36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 5
CONTENTS
Monday, October 18, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1105
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1110
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1115
1120
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1125
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1130
1135
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1140
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Ian Murray |
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1200
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1205
1210
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1215
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1220
1225
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1230
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1235
1240
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1245
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1305
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1310
| Mr. Randy White |
1315
1320
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1325
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1330
1335
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1340
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
1345
1350
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1355
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1400
| YWCA
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1405
| CHILD TAX BENEFIT
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CANADIAN HANDBALL TEAM
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ERADICATION OF POVERTY
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1410
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| MADAM JUSTICE LOUISE ARBOUR
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1425
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| BILL C-80
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1430
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1435
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1440
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PRISONS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1445
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. David Price |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1450
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATURAL DISASTERS
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1500
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| RECOGNITION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-224. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1505
| TOBACCO ACT
|
| Bill C-225. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT ACT
|
| Bill C-226. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| ORGAN DONATION ACT
|
| Bill C-227. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY
|
| Bill C-228. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1510
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-229. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| NATIONAL EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA AWARENESS WEEK ACT
|
| Bill C-230. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT
|
| Bill C-231. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1515
| HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH ACT
|
| Bill C-232. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-233. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-234. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-235. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1520
| NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-236. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-237. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-238. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-239. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1525
| LABOUR MARKET TRAINING ACT
|
| Bill C-240. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-241. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-242. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1530
| PETITIONS
|
| Cruelty to Animals
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Young Offenders
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1535
| Clowns and Santas
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Treasury Board
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Adoption of Children
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-243. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1540
| BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
| Bill C-244. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| The Deputy Speaker |
1545
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1550
1555
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1600
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1605
1610
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1615
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1620
1625
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1650
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1655
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1700
1705
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1710
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1715
1720
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1725
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Mr. John McKay |
1730
1735
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1740
| Mr. John Richardson |
1745
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1750
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1755
1800
1830
(Division 3)
| Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
(Division 4)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 5
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 18, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1105
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from October 15 consideration of the motion
for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to
her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and
of the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate was last
interrupted the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale had five
minutes left for questions and comments.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member's speech was so unmemorable that I cannot
recall all of the points which I wished to ask him about.
However, I have a couple of things which I would like to raise.
He talked about a balanced approach to financing. We all know
that in the last couple of years the federal government increased
its tax take in this country by $18 billion. The hon. member
makes much of the fact that the government is promising to lower
taxes by $16.5 billion over the next three years. Is that what
he means by balance, that the government will take $18 billion
away from us and it might think about giving $16.5 billion back?
Is that Liberal balance?
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the hon. member's comment about my
unmemorable speech, maybe I could give a memorable answer to him
by saying, yes, that is absolutely my idea of balance.
Let me explain. The hon. member knows as well as I do that in
the past years we were not in a position to reduce taxes. I
trust that members of the party opposite would not have advocated
reducing taxes given the budget problems we had and the deficit.
They had huge complaints all the time about the size of the
deficit and the debt. So that was the responsible attitude to
take.
Now we are in a position to do something about taxes. In answer
to a question, the Minister of Finance said in the House, I
believe on Friday, that there were $16.5 billion in tax
reductions on the table for the next three years.
What differentiates the hon. member and myself and his riding
from my riding is that my riding, as I pointed out in the
introduction of my speech, requires an act of sensitive
government to issues. It requires a government that says there
are homeless people in Toronto. It requires a government that
says there are children who need housing and homes and that it
will actively pursue an agenda which will enable them to have
better enriched lives, which will help all of us and reduce the
ultimate tax burden by reducing the problems of social conditions
which produce delinquency and other issues in our society. This
is what we need in government. This is the balance of which I
spoke.
There is investment in infrastructure at the university level.
The students and faculties at the University of Toronto, Ryerson
and George Brown College are all thrilled to see an active
government of this country saying that it will reward excellence
and ensure that our institutions of higher learning are well
equipped to ensure that we have the best brains in this country
contributing to the ability of the country to go into the 21st
century well prepared. That is what I mean by a properly
balanced approach. Yes, tax reductions; but, yes, a government
which recognizes there are needs for our citizens at all levels
that have to be fulfilled.
1110
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale is a person with an
extraordinarily good grasp of global and economic issues who
always brings to the House very erudite and insightful comments.
Does he see the new spending that the federal government is
committing to, the sparse commitment to tax reduction and the
meagre commitment to debt reduction as being negative given the
state of the Canadian dollar and the importance of addressing the
fundamental issues of lowering debt, lowering taxes and
controlling spending in the long term, in terms of fiscal and
monetary policy and currency levels? I would appreciate the hon.
member's comments because our Canadian dollar has been weakened
significantly under this government.
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I should have recognized
that the hon. member's kind words at the beginning of his
question were about to cover some sting that was coming at the
end of the scorpion's tail.
I am surprised that the he is coming so close to the previous
hon. member who spoke. I thought there was an attempt to
differentiate his party from other members further to the centre
in the House. I am a little surprised by the tenor of the
question, but I am really surprised that the hon. member, because
I respect his economic judgment, would say the government is
responsible for the weakening of the Canadian dollar in the last
few years. As he knows, it is exactly our fiscal and our
appropriate approach to the management of the economy of the
country that has protected the Canadian dollar and allowed us to
get to where we are today.
That is why I believe strongly that we need not just a focus on
tax reduction or on debt relief, but a focus on those social
requirements of Canadians that I referred to earlier in my
speech. That is where the balance comes. That is where the
differentiation is between his party, other parties and the
government. I think that is where we will find that the Canadian
people are comfortable with what is being done on this side of
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we continue
I thought it would be a good idea to go over how
we will handle questions and comments.
I would like to proceed pretty much as we did in the first
session; that is, we will always recognize a member from another
political party for a question or a comment. We will try to do
it in balance. If there are a lot of members interested in
asking questions, they will stand when I first call questions and
comments. At that time I will try to pick three and I will ask
that the questions and responses to be kept to between 30 and 60
seconds. That way more people will be able to get their oars in
the water. If it seems that there are just one or two people, or
perhaps just one, then we will relax that rule a little.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg
Centre.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Speech from
the Throne and to send a message to parliament from the people in
my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre.
The people in my constituency are working very hard to build
their future, our community and to contribute to Canada. They
are people who get out of bed, work hard every day, who look
after their kids and organize programs at the local community
centre, who coach at the rink or help out at the seniors' centre.
They share a sense of pride for their neighbourhoods and are
determined to make a difference.
I will provide a little idea of just how people in my riding are
making a difference in spite of some very difficult odds and
conditions. In the last little while we have celebrated many
important anniversaries. I want to mention, for example, the
15th anniversary of the North End Women's Centre, an organization
working to provide counselling, training opportunities and
employment for hard pressed women.
I want to mention the 50th anniversary of Inkster School, a
wonderful example of good, solid public education that needs the
support of all levels of government.
1115
Let me also mention the 50th anniversary of the Shaughnessy
United Church which is working very hard in my constituency to be
a presence, to bring a spiritual contribution to our area.
Let me mention the 20th anniversary of Bleak House, a very
important centre for seniors working to ensure social and
recreational opportunities for all of our senior citizens.
Finally, let me mention the 100th anniversary of the Holy Ghost
Parish, a church that is located in the heart of my constituency.
It represents an incredible achievement for not only my community
and the province of Manitoba but for all of Canada. It reveals a
history of courage, tenacity and faith. From its earliest days,
the Holy Ghost Parish helped early settlers adjust to life in
this new land. It became a focal point for, in this case Polish
culture, but it also worked to serve the needs of new immigrants
right across western Canada.
Today I mentioned this centennial because it represents the
pioneering spirit in the country. It talks about those who built
this great country, who devoted so much time and energy and who
sacrificed so much in order to foster the spiritual and cultural
growth of our community and the country.
All of those organizations are trying very hard to make a
difference but the odds are working against them because of a
failure of federal leadership. In my own area, along with the
constituency of Winnipeg Centre, we have the highest rate of
poverty anywhere in the country. We have a housing crisis that
is beyond description in the Chamber. Just in the last couple of
weeks we have had another dozen or more arsons of vacant
properties in the inner city and north end of Winnipeg.
In that context, let me reference the Speech from the Throne
which suggests that the government, in response to the housing
crisis of the land, is going to study the roots of the problems
of homelessness. The situation in areas like Winnipeg North
Centre do not need to be studied any more. I can tell the House
right now just what the problem is. This is an area that has few
economic opportunities because of the policies of the government.
This is an area that has been totally abandoned by the government
offloading its responsibility for housing onto other levels of
government. This is an area that has been abandoned by the big
banks. In the next couple of months we will see another two
branches close in my area. There are other examples right across
the country. This is a situation where people are very much the
victims of federal government neglect and of the failure of
leadership that permeates every aspect of our society.
The people in Winnipeg North Centre are prepared to do their
part to build communities but they want the support of
government. They need the co-operation of government and they
need the vision of government to do just that.
When I was at the celebration marking the very important
occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Holy Ghost Parish, the
pastor at that church, whose name is Father Karciarz, actually
summed up the situation in the best way possible. He quoted from
a prayer by Archbishop Oscar Romero who said:
We plant the seeds that one day will grow. We water seeds
already planted, knowing that they hold future promise. We lay
foundations that will need further development. We provide yeast
that produces far beyond our capabilities.
That prayer is exactly what people in my area and in areas right
across the country are saying to the federal government. Together
we must plant the seeds of hope. We must ensure that those seeds
are watered daily. We must lay the foundation for building a
better society and a better day. They turn to the government and
especially the throne speech for that sign, the road map of how
we will create a better day. They look to the government for a
vision to help us overcome these great difficulties around
poverty, homelessness, deplorable housing conditions,
unemployment and lack of recreational opportunities for our young
people.
They expect a throne speech to be in tune with that vision, those
ideas and those seeds of hope. What did they get from the Speech
from the Throne? They got an absolute failure of leadership and
an abdication of government responsibility. There was no sign of
a vision and no hope for the future.
1120
On every critical issue facing the country, the government is
either silent or it claims to be studying the issue. There is no
mention of the housing crisis, the fishing crisis or the farm
crisis. There is no mention of the real problems facing
families and communities right across the country. Nowhere is
this more apparent than when it comes to health care.
We are under a serious assault in the country as a result of the
failure of federal leadership and an agenda that very much
supports the privatization of our health care system. We are
under the double assault of the dismantling of our universal
health coverage system and the dismantling of our health
protection system. This should be readily apparent today as we
hear that there are 200 scientists in the government's own
department who are crying out with a message that we are headed
toward despair and doom on the health safety front unless the
government decides to resume responsibility and provide
leadership.
If nothing else, perhaps the government will listen to the words
of its own former minister of health, Monique Bégin, who said:
“Canada's cherished medicare system is steadily eroding and
could one day collapse because of federal disregard”. If the
government will not listen to the words of the opposition, surely
it will listen to the words of those who have helped to preserve
and protect our health care system, one of its own former
colleagues, the Hon. Monique Bégin.
I represent an area that was held by both Stanley Knowles and
David Orlikow, two people who stood and fought for health care,
pensions, unemployment insurance, protection for our families and
ways to end poverty and despair in our communities. We have a
great responsibility to carry on that legacy and it is one we
take very seriously.
I hope we can impress upon members of the government the need
for addressing the real concerns of Canadians: being there at
times of crisis and offering leadership that builds upon the
sense of co-operation and community that has been so much part of
the history of the country.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the former minister of health,
Monique Bégin. I had the opportunity to be her critic for four
years in the House of Commons between 1980 and 1984, a period in
which we were leading up to the introduction of the Canada Health
Act.
The Canada Health Act is fresh in my mind because I just
finished reading a copy of the Hill Times in which the
headline stated that the Canada Health Act was 35 years old,
although the article was a little more accurate. The Canada
Health Act was only introduced in 1984. Prior to that, we had
other legislation with other names. The purpose of the Canada
Health Act was to discourage extra billing by physicians and user
fees. The Canada Health Act incorporated all the previous
legislation into this one piece of legislation.
I welcome the mention of Monique Bégin because it seems to me
that she was the last minister of health we have ever had in the
country who did something to actually protect medicare.
Subsequent ministers of health have, for one reason or another,
presided over the dismantling of our health care system,
generally through the introduction of unilateral cutbacks.
As the hon. member mentioned, we now see two threats. I am sure
that if she had more time she would have mentioned a third
threat, which is that health services may be put on the table at
the upcoming round of negotiations at the WTO.
I am sure I have said enough for the hon. member to comment more
on the issue that she is so concerned about and on which she does
such a good job of caring about in the House, the protection of
our health care system.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
wisdom of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who
has been involved in these issues for some 20 years. He probably
knows better than anyone else the struggle in Canada for a
universal, comprehensive health care system.
1125
It is absolutely clear that Monique Bégin will go down in
history as the last person in the federal government to be seen
fighting for medicare. She was very clear in her recent comments
about what is required. She pointed to the fact that “erosion
of medicare is the slow concealed process which suddenly leads to
landslides and collapses. Is that what we want?”. Obviously we
do not want that.
We have a universal health care system in the country that must
be defended against all pressures including our own worst enemy,
the Liberal government, which has overseen the dismantling of the
system through steadfast cutbacks over the years, has willingly
allowed the private sector to invade the health care sector and,
as my colleague for Winnipeg—Transcona has said, is prepared to
allow free-floating discussions at the WTO around health care
services to be up for grabs at the table in the international
sphere. Those are two obvious threats to health care in the
country.
The third threat, which I hinted at earlier, is the dismantling
of our health protection system. We have in the country a
tradition of a tough regulatory approach to ensure that the food
we eat, the drugs we need, the water we drink and the medical
devices we need to use are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. We
have operated in the country on the basis of a “do no harm”
principle. If there is a concern or a doubt then we ensure that
we do not allow that product to be consumed by Canadians until we
know the long term health consequences.
We know from events of the past week that we have been inundated
with all kinds of concerns from groups and individuals about the
flood of genetically modified foods on the market around which
there has been no scientific investigation or research from the
federal government. Members also know that we have had a number
of instances where our government inspectors are so
under-resourced and short staffed that they are not able to
address very serious situations around toxins and poisonings in
our food supply. It is an area that cries out for government
leadership.
We are desperately hoping that the government will address both
areas of health care: the preservation of a universal, publicly
administered health insured system and the strongest possible
national food safety and health protection system imaginable.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
can be no doubt that the Speech from the Throne is a very
carefully crafted document. One thing I have come to realize in
the short time I have been here is that there is probably no
other piece of work that is done on the Hill that is so
scrutinized and carefully put together. One can almost see
dozens of bureaucrats burning the midnight oil in the catacombs
of this building agonizing over every word that goes into it to
make sure it is exactly, perfectly put together.
The reason I point this out is that there are no accidents in
the Speech from the Throne. If there is something missing from
it, it is not by omission, it is missing for a good reason. It
has been thought through very carefully for the message that it
sends.
We all know there are two ways to send a message. One way is by
putting the message in the document and one is by leaving it out.
As a westerner from the prairie region, the most glaring omission
in the Speech from the Throne has to be the complete absence of
any reference to the agricultural crisis that we face in the
prairie region.
I did not come to Ottawa to get on the hobby horse about western
alienation. Frankly, I did not even think I would ever be
standing up in the House speaking about western alienation, but
the longer I am here the more I realize how important and grating
this issue really is for a person from the west.
We are all very sympathetic to the issue of the lobster crisis
on the east coast. We realize it is a real problem. However, we
have an emergency in western Canada in the prairie region.
1130
It is not just an isolated incident. It is not just a part of
our industry that is suffering. The whole shebang is at risk of
losing what developed western Canada, which is our agribusiness.
Forty per cent of all prairie farmers run the risk of being out
of business by the end of this selling cycle if something does
not happen. If some intervention does not take place, 40% of all
people who work on family farms today will be gone, kaput, and
that does not even begin to talk about all the many industries
that rely on a vibrant agricultural industry.
With all due respect to our colleagues from eastern Canada, we
do not see the minister hopping on the plane to get to western
Canada immediately to deal with the crisis, as we do with the
lobster fishery. The minister was on the plane the next morning,
meeting with all the stakeholders down there and trying to carve
out some way of dealing with that crisis. We do not see that in
western Canada.
What are we supposed to think? Is it that our crisis is not as
important as their crisis? Are we to weigh whose crisis is most
severe? I put it to the House quite frankly that the other issue
pales in comparison to what is going on in western Canada.
One might wonder why I would use my 10 minutes to talk about
agriculture. I represent an inner city riding. I do not have a
single farmer in my riding. There is hardly even a garden plot
in my riding, frankly. It is the core area of Winnipeg.
However I do have the United Grain Growers. I have Cargill. I
have the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. All the evidence of what built
the prairies is located within the riding of Winnipeg Centre.
That whole exchange area was built up because of a vibrant farm
economy that we now stand to lose.
I raise this as the first point or as the most noticeable point
about the Speech from the Throne for me as a westerner. There is
not even a word, not a single line in there. I realize that the
Speech from the Throne does not deal with specifics. That is for
the budget. However, if there was a single line which said the
Government of Canada recognized that it has to intervene in some
way to protect the agricultural industry in western Canada, that
would be some comfort. It would be some solace and people in
that industry might say that at least the government appreciates
that they have a problem.
It not just a matter of throwing money at it. I am not saying
that everybody who lives on a farm, whether they are good farmers
or bad farmers, should get a bailout from the Canadian
government. Nobody is advocating that. It is a host of problems
that have compounded and conspired to defeat the family farmer,
whether it is world commodity prices or the corporate domination
of the whole industry in terms of access to seeds.
One thing that scared the heck out of me recently was told to me
by a group of farmers. It almost seems like this is part of some
master plan: drive the small farmer off the farm so that the
corporate sector can come in and make farming a corporate
industry instead of a family enterprise.
One graphic illustration of why that is not just paranoia is the
way that canola seed is dealt with. One has to buy canola seed
from one corporate institution. I will not mention the name. One
also has to sign a contract that one will sell the yield to that
same institution. It controls the supply and purchasing of the
product. At the same time it genetically alters the seed so that
it cannot reproduce itself. It dead ends after one season.
Unlike normal plants it cannot reproduce itself. It has been
neutralized that way and the next year one has to go back to the
same company to buy seed again.
It is a serfdom. It is a return to serfdom. Agro-serfs is what
they really are. They are not farmers any more. They are
agro-serfs, multimillion dollar agro-serfs.
These are the kinds of things that Canadians are trying to
awaken the Canadian public to and nobody is listening. There
used to be champions in the House of Commons for the prairie
farmer. At one time we had a western protest party that actually
spoke out on behalf of prairie farmers instead of just the
corporate agricultural industry. Unfortunately we do not hear a
great deal of that today and, try as we might, we cannot get that
issue in the forefront. The Liberal government has missed an
opportunity to buy some support in western Canada by at least
being sensitive to that issue.
That is really how one could summarize the Speech from the
Throne. It was a missed opportunity, in fact a series of missed
opportunities, and that is only the first and most glaring one
that I can identify.
Another missed opportunity that is self-evident for me because
it is in my critic area is immigration. All summer long, for the
past six months, we have been seeing an hysteria about
immigration whipped up by my colleagues in the Reform Party and
their right wing counterparts in western Canada.
They are trying to convince us that we have an emergency on our
hands because 400 or 500 Chinese migrants have drifted to our
shore. I have heard terms like this is the biggest breach to
national security since the FLQ crisis. That is one of the
points they have made. I do not know how to say balderdash or
poppycock in terms that are parliamentary, but I have never heard
such nonsense in my life. I guess I just did.
1135
Somehow we have to put the hysteria back into perspective and
ease the public's mind that we are not facing a breach to our
national security because a couple of hundred desperate people
have foundered on our shore in British Columbia. It is a
manageable issue and it is not the end of the world. However,
again it is a missed opportunity where the Liberal government
could have put one line into the Speech from the Throne to calm
people down on that issue.
My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre raised the issue of child
poverty. I was just reading the comments of the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona in his speech. He reminded the House of
Commons that we are up to the 10th anniversary of a unanimous
motion in the House of Commons which said we would eradicate
child poverty by the year 2000. That was moved by the leader of
the NDP at that time in 1989 and it passed unanimously. Not a
single person voted against such a laudable concept that by the
year 2000 we would somehow eradicate child poverty within our
borders.
I remind members of the House that we live in the richest and
most powerful civilization in the history of the world. I ask
members to defend in any way they can why there should be anybody
living in poverty within our borders.
As I said, I represent an inner city riding and so does the
member for Winnipeg North Centre. We have three of the five
poorest postal zones in the country. Poverty is an issue that we
are seized with every day. There is not a day when we go to work
that we are not dealing with somebody's urgent social emergency
in terms of poverty issues. Yet in the Speech from the Throne we
heard very little. We heard nothing about the important
resolution that was passed in 1989, and only passing remarks
about the issue of the fair redistribution of wealth building
equity into our society.
The government mentioned that in the EI program it would
lengthen maternity benefits. That is a laudable idea, a
wonderful idea. I would like to see some costing of it. I
cannot wait for the budget to come out to see what it will cost
the Government of Canada. I would suggest that it will cost very
little. First of all, fewer and fewer women qualify for any EI.
They have to get on to EI before they can have their benefits
lengthened.
The EI surplus is $600 million a month and not per year. What
the government will spend in lengthening the EI benefits for
mothers on maternity leave might cost $50 million a year. I have
sort of done some costing on my own. Some $50 million a year
versus $500 million or $600 million a month. Where is the rest
of that money going? The Canadian public is still being cheated
and the EI reform is not nearly far enough. It is another missed
opportunity. The government could have addressed that glaring
oversight.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for my colleague who explained a few seconds ago that
we have a surplus of $24 billion in the EI program which was
transferred in 1986 from the EI program to the general fund.
When the throne speech came down it talked about wanting to give
it only to maternity leave. Would the hon. member agree with me
that the government is not taking responsibility for the new jobs
and for women returning to work? To go on maternity leave now
they need 700 hours. Many women do not qualify for EI. We saw
again this morning on the first page of the Globe and Mail
that many women do not qualify.
The government forgot in its throne speech all the women who do
not qualify for maternity leave because of the 700 hours and the
910 hours needed to qualify for first entry. Most women work
part time and do not qualify for EI. Our youth who come out of
university have a hard time finding jobs and end up in part time
work.
They do not qualify for EI. Eight hundred thousand people who
have paid into the employment insurance fund do not qualify for
EI.
1140
I would like some comments from our labour critic about how he
feels about that. This money belongs to the workers. As I have
said many times, the Liberal government has stolen from working
people and another $30 billion from the public sector pension
plan. Some $54 billion have been stolen from the working people.
The government is not taking responsibility for working people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to caution
members. The member for Acadie—Bathurst indicated that the
government has stolen or the Liberals have stolen. As long as
there is not a direct attribution to a specific minister or a
specific ministry it is a political metaphor but certainly it is
not to be taken literally.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
pointing out those pressing issues regarding the EI program.
We all know that when unemployment insurance reform took place
it made it more difficult to qualify. People could collect for a
shorter period of time and receive less money per week. It was a
recipe for a surplus. The government is using the EI system as a
cash cow to harvest money from employers and employees to use for
whatever it wants.
As the member pointed out, there is no such thing as the EI
fund. All that money goes into general revenues and the
government can spend it on whatever it wants.
I have always argued that to deduct something from a person's
paycheque for a specific reason and then use it for something
entirely different is fraud. At the very least it is a breach of
trust. The government told us it would use if for one purpose
and used it for another. It is completely misleading.
Never mind what it does to workers, which is bad enough. As
labour critic I am sympathetic to that and what the changes in
the EI fund are doing to my community.
The Canadian Labour Congress hired Statistics Canada to do some
research on the impact on a riding per riding basis. In my
riding alone the changes in the EI fund take out $20.8 million a
year. Can we imagine losing that amount of income, wages or
salaries out of one intercity riding per year? In one area of
Newfoundland it is $70 million per year.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre who indicated that
agriculture was not referred to in the throne speech at all. He
indicated that there was no direction from the government with
respect to agriculture.
Does the member believe that the government should have at the
very least put together some sort of vision in the throne speech
as to the support the government should be putting into
agriculture right now? The government does not seem to have any
direction at all.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris is very knowledgeable about these issues. To
answer his question simply, all it would have taken is one or two
lines in the Speech from the Throne to recognize that we have a
problem in western Canada, that we have an emergency that needs
to be addressed. The government did not have to write pages and
pages. There should have been a couples of lines to sympathize
and say that there is an ongoing emergency in western Canada. It
would have give some comfort and some solace to those people who
find their livelihood at risk.
To answer the member's question, it is a missed opportunity on
the part of Liberals to give some comfort to those of us in
western Canada who feel more alienated than ever.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
I congratulate Her Excellency the Governor General on both her
appointment and inspirational address which she delivered on the
occasion of her installation. Those of use who were privileged
to witness that event were, I believe without exception, moved by
her thoughtful and powerful address.
I compliment the hon. members for Windsor—St. Clair and Laval
West on their eloquent remarks in moving and seconding the
Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
It is traditional that participants in this debate describe and
praise the unique character of their constituencies. I have
always felt particularly fortunate to represent Lanark—Carleton
in the House of Commons.
It encompasses one of Canada's major high technology clusters
centred in but not restricted to the city of Kanata. It has a
large rural area which includes much of Kanata and extends
through West Carleton township in the county of Lanark,
officially the maple syrup capital of Ontario.
1145
In its towns and dotted throughout its landscape are numerous
substantial and handsome stone homes and public buildings, a
legacy of the Scottish stonemasons who were among the settlers
who arrived in the last century. The people of Lanark—Carleton
are very aware and proud of their heritage. At the same time,
explosive growth of Kanata driven by successful high tech
companies and entrepreneurs has added a dynamic sense of energy,
pride and optimism to that historic and beautiful part of Canada.
Coupled with pride in its heritage is a sincere and energetic
concern for the environment. One does not have to travel far to
be close to nature. The increased pressure on water resources
for industrial and recreational use has led to real concern in
particular within the farming community.
The spirit of co-operation that exists among those seeking
solutions in an era of diminished financial resources is reason
to be hopeful. However, I believe there is widespread public
support for moving environmental issues back near the top of the
agenda for all levels of government. I was pleased that the
Speech from the Throne committed the federal government to
addressing the management of toxic substances, increasing
protection for endangered species and strengthening our capacity
to perform environmental research.
I have mentioned the contribution of high technology to my
riding. Its importance cannot be overstated. I was pleased
therefore to see that the government recognizes the interrelated
role of so many factors that allow high tech companies to
flourish.
There has been an ongoing debate about the brain drain. Despite
the clash of statistical and anecdotal evidence, I am on the side
of those who see this as a serious issue. The success or failure
of any business depends on the quality of its management and the
skills, knowledge and enthusiasm of its employees. Very simple
rules of human behaviour govern the response of individuals and
therefore companies to both threats and opportunities.
We live in a era when changes to global trade rules and patterns
have subjected business to unprecedented competition. Companies
that once hid behind high tariff walls disappeared as those walls
crumbled.
The ability and willingness of governments to prop up or bail
out non-competitive firms has eroded. There is also little
public appetite for government grants to business. Governments
do though have the ability to create the conditions and
environment that will encourage companies to take risks and
encourage individuals to be entrepreneurs.
One aspect of that is the burden of taxation, both personal and
corporate. Taxes in Canada are high both historically and in
comparison with our neighbour and major trading partner, the
United States. However, the relatively recent and sustained
campaign in favour of major tax cuts demonstrates just how short
term some people's memories can be.
This government inherited a $42 billion deficit when it took
office in 1993. Canadians enthusiastically supported the
Minister of Finance as he brought in budget after budget that
moved us steadily toward the surplus position we now enjoy.
Prudence was the watchword. There was always the recognition that
economic growth could stall. We were not prepared to achieve a
budgetary surplus only to be thrown into a deficit situation by a
future economic downturn.
Tax cutting has begun. Measures from the last three budgets
will mean 600,000 low income Canadians will no longer pay federal
income tax. The current clamour for tax cuts comes from those in
the top tax bracket. That is understandable and the fact is one
does not have to earn an enormous salary to be in that bracket,
which brings me back to the brain drain.
Canada depends on successful business people to create jobs for
other Canadians. We cannot afford to lose highly educated,
highly skilled and highly mobile people. The disparity in income
tax levels between Canada and the United States has been a
significant factor for high tech companies in my riding that need
to attract and keep skilled employees.
My message to both employers and employees is simple: your
patience is about to be rewarded. I will quote from the throne
speech:
Tax reduction is a key component of a strategy to increase
individual incomes and to ensure an economy that produces the
growth and wealth which enable those public and private
investments necessary for a high quality of life. In its next
budget the government will set out a multi-year plan for further
tax reduction.
I included that quotation because many media reports suggested
the speech gave little importance to lower taxes. The message is
clear and the details will be spelled out in the February budget.
This session of parliament appears to be built around the theme
of “Canada, the place to be in the 21st century”. I applaud the
idea. It reminds me of a suggestion made by Dr. Howard Alper,
vice-rector of research at the University of Ottawa. While
considering the Canadian scientific diaspora, those top
scientists and academics who are now abroad, Dr. Alper suggested
a rediscover Canada program.
Canada can only benefit by having many of its finest researchers
available to, in particular, graduate students.
1150
I was excited therefore to hear of the government's decision to
fund a program known as the 21st century chairs for research
excellence. The federal granting councils already play a very
significant role in funding university research. They will now
be responsible for enabling the establishment of 1,200 new chairs
for research excellence in universities across the country. The
objective is to have a total of 2,000 chairs as soon as possible.
That is the kind of bold leadership required if Canada is to be
known as the country that celebrates excellence. I would extend
that idea, though not the model, to other areas of human
endeavour.
There has been a recent and overdue recognition of the need to
celebrate our national heroes. Fellow Canadians who are
successful on the world stage make us feel good about ourselves
and serve as role models for others.
An obvious area is amateur athletics. In this era of
multimillionaire professional athletes, to whom few of us can
relate, we should remember the pride we always feel when our
Olympic athletes perform well. At a time when study after study
raises the alarm about how physically inactive our children are,
we should look for ways to encourage amateur athletics. That
will also require an investment in developing top quality
coaches.
Along with celebrating excellence we should be known as a
country that welcomes and supports creative minds. That means
Canada is the place to be for artists, among others. One has
only to look at the excitement created by Pinchas Zucherman
becoming music director of the National Arts Centre Orchestra.
Often relatively small incremental costs mean the difference
between experiencing the merely competent and the truly
outstanding.
Many small steps can lead to a better country. One example is
the annual Prime Minister's awards for teaching excellence.
Another is the Governor General's award for caring Canadians. It
is important to recognize and highlight the achievements of
unsung heroes.
One group of heroes we can never properly thank is our war
veterans. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to never
experience war can have no real idea of what it was like. The
reality that over 100,000 very young Canadians died on foreign
soil in defence of their country can be acknowledged every
November 11. But the enormity of the sacrifice and the loss and
grief experienced by so many families rarely invades our own
consciousness.
We became a country in the eyes of the world thanks to battles
like Vimy Ridge. To recognize and celebrate the lives of those
who died for Canada is not to celebrate war. It is a fundamental
overarching responsibility we have to make succeeding generations
know the price that was paid for our freedom.
I mention this in the course of this debate because another
debate has been going on for far too long about building a new
Canadian war museum. I believe the government should release
from their commitment those who offered to raise money for the
museum. Just build it.
I have seen much of the museum's collection that is unavailable
to the public because of space restrictions and I can assure
everyone that it deserves to be on display. I am aware of no
other national institution that depended on private fundraising
to be built. I hope there will be an early announcement that
construction will soon begin on the new museum.
The Speech from the Throne addressed the need for an
infrastructure for the 21st century. The most visible is the
physical infrastructure we require as a trading nation to enable
the free flow of goods and services. In addition to transport,
the five year plan will focus on tourism, telecommunications,
culture, health and safety and the environment. That is an
ambitious objective but one which I believe Canadians will
support.
The government has set a goal to be known around the world as a
government most connected to its citizens. It will also take
steps to accelerate our adoption of electronic commerce and
encourage its use throughout the economy. There are challenges
associated with electronic commerce.
In the last session of parliament we worked on legislation to
protect personal and business information and to recognize
electronic signatures. It is important that Canadians recognize
and seize the opportunity we enjoy, because of our leadership in
communications technology, to be a world leader in the control
and use of electronic commerce.
I want to acknowledge and support the government's commitment to
building stronger communities. In much of the industrialized
world we have seen a growing gulf between rich and poor. There
are almost daily media reports of newly minted high tech
millionaires and corporate executives enjoying incomes that are
many multiples of those earned by their rank and file employees.
Globalization has led many to question the importance of
national boundaries. Every new round of trade negotiations
appears to lessen the ability of governments to act on behalf of
their citizens.
When Canadians are asked what separates them from Americans, we
often point to our system of health care. A search for the
defining idea of what makes Canada unique remains elusive. I
suggest however that the answer may lie in embracing the idea of
community. It is not a weakness to be seen around the world as a
country that supports the less fortunate. It is not a weakness
to be known as a country that embraces cultural diversity and
welcomes new immigrants with their skills, energy and ambition to
build a better life for themselves and their children. The
danger would be in a retreat toward isolation as provinces, as
communities and as individuals.
We as members of parliament have an ambitious agenda before us.
The challenges set out in the Speech from the Throne are many and
real. The goals are clear and within our grasp. Canada deserves
nothing less than our best effort.
1155
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member for Lanark—Carleton.
He addressed the issue of the brain drain as being very serious.
I know the member. I know he is serious about it and is
concerned. I wonder how that squares with his government's record
on a lot of these issues and the reasons for the fact that our
society has this brain drain. The conference board two weeks ago
came out with a report which said that Canadians are falling back
in terms of innovation and that we are losing some of our
brightest people to the United States. That is a fact of life we
all know about.
When our committee on international trade asked small and medium
size companies why they did not export outside of Canada, they
said that too much government regulation was a serious inhibitor
to doing business in Canada. Taxes, including payroll taxes, were
a deterrent. There were interprovincial trade barriers. I
noticed the premier of Ontario on the weekend said that it was
easier to do business with several American states than it is
with Canadian provinces.
The government has been in power for the last six years and we
still have these serious problems. There is a 50:50 split on how
it is going to decide what is going to be spent on spending and
on debt and tax relief. Yet we have seen social spending
increased so there is nothing left to split 50:50.
What is the government doing? It has had six years to address
these issues and nothing much has changed.
Mr. Ian Murray: Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember
that these problems did not spring up overnight.
If we look at the history of research and development
expenditures in Canada, they have languished at the low end of
the G-7 for many years. That is largely because of the branch
plant economy we had in Canada. The brain drain problem is
partly related to taxes. It is a very important component and I
am pleased it is going to be addressed.
The hon. member referred to trade. It is important to look at
the team Canada initiative of the Prime Minister. It has been
quite effective in stimulating increased trade abroad. A lot
people ridicule these trips abroad as junkets that do not
accomplish anything. The fact is for years businesses have been
asking ministers—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the member.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know
the hon. member opposite rather well. He is one of the august
members on the Liberal benches. In fact, he should be a Reformer
with some of his philosophies and the hon. member is welcome any
time.
I would like to address a point that was not in the Speech from
the Throne. It has to do with traditional activism, in
particular, the reference with regard to the possession of child
pornography. I do not know a single issue that has been raised
more by constituents across Canada as to why this is the case.
Not one single solitary statement was made in the Speech from the
Throne dealing with this particular issue.
It is not a matter of what is right or wrong with child
pornography, it is that the judge completely ignored what the
people wanted. He completely ignored what the intent of
parliament was when that law was first passed. He used his own
technical legal interpretation of a particular issue. When we
asked the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause, there
was deathly silence.
Could the hon. member say if it has come to the point where the
government does not have the courage to deal with issues that are
controversial and reflect the interests and the wants of the
people of Canada?
Mr. Ian Murray: Mr. Speaker, not at all. It is important
to remember that until 1993 the country existed without the law
my hon. colleague is referring to. The law was rushed through
during the Kim Campbell government just before the 1993 election.
We have to keep that in mind as we look at this issue.
As well, it is important to remember that any exploitation of
children and the production and distribution of child pornography
is still illegal.
I am concerned that the law may have been carelessly drafted.
Apparently it is possible that if somebody has written something
themselves and maintains it in their possession and it can be
defined as pornographic, then they can be charged. That is not
the sort of thing we are worried about in the House.
1200
I was one of those who very early on called for the Prime
Minister to address the problem created by that judicial decision
in British Columbia.
I have been quite willing, though, to wait for the courts to
look at it. If the problem is not resolved by the courts, I
think the House should look at redrafting the legislation to make
sure it is ironclad that the possession of child pornography
remains a crime throughout Canada.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Speech
from the Throne. I want to begin by complimenting the governor
general on her appointment and note the signal of hope that
appointment has given to many in my riding.
I also want to begin by wishing the legendary former prime
minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a happy 80th
birthday, with wishes from my constituents for many, many happy
years to come.
The Speech from the Throne gives reasons to my constituents and
to all Canadians to be optimistic about the future of Canada. I
said that on Friday when I spoke to four classes of grade 10
students. I encouraged them to watch the debate in the House
today, and I am convinced that many of them will be watching.
Therefore I am pleased to make my remarks with the hope that it
will enlighten them and with the hope that the remarks from other
members will show them the extent to which the Speech from the
Throne has set out a vision.
The government has set a course for Canada in the next
millennium. It has paved the way in building a nation in which
the quality of life of Canadians will continue to be unmatched in
the world.
For several years in a row the United Nations has declared
Canada to be the best country in which to live. The commitments
we made in the Speech from the Throne will ensure that our
country will remain so for many years. To the students who are
watching, we hope that it will also be the case for many years in
their lifetime.
Last Wednesday the Prime Minister stated that Canada is the
place to be in the 21st century. I agree. Six years ago when
the government took office our country was described as a third
world country. Our economic growth was slow. The deficit and
unemployment were high.
This economic malaise impacted our communities across Canada,
including those in Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I recall a time when
there were many closures in my riding: stores, businesses and
manufacturing areas. Today I know that our country will be well
situated economically and socially to be a world leader in the
next century and beyond.
We are enjoying the longest economic expansion since the 1960s
with over 1.7 million new jobs created. Our nation's fiscal
house is in order. Taxes have been cut in the last two budgets
by $16.5 billion over three years and, important to me, 600,000
low income Canadians will no longer pay federal tax.
The government has done this by adopting a comprehensive,
balanced economic strategy that has transformed Canada to
becoming one of the strongest economies of the G-7.
With this strategy our government will continue to strengthen
Canada by recommitting itself to economic policies that will
allow us to keep the national debt on a permanent downward track,
reduce taxes for Canadians and invest in knowledge, innovation,
children, youth and health. These are the themes of the throne
speech.
The Speech from the Throne enables the government to further its
efforts. Canadians may recall that this is what the government
said it would do: 50% for tax and debt reduction, 50% for
economic and social needs.
1205
I held several budget consultation meetings and over and over I
heard from my constituents that those are things they would like
to see the government pursue in dealing with the surplus, and
they urged us to manage whatever surplus there is in a
progressive way.
The constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore believe that in the
global economy knowledge and technological innovations are the
cornerstones of the highest standard of living and a better
quality of life. Our quality of life and standard of living can
be secured in the future if we are willing to explore new
frontiers in innovation. Investment in research and development
is central to this.
We need to build an infrastructure of skills development and
innovation to foster opportunities for Canadians to pursue
lifelong learning. I see this in my constituency. The federal
government has created initiatives such as the Canada Foundation
for Innovation, and Technology Partnerships Canada to put
Canadians on this path. Many of my constituents have received
benefits from the $1 billion endowment to the Canada Foundation
for Innovation which is helping to build a leading edge national
system of innovation.
The technology partnerships program is being taken advantage of
by businesses in my riding to help them keep up in the
development of marketing, production and new technology in
Canada, thereby creating jobs for Canadians.
With the commitments in the throne speech the government is
expanding its efforts. Let me cite some of them, especially for
those grade 10s who are watching. There is good news. Through
the research granting councils the government will fund the
creation of 1,200 new 21st century chairs for research excellence
in Canadian universities over the next three years. The cost of
the program will be $60 million in the first year, $120 million
in the second, $180 million in the third year and it will be
ongoing.
I shared this information with those grade 10 students. Many of
them come from diverse communities. Perhaps they can see that
there is an advantage for their parents and older siblings who
are presently at university in research areas.
Canada's place in the 21st century cannot be secure unless we
commit to investing in children. They are the future of our
country and the strength of our society. We know that when the
development of children is neglected in the formative years of
life society as a whole is disadvantaged. I spent six years as
chair of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. We dealt with
individuals in rent geared to income facilities and I saw the
socioeconomic situation of many of our children.
Over the past six years the federal government has endeavoured
to provide families with support in caring for their children. We
put several programs onstream. I want the young people of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore and across Canada to know that as we look
forward to the progress in broadening experiences and the
understanding of our fellow Canadians it is important for us to
do what needs to be done to ensure that the mantra of no
experience, no skills, no job becomes something of the past,
especially among young people.
My constituents expect nothing less from the government but to
ensure that our health care system is modern and sustainable. I
know of several who are watching the direction in which the
government is going. It is trying to ensure that we meet all of
those commitments.
Canadians are committed to preserving and protecting the
environment. Several individuals in my area work on a daily
basis in the protection of the environment. The Humber River was
recently declared a Canadian heritage river.
There are many other very important environmental niches in
Etobicoke—Lakeshore where we must ensure that we clean up areas
that are contaminated and that we protect the health of all
Canadians.
1210
The Social Development Community Council in Etobicoke—Lakeshore
has a regeneration project and is looking to the direction in
which we are going for support for their project. The volunteers
and people who give of their time and effort in my riding are
enthused by the direction in which we are going.
I call on all members on all sides of the House to view the
Speech from the Throne, as it outlines the Liberal vision for
Canada's future in the new millennium, as building and creating
strong communities that will enable us to have a more equitable
society for all Canadians.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I found
the speech to be rather interesting, but I was actually somewhat
disappointed by what it omitted. I would like to give the member
an opportunity to address some of the issues that she might have
included in her remarks rather effectively.
I would like her to respond to the whole situation of youth in
Canada today. We have a number of young people who are looking
somewhere for a job, hopefully at home in Canada. Many of them
are finding, though, that the tax situation is such that it is
preferable for them to find a job elsewhere where they will get
more money because the taxes are lower than they are in Canada.
There is a disadvantage for them to stay at home, assuming they
have a job in the first place. I would like the hon. member to
address that question.
The other question concerns the youth exchange program across
Canada. If there is a shortage of funds, which there is, which
would the young people rather have, an exchange trip across
Canada or a job?
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to the member because in my discussion
with our young people we talked about how debate occurs in the
House. Someone speaks and someone questions or responds. I am
sure this is a really good example for the young people who are
watching.
To address the issue of jobs I will speak about my riding in
particular. We have a number of agencies that are working with
our young people and a number of initiatives that are on the
ground to assist them in finding employment through small
business, entrepreneurial adventures and through support.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: What about taxes?
Ms. Jean Augustine: The issue of taxes is one that all
Canadians are concerned about. At the same time we also
recognize that the taxes we pay go into programs that benefit all
of us and that is important to our young people.
In terms of moving out of the country, I think the Prime
Minister put it very well when he talked about the environment
and culture and everything else that makes us Canadian and the
importance of holding on to this and not going after small gains
in terms of dollars.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
quite pleased to hear the hon. member's remarks concerning
education for our young people because we know this is a very
important issue that has to be dealt with in our country.
I would like the hon. member to elaborate a bit upon what the
government is doing to make it easier for young people through
cuts in tuition or something similar which would make their debt
load easier as they struggle through university.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, there are several things
that the Speech from the Throne addressed and several programs
that we have been working with. I will cite some examples that I
had written out, guessing that this might be a question that
would be thrown my way.
Our expanded commitment to young people now includes the hiring
of youth to put in place additional community Internet access
sites in communities across Canada, which we know is the most
connected country in the world.
1215
We have launched Exchanges Canada which will provide 100,000
young Canadians every year a chance to learn about a different
part of Canada and support them in that effort. We are giving
young Canadians from the age of 13 an opportunity to produce
their first works using traditional and new technologies in the
arts and in cultural, digital and similar industries. We are
giving young Canadian volunteers the opportunity to help with
literacy skills and participate in community and national
environmental projects.
At the same time we have signalled what we will do in terms of
student debt and loans and ways in which we can deal with the
postponement of the huge debt that young people carry.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time this morning with the hon. member for New
Brunswick Southwest.
I feel very privileged to represent the riding of Kings—Hants
in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia. Living in Kings—Hants,
we understand the power of tides. We have the highest tides in
the world in the Bay of Fundy and the Minas Basin. The Liberals
felt the force of those tides in the last general election. There
was nothing in the throne speech that will reverse those tides in
the next federal election.
The government says that the fundamentals are strong when
speaking about the economy. It is very important to remember the
words of John Kenneth Galbraith, the Canadian economist, who said
that we should beware of governments who say that the
fundamentals are strong. The fundamentals that are important to
Canadians are simply not strong under the leadership of the
government.
One of the most important fundamentals is the issue of brain
drain. The choice that each of us has, particularly young
Canadians, in pursuing our lives and careers in Canada or in
other countries, particularly with the mobility of populations
that exists today, is very important. Whether or not we are
attracting the best and brightest to the country, and
particularly whether we are maintaining and keeping the best and
brightest here, is a very important fundamental.
The fact is that in 1986 we lost 17,000 young Canadians to the
U.S. through the brain drain process. In 1997 that number had
grown to 98,000. Those are 98,000 of our best and brightest
people with the education levels to contribute, to pay taxes, to
prosper and to help provide the social infrastructure that in the
future would allow for more economic growth and the type of
caring society that Canadians want, but more importantly the type
of caring society that we can afford in the future.
Another fundamental is the Canadian dollar. Under this
government the Canadian dollar has dropped from 77cents in 1993 to
the 67cents range currently, with the dollar being as low as the 64cents
range a year ago last summer. The currency of a country
represents in many ways the share value of that particular
country. Under this government, the share value of Canada has
effectively dropped from 77cents to the mid-60cents range. Those are
very important fundamentals.
Tonight we are going to have an opportunity to see the screening
of the documentary film about the former Liberal prime minister,
Pierre Trudeau, and it is called Just Watch Me: Trudeau and
the '70s Generation. Part of that was Mr. Trudeau's response
to the FLQ crisis at that time and the question of how far would
he have gone.
I suggest that if we were to ask the Prime Minister how far he
would go in pursuing the types of economic policies that are
aimed at the next election, at the expense of Canadians in the
long term, he would probably respond “Just watch me”.
The dollar issue is a direct reflection of the high debt levels
we have in Canada, the 50% tax levels, the intrusive regulatory
system and things like interprovincial trade barriers which
reduce the competitiveness of Canadians and Canadian enterprise
globally.
Ironically, a Canadian economist, Robert Mundell, just last week
received the Nobel prize in economics for his studies linking
currencies to fiscal and monetary policies. He identified the
structural impediments of debt, tax levels and the regulatory
burden. Again the government has refused to listen to even a
great Canadian economist in Robert Mundell, who has been
recognized internationally.
The government continues to pursue the types of policies and, in
this speech, has promised to expand on the same types of negative
policies that have us in the mess we are in right now.
1220
There are 32 pages of spending in the speech, spending tax
distortions and regulatory spider webs but really very little
action on the tax side. It could be said that there may have
been a thimble of tax reduction in a sea of new spending in the
government's return to the unfettered, wanton spending of the
1970s that got us in the mess we are in right now. That,
frankly, is where the government is heading.
The government is now focusing on expanding program spending.
Unfortunately, the expansion of spending is not focused on the
real needs of Canadians. I did a survey in the spring of my
constituents and asked them directly what their priorities were
and tax reduction was a major priority for my constituents, as
was health care investment.
In the last budget the federal government made a symbolic
commitment to health care by reinvesting some, and just some, of
what it had taken from the health care system since 1993. I think
it was a reinvestment over the period of six years of $11.5
billion when the government had in fact taken $18 billion from
the health care system since 1993. By the year 2005, the
government will only have reached, under its plan, 1995 levels of
health care investment which does not take into account inflation
or population growth. The government is big on symbols but has
really not addressed the health care crisis.
My constituents are also concerned about defence spending and
the government's lack of effectively investing in the defence of
our country and in our national defence system. We are
increasingly being called on to participate in an increasingly
complicated global scenario, whether it is Kosovo or East Timor,
with a very fixed or reduced commitment if one looks at it in
real terms to spending.
In my riding that means CFB Greenwood is facing significant
challenges now with the reduced level of government commitment.
The government is now turning its back on the full functionality
of CFB Greenwood.
The government is ignoring one of the other concerns that
Canadians have and that is our national infrastructure system, in
particular our highway system. Highway 101 in my riding is one
of the most dangerous highways not just in Nova Scotia but in
Canada. There have been 38 deaths on the untwined parts of
highway 101 over the past several years. The government has not
made the necessary commitment to highway funding. The government
only spends 5% of the money it takes in federal gas tax revenues
on highway taxes. It is the lowest of any industrialized nation.
Again the government has not addressed a real concern of
Canadians.
Sadly, the government is now talking about pursuing a new
children's agenda which is ignoring one of the most fundamental
difficulties that Canadian families and children face. With the
ever increasing tax burden under the government, Canadian
families and individuals have faced a personal disposable income
decline of 8% since 1993. During the same period, Americans have
enjoyed approximately a 10% increase.
The government is expanding its taxation. It states that it
will bring forward $16 billion of tax reductions. Those are the
tax reductions that the government has given through the front
door. What the government fails to remind Canadians is that
through the back door, through, for instance, bracket creep, the
government has actually taken in more than that, about $18
billion. The government has actually continued to plunder
Canadians through the back door while pretending to provide some
level of tax relief through the front door.
The concern we have is that the government is engaging in almost
a corporate re-imaging effort aimed at trying to convince the
international community that somehow it is addressing some of the
structural deficiencies in the Canadian economy. However, it is
doing very little to actually change those structural
inefficiencies and impediments to actually put Canada on a growth
track where we could have a strong dollar and a strong economy.
The government is trying to devalue its way to prosperity.
I remember a couple of years ago when the dollar hit about 65
cents the Prime Minister said that a low dollar was good for the
Canadian economy and good for tourism. Now the logical corollary
of his argument would be that a dollar trading at zero, if we
reduced it to zero, would be excellent for Canadian exports. We
could give away our goods. We would be the greatest exporting
nation in the world. However, the Prime Minister's economic
logic is not really that sound in this area.
1225
We could have a strong dollar and a sustained economic growth if
we allowed Canadians to actually enjoy some of the prosperity
that other countries are enjoying and actually took the
initiative to provide significant tax reform and tax reduction
and also address some of these other structural issues, the types
of issues which were addressed under the previous government.
The previous government had the guts to pursue policies like
free trade, the GST, deregulation of financial services,
transportation and energy. They were not always popular, but
they were the right decisions then and have proven to be the
right decisions since then. We just wish that this government
would now have the vision, the courage and the guts to pursue
those types of policies that would allow Canadians to enjoy
sustained economic growth into the next century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to the
hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, I just want a brief
explanation. The use of the word guts in that context was again
a political metaphor. It was not addressed for or against any
person specifically.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps you put your finger on the problem of the speech
from the member for Kings—Hants, whom we all respect for his
economic perspicacity and his wit and wisdom, but sometimes
perhaps he allows his wit to run away with his common sense and I
suggest perhaps in today's intervention as well.
I am surprised that the member is so oversimplifying this issue
of tax. I am surprised that he has laid every woe of Canadians
at the door of high taxes. I remember when there was a brain
drain from his province to Toronto. There were no tax
differences between his province and Toronto, it was a question
of opportunities. I suggest to him that it is opportunities.
Some of the measures in the Speech from the Throne, which address
opportunities in academic and other areas which will create an
enriched atmosphere in the country for opportunities, will
reverse that brain drain because those opportunities will be here
for Canadians. That is something he has to look at as well.
The member should not say that high taxes is the reason why the
Canadian dollar is low. I suggest he look at the Swedish
currency, which is very strong today. The Swedish economy is
booming at the moment. Sweden has some of the highest tax rates
in the world.
How does the member, with his extraordinary sophisticated
knowledge of the working of things, drive down the single lane
101 highway of tax reduction, which he will end up crashing
himself and his party with the same problems he has on his
highway down in Nova Scotia, instead of looking at all the other
factors which we have to address when we are trying to deal with
what is a very complex and not a single issue?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his, as usual, erudite, intelligent and well placed question.
The hon. member is a true Liberal in the traditional 1970s
sense. He does point to the fact that Canadians are leaving to
find greater opportunities elsewhere. He and I both agree that
Canadians are leaving Canada to find greater opportunities
elsewhere. Where the true Liberal thing comes in is, at this
point, where we divide. I go one way and he goes another in
terms of our pursuit of a solution. He believes that government,
through government spending, can create better opportunities in
Canada to keep Canadians here. I believe that if the government
reduces taxes we can create better opportunities here.
In terms of the opportunities for people leaving Canada to seek
jobs elsewhere is in part pay. It is not all taxes; part of it
is pay. However pay is an instrument closely related to
corporate tax rates. Canada has one of the highest corporate tax
rates in the OECD. Last year, for instance, our corporate tax
rates were lower than those of Italy and Japan. This year we now
have higher corporate tax rates than Italy and Japan because
Italy and Japan have engaged in tax reform and tax reduction on
the corporate side.
1230
If the hon. member is sincere about pursuing greater
opportunities for Canadians then he should unshackle Canadian
enterprise and businesses from the burden of his party's failure
to address corporate tax reform.
Jack Mintz, one of his constituents, submitted an excellent
report to the federal government, the Mintz report. It was
commissioned by the federal Minister of Finance and then ignored
by the Minister of Finance.
I would suggest that this hon. member listen to one of his
constituents in Toronto Centre—Rosedale who has provided a great
blueprint for tax reform and tax reduction in Canada. If
followed, it would ensure that ultimately Canadians would enjoy
greater opportunities here and not have to seek them elsewhere
while the government pursues 1970s policies which have been
discredited around the world and in fact mire Canadians into less
opportunities in the future and not more.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on the
Speech from the Throne.
I will begin by mentioning some things that were not mentioned
in the Speech from the Throne. I believe it is worth mentioning
some of them. The government is attempting to hide from some of
the very real concerns, some of which we are living through now.
One is the Donald Marshall ruling in terms of native rights,
fishing rights, mineral rights and so on. I should say treaty
rights in general. That is a huge problem in Atlantic Canada but
obviously it has implications from one end of the country to the
other.
At this point it is focused on the lobster fishery simply
because the lobster fishery is one of the most lucrative
fisheries. It goes far beyond that but I certainly do not have
time in 10 minutes to go into the minute detail. The government
must address the issue and show some leadership on it. Up to this
point it has not shown any leadership on the issue.
Yesterday in my home riding in New Brunswick I met with very
concerned lobster fishers on Grand Manan Island. We have eighth
generation fishermen who do not know whether or not they will be
able to make a living at their fishery. The fisheries minister
simply hides under his desk when we talk about it. He has yet to
bring the native community and the non-native community together
to make reasonable progress on this very important issue.
The next shoe to drop in this whole debate will be the word
compensation. The fishers accept the fact that the supreme court
has ruled. We talked about the government exercising the
notwithstanding clause to give the fishing community time to
resolve the issue because it does not appear as if the minister
or the Prime Minister will resolve it. We also talked about a
stay of the decision. The government obviously dropped the ball
on that as well.
A day after the decision can we imagine the Prime Minister of
Canada standing up not knowing whether the government could have
asked for a stay in the decision or at least get the government
time to respond? He could have done that but did not. This
created a crisis when a crisis could have been avoided. That is
a big issue that was left out of the Speech from the Throne.
Another one is the merger of Air Canada and Canadian by Onex. It
appears like we will be looking at an American controlled airline
with services diminished in many parts of the country. However
this has never been debated on the floor and was never mentioned
in the Speech from the Throne. Neither was the agricultural
crisis which extends far beyond western Canada.
We are focused on western Canada and low commodity prices but we
are obviously not supporting our farmers the way we should to get
them through this international crisis. We are showing no sign
that we are interested in helping them. I think the government
has to do something.
The same thing applies to the immigration policy. We went
through a crisis on the west coast this year in terms of illegal
immigrants coming into Canada.
1235
What has been the response from the various ministries? On the
immigration crisis the minister says that winter is coming, so
there is not a problem out there that mother nature cannot take
care of. In the native fishing dispute it is the same. Winter
is coming and the winds will blow. Thank God for mother nature
because the ministers will not take action when it is necessary.
To go back a little on some of what I have heard from the
government side of the House in terms of the throne speech, there
has not been a member on the government side speaking on the
debate who does not fall back on their financial success. That
just amazes me.
What amazes me even more is that we on this side let them stand
up and get away with it. They talk about the huge deficit they
had and the financial mismanagement that was there when they came
to power. It is interesting to note every success they have had.
I do not deny they have had success in terms of balancing the
books, but the question has to be how they balanced the books.
That is the question.
One of my members said that it was like an old country western
song, give me 40 acres and I will turn this rig around. They
turned the rig around for sure but on policies we brought in when
we were in government. One I want to mention is the GST. Every
member sitting on that side of the House fought against the GST
from day one. In fact most of them over there were elected on
that. Anyone over there elected in 1993 was elected on the false
promise to eliminate the GST.
It is quite interesting that I would mention this point. It is
past history but it is very relevant because on the CBC radio
program Cross Country Checkup, hosted by Rex Murphy, the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions as a
guest panellist responded to some of the phone calls coming in
from across the country.
One of the questions put to him was on the elimination of the
GST, that old promise from 1993. The minister in his own words
said that they could not abolish the GST. When he was asked why
he said that it was because it was bringing in $22 billion in
revenue. That would simply blow away every inch of financial
success they have had on that side of the House. They won the
election on the big untruth. I know I am not allowed to use the
word lie, but they won that election on the big untruth.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member is
not unfamiliar with skating on thin ice. This time he went a
little too far so I would ask the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest to withdraw the term lie.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will withdraw
that term. In terms of the thin ice I will be like the minister.
It is something that mother nature will take care of in the next
few weeks.
When the junior minister of finance admits on national radio
that they cannot get rid of the GST and that the success they had
is because of it, it reveals exactly how thin the ice is they are
skating on over there when they are talking about their so-called
financial success.
There is probably only one member over there, the member for
Burin—St. George's, who would agree with every word I am saying.
He campaigned on this basis in 1997. Anyway I think the truth
lies in the numbers and lies in the record.
I want to examine three or four big issues. One is free trade
which that side railed against. Another is the GST which that
side railed against. Another is tax reform which we initiated as
the government as well as deregulation. I am talking about
financial sector deregulation, transportation deregulation and
energy deregulation as in the elimination of the national energy
program to benefit western Canada.
1240
They have to stand on their hind legs and talk intelligently
about what they inherited. It was not the horror show they love
to talk about. Every time they get up it is quite interesting
that the debt goes from $20 billion to $25 billion to $30 billion
to $40 billion. This time next year the debt they inherited will
be up to at least $65 billion or $70 billion. It just keeps
growing and growing. As the story prolongs it gets more
exaggerated.
I am proud of what we attempted to do and what we will be able
to do when we take over that side of the House. I will entertain
questions from my learned friends on the other side of the House.
I look forward to it.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of thin ice, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest
was a member in the House. Actually he sat on this side of the
House with the Mulroney Tories when I was a member of parliament
in opposition.
It is pretty thin ice when he starts criticizing Liberal members
on what we have been able to do with the mess the Conservatives
left us when they were over here for nine years. It gets more
and more difficult to believe he actually is telling us that we
did not do a good job in balancing the books. All the
Conservatives spoke of for nine years was about what terrible
financial shape the country was in.
I am an accountant by trade and there was something I really
believed. I really believed the Tories were good accountants.
Can one imagine my shock when I became a member of the government
and realized not only did they just talk but they were terrible
accountants? There was a huge debt with which we were saddled
after hearing about how fiscally responsible the Conservatives
were. They really were not very fiscally responsible.
Since then I think we have done a fairly good job considering
the difficulties we were facing.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this is really fun
because we sat on the finance committee together many years ago.
Obviously the hon. member was much younger then and time has
erased many of those memories.
It is interesting that never once did she or any other member on
the government's side of the House, including the finance
minister, vote for or support any initiative that reduced the
size of government or the cost of government. In 1988 when the
member was first elected she railed against free trade. Free
trade has been the biggest success story in Canada and one of the
reasons that Ontario is leading the pack in terms of economic
development and prosperity.
Let us go back to the GST. The member was a winner on both
issues. She campaigned against free trade and swallowed herself
whole in 1997. She campaigned on NAFTA and swallowed herself
whole. She did the same on the GST. She just lucked into office
as did the government.
It is like turning that truck around in 40 acres or slowing down
that tanker. It takes more—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Egmont.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hon. member
was saying how great the previous government was. Why then were
the Conservatives reduced from a majority government to two seats
in 1993? Why is the member still a member of the fifth party in
the House and not sitting on this side?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is pretty obvious.
It is because they campaign on the big l. We know what
that spells.
Some hon. members: Liberal, Liberal.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I did not say whether it
was a small l or a big l, so be careful before you
stand on your feet and cut me off.
In 1993 we were just about wiped off the map. The truth is that
they campaigned on a promise to rid us of a very—
1245
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the comments by the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest. I cannot disagree with much of what he has said about
the Liberal Party's campaign promises in 1993. In fact, I suggest
that there were several big rivals told during that campaign
which were never lived up to, the GST and free trade.
I want the member for New Brunswick Southwest to clarify the
Conservative Party's latest stand on free trade as a result of
having David Orchard in its party, the anti-free trader. I want
to know where the party stands on free trade these days. Has it
taken a left turn?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I guess I would have to
ask the member from that party where he stands on the UA.
Every party is always plagued with a problem or two. That might
be an intellectual hurdle over which some people will have
trouble jumping. I guess that is the fun of politics. The
definition of politics is the art of the impossible. Sometimes we
all have to practise the art of the impossible.
What does amaze me is the hypocrisy coming from the Liberals on
the other side of the House in claiming any kind of financial
success in terms of managing the economy when they have yet to
bring in a major initiative to address the future of Canada in
the life of their governments going back to 1993.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was greatly pleased with the major policy thrusts of the
Canadian government as set out in the Speech from the Throne by
her Excellency the Governor General and later in more detail by
the Prime Minister.
The focal point of this vision we wish to share with our fellow
citizens is quality of life; it will be the main thrust of our
activities as a government and must be constantly at the centre
of our daily concerns.
The concept of quality of life is a hard one to define clearly.
The International Society for the Quality of Life Studies
defines quality of life as the result of interaction between
social, economic, environmental and health factors affecting
human and social development.
For many Canadians, however, it is clear that the concept of
quality of life cannot be confused with the concept of standard
of living. Our fellow citizens see a marked difference between
the two concepts and do not attach the same value to both.
Quality of life is not measured solely against our objectives
and successes on the economic level. It is, of course,
important to have a healthy economy. Without one, we would find
it impossible to make strategic choices for improving our
quality of life.
Equally important, if not more important, however, to Canadians
is the fact that quality of live involves human investment, that
is in health, education and skills development and in our
children.
In fact, economic growth and an improved standard of living must
involve good social programs and good social policies.
What do our fellow citizens want, then? They want to live in a
country where quality health care is accessible. They want to
live in a country where all children can receive not just a
basic education but one that will prepare them for the realities
of the 21st century.
They want to live in a country where all of us can improve our
quality of life by improving our skills.
They want to live in a country which understands that children
are our greatest asset and which has chosen to invest in their
development.
They want to live in safe communities with green spaces, where
their health will not be threatened by a deteriorating
environment. Canadians want their government to achieve a
consistent balance between social and economic objectives.
1250
They want their government to understand these needs and to be
able to meet them in a concrete fashion. Our government
understands that message. This is why it has chosen to make the
improvement of Canadians' quality of life the central theme of
its vision for the years to come.
However, investing in social programs alone is not enough. Our
investments must be in strategic areas, they must be targeted.
They must achieve the objectives that we set for ourselves as a
society. While it is relatively easy to measure economic
results, it is more difficult to establish social performance
indicators.
How do we measure quality of life? A number of factors may give
some indication, including life expectancy, the quality of one's
physical environment and the crime and poverty rates, but other
factors are subjective. For example, how do we measure social
exclusion? In the coming months, therefore, we must work to
improve our performance indicators.
I should point out that, for the first time, the report on
departmental performance that is to be tabled in a few days will
include a number of social indicators.
The government is driven by a will to improve the quality of
life of Canadians and has made a number of commitments regarding
strategic investments, which include, of course, economic
investments, but also social ones.
We are investing in our young people and in our children,
because they are tomorrow's adults. We hope to provide them with
the best possible start, both from a family and an educational
perspective.
We are also investing in families through various tax measures
that will allow them to better meet the needs of their children.
It is our hope that parents can have a real opportunity to
improve their situation. To that end, we want to ensure that the
development of skills is not only a priority, but also a
reality.
The government also supports various sectors through research.
Investing in research and development will allow us to remain
competitive and to continue to develop state of the art
technologies. We will also strive to ensure Canadians get the
best possible care and a healthier environment. We also want to
provide Canada with modern infrastructures, so that our country
is ready to meet the challenges of the new century.
Clearly, we will work on modernizing physical infrastructures,
and it is my firm intention to initiate quickly the dialogue
that will enable us, by December 2000, to provide clearer
details of this new program.
If Canada is to affirm its prosperity in the context of global
trade, it will have to have the means to do so, that is, ensure
transportation safety, protect the environment and encourage
tourism and telecommunications. The list could be long and
will, no doubt, have to be shared with other public or private
partners.
Thought must be given to culture as well. Canada draws much of
its national identity from the diversity of its people. Writers
and artists are recording our heritage in the archives of
history daily. We must give them the means to do so.
As well, new technologies lend themselves to all sorts of
innovations. It is up to us to discover how to use them to
reduce the huge distances between people across the country.
The Internet must be used to serve Canadians and in both
official languages. It must also serve the economic and
cultural interests of Canada as a whole.
The immense possibilities offered by the information highway
must be mastered and put to use. It is not only a useful tool,
but a vital one. It may be of particular benefit to the
population of Canada spread between the two oceans and across
the vast northern territories. It eliminates distances and thus
opens to all who dare previously impassable trade borders.
This is why the government wants to develop in all sectors a new
infrastructure program in co-operation with our provincial and
private sector partners. This, clearly, involves strategic
investments for the future.
1255
[English]
Our government intends to build on our successes. The previous
infrastructure program enabled us to revitalize our economy in
several key areas. The next one will enable us to equip Canada
with all the tools it will need to remain competitive and on the
leading edge of economic and social development. With the budget
surplus we can consider making strategic investments that will
help us in meeting our objective of improving the quality of life
for Canadians.
Let there be no misunderstanding. We are not talking about
wasting the gains that have been so dearly paid for. Each
investment will be carefully assessed in terms of its
effectiveness, its relation to our needs and our ability to pay
for it.
We must never lose sight of the fact that we are talking about
taxpayers' money. In recent years our government has asked the
people of Canada to make the necessary and sometimes difficult
sacrifices so that we could restore the health of our public
finances. While the time has come to reap the benefits of our
collective efforts, it is also clear that the government is
committed to never returning to the days when we put ourselves
deep into debt. Never again will we live beyond our means.
Before going any further, allow me to quote the Prime Minister:
“Today I have set out a comprehensive strategy, for people, for
opportunity, for excellence, for success, for a high quality of
life, for sharing, dignity and mutual respect, for creativity and
innovation”.
Simple logic holds that this strategy which centres on the
quality of life applies to everyone without exception, including
government employees. As a public sector employer, it is
incumbent upon us to attend to the development of what is
undeniably the greatest asset of any government, the public
service. It is time to reaffirm our commitment to our employees.
Everyone, public service employees, carpenters and musicians
alike, need to feel appreciated for their efforts and in the work
they do.
Our employees are the representatives of the government, the
very government that imposed budget cuts, that took away what had
been gained, that demanded sacrifices, that caused belts to
tighten. It was often our employees who dealt with the public
who had to face the backlash from angry Canadians.
A better quality of life for the people of Canada will have a
twofold impact on our government employees. They too will
benefit from the overall improvement in addition to being granted
greater recognition for their work by a public that has been
reassured.
I will of course see to the well-being of our public service
employees' needs through the Government of Canada's overall
strategy. I will also see to it much more directly through the
implementation of a series of new measures throughout the public
service.
Improving the way in which we deliver our services to the public
is obviously a commendable objective, but we must have the means
to do so. That presupposes that our public service is properly
equipped and it will be. We will modernize our public service.
We will renew it. We will tailor our management to the needs of
the next century.
In Canada we want to create an exclusive public service, but
time is of the essence. In a little over four years, 40% of our
senior managers will be eligible for retirement and it is not
clear who will ultimately replace them. Almost half of our
public service employees are over the age of 45.
I reiterate my personal commitment. We will start by providing
stimulating work in a positive environment. We must recognize
and acknowledge the importance of front line staff in the
delivery of services to the public.
We will recruit the best and most outstanding employees.
1300
We will do everything we can to make sure that our public
service regains the prestige once associated with it. The Public
Service of Canada, similar to those countries emerging from major
transformations taking place throughout the world, will be less
cumbersome, more technology based and, as a result, more alert.
This will benefit everyone: the employers through better
performance, the public through more efficient services, and the
employees through acknowledgement of their work and the resulting
sense of personal satisfaction from a job well done.
Naturally, the primary responsibility for this transformation
lies with the federal government, which is well aware of the
needs of its public service.
I realize that our union partners may be skeptical of these
commitments by the government. I can only reiterate my firm
desire to undertake the necessary discussions we will need to
have on the methods to be used to meet our mutual objectives in
an atmosphere of partnership and dialogue, not confrontation.
By the end of our mandate, when the application of the measures
announced has taken shape and when the new quality of life has
made itself felt in Canadian homes, the federal government will
regain its place at the top of the list among employers of
choice. We will have a modern, efficient and motivated public
service that will be able and happy to assume responsibility for
the destiny of the Canada of tomorrow.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
will soon be four months since the House of Commons recessed so
that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet could put together the
throne speech. The President of the Treasury Board must
certainly be pleased with what her leader had to say.
First of all, she mentioned the quality of life of all
Canadians. I have read and reread the throne speech, and was
even present when the Governor General read it, but I found no
short-term solutions to serious problems such as the fisheries
dispute, which is worsening daily in the Atlantic provinces.
There is nothing to put an end to the arrival of boatloads of
immigrants on the west coast. Nor is there any clarification of
the government's position with respect to Onex, which would like
to buy and merge Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, or anything
to repair the grievous damage this government has done to health
care, social services and postsecondary education. There is
nothing to put right the terrible unfairness in EI, for which
barely 42% of unemployed workers who pay premiums qualify when
they lose their job.
There is nothing to narrow the gap between rich and poor, which
grows wider with each passing year. I wonder whether the
minister, the President of the Treasury Board, was one of the
500 people who marched in Montreal yesterday to try to make
people, especially rich people, aware of the terrible straits in
which several hundreds of thousands of Canadians find
themselves.
With many, many children coming to school hungry every day,
donations must now be sought so that they can be provided with
breakfast and lunch.
When the minister talks about the quality of life and the
environment of Canadians and Quebecers, can the minister tell us
whether or not she intends to do something about these
oversights in last week's throne speech? I await her comments.
1305
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today is
very clear: we are analyzing a throne speech. What is a throne
speech? It is the outline of the government's vision for the
future. This does not preclude us from focusing on short term
problems, on everyday problems.
In a throne speech, we look at where we have been, where we are
now and where we are going.
I hope the member for Frontenac—Mégantic will agree with me that,
if one looks at the progress made over that last five or six
years, from 1993 to 1999, the situation has improved in several
areas in Canada. That does not mean that there are no problems
here, even though we are fortunate enough to live in such a
great country.
Canada is far from being a perfect place. There are still some
major problems. We talk about improving the quality of life and
not only the standard of living—and we must make a distinction
here in that the quality of life also implies looking at the
social aspect of life in our society. This is what matters.
When we talk about improving the quality of life, it means
improving the welfare of families, children and any person
living in Canada.
Poverty levels in this country are clearly unacceptable. That is
why, for example, the Speech from Throne shows that we have a
vision for the future with regard to families and children.
First and foremost, we want to focus our attention on early
childhood, to give our young children a good start in life, to
help families with children, to reduce their tax burden. Then,
we will increase the child tax benefit, which is paid to low
income families to help them meet their children's needs so they
do not have to rely on welfare.
This is a clear commitment to help children, to give some people
a chance to break free from poverty. Moreover, the throne speech
leaves the door open for further improvements.
Our government's commitment to improve the quality of life of
Canadians says it all. We recognize the fact that our country is
great compared to others, but we still have to work together to
improve the quality of life of Canadians.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
brief, but I would like to ask my colleague a few questions.
She says that the Liberal government has done a good job in the
past six years. I do not know where she was, because in the
Atlantic provinces, the Liberals have lost nearly all their
seats.
As for students, by the time they get their degree, they have a
debt load of $30,000. If two graduates form a couple, they are
saddled with $60,000 in debt before they even get a home.
There are 800,000 workers who do not qualify for employment
insurance. Women need to have worked 700 hours to qualify. So
what about all these young workers and women workers? If there
are 800,000 workers who do not qualify for employment insurance,
how many hungry children does that create?
The number of food banks has gone up 10% more in recent years.
Where do the children fit in here? Where has the Liberal
government been these past six years? It has merely been
following in the footsteps of the Conservatives, who started the
employment insurance cuts in 1986, and the Liberals are just
continuing them.
If the minister does not believe this, let her leave Ontario and
Quebec and come to New Brunswick and the rest of the Atlantic
provinces to see what is going on, to see how people are having
trouble making ends meet.
When I went across Canada on my employment insurance fact-finding
tour, that is what I found. People are hungry. It is not the
tiny change mentioned in the throne speech that is going to make
any significant change for women. Women do not quality for
employment insurance if they have worked less than 700 hours in
a year. The change the minister is proposing is a minimal one.
I would like her comments on this.
1310
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I also said in my
presentation today that, if we have come this far in Canada, it
is because we asked huge sacrifices of Canadians, not just
workers but all Canadians.
In 1993, when we were faced with an incredible debt, a $42
billion deficit and a stagnant economy, what did we have to do?
We had to put in place a very restrictive plan for the use of
all our resources and we had to make major cuts. The public was
behind us, it was supportive.
Now, I do not think Canadians would ever again allow a
government to accumulate such a huge deficit.
So, Canadians agreed with our initiatives and they are the ones
who made these sacrifices. There is no question about that.
In spite of these circumstances, we were able to get the economy
going again and keep our inflation rate very low while
maintaining interest rates at an acceptable level. The national
unemployment rate has gone down and we have managed to preserve
social programs, although they had to be redefined. Clearly,
that redefinition of our social programs affected some groups
more than others. This is why the government, in its throne
speech, demonstrated its commitment to making investments
wherever necessary.
The impacts of our employment insurance reform were significant,
because that was a comprehensive reform. We are currently
looking at these impacts with a view to making improvements.
What do we find in the throne speech? It deals with the parental
leave for women, for example. Did I not hear the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst say “Congratulations on extending the parental
leave from six months to one year and making it more
accessible”?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, three times.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Now that we have a budget surplus, we
want all Canadians to benefit from it, first through a tax
reduction and, second, by making strategic investments to help
those groups that need it most, whether in eastern Canada, in
Quebec's Gaspé Peninsula or in western Canada.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure today to address our response to the throne
speech. Personally, my response to this has been a bit of a
defining moment, trying to make up my mind whether to run again
and maybe take over from this motley crew on the other side or
whether to forget it and go home.
I thought perhaps I should try to understand what would be in
the throne speech. I made a little list for myself to see if
certain things would be addressed. I even made a list about
aboriginal issues for the previous minister on the other side. I
am glad she is here because I have a few things to say about
that.
Some of the issues in the throne speech that I wanted to see
addressed more specifically, along with a lot of people
throughout the country, were issues like child pornography. What
will the government do about that? It has messed it up and left
it to the courts. Let us see it in the throne speech. That was
one of my top issues on the list because I think that is very
important.
Will prison reform be in the throne speech? Will that long
overdue issue be addressed?
Will the age of sexual consent be addressed? Both the Liberals
and the other crew down there had a lot to do with that a few
years ago and in fact reduced the age of sexual consent from 16
to 14. Will it be changed back to 16?
Will the growing issue of aboriginal affairs be addressed, in
particular on the east and west coasts, but in many other parts
of the country as well? One member said it was, but I will get
into that debate in a moment.
Will the real issue of taxes, a real commitment on taxes, with
timelines, be addressed? Taxes were mentioned but the timelines
were not, the legislation was not and the details of the
legislation were not.
1315
In most cases anything that was even generally addressed in the
throne speech would have to be turned into legislation. Most of
us know that it is probably less than two years before the next
election. As House leader I can say that turning these general
commitments into legislation before the next election is not
going to happen. So much for commitment.
What about the old Young Offenders Act, now called the Youth
Criminal Justice Act? The Liberals changed the name but will
they make commitments on when it will be changed and what will be
changed in it? I believe this is now the fourth, count them,
throne speech in which the government has mentioned those
changes, yet we see no changes.
What about the airline industry issues? I asked myself whether
that would be included. It is certainly a concern for many
people.
There are the problems in the immigration and refugee
department. They are long outstanding difficulties. I have
spoken many times in the House about what some of the problems
are with the numerous appeals and on and on it goes. Will they
be addressed?
How about the issue of the Senate? Will we ever see a reformed
Senate? The Liberals may have wanted to mention something like
that in the throne speech. How about things like free votes? How
about some substantive details about how we are going to fix the
unity issues?
The defining moment came for me when I read the document which
was really a rhetorical PR piece. We know that essentially it
will take legislation and the courage of all of us in the House
to change things. I can say that legislation will not be
forthcoming, at least not to the point where it receives royal
assent. They may play with it but it is not going to happen.
The other issue I want to talk about is drugs. About seven
months ago the Liberal government came out with a national drug
strategy document. I looked through the document and thought
here we go again, lots of rhetoric lacking substance. I did some
checking. The other guys down there, Joe what's his name and the
other fellas, the Conservatives, brought out a national drug
strategy in the eighties. I compared their national drug
strategy with the national drug strategy of the Liberals. Lo and
behold, I sincerely believe both were written by the same person.
Hardly anything changed; it was virtually the same document.
I took the Liberals' document to many places across the country,
from downtown east side Vancouver to small cities across the
country, Nova Scotia included. I asked them to look at this
national drug strategy and to tell me how it affected them. They
told me that it was a waste of their time and mine, that the
strategy was no good and not effective at the street level.
Unfortunately a few comments were made in the throne speech. I
think it was primarily because the Reform Party has been nagging
the government on this for some time. I do not believe the
government has a strategic plan in mind to combat drugs,
organized crime and all the other things that go with it, nor do
I think it has the will or the desire to do it.
I come from an area which has 15,000 addicted people, many who
are young teens. I come from an area outside Vancouver where the
downtown east side has around 6,000 addicts. This is just one
area in our country. Go to Toronto, Ottawa or small towns. Go to
Sydney or Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.
All of those places have serious problems with drug addiction,
yet when I read the throne speech, there are platitudes. There is
no commitment.
1320
I talked to some ministers who said that they gave $5 million to
British Columbia after the opposition parties nagged them. They
threw out $5 million over a period of two years. This is petty
cash. The Liberals do not say that the drug issue is a health
issue. They say it is an issue and they will fix it by throwing
some money at it.
I happen to work with quite a few people who have family members
who are addicted to drugs and I can say what their opinion is of
a government with no plan. They have long past given up the idea
of being upset about it. They have long past given up the idea
of thinking this is the place to resolve problems. They are now
hunkered down waiting for someone to help them, not a government,
some one or two people in this place.
I look at a blueprint, a model, a plan called a throne speech
and I can see that we have a government with status quo in mind.
Don't worry, be happy, things are working right. We will get
into the spotlight. We will tell all that it is working great.
Patch it a bit, fix it up.
These things I mentioned are not working. There is no
commitment from the government. Where there is no commitment from
a government, the government should remove itself or the people
looking for the commitment will do the removing for it. I expect
a lot of people will be running in the next election, not because
they want to get into politics but because there is no plan in
the nation, no commitment, no strategy.
We want something done about drugs. We want something done
about child pornography, prisons, the age of sexual consent,
aboriginal problems, taxes, crime, young offenders, the airline
industry, the immigration and refugee system, the Senate, free
votes. If we get around to trying to fix that, we will find that
perhaps unity will be somewhat resolved. But that takes courage
and I am not sure the government has it.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments particularly
with regard to the lack of substance in the throne speech. I
could not help but agree with what he said.
He mentioned child pornography, immigration, a whole bunch of
justice issues. I have been in this House since 1993 and I have
come to the conclusion that the government does not have the will
to do what it was duly elected to do. By that I mean the
government wants to be politically correct. Any of these issues
that are of any moral or justice substance the government wants
to pass on to the courts and I strongly disagree with that.
Does the hon. member think we were sent down here to help draft
the laws and address the wrongs of our laws instead of the
lawyers and the judges who are not an elected body?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, this concept is very near
and dear to the hearts of most Canadians. Who actually makes
laws in this country, the elected people, the representatives
from all over the country in this place, or the judges appointed
by the government of the day? That is a valid question. There
was never any question in my mind about who it should be. It
should be the elected officials.
1325
The difficulty I have is this delegation of authority. If it
were only the judiciary, I think we could find a way around that
perhaps by appointing judges for seven years instead of for life,
or electing judges, we could find answers to make them
accountable for their decisions, but it is not. The government
appoints bodies, refugee boards, immigration boards, parole
boards, that tend to have autonomy within our system. When
questions are asked in the House of Commons, ministers say “I do
not know. It is not my fault, it is their fault”.
The problem is the government of the day has delegated too much
responsibility. At the same time it has not issued
accountability within those areas it has delegated to.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some intent to the hon. member opposite.
I want to ask him two questions.
The first question is I wonder what he thought there was to gain
by bashing the judiciary? These judges are people of integrity
and great stature, people whose job it is to interpret the laws
as made by parliament. I wonder exactly what his game plan is in
terms of trying to bash these honourable people, people who do
the right thing most of the time in terms of what they do and
say.
The second question I have is that the hon. member spoke about
running for parliament and being around to do the right thing in
terms of caring for the country. Is he planning on doing that
the next time, or is he going to jump ship and seek provincial
politics?
I would be really interested in answers to both of those
questions, the honour of the judiciary and where his commitment
lies in terms of parliament vis-à-vis the provincial political
arena.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this
jumping ship is. Rumour has it that I am running for the
Liberals in B.C. Give your head a shake. It is interesting to
see how the Liberals here are much enamoured with the Liberals in
British Columbia. We will remember to bring that message back
home to those who say they do not have any association with these
people.
To answer the more serious question of the two, it is
interesting with those fellows over there. If a person speaks out
about and issue and thinks he is right about it, for instance, a
judge says that the possession of child pornography is legal and
a person speaks out about that, or a judge like Howard Weston in
Manitoba who says that all federal penitentiary prisoners—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but some
months ago we had already agreed that we were not going to
mention specific judges. We can refer to the judiciary, but not
to judges specifically.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if an individual, in
particular people in this House, disagree with that, the Liberals
call it bashing instead of articulating what one believes in. If
an individual dislikes what is going on in any portion of the
immigration proceedings, and I have had lots of experience trying
to get criminals deported from this country, they call it racism.
The problem is that those individuals over there have no argument
to articulate other than “You are bashing, you are bashing, you
are bashing”. That is sad. Perhaps they should learn a little
more about what they are supposed to be talking about before they
put legislation in place.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin my intervention in this debate by
welcoming the new human resources development minister. This is
a huge area. I have been the critic in this area for quite some
time. I know this minister is committed to doing a good job. I
will certainly commit to helping her with the best advice I can
give on how to carry out her responsibilities.
The second session of the 36th Parliament and the throne speech
which opened it were the subject of more hype and convenient
leaks than in any previous session in my time in this place.
1330
In recent weeks we had media carrying many interviews with
cabinet ministers and all sorts of insider leaks promoting the
expectation that the government had an imaginative plan of vision
for the future of Canada as we enter the next century and the
next millennium. With the opening of parliament delayed by three
whole weeks for the government to get this just right, we all
waited with bated breath for this wonderful vision to come
forward. What happened? The throne speech contained the usual
Liberal feel good rhetoric and much less actual content than was
expected even on the big centrepiece, the children's agenda.
There is no clear vision as we enter the next millennium.
The theme of the Prime Minister's speech when he followed up in
the House was emotive jargon: hope, confidence, optimism,
working together, boldness of vision, courage to act, best
country in the world, et cetera. He reiterated all of the usual
bromides: society of excellence, strong, united, dynamic,
innovative, diverse, cohesive, sharing, every child gets the
right start in life, young people with a chance to grow, access
to skills, quality health care; all of the things that nobody in
the House, let alone the whole country, would disagree with.
What was missing was one single, solitary, cohesive plan with
specifics on how to achieve these wonderful things that we all
want for our country. This is the lack of leadership that we
suffer from in this country: a Prime Minister without specifics,
simply falling back on platitudes.
In case people listening think that of course we are going to
say this in the opposition, let me quote from some commentators.
Andrew Coyne called it “a compendium of bland truisms and vague
declarations of intent”. Another commentator said the speech
shows the government as being “bereft of vision”. Even the
normally Liberal-friendly Toronto Star noted that the
speech was full of platitudes and short on specifics.
We need a sound vision in this country. We need some specifics.
Where are we going? What is it going to cost? Where is the
money coming from? What will be the benefits to people? There
was none of that, just some nice emotional words.
To top it all off, the Prime Minister had the nerve to call all
of this the Canadian way. It is the Liberal way. It is the
Liberal way of muddiness and fuzziness and murkiness and feel
good rhetoric, without delivering the sensible, sound, specific
plan this country needs.
What is the Liberal way? It is bureaucratic meddling; intrusive
government; Ottawa knows best, especially how to spend our money;
no hope for workers to keep more of what they earn, but instead
they can expect to keep half of what they earn; no liberation
from excessive taxes; more and more of the nanny state, a model
that has failed over and over across the world; and no vision for
the future that would appeal to our best and brightest young
minds.
What is the Liberal agenda? After all of the words, after all
of the speeches, we do not really know for sure. All we can do
is examine their past behaviour, their past record of missing the
obvious. Remember, it was these Liberals who were opposed to
free trade, the only thing practically that is carrying our
economy today.
What about the other important issues that are burning in
Canadians' minds? What about agriculture? Our farmers have lost
virtually all of their income. Their income has fallen to 2% of
what they earned last year. Would anybody in this House like to
have his or her income cut by 98%? Would there not be a hue and
cry for something to be done? There was not a mention by the
government on how to deal with these people in crisis across our
country.
What about immigration? We have solid people from across the
world lining up to be in this country. What happens? We have
people smuggling and illegal entrants taking up those spaces that
could be taken by people who have a commitment to doing things
the way the law says they should be done.
What about defence? We have a military that is literally
falling apart and falling out of the sky. There was not a word
about how to restore the pride that we used to have in our
forces.
What about the fishery? There is violence in a country like
Canada: people against people, citizens against citizens,
community against community. Yet, this visionary government did
not even mention that, never mind come out with a plan to address
it. It is a shame.
1335
The Liberals are totally out of touch with Canadians. Canadians
want less government, not more. They want to keep the money they
earn. They do not want to have to turn it over to government,
which then says “Have we got a program for you”. These
programs simply do not cut it for the majority of Canadians.
One commentator spoke about the only specific in the Prime
Minister's speech, which was to extend maternity leave. The
commentator said:
If Canadians were taxed less, they could have a whole range of
choices. Taxes are the business of government. Parenting is
not. If this government truly wants to help Canadian kids, it
should ease the tax burden on parents.
We need flexibility and choices as parents and as citizens of
this country, but no, the government wants to take our money, put
us into its little box, its little program and it will decide
what we can choose. It decides where we can go. It decides what
kinds of choices are available to us. That is not the way to run
a good country.
We have the Liberal record that my colleagues have talked about
so many times over the last few days; a government that says it
will give tax relief when in fact it is taking $2 billion more in
taxes next year than it did last year. That is not tax relief,
except to a Liberal who wants to say one thing but do the total
opposite.
What about health care? Health care transfers have been cut.
Cash transfers are still over $4 billion a year below what they
were when the government took office. That is $4 billion that
should be going into health care services in the country which
the Liberals have taken out and not returned.
The government talks about wanting to help our children. Look
at its track record on that. Ask aboriginal children how well
the government has looked after them. Many of them are living in
poverty and squalor, and they lack services.
What about military families who are getting by on subsistence
wages with substandard housing? The government is totally
responsible for the wages and housing of our military and their
families.
What about farm families, children who are losing their entire
heritage while the government stands by without a word?
What about the children whose parents have hepatitis C from the
ineptness of government? The government says “Sorry, your
parents cannot get insurance. They cannot get mortgage
insurance. They cannot do a lot of the things they need to
provide for you and your future. Too bad, you lose”. That is
how the government looks after children.
I have already mentioned health cuts. How do they impact
parents and children? Yet, the government has the nerve to say
it cares about children and families when everything it has done
in the past shows completely the opposite.
We need a plan that will really carry us into the future, with
something solid that we can count on and something that really
gives us choice, flexibility and a bright future. That plan was
enunciated in the House by the Leader of the Opposition in a
speech that had the substance that this tired, sad, incompetent
government failed to deliver.
I commend to all Canadians the plan we have put forward, which
would give real choice, flexibility, freedom and the protection
of family resources and the resources for which we all work so
that we could build the future we want together.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill. I
thought she gave a very thoughtful analysis of the throne speech.
I see some commentators have taken to calling this the drone
speech rather than the throne speech in that it lacks a vision
for our country entering a new millennium.
I thought my colleague said it pretty well, but I am really
interested in her analysis of the government's 50:50 proposal for
spending our so-called surplus.
I would like to find out where my colleague stands on the whole
issue of 50:50.
1340
In my mind it sounds good. However, I think the Canadian public
are being fooled into thinking that 50% will go toward new
spending and 50% will go toward the reduction of the debt and the
massive tax burden in this country. In fact, we are finding out
that basically there is no surplus to split 50:50. I would like
to have her analysis of that situation.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the real issue is, is
government spending enough of our money or not? That is the real
question that Canadians will be asking themselves. Most
Canadians are saying that the government spends enough of their
money and that it spends a whole lot more of their money than it
should.
Our money is burning a hole in the pocket of the government. It
thinks of wonderful new ways to spend it, like sending young
people across the country who are trying to get an education,
some skills training and looking forward to a stable job with a
decent income. It thinks of feel good programs instead of the
substance that our country needs. Then the government says “We
are going to spend half of your money for you because we know
better”.
The real question for Canadians is, do they want government
spending more and more of their money? Or, do they want to say
to the government that it is spending enough, that it needs to
put some of the money it has been spending on wasteful, frivolous
things back into key programs like health care, solid education
for our children, proper salaries for our military and addressing
the real problems of this country?
Let Canadians spend their own money. They will do it better
than the government.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the hon. member who mentioned the children on reserves,
the lives they are leading and the squalor and poverty that
exist.
As she knows, I spent two years visiting the homes of these
people across the nation and it is a very broad and serious
problem. We always look for explanations, and I am sure that she
does not have any. I know I do not.
I would like her to comment on why in the world a government
that has been in power for the length of time that this
government has would continually ignore the auditor general's
statements which blasted the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development for its lack of accountability in looking
after these matters. Why does the government continually ignore
that?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, first, I commend my
colleague from Wild Rose who has spent more time talking to real
aboriginals about their real life problems than, I would dare
say, either the minister or anyone in the minister's department.
I believe that the government cares more about its image, its
legacy, about politicking and feel good words than it really does
about doing something serious, practical and specific for the
people of this country.
The hon. member for Wild Rose is one who knows very well that
when it comes to delivering, the government gets a big fat zero.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Chatham—Kent
Essex.
[Translation]
As we all know, my role as Deputy Chair of Committees of the
Whole limits my interventions in this House to procedural
matters. I am therefore grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for
finally giving me an opportunity to speak to my colleagues about
a topic which is dear to my heart and which was mentioned
briefly in the throne speech. I am referring to the plight of
the homeless.
Naturally, however, I want to begin by thanking my constituents
in Saint-Lambert, to whom I owe the great privilege of sitting in
this place.
1345
My riding consists of four large municipalities: Greenfield
Park, Lemoyne, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this
year, the western portion of the city of Longueuil and, finally,
Saint-Lambert, which gives my riding its name.
As is the case with many urban ridings in Canada, contrasts
abound between and within these four municipalities. They are
essentially suburbs of Montreal—what are often referred to as
bedroom communities—where the quality of life takes precedence
over industrial activity.
The proportion of anglophones, francophones and new Canadians
also varies widely in the municipalities contained within the
riding's boundaries.
[English]
My constituents back home have been generous enough to put their
confidence in me. I renew my pledge to represent them loyally
and efficiently, notwithstanding their social background, their
cultural origin or their political affiliation.
[Translation]
But I also wish to pay special attention to a very serious
problem. That problem is homelessness, the terrible and
hopeless situation in which thousands of homeless people,
particularly youth, find themselves.
The gap between those whose circumstances are improving and
those for whom, on the contrary, they are worsening, also exists
in my riding. At the close of the century, with the effects of
globalization and technological innovation increasingly
transforming not just relations between countries but also the
daily lives of all citizens, I feel we must pay special
attention to the life of the community.
In fact, I believe that one of the vital roles of the
governments of today, as well as of each and every member of
this House, must be to work toward the economic and social
integration of all those who are at risk of being pushed aside
in a competition-, innovation- and knowledge-based economy.
In this context, the situation of the homeless is a particular
concern. It is true that this is a problem that is hard to get
a proper handle on. There is no typical homeless person,
although we are too often tempted to lump them all in together
without thinking.
In reality, all homeless people have their own stories, their
own experiences, their own lives.
They may be children abandoned by their parents, ruined
businessmen, battered women, aboriginal people who have not
managed to integrate into big city life, refugee claimants, or
people who have been released from correctional or psychiatric
institutions and are having difficulties fitting back into
society.
People end up on the street for all kinds of reasons. Among the
main causes of homelessness are: mental illness, family
violence, addiction, poverty, loss of income, less affordable
housing, and migration to major urban centres.
[English]
In Ottawa, our nation's capital, an estimated 4,500 people
including 375 families with children are homeless. As a matter
of fact, the fastest growing group of homeless is families with
children, and 18% of the homeless population of Ottawa are
children under the care of single parents.
[Translation]
In the street, all suffer in the same way, young and old,
university graduates and the functionally illiterate, members of
our first nations and recent immigrants; all are discriminated
against in the same way. What almost all of them have in common
is the fact that they did not choose this lifestyle and cannot
change it unaided.
I take great pride in being part of a government that has set
itself the priority of improving the quality of life for all
Canadians.
1350
In particular, we set up several programs specifically for the
homeless. However, these measures could lose their effectiveness
and end up being too scattered if they were not all co-ordinated
by a single minister. Fortunately, the Minister of Labour and
federal co-ordinator for activities related to the homeless
displays remarkable energy and sensitiveness in dealing with
this delicate and complex task. The Canada-wide tour that she did
this summer to consult stakeholders shows that she is taking
that responsibility very seriously.
When the governor general read the throne speech last week, I
was very pleased to hear her say that “the Government will
continue working with its partners in all sectors to address the
root causes of homelessness”.
However, even a government with the best of intentions, or all
levels of government working together, can never solve the
problem of homelessness without the support of the whole
population. Homelessness is a societal problem that must
absolutely be dealt with by society as a whole. It is imperative
that we develop common approaches and initiatives with all
public administrations, community groups, educational
institutions, the private sector and everyone who wants to
contribute to the betterment of their community.
[English]
As Canadian citizens we are justly proud of our first place
ranking in the United Nations human development index, but such
classifications are meaningless for the individuals who struggle
every day to find something to eat and do not know where they
will be sleeping at night.
Over the years successive Canadian and provincial governments
have achieved much, more than most countries in fact, to provide
Canadians with an effective and affordable social safety net, but
we still have a very long way to go before coming to grips with
the problem of homelessness. Homelessness is growing in number
and diversity at an accelerated pace.
[Translation]
All Canadians are about to celebrate, in their own way, the
arrival of a new century and a new millennium. This is an
opportunity for us to proudly celebrate a remarkable past and to
look confidently to a promising future.
On the occasion of my first speech in this house, I am making
the wish that, during these celebrations, we never forget that
thousands of our fellow citizens need us in an urgent and
critical way. We must listen to them. We must speak to them from
the heart.
There are of course no homeless people in this house. However,
each and everyone of us here represents some of these people in
the Parliament of Canada.
The homeless, as well as all those who live in need and
uncertainty, are also Canadian citizens. They too are entitled
to a brighter future.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member spoke about the problem of homelessness.
[English]
She made a very eloquent and good case for concern for the
homeless. It is a very important issue that must be dealt with.
She also mentioned that she is pleased to be part of a government
that made the statement in the throne speech that it would
continue working with its partners in all sectors to address the
root causes of homelessness and to help communities respond to
the needs of their members for shelter and other support.
Other than that sentence I did not see anything concrete to tell
me what the government is actually doing to help those people who
are living on the streets and who were so aptly described by my
hon. colleague.
1355
Would the member comment on what practical steps she sees the
government taking to provide a housing program, or something
which will address the issue in a very concrete fashion?
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his kind comments. Indeed the Speech from the Throne
was not very specific on the provisions the government intends to
take to try to solve the problem.
As I mentioned in my speech, the Minister of Labour travelled
widely throughout Canada last summer. We will receive her
concrete suggestions in the very near future.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too listened
to our colleague's speech. The problem with the government is
that it talks a lot but does nothing.
First, there was the appointment of the minister for the
homeless, an appointment without portfolio. Then employment
insurance. This I will repeat until the next election: How will
people manage, especially the women, many of whom work part time
and cannot obtain employment insurance because of the number of
hours required?
I would like our colleague to tell us what this government,
which she so strongly believes in, intends to do or should do if
it really wants to help the homeless in the country, not only in
words but in deeds.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his remarks. The Prime Minister has already taken a big
step by asking a minister to take on the problem of the
homeless.
This is a relatively recent problem. It is new in the scope it
has assumed in recent years. I remember watching American
television programming on street people and reading reports in
American papers about them, like many of you. We thought the
Americans had a problem and one that we would not want here.
Unfortunately, however, it has arrived here now, and I am sure,
with all the work the Minister of Labour is doing at the moment,
we will have results very soon. In any case, I hope so and I
hope we will have the co-operation of all the members of this
House as well.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 3, 1998, the Canadian forces dental services forensic
team became involved in the response to the crash of Swissair
flight 111. The dental forensic operation lasted until the
identification centre, located at 12 Wing Shearwater, closed on
October 30, 1998.
Throughout Operation Persistence the 46 team members drawn from
across Canada provided over 7,500 hours of forensic dental
services that were crucial in identifying many of those lost in
this tragic mishap. They performed superbly under extremely
demanding and emotional circumstances that required a special
kind of fortitude, stamina and emotional strength. Few of us can
imagine the trying circumstances under which these personnel
served.
On October 12, the chief of defence staff presented a Canadian
forces unit commendation to members of the team in an official
ceremony that recognized their exemplary actions.
I would now ask all members of the House to join me in
acknowledging the fine work performed by these dedicated people.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians trust the Liberals when
they say they will protect children and then avoid positive
action on the possession of child pornography?
The recent throne speech said that the government would work
with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be
safe. Its focus will be balanced, combining prevention and a
community centred approach with action to deal with serious
crime.
1400
Child pornography is a serious crime and in response on Friday
300,000 Canadians voiced their community-centred approach through
a petition against child pornography insisting the government
defend the law.
In response, the justice minister accuses Reform members of
being scaremongers. Obviously the minister does not feel
obligated to the community will, and also has no ability to get
cabinet approval for action.
Children are the most vulnerable members of society and they
deserve the fullest protection of the law. Liberal sentiments
delivered in regal fashion do not close legal loopholes or defend
families. The poor Liberal justice system will only be improved
when the system defenders are replaced by the system changers in
the opposition.
* * *
YWCA
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October
17 to 23 is the YWCA's fourth annual Week Without Violence.
Each year the YWCA holds activities across Canada that help to
raise awareness about violence in our communities and its impact
on all of our lives. Last year local activities and initiatives
touched over 20,000 individuals. This year's focus on youth is
expected to touch even more lives.
I would like to extend my congratulations to the YWCA for its
ongoing efforts on behalf of all Canadians. I would particularly
like to congratulate the YWCA of Cambridge for its ongoing
dedication to making our community a better and safer place to
live. I would encourage all Canadians to participate in local
activities during this year's Week Without Violence.
* * *
MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Nobel Peace Prize for 1999 has been awarded to Médecins Sans
Frontières.
Founded in 1971 by a group of French doctors and now active in
80 countries, including Canada, Médecins Sans Frontières provides
direct, in the field medical help to victims of armed conflict,
without regard to political allegiances.
The committee of the Norwegian parliament which chooses the
laureates has normally favoured national political leaders but it
has also recognized non-profit, humanitarian organizations. The
International Red Cross has been honoured three times, beginning
with the first award to the Swiss founder, Henri Dunant, in 1901.
The Nansen committee and the later UN High Commission on
Refugees have also been recognized three times. The Institut de
Droit International was an early laureate in 1904. Very recent
recipients have included the International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War in 1985, the Pugwash Movement for
Nuclear Disarmament in 1995 and the International Campaign to Ban
Landmines in 1997.
The award to Médecins Sans Frontières continues this
contemporary trend of recognizing the role of volunteer,
grassroots, private citizens' organizations in advancing world
peace today.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October was designated Women's History Month by the
federal government in 1992 to celebrate the past and present
contributions of women in Canada and to recognize their
achievements as a vital part of our Canadian heritage.
October was chosen because of the historical significance of the
Persons case. On October 18, 1929, after a lengthy political and
legal battle led by five Canadian women, the British Privy
Council declared that the reference to persons in section 24 of
the British North America Act did indeed include women, thus
making them eligible for appointment to the Senate.
Today marks the 70th anniversary of the Persons case decision
and the 20th anniversary of the Governor General Award in
commemoration of the Persons case. May we congratulate the five
Canadian women who will receive this year's Governor General
Award.
These remarkable women have followed in the footsteps of the
famous five of 1929 and the 107 other Governor General Award
recipients since 1979.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent Angus Reid survey shows 46% of prairie farmers
are seriously considering getting out of farming or have already
ceased operations because of high taxes, unfair foreign subsidies
and low commodity prices.
By the end of this year, thousands of farmers will be forced
from their farms, not by choice, but by this government's
inaction and lack of interest.
Unless the government takes immediate action to resolve the
farming crisis, our farmers face a bleak future.
The Prime Minister continues to boast about Canada being the
best place on earth to live. I wish he would face a group of
Canadian prairie farmers and make that statement. But true to
form, the Prime Minister and his government will continue to
avoid addressing this very important issue.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
CHILD TAX BENEFIT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to Michel Girard, a journalist for La Presse, the
Government of Canada increased the child tax benefit by $15 a
month effective last July 1.
This represents an additional $60 million in assistance to
families in Quebec. But only $10 million of it actually made
its way into their pockets.
The government of Lucien Bouchard decided to cut its provincial
allowance by $50 million.
Of the 660,000 families in Quebec that receive the family
allowance and the federal benefit, only 103,800 saw their income
go up following the federal increase.
What did Quebec City do with the $50 million it netted by
cutting its provincial allowance by the same amount as the
federal increase? It put it into day care services.
Today, the government of Lucien Bouchard is cashing in on
children's benefits.
* * *
CANADIAN HANDBALL TEAM
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last July, four
young members of the Canadian handball team from Drummondville
took the gold medal at the UBAE grand prix in Barcelona and
placed fourth in La Coupa Interamnia in Teramo, Italy.
Martine Gélinas, Stéphanie Gagné, Catherine Brunelle and
Marie-Christine Gélinas surprised everyone, because they have
only been playing this sport for two years.
In addition to maintaining a rigorous training program and
keeping up their studies, they had to find the money to pay for
their trip. It would be a good idea if Heritage Canada were to
provide basic funding to all sports federations to assist
athletes. The unflagging support of their trainer and their
parents played a vital role in the young women's success.
Their outstanding determination deserves our recognition.
Bravo to all four, and good luck in the next competitions.
* * *
[English]
RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great privilege and honour that I pass on 80th
birthday wishes to Canada's 15th prime minister, the Right Hon.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
First elected as a member in 1965, Mr. Trudeau served as
minister of justice under the leadership of Prime Minister
Pearson. A dashing, charismatic politician, he was elected
leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in 1968 and in April sworn
in as Canada's 15th prime minister.
During 16 years of Trudeaumania, he reformed Canada. The
government passed the Official Languages Act, fought the
separatist terrorists in Quebec during the October crisis and
introduced the metric system in Canada. He was devoted to
national unity in opposition to the separatist goals of the Parti
Quebecois.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to extend birthday
greetings to a truly remarkable man and wish him many, many more.
* * *
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the pink
ribbon I am wearing today represents breast cancer awareness
month. This serious illness devastates vast numbers of women
across Canada. Let me note some positives in this field.
New genetic research now allows us to detect the gene in some
families where the risk of breast cancer is predictable. This
opens up preventive steps and surely prevention is better than
treatment. Regular self-examination, new diagnostic technology
and early intervention are all positive developments here in
Canada.
[Translation]
In my work as a doctor, I have seen personally the tragic
effects of breast cancer. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts
of health professionals and volunteers, who are working to
reduce the incidence and the terrible consequences of this
serious disease.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ERADICATION OF POVERTY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
was the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.
The objective of eradicating poverty, on which efforts must be
focused every day, is an important part of our concerns if we
wish to provide everyone with an improved quality of life.
Eradicating poverty must also be among the concerns of all
governments, all organizations and all corporations. Each of us
has a duty to help the most disadvantaged members of our
society.
Let us hope that, with the new millennium fast approaching, each
of us will be able to say that we have personally contributed to
this objective, this societal necessity, of eradicating poverty
as quickly as possible.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by now most Canadians are aware of
the crisis facing our non-native and native fishermen in Atlantic
Canada.
Since the Marshall decision was handed down by the supreme
court, the fisheries are in a state of confusion and fishermen
are angry at the lack of leadership shown by the Liberal
government.
1410
I now understand why the government is negligent in its
responsibility to thousands of fishermen and their families. It
is, I believe, so that the DFO can institute the individual
transferable quota system known in the fisheries committee as
ITQs. These would in effect transfer the access of the lucrative
lobster fishery from thousands of independent fishermen and their
families to the control of a few corporate identities, similar to
what was done to the groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada, thus
destroying the hopes of thousands of families in their
communities throughout Atlantic Canada.
I would like to fire this shot over the DFO's bow: Please do
not institute the ITQ system on lobster stocks.
* * *
[Translation]
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the organization
Doctors Without Borders, which has been providing international
medical assistance for the past 28 years.
Doctors Without Borders was founded by three young French
physicians in 1971, at the time of the Biafra crisis. The
founders wanted to assert their independence from traditional
medical organizations in order to be able to denounce the
atrocities going on before their eyes with all the vigour born
of youth.
Since then, Doctors Without Borders has been involved in
humanitarian endeavours in an impressive number of conflicts and
disasters, in particular the war in Lebanon in 1976, the
terrible famine in Ethiopia in 1980, the earthquake in Armenia
in 1988, and most recently the war in Kosovo.
As one of the founders said recently “After nearly 30 years of
activities, we are not sure that speaking out always saves
lives, but we do know that silence kills”.
Our heartiest congratulations to Doctors Without Borders for its
contribution to the ideal of peace and the elimination of
suffering in the world.
* * *
MADAM JUSTICE LOUISE ARBOUR
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like the
house to congratulate Louise Arbour, who was born in Montreal,
who is the former prosecutor of the international criminal
tribunal, and who is now a supreme court justice.
Madam Justice Arbour received the highest honour at La Presse's
16th excellence gala, when she was named personality of the
year. She also won the award in the “courage, humanism and
personal accomplishment” category.
All agree that under the leadership of Louise Arbour,
international justice took a giant step. Indeed, Louise Arbour
showed unprecedented determination in prosecuting people
suspected of war crimes all over the world. She did a great job
in conditions that were sometimes unstable and very difficult.
Canada and the whole world are grateful to Louise Arbour for
having shown such leadership in issues as complex and difficult
as those of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. International
peace and justice are greatly indebted to her.
Congratulations to Louise Arbour and to all award winners at the
gala.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend hundreds of non-native fishers and their families
converged in Yarmouth to express their anger over the federal
government's handling of the fishing crisis.
Despite the minister's claim of having a solution in hand on
Friday, we discovered there was no such solution, which was why
he had to appoint an independent negotiator.
West Nova fishers have very little faith in the government's
ability to find a solution to this crisis. Why should they?
The minister of Indian affairs said that we were overemphasizing
the crisis. After all, winter was setting in, not many people
would be fishing and nobody's livelihoods are at stake. For his
part, the fisheries minister said that he wants a long term
solution before the next fishing season in the spring.
Obviously these gentlemen do not realize that the most lucrative
lobster fishery is set to begin in West Nova at the end of
November. Our fisher's livelihoods are at stake and I think they
have a right to be concerned.
Why will the government not take the crisis seriously and
immediately implement short term solutions that would at least
see all fishers respect pre-established fishing seasons in the
name of conservation?
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October is Women's History Month. This year, Women's History
Month pays special recognition to the contribution of francophone
women in Canada's history.
One francophone woman who is making history today is Julie
Payette, the first French-speaking Canadian female astronaut.
Julie has been accumulating honours and awards of excellence
since college. She is a wonderful role model for young women,
proudly proving that there are no limits to what we can achieve.
Although her formal education is in science and engineering, her
contribution to the arts is also noteworthy. She is an excellent
pianist and has sung with a number of choirs both in Canada and
abroad. Furthermore, Julie speaks French, English, Spanish,
Italian and Russian.
In June 1992, the Canadian Space Agency selected her as an
astronaut and four years later she began training as a mission
specialist at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Texas.
This past May, Julie Payette climbed aboard the space shuttle
Discovery and headed for the International Space Station.
The success of her recent 10-day mission on the shuttle
Discovery and at the International Space Station is a
source of pride for all Canadians. She is also an inspiration to
young women across Canada, encouraging them to follow their
dreams in pursuing careers in non-traditional work.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's first act of the new millennium will be
to raise taxes. On January 1, Canada pension plan premiums will
rise by $2.3 billion and bracket creep will pull hundreds of
thousands of Canadians into higher tax brackets, which is not
exactly a cheery way to enter the new year. We now have poverty
groups, family groups, small business associations and even the
banks calling for a substantive tax cut.
Why is the government to start the new century with a tax hike
instead of a tax cut?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the preamble to the hon. member's question is totally
false. We will be starting the new millennium with tax cuts.
However let us deal with the issue of the Canada pension plan.
It is under the joint stewardship of the provinces and the
federal government. The provinces and the federal government
came together and decided to preserve the Canada pension plan for
countless generations to come.
The issue before the Canadian people is what the Reform Party
has against the Canada pension plan. Why does it want to see it
disappear and why did it vote against it?
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is avoiding the issue. The statements in
the Speech from the Throne about tax relief are half-truths. Over
the same period that the government promises $16 billion in tax
relief it increases taxes by $18 billion for a net increase in
taxes of $2 billion.
I ask the government again why it is starting the new millennium
not with genuine tax relief but with a tax hike.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again the hon. member simply does not know the
facts. With the tax cuts of the government over the course of
the next three years we have more than covered inflation or
bracket creep. Those are real tax cuts on top of that.
The real issue before the Canadian people is not the bogus
arithmetic of the Reform Party. It is why does it not come up
with a plan Canadians can believe in, one that does not hide an
agenda and is not opposite to the basic values of Canadians.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister has notes in his margin that say
“argument weak, yell like hell”.
The facts are these. When workers look at their paycheques the
taxes are increased, not decreased. When a mother looks at her
family budget at the end of the month she has less money to spend
because of the minister's taxes and not more. Businesses are
going to the United States and not staying here because of the
tax policies of the minister.
Why after six years of broken promises should Canadians believe
the minister when he says that now he will decrease taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess Canadians should believe the government because
we know the facts and the hon. member obviously does not.
Real disposable incomes in Canada have not only stabilized but
now for the first time in over a decade they are beginning to
rise. The hon. member is wrong. Unemployment in the country is
now at its lowest level in over 10 years.
If the hon. member would like to see a perspective on the
Canadian economy and the net result of what the government has
done, I would simply ask him to look at the Royal Bank report
which came out today. It basically says that the country is
cooking on all cylinders.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know if the country is cooking on all cylinders but I do know
that taxpayers are getting roasted thanks to this finance
minister.
On January 1, bracket creep will raise taxes by a billion
dollars. That is according to the finance department's own
books. He should listen to his own finance department. He
always talks about reducing taxes but all of his actions are to
increase taxes.
If the finance minister really has the courage of his
convictions, why will he not eliminate bracket creep on January
1?
1420
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member simply ought to take a look at reality.
The reality is that our tax cuts have taken care of bracket creep
and much more.
However, he does not have to believe me. Let me simply quote
that “the taxation arrow is now pointing in the right direction,
down. It behoves us then to offer a polite nod of thanks in the
direction of the federal finance minister”. I hate to say it,
but that is what he said. He goes on to say, for all the
lecturing Ralph Klein did in the mid-1990s about how Ottawa needs
to get its budgetary books in order like we did at the time,
Klein and Day have been left in the dust by Ottawa. That is the
Calgary bunch.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members not to use any props
in questions or answers.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
will be noted how the finance minister always runs away from the
question. For someone who is pursuing the leadership of the
Liberal Party that is not a great quality. I suggest maybe he
wants to focus on the question this time.
My question is again for the finance minister. He knows this is
the case. On January 1 taxes will take another $1 billion out of
the pockets of Canadians; 85,000 Canadians will join the tax
rolls for the first time. If he really believes in tax relief,
why does he not begin with a tax cut on January 1? Why will he
not eliminate bracket creep?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that on January 1 taxes are going down.
Taxes went down on July 1. Next year they are going down $3.9
billion. Since we have taken office EI premiums have gone down
$4 billion. That is what they are going down. A substantial
increase of $1.8 billion in the child tax benefit, that is money
that will be found in the pockets of middle and low income
Canadians with children.
The fact of the matter is that taxes have gone down every year
since we have balanced the budget and they will keep on going
down.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said in this house
that she did not know that members of her staff or of her
department were aware of the investigation into CINAR, a
Montreal production company.
A few minutes later, she told the media that her deputy minister
knew about the investigation. Given that she had the whole
weekend to do so, the minister must surely have checked things
out.
Could the minister confirm that no other person from her
department or from any organization accountable to her
department was aware of that issue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, I said just about the opposite of what the
hon. member is claiming. I said that my office had no
information on this issue and that I presumed that my department
was aware of what was going on, since it had already arranged
for a meeting with the police.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the minister is definitely responsible for her department and
the organizations that are accountable to her, my question to
her is as follows. Is she aware that one of the names used by
CINAR in the movie Chassé croisé is allegedly that of Thomas
LaPierre, the son of Laurier LaPierre, who is the chairman of
the board of Telefilm Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, the hon. member made accusations, following
which I asked the RCMP to investigate. I hope he will let the
RCMP conduct its investigation and shed light on the whole
issue, instead of saying falsehoods here in the House.
The Speaker: I ask everyone to be very careful with their choice
of words.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Sergeant Alain Lacoursière of the Montreal urban police told Le
Point on Friday that there should be an administrative
investigation along with the police investigation. He said “This
is the investigation that Telefilm should be doing. It should
give me a file so I can lay criminal charges”.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In view
of the links that appear to exist between the chairman of the
board of Telefilm and one of names used by CINAR, is it the
minister's intention to give Telefilm such a mandate?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already asked the RCMP to investigate. I think
the RCMP is capable of investigating all the names, all the
alleged names and all the people implicated in the matter.
1425
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the police themselves are calling for an administrative
investigation to complement their own investigation, and the
minister does not seem to be aware that people in her department
or in agencies responsible to her could have links to this
matter, how can she claim that this matter will be fully brought
to light?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is precisely because of the allegations made last
week that I took responsibility for requesting an RCMP
investigation.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-80
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, 200 food safety scientists have sounded the alarm today.
They are warning that our government is not able to ensure the
safety of our food and that the whole food safety system is in
jeopardy.
The scientists are especially worried about Bill C-80, the
proposed food marketing bill, that it will further erode our
ability to ensure the safety of our food.
My question for the health minister is simple. Will the
government abandon this dangerous bill?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me respond to that part of the question dealing with the food
safety employees of Health Canada.
I did indeed receive a letter from them last week. I asked the
deputy to meet with them and deal with it, but I want to reassure
the member that we take very seriously our responsibility to
ensure food safety for Canadians. Since I have been minister we
have done a number of things to try to ensure it.
One of the first things I did when I got there was to cancel the
proposed cuts to the food directorate. We have $65 million from
the most recent budget to improve food safety. We are continuing
with the recommendations of the science advisory board—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister and the government are so concerned that
they are prepared to throw the do not harm principle right out
the window. The scientists are coming to the minister and to the
public because they have deep concerns. They do not believe what
he has just said.
They have said we are in a disastrous situation and we are on a
perilous course of action. I want to know from the Minister of
Health: Are the scientists wrong?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the scientists are of course right to express concerns they
honestly feel.
I am responding to them as I am responding to the hon. member by
saying we are both on the same side of this issue, which is the
side of consumer safety and safety of food. So long as I am
minister the scientists at Health Canada will have the resources
and the mandate required to ensure that safety.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week the minister of agriculture in a CBC interview said he
would use all the resources at his disposal to help farmers.
Last week Alberta provided $100 million. The U.S. government
provided $8.7 billion. When will the minister use his influence
to put forward similar resources to help stop the bleeding in
agriculture?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have already demonstrated that in that
we have already put $900 million into assisting farmers. I think
farmers are very glad that we formed the government because the
hon. member's party platform last time said that they would merge
the agriculture, environment, natural resources, and fisheries
and oceans ministries.
The projected savings they said they would make in Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada would be $600 million. We put $900 million
in and they wanted to take $600 million out.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
the provinces where Canada delivers the AIDA program they have
delivered $90 million to date. To date, 8,000 AIDA applications
have been approved and 10,000 have been denied.
Does the minister not believe that those 10,000 farmer do not
need assistance? If he does believe that then when will he give
them some hope and put some money in their pockets?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement about how
much the AIDA program has delivered already is incorrect.
To four provinces where the federal government delivers the
program it is now well over $200 million. Last fall the hon.
member's party said that it believed the emergency assistance
could be delivered at a cost to the federal government of
approximately $276 million. That is all it said was needed. We
are putting in $900 million, over three times what it said was
needed.
* * *
1430
FISHERIES
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
lot of us are alarmed at the increasing level of friction and
tension in the east coast fishery.
Today we learned that the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition is
going back to court to do what this government should have done
all along, which is to apply for a stay of judgment in the
Marshall decision to allow first, for a cooling off period for
everyone involved and second, to give time to determine the
future role of non-aboriginals in the fisheries.
Will the government support their appeal to the court which asks
for a stay and a clarification of the Marshall decision?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the government's position
is very clear. We very much respect the supreme court ruling that
there is a treaty right. We said that we would live within the
spirit of that judgment. In fact, there was a meeting this
morning with chiefs from Atlantic Canada to look at how we can
move on the process. My colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development is continuing to meet with them to see
how we can look at the broader implications and continue that
discussion so we can have a long term solution on this issue.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fishermen want a clear answer to this question.
During last week's emergency debate on this fishery, the
Liberals joined with the NDP and Conservative Party in refusing
to consider a stay of judgment. This past weekend we saw the
result of that bullheadedness. There is increasing friction with
hundreds of boats in the harbour and potential for violence
hanging over everybody's head.
This is the last day to apply for a stay of judgment, which I
repeat, will allow for a cooling off period and clarification of
the Marshall decision to establish what the roles are for both
aboriginals and non-aboriginals in the future fisheries.
Will the government support the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition
application for an appeal of the Marshall decision?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be pretty clear to
everybody in the House that it is better to negotiate than to
litigate. That is our position. We want to negotiate. We want
to make sure that we sit around the table.
We have always said it is through dialogue and co-operation that
we are going to get the real solution, not through going back to
the courts, not through asking that we have another look at the
supreme court ruling. We have a supreme court ruling. We will
recognize that right. We will live within the spirit of that
judgment.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has just told us that she requested an RCMP
investigation into the copyright case.
Will she confirm that there had already been an RCMP
investigation into this case prior to 1997 and that no charges
were laid?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not comment on RCMP investigations. On Friday,
further to allegations made in the media and by the opposition
member, I requested an RCMP investigation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to make things
perfectly clear, the minister requested an RCMP investigation.
But an RCMP investigation was conducted prior to 1997. We do
not know why, or how, but no charges were laid.
The Montreal urban police conducted an investigation and found
that there had been criminal dealings. How does the minister
think this new RCMP investigation will come up with anything
different from the first investigation, if indeed there was
nothing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot make any comment about an earlier RCMP
investigation. All I know is that, on Friday, allegations were
made in the media and by the Bloc Quebecois member, following
which I asked the RCMP to conduct an investigation.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister still is not willing to admit
that thousands of farmers will not get any AIDA money out of this
government.
A year after Reform forced the government to debate the farm
income issue in the House, only 30% of Saskatchewan farmers have
received a federal cheque.
Why can this government not get emergency assistance to farmers
who fell through the AIDA cracks, and do it before the end of
October?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the
government responded very early to the issue.
We have had discussions and are continuing discussions with the
farm safety net advisory committee, with my provincial colleagues
and with my cabinet colleagues.
We have responded to the issue. We are directing as much
support as we possibly can to those farmers who are under
financial stress.
1435
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is the program has not worked. The
agriculture minister has failed to deliver on his December 1998
promise to get cash to all financially stressed farmers in time
for the spring planting. Premier Klein has his $100 million plan
that includes disaster relief and low interest loans. The
farmers in Alberta will get their money immediately. Why will
this government not follow the Alberta lead and use disaster
relief and low interest loans, those two things specifically, to
provide immediate assistance to farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are being very careful that what we do
as the federal government does not affect us tradewise. In doing
that, we are also targeting as much possible help as we can to
the producers. Federally we are treating the producers in every
province that meet the criteria of the aid program exactly the
same.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Human Resources
Development showed an absolute lack of sensitivity to the
problems women are having with the employment insurance program.
This morning, a Canada Labour Congress study was released. It
confirms what the Bloc has been saying for the past three years:
employment insurance reform penalizes women, particularly low
wage earners.
Is the new minister going to act promptly to correct the
unacceptable situation deplored by the Canada Labour Congress?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a study
by the Canadian Labour Congress which will not be published until
next month so it is hard for me to comment on the statistics or
data.
But there are data which we are all very proud of. The most
recent labour market data say that Canada's unemployment rate is
the lowest it has been in nine years at 7.5% and the unemployment
rate for women is the lowest it has been in 20 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's intentions relating to
parental leave as they are set out in the throne speech put the
proposed changes off until 2001.
How can the minister accept such a distant date, and why will
she not act now to correct one of the major injustices toward
women in the employment insurance reform?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to hear the Bloc supporting
a very important initiative announced by the Prime Minister last
week, which is that we will double parental benefits by 2001.
That will give parents 12 months to spend at home with their
children. It will be flexible. The family can decide whether it
will be the mother or the father who stays at home. It will also
include adoptive parents. This is a very significant undertaking
on the part of this government. I am glad that the Bloc supports
it.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
861 days is how long we have been waiting for the justice
minister to introduce new young offenders legislation, 861 days.
There is another bill coming and another chance to get it right,
but who knows how many we have to see. In the meantime over
30,000 violent crimes have left more than 30,000 victims in their
wake. That is about 34 violent crimes a day.
Why will the justice minister not simply admit that the YOA is
DOA and do something to fix it?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member should know, we have already introduced the
criminal youth justice bill again. It is to be considered by the
committee in the very near future and dealt with accordingly.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is going to hold the record for trying to bring in
legislation. It can keep bringing in bill after bill but the
point is this has not been fixed.
The justice minister has had a choice. She has been in office
for 861 days talking about this marvellous new solution. It is
not happening. She can blame the official opposition or any
scapegoat she chooses but the problem has not been fixed. Will
she go down in history as the minister who actually brought young
offenders to justice or in the name of prevention, allowed for
thousands of new victims that should never have been there?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have introduced the bill. The justice committee had extensive
consultations on the youth justice system. It came in with a
wonderful report called “Renewing Youth Justice”. As a result
of that report, we have new legislation which will be dealt with
expeditiously by the government. We are moving forward on this
issue.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a
press conference this morning, an important coalition comprised
of the Fédération des infirmières et des infirmiers du Québec,
the Quebec section of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the
young activist Joey Haché called upon the government to
compensate Hepatitis C victims.
1440
Since this is the government's constitutional responsibility,
what is keeping it from showing the victims some compassion?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada has already earmarked more than $1.3
billion for people infected by hepatitis C. The Government of
Quebec has already accepted our proposal to share $300 million
just for those infected outside the 1986-1990 period.
To me and to the government, this is a fair and appropriate
approach.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. Last Friday the
government tabled its response to the report of the Standing
Committee on Health on organ and tissue donations in Canada.
After media reports and comments made by the Reform Party health
critic over the weekend, can the minister clarify whether the
government has closed the door to the national registry of organ
donations?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I read with some disappointment the comments by the Reform Party
health critic.
What we announced last Friday is very important for a number of
reasons. First of all, it was the first time that all
governments of the country agreed to work together to make
increasing the organ donation rate a national priority. Second,
we formed a national council to help make that happen. The
provinces very importantly have agreed to invest the kind of
money needed to do what is really important which is to put teams
in hospitals to counsel those who are the relatives of the dying
to encourage the donation of organs. That is going to make a
real difference.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask about a resort that has been brought to my
attention called Frontenac Institution. Do not let the fact that
this is a prison fool you. Here are some of the highlights in
the brochure which I received. It has a golf course, volleyball
courts, horseshoe pits, baseball, picnic tables, barbeques, a
pool room, a jogging track and fishing. Yes, even fishing.
Has the solicitor general completely dropped the principle that
a prison should be about work ethics or even punishment or is he
simply trying to compete with Florida?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our correctional system we have
minimum, maximum and medium institutions. When a person is
convicted, Correctional Services Canada evaluates the offender.
If he is put in a maximum institution and there is some
improvement, he goes to a medium institution. Before he is
released to society he is put in a minimum security institution.
This is done for public safety reasons.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder whether they want to break out or break into
this place. Hardworking Canadians have little time or money for
leisure due to the excessive taxes of the government, yet
prisoners at Frontenac Institution are off fishing and playing
golf.
I ask the solicitor general why should law-abiding Canadians
continue to serve time paying high taxes while inmates at
Frontenac prison are sent on extended vacations fishing and
golfing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this summer I visited a number of
institutions across Canada. I know my hon. colleague does not
want to mislead the public. I can assure everyone that being in
a minimum penal institution in this country is not a resort.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I urge member to please
listen to the responses to the questions which are posed. It
makes question period much easier for all of us.
1445
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, quite simply what my
hon. colleague has to realize is that most offenders come from
the community and will go back to the community. What
Correctional Service Canada does, with public safety being the
number one issue, is to make sure that these people are ready to
return to the community.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister responsible national parks, and I
believe it is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I am sure that the minister will be concerned about reports
today that the panel on ecological integrity in Canada's national
parks appears about to report that the national parks are in
serious trouble, that the ecological integrity principle that the
parks are supposed to be managed on is not being applied
consistently, and that scientific talent is thin in the parks.
There are a number of very serious descriptions of the malaise in
the national parks.
What new measures is the minister planning to take in order to
deal with this obviously serious situation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question
and, in particular, his interest in the results of the ecological
integrity panel.
In fact, the government actually launched the ecological
integrity panel review as a result of the findings of the
Banff-Bow Valley report, which basically pointed out how parks
are at risk ecologically when they spend too much time on
commerce and not enough on scientific analysis.
When we receive the final results of the ecological integrity
report, which we expect by the end of December, we want to work
co-operatively with all the players to make sure that we put
science first in Canadian parks.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister say that, but will she
say unequivocally that when this panel report comes down and
Canadians see clearly that it is not just Banff but many other
parks that are at risk, that for the first time ecological
integrity will become number one, with us no longer being enticed
by the thrill of turning our national parks more and more into an
opportunity for making money instead of enjoying what little is
left of nature that has not been exploited by commercialism?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when we struck the panel the reason I personally
sought out the participation of Jacques Gérin was because he is
the former deputy minister and is known and respected by people
concerned with ecology around the world.
We believe that we need an ecological template for all of
Canada's national parks. The Banff-Bow Valley study was a
wake-up call, a wake-up call that we intend to apply by ensuring
that ecological integrity is the number one clarion call for
every park in Canada.
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this month Ms. Mawani, the chair of the Immigration and Refugee
Board and a friend of the minister, completes her term.
This seven year appointment will outlast the mandate of this
government and will have to oversee the implementation of a new
immigration act. Will the minister commit today to involving the
citizenship and immigration committee in the selection process of
candidates instead of naming just another well-connected Liberal
friend?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question
because it gives me an opportunity to correct the record.
Ms. Mawani has served for 10 years as chair of the IRB. The
House will note that this government was elected for the first
time less than 10 years ago. It is true that her appointment is
coming to an end and that there is a review under way for a
successor.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
here is the minister's opportunity to keep at least one election
promise, an open and accountable government. Maybe the minister
will let the committee do this job as parliamentarians working
within a parliamentary democracy for a change.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to the
hon. member that I had the opportunity to meet Ms. Mawani for the
first time shortly after my appointment, when we discussed,
appropriately, the procedures and policies of the board, which is
an arm's length, quasi-judicial institution.
I want to say to the hon. member and to all Canadians that
competence is the first criteria with this government's
appointments.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Quite recently I attended a meeting at Nepean City Hall where a
number of citizens expressed concern about the safety of
transporting a MOx fuel sample through their communities.
What is the federal government doing to address these concerns
and to ensure that those who live along the transportation route
will not be subject to unnecessary risk?
1450
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our approach to MOx fuel testing is a foreign policy
initiative to help, if we can, rid the world of nuclear weapons.
A proposed testing of a very small amount of plutonium oxide is
fully governed by Canadian laws to protect health, safety and the
environment. Let me emphasize that this is a test only.
With respect to transportation, plans have been published, local
officials have been briefed, public open houses have been held
and a 28 day public comment period has just concluded. Transport
Canada will review all of that input to satisfy itself that the
public interest is properly safeguarded.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister has rejected the standing
committee's recommendations to establish a national registry for
organ transplants. The minister's office said it did not have
time to fully explore the financial implications of such a
proposal. That is not unusual for the minister when it comes to
setting up registries. His gun registry is already 300% over
budget.
Can the minister tell us whether the $275 million his government
has spent on a gun registry would have been better spent on an
organ donor registry that would actually save lives?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member can always be relied upon to get his facts wrong,
always. It is no surprise that he would ask the question he has
just put.
The committee did not recommend a national organ donor registry;
the committee recommended a national effort by all governments
working together to increase the rate of organ donation in this
country by taking specific concrete steps.
We have accepted those recommendations. We are working to
achieve them. The provinces have agreed that it will happen. By
November we will have a working plan to make sure it does.
Once again the Reform Party is completely out to lunch.
* * *
[Translation]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Indian Affairs intimated last week that the Marshall decision
went beyond the issue of fishing rights for native peoples and
included all natural resources, namely forestry, the gathering
of wild fruits and the extraction of natural resources.
My very simple question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is
the government's position the one put forward by the minister?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development is meeting with the aboriginal
communities from Atlantic Canada right now. We are doing what we
said we would do, which is to have a dialogue and make sure that
we talk.
The supreme court ruling clearly said that there is a treaty
right for fishing, for gathering and for hunting. We respect
that right. Now we need to make sure that we get around the
table and start working with the parties that are affected,
including the provincial governments, to come to a long term
solution.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the minister responsible for homelessness if
she thinks we will face another winter of deaths on the streets
because of a lack of action by her government on housing.
After her cross-country tour Canadians have a right to know what
she will recommend in her report and why her report is not
public.
After all the fanfare last spring the government now seems
intent on clawing back people's expectations.
What are her recommendations and what action will the government
take to end homelessness?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have explained to the hon. member on several
occasions, the responsibility that the Prime Minister gave to me
was to co-ordinate the issue of homelessness because of all the
reports that were coming in to our offices. It is not a task
force report.
What the staff and I are doing is taking all of the
recommendations that were received and I will be presenting to
caucus and to our members the recommendations I received through
reports coming in as well from my trip.
I have to say that the support I received from cabinet and
caucus members—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Chicoutimi.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Health.
The cuts in health care have created totally unacceptable
problems.
1455
Could the minister tell us whether the fact that people are
obliged to wait two, four, six and eight weeks for operations is
in accordance with Canada Health Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the hon. member that, a few months ago, in the
budget for this year, we increased transfers to the provinces by
$11.5 billion, and the provinces promised that the additional
funds would be used for health.
It is now up to provincial health ministers to use this money
and to reorganize health care services to ensure that the
services are available to the public.
* * *
[English]
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that endangered species legislation will be
brought forward this session as was mentioned in the throne
speech. Can the minister assure us that critical habitat will be
protected within this legislation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that the
endangered species legislation or species at risk legislation
will be brought forward during this session. I trust it will be
passed before June of next year. It is critical that this
legislation include provisions for habitat because habitat is the
critical factor for probably 75% of the endangered species
recovery program. Without the habitat we do not have the
species.
I can assure the member that we will be bearing her remarks and
her proposal in mind when this legislation comes forward.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week in the House the solicitor general declared:
“Fighting organized crime is the number one law enforcement
priority of the government”. The Canadian Police Association
recently referred to organized crime in Canada as an epidemic.
If fighting organized crime is the number one priority of the
government, can the solicitor general please explain why it
spends hundreds of millions to register shotguns owned by duck
hunters rather than improving public safety by giving the RCMP
the resources it needs to fight organized crime?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, and I am pleased my hon.
colleague is well aware, this government has indicated that it
will give the RCMP the tools to do the job. For example, we gave
CPIC $115 million to make sure it was brought up to date. We put
$18 million into a DNA databank. I am very pleased the
opposition has come to realize that this government is fighting
organized crime.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
has known since at least last March that it must appoint a new
CEO of the CBC, the most important cultural institution in
Canada and in Quebec.
But, since that time, the position has been filled only on an
acting basis, apparently because the Prime Minister is under
political pressure.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the minister
agree that, for the good of the CBC, it is imperative that a
transparent selection process be put in place to pick this
important cultural steward and that competence be the sole
criterion?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an
appointment will soon be made and I hope that the hon. member
will be satisfied with our competence-based appointment.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL DISASTERS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Co-operation. Last month at the time of the devastating
earthquake in Taiwan, many countries, including the United
States, Germany, Japan and Russia immediately sent search and
rescue teams. Why did the Liberal government refuse to send
Vancouver's respected urban search and rescue team both to help
in the rescue and to get badly needed experience? And, why did
the Government of Canada not strongly refuse China's outrageous
interference with the delivery of humanitarian aid at this time
of need in Taiwan?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aid to Taiwan was not affected at all by
China. We acted immediately with respect to financial aid, which
we distributed to a number of local organizations in Taiwan as
well as to the Red Cross.
1500
With respect to the issue of search and rescue, directly
supporting development of the search and rescue team has not been
part of CIDA's practice in the past. However, as the new
minister I have actually reviewed this policy.
We are in the process of communicating with the Vancouver search
and rescue team. I am hoping that if there is any need in the
future we will be in a position to deploy them.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government response to 11
petitions.
* * *
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act to amend the
Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the
House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-69 in the
previous session at the time of prorogation. I request that it
be reinstated to the stage it had reached at prorogation,
pursuant to order made Thursday, October 14, 1999.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that this bill
is in the same form as Bill C-69 was at the time of prorogation
of the first session of the 36th Parliament. Accordingly,
pursuant to order made Thursday, October 14, 1999, the bill is
deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.
(Bill read the second time, considered in committee,
reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
* * *
RECOGNITION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-224, an act to establish by the
beginning of the 21st century an exhibit in the Canadian Museum
of Civilization to recognize the crimes against humanity as
defined by the United Nations that have been perpetrated during
the 20th century.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I want to take this opportunity to
join millions of Canadians to wish happy birthday to former Prime
Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
1505
Second, this bill was previously introduced in the last session
of parliament as Bill C-479. I am reintroducing it in this
session of parliament.
I also take this opportunity to thank the millions of Canadian
who supported the bill throughout the last 10 months. I hope to
have their support again in the coming months while we pursue the
bill all the way through to third reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TOBACCO ACT
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-225, an act to amend the Tobacco Act
(substances contained in a tobacco product).
He said: Mr. Speaker, again this is the same bill that was
introduced in the previous session of parliament.
I hope to have the support of members of parliament this time
around so we can introduce the bill and label it as the tobacco
act. It asks parliament to add each and every substance
contained in a tobacco product so smokers can see and read what
poisons they are inhaling as they smoke.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT ACT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-226, parliamentarians' code of conduct.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very please to introduce this bill
which is essentially the same bill that was introduced in the
last parliament as Bill C-488.
The purpose of this enactment is to establish a code of conduct
for members of the Senate and the House of Commons and to provide
for an officer of parliament to be known as the ethics counsellor
to advise members, administer disclosures of interest and carry
out investigations of complaints under the direction of a joint
committee of the Senate and House of Commons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ORGAN DONATION ACT
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an act to
establish a national organ donor registry and to co-ordinate and
promote organ donation throughout Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill to establish a
national organ donor registry to co-ordinate and promote donation
throughout Canada.
The bill would provide the legislative response needed to
address the demand for a national co-ordinated organ donor system
in Canada. The lack of available organs in the country results
in unnecessary loss of lives, loss of quality of life and many
needy recipients.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY
BOARD ACT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an act to amend the Canadian
Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and
the Canada Labour Code as a consequence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the extreme growth that has taken
place in interprovincial and international highway transport in
the last few years, there is a serious gap in safety regulations
with respect to very large vehicles. Any accident involving
heavy interprovincial vehicles is now investigated only by the
province in which the accident took place, unless the province
makes a special request to the Transportation Safety Board to
become involved.
The bill would require the Transportation Safety Board to have
authority over any accidents occurring involving large trucks and
buses in interprovincial and international service.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-229, an act to amend the Canada Post
Corporation Act (letter that cannot be transmitted by post).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce a bill to
amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (letter that cannot be
transmitted by post).
During the last session of parliament this bill was known as
Bill C-409. Bill C-409 is an important piece of legislation as
it protects the Canadian consumer from telemarketing mail scams.
It will ensure that the Canada Post Corporation does not deliver
contests, lotteries or prize cards that require individuals to
pay out before they are able to claim their prize. The bill will
also regulate the use of logos that mimic federal government
logos.
Before the House prorogued, Bill C-409 was about to receive its
first hour of debate at second reading. This legislation has not
been altered in any way since prorogation. I trust it will
resume its place on the order paper.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that this bill
is in the same form as Bill C-409 at the time of prorogation of
the first session of the 36th Parliament. Accordingly, pursuant
to Standing Order 86(1), the order for the second reading of this
bill shall be added to the bottom of the list of items in the
order of precedence on the order paper and shall be designated as
votable.
* * *
NATIONAL EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA AWARENESS WEEK ACT
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-230, an act respecting a national
epidermolysis bullosa awareness week.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce my
private member's bill, entitled an act respecting a national
epidermolysis bullosa awareness week.
The bill seeks to designate the last week in October as National
Epidermolysis Bullosa week or, as it is known, EB week. By doing
so it hopes to raise awareness of this very rare and debilitating
genetic disease. In addition, we hope to encourage both public
and private investment in research, development and treatment and
to find a possible cure.
This disease is characterized by fragile skin and recurrent
blisters that cause affected individuals and their families
severe physical and emotional pain and suffering as well as
financial hardship.
We hope that the bill will not only bring awareness to the
disease but that we also learn about the disease, learn how to
pronounce the disease or in short to call it EB disease.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-231, an act to
prevent the use of the Internet to distribute pornographic
material involving children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I introduce the bill I wish to
send congratulations to my hon. colleague, the Attorney General
of Saskatchewan, Mr. Chris Axworthy, who originally introduced
this bill but then left.
The purpose of the bill is to protect our children. The
Internet is an explosive new material in terms of media. It has
a very negative side in terms of attracting innocent children
into the hands of pedophiles. Pedophiles are using the Internet
now as a tool in order to coax our young children into very
obscene acts and in many cases into death.
The purpose of the bill is to protect our children and those
unsuspecting in the country from the powerful use of the Internet
by incorporating the users of the Internet and governments,
provincially and federally, to institute laws and legislation to
protect our children from the evil effects that the Internet can
have on them from the pedophiles of the nation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-232, an act to
provide for a Hepatitis Awareness Month.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing a bill that I
introduced last year which basically calls for the month of May
to be known as Hepatitis Awareness Month.
The disease of hepatitis inflicts over 600,000 Canadians in the
country. Although we have months recognizing breast cancer and
other ailments which inflict our citizenry, I believe, after
working with those with hepatitis in Nova Scotia, Mr. Bruce
DeVenne, and Mr. Joey Haché here in Ottawa, that it is time that
the Government of Canada and especially us, as legislators,
recognize the month of May as Hepatitis Awareness Month.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-233, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (medical expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing a bill that I
introduced earlier this year. As baby boomers and people
throughout Canada are looking to herbal alternatives to cure what
ails them, the bill will enable any licensed physician who
prescribes a herbal alternative in lieu of a prescription drug to
allow that patient to claim that herbal alternative as a medical
tax deduction.
When I originally introduced the bill, I had thousands and
thousands of signatures supporting this initiative. I am sure
that colleagues on both sides of the House will support this
valuable initiative as well.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code (taking
samples of bodily substances).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this
private member's bill again on the suggestion from Bev and Lloyd
Bergeson of Cremona, Alberta who lost their daughter Denise to a
dangerous driver.
The bill would amend the Criminal Code and would enable police
to take, without delay, any samples required to determine if
there is any presence of drugs or alcohol in the urine, breath or
blood in the event that there is a death.
I strongly support the bill on behalf of the family. I assume
that members across the House would be supportive in taking this
kind of action.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-235, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(marriage counselling required before divorce granted).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this bill to
require mandatory counselling prior to the sanction of divorce.
The divorce rate in Canada exceeds 40% and there are over one
million common-law families in Canada. Their breakdown rate is
over 50% higher.
The bill is compatible with the recommendations of the Joint
Commons-Senate Committee on Custody and Access which deals with
issues such as shared parenting, mandatory mediation and that
children are the real victims of divorce.
The bill basically hopes that we will have parenting plans in
place for children of broken families and also that we address
the important problem of post-divorce acrimony.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1520
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-236, an act to amend the National Parks Act,
(Stoltmann National Park).
He said: Mr. Speaker, all over the world the forest cover is
shrinking because of agricultural pressure, desertification,
urbanization and clear cuts.
The forest cover in Canada, despite claims to the contrary by
the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and other groups, is also
shrinking. It is also declining in value and historical
significance because of changes in forest composition after the
first cut.
The bill aims at preserving one of the few remaining old growth
forests. It is located in the Elaho Valley and known also as
Stoltmann Wilderness Area. Twice in September I visited this
forest where rare Douglas fir trees, up to 1300 years of age,
grow. This area is part of the mainland in the Pacific coast
mountain range, an ecosystem which is not yet represented in the
national parks system.
This unique heritage of ours should be protected for generations
to come rather than fall victim to the chainsaw for the benefit of the
short term.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-237, an act to amend an act for the
recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the
government has chosen to abandon the last session of parliament,
forcing hundreds of private members' bills like mine to be
reprinted and reintroduced at considerable expense to Canadian
taxpayers.
The bill would strengthen property rights in federal law.
Unfortunately, property rights were intentionally left out of the
charter of rights and freedoms, leaving Canadians highly
vulnerable to the arbitrary taking of property by government;
legally owned property like legally acquired satellite dishes and
firearms. My bill would fix this by making it more difficult for
the government to override the property rights of its citizens by
requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the House.
My bill also strengthen the property rights provisions of the
Canadian Bill of Rights by providing protection of our right to
have compensation fixed impartially, protection of our right to
receive fair and timely compensation and guarantees every
Canadian their right to apply to the courts when the government
violates their property rights.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation
Act (mail contractors).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill deals with the rural route mail
couriers, the people who deliver our mail in the country. Our
point is these are not independent contractors as such, they are
wholly dependent on Canada post for all they do. Therefore, the
relationship is more that of an employer and an employee and not
an independent contractor.
However, the Canada Post Corporation Act specifically bars them
from bargaining collectively. They are not allowed to organize
into a union or take part in free collective bargaining. We
think this is wrong. They are the only group of workers in the
country who are specifically barred from organizing a union.
The bill would simply eradicate one clause in the Canada Post
Corporation Act and allow them to bargain collectively.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-239, an act respecting the protection of whistle
blowers and to amend the Auditor General Act, the Parliamentary
Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff
Relations Act.
1525
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks to protect workers who may
blow the whistle on some issue they find in their workplace, for
instance, the misuse of funds, the employer polluting some stream
or whatever. We want workers to feel comfortable and free to
blow the whistle on these illegal, immoral or unethical things
without worrying about losing their job.
Within the bill, the whistle blower would go to the auditor
general who would then investigate and find out if it was made in
good faith. If it was, he would go to the minister in charge and
cause an investigation to take place.
We believe this is long overdue. Too many workers have been
frightened about turning in things that they know to be wrong for
fear of discipline in the workplace. The bill would look after
those workers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
LABOUR MARKET TRAINING ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-240, an act to provide for the establishment of
national standards for labour market training, apprenticeship and
certification.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the devolution of labour market training
to the provinces has been an absolute fiasco. We now have 10
different provinces doing different training for one career. We
have a carpenter trained in New Brunswick whose certification is
not recognized in British Columbia. It is absolutely crazy.
The bill would introduce national standards for the entrance
requirements in all the certified trades, the curriculum and the
certification process. We would then have continuity. We would
have a national human resources strategy for labour market
training even though it has been devolved to the provinces in
such a hurried mishmash that it is no good to the industry and no
good to Canadians the way it stands.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence
thereof.
[English]
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill is being reintroduced and will
bring about changes to the current young offenders act. I
suggest it will have that application as well for the new Youth
Criminal Justice Act.
The bill is aimed at lowering the age of accountability from the
current age of 12 to the age of 10. It is not aimed at
increasing the number of children before the courts but to give
our current justice system a mechanism to help children who run
afoul of the law, at the urging of others in many instances, and
to allow the courts and our justice system to respond. The bill
would lower the age of accountability from 12 to 10.
I would urge all hon. members to give the bill due consideration
and support.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (Order of prohibition).
[Translation]
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me every time I
rise to speak in the House. The bill I am introducing is very
important for all Canadian children.
[English]
The bill would bring about changes to the Criminal Code, section
161 in particular, and is aimed at children who are the most
vulnerable in the country right now. It would also empower
judges to reduce contact between sex offenders and children. In
particular, we know there is a difficulty with recidivism of
pedophiles and abusers of children.
This private member's bill arose at the urging of Ms. Donna
Goler of Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia. She herself was a survivor
of horrendous sexual abuse and is a person who has been very much
advocating this change.
On behalf of Miss Golder and all children, I would urge that all
members of the House support this important change.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1530
PETITIONS
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members know that before the break I introduced a number of
petitions from citizens concerned about cruelty to pets. During
the summer that has been exacerbated by a horrific example of a
dog being dragged by a pickup truck until it was raw and
battered. This has caused an avalanche of interest in this very
important matter. People have been asking for greatly increased
fines, for lifetime prohibitions for people convicted of pet
cruelty from owning pets, and things of that sort.
On behalf of these petitioners I once again call upon parliament
to work toward swift and effective action to modernize Canada's
laws dealing with crimes against animals and that the penalties
for such actions be made strict enough to act as a deterrent
against such behaviour.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition. I have presented similar petitions from
petitioners who point out that the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation is the most important provider of Canadian programs
that reflect Canada. Also the CBC has the unique ability to
connect Canadians with each other and to help Canadians discover
each other.
The petitioners call upon parliament to ensure that Canadian old
time fiddle music be deemed to be heritage music and be featured
on a regular weekly one hour program on our national radio, CBC.
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today for me to table this petition
containing 2,087 signatures from Okanagan Valley residents who
are deeply concerned at the harm caused by young offenders. These
people call upon parliament to permit publication of names of
young offenders in the newspapers and also to make young
offenders pay restitution for their crimes.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present to the House of Commons.
The first one has some 500 signatures. The petitioners pray and
petition parliament that parliament oppose any amendments to the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal
legislation which will provide for the exclusion of reference to
the supremacy of God in our Constitution and laws.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
second petition the petitioners ask parliament to consider very
carefully the removal of section 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition in which several of my constituents
are calling upon parliament to uphold the present wording of the
Constitution and to preserve the truth that Canada was and is
founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God
and the rule of law.
Several people have commented on this in my riding. They are
very concerned that everyone take heed of that point. I
certainly endorse the petition strongly.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
seems to a rush on petitions today.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
which comes from concerned citizens in my riding of Lethbridge.
It contains 35 signatures.
The petitioners call upon parliament to support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by 2000 of an international convention
which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all
nuclear weapons.
1535
CLOWNS AND SANTAS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by concerned citizens from my
riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale. Clowns and santas
in particular need to be controlled through mandatory background
checks since there is currently an automatic assumption by the
public that clowns and santas, who often entertain in homes, are
safe strangers. Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament
to encourage mandatory background checks for clowns and santas
throughout Canada.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to present a petition signed by 682 people, many of them
students, from central Alberta. These constituents are
requesting that the Canadian government confront China directly
on the human rights abuses taking place in Tibet. They are
extremely concerned about the issue of China-Tibet relations and
ask the Parliament of Canada to pressure China to address this
issue.
TREASURY BOARD
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to table a petition that was presented to me by my
constituents in Kitchener Centre. The petitioners request that
parliament halt the plans of Treasury Board to appropriate the
surpluses in the public service, the military and the RCMP
pension plans. They also ask that the Treasury Board end all
actions that undermine the confidence and morale of the public
service, armed forces and RCMP personnel.
This petition has been certified and I am pleased to present it
today.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am extremely pleased
that hundreds more petitioners are talking about cruelty to
children that is in the form of pornography. The petitioners
pray that parliament take all necessary measures to ensure that
possession of child pornography remains a very serious criminal
offence. I am proud that these petitioners may not be the last
of hundreds and hundreds of signatures that are coming in from my
constituents on this issue.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition that has been certified correct as to form and content.
Petitioners from the Grand Bend, Port Franks and Thedford areas
have signed the petition.
The petition states that the use of the additive MMT in Canadian
gasoline presents an environmental problem that affects every
man, woman and child in Canada. The petitioners call upon
parliament to set by the end of this coming year national clean
fuel standards for gasoline with zero MMT and low sulphur
content.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first petition has been
signed by 97 Canadians from the Hay River area. They request
parliament to grant the concerned aboriginal fishermen, the Deh
Cho, a licence to export fish and fish products and to establish
their own national and international markets.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 39 people in my riding. It calls on
the government to pass legislation that would provide for a
deduction of up to $7,000 in expenses related to the adoption of
children.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During the time allotted for the
presentation of private members' bills, a second item listed by
the member for Wild Rose was inadvertently missed.
I ask for unanimous consent to revert to introduction of private
members' bills to allow him to present his private member's bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to the introduction of private members' bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-243, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(dangerous offender).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this
private member's bill which will amend the Criminal Code
regarding dangerous offenders where an inmate may be declared a
dangerous offender at any time during his incarceration.
In the past 10 years a report has been sent out by the solicitor
general's office indicating that there has been a total of 2,292
new victims of violent crime at the hands of violent offenders
who were released from prison either mandatorily or on probation.
This enactment would prevent the release of such people as Mr.
Auger who managed to murder Melanie Carpenter a few years ago.
It would prevent what is going on this very day in Edmonton where
an effort is being made to warn society of another dangerous sex
perpetrator who is being released in that city.
Releasing these kinds of individuals does not protect Canadian
society. This bill would prevent further problems in the future.
1540
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-244, an act to provide for the taking of samples
of blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing
the law and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last year there was a very unfortunate
incident in my riding. A young man apprehended a thief who was
shoplifting from a store and unfortunately quite a bit of the
perpetrator's blood spilled on him. There is no legal way to
force that thief to give a blood sample for disease testing. For
several months afterward the young man and his family went
through the emotional anguish of extensive drug prevention
therapy just in case there was HIV present. It was also a very
expensive and a very trying time for the entire family and
especially for the young man.
This bill will eliminate the terrible emotional anguish for good
Samaritans who find themselves in similar circumstances in the
future. The rights of police officers, health professionals and
good Samaritans who try to protect life and stop crime must take
precedence over the rights of the perpetrators of any wrongdoing.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
HEPATITIS C
The Deputy Speaker: I have received a request from the
hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for an emergency debate,
pursuant to Standing Order 52.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 52 of the House of Commons, I am
asking this house to hold an emergency debate on government
compensation for victims of hepatitis C who were infected by
blood transfusion in Canada before 1986 and after 1990.
The government has always refused to allow parliamentarians to
discuss this issue. Worse still, the Minister of Health has
refused to meet representatives of hepatitis C victims, in spite
of repeated requests to that effect.
Yet, the Krever commission clearly established that it is in the
interest of all Canadians and Quebecers that the blood supply
and distribution systems be as transparent as possible.
Members will agree that this need for transparency requires the
federal parliament, which is responsible for regulating blood
and its constituents, to deal with all relevant issues. In that
regard, there can be no doubt that responsibility for
compensating hepatitis C victims who were infected before 1986
and after 1990 rests squarely with the government.
The Krever commission also asked the government to set up a no
fault compensation plan. I attach a copy of that recommendation
to the letter I sent to you.
For all these reasons, I believe it is imperative that we
parliamentarians be allowed to debate this critical public
health issue.
The Deputy Speaker: Notwithstanding the case made by the
hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I feel that, at this point
in time, his request does not meet the criteria governing
emergency debates.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Without questioning your decision, I would just like you to tell
me something. I believe that if we were to consult Beauchesne's,
we would find cases quite similar to this one, in which the
government rejected a decision made by a royal commision of
inquiry.
1545
I believe there are precedents where parliamentarians were
allowed to discuss such issues. I would appreciate an
explanation. Why, given the case I made, does the chair feel
that my request must be turned down?
I would like to know the basis of your ruling, with which I will
fully comply, but which seems ill-founded at this point.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry the member does not agree with
the Chair's ruling, but it is not customary to explain why a
request for an emergency debate is being denied.
I wish to remind the member that today we are having the debate
on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, which
will continue later this week. It is a general debate. We will
also have, as the member well knows, seven allotted days between
now and December, and his party will be free to raise this issue
during one of those opposition days. I am sure the member can
convince his colleagues to have such a debate on one of those
days.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the
opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to
the amendment.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak to the
throne speech.
As we stand before a new century there is a growing sense of
optimism, confidence and pride in the country. Canada is one of
the greatest success stories of the 20th century. We began as a
small colony with little industry and no real place in global
affairs.
Canada is the place to be in the 21st century. We look with
pride on the achievements as an independent and prosperous nation
with a dynamic economy, a strong and democratic society, and a
sense of community, a nation with unrivalled quality of life.
Canada is starting the next century or the new millennium with
the honour of being the first ranked country of the United States
for the sixth year in a row. The Liberal government intends to
ensure that Canada remains the best country in the world in which
to live.
When we took office six years ago we put forward a comprehensive
and balanced plan. We have stuck to that plan and it has worked.
Canada is on the right track. The nation's finances have been
restored. Key programs have been modernized. We are enjoying
the longest economic expansion since the 1960s, and the
unemployment rate has dropped from 11.4% to 7.5%. It is almost
4% lower than when we took office a short time ago.
With our balanced approach we will continue to strengthen Canada
by recommitting ourselves to economic policies that will allow us
to keep the national debt on a permanent downward track, reduce
taxes for Canadians and make strategic investments in the top
priorities of Canadians. A strong and dynamic economy is a
cornerstone of our quality of life, providing the means to build
a more equitable society, a healthier population and stronger
communities.
Tax relief and improved tax fairness are essential to improving
the standard of living and quality of life of Canadians. Reduced
taxes mean that Canadians have more money available to spend,
which helps create a great number of new jobs and economic growth
which benefit us all.
In the last two budgets taxes have been cut by $16.5 billion
over three years, cuts that will benefit every Canadian and take
600,000 low income Canadians off the tax rolls.
1550
We will further reduce taxes to increase the after tax incomes
of Canadians. Canadians will be pleased to know that the
government is committed to laying out a multi-year plan for tax
reductions in the next budget. However, the government remains
committed to never letting the nation's finances get out of
control again. We have brought down back to back balanced
budgets for the first time since 1951-52 and we have put the debt
to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track. Our administration
will keep the debt to GDP ratio down as it goes.
According to statistics every billion dollars in exports
supports as many as 11,000 Canadian new jobs. Our growth in
exports goes a long way to explain why 1.7 million new jobs have
been created in Canada since October 1993. As an outward looking
country with a trade oriented economy we intend to step up trade
promotion in key sectors and to launch an investment team Canada
strategy to promote investment in Canada. We will continue to
create opportunities for Canadians to access foreign markets and
to promote Canada as the ideal place in which to invest.
We will increase our support for life-long learning to continue
building the most highly skilled workforce in the world that is
part of the Canadian advantage in a knowledge based economy. The
government has committed itself to put in place the knowledge
information, cultural and physical infrastructure needed for the
21st century.
Another major focus of our government has been the seven million
children in Canada. The strength of our society will depend on
the investments we make today as a nation for the families and
children of tomorrow. The federal government will continue to
work with provinces, territories and other partners to provide
the necessary support.
The centrepiece of our progress to date is the national child
benefit, the most innovative new national social program in a
generation. Thanks to the NCB an additional $1.7 billion
annually is going to low income families with children. The
federal contribution will increase to $2 billion annually by July
2000, bringing the total federal assistance for families with
children to almost $7 billion a year. The federal government
will make a third significant investment in a national child
benefit by the year 2002.
We are also proud of the new national children's agenda. We are
developing with the provinces and territories a comprehensive
strategy to improve the well-being of Canada's children with a
special focus on the problems of low income families. As part of
this agenda we will work with the provinces and territories to
reach an agreement by December 2000 on further joint initiatives
to support early childhood development. The federal government
will also put more dollars into the hands of families with
children through further tax relief. Families will also benefit
from initiatives that include lengthening and making more
flexible the employment insurance benefit for maternity and
parental leave.
In terms of Canada's youth our goal is to give the youth
generation of Canada, no matter where they live, a shot at
personal success in the knowledge economy, a job with the future
that pays well and an opportunity at becoming the best and the
brightest there are. We are committed to helping young Canadians
get the skills and opportunities they need to succeed in the 21st
century.
For example, we have announced the Canadian opportunities
strategy, the Canada millennium scholarship fund, the Canada
educational savings grant, the youth employment strategy, tax
relief on interest payments on student loans, and have helped to
connect every public school and library in Canada to the
Internet. We plan to draw on the expertise as well as the
talents of young Canadians to create new Internet access sites in
communities across Canada.
1555
Furthermore, we intend to provide thousands of Canadians with
the opportunity to participate in Canadian exchange and
international internship programs and to volunteer in community
and national environmental projects.
Our sense of community and commitment to working together has
helped Canadians seize opportunities and rise to challenges.
Strong communities depend upon the participation of all members.
The government will strengthen its partnerships with communities
and volunteer organizations that serve and sustain them.
We will work with all partners to help communities meet the
needs of their members. In particular we will work to eliminate
barriers to the mobility of citizens within Canada so Canadians
are not denied government services or access to work or education
because of the province of their origin. We will enter into the
new national accord with the voluntary sector that will lay the
key foundation for an active partnership with voluntary
organizations.
We will work to ensure persons with disabilities are fully
included and we will help new Canadians adapt to life in Canada.
We will also work to ensure that our communities remain safe.
Feeling safe and secure in our homes and communities is
essential to out quality of life and contributes to Canada's
comparative advantage. Our government has taken important
strides to support this Canadian priority. While the national
crime rate fell to a 20 year low in 1998, every crime committed
is one too many. That is why the Liberal government will remain
vigilant, taking further community based crime prevention
measures, to ensure that our communities are safe and healthy
places in which to live.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member who just spoke about the commitment
that he has, or that his government has, toward young people, or
is the commitment primarily to the banks of Canada? It is
particularly with reference to his last comments when he talked
about student loans and the privilege that young people have
subsidized interest rates on their student loans.
It is true that while they are attending university or a
post-secondary institution of some kind the government pays the
interest on these loans to the banks so the student is free from
paying them.
When the student graduates he or she is then obligated to repay
the loan at an interest rate exceeding the prime rate in the bank
system. Is the government's primary concern about young people,
or is the government's primary concern to absolve the banks from
incurring any risk for these, our most educationally elite
people? These people will lead industry in their areas. What is
the real purpose behind this whole operation?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased with
the question of my colleague across the way. It gives me an
opportunity to reinforce some of the points that I just mentioned
about youth.
When we stop and think about it, the Canadian opportunities
strategy is about helping young people get experience, helping
young people work in the environment and helping develop a record
of work experience by putting programs in place that allow them
to be out in the communities working.
Concerning the educational grants given to students, we
certainly are doing the very best we can to make sure there are
grants for young people to develop youth environment strategies.
Any type of opportunity where young people get an opportunity to
work in programs is very good.
When we stop and look at the reduction of interest rates on
student loans, the member is not suggesting that was not a
tremendously great idea. I think he is suggesting go further, go
further, go further. That has been the policy of the Reform
Party. The sad part is that its members say to cut taxes but
spend, spend, spend. I have heard them today alone suggest 10
policies which in fact—
1600
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member has deliberately misconstrued what I said
a moment ago.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that deliberate
misconstruction may happen from time to time. Sometimes it is
not deliberate and sometimes there is no misconstruction.
However, it is not a point of order, it is a question of debate.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I clearly remember the
hon. member's comments. He asked “What are you doing for
youth?” That is exactly what I am commenting on now.
The fact is that members of the Reform Party have said time
after time, interestingly, “Spend money here; spend money
there”. I could cite specifics, but the fact is that they have
asked for tax reductions on one side and they say “spend, spend,
spend” in every program. The problem is, we cannot do both.
That is why Canadians have put them where they put them, across
the way.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague for Chatham—Kent Essex made the point that we can look
forward to the future with optimism and pride. Can he explain to
the farmers of the Annapolis Valley, especially those who in the
last three years have been faced with drought and those who have
just in the last three or four years come into business, who
cannot take benefit from the AIDA program, how they can have
pride and optimism for the future? Not supporting these farmers
is deplorable and it cannot and should not be tolerated.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I accept the question
from my hon. colleague in the spirit in which it was given.
There is no question that we must ensure that industry in
Canada, be it farming or any other type of industry, gets the
proper support mechanisms required. As a Liberal government we
have tried to negotiate with industries across the board on the
best types of programs that could be put in place for those
industries and we have been working hard as well with the
provinces. It is not just the federal government that gets
involved in this; it is the industries themselves and the
producers in those industries.
There has been a lot of difficulty with the situation in
Atlantic Canada, as well as the situation in western Canada. We
all feel that we must do as much as we can. That is why the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stood today in the House to
say that the government had put $900 million into trying to bring
supports in place for the agricultural industry. One has to
admit that we are trying our best to handle things in a way that
is reasonable and sustainable for the future.
I am not saying that our system is perfect. I would never say
that our system is perfect. However, we have to realize that we
are trying to make strides and to do the best we can. Many of
these situations were unanticipated. Given the opportunity we
will develop programs and safety nets that will make certain
agriculture is safe in this country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find it
interesting to rise in reply to this throne speech, as this
allows us to tell those who are listening to us that, to us,
this speech seems drab and empty.
Government members on the other side of the House may try hard
to make us see the positive side of this throne speech, but
every newspaper article we read the day after the throne speech
agreed with what all four opposition parties were saying. This
speech has no clear policy and no vision.
Rather, this speech is an election platform; most commitments
will take effect between 2001 and 2004, and probably during the
next election campaign, which leads us to believe that the Prime
Minister will still be there for the next campaign.
1605
Let us consider one example: parental leave. Overall, this
seems to us to be good news, except that the parental leave
proposed as a new program is not going to start until 2001.
Everyone wonders why it is not now. The money is already there,
it is not a problem, so why not start the program up?
As hon. members are aware, the funding for this program comes
from the employment insurance fund. Only 40% of people qualify
for this fund, and women and young workers are the ones most
affected. If access to employment insurance benefits is not
changed, one may well wonder who will lucky enough to benefit
from parental leave.
First and foremost, October 12th's throne speech is a long
shopping list. That list includes the government's commitment to
a slight, long term and conditional tax reduction, to reducing
the debt still further, to investing in capital projects, and to
creating a broad range of programs ranging from improving the
national child tax credit, to home care, to education.
We are familiar with the Liberals' promises. The numerous
promises in the throne speech appear to be just window-dressing.
We have never been given the real cost of these commitments.
There is talk of compassion for families and the poor, but the
only emphasis is on the homeless. Yet the government does not
give us its vision of what programs and measures it will
implement to help the homeless.
It is fine to support the homeless in the throne speech, but
since 1993, this government is no longer involved in social
housing programs and has not invested anything in them. So
much, then, for compassion.
Recent years have shown us that government commitments were
anything but solid. Many still wonder about the ability and real
desire of the government to honour its commitments. Other
examples come to mind: the GST, pay equity and international
aid, for which the government promised to provide .7% of GDP.
My colleague, responsible for daycare, tells me that the 150,000
places in daycare that were promised in recent budgets have yet
to be provided.
That said, the fact that the government says it wants to do
everything at once is a very clear indication of the fiscal
leeway it has this year and of the surpluses that will be
distributed in the next budget. As they say, they got the
bucks. However, since they want high visibility as they move
into the next millennium, they are offering a sprinkling of new
programs instead of going after the real problems.
What is even more distressing is that these surpluses have been
accumulated on the backs of the unemployed. There is the $25
billion from the employment insurance fund, because $5 billion a
year accumulates in this fund. There is the $30 billion in the
public service pension fund—if this were private enterprise,
such scheming would be considered outright theft—and there are
the cuts to transfers to the provinces.
1610
The cuts in provincial transfer payments have hit the public
very hard. For the benefit of those listening, I am talking
about a $33 billion cut. Then the government wonders why there
are health and education problems. It makes cuts and crows
about the money it is saving, but the provinces are stuck with
the unenviable task of running programs on nothing. They do not
have the money and are having trouble maintaining services.
It is disgraceful to slough one's problems off onto the backs of
others. In Quebec alone, an additional 200,000 people had to
turn to welfare in 1998. They no longer qualified for employment
insurance.
Health systems throughout Canada are in terrible shape and the
provinces must work hard to avoid the appearance of a two-tier
health system, one tier for the rich and one for the poor.
It is not just Quebec that is facing problems in its health care
system, but all the provinces. The government would have people
think that the problems are limited to Quebec, because of its
sovereignist government, but that is not true. We must broaden
our horizons and look at the other Canadian provinces, which are
forced to turn to the United States to provide health care for
their inhabitants.
In this regard, let us remember what Jean Charest said “Forget
Lucien Bouchard. He is not the problem. The problem is the
cuts made by the federal Liberal government to the Canada social
transfer”. This from Mr. Charest in May 1997.
Now that the budget is balanced, it is obvious that the ruthless
cuts and overtaxing to which the federal government keeps
resorting in spite of the public's pleas are giving it more
money than it needs, but the government is still avoiding its
responsibilities.
The government prefers to spend that money on new programs,
instead of fulfilling its responsibilities, which include
alleviating the plight of the unemployed by putting money back
into the employment insurance fund which the government
pilfered, helping the sick by giving back to the provinces the
money it took from them, and giving a break to the middle class
by lightening its tax burden—let us not forget that it is the
middle class that pays for our social programs. Instead of
helping all these people, the government prefers to spend and to
interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In Quebec, we already
have homecare and pharmacare programs.
Therefore, why not give the money to Quebec, to improve what is
already in place?
I will conclude by saying that instead of using common sense,
the Liberals are beginning again to spend money on all sorts of
new programs whose only sure impact is to empty taxpayers'
pockets. Why? This is all in the name of visibility and
propaganda, coast to coast.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talked about, what she coined, our two-tier health
care system. As far as I am aware, the federal government deals
with health through the Canada Health Act, which has the five
principles of our health system: universality, accessibility,
portability, publicly funded and comprehensive.
As far as I am aware, and I am very sure of my facts, Canada has
a health system which serves all Canadians and it has nothing to
do with how much money one has.
Would the member please clarify for this House exactly what she
meant by a two-tier health care system in Canada? While I
understand that anybody can travel to any other country to
purchase health care, in Canada that is not the case. Could the
member please clarify her statement?
1615
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we had a
two tier system, I said that we were heading that way.
When transfer payments to provinces are cut by $33 billion,
including $10 billion for Quebec alone, it is obvious that
health care is in jeopardy.
Quebec does all it can to maintain the five major principles of
medicare. We believe in universality and accessibility and when
we are a sovereign country these five principles will be
maintained.
We believe in those principles, but what can a province do when
its funds are being cut off and hospital costs are skyrocketing?
I remind the House that our population is ageing and needs more
health care. Furthermore, new technologies, like laser
treatments and other medical equipment, arre increasingly
expensive.
When Quebec needs more money to buy new equipment and to give
health care to an ageing population but its transfer payments
are cut by $10 billion, how do members think it will be able
maintain the five great principles of medicare?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
new session opened with a Speech from the Throne, in which the
government was supposed to highlight its new policy thrusts
during the second half of its mandate.
As justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I carefully examined
the throne speech and I was sorry to see that it only confirmed
that the government wants a Reform style justice system.
Since it paves the way for the next election, the throne speech,
inevitable, was greatly influenced by the right and the
intolerance movement with which both the Liberals and the
Reformers seem to be so cozy. Under these circumstances,
political expediency is the rule: public perception prevails
over public interests.
The Reform Party, which has been actively promoting law and
order ever since its election to this House, as we have seen
many times, took advantage of the shift to the right and, in the
last two federal elections, campaigned on a platform that called
for a harsher youth justice system. Reformers decided to fight
tooth and nail against what they saw as the excessive clemency
of Liberal policies toward young offenders.
Given the situation, it is unlikely that the government will
reconsider its plan to reform the Young Offenders Act. This is
unfortunate, because the government will be missing an
opportunity to show how effective the current legislation is and
to distance itself from the demagogic policies of the Reform
Party.
Bill C-68, the Young Offenders Act, as it was called when it was
introduced, died on the Order Paper, since we started a new
session. However, statistics on young offenders tell us it was a
pointless piece of legislation anyway.
Statistics clearly show how effective a young offenders act can
be if it is properly enforced. Many experts in Quebec have
condemned the justice minister's eagerness to sacrifice several
decades of expertise. Nevertheless she is standing her ground,
claiming that a so-called flexibility will allow provinces,
especially Quebec, to continue enforcing the model of their
choice.
Such flexibility, a kind of opting out, which is as virtual as a
stroll on the bow of Titanic, is not tangible and the minister
knows it full well.
The system the minister has been proposing so far is based on
the nature and seriousness of the offence, thereby ignoring the
young offenders' needs.
1620
As a matter of fact, the bill—and this is important—did not
even mention the special needs of teenagers. However, it is
precisely because the Young Offenders Act allows for individual
treatment based on each teenager's own characteristics that
Quebec has the lowest juvenile crime rate in Canada.
During her summer vacation in Alberta, the Minister of Justice
must have had the time to review the request from the Bloc
Quebecois and the Quebec government to withdraw Bill C-68 or, at
the very least, to amend it in order to allow the province to
continue enforcing the Young Offenders Act its own way, the
Quebec way.
By granting this reasonable request, the minister would make it
possible to keep intact an approach that has already proven
itself. On the other hand, an outright rejection might lead to
improper handling of young offenders.
According to the Speech from the Throne, “the Government will
reintroduce legislation to reform the youth justice system”.
We hoped that the term “reintroduce” would not mean
reintroduction of all the provisions of Bill C-68 on young
offenders, a bill no one in Quebec wanted. However, based on the
rumours going around the Hill, I fear that the minister will be
introducing Bill C-68 in its entirety within days.
Should this be the case, I trust that members will remind the
Minister of Justice that it is not in the interests of either
Quebecers or Canadians to back such a reform, since it is not
warranted by the present situation.
The statistics the minister is quoting in support of the Young
Offenders Act demonstrate that she does not need to do anything
to change that act, only to require that those provinces that do
not enforce it do so, in order to achieve the same results as we
have had in Quebec.
Those involved in this area in Quebec have worked tirelessly to
prevent juvenile delinquency from leading to “chronic
delinquency”; it would be unfortunate to impose upon them an
instrument unsuited to youth rehabilitation.
In the course of my summer reading, I came across a quote from
Honoré de Balzac “Once the convicts were marked, once they were
given their numbers, they took on an unalterable character”. It
is my belief that, with the young offenders legislation, or the
amendments the Minister of Justice wants to make to the Young
Offenders Act, these young people will be marked forever,
branded, considering all the publicity that surrounds this
issue.
When the time is right, and when the minister reintroduces—as
rumours on the Hill would have it—the bill to amend the Young
Offenders Act, we shall see what transpires, but the fear is
that the minister will go back on the prior commitments.
Too much effort has been invested in Quebec to date for us to be
forced in future to regretfully apply the Balzac citation to
ourselves. For our collective security, the Minister of Justice
must abandon her plans once and for all.
Unfortunately, the experience with young offenders legislation
reform is not the only one of its kind.
By way of example, the debate on the reinstatement of life
sentences for persons driving while impaired is another
illustration of the need for sensationalism of the federal
justice system.
By way of reminder, the government initially agreed with the
Bloc Quebecois and amended Bill-82 to retain the 14 year maximum
sentence for persons driving while impaired and causing death.
During the negotiations preceding the adjournment for the summer
recess, the Bloc Quebecois contended that a life sentence was
unreasonable, despite the seriousness of such an offence.
It was a mistake to think that the government would stop there.
Everything indicates, once again, according to the rumours on
the Hill, that the government will introduce another bill to
obtain a life sentence for impaired driving causing death.
We will see that, on the subject of justice, the Liberals, the
Reformers and, to some extent, the Progressive Conservatives,
are all on the far right.
1625
At page 23, the throne speech provides:
The Government will focus attention on new and emerging threats
to Canadians and their neighbours around the world. It will work
to combat criminal activity that is becoming increasingly global
in scope, including money laundering, terrorism, and the
smuggling of people, drugs and guns.
It continues:
The Government will strengthen the capacity of the RCMP and
other agencies to address threats to public security in Canada—
I do not know if the government realizes that there is a world
of difference between what it says in its speech and what it
does in reality. Since the Liberals took office in 1993, funding
for the war against drug trafficking and organized crime has
been reduced by $11 million. The throne speech talks about
strengthening our capacity in that area when, in fact, there has
been a decrease in funding.
As strange as it may seem, even though the federal government is
aware of a 12% annual increase in drug related crimes, as
reported in one of its own documents, it has reduced the number
of police officers investigating these kinds of crime.
Maybe reality has caught up with the Liberals but they do not
know exactly what to do. They should listen more carefully to
certain proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois, including the bill
introduced by the member for Charlesbourg to withdraw $1,000
notes from circulation to help in the fight against money
laundering. We presented all kinds of information.
I will close by saying that, at some point, the Bloc Quebecois
will reach out to the federal government to conduct a serious
study on the whole issue of organized crime.
I see the Minister of International Trade.
I think that, as a member from Quebec, it would be interesting
if he could co-operate with the Bloc Quebecois to set sound
policies—
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: A policy that would show respect for
Quebec.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Exactly, and this concludes my remarks.
[English]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today in the House to offer comments on the Speech from the
Throne, which was so ably delivered to us by Her Excellency the
Governor General last week. I also want to thank her for her
excellent and moving installation speech. I am sure that all of
my colleagues in the House join me in offering best wishes to Her
Excellency as she begins her term of office.
Her appointment is of special significance to the residents of
my riding of Papineau—Saint-Denis. Indeed, many of my
constituents are immigrants to Canada. Many arrived quite
recently. I am proud that Her Excellency inspires us all and
demonstrates that in this country, Canada, all citizens, old and
new, have access to all offices, even to the highest office in
the land.
[Translation]
The residents of my riding of Papineau«Saint-Denis are also
delighted that Her Excellency the Governor General will be
joined at Rideau Hall by her husband, John Ralston Saul, one of
the great thinkers of our time, a philosopher whose reputation
and credibility extend well beyond our borders. I know he is
particularly well thought of in France.
1630
In the throne speech, the government stressed the need for
Canadians to open up to the world, and to be aware of our role
and our responsibilities in this respect and also of the great
opportunities and challenges that this entails.
Not the least of these opportunities are those that come about
through international trade and capital movement. As all
members are well aware, Canada has founded its economy on
external trade. Our present and future prosperity and growth
are largely dependent on international trade.
In Canada, one job in three is directly linked to international
trade, and 40% of the GDP depends on it. This is the highest
percentage of all industrialized countries in the G-8.
A mere five years ago, we exported 25% of our GDP. We have
therefore gone from 25% to 40% in just under five years. The
vast majority of the 1,700,000 new jobs created since 1993 are
the result of the increase in exports.
[English]
As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, Canada's economy is
more open than any of the other leading industrialized countries.
We have a population that comes from countries all over the
world. In many instances Canadian businesses, because they have
such a culturally diverse and rich workforce, have the great
advantage of not only being aware of the customs and practices of
other nations but of being able to do business in many different
languages. Our investment in diversity over the years is turning
into a major asset for us.
To ensure that we continue to enhance that very real advantage,
we intend to increase our trade promotion efforts in those
sectors that have high export potential. Some of these exports
did not exist even a few years ago, but thanks to some very
dedicated, innovative and very clever people, whole new economic
sectors are now growing up where nothing existed before.
Our biotechnology industry for example is pursuing some of the
most leading edge innovations in the world. Our environmental
industries are growing at an incredible rate. Our information
technology sector is large and getting larger with investments in
high tech all over the world. The same is true in many other
sectors of our economy such as agriculture, agri-food and natural
resources.
In other words, we are an important player in the global
economy. As a government, we want to help our industries to
develop the linkages with the world that will help bring growth
and jobs here to Canada. We also want to take more direct action
to encourage companies to locate in this country. Therefore we
will be presenting legislative changes that will make it easier
for global corporations to bring their headquarters to Canada.
As the throne speech stated, we also intend to create investment
in Canada, a co-ordinated effort by all governments and the
private sector to promote the unique opportunities that are
available here.
In addition, we will continue to support innovation and the
development of new technologies. Doing so is good for Canada and
it is also good for our trading partners.
[Translation]
Of course, one thing that is very favourable for Canada and its
trading partners is the introduction of a rules-based
international trade system. In fact, we are one of the most
active advocates and promoters of this system. It is important
that we be active in this area because our country, Canada, is
neither the biggest nor the most powerful country in the world.
We must continue to co-operate with like-minded countries in order
to ensure that the rules are accepted by all and not dictated by
the largest players. This requires skill and perseverance in all
circumstances. Soon, the WTO's ninth round of multilateral
trade negotiations will begin in Seattle.
1635
We hope to be able to build on the successes of the previous
rounds. During these negotiations, Canada will continue to
promote the strengthening of the international trade system. We
will continue to ask for the rules to become more transparent,
predictable and enforceable. We will continue to urge the World
Trade Organization to keep pace with technological and social
change.
We want a system that would guarantee a level playing field,
give Canadian businesses in all sectors easier access to the
world markets and respect the needs, values and culture of
Canadians as well as the environment.
Issues are brought to the attention of the World Trade
Organization on a daily basis. The recent interim decision on
the Auto Pact is just one example. Unfortunately, I am clearly
not at liberty to comment on this issue today because the
decision must remain confidential until it is made public. I
just want to say that we are actively consulting business people
and other governments on this issue, and more specifically on
its impact on NAFTA, and we will have another announcement to
make.
Some people are also concerned about the United States putting
health and education on the table. I want to clearly reiterate
in this House that our health system is not being threatened and
will never be questioned during these negotiations. Our
universal health care system is not negotiable.
Of course, if we can find ways to export our health and
education services, we will undoubtedly go ahead and do it.
But, as the Prime Minister said many times, our universal health
care system is central to our way of living. We will not let it
be weakened in any way. We will promote and protect the
economic, social and cultural interests of Canadians. In
Seattle, I will raise as well the issue of the World Trade
Organization as a body, including its structure and its
procedures. I hope to be able to put forward specific proposals
to improve it. Many think the WTO is no longer of any use since
we have NAFTA with the United States, which accounts for 85% of
our exports. I want to remind the members that the World Trade
Organization is still very useful and needed, including to fight
protectionist pressure from the United States.
[English]
Another long term goal mentioned in the Speech from the Throne
is our intention to work with our partners in the hemisphere
toward the establishment of the free trade area of the Americas
by 2005. I will be very pleased to host the 34 democratic
countries of the hemisphere in Toronto in November, to continue
to work toward the establishment of that zone of free trade of
the Americas.
In Canada we have the great advantage to be the neighbour of the
very strong and dynamic American market. This however should not
stop us from looking all around the world to develop other
markets. That is what we are doing with the free trade area of
the Americas.
As the world trading system opens up as never before, as we
enter the age of globalization, an age of new knowledge
economies, we have to be aware that this new phenomenon is
shaping the choices we make as a society. In Canada we believe
very much that it is important to humanize globalization. It is
important to remind ourselves that there is a human purpose to
the economy and we want everyone to be able to buy in.
[Translation]
The humanization of globalization is one of our gouvernment's
objectives. I would like to share with the House some of my
thinking, for example, on the issue of culture, on the role of
artists in society and thus on the importance of cultural
diversity for a country like Canada. I find that the role of
artists in society is not only to express emotions felt by
society but also to shape these emotions.
1640
At a time when we have to undergo changes as radical as those
brought about by the globalization of the economy, I find it
extremely important for every country tocontinue to make room
for artists and allow artists with this responsibility to shape
the emotions felt by people. It is extremely important to allow
them to work to enlighten us, as a society, on what it is we are
going through.
Let us look at the deep emotions, the excitement as well as the
insecurity felt by people dealing with globalization.
We realize that the insecurity and the excitement can both be
captured by artists, who can give form to them and help us
understand how societies live with this phenomenon. Hence the
importance of cultural diversity.
In our own society, the society I come from in our country,
Quebec society, I look at the role of the artists and the
automatistes in the global rejection movement in 1948. I look
at Gratien Gélinas' theatre in 1948 as well, his Ti'Coq. These
artists were the harbingers in 1948 of the quiet revolution that
took place in Quebec in the 1960s. Twelve years ahead of time,
these artists showed the extent to which Quebec was stifled and
had to be liberated from many of its past experiences.
So, the artists are the ones to see what is coming first. I
therefore think it extremely important to give this matter
careful attention.
I would also like to tell the House how much the phenomenon of
globalization changes the nature of exclusion as well. For 200
years, we have fought exploitation. With industrial capitalism
came exploitation. In other words, people were exploited in
this industrial capitalism, however, even exploited, the
individual exists in a social context. Individuals can
organize, form unions. They can negotiate and obtain better
laws.
The exploitation we have fought for the past 200 years is now
over, because, unlike industrial capitalism, financial
capitalism means the exclusion of more individuals.
Exclusion is much more radical than exploitation, because
exclusion means a total loss of bargaining power. In the case
of exclusion, there is nothing to negotiate and no one to
negotiate with, hence the importance of humanizing
globalization, of remembering that the economy has human
finality and that it exists to serve the whole population to
grow.
These are the concerns we will bring to the major rounds of
negotiations in November. These extremely important phenomena
are fundamental.
[English]
It is extremely important to me that people understand that
there is a balance with which the Liberal government has been
approaching things, a balance that has to be concerned with this
because markets cannot solve every problem. Of course our
commitment should be to make markets work better, but at the same
time governments need to pursue policies that reflect the
democratic values and inclusiveness that ultimately make economic
activity more sustainable.
As the Speech from the Throne made clear, we intend to do more
in the coming months to ensure that Canada continues to be an
inclusive society, a society that values the contributions of all
its people, a society in which everyone is given a fair chance to
participate by helping people to learn new skills and to take new
opportunities, a society in which children are given the best
start in life and are given the support they need to grow up
healthy and safe, and a society that supports and practises the
concept of sustainable development for our environment so that
future generations will also be able to build their own dreams.
1645
[Translation]
I think Canada is in a better position than most countries to
succeed in the new context of globalization, in large part
because of our history and in part because of our geography.
As the throne speech indicates, Canada was born at a time when
countries were formed in the crucible of war or revolution. In
the 19th century, the norm in the traditional nation states, as
they emerged throughout the world at the time, was for majority
to assimilate minority and majority to eliminate differences.
The traditional nation-state was based on a single language, a
single culture, a single religion.
Here in Canada, on the contrary, we have chosen another path.
We have chosen to build a country that would not become a
traditional nation-state. We chose a Canadian approach to
reconciling differences. We chose to place tolerance,
acceptance and respect of others at the core of our country's
identity. We therefore chose to develop a political citizenship
rather than an ethnic, linguistic or religious one. That
political citizenship allowed diversity to become, not a threat
to our identity or our existence—as some try to make it out to
be—but instead a strength, an asset.
Canada is a bilingual and multicultural society, one used to the
reconciliation of differences and mutual respect. Today we are
faced with globalization, which imposes the phenomenon of
diversity throughout the world. We in Canada have 150 years
experience with diversity, which means that, faced with the
phenomenon of diversity imposed on us now by globalization, our
country will know better than any other in the world how to deal
with it and how to use it to the benefit of all of its citizens.
Moreover, I believe that people everywhere in the world are
interested in our experience. The most radical and the most
fundamental question that will be raised in the new century with
the phenomenon of globalization will be: is it possible to live
together, equal and different? That is the most radical and the
most fundamental question.
With this throne speech, we want Canada to represent the
optimistic response to that fundamental question. Yes, we can
live together, in equality and difference. That is the human
and optimistic answer.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
are a couple of things I would like the minister to address. I
thank him for being here today to address the Speech from the
Throne but there are some things that are missing in the speech.
Where is the plan and where is the high level attack that we
need as a country to put against the unfair foreign subsidies
that are killing our agriculture community? We did not see it in
the speech and we did not hear it today.
One thing the minister touched on, which is more to the point,
is U.S. protectionism. We have an industry in Canada that
exports $2.2 billion worth of beef and cattle a year to the
United States and an unjust, baseless tariff that has been placed
on cattle going across the border. When the tariff was adjusted
the other day from 5.57% to 5.63%, the government considered it a
victory. That victory is taking millions of dollars out of the
cattle industry in this country every day.
1650
I would like the minister to comment on what he is going to do.
The northwest beef producers have been in touch with the
government. They have suggested changes that could be made to
the health regulations for cattle coming from the United States
that would help to solve this problem and that would send a
message to the ITC that Canada is willing to work at solving
this.
Would the minister comment on exactly what his plans are and
when this issue will be solved?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
opposition member for giving me the opportunity to add more
comments to my speech. There are a number of things I did not
raise in my 20-minute speech because obviously one cannot touch
on every issue.
Concerning the European export subsidies, my colleague, the
minister of agriculture, has been very clear. At the end of
August, we presented the government's position showing our plan
and our objective of working very hard at the next round of
negotiations to eliminate the European export subsidies. We find
these subsidies absolutely detrimental and are working very hard
toward eliminating them. The government has stated this position
time and again and we will continue to work on it.
As for cattle, we recognized last week that in part of the
decisions we were favoured. For instance,
on the countervail subsidy side, we won that part of it.
The member will be pleased, as will the House, that on the
countervail subsidies we are very pleased that the U.S. upheld
its initial decision and found that Canadian exports of live
cattle do not benefit from countervail subsidies, so it is a good
decision.
On the question of whether Canadian cattle were being dumped,
that is to say being sold at prices less than the cost of
production, the department of commerce reconfirmed an earlier
ruling that Canadian cattle were indeed being dumped into the
U.S. market. As a result, most Canadian producers will now have
to pay a 5.6% duty on their cattle exports to the U.S.
However this duty will not be made permanent until the U.S
international trade commission decides whether Canadian cattle
exports threaten or injure the domestic U.S. industry. We expect
the decision on November 8.
We remain hopeful that they will determine that Canadian exports
are not injuring the U.S. domestic industry. We will continue to
work closely with the Canadian cattle industry.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder, with the minister's consent and the consent of
the House, if we could extend the minister's time for questions
by about 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for questions and comments by about 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
would like the minister to give us more time.
I listened with interest to the address in reply to the throne
speech given by the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis. On this side
of the House we are getting tired of hearing that it feels good
to know that Canada is the best country of the world, the
government is letting it go to its head.
To say that Canada is not a traditional nation state as the
minister said again today and as he wrote in a book well worth
reading, is a contradiction of the throne speech itself.
As I asked in my own speech last week, how many times is the
word national used in the throne speech? The throne speech
mentions that Canada has a national government and yet the
minister claims it is not a nation state. This is a
contradiction the minister might want to explain. Could it be
that he disagrees with people who say Canada has a national
government?
I noticed that regarding negotiations at the WTO, under the
heading “international trade”, the throne speech does not say
anything about the provinces taking part in such negotiations. I
would like to know whether the minister intends to involve the
provinces in these negotiations and make sure they are asked to
approve any future treaty dealing with issues coming under
provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution.
1655
Does he intend to involve parliament in the negotiations? Is he
willing to have the outcome of such discussions and negotiations
reviewed by parliament, not only by the foreign affairs
committee, but also by the House of Commons?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry is criticizing the Canadian government for
constantly saying that Canada is the best country in the world.
I would like to tell him that his problem is not with the
Canadian government, but with the United Nations. Indeed, it is
the United Nations Development Program that, each year for the
past six years, has noted that respect for others and the
quality of life in Canada were absolutely remarkable. Therefore,
the member may have more of a problem with the United Nations
than with the government.
He went back to what I said about Canada not being a traditional
country, a traditional nation state, and wondered if there was a
contradiction between the throne speech and my way of thinking.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry must look at 150 years of
history and at the country we have built to see that it is
indeed a country, contrary to any nation state.
What is a traditional nation state? It is a political power that
has formed an alliance with a nation, generally the majority
nation. That is what happened in France, in Great Britain, in
Germany and in Italy. The state formed an alliance with the
majority nation and systematically assimilated minorities and
tried to eliminate any differences.
Here, in Canada, the country we have built is not a traditional
nation state because, contrary to what happened in other
countries, we have built our country on the reconciliation of
different peoples and different nations. That is Canada's
strength today.
Since we are a country that did not try to eliminate diversity
but, rather, made it central to its identity, I say that in this
era of globalization, which imposes diversity everywhere, we
have a great advantage in that we have been experiencing such
diversity for 150 years, including here in this parliament.
Madam Speaker, you are tolerant toward me, so I will continue to
provide replies to the questions that were put to me.
I can assure the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry that last
week we had an excellent work session with the provincial
ministers of trade. We had very wide consultations and very
productive discussions. We are determined to work closely
together to ensure that the next round of negotiations at the
World Trade Organization will prove as satisfactory to Canadian
businesses as did the first eight rounds. I can assure you that
we will work very hard to achieve that goal.
As for getting the house involved, we will do all that is
necessary with our excellent Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade. I will of course be very
pleased to work with the committee and with the house.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you can see the amount of interest in the House
today as we have the Minister for International Trade here. There
was a motion asking for a 10-minute extension of questions which
was denied. I think those people have ducked out. I wonder if
we might try that again. There are different people in the House
at the moment and there is an interest. I would ask that the
minister be allowed to be questioned for another 10 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will ask on your
behalf for the unanimous consent of the House to extend the
period by 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent for this
request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, if members have been paying attention to the news out
west they will know that Alberta was troubled over the summer by
the antics of an environmental radical bent on destroying the oil
industry. For clarification, I am referring to Wiebo Ludwig and
not the new environment minister, although I understand the hon.
member for Victoria has the sport utility owners quaking in their
heated leather seats.
1700
I am anxious to respond to the Speech from the Throne because
once again Canadians were forced to endure the platitudes of a
political party committed to an unworkable big government agenda.
As the newly appointed opposition critic for the environment, I
would like to address this important aspect of the Liberal
agenda.
I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for
Lethbridge, for his hard work on this portfolio. My colleague has
consistently defended the interests of average Canadians against
environmental policies that ignore the essential component,
people. He is a voice for common sense and we can be sure he
will bring the same talent and dedication to his new
responsibilities in agriculture.
I would like to address two broad policy concerns which were
addressed in the throne speech, first, the concern regarding
global warming and second, the concern regarding endangered
species legislation.
With respect to global warming, I have three questions for which
I seek clear answers. Is the planet really warming? What is the
cause of this warming? What is the potential consequence for
average Canadians of this warming?
Scientists and environmentalists are not in agreement as to the
validity of global warming. While climate models produced by
computers predict that there should have been some warming over
the past 18 years, satellite data collected monitoring global
temperature since 1979 actually indicate a slight global cooling.
Therefore these data refute the claim that there is a long term
warming trend.
Furthermore, even if we are to assume that the planet is
warming, and I must stress that the evidence is inconclusive, we
must next consider what the root causes of this warming are. Have
100 years of industrial activity upset the balance of the
ecosystem, or are we witnessing a natural warming trend beyond
our control? According to ground level temperature records, most
of the increase in the world's temperature over the past 100
years occurred before 1940, before the main input of human
induced CO2 emissions.
Finally we must also consider the actual impact of global
warming and the fact that this phenomenon exists.
Environmentalists have long concluded that while there may not be
a clear warming trend or a clear cooling trend, we are seeing
instability in our global ecosystem that is causing erratic
weather patterns. If the planet cools, do deserts turn into
tropics? If the planet warms, do growing seasons last longer?
What is the likely outcome of global warming?
I would like to stress again that before we pursue a national
energy program style of politics, we must have conclusive
evidence that global warming trends are real. We must be certain
that these trends are the result of industrial CO2 emissions.
Finally, we must be certain that the effects of this warming
trend will be negative for average people.
When we have conclusive evidence that shows all these three
conditions, the Reform Party will be the first to demand action.
However we will not embark on a reckless and irresponsible
campaign that will cripple our economy and send hardworking
people to the unemployment lines.
On the issue of endangered species, in the Globe and Mail
this morning I read that the government has failed to achieve
adequate habitat preservation in the national parks. Government
stewardship has not achieved the objective it intended to
achieve. This conclusion comes from an independent task force
led by Jacques Gérin.
This record of failure is interesting when we compare it to the
very recent results achieved by a private sector company.
TransAlta has just completed a massive strip mine reclamation
project in Alberta. Because the company owns the land and
because it has an incentive to ensure that the property remains
valuable, care was taken to restore the property to its original
condition. Today where the strip mine once provided vital energy
to our nation, a wildlife habitat now exists that is recognized
the world over as an example of successful private stewardship.
Those at TransAlta did not do this because the Minister of the
Environment threatened to put them in prison if they did not.
This company had the reclamation plans in place one full year
before any provincial or federal statutes were passed regulating
the impact of resource industries. They did it because it made
good business sense.
I would like to quote a former chairman of TransAlta who worked
on this project. Marshall Williams said “it made business sense
that land on a major tourism route into Jasper be reclaimed and
perhaps sold at a future date for a reasonable return”.
A wildlife habitat was created because it made good business
sense. This is a powerful demonstration of the success of
private property rights in ensuring the preservation of the
environment in harmony with sustainable development.
1705
When property rights are respected, there is little conflict
between sustainable development and both habitat and resource
management. Where conflicts do exist, a policy of co-operation
and partnership will ensure that wild areas are preserved for all
Canadians with the costs borne equally by all Canadians.
The government's idea of an environmental partnership is a
prison cell and a pair of handcuffs. In past attempts at
creating endangered species legislation, the Liberals were
prepared to levy fines up to $250,000 or five years in jail as
punishment against otherwise honest, law-abiding people. The
government's idea of environmental education is fearmongering and
misinformation.
Instead of challenging the critics of global warming or ozone
depletion, the Liberal government has disgracefully politicized
environmental science. When the leader of the Reform Party
challenged the junk science of the Kyoto agreement, the
government responded with personal attacks.
The government's idea of a common sense environmental policy is
more taxes: tax cars and tax gas and force low income Canadians
to give up the pleasure and freedom of mobility; after that, tax
industries and emissions and send hardworking people to the
unemployment lines. That is the Liberal plan for the
environment.
Canadians deserve better than that from their government and
they deserve better from the Minister of the Environment. If
problems such as climate change and dangerous levels of
persistent toxins can be resolved, it will very likely
necessitate a ban on all speeches given by the government
benches. Their hot air is what is really causing global warming.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. I have to concur
in regard to global warming.
I remember 35 or 38 years ago we were ranching up in Dead man
country out of Savannah, British Columbia. I was also trapping at
that time. It was some cold, 55 below. One of the big news
articles of the day was to prepare for a new ice age. That was
the government's selling point, prepare for the new ice age. It
was cold enough we could almost believe it. It became a big topic
with all the other ranchers and that maybe everybody should get
ready. The government had us frightened about what was going to
happen. I was fairly young then. We wondered whether we had
enough winter feed in for the cattle and everything else. Lo and
behold, the next winter it was a fair bit milder and it was
really nice.
After falling into that trap back then and getting worried and
upset about different things, I came to the conclusion that this
is a big money scheme. These issues become big dollars, big
business for many different groups. Today it is the ozone and
global warming; next year it is just as likely to be prepare for
the new ice age.
I would like the hon. member's comments.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Okanagan—Shuswap for his very pertinent intervention. From my
hon. colleague's intervention, there is no doubt that whatever
certain groups tend to say or wherever the politically correct
argument of the day lies is where the present government and
obviously past governments tend to go.
There is no doubt that when working hard in minus 55 degree
weather, as many farmers do, they are asking where this global
warming is, if it actually exists. They are hoping for it.
I wanted to make clear in my speech that the government has to
step back and take a critical look at what sort of policies it is
implementing today. They are going to affect future generations.
It must look at what sort of effects they are going to have on
industry as well. People who are working hard to make ends meet
are being put on the welfare lines simply because of poor
management decisions by the government.
I was trying to encourage this government to think about it. As
a younger Canadian in the House looking forward, in trying to
create sustainable development in this country, let us take a
step back. Let us make sure that when we make decisions that are
going to be implemented today that they are going to be
compatible with the future of the developing economies and of the
environment. Let us not make rash decisions that are going to
end up backfiring on future generations.
1710
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the Reform Party member.
However, I do not think that the expression global warming
really tells the public what is at stake here. It would be more
appropriate to talk about climate destabilization. This is what
causes the flooding, ice storms and tornadoes that destroy crops
and towns, and that kill people.
The government has not met the challenge—in fact there is not
even any mention of that challenge in the throne speech—of
dealing with the climate destabilization we are currently
witnessing. How can we ensure that people will be able to face
the various problems that this destabilization will generate?
I would like to hear the comments of the Reform Party member on
this aspect of the issue.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois member has
expressed another point of view in the debate on the
environment.
I think that the government should really sit up and take note.
For example, it should be telling us about the effects on the
environment of climate destabilization. I think the government
should perhaps examine this point of view more closely, instead
of telling us about vague things like global warming.
I thank my colleague for his question. Perhaps we can consider
this further at a future date.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this is my
opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like
to digress for a moment as I have had an interesting experience
this last week or so.
My mother has been visiting with me here in Ottawa. She reminds
me of the wonders of serving in this place. She has come from
Alberta to stay with us for a month. Her reaction to the things
we do here has been enlightening to me. Her almost childlike
enthusiasm, seeing the things that she has seen, reminds me that
this is a very special place and a very special opportunity. It
reminds me as well of what a privilege it is to serve my
constituents and express their ideas and constructive thoughts.
I have had a recent responsibility change in parliament. I
served as health critic for the official opposition for quite
some time and have moved to another responsibility,
intergovernmental affairs, which hardly anyone knows what it
means.
I would like to take this opportunity as well to express my
thanks to those individuals who made my job as health critic so
enjoyable. I had an opportunity to associate with and have
interchange with associations across the country, medical,
nursing, dental and chiropractic associations and many
individuals who had strong positions.
For instance, the public who fought for freedom in health foods
and in alternative therapies were very powerful individuals. They
made their positions so strongly known that the government
changed some of its direction in those areas. I met some victims
who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood. Their powerful
position, especially that of a young man, made the government
look shaky in some instances.
I would like to focus on little Joey Haché, a young man with an
illness that should have made him weak, should have sapped his
strength, but instead has made him strong.
I want all Canadians to know how proud I am to have known him and
to have had a little opportunity to interchange with him.
1715
Now, to this new job in intergovernmental affairs, I looked
through the throne speech to see all the things that related to
unity in our country, which is the main responsibility that
particular job entails. I want to be very careful that the
wording I use is exact because Reformers believe that Canada can
be united by reforming the federation on the principle of
equality and through a rebalancing of power. Knowing what that
means and what, from my party's perspective, we mean in terms of
unity, I looked carefully at the throne speech to see what it
said on the issue of unity.
[Translation]
This was the government's response:
The best way to achieve the promise of Canada for every citizen
is to work together to build the highest quality of life for all
Canadians. [—]The Government of Canada therefore reaffirms the
commitment it has made to Quebeckers and all other Canadians
that the principle of clarity, as set out by the Supreme Court
of Canada, will be respected.
This is the Government of Canada's response on this very
important matter: the clarity of the question, the majority
acceptable, and the negotiation process. These are not the best
way to ensure Canada's unity.
As the Reform Party sees it, the way to ensure our country's
unity is to make changes in the federation. For instance, we
would like to strengthen or improve the exercise of federal
legislative and administrative authority in the following areas:
defence, foreign affairs, monetary policy, regulation of
financial institutions, criminal law, definition of national
standards, equalization payments, international trade and
interprovincial trade.
These are important matters that come under federal
jurisdiction.
must try to strengthen or improve the exercise of provincial
legislative and administrative authority in the following areas:
natural resources, manpower training, social services,
education, language and culture, municipal affairs, sports,
housing, and tourism.
[English]
These are to diminish federal intrusion into exclusive areas of
provincial responsibility. What does that mean to my home
constituency in Alberta? That means that many of the things that
Albertans are disappointed with and unhappy with in the way our
federation works would be answered. What would that mean for
those disaffected in Quebec? In my view, and in the view of my
party, it would mean exactly the same thing, a rebalancing of the
powers of confederation based on the principle of equality. That
is quite different than just simply saying there is one way, the
status quo. That has been the complaint I have heard over and
over again from my Quebec colleagues, many of whom feel there is
no other option but to split from this country.
My colleagues across the way seem to think that the option is to
stay rigid. We believe that there is a troisième voie, a third
way, another mechanism to reach the same goal: a stronger
federation, not for those in these halls but for our children.
Some other things that we think would go a long way toward
improving our country would be changes in the way things work in
this House.
We believe that we could involve members of parliament better to
make backbench MPs feel that they have a powerful place here by
freeing up votes on issues that should not be a vote of
confidence. If a vote causes a bill of the government to fail,
there could simply be a vote of confidence in the government so
that the government itself would not fail. That is done in other
jurisdictions. It is mind numbing to my constituents at home why
we have the convention that the failure of a bill would cause the
government to fail. There are very few bills that should cause
the government to fail.
1720
One other important thing would be to have the ability to fire a
liar, and that is to recall a politician who has made a promise
and then lied. And I do not mean just to have a politician
resign and then run again.
We also believe that we could involve the public better in terms
of being able to initiate by citizens' initiative information or
laws that are not coming from the government and binding national
referenda on major important issues, especially moral issues.
Three hundred and one individuals in the country should not
decide an issue of such importance.
These things, in terms of direct democracy, we are convinced
would make a huge difference to the way this place works and also
to the way politicians are looked at and thought of.
Time is always short. The government had very little to say
about unity, maybe hoping that the unity problem would gradually
diminish. I have looked at the unity debate over the last 30
years and have found that the interest in sovereignty goes up and
down, and it is usually from combative things that are done in
this place that sovereignty gets its strength.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House on
this issue and I look forward as well to an interchange with
Canadians who will guide me and help me to be at least a proper
debater in this area.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first I would like to congratulate my Reform colleague for his
appointment as his party's intergovernmental affairs critic. I
am sure he will be as keen and dedicated in his new role as he
was as health critic. I am looking forward to debates with him
and the intergovernmental affairs minister, as undoubtedly they
will be worthwhile debates.
I would like to point out to him that indeed very little was
said in the throne speech about unity.
The word unity can only be found once in the throne speech; the
government might think it will keep the country together if
decisions—I mean the important decisions—are made in Ottawa and
carried out by the provinces.
Obviously this is the way we feel the federal government thinks
federalism should be. Actually, not so much the federal
government because the words federal and federalism hardly occur
in the throne speech.
I would like to know whether the Reform intergovernmental
affairs critic has noticed, as we have, that the government
wants to centralize, and whether his party is not discouraged by
this government's attitude when it comes to changing the way we
look at the future and federalism in Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill: I thank the hon. member for his question.
For us Reformers, the problem is partly the centralization of
the federal government's business. It is not the only problem.
There are other issues and a balance is necessary in this
debate. We would like the question to be clear, we would like to
know what constitutes a clear majority and we would like to know
about negotiations, should a referendum end with a victory for
the yes side. We would also like to know about changes to the
federation, positive changes for Quebecers and other Canadians.
This is very important.
1725
This is a major concern. It is not a concern that affects just
one province or one group of Canadians, but one that concerns
everyone.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I also congratulate my colleague on his new portfolio. I
think he will do an excellent job.
When it comes to rebalancing powers, many people often confuse
the position of the official opposition. Could he add some
clarity, that we are not just talking about independent states
far away from the government but a better working relationship?
Often when we talk about rebalancing people look to see if we are
trying to advocate independent provinces that have no regard for
the federal government. We are looking at the opposite. We want
the federal government to show more respect for the provinces and
to let them take on more decision making and work in a much
better fashion than is happening now.
Would my hon. colleague comment on that particular relationship?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, that is a very helpful
question. There are things that the original constitution laid
out as exclusive responsibilities of both the federal government
and the provincial governments. There is no question that there
has been an intrusion into those areas of provincial
responsibility. My colleagues from the Bloc will point that out
every time it happens.
We look for a strengthening of the federal role in certain areas
and a strengthening and improvement of the provincial role in
other areas. Most importantly, we look for a co-operative
approach, if there is to be money spent on specific things that
the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over, and not simply an
edict from on high. That helps in other parts of the country
and, in my view, it certainly helps in Quebec.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
too wish to offer my congratulations to the governor general.
I had a pretty interesting summer. For a Liberal MP it was
actually a pretty easy summer because people in my constituency
appreciate the efforts of the government, the way it has managed
the finances of the nation and the way in which there is a great
deal of employment, particularly in my area of the country.
There were times when I referred to it as a love-in.
When we ended the congratulatory exchanges between member and
constituent, one of the issues that kept coming up was the
behaviour and performance of parliamentarians. Canadians do not
really understand what it is we do here. I spent a lot of time
trying to explain what it is that we do. What they see is
question period. That is what they believe parliament is all
about.
I had some difficulties in explaining to them that parliament is
something more than us making silly fools out of ourselves in
question period. I tried to explain that question period was
something having nothing to do with questions or answers. It is
probably best described as lousy political theatre.
My constituents are bored and indifferent to the process of
parliament. It is my view that our behaviour brings parliament
into disrepute. I do not see any point in assigning the blame
for that, but it is a shame. Not only does parliament end up in
disrepute, it means that parliament is not seen as a forum for
debating the larger issues of the day. It is an anachronistic
irrelevancy and more, and Canadians just switch channels rather
than engage in political debate.
One of the reasons we do not involve ourselves in the big issues
of the day is that we end up in partisan slinging matches which
do us no credit at the end of the day.
I am as guilty as any other person in the House. I anticipate
that notwithstanding this speech and to the contrary I will not
greatly improve my behaviour.
1730
However, in an effort to be non-partisan I want to compliment
the Leader of the Opposition on his remarks and to pick up on
some of the comments he made in his speech even though I do not
have 100 minutes.
The thrust of his remarks was that the serious issues of the day
were being dealt with by the courts rather than by parliament
because parliament seemed to be quite prepared to duck the issues
and to let the courts decide. He also stated that transferring
the charter of rights from a system of checks and balances, as is
found in the United States where there is a clear legislative
function, a clear administrative function and a clear judicial
function, has not translated well in a parliamentary democracy
such as ours where the legislative function and the
administrative function are clearly fused, which in some respects
leaves the judicial function out on its own.
He went on to cite a number of decisions that leave a great deal
to be desired in their interpretation and application. He made
reference to the Singh decision which has imposed upon our nation
a refugee determination system that is both costly and
cumbersome. The government is stuck with a costly and
problematic refugee system which shows its flaws when migrants
show up on our shores with absolutely no intention of making any
claim for status.
He cited the Shaw decision on child pornography as being
offensive to many Canadians. He made reference to the M and H
decision on same sex and the application that the same sex
decision solves one problem and creates two more. He made
reference as well to the Marshall treaty about which we have
heard a great deal.
These decisions in isolation are quite sound. Legal reasoning
within the confines of a courtroom have a certain purity and
logic but leave a great deal to be desired in application. I am
not here to blame judicial activism. I believe the courts would
only be too happy to return to what we used to call in law school
black letter law.
For instance, on the issue of spousal definition, Mr. Justice
Cory said:
The issue of how the term spouse should be defined is a
fundamental social policy issue and Parliament should decide it
and Parliament should listen to and balance the competing social
issues, the philosophical issues, the legal, moral, theological
issues that go into this definitional process. The courts
shouldn't be deciding it. Parliament should be deciding it and
the courts should defer to Parliament.
The reality is that the foregoing issues have not been addressed
by parliament in any meaningful way notwithstanding that they are
well within the competence of parliament. There is no party or
government that runs on a pro-pornography platform. As a
practising politician, there are a lot of these issues I would be
just as happy to duck. These issues are largely the result of
parliamentary neglect rather than judicial activism.
There is little enthusiasm on the part of the court to assume a
jurisdictional competence that is properly the preserve of
parliament. Rather than simply complaining about judicial
activism and the inactivity of parliament on some of the larger
issues I would like to make a specific suggestion.
Picking up on the comments about family by the Leader of the
Opposition I would suggest that the legal environment as set out
in M and H is as follows. First, discrimination between
unmarried heterosexual couples living in a conjugal relationship
is contrary to the guarantee section in section 15 of the
charter. Second, discrimination between married and unmarried
common law spouses is contrary to section 15 of the charter.
Third, discrimination between married and unmarried couples is
not contrary to section 15 if is intended to promote family,
children and marriage and has a socioeconomic basis that
parliament can articulate.
We have heard several suggestions. One of the easiest
suggestions is to do nothing. Others suggest we should use
section 33 to do an override. Might I suggest a more nuanced
approach to this major social issue. For want of a better term
may I suggest that it be called the three silos concept. The
first silo is that of marriage. The second silo is that of a
registered domestic partnership. The third silo is that of an
unregistered domestic partnership.
Marriage is a unique institution of great significance to many
Canadians particularly of religious and cultural communities. I
recommend that the government make a strong and positive
statement rather than simply use double negatives so that any
legislative ambiguities may be cleared up.
The second silo is that of registered domestic partnerships. An
operating principle of this second silo would be that it
deconjugalize the relationship so the state stays out of the
bedrooms of the nation.
It is, after all, a former prime minister's 80th birthday today.
He was the one who coined the great phrase that the state has no
business in the bedrooms of the nation. Surely that should be an
operative principle in anything we discuss.
1735
The second point in the domestic registered partnership is that
legislative entitlement and responsibility are based on
dependency rather than conjugality. I do not quite see why that
is so problematic for people. I do not really know why the state
should again be pursuing what happens in the bedrooms of the
nation. It should be a test of dependency rather than of
conjugality.
The third point of the operating principle of domestic
partnerships is that they be treated the same as marriage unless
parliament can demonstrate some compelling socioeconomic reason
otherwise.
Fourth, it should recognize that the family has many forms in
the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Fifth, the government should open a register for domestic
partnerships for same sex conjugal, same sex non-conjugal,
opposite sex conjugal and opposite sex non-conjugal, with the
only proviso that there be one relationship at a time and that
any rights or benefits not be greater than anything that would be
acquired by marriage.
Sixth, we should expunge the concept of spouse from the lexicon,
save and except for those people who are married, and replace
that language with that of partner.
Seventh, we would eliminate other forms of discrimination
between conjugal and non-conjugal couples.
Eighth is the principle that registered domestic partnership is
severed on death. It may be dissolved in the same manner as any
partnership.
The third silo is that of what is called a non-registered
domestic partnership, which would essentially be the same as a
second silo although in this particular instance the individual
couples claiming this benefit would have to prove on the balance
of probabilities that in fact they did live in a relationship
with some dependency.
I believe that the foregoing represents to the courts a measured
and fair response to the court decision. It reflects a variety
of views and a divergence of opinions and accommodates the
essential elements of the court decisions. If in fact parliament
were to adopt this kind of reasoning, the government would be
able to draft an omnibus bill. It is my belief that there would
be virtually no one in the House who could vote against the
positioning because of the wide range of views that are
accommodated. I would argue that parliament properly should
reflect that wide range of views.
To return to the theme as I have outlined it, I would prefer to
see parliament dealing with the big issues of the day rather than
exercises in partisan foolishness. I would prefer when I visit a
public school or a high school that I could point to colleagues
who have made thoughtful contributions to the big issues on both
sides of the House.
I appreciate the opportunity to present those views and I look
forward to questions.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon.
colleague opposite. He made a very thoughtful and thought
provoking speech. I know that as an active and able member of
the justice committee he holds very sincerely to the ideals he
has put forward.
I listened with particular interest when he spoke of
parliamentary neglect as opposed to judicial activism. I guess
it goes without saying that as a member on the government side he
is in a very unique position in his ability now to move the
government to being more active in some of the social areas that
he touched upon.
I want to focus my question to him specifically on an issue that
I know he holds dear to his heart. It involves the job that is
currently before our police forces, the RCMP and municipal forces
across the country. He would know that today the Canadian Police
Association held a press conference where it spoke on some of the
issues it feels are priority issues for it and consequently is
hoping to awaken the government with respect to some similar
issues.
In particular, I would like to get the member's comments arising
out of the throne speech where some of the policing issues I feel
were not given a great deal of attention or a great deal of
emphasis. We know that there were announcements, or perhaps more
appropriately I would call them reannouncements, of the general
commitment that the government has to policing services. However
there was never really any detail put forward as to what it
intends to do.
The hon. member would know that the RCMP in particular is facing
a near crisis with respect to the increase in drug trafficking,
illegal immigration, organized crime and crime stemming from the
increase in Mafia, and I am talking about Mafia from outside
Canada obviously.
1740
I wonder if the member would address specifically what he feels
the government can do and if his support is there with respect to
increased resources that would assist the police in their efforts
to fortify themselves for the storm of increasing criminal
activity that is resulting in increased crime and the public
pressures with which they are contending. At the same time
resources have been cut and they are not in a position to respond
adequately. I would suggest that the same situation exists in
our armed forces.
Specifically with respect to the police I am wondering what it
is he suggests we should be doing and what the government intends
to do about this increasing problem in Canada.
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments. I thought
my speech was about three silos, registered domestic partnerships
and so on. However I was asked a question about policing which I
do not think I mentioned.
Having said that, in some respects the response of the
government to many of these issues should be to refer a number of
them to the justice committee in particular or to other
committees as the case may be. I do not know that policing
issues take any greater priority than any other issue.
For instance, I just completed an interview with the CBC on
homelessness where some people are advocating a 1% solution, that
1% of all budgetary revenues on the part of the federal
government be devoted to homelessness. On the face of it that
has a superficial attractiveness to it. In my area of Toronto
and the GTA we have a particular problem with homelessness which
is frankly nation-wide.
How that ranks in priority to any resources that the police may
need I do not know. I know when the police come before the
justice committee they do make excellent presentations and what
they say is frequently heard. For instance, on the issue of
child pornography in the Shaw decision I really do not know why
that should stick to the government or to any particular party
because no one is in favour of that kind of activity.
That is the kind of thing that should be coming before the
justice committee, with the competing values to be analysed, the
competing requests for priority, whether they are police
priorities or other kinds of criminal justice priorities, and
then a reasoned decision is reached.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to join in
the throne speech debate. Let me open with a quote from the
throne speech:
We stand before a new century confident in the promise of Canada
for our children and grandchildren.
As the opening of the second session of parliament coincides
with the turn of the millennium, it is invigorating to see that
our government has the knowledge and foresight to engage itself
in the long term betterment of its population. Canada's quality
of life is second to none. Yet without proper management it is
difficult to sustain.
I applaud the government's untiring work not only to support our
nation but to encourage Canadians to grow beyond the envelope.
Our children and our children's children will ultimately benefit
from the new direction our government is now taking.
I understand full well the benefits and consequences of our
social system. In a recent era of cutbacks and slowdowns many
Canadians have seen the fabric of our social safety net fray, but
that era is finally behind us.
Outlined in the throne speech Canadian needs are being addressed
to ensure that their lives are significantly improved. With
better services being provided for early childhood education,
health, the environment, families and our infrastructure,
Canadians can face the challenges of the 21st century with
confidence.
The task at hand is in no way simple. It will require
perseverance and grit for every Canadian to see benefit from this
new direction. The throne speech states that “the strength of
Canada is reflected in its rich diversity”. This simple phrase
speaks volumes about Canada's ethnic makeup and the bounty all
Canadians reap from it. It is amazing to think in a world torn
asunder by wars of ethnic and religious hatred that Canada stands
apart like a beacon of tolerance.
This pluralistic cohabitation has led to an immense wealth of
culture, plucked from the very communities that make up Canada's
geography.
1745
A people are made up of their past and their future. The
synergy of these two creates Canada's national identity. It is
this identity that culture seeks to preserve, to bottle it in
words or movement, to embellish it in works of art or in
monuments that grace our parks. With new technologies come new
possibilities for enhancing our cultural heritage.
The 21st century will allow us to bring the world into the
classrooms and homes of every Canadian. No longer are Canadians
hindered by the vast distances that separate them. The digital
age is upon us. By plugging in, people will be able to explore
the world around them without leaving the comfort of their chair.
Our government must embrace this medium by linking our cultural
resources and ensuring access to all Canadians. The benefits
gained by such quality exposure are immeasurable.
If we speak of cultural heritage then it must also hold true for
the military. Canada just recently celebrated the 100th
anniversary of the Boer War, yet I wonder how many Canadians
really know much about it. Canadians owe it to our veterans to
ensure that the memory of their deeds remain in our collective
psyche.
Every regiment's imprint runs deep in their respective
communities. Each has its own story to tell and they often do it
with fervour. Regiments like the Royal Canadian Regiment, the
Hasty Pees, the Loyal Eddies, the Rileys and the Prince Edward
Island Regiment. The list goes on and on. As veterans pass and
memories fade, there is a generation of children and
grandchildren now making themselves aware of Canada's proud war
history and affirming their important role in educating
generations to come.
As such, we are standing on the forward edge of a new era where
digital technology will move beyond anything we can imagine and
will provide government with the tools to marry the past and
future into a seamless venue to attract and amaze viewers.
Imagine ourselves participating in a World War I dogfight in the
skies over northern Europe or experiencing the emotions as we
crash ashore in Normandy on June 6, 1944. Using leading edge
technology to improve our cultural attractions, this type of
viewer interaction is a real possibility. Renewed emphasis on
our National War Museum will not only enhance the prestige of our
historical past but will also the government to focus new
technologies into bringing the past alive.
Today's youth seem to lack the knowledge of the great deeds our
forefathers performed in acts of utter selflessness and courage.
I wonder how many people today really and truly understand the
meaning of Passchendaele, Vimy Ridge, the Scheldt or Hill 355. The
government has a duty to pay homage to that past, to elevate and
preserve their memory for time immemorial.
The Canadian War Museum will not only honour those who served in
war and peacekeeping but will also ensure that their legacy of
heroism and sacrifice is not forgotten by generations that have
never experienced war.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened quite intently to the hon. member's very eloquent
speech. I commend him on pointing out the importance of the rich
diversity of our country.
I was somewhat disappointed with the throne speech. While it
speaks about Canada as being a bilingual country in which both
men and women of many different cultures, races and religions
participate in economic, social and political life and our
diversity is a source of strength and creativity making us modern
and forward-looking, that seems to be where it stops. The words
are good but I think most of us would agree that words without
action do not really mean a lot.
It saddened me during the last session when I had to approach
the government to explain to the House why the appointment of a
black female judge to a unified court in Nova Scotia did not take
place. To this day I have not yet received a response to
satisfactorily explain what took place in that situation.
1750
What we really say to people in our society comes through by our
actions more so than the words that are written in a speech. If
this speech is to be meaningful as we move forward into the 21st
century, if we are to give more substance to these words, then
the actions have to prove and bear out that we really mean what
we are talking about in terms of the diversity of our country
making us strong and people having equal opportunities.
When the hon. member mentioned the military, I thought about our
veteran merchant mariners who are still fighting for justice,
still seeking some form of compensation to make up for the
injustice that was done to them following the war. Those kinds
of actions or lack of action by the government say more to people
than words in a throne speech talking about being supportive.
Does the hon. member have any comments to make on those
particular instances? Could he also perhaps indicate how he sees
his government moving forward in a real positive way to give some
substance to the words that are in the throne speech?
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would really like to
respond to the first part of the member's question but I do not
have the background on the issue at hand. As I do not know the
situation thoroughly, I feel I would be overstepping the
knowledge I have in order to give an answer.
We both see eye to eye and we will continue to work on behalf of
our veterans who crewed the ships during the war and were lost in
heavy numbers or were taken prisoner well in advance of many
members of the Canadian forces. It is certainly my wish to see a
wrong righted in that area as well.
I do not think I can say much more other than to say that we do
see eye to eye. As we are both on the same committee, we will
both continue to work for the betterment of our naval seamen who
worked, some of whom lost their lives and now have very little
compensation for their efforts.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in standing
to speak to the throne speech, I must say that there were no big
surprises.
Since I hold the critic responsibility for the Reform Party in
the area of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I eagerly
scanned the throne speech to see what was in there that related
to aboriginal people and the challenges that aboriginal people
and government face in Canada today. I was not surprised but I
was disappointed to see that there was no change in direction on
the part of the government and that it is steady as she goes.
The government feels that it is charting the right course. It
obviously continues to use words like partnership, gathering
strength and all kinds of nice words and phrases that would leave
the average person listening to the throne speech with the
impression that progress has been made, is actually being made
and that things are continuing to improve.
I can assure the House that nothing could be further from the
truth. In fact, for aboriginal people in Canada things continue
to go downhill. The social problems on reserves continue to
worsen. The economic circumstances for aboriginal people living
on reserves continue to worsen. The programs that have been put
in place by successive governments over a long period of time in
the country have actually, if anything, been counterproductive to
the health and welfare of aboriginal people in Canada.
As an example, the Government of Canada decided to invest in
aboriginal economic development back in the early 1990s. It
spent $1 billion on aboriginal economic development over a period
of four years. These facts are all contained in the Auditor
General's Report to parliament. Over the same period of time
that the $1 billion was expended, the economic conditions on
reserves worsened, the unemployment rate continued to increase
and the overall picture continue to worsen, to darken, rather
than to improve.
1755
The question one naturally asks is why would the government
continue to go down the same road when there have been no
positive results and there continue to be negative results? Do
we not learn as human beings from experience? Do we not look to
the past to gather and analyse information to assist us in making
decisions about what we are going to do in the future? That is
really what learning and human history is all about. The
government has refused to do that.
Naturally, one asks why we would go through the trouble of
having all of these government departments that can track the
impacts and effects of various government programs and
expenditures if we are not going to pay attention to the results.
I have come to the conclusion that the government by choice
automatically insulates itself from the realities of its own
policies. It does not want that feedback. It does not want to
know that its policies are failures.
The government does not want to know because it does not want to
admit that it has failed. The government lacks the vision and the
courage to think outside the box, to think in some new way that
could perhaps be of great benefit not only to aboriginal people
but to the country as a whole. Obviously, the country has a
challenge in front of it which badly needs to be addressed.
The Liberals do not have the courage to face that challenge.
They do not have the courage to admit that the way things have
been done in the past, the policies that have been implemented
and the taxpayers' money that has been expended has not been of
any benefit to native people in Canada.
Is the government not willing at least to analyse the results of
its policies? We would think that at least a majority of native
leaders would be interested in going through that analysis and
going back to government and saying that what the government has
been doing has not been working and they need a change. Why are
the chiefs and councils across Canada not engaged in a process of
examination and analysis? Why are they not advocating for
change?
I think the reason becomes clear when more time is spent looking
at what the department of Indian affairs does and how it has a
relationship with native leaders across Canada and native leaders
at the national level. There is a symbiotic relationship. Both
parties are unwilling to admit failure because they fundamentally
do not want to change the status quo. The reason most native
leaders do not want to change the status quo is that they are
caught up in the system. Some direct personal benefit accumulates
to them as a result of being part of the system.
One of the things that strikes me as I travel from place to
place and talk with grassroots aboriginal people is that they
feel as fundamentally disconnected from their leaders in many
cases as do ordinary Canadians from their political leaders.
There is a sense of frustration that the programs are supposed to
be benefiting them as individuals but they are not hitting the
mark.
One has to do a critical analysis to determine why that is the
case. The greatest mistake the federal government has made and
continues to make and shows no sign of changing when it comes to
native people is it continues to treat native people as
collectivities rather than as individuals. It wants to deal in
programs and policies that are related directly to
collectivities. That is why we see certain things in modern
treaties that are being negotiated.
The Nisga'a treaty is mentioned in the throne speech. We are
going to have a lot more to say about it in the coming weeks when
the government actually introduces the legislation. Fundamentally
it sees the Nisga'a as a collectivity of some 5,000 people. It
does not see the individuals.
It looks at the Nisga'a people, and aboriginal people in general,
as being some kind of homogeneous group that thinks the same way,
that wants the same things and that fundamentally has a culture
that is different from the rest of Canada and therefore must be
treated differently.
1800
Of course, what gets lost in the shuffle when that happens is
the individual. Individual rights are put on the back burner in
favour of collective rights, and individual aboriginal people are
coming to that realization in a major way in the country.
Individual native people are coming to understand that their
rights as Canadians are fundamentally sidelined in favour of
these collective rights that are somehow supposed to benefit
them, but they see very clearly that those benefits are not
accruing.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member. It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment now before
the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1830
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 93
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
PAIRED
Members
Canuel
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Lalonde
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Normand
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
lost.
The next question is on the amendment.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion
now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 93
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
PAIRED
Members
Canuel
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Lalonde
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Normand
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
It being 6.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)