result of the sacrifices that Canadians have made, as a
result of the prudence that the government has exercised and as a
result of the good fiscal management and fiscal responsibility
demonstrated by the government, there is good news.
Let me give a few key points. The real gross domestic product
advanced 4.7% in the third quarter of this year, its fourth
consecutive quarter. The real consumer spending posted its third
consecutive quarter of strong growth with an increase of 4.8%.
Real business investment has grown at an average rate of 11.3%.
Real goods and services exports surged 15% in the third quarter.
The current account balance improved dramatically from a $7
billion deficit to a second quarter surplus of $2.6 billion in
the third quarter.
The healthy economic growth has translated as well into robust
job creation. Since December 1997 over 760,000 jobs were created
and 199,000 of those new jobs were for young Canadians. The
unemployment rate has declined. It is now at a rate of 6.9%.
That is its lowest level in Canada since August 1981, virtually a
generation ago. Both the International Monetary Fund and the
OECD expect Canada to lead G-7 countries in employment growth in
1999 and 2000. Inflationary pressures remain subdued. The
consumer price inflation was 2.3% and excluding food and energy
the inflation was only 1.6%.
Those are technical points but they paint a picture which
indicates to Canadians that we have our fiscal house in order.
1750
On November 2 the Minister of Finance took the opportunity to
address Canadians in his annual fiscal update. During that
update he laid out the scenario as he saw it, using prudent
assumptions and responsible fiscal management, looking at the
fundamentals, and accepting the advice of the experts in business
and industry and the economists of our country.
I will quote from the closing of his speech which should give
Canadians the confidence that the next budget will reflect a step
in the right direction of addressing the fact that Canadians have
taken a great deal of the burden over all the years we have taken
to balance the budget and finally get into a surplus position.
The finance minister said:
We will strengthen our economy. We will bring down taxes. We
will recast the foundations of individual security. We will
forge a culture of innovation. We will build upon our
traditional industries and we will build a society that nurtures
its children like no other.
Canadians should be very encouraged by the state of the fiscal
house of Canada. It is time for Canadians to start discussing
the strategies they would like to see in terms of how we put
these things in place.
As the finance committee travelled across Canada and consulted
with Canadians, it will come as no surprise to members and to
Canadians at large that depending on whom we were talking to at
the time the interest areas were certainly different.
Young people in university talked to us about the cost of
education. They asked us if they could get lower tuitions, if
they could get better assistance for post-secondary education, a
very important and noble request that has to be looked at. At the
other end of the spectrum, a growing segment of the Canadian
population, our seniors, told us their concerns were the health
care system and the social security benefits that allow them to
live in the dignity they have earned and to which they are
entitled.
Small businessmen told us that they wanted to see changes in the
corporate tax structure for small businesses, the business sector
that generates the most jobs in Canada. They wanted to know if
they could get an increase in the small business limit from
$200,000 to $400,000.
People spoke on behalf of families and children before the
finance committee. They talked about the fairness and equity of
our tax system, the taxation of families with children and the
issue of one income versus two. They talked about the EI system.
They talked about debt reduction. Large business groups and
organizations talked about the need to improve benefits under our
registered retirement savings plans because they want to be able
to provide for their retirement down the road.
Virtually every segment of society had representation. The
disabled had an excellent representation by Community Living
which came before us and talked about how important it was to
address the needs of the disabled of our country. Disabled
persons often do not get an opportunity to enjoy the dignity and
quality of life of other Canadians because so much of their time,
energies and resources are dedicated to meeting their basic needs
of health and dignity of life. It is a very important issue.
Members would agree, no matter what party they may come from,
that the needs of Canadians are diverse. It is incumbent upon
the government to balance those needs on a priority basis and to
ensure that when the budget comes forward we maintain fiscal
prudence. The finance minister reminded us that we will not go
back to a deficit ever again. Canadians can bank on that. The
application of fiscal prudence and fiscal responsibility will
ensure the sustained growth of our economy, which means more
people will have jobs, have the dignity of those jobs, and enjoy
Canadian life as every other Canadian.
1755
It really gets down to productivity. We had a study last year
in the finance committee on productivity. In that study there
was some disagreement among the experts about what it really
meant, but I think they all concurred that at the end of the day
it was really an issue of how we improve the quality of life for
all Canadians.
In some ways we can do that by delivering benefits directly to
Canadians. In other ways it can be done through stimulating the
economy or through the economic sector so that we increase the
size of the pie and there is more to share with all Canadians.
There are many decisions to be made and they should not be taken
lightly. We have to acknowledge the important needs of all
Canadians regardless of their state in life. I will be splitting
my time with the member for Wentworth—Burlington.
My final comments will be with regard to the report of the
subcommittee of the finance committee that dealt with the
taxation of families. In that report there were four
recommendations. The first was to extend parental leave under
the employment insurance system to a full year for maternity
benefits. It is a very important initiative. I am very pleased
that the government has embraced it and will be pursuing it in
the next budget.
We recommended that the government look at how to amend the
Canada pension plan system to assist Canadians who withdrew from
the paid labour force to raise a family so that they do not get
penalized in the CPP structure. We also recommended that a new
benefit be introduced under the Canada child tax benefit to
assist families with children. Finally, we asked the government
to look at the child care expense deduction under the Income Tax
Act to ensure that it continues to meet with policy objectives.
The report was commented on by many witnesses before the finance
committee. I can tell Canadians and all members that its
recommendations were well received.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to this prebudget debate all day, and
frankly I cannot believe how shortsighted and irresponsible the
Liberals are.
The government is prepared, if we listen to its comments, to sit
idly by and oversee the death of medicare. I thought we were
here today to talk about the future, and for sure one of the
important issues of the future is to take medicare into the new
millennium.
This is the government that cut $6.2 billion out of transfer
payments in 1995. In the last budget it put back in half of what
it took out and stretched it out over five years. It has taken
50:50 cost shared arrangements down to, if we really stretch it,
a 15% federal share of health care spending in the country. No
wonder we have Ralph Klein in Alberta threatening to privatize
the system and destroy our universal health care system because
the government has nothing with which to stand up in the face of
that.
I ask the member very specifically whether the government will
have the responsibility to put back at least $1.5 billion into
transfer payments for health care. Will it have the integrity to
keep to its promises of the last election and the election before
that for national home care and pharmacare? Will it have some
vision to ensure that we can carry medicare into the new
millennium?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to
address all those points in the time allotted, but I will point
out to the member that the cuts to the province of Ontario and
the CHST, which includes health, post-secondary and social
services, were about $800 million. The Government of Ontario at
the same time decided to reduce income taxes by $4.3 billion.
There are joint responsibilities with regard to health care. The
member will well know that the provinces have to deal with that.
Indeed the National Forum on Health identified that there was at
least $11 billion of waste in the system. It is very important
that the system be managed properly.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
very interested to hear the member from across the way talk about
having the fiscal house in order. Let us see how much order it
is in.
The last time I noticed we were $560 billion in debt.
We have a 67 cent Canadian dollar. We pay about $40 billion to
$50 billion in interest depending on what rate we are paying at
the time. The member calls that getting his fiscal house in
order. All of this is despite the fact that revenues have
increased since 1993 by about some $40 billion or $45 billion.
1800
I recall in 1993 when the Liberal candidate in my riding said
that a perfectly acceptable level of deficit financing would be
about 3% of the GDP. I would like the member to comment on
whether he has changed his mind about that level of deficit.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, when the government was
formed in 1993 the annual deficit was $42 billion. Obviously we
cannot just make that disappear by flipping a switch. It
obviously added to the accumulated national debt. The record
shows very clearly that the government not only eliminated that
deficit but it has also balanced the budget and delivered
surpluses to Canadians as a result of its fiscal responsibility.
The member cannot deny the fact that we are on the right track.
The debt to GDP is going down, down, down and in fact it should
be below 50% before the next fiscal year is finished.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague from Mississauga South for his speech.
I was surprised to hear him speak so enthusiastically, praising
the government for its fiscal management. As I listened to him,
I wondered whether he was fully aware of what is really going
on.
Yes, the government has eliminated the deficit. Yes, it has
accumulated surpluses, but we must look at how it was done. This
government acted in the most cowardly fashion to eliminate its
deficit. Only 11% of savings, if I can use that word, came from
its own programs.
All the rest was achieved at the expense of the provinces,
through cuts in their transfer payments for health,
post-secondary education and social programs, and at the expense
of workers and employers who contribute to the employment
insurance fund.
This approach did allow the government to accumulate surpluses,
with the result that, for example, the provinces had to make
drastic cuts in health and education to the point where 80% of
cuts affecting the Quebec health care system today are the
direct result of this government's cuts in transfers to the
provinces.
It is the federal government's fault if it has become so
difficult for people to get medical care today. And we hear the
members opposite blow their own horn and say how good they were
at managing public finances. It is outreageous.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member had some pretty
strong words.
Let me review it for the member. The year ended March 31, 1998
was the first year we had a balanced budget of some $1 billion.
In the last fiscal year reported on it was $2.9 billion. In the
current fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 we are looking at a
budget surplus of some $2 billion.
When we consider the modest surpluses the government has, I
wonder what the member has in mind when he suggests that billions
and billions of dollars should not have been cut from the
spending of governments. We would have still been in deficit.
Unemployment would have remained high. Inflation would have
increased. Long term debt interest rates would have increased.
Canadians' mortgages would have increased. Car loans would have
increased.
There is a balance and I will not deny that all Canadians have
to share part of that burden.
But let us be clear. When in government it is very important
that prudence and fiscal responsibility are exercised to make
sure that the changes we have made are sustainable, to ensure we
are on a positive track to have continued surpluses, so Canadians
can get the tax breaks they have earned, so Canadians can have
the health care system they deserve, so that students can be
taken care of, so that seniors can be taken care of and so that
families with children can be taken care of.
1805
Those are the objectives of a responsible government. I suggest
to the member that the Liberal government has been a very
responsible government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We added two minutes
to the question and comment period so that the next speaker, who
would be the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, would not be
interrupted in his discourse.
It being 6.07 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, you did something on your own initiative and I know
unintentionally that deprived me of an opportunity to speak at
what I thought was a crucial time. I point out to you this is
possibly the last debate for the end of the millennium. I
wanted, Mr. Speaker, to make a couple of comments. Is this going
on tomorrow?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Wentworth—Burlington is asking for the unanimous consent of
the House to extend for two or three minutes, I think we have
already crossed that bridge. We have already passed the special
motion that we would not be doing things that were special. We
cannot revert, having crossed that bridge. Hopefully the hon.
member for Wentworth—Burlington will be able to get his comments
in tomorrow. If not, I sincerely apologize.
We will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): moved that Bill
C-226, parliamentarians' code of conduct, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address my
Bill C-226 which sets out to establish a code of official conduct
for parliamentarians.
This bill is realistic. It is reflected in provincial
legislatures and other nations' national assemblies. This code
of conduct would raise the level of integrity of our parliament.
This bill is rooted in very practical and legitimate concerns
Canadians hold about their parliament.
I believe the decision not to have this bill votable was a
betrayal of the Canadian public. The clauses I have set out in
this code of conduct would have been practical and would have
raised the whole tenor of this House and of the Senate.
My first comments to this House of Commons in response to the
government's first throne speech were made over two years ago. I
quote from that speech:
So many of our citizens have become so discouraged with our
politicians and our political system that they have chosen not to
exercise the basic rights for which our forefathers fought and
died. But the sad reality is, and it came across loudly and
clearly to me during the election campaign, that many citizens
have lost faith in their politicians. Politicians were described
to me as not really caring, being in it only for themselves or
for the money, being dishonest or full of empty promises.... As I
stand here today I pledge that I will do my best to put a new
face on politics.
Those were my words in 1997.
This code of conduct sets out to address this very real problem.
This bill is being brought forward out of my personal desire to
see parliamentarians carry out their responsibilities with
honesty, integrity, transparency and in a manner that dignifies
the trust placed in them by the electorate.
Unfortunately over the years there has been too much opportunity
for people to become cynical, skeptical and pessimistic
concerning elected officials.
I firmly believe that those entrusted with public office must not
only conduct themselves in a manner befitting of that trust, but
must also be seen to be carrying out their responsibilities
beyond reproach and free from conflict of interest.
1810
This parliament should have and needs a clear and objective
complaint and resolution mechanism available to the public. This
private member's bill addresses these issues. My bill is based
upon the following principles.
Parliamentarians should have the highest ethical standards so as
to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the
integrity of parliamentarians and parliament.
Parliamentarians should perform their official duties and
arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the
closest public scrutiny.
Parliamentarians should avoid placing themselves under any
financial or other obligation that might influence them in the
performance of their official duties.
Parliamentarians upon entering office should arrange their
private affairs to prevent real or apparent conflict of interest.
If such does arise, it should be resolved in a way that protects
the public interest.
Parliamentarians should not accept any gifts or personal benefit
in connection with their office that may reasonably be seen to
compromise their personal judgment or integrity. Parliamentarians
would not accept any gift other than those received as a normal
expression of courtesy or protocol.
As well, all parliamentarians under this bill would have to
disclose all official travel when the cost exceeds $250 in cases
where the trip is not completely paid for by parliament or one of
the few officially recognized sponsors.
No parliamentarian would be permitted to be a party to a
contract with the Government of Canada under which the
parliamentarian receives a benefit.
Parliamentarians would be required to make a disclosure of all
assets once every calendar year and would be required to make
public disclosure of the nature, although not the value, of all
assets each year.
Finally, to ensure that public interest and the highest
standards are upheld, there would be an ethics counsellor to
advise parliamentarians on any question relating to conduct. The
ethics counsellor would enforce the application of the code of
conduct. There would also be the creation of a new standing
joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on
official conduct to review the code and to monitor the ethics
counsellor.
I should point out that there are codes of conduct in various
forms in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and
Australia as well as in some provinces in Canada. For example,
in B.C. there is the conflict of interest commissioner. In
Alberta there is the ethics commissioner. In Saskatchewan there
is the conflict of interest commissioner. In Ontario there is
the integrity commissioner.
There are many obvious reasons why having a code of official
conduct would benefit all parliamentarians and all Canadians. In
terms of the public, I am sure that everyone here would agree
that the majority of Canadians has lost confidence in politicians
and many hold a negative opinion of the political system. This
code would address public cynicism. It would satisfy the
expectations of the public and encourage a sense of security in
the system.
The values that this bill promotes are central to rebuilding
respect in this institution by Canadians. That is why this code
would include a statement of principles that parliamentarians are
expected to uphold. The values inherent in this code of conduct
are that service in parliament is a public trust. Public
interest must be placed ahead of private interest and conflicts
of interest must be avoided or resolved.
This code is not only a disciplinary measure but it also
provides an important educational function. The public would like
to see such a function instilled in this House and the code sets
forth a framework for that kind of education. This code would
make it clear what parliamentarians are expected to do in certain
situations and would provide an educational function for the
guidance of parliamentarians.
I said at the outset that I was disappointed this bill was not
deemed votable. There are several criteria to determine whether a
bill is votable.
Bills and motions if they are to be votable should be drafted in
a clear, complete and effective way. This 18 page bill has gone
through many drafts and redrafts with the assistance of
legislative staff. The bill not only stands the scrutiny of being
potentially effective and an operable piece of legislation, but
it is one that clearly outlines its goals.
Also, bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas
of federal jurisdiction. The bill fully meets that criteria.
1815
[Translation]
Bills and motions must deal with matters of significant public
interest. The conduct of parliamentarians is obviously of
considerable public interest.
Bills and motions must also deal with matters that are not part
of the government's legislative agenda and on which the House of
Commons has not had the opportunity to vote during the session
under way. As far as I know, Bill C-226 meets these criteria.
[English]
In terms of bills being votable, all other things being equal,
higher priorities should be given to items which transcend purely
local interests, are not couched in partisan terms or cannot be
address by the House in other ways.
Clearly Bill C-226 has no given local interest and is fully in
the national interest. It would also apply to all
parliamentarians, including myself. There is nothing partisan
about this particular effort. Members from all parties signed my
petition accompanying the bill. I believe strongly that anything
we can do to raise the dignity of parliament and parliamentarians
in the eyes of the public benefits all of us, both collectively
and individually.
Similar legislation exists in provincial legislatures and other
national legislatures. It is neither fanciful nor onerous in its
construction and in its potential application. I sincerely
believe that the bill meets all the tests of being something that
is worthy of being voted on by this honourable body.
I would therefore ask for the unanimous consent of members in
the House to deem this bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Halifax West has presented a motion to the House to have his bill
made votable. Does the member have the unanimous consent of the
House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-226, the parliamentarians' code
of conduct.
I do not question the significance of a bill like the one being
put forward by my hon. colleague from Halifax West. In fact, I
can well imagine that on such a bill depends all the confidence
the public may have in their institutions and in the elected
representatives and politicians who are part of these
parliamentarian institutions, which are the foundation of our
democratic system and of our system of government.
That being said, I have questions about the surrealistic nature
of the debates we are having in the House these days since, at
the same time we are discussing a parliamentarians' code of
conduct, which, I admit, is a very important issue, the federal
government has introduced a bill that challenges the fundamental
balance of the federation in which we live.
This federation was created with the voluntary consent of the
provinces of which it is made up. These provinces who freely
entered the federation are now being put into a straitjacket so
they cannot leave the federation, or at least so the conditions
allowing them to leave as freely as they entered are more
difficult than ever, making it practically impossible for them
to leave.
1820
I would like to stray from the subject for a moment to make a
few remarks that seem very important to me since, although I do
not deny the importance of the bill introduced by our colleague,
I believe there is a much more important debate that must take
place, a debate on the very nature of the country in which we
live, which leads us to have these kinds of debates on the
parliamentarians' code of conduct, on the budget and on all the
other issues that must normally be brought to the attention of
parliamentarians.
Let us keep in mind that at the time Quebec joined the Canadian
federation in 1867, it did not do so based on a simple vote by
the legislative assembly of the day. Incidentally, that vote
passed by a very slender majority of two seats, if I am not
mistaken, among the francophone members. The least one can say,
therefore, is that this entry was not the most unanimous
possible, far from it in fact. But that is how Quebec entered
the federation.
Later, when other provinces came into the federation, the
founding members never had to give formal assent to their entry,
even though the arrival of new provinces did have a fundamental
impact on each of them.
Now they are trying to tell us that consulting the population in
a democratic manner, through a referendum, would not be
legitimate, would not be the right way to leave this country,
whereas in 1867 the population of Quebec was never consulted
about entering this federation.
I would respectfully submit that it is legitimate and democratic
for Quebec to leave the Canadian federation as freely as it
entered it, if that is the wish of its population, and if that
wish is expressed by a majority vote, that is a 50% plus one
vote.
Across the floor of this House, they are saying “But there have
already been two referendums. How many of them are you going to
hold before you get a yes?” That is not the point.
In 1980, federalists told Quebecers “If you stay in Canada we
will reform this country in such a way that you will feel
comfortable in it”. A constitutional reform was indeed
undertaken, but Quebec was left out. Quebec never signed the
constitutional reform adopted in 1982 and no Quebec premier,
whether federalist or sovereignist, was ever prepared to sign
it.
The federalists got a no on the basis of misrepresentation,
and the same thing happened again in 1995. On the eve of that
referendum, the current Prime Minister, realizing to his great
dismay that the sovereignists might win, once again made
promises to Quebecers and told them “we will entrench a veto and
the concept of distinct society in the constitution”.
We saw what happened once again. The government passed a
meaningless motion in this House and a veto was given to all the
regions of Canada, making it forever all the more difficult to
reform the Canadian constitution to accommodate the provinces.
Under these circumstances, I respectfully submit that it is
perfectly legitimate that Quebecers who voted no in 1980 and no
in 1995, by a very slim majority, be given an opportunity to
vote a third time. Oddly enough, even if the no side won with
only 50.4% of the votes in 1995, they seem to think that the
question was clear enough.
On that basis, we must conclude that the moral contract, if
I can put it that way, that had been agreed to between Quebecers
and the federal governments of 1980 and 1995 was broken. This
fully justifies the holding of a third referendum, so that we
can tell Quebecers “Listen, they told you that they would reform
a number of things to convince you to vote no. Well, there was
no reform whatsoever. Do you still think we should continue to
be part of that country?”
1825
I believe that if Quebecers were to say no, they would have the
option and the freedom to leave this country.
With all due respect for my hon. colleague
from Halifax West who has worked very hard to prepare this bill,
I want to say that although I understand why he felt the need
to introduce this legislation, we will unfortunately be unable
to support his bill.
We cannot support a bill that establishes a code of conduct for
parliamentarians when it seems that there is already a very
mysterious code of conduct for the ministers that is, however,
known only to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister appointed an ethics counsellor who reports
only to the Prime Minister on a code of conduct known only to
the Prime Minister, and now we are asked to set stricter rules
for parliamentarians than the ones being applied to cabinet
members who have access to inside information and subsidy
programs.
I submit to all my colleagues in the House, and with all due
respect to our colleague from Halifax West, that the priority
should have been the adoption of a public code of conduct for
cabinet members. After that, it would be possible to consider
adopting a code of conduct for parliamentarians.
If it is appropriate to consider the adoption of a code of
conduct for cabinet members and perhaps for parliamentarians, we
must also examine the source of certain conflicts of interest in
which parliamentarians but especially cabinet members have found
themselves or could find themselves.
When one looks at the various cases of conflict of interest over
the years, it is possible to see a direct relation between
businesses that made contributions to campaign funds and
services rendered by parliamentarians, ministers and government
members afterwards.
In closing, I think we must not only look at adopting codes of
conduct, but we must also carefully examine the way in which
political parties get their funding. Bill C-2 will give us the
opportunity to discuss this fundamental issue.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and address this item of Private Members'
Business this afternoon dealing with the creation of a code of
conduct.
The development of a code of conduct for members of parliament
is a proposal that has been brought before the House many times
over the past 20 years or so. In fact, my hon. colleague
introduced this bill in the last session of parliament, which was
Bill C-488.
A code of conduct is a matter in which all parliamentarians have
an interest and which can only be implemented with the agreement
of all members of parliament and in the other place. Obviously,
every parliamentarian has a responsibility to act with honesty
and integrity and to maintain the confidence that Canadians have
placed in all of us.
The Prime Minister, himself, in this House has said:
Clearly as parliamentarians we have individual responsibility
for ethical conduct. In addition, together we have a collective
responsibility to ensure that conduct.
In part, this is because the legislature is a separate and
distinct branch of government from the executive. Our approach
to conduct can only properly be developed by us for ourselves.
1830
My hon. colleague's initiative for a code of conduct raises
issues regarding our individual and collective responsibilities
here in parliament.
To put this in perspective, I will comment on what is already in
place and the work that has gone on before us as it relates to
the integrity and honesty of our political institutions.
First, as parliamentarians we are already governed by the laws
of the country, as well as the laws of parliament.
Let me begin with the standing orders of the House of Commons,
which govern us here, and the rich history of precedents and
Speakers' rulings, which establish parameters for the carriage of
our duties as parliamentarians. The same applies in the other
place with their own rules.
For example, Standing Order 21 provides that members cannot vote
on a question in which they may have a pecuniary interest.
Standing Order 23 defines as a high crime and misdemeanour the
act of members of the House accepting money to promote a matter
which is being considered by parliament.
The criminal code specifically prohibits members of parliament
from engaging in bribery and corrupt acts. However, the courts
have recognized some ambiguity in the definition of the term
officer of parliament, and it has been suggested that the term
should be clarified by parliament.
The Parliament of Canada Act addresses conflict of interest for
senators and establishes fines for contravention. There are also
provisions relating to contracting governing members of the
House, though it has also been proposed that these rules, long
standing, now be updated.
The Elections Act also sets out guidelines for conduct during
elections, for example, with respect to campaign financing. An
amendment to the Elections Act currently before the House
increases the level of transparency and accountability in
election financing, which is consistent with the government's
commitment to restore integrity to our political institutions.
The penalty in some cases under the Elections Act is loss of the
member's seat.
Aside from these basic building blocks for ethical behaviour,
from the beginning the government has recognized the importance
of restoring the appearances of honesty and integrity to the
country's political institutions. We set this out as a top
priority in our Liberal Party's red book during the 1993
election.
Since then, the list of initiatives we have implemented is quite
long, but I am sure my colleagues will recognize the following.
The government introduced amendments to the Lobbyists
Registration Act to increase the transparency of lobbying
activities. This included stiffer penalties for lobbyists, and
has increased the transparency of their activities.
As part of this initiative, the government also appointed an
ethics counsellor who has responsibilities in two areas: First,
he advises ministers and government officials on their conduct in
the course of carrying out their official duties; and second, the
ethics counsellor can investigate complaints about lobbyists'
activities pursuant to their code of conduct.
The Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for
public office holders in the House in June 1994. This code is a
concrete measure that shows that the government recognizes that
restoring the public trust involves strengthening the system from
both the public office and lobbying sides.
The code sets out key principles that apply to all public office
holders: ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary
secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council
appointees. The code is enforced by the Prime Minister.
As we can see, the government takes very seriously its
responsibilities to maintain integrity in government.
I will now address parliament's efforts in developing a code of
conduct. We have been studying the issue of parliamentary ethics
since the early 1970s with various government green papers,
standing committee reports and a plethora of bills on the
subject, although all have died on the order paper.
1835
In fact, some of the most in depth study was conducted quite
recently. Here I am thinking of the work of the special joint
committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a code of
conduct, which was established by the government in 1995.
This committee, which was chaired by the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands, heard from many witnesses, including
the federal ethics counsellor, the privacy commissioner,
academics in the field of political science, respected members of
the public and several provincial commissioners of ethics.
The final report of that committee constructed a code that drew
on many of the common elements raised during testimony. Some
examples include: that a list of principles should be included
in the code: that it was important to have a commissioner or body
appointed to provide advice, take disclosures and enforce the
code, as does the existing ethics commissioner for ministers and
parliamentary secretaries; that it needed to deal with disclosure
of assets and interests; the importance of clarifying the area of
government contracting; and recognizing the distinction between
the legislature and the executive by recommending that a
permanent committee be established to administer the code.
From reading Bill C-226, I can see that my hon. colleague
opposite has drawn on much of the previous work that has been
done by parliamentarians.
However, as with the many initiatives on a code of conduct for
parliamentarians, the special committee's report was not adopted
because members of parliament themselves could not agree to adopt
the report.
Some members of parliament have indicated that in their view a
formal code could create a rigid and onerous system of rules
which would not be appropriate in a parliament.
So the challenge in the House and in the other place has been in
deciding the best balance to ensure that there exists and appears
to be ethical behaviour on the part of parliamentarians.
As I have mentioned, we already have a range of measures in
place to deal with this area.
I am not personally aware of a great interest among hon. members
in making the development of a formal code a priority at this
time. I am also not aware of a special need to do it at this
time.
The member's efforts, the member who moved the bill, are most
creditable and laudable. He continues a tradition that has been
around this place for 20 or so years now. I certainly want to
recognize his efforts and contribution to this and to our efforts
collectively in this place to maintain high standards and the
appearance of high standards of ethical conduct in the conduct of
our work and responsibilities as parliamentarians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to talk to the bill about a code of conduct and
whether an official code of conduct is a good idea here in the
House of Commons and for parliamentarians generally.
I have listened with interest to the member from the government
side as he talked about some of the safeguards that are in the
system now to ensure that conduct is above reproach.
I find this a very interesting bill. The idea that
parliamentary service is a public trust is something that I think
most parliamentarians hold very close to their heart. They want
to do what it takes to ensure public confidence is maintained in
the precincts of parliament.
A code of official conduct is an idea that I think is worth
debating. We have had the example of the ethics counsellor,
which the member on the government side mentioned, who is
selected by the Prime Minister himself but then must often
investigate the actions of the Prime Minister. That brings
conflict.
I think the debate is very timely. It is timely because people,
by and large, have a reduced standard of respect for this
institution and for the members. It has been steadily declining
for a long time.
1840
When we look at the occupations that have the respect of
Canadians, we see that doctors are near the top and that social
workers have a certain standing. However, as we go down the line
and we get to elected officials, we see that they are way down on
the respect list, and we cannot ignore that. That is why this
debate is timely, and I congratulate the member for bringing it
forward.
The principles of the bill involve things such as ethical
standards; the way parliamentarians will act in a fashion that
will promote and preserve public confidence and open themselves
up to public scrutiny, the way they will arrange their private
affairs so they are in the public interest, and that they will
not accept any gift or personal benefit connected with their
office that could reasonably be seen to compromise their judgment
or integrity.
I will dwell on the last point for a few minutes. In the House
during question period today, I brought up the situation that has
been evolving over the grants in the Prime Minister's riding.
This is a good example of why we need an arm's length ethics
counsellor, an arm's length code of conduct. I would like to see
what the ethics counsellor believes in because I have never been
able to get a copy of what he is trying to enforce.
What we asked in question period today is an example of why we
need to have public scrutiny and openness about the actions of
both ministers and parliamentarians. We asked how many
coincidences in a row it takes before the alarm bells go off
regarding the activities of the Prime Minister and these
government grants.
I can detail, for example, that in the 1997 campaign, 33% of the
total of the personal and business donations to the Prime
Minister's personal campaign had some government grant or
government loan association to it. In other words, the person or
the company that received a federal government loan or grant gave
in return large donations to the Prime Minister ranging from as
low as $400 to as high as $10,000. That in and of itself is not
evidence of any wrongdoing, but it goes on.
When the Prime Minister sold property to someone who had, shall
we say, dubious business credentials and had gone broke in a
previous hotel business, the Prime Minister sold a hotel to the
same person. That person then received more government grants.
Did the Prime Minister receive a benefit or not? The ethics
counsellor said that he did not really think so, but that same
hotel now owes taxes to the provincial government and the local
Shawinigan government. It owes federal excise taxes and $100,000
to the local contractors. The inn is now up for sale again.
Why did that hotel ever get any federal money in grants and
loans given the bad track record of the proprietor and the very
close connection to the Prime Minister? Maybe that in and of
itself is not enough to cause alarm bells, although I would argue
that they are starting to jingle a little bit. It goes on from
there.
René Fugère was an unpaid aide to the Prime Minister. He
represented the Prime Minister at public functions and made
announcements on behalf of the Prime Minister here and there. He
was closely tied to the Prime Minister. This was someone who
represented the Prime Minister at constituency functions. He
announced a transitional jobs fund grant for the Grand-Mère Inn
in the Prime Minister's riding. Ten days later, he received
$11,500 from that same company for services. Maybe it is a happy
coincidence for this fellow. If the bells were jingling before,
now they are starting to get a little nervous because there are
so many coincidences. On and on it goes.
1845
The human resources minister has a special fund that is
available for special grants only at the minister's discretion.
The only grant that is given out in all of Canada goes into the
Prime Minister's riding. Maybe that is another one of those
coincidences, but what happens is that the grant is not spent so
they have to set up a special trust fund to keep that grant money
in the riding until the next fiscal year.
By the government's own admission, by the admission of the
government's own documents, the trouble is that the trust fund is
actually illegal. It is outside the parameters of legality.
They cannot do it legally but it is set up anyway.
It is illegal. It is one of a kind. It is in the Prime
Minister's riding. It follows all these other things. Maybe it
is a happy coincidence. More than that, the lawyer who set up
the illegal trust fund was appointed not once but twice by the
Prime Minister to his role at Canada Post, the last time being in
September of this year. The alarm bells have gone off now for
me. There are too many happy coincidences all at once, one after
the other after the other.
The Quality Inn in the Prime Minister's riding, for example,
received a $600,000 grant. It was announced without any
departmental paperwork. No paperwork was done whatsoever. It
was advertized in the Prime Minister's householder in April 1997,
the month the election was called. The approval came well after
it was announced in the householder. Press releases were made.
There were announcements of grand things that were coming.
Mr. Thibault is involved, a self-confessed embezzler in the
Prime Minister's riding and now the subject of criminal
investigation involved in legal disputes in the riding. One of
the fundraisers for the Liberal Party of Canada in the last
election has been convicted of influence peddling by linking the
transitional jobs funds grants by saying that he will arrange a
grant or arrange for someone to see the minister but the person
will have to give a donation to the Liberal Party. The Liberal
Party does not condone this but it happened. He has been
convicted of it.
When I look at a bill like this one I am not sure it would
prevent that. It would certainly point to how wrong it is. It
would say that we have to conduct our affairs so that we can be
seen to be at arm's length from any benefit to ourselves
politically or from any benefit from any sale of property. We
have to conduct ourselves in a way that brings honour to this
place.
I have asked the Prime Minister repeatedly to table in the House
all documents associated with this matter. We keep digging them
up in access to information requests. We had some more today. We
will have some more tomorrow. The Liberals can know that now.
The problem is that it is time everyone understands that an
ethics councillor in this place needs to be arm's length from
everyone, including the Prime Minister, to give reports to all of
us in order to uphold the highest standard of public conduct and
to establish faith in a very honoured institution.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak this evening to the bill of the
hon. member for Halifax West which seeks to establish a code of
conduct for parliamentarians, a code of ethics for
parliamentarians. I think that is very important.
I believe the member makes a valid point with this piece of
legislation. There are countless examples of elected politicians
who dangerously straddle the fence between what is right and
wrong in terms of conduct.
For example, the Prime Minister and his suspect use of the
transitional jobs fund has led to repeated stories in the press
about large federal grants going to shady businessmen in the
Prime Minister's riding. In an instance like this one where
there is even a political staffer being quoted in the newspaper
as saying the process for doling out cash in Shawinigan was
outside the standard practices of the Department of Human
Resources Development, one has to wonder if an appropriate
watchdog body's time is not due.
1850
There is a big difference between sending everything through the
criminal route and being investigated by the RCMP versus it being
investigated by an independent body that would go after the
conduct or the ethics of how a person behaves.
The Minister for International Trade, who has taken some serious
criticism for his election fundraising and his use of the
transitional jobs fund, is another example where a committee or
body overseeing ethics might be a good idea. I do not think we
need to set up witch-hunt committees. I do not think this is the
point of the hon. member's bill. However, in a case like this
one where the minister's practices are in question an ethics
committee would be a logical tool in establishing the realities
of the situation.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, who has also made
fine use of the TJF for propping up projects in her riding, might
be in a situation where a committee would be a wise body in
straightening out the issue.
Through all the endless stories of the government's questionable
approach to using public funds, the government repeatedly tells
us and Canadians that all is okay with this behaviour because the
ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, acts as a watchdog for the Prime
Minister and cabinet.
Mr. Wilson is not really an ethics counsellor. He is a staffer
who reports to the Prime Minister. If he hears of any
unfavourable conduct, his job is to straighten it out with the
ministers and the Prime Minister and cover it up. A true ethics
counsellor would look at it and if there were any
inappropriateness his role would be to tell parliament or a
committee of parliament. His role would also be to make it
public.
While this position provides lovely optics for the government,
the fact remains that he reports to the Prime Minister. He does
not report to the House but to the individual whom he is supposed
to monitor. This is absurd and completely counterproductive to
the whole notion of having an ethics watchdog. What is the
purpose of having somebody policing his boss? The position
despite the charming title is a political one where an individual
is tasked with keeping the Prime Minister and ministers out of
trouble.
There is a need for an individual who reports to the House on
the ethics of government. However I am not sure it is necessary
to monitor every member of the House of Commons and the Senate.
By the simple virtue of being elected by the citizens of Canada
we are automatically asked and expected to hold a high standard
of conduct.
However, if we were to look into it further, the U.S. House of
Representatives model may be worth examining. Its committee on
house administration is charged with overseeing and, if
warranted, examining the ethical behaviour of congressmen. This
might be a good approach to look at rather than the existing
ethics counsellor who is really nothing more than a political
fixer for the Prime Minister and his ministers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Seeing no one
rising, the hon. member for Halifax West will have five minutes
to end the debate. At the termination of that five minutes
debate will conclude.
[Translation]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to express my deep appreciation to all members who took part in
the debate. This is a very important topic, and members'
opinions are very useful.
[English]
I want to take a moment to try to summarize a few points that
were raised with respect to the bill. My hon. colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois had some reservations about the bill because he
felt it created stricter rules for members than it did for
ministers.
In all due respect to the hon. member I would say the bill does
just the opposite. The bill would apply to all members including
ministers and the Prime Minister. There would be baseline rules
for everybody. If the Prime Minister wants to create stricter
rules under the bill for his cabinet members for whatever reason
he could do so, but the bill would apply to all members of
parliament including members of the Senate. It would accomplish
the purpose about which my hon. colleague has some concerns.
1855
With respect to the comments made by the hon. government member
regarding all measures that are currently in place, I guess the
very fact that this issue keeps coming forth, as he indicated
over and over again, indicates that perhaps all measures in place
are not working the way they should, or else the issue would not
constantly keep coming up. As he indicated I certainly did
research the previous studies and the previous efforts that were
made. The bill builds upon them and tries to codify and bring
together all the loose pieces under a workable piece of
legislation.
With respect to the hon. member's comments he mentioned that the
Right Hon. Prime Minister said that ethics should not be a
partisan issue. This is exactly why the bill has come forward.
It is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that would apply to
all members regardless of political stripe, regardless of whether
or not they hold office. The system in place is open to suspect
in terms of the ethics counsellor who currently reports to the
Prime Minister and does not have in the real sense any
objectivity in terms of reporting to parliament as a whole.
Therefore there is even within the current structure a system
that allows for a perceived conflict of interest.
I am sure all hon. members would believe and understand that
even if something is being done correctly there is no harm in
having it looked at because that removes any air of suspicion the
public may have with respect to actions by elected members. The
bill would certainly enhance the role of parliamentarians and
would provide for transparency.
I have already expressed my disappointment that the bill was not
made votable. I recall someone saying that I should not expect
it to be made votable because nobody would really want to vote
against it; it would be like voting against motherhood. I
understand that, but it is time we voted for motherhood and stood
up for something that would perhaps help us improve the way this
institution operates on behalf of Canadians.
I did not get a degree of confidence from the people to whom I
spoke as I was campaigning and still speak to. They do not have
any great degree of confidence in the House and in the personal
ethics of everyone in the House and the way we operate. As a
matter of fact I think we are rated close to the bottom of the
pile on the list of professions. We are down with used car
salesmen, I believe.
Anything we can do to improve the image of parliamentarians
would be helpful. I understand why the hon. member on the
government side would not want to see the bill come into play
because it certainly places an additional onus upon us.
I agree with one opinion expressed by the hon. member on the
government side. We cannot legislate behaviour and ethics.
Ultimately the law that has to apply to all of us is the law of
love that comes from within and comes from the heart. I honestly
urge all of us, regardless of what legislation is on the books,
to examine our actions from within and continue to strive on
behalf of those whom we represent from a point of view of love,
integrity and respect for other people.
I was speaking with a grade five class in Basinview school in my
riding the other day. It struck me that these young people were
very much interested in the parliamentary system. I stressed to
them the most important thing of all, that no matter what
occupation they pursue they should do it with honesty, integrity
and a sense of transparency and respect for other people.
As we draw close to the Christmas season I wish all my
colleagues a very, very merry Christmas, happy new year, happy
holiday season, and all the best in the upcoming millennium.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion not being
designated votable and the time having expired, the order is
dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to rise on a question that I first
raised on November 23. It was a general question about aircraft
in the Department of National Defence.
We talked about Hercules planes that could not get off the
ground and could not make it from point A to point B.
We talked about the Auroras which cannot fly too low and cannot
fly too high. There is only one elevation they can fly at.
1900
I would like to hone in on the Sea King question today. We all
know the Sea Kings are very tired and old. They have been
refurbished. They have new skins and now they have new lives but
even with that, the minister of defence says that their useful
life is only until 2005 before we get new helicopters to replace
them.
We know that new helicopters are necessary now, especially
because we have spent all this money on frigates that were
designed to have these new helicopters. Without the helicopters
they are really only about 50% effective. We are most anxious to
see those helicopters supplied, but the problem is the new
helicopter delivery time is eight years. The Sea Kings only have
a useful life until 2005 and if we ordered the helicopters today,
which we have not done yet, they would not be here until 2008.
There is a hole between 2005 and 2008.
My question for the parliamentary secretary is, what will the
department of defence do in the time period between the earliest
delivery date of 2008 and the expiry of useful life of the Sea
Kings in 2005? What happens in the three year hole?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that all
Canadians should take great pride in the work performed by the
men and women of Canada's air force at home and abroad. Every day
Canadian forces aircraft operate throughout the country and
around the world performing a variety of demanding missions.
During their mission in East Timor, our Hercules aircraft
completed some 130 operational missions carrying more than two
million pounds of equipment and some 2,200 personnel. They have
also airlifted humanitarian aid to various regions of the world.
Canadians also appreciated the valuable contributions of the
Hercules during the Manitoba flood and the great ice storm.
Our Labrador helicopters continue to conduct dangerous search
and rescue operations and save thousands of lives every year.
They will soon be replaced with state of the art Cormorant
helicopters.
During the recent NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia, the CF-18s
flew more than 670 sorties striking at a variety of military
targets.
In the last few years the government has also taken significant
steps to ensure the air force has the tools it needs to do its
job. In addition to the Cormorant, the minister has announced
the beginning of modernization of programs for both the Aurora
maritime patrol aircraft and the CF-18 aircraft.
[Translation]
I am also very pleased to report that the Auroras, which until
mid-November were restricted to unpressurized flights, are now
almost all authorized to fly at a new altitude of over 10,000
feet. This comes after detailed inspections confirming that
these planes can carry out pressurized flights in complete
safety.
As for the Sea Kings, the minister has made it very clear, on
more than one occasion, that they need to be replaced. In fact,
the minister confirmed several times in the House that new
maritime helicopters were the number one equipment priority.
We are therefore in the process of developing an acquisition
strategy.
These initiatives will help ensure that Canada's airforce can
continue to serve all Canadians from one end of the country to
the other and will make it possible to continue to interoperate
effectively with our allies.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just in case any of
the departments happen to be watching and tuned in, the
parliamentary secretaries have exactly two minutes to respond. I
know it is sometimes difficult because the responses that come
from the departments are substantially longer and they are so
well done that it seems a shame to interrupt.
EQUALITY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
appalled at the President of the Treasury Board's response to my
question concerning racism in society at large, and in the
federal government in particular. She had a choice. On behalf of
the government, she could have addressed issues of racial
discrimination. Instead she chose to play partisan political
games, but it gets worse. She then proceeded to say that the
government is addressing the problem by setting up an advisory
board.
Black Canadians and other visible minorities have been studied
to death. What we need are solutions. The Canadian Human Rights
Commission's analysis of the government's performance in 1998
shows an abysmal record. Out of 12,420 term staff positions
filled last year, only 418 were visible minorities. That is only 3%.
Out of 2,800 permanent jobs filled, only 184 were visible
minorities, but with 685 visible minority positions lost, the
Liberals had a net loss of 501 employees, or a decrease of 18%.
1905
I am sure the government is well aware that it has been over two
years since the commission released the study carried out by Dr.
John Samuel entitled “Visible Minorities and the Public
Service”. In February 1998 a forum on racial discrimination in
the federal public service and federal agencies in Canada looked
at the issues of systemic racism.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission states in its 1998 annual
report:
The public service's record regarding the employment of visible
minorities is worse than its record for the other designated
groups. For 1997-98, the representation of visible minorities was
5.1 per cent, about half of what could be expected based on the
number of people qualified and available for work. There were
ample opportunities to remedy this situation, since more than
15,000 people were hired, but the number of visible minority
candidates recruited was less than half of those qualified and
available. Given the continuing difficulties that federal
government departments seem to be experiencing in hiring and
promoting visible minorities, it is hard to conclude that they
have taken to heart the recommendations made by Dr. Samuel.
I also raised in my question to the President of the Treasury
Board the government's inexcusable act of failing to appoint
Judge Corrine Sparks who was passed over and ignored in a
conscious decision by the government to appoint judges who have
sat on the bench in Nova Scotia for less time. Judge Sparks was
appointed in 1987. The government overlooked her in favour of
judges appointed in 1995, 1993 and 1991, among others. As
Lincoln Alexander, chairperson of the Canada Race Relations
Foundation stated, this is a “major slap in the face to the
black community” and he suggested the government's actions
“smack of racism”.
I first raised the issue in the House of Commons on April 14.
The government buried its head in the sand and hoped the problem
would go away, as governments in the country have so often hoped
when it comes to issues of fairness for blacks and other
Canadians of colour.
The figures speak for themselves. Representation of Canada's
visible minority population in the government's public service is
abysmal and offensive.
I sincerely hope the government representative will not respond
with platitudes, with comments of look how well they have done,
and with vague references to future reports of advisory boards or
task forces.
I hope the Liberal government will now respond with an action
plan including targets, funding and dates.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the President of the
Treasury Board to respond to the hon. member's question.
As the President of the Treasury Board has stated in the past,
we are committed to employment equity and need to continue making
progress in representation and distribution of designated group
members.
We are working toward a federal public service that reflects the
population it serves. The government wants to create a workplace
of choice and to be supportive of employees' well-being.
Recognizing diversity, career aspirations and the learning and
developmental needs of employees will lead to better service for
Canadians. Further proof of the government's commitment is our
continuing investment in this area.
The former President of the Treasury Board established a nine
member task force to develop a comprehensive action plan and
recommend measures for improving the participation of visible
minorities in the federal public service. This initiative will
help foster the necessary momentum and commitment to create a new
culture in the public service. This is proof of the government's
resolve to make the public service of Canada better reflect and
respond to Canada's diverse society.
During the fiscal year 1998-99, the government made continued
progress in our ability to attract and recruit persons in a
minority. While we have made steady progress, we recognize that
we need to increase our efforts.
A fund of up to $10 million annually has been set aside for the
employment equity positive measures program which has been
established to address systemic barriers to recruitment,
development and retention of designated group members.
The Treasury Board Secretariat, Public Service Commission and
departments and agencies are working in partnership to develop
strategies and initiatives to address employment equity
challenges and opportunities to achieve tangible results.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
why does the government put gun registration ahead of putting
more police on the streets? This policy of the government has
negatively affected my riding of Dauphin—Swan River.
If safe streets are a priority of the Prime Minister, then the
government is spending in the wrong places.
Let us look at some facts.
1910
Hundreds and hundreds of RCMP positions remain unfilled
throughout the country. There are 39 RCMP positions vacant right
now in Manitoba. The RCMP training depot in Regina is currently
closed. The new government estimates show the spending of $35
million for gun control and only $13.8 million for the RCMP.
Where are the priorities of the government?
Canada has had gun control for over 60 years. No one disputes
that need. Wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a wasteful
long gun registry is irresponsible. This money would be better
used to put more police officers on the street, or used in health
and education or in defence.
I want to read for the record some information obtained through
access to information by my colleague the member for
Yorkton—Melville on the current registry of long firearms in
this country.
The registration system has cost more than $300 million so far.
Only $2.9 million in user fees were collected in the last six
months of operation. Justice department has still not released
the registry's budget for this fiscal year. Cabinet secrecy was
used to hide 172 pages of documents on true costs of gun
registry. On bureaucrats, as many as 800 paper pushers are now
working on the firearms registration scheme. The RCMP have
diverted resources from law enforcement to employ 391 on the
firearms registry.
Statistics Canada reports that 98% of violent crime victims
never encounter firearms. Forty-six percent of all murders are
committed with handguns despite a 65 year old handgun registry.
Criminal incidents have doubled since 1970 but the number of
police officers per capita is dropping.
The RCMP report less than 10% compliance. What use will this be
to police? Backlogs are increasing despite a 70% lower than
expected number of applications.
A consultants' report states that workflow is inflexible and
inefficient at the registry. Only 87,825 photo IDs were issued
in the first year of operation; only 2.5 million to 6.5 million
to go. Only 260,464 registration certificate numbers have been
issued; only six million to 20 million to go. The minister's
firearms experts say production must increase from 1,500 per day
to 13,500 per day.
On the economic impact, cabinet secrecy was used to hide a 115
page report on the economic impact of the registry. There are
still legal challenges ahead. Six provinces and two territories
are challenging the registry in the supreme court.
In closing, the government is making the streets of Canada less
safe through the headstrong drive to register all long guns in
this country. When will the government wake up, quit playing
politics and fund the RCMP properly instead of wasting hundreds
of millions of dollars on useless long gun registration?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
December 1 marked the first anniversary of the beginning of the
implementation of the new firearms legislation. I would like to
assure my colleague that contrary to the opinion of some here,
this new program is making a real difference, a difference we can
measure.
First, it is making a real difference in terms of public safety.
The objective of the firearms legislation is to create a culture
of safety regarding firearms in Canada and to keep guns out of
the hands of those who should not have them. Looking over the
record of the past year, we can plainly see that the program is
doing just that.
Stricter eligibility checks on licence holders and applicants is
one piece of evidence. Officials have refused 587 new
applications for public safety reasons and have revoked 504
licences to individuals who no longer meet the eligibility
requirements. This number is significant. It is seven times
higher than the total for the past five years. It is a
measurement of the success of a new system that provides more
information in a timely manner to public safety authorities.
The checking system is also successful in uncovering cases of
licence falsification, unauthorized sale of firearms and spousal
abuse.
Second, the program is making a difference in terms of what it
offers police. The program has provided police services with
concrete savings. In fact, there is an annual saving of $30
million because officers no longer have to do the paperwork of
accepting applications and issuing licences.
This allows police more time to do policing. It certainly does
not take police off the streets and it does not reduce municipal,
provincial or RCMP police budgets. In fact, the federal
government reimburses provinces and other administrators of the
system for the work they do in the firearms program.
Then there is the fact that the registry provides vital
information to police, information that is invaluable to criminal
investigations. It enables police to take preventive measures
when responding to emergency calls and to identify guns held
illegally.
In fact, Canadians should be proud of the country's firearms
legislation. This legislation will make our communities safer.
It is unfortunate that the Reform Party refuses to see this fact.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)