36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 132
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 19, 2000
0900
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Department of Justice—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
0905
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
0910
0915
0920
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
0925
0930
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
0935
0940
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
0945
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
0950
0955
| Division on Motion M-230 deferred
|
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1000
| Sitting Resumed
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| CANADIAN PEACEKEEPING SERVICE MEDAL ACT
|
| Bill C-511. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1005
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Bill C-512. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| PETITIONS
|
| Charter of Rights and Freedoms
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| National Debt
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Nuclear Armaments
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1010
| Age of Consent
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Falun Gong
|
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Motion
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1015
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1020
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1025
1030
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1035
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1040
1045
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1050
| Mr. John Bryden |
1055
1100
1105
1110
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1115
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1120
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1125
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1130
1135
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1140
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1145
1150
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1155
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1220
1225
1230
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1255
| Mr. John McKay |
1300
1305
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1310
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1315
1320
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1325
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1330
1335
1340
1345
| CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
|
| Bill C-45. Committee of the Whole
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Amendment
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Amendment
|
1350
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1355
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| 2000 MANIFESTO FOR PEACE
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| FESTIVAL OF DIWALI
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1405
| THE LATE ROBERT BEALE
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| MEMBER FOR EDMONTON SOUTHWEST
|
| Mr. Ian McClelland |
| CO-OPERATIVES
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY AWARDS
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
1410
| CO-OPERATIVES
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| BRAIN TUMOUR AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| MINING
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER QUADRA
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1415
| HOME SUPPORT WORKERS WEEK
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
|
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1435
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1445
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1450
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. John Williams |
1455
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEALTH CANADA
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1500
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1505
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1510
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1515
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Income Tax Act
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1530
(Division 1427)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1535
| LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Motion
|
1545
(Division 1428)
| Motion negatived
|
1555
| ROBERT MARLEAU
|
1600
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1605
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1610
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1615
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1620
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1625
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1630
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-44. Second reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1705
1710
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1715
1720
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1725
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1730
| Transportation
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1735
| Gun Registry
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1740
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Communications
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1745
| Mr. John Cannis |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 132
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 19, 2000
The House met at 9 a.m.
Prayers
0900
[English]
PRIVILEGE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question
of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot on June 15 concerning
interference with a vote in the House.
0905
[Translation]
I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter,
as well as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Justice, the hon. member for Winnipeg South and the House Leader
of the Official Opposition for their submissions on this issue.
[English]
The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot
stated that the Department of Justice had wilfully misled members
with respect to the views of the privacy commissioner concerning
Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to
make amendments to other acts by circulating a document in which
the commissioner was characterized as opposing the bill.
He claimed both that the privacy commissioner had indicated
support for the bill and that, in any case, the commissioner had
not made his views with respect to the bill known when the
Department of Justice had prepared the document which it provided
to members.
[Translation]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, in his
intervention, indicated that the government considered the
comments in the document to be a fair and accurate assessment of
the privacy commissioner's view. He cited a number of sources in
support of this position, including a meeting with officials of
the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as well as the privacy
commissioner's annual report tabled in the House on May 16, 2000.
[English]
I examined with care the document submitted and I have reviewed
all the arguments presented to me. This is a matter which the
Chair views with extreme seriousness.
Speaker Jerome, when dealing with a case related to the
misleading of a member, quoted the procedural principle d issue
which is clearly set out in Erskine May (Journals, November
9, 1978, page 126):
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented
to either House or to committees of either House, forged,
falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such
House or committees—
Clearly, there is disagreement in the present case over the
interpretation of the views of the privacy commissioner available
to the government prior to the vote on Bill C-206. However, it
is not the Speaker's role to adjudicate concerning such matters
of interpretation. What I am required to rule on is a more
narrow procedural issue: whether a wilful attempt has been made
to mislead the House. While members may disagree with the way in
which others view a situation, at times disagree very strongly,
that is a different matter than the serious charge that such an
interpretation is knowingly and wilfully false. Only on the
strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take
steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.
In the present case, on the basis of the statements made in the
House and of the documents presented for the Chair's
consideration, I can find no support for a claim that the
privileges of the House have been breached in this way.
I would like to thank the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for drawing this matter
to the attention of the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made on
Tuesday, October 12, 2000, the House will now proceed to
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise in the House today to respond to Motion M-230.
0910
The motion by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert has two parts.
The first part would make labelling a genetically modified food
compulsory. The motion also calls for the government to carry
out exhaustive studies on the long term effects of genetically
modified foods.
Let me begin by saying that the protection of our food supply
for the well-being of Canadians, animals and our environment is
of the utmost importance to the government. Canada's food supply
involves many hardworking partners from producers, processors and
distributors to consumers. Throughout the system new food
products, including those derived from biotechnology, are subject
to stringent regulation, enforcement and inspection. Canada has
high standards for new food products of biotechnology and we are
known world wide for them.
On the question of labelling foods, our federal legislation
calls for Health Canada to set the requirements for mandatory
labelling. Each new food product, whether produced through
biotechnology or some other process, must go through a rigorous
pre-market safety evaluation before it can be introduced on to
the marketplace. The data requirements for the safety
assessments are established by Health Canada.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, on the other hand, is
responsible for all aspects of the federal food legislation
relating to non-safety matters, such as the control of fraud in
food labelling. The agency carries out inspection and
enforcement activities relative to food safety standards set by
Health Canada. The CFIA also has responsibility for the
environmental safety assessment of a number of agricultural
products, such as plants, animal feeds and veterinarian vaccines,
including those derived through biotechnology. In carrying out
these responsibilities, the CFIA protects consumers from food
safety hazards or product misrepresentation, as well, it protects
the safety of animals and the environment.
Let me be clear that current labelling regulations in Canada
require that all food products, including those developed through
biotechnology, be labelled if a potential human health or safety
issue has been identified or if foods have been changed in
composition or nutrition. Labelling decisions are made by Health
Canada and are based on the results of their food safety
evaluations. These decisions are science based. In fact, the
best available science is used to make these decisions.
Let me address the first part of the motion before us by
reminding the House that several initiatives are already now in
place to study the question of how and when to label a
genetically modified food.
The government believes that all food labelling must be
truthful, meaningful and enforceable. We have strongly
encouraged the establishment of a Canadian standard for the
labelling of foods derived through biotechnology. This standard
will include provisions for clear definitions, acceptable label
statements and claims in advertising, as well as compliance and
verification measures.
The Canadian General Standards Board, under the sponsorship of
the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, is in the process
of developing this standard through open and inclusive
consultation.
Representatives and individuals from a broad range of Canadian
interests have formed a committee to work on this standard. They
have been working hard over the past year and are putting
together a definitive draft standard which is expected to be
completed over the next number of months. By endorsing a
consensus based process to develop a labelling standard, Canada
is indeed a leader world wide.
Just recently the U.S. food and drug administration announced
its attention to facilitate a voluntary labelling approach, a
development process that will start this fall. In addition to
such initiatives, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food began its hearings on the labelling of genetically
modified food this spring. It has already heard from Health
Canada, the CFIA and consumer groups. Canada is leading the
development of international standards governing how and when
genetically modified foods are labelled.
As the hon. member is aware, Canada chairs a Codex Alimentarius
committee on food labelling, otherwise known as the CCFL. At the
May 2000 Codex meeting in Ottawa, Canada was recognized for its
success in chairing the CCFL working groups that drafted key
options and recommendations for the labelling of biotechnology
derived foods. Again this year Canada has been asked to lead a
working group to turn these May 2000 options into a Codex
guideline that can be then implemented.
0915
Informed consumers making informed choices is paramount. These
initiatives represent a significant and dedicated effort by
Canadians for Canadians as we seek the best way to make truthful,
meaningful information available to consumers.
I reiterate that the House should not support Motion No. 230 on
the basis of the first part of the motion on labelling and turn
to consideration of the second part of the hon. member's motion.
The second part recommends that exhaustive studies be carried
out on the long term effects of genetically modified foods on
health and the environment. The safety assessment of
conventional products and products derived through biotechnology
are both subject to stringent health and safety requirements
under Canada's food safety system. The Government of Canada is
diligent when it comes to food safety and the protection of
Canadians, animals and the environment. Our regulatory process
is fundamental to Canada's strong reputation as a producer of
foods that are consistently safe, nutritious and of high quality.
Canada built its international reputation by putting very
rigorous regulatory systems in place.
Our approval systems are science based and transparent. The
government's decision to accept or reject a product is based on
sound science and factual information. Federal regulatory
scientists have experience in a wide range of areas, including
nutrition, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology and
environmental science to name just a few.
Canadian regulators set the comprehensive data requirements for
the environmental safety of new agricultural products derived
through biotechnology. These scientists demand that the quality
of this data be of the highest calibre and that the research
directly assess and address the potential risks of the product to
human health and the environment. If there is any question as to
the safety of these products, they are not approved. The
government continually reviews the effectiveness of its approach.
The Government of Canada takes pride in advocating its science
based approach around the world. It relies on the need for
scientific research to settle questions related to long term
health, safety and environmental issues. The government is
committed to a regulatory system that meets the highest standards
of scientific rigour.
This commitment is reflected in the establishment of two
important groups, an expert panel and an advisory committee. The
Royal Society of Canada has appointed an independent expert panel
to examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology
and to provide advice to the federal government accordingly. This
proactive, forward thinking body would advise Health Canada, the
CFIA and Environment Canada on the science capacity the federal
government will need to maintain the safety of new foods being
derived through biotechnology in the 21st century.
The royal society named its expert panel this past February.
From examining the leading edge of this technology, the panel
will recommend what new research, policies and regulatory
capacity will be needed to ensure that Canada's standards of
safety remain stringent for the next generation of biotechnology
derived foods.
A number of challenges and opportunities associated with
biotechnology require detailed consideration and public
discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with
challenges but also great and unprecedented opportunities.
The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, or CBAC, will
bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise the
government, to raise public awareness and to engage Canadians in
an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology issues.
Canadians want to take part in the dialogue on food
biotechnology.
The CBAC will create opportunities for Canadians to participate
in its activities and discussions. This includes an interactive
website for interested Canadians to review, consult and provide
input into this topic among others.
The work of the royal society's expert panel will contribute to
this balanced and consultative process where all questions and
concerns can be thoroughly considered. The government looks
forward to the contributions the expert panel and the CBAC will
make to furthering the dialogue on biotechnology issues.
I assure the hon. member for Louis-Hébert that the government
will continue to undertake the steps necessary to ensure the
health of Canadians, animals and our environment.
0920
The 2000 federal budget confirms this priority in Canada's
regulatory system. The $90 million investment in the regulatory
system for biotechnology products will allow Health Canada,
through the CFIA and other regulatory departments, to continue to
enhance and evolve their regulatory approach of safety first to
keep pace with the next generation of scientific discoveries.
This increased investment illustrates the Government of Canada's
continued dedication to supporting the regulatory system for the
benefit of all Canadians. We can take pride in the steps the
Government of Canada has taken. We have initiatives under way to
ensure—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has already
given the hon. member as much time as possible.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
before I get into the meat of the motion itself I would like to
thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for bringing forward a
motion with respect to genetically modified foods.
I have had the opportunity for most of my time in the House to
sit on the agricultural committee. It has been a very enjoyable
part of my business here. I am sure the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert brings this motion forward because she honestly
believes in her heart that this is the most important issue now
facing Canadians, particularly in agriculture. The hon. member
is very knowledgeable. She speaks very eloquently to the motion
put before us today with respect to mandatory labelling and
making sure that when foods are put forward to the Canadian
public they are safe and edible.
In my constituency of Brandon—Souris agriculture is a very
important facet of the economy. The economy of my area is
basically agriculture. As we know, agriculture has not had too
many bright spots recently. We have had a major problem with
competition from the Europeans and Americans, particularly in
terms of unfair subsidization. We have had some disasters in my
area and suffered subsequent losses in production. There has
been a cloud over agriculture.
If there is one bright spot, it could and should be
biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. There is a
real opportunity here in agriculture to diversify. There is a
real opportunity to make sure that agriculture increases its
production in the next numbers of years through biotechnology and
genetically modified organisms.
The subject of GMOs makes most people nervous. It makes most
consumers nervous. Although much of the focus in the media has
been on food products derived from biotechnology, pharmaceuticals
and health and pest control products on the market are also
derived from biotechnology.
With respect to food products, biotechnology has the potential
to increase the competitiveness of the Canadian agrifood industry
by increasing individual competitiveness and exporting high value
agrifood products.
Biotechnology has the potential to increase the yields needed to
compensate for the increase in world population. It offers the
opportunity and the potential to develop more sustainable
agricultural practices by reducing the need for chemical weed and
pest control. This in itself is a major potential opportunity in
agriculture.
Biotechnology has the potential to enable the environmentally
beneficial practice of no-till agriculture. This would reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. Biotechnology also has the potential
to create markets by introducing value added products, the
diversification that agriculture so desperately needs.
There is the potential for value to be passed on from the
producer to the consumer. This can and is being done, and we can
prove it. It is possible to immunize the population by placing
in foods medications to lower cholesterol, for example. These
are known as neutraceuticals or output traits.
0925
For example, it was reported recently that scientists in the
United States have created a strain of genetically altered rice
to combat vitamin A deficiency, the world's leading cause of
blindness.
The challenges we must face in creating a solid and dynamic
biotechnology industry are two-fold. First, we must create a
climate in which industry sectors can flourish both here and
internationally. Second, we must meet the public's concerns
about their own health and the environment in terms of the safety
of genetically modified organisms.
Genetically modified foods have helped the Canadian agricultural
industry become competitive in the global economy. They have
helped farmers make better use of their land and provide more
food for a world that needs food. However, it is absolutely
mandatory that the government take every step possible to address
the definition of genetically modified foods and to protect
consumers.
The principal concern with the use of biotechnology in food
products is the question of food security. Numerous reports,
mostly from Europe, have negatively impacted consumer confidence
in Canada as a result of claims made about food safety. There
are concerns that there is not enough risk assessment work being
done on consumer products delivered from biotechnology in Canada.
Consumers have clearly indicated that they want to be informed,
through labelling, about foods that have been altered, and favour
such foods that provide tangible benefits. An Angus Reid survey
found that two-thirds of Canadians say that they would be less
likely to buy food they know has been genetically modified. I
would argue that the simple part is the change of label. A far
more extensive process is needed to determine the GM status of
foods and to monitor their continuing status. In any event,
developing national guidelines on labelling must be done in
conjunction with the development of standards at the
international level, for instance through the Codex commission,
the international standards setting body for foods.
With regard to agriculture and agrifood, the Canadian food
inspection agency conducts safety and environmental assessments
of fertilizers, seeds, plants, plant products, animals, vaccines
animal disease kits and feeds. It also enforces portions of the
Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada is responsible for assessing
the safety of novel foods that may include biotechnology
products.
Before a genetically modified crop is approved for production it
must pass through a series of rigorous tests designed to protect
the health of humans, animals and the environment. When biotech
companies wish to market a certain genetically modified organism,
they must provide all information required to carry out an
environmental safety assessment. Without providing the necessary
information, approval will not be granted.
That being said, there is still much work to be done in terms of
long term studies on health and environmental considerations.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes Canada's
biotechnology industry and genetically enhanced foods have for
the most part benefited our agriculture and agrifood sectors and
Canada as a whole. Biotechnology offers major opportunities to
improve both environmental integrity and food quality.
However, as technology advances quickly, there are also concerns
that biotechnology will put the safety of Canada's food at risk.
That is why our biotechnology regulatory system must be based on
science. The federal government must still actively play a role
in clarifying and explaining future Canadian policy on labelling
in consultation with all stakeholders in order to help alleviate
any concerns Canadians have with respect to GMOs.
The federal government must be more forthcoming in explaining
the regulatory system to Canadians. The federal government must
ensure that there are sufficient resources and expertise within
both Health Canada and the Canadian food inspection agency so
that Canadians retain a high level of trust in the regulatory
process for GM products. The whole country is looking to the
government for leadership on this issue. It is an issue that
must be addressed. The Department of Health must provide the
regulatory system to control this whole subject. Labelling is
part of that, but it is not enough. It does not go far enough.
The onus is on the government to deal with this situation. I
applaud the hon. member for bringing forward this motion
requiring labelling, but it is not enough. It does not address
some of the main issues.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has not yet
completed its analysis of this issue, and this motion would
unnecessarily pre-empt the work of the committee. Exhaustive
studies on the long term effects cannot be defined. It would be
very difficult to do exhaustive studies on the long term effects
without stopping the process now.
0930
Finally, the Progressive Conservative Party unfortunately will
not be supporting the motion although I do have the utmost
respect for the member for Louis-Hébert. Unfortunately it is
not the best way to assure Canadians that the genetically
modified organism debate is ongoing. It is necessary that
government be more forthcoming with Canadians. It is necessary
that Canadians be educated on the benefits of genetically
modified organisms.
In grocery stores right now, a number of the products on the
shelves do have components of genetically modified organisms and
have for years and years. We see a great deal of opportunity in
biotechnology and GMO. We do not believe that a mandatory
labelling system right now should be done without the
international concurrence of other trading partners of ours. For
that matter, consumers, to be better educated, must have input as
to what is going to happen with respect to GMO.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address Motion No. 230 presented by the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert which asks the government to make the
labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory and to carry
out exhaustive studies on the long term effects of these foods
on health and the environment.
A lot of progress has been made since the month of May. A
similar motion was presented by an NDP member and, less than a
week ago, the member for Davenport introduced Bill C-500, which
also seeks to make the labelling of genetically modified foods
compulsory.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hébert
for her determination. All the members of this House are now
aware of this issue and some are even following her example by
proposing similar measures. This is all to the credit of my
colleagues.
The issue of GMOs involves many aspects, particularly as regards
health. But today, I want to emphasize the environmental
aspects. The environment must be a central concern, if only
because it is related to health.
It all began in 1996 with the Convention on Biodiversity, which
sought to deal with the issues relating to ecosystems and
species by providing a framework of principles on which
signatory states agreed.
Article 19 indicates that the signatories must be encouraged to
put into place tools which will regularize, manage or control
the risks related to the use or presence of living modified
organisms resulting from biotechnology.
After the Rio conference, and within the framework of meetings
of the parties to the Convention on Biodiversity, negotiations
for the creation of a protocol on biosecurity were soon to
follow, with a view to providing a more solid and detailed
framework as far as prevention of biotechnological risks are
concerned.
The meetings between countries on biodiversity that have taken
place since Rio are: Nassau, in November and December 1994;
Jakarta, in 1995; Buenos Aires, in 1996; Bratislava, in 1998:
and Nairobi, in 2000.
At the Jakarta meeting, the parties to the convention decided to
put into place a special group charged with preparing a protocol
specifically on biosecurity, an issue related to the transfer
and handling of genetically modified organisms.
In 1999, at a multilateral meeting in Cartagena, negotiations
focused on a project aimed at creating a risk evaluation
procedure for GMOs and rules for their labelling.
Most regrettably, Canada unfortunately blocked ratification of
this protocol, joining forces with the five country Miami group
led by the United States.
0935
As for the European countries, they felt that the principle of
precaution ought to take precedence, believing that in the
absence of scientific certainty on the hazards of GMOs it was
necessary to take all of the steps needed to avoid harmful
effects on human health. A responsible attitude, in my opinion.
Unfortunately Canada opposed this example of responsible
management of a product with potential danger to human health.
Clearly Canada has always defended commercial interests.
Moreover, this was pointed out by the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development in his last report in
May.
I would like to quote a new study that was released last July
which tends to confirm that the pollen from genetically
modified corn is fatal to the larvae of certain butterfly. This
adds fuel to the GMO controversy.
A number of countries manage GMOs rationally. They make
labelling of food containing such products mandatory. In truth,
they make the precautionary principle a priority.
It is paradoxical to note that this week the Minister of
Health favourably received the recommendation of the Standing
Committee on the Environment that the precautionary principle be
applied in the registration of pesticides.
The minister of agriculture could care less about the
precautionary principle in the case of the GMOs. When will this
government be consistent in its positions? I do not suppose
it will happen overnight.
GMOs can have considerable impact on the environment through the
transmission of genes in nature, in other words, the gene flow.
This is no theoretical eventuality but a certainty which has
been shown in many countries, including in Africa.
It is distressing to see certain multinationals, certain
Canadian companies, testing genetically modified crops in the
open. The government must be aware that this approach releases
into nature the characteristic of resistance to herbicides of
certain GMOs, which could find their way into natural species.
This is therefore not rare, and we learned this fact in a report
by Radio-Canada on the weekend in which huge fields in Africa had
become sterile because of genetically modified seed.
Given that the development strategy of many African nations
relies heavily on the export of raw materials, particularly
agricultural ones, it is clear that the issue of genetically
modified organisms is of great concern.
All this is to say that urgent action is required and that the
federal government should make labelling of genetically modified
foods compulsory. With all these problems, it is easy to
understand the public's fears. People want to know what they
are eating. We know that at the present time between 30% and
50% of canola plants in Canada are GMOs.
I am not trying to upset members of the public by telling them
to stop eating products containing canola or to stop eating
altogether. That is not my purpose today. Given the risks
associated with GMOs, I think the government has a moral
obligation insofar as it is required to ensure public safety.
How can the government allow the public to go on being afraid
that what they are eating is a time bomb.
As with the issue of pesticides, caution must prevail and I urge
the member for Davenport to wake up and get this across to his
Liberal colleagues. The member for Davenport, who tells all and
sundry that protection of the environment is his priority, must
support the motion by the member for Louis-Hébert. When we vote,
I want him to know that I will be watching him.
Consumers, people just like us, all those listening today, must
know exactly what they are eating. That is why all
parliamentarians in the House should support the motion by the
member for Louis-Hébert and get it passed today so that we can
resume consideration of it after the election.
0940
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to
speak to Motion No. 230 with regard to genetically modified
organisms.
I would like to point out that my speech will be relatively
short. I found the solution to long speeches in this place when
I had a farm accident and broke my leg. As a result I cannot
stand for long periods, so I will make my speech relatively
short.
I have been listening to the Bloc Quebecois talk about
genetically modified organisms. What I hear throughout their
speeches is in essence fear-mongering to the Canadian public that
there may in fact be something wrong, that there is a time bomb
on our plates.
This kind of discussion appeals more to the emotions of
Canadians and not to the scientific evidence that is in place.
When it comes to issues of food and food safety in Canada, we
have to rely on science, not on emotion. The scientific facts
are that Canada's food supply is safe and that it is going to
continue to be safe because we have a bureaucracy in this country
that is reflective of Canada's desire for a safe food supply.
I can tell members absolutely that in the agriculture standing
committee I have asked every witness who came forward this
question “Are you aware of anyone who has ever become sick or
ill from eating genetically modified products or who in any way
felt that food they ate that contained genetically modified
products made them sick in any way?” Every one of them said
that not in any place in this whole world has there been a case
like that.
Even if the science is not 100%, and there is always risk in
everything, I think the scientific evidence to date is very
clearly on the side that shows foods produced from plants that
have had a genetic modification for disease resistance or pest
resistance are in fact safe. Until there is some kind of
evidence or until something shows up that would actually indicate
a threat of any kind to human health, or an unacceptable risk
even, I will even go that far. There is no unacceptable risk
at this time. I do not believe that our scientific community or
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would ever let that happen,
because nothing gets onto our plates that has not been fully
checked.
The Canadian Alliance strongly believes that consumers must be
given a choice in the products they purchase. A consumer driven,
voluntary labelling system for GMOs should be put in place
immediately, which would market GMO-free products in a way
similar to organic foods. No one is saying that we should not
have labelling if the wholesalers, retailers and consumers want
it.
Our government on the other side, the Liberal government, has
been very slow in bringing about the necessary studies and
research to indicate what should be on a label if in fact a food
distributor wanted to put something there. We are not against
labelling but we are against labelling that is mandatory, that
would be put in place right now like the Bloc would have it,
without any knowledge about what in fact should go on the label.
In effect it would be like trying to tell people that we do not
have any real scientific evidence but they should be afraid of
something that has GMO on it.
Certainly Canada's position right now not to support mandatory
labelling is the right one, because there is no consensus as to
what should even be on the label. If food distributors start
putting big scientific explanations on labels, I guarantee that
the very consumers the Bloc is talking about will not understand
it and will not be any better informed than if there is nothing
on there and they rely on the food inspection agency, which
guarantees that the food is safe, that it will not harm them.
0945
I have mentioned that regulatory decisions involving Canada's
food supply must be based upon clearer scientific information.
There is no alternative to that. Emotion cannot be the deciding
factor, or provinces or countries which for economic reasons
might want to use the big GMO scare as a non-tariff trade barrier
or protect some other social or economic issue they feel is
pertinent to their region. I am thinking either of Canada or, in
the case of our trading partners, the whole world, the best
example being European countries.
It is a clear fact that the European countries, the very ones
the Bloc is saying are in favour of mandatory labelling, are
proceeding with scientific research and development of GMO
products. If we do not continue with our scientific endeavours,
the economic future of the new technology and new industries that
will be important in years to come will be located in Europe, not
in Canada or North America.
I also hear the scare about big companies, those ferocious
companies that will ruin the world. That is a very socialistic
kind of concept. Big corporations provide us with a lot of our
jobs and have the wherewithal to make scientific advancements
like we see happening in space and in biotechnology. These
things would not happen without the corporate structure to drive
them.
We have seen countries like the Soviet Union that have tried to
do it through regulatory processes. That does not work. In a
market driven economy consumers will tell retailers. Retailers
who want to make a profit will respond by saying that it seems
folks want mandatory labelling showing that the corn, for
example, has been genetically modified. Therefore they agree, the
food is safe, and wholesalers respond.
While that is all well and good, those three levels must
understand that there is a cost to everything. That cost cannot
be passed on to grain companies that pass it along to farmers.
Our farmers cannot afford the cost of segregating grain and
delivering it through to elevators and railways.
I did not hear the Bloc Quebecois saying anything about how
mandatory labelling would be paid for. I guarantee that by hook
or by crook it will not be western Canadian farmers who produce
canola and whom the Bloc has identified as culprits in the GMO
issue.
I have laid out the position of the Canadian Alliance. We want
consumers to choose and for the government of the day, which
after November 27 will be the Canadian Alliance, to put in place
a very clear voluntary labelling system so that retailers know
what kind of informative label to put on.
I expect to be back here in January 2001. I do not expect to be
sitting on this side of the House. I expect to be on that side
of the House. I do not expect to see the member for
Brandon—Souris here either.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 230 put
forward by the member for Louis-Hébert.
As other speakers have done, I congratulate the member. In my
observation of the agriculture committee and the House, she is
always someone who does her homework and has made great
contributions to debate.
0950
I say in very general terms that the NDP caucus and party have
looked closely at the whole issue of GM products and foods. We
believe we have to take both a balanced and a cautious approach.
I will go into a bit more detail on that in a few minutes.
However from the outset I state that we support compulsory
labelling for GM food products.
There is nothing more personal, more intimate or more
significant than the food each one of us puts into his or her
mouth. We must have knowledge of what is actually on our plates
and going into our bodies.
There was a time when most people in the world grew their own
food or hunted it and prepared it themselves. In those cases
they would have known exactly what the food contained. Society
is now much more complex and compartmentalized. We are not able
to do that so we have to rely on information provided to us. In
this complex society we have to rely on government to protect us
by regulation. That is what we are talking about and that is one
of the strong arguments for compulsory labelling.
We went through this many years ago with a whole range of other
products when the consumer movement, if I may call it that, was
born. We have been through a cycle of this sort. It seems now
in certain ways that there is some regression setting in, in the
way voluntary labelling is being described. With respect I want
to tell government members that their support of voluntary
labelling is simply not good enough.
As a little digression, the hon. member of the Canadian Alliance
said a few minutes ago that consumers would tell us what they
want. They have already told us in this case. Various polls
indicate that more than 90% of Canadian consumers want compulsory
labelling. I say to that member of the Canadian Alliance, if we
are to follow consumers as he says we should, that is where we
would be following them and not down the trail he has described.
Consumers have caught on to all of this, as the polls indicate.
They have especially done so in Europe. The member of the
Canadian Alliance went on to say that this is some sort of scheme
and a non-trade barrier. He said that somehow or other we have
the right not only to put whatever food products we want into
Europe and anywhere else in the world, but in a sense to
force-feed people, to put food into people's mouths.
To go back to the beginning of my speech, there is nothing more
sacred than people's right to know and to choose what they will
put into their bodies. There might be some non-tariff thinking
going on in the European Union. I am not saying there is not. I
am simply saying it is not good enough for us to say we have the
right to blast our way into that market, on to the plates and
into the mouths of millions of consumers wherever they are.
I will put the question of GM food, if I may, into some context.
The NDP caucus and party have described this in some detail. We
know that biotechnology as applied to food production is poised
to expand significantly in the next millennium. We also
recognize that agricultural biotechnology contains both the
promise of increasing production and adding value to agriculture.
It also poses potential risks to production patterns, food
safety and the environment.
We have taken a look at the issue. We believe we have to put
safety first when we determine through science based decision
making what we will do about GM products and GM foods. We believe
that so far we have not had adequate public discussion of the
issue. There should be a full scale, national public discussion
on genetically modified food, which should include mechanisms for
meaningful public input and feedback.
As I have indicated, we also want a labelling process that will
make consumers aware of genetically modified produce and
components in processed foods.
0955
We have a whole other series of motions related to genetically
modified foods which came out of our convention last summer, but
it seems that I do not have time to get into them. In
conclusion, we will be supporting the member's motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 9.55 a.m., the time
provided for debate has expired.
Consequently, the motion will be put to a vote. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made on
Tuesday, October 17, the recorded division stands deferred
until later this day.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It being two or three minutes prior to the normal time for
routine proceedings, I would ask that the House suspend for those
few minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House is
suspended until 10 o'clock.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 9.57 a.m.)
1000
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 10.01 a.m.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to table in both official languages a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed to be referred to the appropriate standing committees, a
list of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to nine
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to table in the
House in both official languages two reports of the Canadian
section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, as
well as the related financial report.
The first report has to do with the meeting of the executive
which was held at Yaoundé, Cameroon on July 4, 2000, and the
second with the 26th ordinary session held July 6 through 8,
2000 also at Yaoundé, Cameroon.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the ninth
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, November 30, 1999 a
subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights was established to conduct a study on organized crime to
analyze the options available to parliament to combat the
activities of criminal groups and the committee has agreed to
report it with recommendations.
[Translation]
I will take this opportunity to congratulate all the hon.
members who were on the subcommittee and most particularly the
House of Commons staff, the interpreters and our researchers.
They worked long and hard to help in the preparation of this
report.
* * *
CANADIAN PEACEKEEPING SERVICE MEDAL ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-511, an act to amend the Canadian Peacekeeping Service
Medal Act (Book of Remembrance for peacekeepers).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this
bill, seconded by my very capable colleague from
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, a champion of peace locally, nationally
and internationally.
1005
This bill amends the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act and
provides for the minister's establishment of a book of
remembrance for Canadians who have lost their life in
international peacekeeping missions.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-512, an act to amend the Canada pension
plan, the Government Annuities Act and the Old Age Security Act
and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have introduced a bill which I hope
all members of the House can support. It basically would amend
all statutes in Canada that make reference to old age and would
change the words “old age” to “seniors”. For example, it
would change the old age pension to the seniors income security
act.
A gentleman dropped by my office a few months ago. He was a
very young, healthy senior who felt the reference to old age on
his pension cheque was derogatory. For that reason I have
introduced this bill today to change the words “old age” to
“seniors” in respect for this country's seniors and the soon to
be seniors as well.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am presenting a petition today signed by 83 people
from North Vancouver, including Mr. Jones of Epps Avenue. The
petitioners point out that whereas 80% of Canadians practise
personal and corporate religious faiths that recognize the power
and universal sovereignty of a supreme being, they pray and
request that parliament reject all calls to remove references to
a sovereign God from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and the national anthem, as it may divide Canadians forever.
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour and privilege of presenting a great Canadian
petition in the House of Commons on behalf of the Pèlerins de
Saint-Michel, in attendance today and tomorrow.
The 26,129 signatories to a petition of over 1,100 pages, in
addition to 22,500 petitioners last year, call on parliament to
ask the government, in the spirit of Jubilee 2000, to take steps
to eliminate the national debt, the primary cause of taxes and
people's great poverty, to stop borrowing from financial
institutions and to create the money necessary for the country
as the Canadian Constitution entitles it to do and requires it
to do.
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions to present to the House.
One of them goes back to an issue which is close and dear to my
heart, that of agriculture. This petition has 53 pages and this
is not the first petition I have presented. It suggests that the
government has certainly fallen short of the necessary support
requirements for agriculture particularly in western Canada but
in Canada as a whole.
The petitioners suggest that the agriculture minister who does
not have sufficient influence in the department should be
replaced. That is the essence of the petition. I believe that
will happen probably within the next 36 days.
NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): The second
petition, Madam Speaker, is presented with respect to the nuclear
proliferation in the world. The petitioners request that
parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the
year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of nuclear armaments.
1010
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to present two petitions
signed by many people in British Columbia, including my riding.
The first petition calls upon parliament to amend the Criminal
Code of Canada to raise the age of consent for sexual activity
between a young person and an adult from 14 to 16.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): The second petition, Madam Speaker, requests that
parliament stop the expansion of private health care in Canada.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
office of the auditor general has already recognized its moral
obligation in the spirit of the pay equity legislation. It
already supports the provision of retroactive payment for pay
equity to its own affected employees, mainly women. Therefore
the petitioners pray that parliament empower and ask treasury
board to release funds allowing the office of the auditor general
to meet its obligation in a manner consistent with settlements
made to affected groups under treasury board.
[Translation]
FALUN GONG
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to table in this House a petition
signed by the citizens of my riding of
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and the greater
Quebec City area.
They call on parliament to ask the Chinese government to stop
its persecution of the practitioners of Falun Gong and to remove
the prohibition against the practice of Falun Gong.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I request unanimous consent for the House to return to
presenting reports from interparliamentary delegations.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to
present to the House in both official languages the report of the
Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association, OSCE, to the ninth annual session of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe parliamentary
assembly which was held in Bucharest, Romania in July of this
year.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
ECONOMIC POLICY
The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion,
of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When
the debate ended yesterday, I believe the NDP leader still had
five minutes left for questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
absolutely right.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the startling thing in the budget yesterday was the $100
billion tax cut. It sounded like a budget of the Canadian
Alliance in putting that much money into tax cuts, in particular
because the tax cuts are greater for wealthy people, for
millionaires, for people with all kinds of cash and for people
who make all kinds of capital gains.
I believe the government had choices. It made a choice to
reward its wealthy friends. It made a choice for big corporate
tax cuts. It made a choice to help those who have the most money
in Canada rather than put money into health care, education and
the environment. That is how I see last night's mini-budget. I
would like to know whether the member for Halifax West sees it in
a similar vein.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, sometimes when
mini-budgets or economic statements are being debated they seem a
bit abstract. They may seem as though they are about big figures
which are hard for people to identify with. Let me tell the House
what choices of the government are reflected in the budget
statement.
1015
For a single mom living on an income of $15,000, the tax cuts
announced by the government will amount to $350 a year, probably
enough to pay for a prescription drug for a couple of months
because the government has not put in place the promised
pharmacare program.
For the bank president or the big corporate director on an
income of $750,000 with stock options of say $23 million, the
choice that the government has made represents a tax saving of
literally millions of dollars.
It is important for people to realize that a budget is about
choices and those are the choices that the government has made.
The Liberals went to the electorate and told them they would do
something about child poverty. What they have done is pump up
the incomes of the wealthiest Canadians.
The Liberal government went to the public and said it would
introduce a universal child care program, it would do something
about home care and would do something about pharmacare. Not one
cent in the mini-budget introduced yesterday advances those
commitments. What have they done instead? The Liberals have
said that tax cuts a la reform alliance are the only thing that
matters.
When did a tax cut ensure safe drinking water for working
families? When did a tax cut repair an education system that is
tattered because of the federal downsizing and downloading of
financial responsibilities? When did a tax cut hire nurses who
are desperately needed throughout the health care system?
Canadians can see the choices. Canadians can see that this is a
government absolutely firmly in the clutches of the corporate
elite who last night slurped champagne and pigged out on caviar,
not in celebration of the leader of the reform alliance, but
because it considers itself to have won the battle to ensure that
the finance minister and the federal Liberal government are
squarely in the clutches and in the corner of the corporate elite
of this country.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, naturally when an MP reads or hears
a budget, their attention is drawn to how it affects their own
constituency.
Despite what the member of the New Democratic Party has said,
one of the things which really disturbed me, representing a
province where the number one industry is falling and falling
very quickly, representing a province that has lost 6,200 of its
main producers in the last year, September to September,
representing a province that will lose that many more and the
rural area of the last best west is becoming desolate, not one
word was mentioned in this budget to support an industry that
stretches across the entire western Canadian area.
As a matter of fact, the government has only paid out 42% of the
total amount of money allocated by the government to assist in a
small way to keep some bread and butter on the table of these
people. As a parliamentary measure, I understand that we may be
seeing AIDA come to Saskatchewan and maybe we can get a few more
cheques out. In a briefing with a radio station last night, I
said that would not buy one vote.
Yes, I am pleased to see tax cuts and I am pleased to see that
the government has listened to us with regard to tax reduction.
All one needs to do is take a look at my province with the worst
health system in Canada, the worst road system in Canada,
absolutely the poorest drug plan in Canada and part of that, not
all, is the fault of the NDP. It could be fixed by their
potentially new leader.
1020
He said to get rid of all the health boards and start delivery.
That is the problem with NDP philosophy. The problem with NDP
philosophy is part of the problem why Saskatchewan has no
highways, no health care under an NDP government and the absolute
poorest rating in Canada. For them to talk about this budget is
inappropriate.
My last comment, the western grain industry will never forget
the government for the lack of attention that it has paid to it.
The government will reap the results come November 27.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, that was a rant
rather than a question. I will try not to respond in kind.
We heard from the member for Souris—Moose Mountain a diatribe
about how much his party cares about what the farmers of
Saskatchewan and the prairies are facing. Yet, this is the party
that has blood on its hands when it comes to the federal
Liberals' reasons for decimating support for agricultural
programs.
When you go back over the seven years of this reform alliance,
you can see the reason why the mini-budget introduced yesterday
was so pathetic. It was absolutely silent on the question of
agriculture support because the reform alliance has egged them on
and egged them on to do exactly that.
What do we see in yesterday's mini-budget? What was the
commitment to farm families facing bankruptcy, to farm
communities that are having a desperate time surviving? What the
federal Liberals said is we will monitor what is happening.
What that means is that they will be prepared to report to
Canadians on how many bankruptcies have been caused by the
Liberal government endorsing the reform alliance demands to
shrink agricultural support programs to the point where they do
not do the job.
What monitoring will mean is that they will tell Canadians, and
I am not sure if they are telling the truth, but if they
accurately monitor what they will be able to report to Canadians
is the out-migration effect of their policies. Make no mistake
about it, this is a rural depopulation policy that is being
pushed and promoted by the reform alliance and embraced wholesale
by the Liberal government.
As devastating as the budget introduced yesterday is for working
families across the country, for farm families, for rural
communities, for ordinary working people that are having to work
harder and longer for less and less while their public services
shrivel up, one thing is darn sure. It is that people can see
how critically important it is for the New Democratic Party to be
here with increased strength and greater numbers in the next
Parliament of Canada to push back against not only the reform
alliance, but the increasing dominance of the right wingers in
the federal Liberal government.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time in this debate with the member for
Brandon—Souris.
Traditionally a budget sets forth the goals of a society and the
economic measures that are necessary to achieve them. To use a
phrase which the Prime Minister's pollsters have told him to
adopt, it is about values not just taxes.
Yesterday's statement does reflect the government's values. It
offers no help to the poorest of our taxpayers. It shortchanges
our health system by billions of dollars. It offers only token
assistance to students who are driven away from the education
they need by its high costs. The cynical symbol of this
statement is its promise to help with winter heating costs.
Help for how long? For one winter, an election winter. This
statement is about elections, not about economics. Even the tax
cuts are driven by polling. Tragically, typically, the statement
sets no goals for Canada.
1025
At a time when we are drifting behind a world we should lead,
there is nothing here that will make Canada a leader again. The
government has been in office for seven years. During this time
extraordinary growth in the United States economy has propelled
Canada forward. The singular Canadian initiative which had the
greatest impact on our own growth was the negotiation of the free
trade agreement which the Liberal Party opposed when it was
introduced.
In a time when other countries were becoming more competitive,
changing their tax systems, training their people to prevail in
the new economy, the government let Canada fall steadily behind.
Ireland, Germany and a growing list of other countries have tax
systems which attract more investment and more innovation than
Canada.
Other countries adapt much more quickly than we do to the new
e-economy. Canada is suffering a real and severe brain drain of
the best, brightest people upon whom we have to build our future.
Even in health care where Canada should lead the world, we are
ranked 30th by a report of the World Health Organization.
[Translation]
This cannot be called a budget. It is an election platform. It
is political shortsightedness. The best proof of that is the
promise to reduce the cost of heating for one winter only. It
just so happens that it is the winter when an election is to be
held.
There is no help for agriculture, no money for infrastructures
such as highways, and not much for students. In our modern
society, young people need to get the best possible education.
It is the key to their future. But education costs are
prohibitive.
This budget provides some relief to students who are currently
enrolled, but it does nothing for all the graduates who have a
huge debt to repay. We can do a lot more to help our young
people prepare their future.
This budget also ignores people who are in dire straits. The
government could have changed the basic personal credit and have
completely exempted low income Canadians from having to pay
taxes. But it did not. We can do a lot more to help low income
Canadians.
[English]
There is no long term commitment on debt reduction. The $10
billion debt reduction the government talks about is a one time
payment. It is an accident because the government revenue
forecasts were wrong. If the government was serious about debt
reduction, it would have outlined a long term strategy.
There is nothing in this economic strategy on agriculture,
infrastructure, equalization or regional development. There is
very little help here for students. Nothing to address the issue
of high student debt. Even doubling the education credit which
students can claim will not help the average student today whose
graduation present is on average a $25,000 debt.
Speaking of Canadian values, nothing was done to reduce the
basic personal exemption. It is appalling that someone earning
just over $7,000 has to pay federal income tax. A staged
increase of the basic exemption to $12,000 would take two and a
half million Canadians off the tax rolls entirely and provide an
across the board cut of $800 to every taxpayer. That is what
should have been done in this statement.
The government devastated the health care system and it crippled
education with its unilateral cuts to transfer payments. Finally
last month it was forced by the provinces to restore transfers
for health and social transfers to 1993 levels. That full
transfer will not occur until April of the year 2002. This is
not an honest restoration of funding. It is at best a post-dated
cheque.
The government proposes a very modest step on capital gains. By
contrast, my party proposes the complete elimination of the
personal capital gains tax.
1030
[Translation]
Capital gains tax contributes greatly to the brain drain,
because Canadians, particularly in the high tech sector, are
increasingly being given stock purchase options.
The capital gains tax is a tax on savings accumulated once
income tax has been paid. Capital gains are in a way subject to
double taxation, because the same income is taxed twice.
In the new economy, businesses give stock purchase options to
all of their employees: receptionists, designers, software
engineers or technicians.
Taxing capital is bad for investment. It prevents investors
from obtaining a better yield by changing their type of
investments. No other form of taxation is worse for the economy
than the capital gains tax.
Today the government is proposing to bring the Canadian system
in line with that of the United States. Yet what Canada needs
is a better system than the American one. Our economies are not
of comparable size. The capital gains tax on individuals must
be done away with.
[English]
Some of the measures announced yesterday will take effect
immediately. Others may never see the light of day, because they
require action by parliament and the Prime Minister is closing
parliament down.
This government was elected in 1997 with a 60 month term. It is
now in its 40th month with a long list of urgent public business
awaiting action. Instead of the government doing its job, the
Prime Minister wants to call an election.
The Prime Minister has taken election positions on economic
issues before. He opposed free trade and he broke his word. He
promised to kill the GST and he broke his word. On the cold,
hard record, this is not a government Canadians can trust.
What we have here is an election platform, not an economic plan.
Its tax measures will be debated in the weeks to come. The real
message is that this is a short term, get through the day
government. It has no sense of purpose, no sense of compassion
and certainly no plan to respect and assert Canadian values.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the right hon. member for
Kings—Hants for a very compelling speech. He has proven time
and time again, since his return to the House of Commons, that he
is a great Canadian who understands the difficulties and hardships
faced by many in this country today.
We have heard a great deal from the government in the past days
and, of course, we have come to expect that most of the
information that comes out in a budget has been leaked to the
press prior to hearing from the Minister of Finance or any
government official here in the House of Commons. That lack of
respect is something, sadly, that has come to be expected by
members of the opposition and further marginalizes parliament.
What this budget is not about has become quite obvious. What
the budget is not about is helping farmers. What the budget is
not about is focusing in on the issue of student debt and the
crisis that many students face when they emerge at a time in
their lives when they should be filled with optimism, with hope
and with some sense of purpose. The first thing they have to
face is the government knocking at their door, coming to collect
on a student debt. This is the type of situation that leads our
best, our brightest and our most ambitious young people to leave
the country or to leave regions of the country where
opportunities are not as great, as we see in Atlantic Canada.
Another issue that this budget does not deal with, in fact it is
a shell game, a facade, is the issue of a rebate on the cost of
heating oil. What it does is it raises expectations. It is so
pathetic it is like holding a little chocolate bar out to a child
and then pulling it back. The indication is that people will be
given a small rebate on the cost of heating oil. Yet that
cheque, if it ever does arrive, will not get to these needy
people until January. There are a lot of cold months between now
and January. I do not know what people in Ecum Secum or Canso
will do if they need to fill their oil tanks or if they need
gasoline to get into town so they can get such luxuries as food.
What this government has chosen to do is to give money back.
Of course there is this insidious little promise that perhaps
they should vote for the government if they really want that
cheque to arrive on time. This is the crass type of
electioneering we have seen engineered by the government in the
lead-up to this campaign.
1035
With some of those inadequacies which members of the Progressive
Conservative Party and other members in the opposition have
pointed out, my question to the right hon. member for
Kings—Hants is, what should we be doing?
What is the government in waiting, the Progressive Conservative
Party, going to do for the poorest of the poor with respect to
those who are still making as little as $10,000 annually? What
should we be doing in terms of changing our tax laws to address
that situation?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, there are several
things that can be done. Let me list them quickly.
First, we should be changing the basic personal exemption. It is
simply unacceptable in a country like ours that low income
Canadians earning around $7,000 a year have to pay tax. We
propose to take them and others like them completely off the tax
rolls in a staged process of raising the basic exemption to
$12,000 a year.
We cannot just help the rich, as the Liberal Party always does.
We need to have concern for low income Canadians who are trying
to make their way and trying to improve their communities where
they live.
The hon. member mentioned the issue of agriculture. I have just
come back from western Canada, a region that has been doubly
devastated. It has been devastated by nature, but it has also
been devastated by the absolute refusal of either the government
or the party now in official opposition to take any serious
interest in the plight of agriculture.
We had a statistic last year from my native region showing that
some 22,000 farmers have stopped farming in the last year and
have moved off the land. That is a 10% drop in the number of
people taking part in one of the basic industries in western
Canada. That is a terrible thing to have happen. If it had
happened in Ontario, the Liberal government would have responded
very quickly, but it did not. It happened in the west so it gets
ignored. However, it cuts into our capacity to be a competitive
country, building upon the multiple strengths that agriculture
can bring us if agriculture had the kind of support today that it
had when a Progressive Conservative government was in office.
Finally, let me speak to the question of students. There is a
tiny little measure in this budget for students now in school.
This budget does nothing at all to help students who are leaving
school with a massive debt, a debt averaging $25,000 per year.
What the government does in the name of Liberal values is say
that education in Canada is for the rich, and if one is smart and
able but not rich then one cannot get into our education system.
That is not the kind of Canada we believe in. That is not a
value worthy of the name.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
it is very difficult, almost impossible, to follow my leader, the
right hon. member for Kings—Hants, being the statesman that he
obviously is and the passion with which he speaks to issues
affecting this country and Canadians as a whole. However, I will
attempt, in my fashion, to speak to the economic statement that
has been put forward by the finance minister.
First, it must be said that if this were after the writ was
dropped, the government would have to claim this as an election
expense. This in effect is an election platform, an election
ploy that was placed before the House in the Chamber. It is no
more than that.
I know Canadians are becoming terribly cynical of politics and
politicians. Canadians see through the transparency and the
cynical politics that were played in the House yesterday by the
Minister of Finance.
As was mentioned earlier, this financial statement will not be
implemented before the writ is dropped by the Prime Minister to
go to the next election, an election that is totally unnecessary.
Should the finance minister and the Prime Minister wish, as they
were meant to do, to govern the country, they can do so for
another 20 months based on the economic largesse they have
identified within this document.
I say to Canadians now to not go out and spend the money that
has been promised. Promises that have been placed before the
House and Canadians have been broken time and time again. This
is a post-dated cheque, make no mistake about it. It is like the
post-dated cheque of “We will scrap the GST”.
1040
Did you spend your money, Madam Speaker, when the GST was going
to be taken off? It did not materialize. It is like the
post-dated cheque when the Liberals said they would scrap the
NAFTA agreement. By the way, the best thing they did not do was
to scrap NAFTA because today, as we stand with the surpluses that
are before the House, it is because of those initiatives taken by
a government prior to 1993. This government today should be
thankful that it has surpluses because of what we put into place.
No one should spend that post-dated cheque because I remember
the promise of pharmacare. Does anyone remember that promise,
that post-dated cheque? It has not been cashed and in fact will
not be cashed.
What about the post-dated cheque given to Canadians with respect
to child care and day care? No one should cash that cheque
because it was a promise that was again broken by the government.
Mr. Peter MacKay: What about the helicopters? That
cheque bounced.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The helicopter deal, as my colleague
from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has just indicated, there
was a promise. It was a post-dated cheque that unfortunately was
implemented. That cheque was not cashed but it bounced. The
problem with that particular cheque is that people's lives were
put into the balance. To this day we still do not have the
proper equipment so that our servicemen can go out into the world
and defend the peacekeeping requirements that we have as
Canadians because this government does not accept the fact that
our defence department requires those dollars.
Let us talk about this particular post-dated cheque. The
finance minister said, and I quote, on page 12 that these things
will be achieved by “legislating—not promising”. Canadians
recognize that in order to put legislation forward, the House has
to sit. We now hear that the reason the Prime Minister and the
government is going to drop the writ is that everybody else is
campaigning.
I just had an opportunity to speak with a couple of Liberal
members on a radio talk show. Their spin to this was that
everybody else is running for the election, so they might as well
call one.
The Prime Minister has been declaring this election campaign
ever since he has been trying to entice Brian Tobin back into the
cabinet. That was successful, so he is now going to call the
election.
Not only did the finance minister say that it would be
legislated, which is not in fact correct, but he also has a
caveat not only on debt repayment but on the tax reductions as
well. This depends wholly and solely upon what the economy is
going to do over the next number of months and years. It is a
positive caveat but, nonetheless, it gives him a real opportunity
to backtrack on a lot of those post-dated cheques and promises
that have been made.
Let us talk about this particular document itself, this economic
statement. It has listed a number of areas, the first one being
health. I want Canadians to recognize right now that there is
nothing different with health today than there was yesterday.
There are no new initiatives. The initiative there has been
announced ad nauseam. It has been announced many times. Even
with the previous agreement that was negotiated with the
provinces, we still do not come up to 1994-95 levels for health
care funding.
Let us talk about health. The Liberal government arbitrarily
took out of the health care system billions and billions of
dollars without consultation with the provinces. Now, all of a
sudden, it consults with the provinces to put back in the money
it took out, which destroyed the system. That money is not yet
into the system. That money will not be into the system for
years to come. No one should think that Canadians are going to
have the opportunity to take advantage of these health care
dollars in the very near future.
Let us talk about the environment. The only new spending
initiative in this statement was the environment. I want to
congratulate the Minister of the Environment for having the
ability to influence the cabinet and the finance minister. I say
that somewhat tongue in cheek because there is a huge hole that
was left in this economic statement, and that was respect to
agriculture. The environment minister had the initiative and the
influence. The minister of agriculture had none. There is not
one word in this document about agriculture.
1045
The agricultural industry right now is suffering through the
worst crisis it has ever had to suffer through. We have lost
25,000 farmers in the last year. What do we have from the
Liberals? They shrug and say “Well, that is the way it is. We
put our best foot forward to try to protect the industry”. It
is not enough. This document speaks to the fact that agriculture
has absolutely no priority for this government. That has to
change.
On debt reduction, the government suggested that $10 billion
will come forward this year in debt reduction. There was a $12.3
billion reduction last year. It took this government until last
month, almost six months after the year end, to discover it had
this wonderful surplus. All of sudden, three or four days before
an election, it has come to the good understanding that it now
has a surplus it can put forward for debt reduction. It is nice
to see that the finance department can finally come up with
numbers.
One wonders why it happens today. Is it manipulative? Is it
manufactured? Is it an election ploy? Of course it is, and
Canadians know it.
What the government has not done is to put into place a plan for
debt reduction. It holds out the carrot that in this budget year
the government will reduce the debt, but nowhere in this
statement does it speak to a well thought out, logical line item
that is going to reduce the deficit for Canadians. Liberals do
not like to do that. They like to take the money and use it to
their best advantage. Canadians believe the best advantage is to
reduce the debt in a well thought out, systematic plan, and that
is where we should be going.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Not an election plan.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Not an election plan.
Tax cuts? Absolutely. They are heading in the right direction.
The Liberals took our plan. What a great idea. Reduce tax
rates? What a great idea. Reduce the inclusion rate for capital
gains? Not to 50%, but to zero.
However they are on the right track, and given the right
opportunity we will accelerate that. As a matter of fact, the
finance minister said the reason this is so important today is so
that the government can accelerate the cuts proposed in the
February budget. If the government was serious, why did it not
put these cuts in the February budget in the first place? The
reason is that there was not an election call in March, but there
is one this month.
I wish I had more time because there is much more opportunity to
make sure Canadians recognize that what this government is doing
is wrong. I am sure we will speak to it later.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I sat here and listened to the
Progressive Conservative Party love-in over in the corner. Not
only did it rewrite economic history in Canada over the last
decade or so, it rewrote the economic update and economic
statement presented in the House yesterday by the Minister of
Finance.
I would like to go over a few points. First, the Conservatives
talk about there being nothing new on health care. Is that not
staggering that they can actually stand up and say that in this
House when the Prime Minister negotiated and did a deal with the
premiers and the territorial leaders just a couple of months ago
for $23.5 billion more for health care? That is largest single
investment put into health care by any federal government. If we
add that to the $14 billion that was invested in health care in
the last two budgets, that is a reinvestment of $37 billion.
Those members know that is not even close to the cuts in the
transfers to the provinces and territories.
They talk about how the Tories are responsible for all economic
growth. I will tell the House what the Tories are responsible
for. In 1993 they left this government saddled with a deficit of
$42 billion. In three years this government eliminated the
deficit. Canadians understand that before we can pay any money on
the debt we have to eliminate the deficit, which we did.
By the way, there was a 5% surtax introduced by the Tories,
which we have now completely eliminated as of yesterday.
1050
Members opposite should reflect upon what they are saying
because the facts do not support it.
They talk about the fuel taxes. What they proposed was a
reduction in the excise tax on fuel which absolutely would have
gone straight to the oil producers in Canada. It would not have
gone to the consumers. It would not have hit the pockets of
Canadians. Our tax measure will go straight to the pockets of
low income Canadians to compensate them for increased heating
costs and the increased cost of gasoline at the pumps. Low
income individuals will receive $125 per individual and double
that for families.
I would like to ask the member for Brandon—Souris if he would
like a copy of the economic update that was presented in the
House yesterday. I would gladly provide him with one, because
obviously he has not read it, and perhaps with an economic
history of Canada in the last couple of decades. He would be
wise to read that. Would he accept such a gift? I would be glad
to give it him.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, I have probably read
more of this particular document than the hon. member has because
I certainly understand it a lot better than he does.
I have to respond to two issues, one of them being health care.
I fail to understand how in 1993 this government could gut the
health care system unilaterally without any consultation with the
provinces at all, take those dollars out of the system so that
the provinces are basically demanded to supply services with no
support from this government, and then all of a sudden replace
those dollars today, before an election, with the provinces'
consultation. Why could that not happen in both?
Of course the provinces will agree now that there is something
on the table when there has been nothing on the table before. If
that is the spin this government is going to do in an election it
had better come up with a much better opportunity to debate why
it destroyed health care.
The second thing the Liberals talked about was the $42 billion
in 1993. It is time that Canadians recognized and that this
House be given the opportunity to know that the Trudeau years
left $200 billion of debt. That is where it started. Of that
$42 billion, $32 billion was debt servicing that was put forward
by that government and not this government. They can take that
one to the election and let citizens make their decision as to
who are the best managers of the economy.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I was walking to the office this
morning I passed by some newspaper boxes. A headline caught my
eye on the newspaper box of the National Post. The
headline said “Liberals Deliver Alliance Budget”. That
headline just cut to the quick.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. The
member who is addressing the House is next to me and I cannot
hear him. Please take your conversations to the lobby.
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I realize that the
Alliance has come to the House to try to bring a better aura of
decorum here, but the members really ought to give lessons to the
Conservatives, who seem to have a little difficulty with that
problem. Thank you for your intervention, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying, as I walked in to work a headline caught my eye
in the newspaper box of the National Post. The headline
basically said “Liberals Deliver Alliance Budget”. Of anything
that any one of us feels about this budget, the one thing it is
not is an Alliance budget. The difference between what the party
on the other side does in terms of economic philosophy and
economic proposals and platforms and what we on this side do—and
even the Conservatives, in all fairness—is that we do not
represent the kind of economic policy of basic selfishness that
is reflected in the Alliance's economic platforms.
1055
It is not just the flat tax. What we see in almost all the
themes of the Canadian Alliance is that it believes that the
fundamental thing that drives Canadians is the desire to keep
their own money at all costs.
What makes us different on this side, I would suggest—and I
will compliment the Conservatives over there who are busy engaged
in a conversation and not paying any attention—is that they,
like us, believe that government is in the business of providing
services to Canadians that Canadians cannot otherwise get. The
issue is not to reduce taxes to an absolute minimum so that all
the people can selfishly get everything they have. What it is
really all about is to try to give opportunities to all Canadians
by using taxpayers' funds in a responsible manner so that all
Canadians share in equal opportunities in this great land of
ours.
An hon. member: It is the Canadian way.
Mr. John Bryden: It is the Canadian way, as my colleague
says. It is certainly the Liberal way, but it is not the
Canadian Alliance way. I am a little uncomfortable with them
having the term “Canadian” because it really is not very
consistent in these politics of economic selfishness. I really
do not believe in that.
We actually had an example just recently in Ontario with the
Walkerton crisis with respect to the water. There is an inquiry
going on right now. This is a classic case in which a provincial
government withdrew from providing services, in this case the
guarantee that water quality would be first class. What we have,
because it essentially privatized and downloaded the
responsibility of the provincial government to ensure pure water,
is that people actually died in that event there.
The other aspect of this budget is that the Canadian Alliance is
very fond of saying it reflects the grassroots and the Liberals
somehow pull economic policy out of some vacuum that looks only
toward gaining votes in the next election. I can say that in
this economic statement, which is not a budget but an extension
of the February budget of this current year, what one will see
are features that reflect the efforts of backbench MPs on this
side of the House who have listened to their constituents and
have lobbied and pressured the finance minister. He has
listened.
I have to be a little careful because there are several other
members of cabinet here, but I can tell the House that of all the
members of cabinet here the finance minister has one of the most
admirable records of listening to his backbench MPs and actually
implementing their suggestions and policies.
I will give a couple of examples. One of the things in this
economic statement that absolutely delights me is the fact that
finally, after some years of lobbying, particularly by the member
for Mississauga South, who was the real champion of this issue of
supporting the nuclear family in our society, is the proposal
that gives tax breaks to a family that has a stay at home parent.
What we find for a family earning $40,000 a year with one parent
working and the other parent staying at home with two children is
a one-third break in their taxes. They will save $1,000 as a
result of this initiative that the finance minister brought in
yesterday.
I would argue that this is long overdue, but the reality is that
on this side of the House we have all kinds of points of view
represented. The member for Mississauga South championed the
whole idea of supporting the ability of people to look after
their children directly.
An hon. member: The traditional family.
Mr. John Bryden: Yes, the traditional family.
The other side of the equation is that there is a lot of concern
on this side of the House about looking after families where
there is only a single parent. There is no doubt that for a long
time a lot of the financial policy on this side of the House was
directed toward helping single parent families. That is a very
good thing, but now we finally have the balance. That is because
of the efforts of the member for Mississauga South and others of
us. I will count my colleague next to me.
An hon. member: We all work together.
Mr. John Bryden: Yes, we all work together. We made
progress. That is a very important thing.
Then there are other things, such as debt reduction.
The Canadian Alliance would have us believe that they are the
ones who invented debt reduction as some sort of good thing that
governments ought to be doing.
1100
I can tell the House that prior to 1997 for three years running
I ran an opinion poll at the fall fairs in my riding in central
Ontario. I had four jars and people would be given four beans,
each one representing $1 billion. I would ask them if they were
the finance minister how they would spend a $4 billion surplus.
They had a choice of GST reduction, increased social spending,
personal income tax cuts or debt reduction. For three years
running the people who put the beans in the jars chose, first and
foremost, debt reduction. About 45% of the opinion poll chose
debt reduction as their number one priority. I presented those
results every year to the finance minister and I told him that
this was what people were saying.
It is no surprise to me to see in this economic statement that
not only have we reduced the debt already by some $18.7 billion,
but in this statement we are also undertaking to reduce the debt
by another $10 billion.
The previous speaker really amused me. I can be amused
occasionally in the House by some of the statements coming from
the other side, Madam Speaker. The member complained that the
government had no plan for debt reduction. What is amusing about
that is of course any time when we have unspent surplus, the debt
is reduced. That is all we have to do. We have to limit
spending, control our spending, and automatically the debt is
reduced. We have a government that is not only able to reinvest
in the economy, reinvest in Canadians, but also has a sufficient
surplus to bring down the debt by another $10 billion. The
members on the other side ought to be applauding that.
Unfortunately, the House is adversarial and it needs to be
adversarial. That is only right and proper. Sometimes I really
do think that praise from the other side is warranted when the
finance minister really does what is in the interests of all
Canadians. The leader of the Canadian Alliance is always
demanding forgiveness from this side, but I would suggest that
what he really ought to do is stand in the House and give praise
and congratulations where it is due. I realize that may be a bit
too much to expect.
Another point just in passing. There are two other areas in the
economic statement that reflect pressure coming from this side
and to some degree from the other side and that is the rebate on
fuel costs. It is quite scary, Madam Speaker, when we see what
is happening with regard to fuel costs and how Canadians are
worried. Quite rightly, on the other side there has been pressure
to somehow relieve the burden, particularly on low income home
owners facing substantial hikes in fuel costs. That concern is
being acted on by this side.
We see in the economic statement that the finance minister is
listening. That is an important point in the life of this
parliament. The finance minister not only listens to the
backbenchers here, but he also listens to the opposition when
they do carry valid arguments and valid concerns. We are all
concerned about what is going to happen to Canadians with the
high cost of home heating fuel and the finance minister has
replied.
I was particularly impressed by the fact that the finance
minister provided for an increase in the educational tax credit
for students. This is a very small thing in some respects, but a
very large thing in others. There is absolutely no doubt that the
investment for tomorrow is the investment of this government and
this parliament in young people. I am very pleased that the
economic statement reflects that.
1105
I think that is actually precisely the point in many respects
because what does make us different on this side and what makes
us so different from the philosophy that we see, particularly
from the Canadian Alliance, is that we believe as Liberals, and I
think I can speak for the majority of us, that the role of the
government is to provide services and encouragement in the
country. Our role is to increase the equality of opportunity of
all Canadians. That is a proper use of government money.
I deplore what I see in Ontario with the Harris government. I
am uncomfortable with what I see in Alberta with the Alberta
government. I am extremely uncomfortable with what I hear from
the Canadian Alliance with this whole idea that you should
retreat from government spending.
That is not the point. What you really need to do with
government spending is when you do invest in the country, when
you do invest in social services, when you do invest in
helicopters or whatever it is the government is buying, you must
invest well.
The important thing is to make sure that spending is as
efficient as possible. That brings me to the more recent debate
over the last few days about the auditor general's report and
indeed the information commissioner's report about the need to
reform the Access to Information Act.
A key point that the auditor general said which is so important
is that even though there are all kinds of problems in
effectiveness of spending and mismanagement in HRDC, he said
there was no evidence of malfeasance. He said there was no
evidence that any bureaucrat profited by any of the
inefficiencies or mistakes that were made.
What is so important about that? That means that our job as a
government, as politicians, is to build on the honesty of our
bureaucrats. We have to give them the tools to more efficiently
manage.
I believe one of them is to modernize the privacy legislation
and the access to information legislation. I have to say in the
context of a point of privilege that the Speaker ruled on today
that there were problems that led to the government making an
incorrect decision with respect to its opportunity to support
reforms to the access to information bill that was proposed in my
Private Members' Bill C-206.
I do not fault the government. I do fault messages that were
received by the government, but that is another story. I do not
dispute the Speaker's ruling, but I do stress it is important to
all of us here to reform this kind of legislation so that the
bureaucrats in HRDC and every other government department can
operate with a better degree of transparency. When you have
transparency, you have accountability. This is where we are
headed with respect to HRDC and with respect to every government
department.
You will recall that the member for Mississauga West, again a
member on this side, chaired a committee in 1995 on grants and
contributions. What she and the members who supported her did
was they came out with a number of recommendations on how to
improve the way government handled grants and contributions.
It was an excellent report and the government did act on it. The
problem in a modern society and a huge government department
spending billions of dollars is that we have to modernize. The
member for Mississauga West in the report called on the
government to implement better controls, to be more targeted in
what organizations should receive money.
One of the most interesting suggestions in that particular
report was that governments should always choose contributions
rather than grants because the system of contributions requires
accountability and performance review whereas grants tend to go
out with no accountability whatsoever.
I must tell you that some departments reacted very strongly to
the report, at least as far as I can gather. Industry Canada and
foreign affairs both implemented a number of reforms of the way
they put out grants and contributions.
I know this because I have all kinds of representations from
organizations that were suddenly being asked, in 1995-1996, to
give better explanations and better accounting of how they were
going to use the money. Many of these organizations ceased to
get support from both Industry Canada and Foreign Affairs because
they could not live up to this.
1110
We made progress at that time. That progress came from the
backbench. We really have to take the next step. I look to the
other side to set aside partisan politics and work together on
improving the way our bureaucracy operates, always allowing for
the fact of wanting to do a good job, wanting to do the best job.
We should harness the Internet. We should put as much
government online as possible so that when that middle level
manager in any government department is considering a contract,
considering making a contribution or executing some kind of
program involving grants and contributions, we can see en route
who it is that is receiving the money, what they are proposing,
how the government is checking that it is actually delivering the
services that it proposes.
That can all go on the Internet. This is crucial because this
is what will make Canada more efficient than any other country in
the world. In fact there is a race between Canada and the United
States to implement this kind of bureaucratic efficiency because
not only does it make more efficient government but it is a model
for corporations. To come back to the original point, that is
why, with some urgency, government has to review and modernize
the Access to Information Act, the Freedom of Information Act and
the Privacy Act.
I take a great deal of satisfaction in realizing and learning
that even though my private member's bill to reform the Access to
Information Act failed, the government has since undertaken a
major co-operative endeavour between the justice department and
treasury board to examine the whole issue of how to make
government more open. I believe the government is going to
report in the fall of next year.
I would prefer an open process that would have resulted had my
private member's bill gone through and it had gone through
committee stage debate. Nevertheless, this is a clear indication
that this government is very much on the right track.
Finally, we must bear in mind that all government is like a huge
vessel. I hate to think of it, but it is like the Titanic.
We do not want it to hit an iceberg. We want it to continue to
sail. If we are going to make sure that the ship of states sails
on successfully, we have to make sure that it has the modern
tools of transparency and accountability in order to achieve that
target.
Madam Speaker, on this side of the House I can assure you that
we already have the heart.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. I
know he is a member who sincerely expresses what is on his mind
and is well intentioned.
I do want to take issue with a few things he mentioned. I do
believe this upcoming election is going to be all about trust,
about who to believe and actions speaking louder than words.
People need to take a look at what my colleague said about debt.
First of all, understand that it is the government and the legacy
of the Liberals that have brought us to the point of an item
mentioned in the economic statement. I would like to direct the
member to that on page 31.
It clearly states that our debt level right now is $564.5
billion. That is the level of our national debt, our national
mortgage. That was brought to us by the government over years
and years of governance.
Now the Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them to be the
ones to eliminate that. Their plan for doing that is mentioned
on page 13. They have put a contingency reserve fund in place of
$3 billion. It is a good idea and we congratulate them for that.
It is not enough.
That contingency fund is to pay down the debt only if money is
left after Liberal spending has taken place at the end of the
year.
1115
I cannot believe that the new item about debt reduction
introduced yesterday in the economic statement made it into the
document. However each fall from now on we will announce whether
a greater amount should be dedicated to that year's debt paydown.
They will make an announcement on whether or not to pay some more
debt down, rather than any kind of legislated paydown.
My colleague mentioned that debt paydown would happen with
surpluses that were left over, that when they control spending
and surpluses are left over it goes to the debt. New spending of
$50 billion was mentioned in the document presented to this place
yesterday.
How in the world could Canadians believe the Liberals are
committed to legislated debt paydown when it is not here? They
are the ones who introduced the debt. They are the ones who
continued to spend. Whenever the member uses reinvest, we should
read in the words a new spending initiative of taxpayer dollars.
I want to ask my colleague about the issues he raised. I also
want to ask him about the point he made about a Liberal committee
that looked into HRD and other grants and contributions in 1995.
If that were such a good plan, how in the world did we get to the
$1 billion boondoggle, with billions of dollars not being used
appropriately? How is that possible?
That indicates to me that the report was put on a shelf and
nothing happened. I would like my colleague to address those
issues.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been consultations among the parties and I think you
would find agreement for the following motion which has been agreed
to by all House leaders House:
That at 1.45 p.m. the present debate shall be adjourned; that
Bill C-45 shall be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on
Finance and referred immediately to committee of the whole, which
shall consider the said bill and amendments to be proposed
thereto; and that the bill shall be reported, concurred in at
report stage and read a third time no later than 1.59 p.m.
I propose this particular item for the consideration of the
House.
Also there is a matter that we want to bring to the attention of
the House. It has to do with the private members business for
today. The Chair will recognize that instead of having private
members' hour this evening we had the private members' hour from
9 to 10 this morning. That did not assume we would have an hour
more of sitting. I would like it, but I recognize that was not
the agreement I made with other House leaders.
Therefore, to be totally consistent with the agreement that we
negotiated, the House would in fact end at 5.30. If we wanted to
extend the time beyond that, we would have to ask for consent
because it was not part of the agreement.
Even though it was indicated that way on today's documentation
issued to members, in fact that was not the agreement among House
leaders. The agreement was that we would take the hour at the
end of the day and put it at the beginning. Therefore government
orders would end at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. House
leader have consent of the House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1120
ECONOMIC POLICY
The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment
and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his
question which was a little bit elaborate. I will try to answer
it in reverse order.
I guess I did not make it very clear, and it is my fault, in my
presentation. The report in 1995 on the grants and contributions
was an excellent effort, but one of the difficulties is when we
are dealing with large corporations, whether it is in industry or
in government, it is very difficult to police what the average
manager is doing, the rank and file manager.
While the intentions of the report were very good, and some of
the recommendations were implemented, the reality in a large
corporation is that there is no effective means, or has not been
up until now, for the senior management, whether it is the deputy
minister or the chief executive officer of a corporation, to have
a really good sense of what is actually happening down in the
offices and cubicles of government or the corporation.
The reason why the Internet is so important is that it offers a
unique opportunity that never existed before, whereby by putting
the daily operations of the rank and file managers online, all
the public become the auditors. Then we would be able to see, as
members of parliament or as ordinary citizens, who is getting
money in a riding as they get the money. We would be able to
assess the program.
One of our great problems with respect to grants and
contributions which has been debated on all sides of the House
was that in the old days, under a previous political party's
government, grants and contributions were primarily controlled by
politicians.
One of the great innovations that came in 1993 was that was
basically taken away from the politicians on all sides of the
House. While there was some input there was not very much input.
It was primarily left to the bureaucrats to dispense the program
funding in the various ridings. It applies to my riding and it
applies to ridings of the opposition. That is, shall we say, a
more honest process, but the problem is that it put the onus on
the bureaucrats to make decisions that often they were not
competent to make. So we have the dilemma of HRDC that we have
right now where we have mismanagement; we have the awarding of
program funds improperly; and we have poor tracking.
The solution is to put it online. If money is coming into my
riding, your riding or whoever's riding, Madam Speaker, if the
public can see who is receiving that money and how it is being
tracked, how the services are being provided, then we will reach
an enormous level of efficiency.
I do not hesitate to criticize my government on this point
because I believe that my own political government is moving far
too slowly in making the necessary changes in legislation to
enable the bureaucrats to bring in this type of legislation. I
believe the civil service wants to do it. I believe there is a
very active effort out there to bring government online. It is
we, perhaps, who are slow to respond.
I have to say, though, that I have not had a lot of support from
the opposition benches on this. I have very much had to rely on
the support of my backbench colleagues, but I think it is in all
our interests to pressure government to make the appropriate
changes to legislation to bring government online, which would
increase transparency and accountability everywhere.
On the question of the debt, what I have to say with respect to
that is that there is a fundamental difference between the
Canadian Alliance and the Liberals.
I will put it to the member this way. If one were to legislate
debt reduction and require every year that the debt be reduced
by, let us say, $5 billion—$3 billion is peanuts when we have a
$560 billion debt—what happens if a recession strikes? What
happens if there is an Asian flu and suddenly the markets just
fall apart?
If we have that legislation in place then we destroy the options
government must have, the finance minister must have in the event
of an emergency. This is again perhaps a difference between the
two sides. I really believe as an individual, and I think we
believe mostly as Liberals, that our responsibility as a
government is to provide essential services.
1125
It is not just about reducing taxes. It is not just about even
reducing debt. The most important thing is that we have to
provide services when Canadians need. If we put government
into a straitjacket of legislated debt reduction we have that
problem.
Then there is the opposite side of the coin. If we say, as the
Alliance Party has said, that debt reduction has to be at $6
billion a year, what do we do when we have the opportunity of a
surplus, as we have now, where we can reduce the debt by $10
billion and where we reduced the debt by $12 billion just
recently?
I read an interesting figure on that reduction of $12 billion.
That saves us $700 million in interest charges, I think it is. We
are all on side here. We want to get that debt down but do not
put us in a straitjacket. That does not help Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not have
much time, but I do find that the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot has a colossal nerve.
He says that there were even some deaths in Walkerton because of
bad drinking water treatment. Could he at least have the courage
to admit that in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada it is in part,
perhaps in large part, the federal cuts that have made it
impossible for the provinces to respond to their people's needs
in the health field?
Let him at least have the honesty to admit that.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, what happened in Ontario
is that instead of settling its obligations the Ontario
government cut personal income taxes. It made the choice, which
is proposed now by the Canadian Alliance, to set cutting taxes
above public safety and the cost has been in lives in Ontario.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals are very much on side on
this. We all believe that we must invest in the environment.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to persuade all
those Liberals over there that what they are doing today with
this so-called itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny mini-budget is totally
inadequate.
Unfortunately I will not have a great deal of time because I am
sharing my time with the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley. Therefore in my limited time I will address just a few
of the issues. First, I would like to talk about debt. If we
wanted to congratulate the Liberals for anything, I guess we
should congratulate them for their excellent ability to spin an
itsy-bitsy thing into something big.
One of the things they are bragging about is their debt
reduction. When the Liberals came into power in 1993 the total
debt was $508 billion. Of course they had that record over $40
billion deficit which was left by the Conservatives. For about
eight years the Liberals were riding on the fact that the
Conservatives gave them that $40 billion deficit.
How much mileage have they spun out of the fact that the deficit
is now gone? I am amazed they even attempt to take credit for
it. The deficit would have been gone if they had done nothing,
which I guess is pretty well what they did.
We have had a very strong economy with our neighbours to the
south. We have had a very excellent balance of payments
internationally. Consequently our economy has done very well.
Lo and behold the deficit is gone.
1130
That has been on the backs of the taxpayers. It has been on the
backs of the employers and employees in the country from whom the
government incorrectly, illegally, unlawfully has taken billions
of dollars out of the EI fund. It has no justification
legislatively to do that. In more gentler terms we would call it
theft when one takes something from someone to which one is not
entitled. I am not accusing any individual member of that. It is
the whole government that has simply stolen money, the billions
it is not entitled to, from employers and employees.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I know the
hon. member for Elk Island was being very careful with his
suggestions because the hon. member knows that he must be very
careful. I thought I would interject because it is very clearly
understood that the word stolen, even in connection in a broad
term with the government, is plainly inappropriate.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will not use that term again.
The government took money it was not entitled to legislatively.
The EI fund is specifically set up to look after people who are
temporarily out of jobs. The government has rolled billions of
dollars from that fund into the general revenues in the
consolidated revenue fund.
Let me talk more about the debt. Under the present government
the debt grew from $508 billion in the 1993 budget. Let us say
$546 billion; we will concede that it was not responsible for the
deficit in the first year. Now the debt is around $565 billion.
The debt has grown and it has grown substantially under the
present government. Yet the Liberals are spinning it in such a
way that literally thousands of Canadians think that hey, the
debt is gone. They keep talking about eliminating the deficit
and they do not communicate clearly with Canadians that the
deficit is simply the amount one borrows.
Instead of borrowing, we now have surpluses, that is true, but
it is with no thanks to the government. It would have happened
anyway. The fact of the matter is that our total debt, the amount
against our national credit card, is considerably greater.
As hon. members know, I taught at the Northern Alberta Institute
of Technology. One of the courses I taught was the math of
finance. I did a little calculation. Just using round numbers,
with a debt of roughly $580 billion, which I admit is now a
little less, in order to retire a mortgage of $580 billion in 25
years would require posting a surplus toward it of $50 billion a
year for 25 years. Those people are doing that. We are paying $40
billion in interest thanks to this government, the one preceding
it and the Liberals preceding it. We got that huge debt and now
we are paying $40 billion a year in interest. The government is
paying it with taxpayers' money and it is paying another $10
billion against the principal. Lo and behold, that adds up to
$50 billion a year. At that rate we will be rid of our debt in 25
years.
That is great. As long as I can do anything about it, we will
do everything we can to pressure the government into resisting
the additional spending it is prone to do. The only thing not
mini about the mini-budget is the new spending programs. Added up
over the next five years the Liberals are looking at spending an
additional $50 billion. A lot of it is for straight political
purposes as we have seen particularly over the last year. It is
totally atrocious.
I would also like to address the question of tax cuts. The
finance minister loves to stand in his place and say they are not
only going to do da-di-da, but they are reducing the tax rate to
16%, from 17% to 16%. It is a crime that the Liberals are taking
any tax money at all from the people whom they are taxing. They
suck $6 billion a year from families whose income is less than
$20,000 a year. That is absolutely atrocious.
The Liberals are crowing that they are not going to take 17% of
our taxable income anymore, but they are now going to take 16%.
1135
This is what those numbers mean. This is approximate; I did not
do an actual tax return. I just did some rough calculations based
on a family making $26,000, a mom and a dad and two kids. The
Liberals tax them around $2,000; actually $2,147 is the number I
got. If that is reduced to 16%, their tax is reduced by $126.
This is a family that makes a scant $26,000, a mom and a dad
trying to raise two kids, and the government is asking us to jump
up and click our heels, which I find difficult to do for two
reasons and members will them figure out. That family will keep
$126, $10 a month, and the Liberals say that is great.
Under our tax plan the same family would get a tax cut of 100%.
We would cut that family's taxes entirely. They would not be
required to pay because they are poor.
Let us consider people with a little more. The Liberals are
trying to spin it that all we want to do is give a tax break to
the rich and not to the poor. They are the ones who are taxing
the poor. We are the ones who are ready to relieve the poor of
tax.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Tell us about the flat tax.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time. The member
can ask that in a question.
In conclusion, if there were an Alliance government, we would
begin to relieve the tax burden of Canadians in a substantial
way. It is a fact that reducing the tax rates for families who
are poor provides much more money for them than do the grants and
the administration costs and all of the other boondoggles that we
get from a government that believes in taking money from
taxpayers and then having the bureaucrats or politicians decide
who gets it back.
I am very pleased to announce that when the Alliance forms the
government, it will be the end of hotels being subsidized in
Shawinigan.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I read an article this morning
in the Globe and Mail, a newspaper that often is not too
kind to the Liberal Party. The article was by Hugh Winsor. He
talked about the Alliance tax plan. Here is what he had to say
about the Alliance tax plan:
The Alliance plan is totally predicated on a presumption of tax
greed: that everybody wants lower taxes, even if it means fewer
services from the government. It is a plan clearly skewed toward
higher incomes.
That really captures the essence of the Alliance's tax plan.
In the House this morning the member for Elk Island and others
have talked about low income Canadians. I would like to acquaint
Canadians and the House with the impact yesterday's economic
statement will have on some Canadian taxpayers.
For example, a one earner family with two children with an
income of $40,000 a year paid about $3,325 in federal tax last
year. The Alliance has not said when its tax measures would come
into play but as of January 1, 2001, and not some unknown
timeframe out there in never-never land, the taxes for this
family of four will fall by $1,100. That is a 32% saving in
federal income taxes. That is not all. I have just begun. By
the year 2004 their taxes will fall by 59%.
How about a single parent with one child earning $33,000. As of
January 1, and not 2004 or 2005 or some other time in the distant
future, but as of January 1 a single parent earning $33,000 will
pay no net tax at all. Zero, zip; in English that is none.
Could the member tell us under his tax plan what programs his
party will cut? It will have to cut $25 billion in programs.
1140
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is really an interesting
debate. I do not think it was a year ago when we were pushing
for tax cuts that the Prime Minister said publicly in the
newspapers that he was not cutting taxes as that was not the
Canadian way. Now all of a sudden the Liberals are bragging that
apparently they think their tax cuts are bigger than ours. That
is not true of course, but they are trying to spin it. What an
amazing transformation.
On the member's question, first of all, on the reduction in
taxes for those who are in the $30,000 bracket, which is not a
rich bracket, our tax plan is going to give them some real relief
because we are reducing the exemption. There is a big
difference.
A $20,000 income being taxed at 16% is $3,200. At 17% there is
the same amount of tax revenue from an income of $18,000. In
other words, reducing the exemption by $1,176 gives an individual
a 1% reduction. We are reducing the basic exemption by about
twice that, by $2,500 approximately. As a result, even though the
remaining part will be taxed at the end of our plan at 17%
instead of 16%, it still means the taxpayer will be paying less
tax because it is only 1% higher but it is on $2,500 less money.
Under our plan the person pays no tax at all on that much more
money.
It is a problem in communication and the Liberals are really
good at that. People look at 16% and 17%. Somehow the Liberals
are able to separate Canadians from their money so efficiently
and make them feel good about it. In a way we have to admire
that skill in communication. We have to admire that, but it is
being dishonest to Canadian people.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I must have known that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was going to
ask the question about what programs we would cut because I
brought a list of them with me this morning which I would like to
present to the House.
The Canadian Institute of Technology and Economic Commerce
received about $3.5 million. We are going to cut that program.
This group was established in the Prime Minister's own riding and
incidentally, its two principals were charged with fraud and
theft in August 2000.
Wiarton, Ontario where groundhog day is held every year just
received $50,000 from HRDC to help with its groundhog day
program. We are going to cut that program. Incidentally, the
people of Wiarton are going to receive that money in the form of
funding for health care and post-secondary education rather than
for their groundhog day. We think those two things are more of a
priority to them contrary to what the Liberals are talking about.
American based RMH Teleservices was enticed to the HRDC
minister's riding with a $1.6 million HRDC grant over the
protests of one of the neighbouring Liberal MPs. The principal
of RMH Teleservices said that one way or another it would have
been in Brantford anyway, with or without the $1.6 million from
the Minister of Human Resources Development. I just realized
that is the riding of the HRDC minister.
For the Liberal government's interest, there is another program
we are going to cut. Canadian Aerospace Group in Nipissing,
Ontario received $917,000 of a $1.3 million transitional jobs
fund grant before going bankrupt without building any aircraft.
There is a bright side. This bankrupt company then moved to
Saint-Hubert, Quebec and was approved for another $1.6 million
from the Canadian economic development for Quebec regions. There
was a little vote gathering going on there.
1145
To answer the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister,
those are the programs we will be cutting. That is how an
Alliance government would be able to fund important things like
health care and post-secondary education, programs that keep our
best and brightest here in Canada instead of seeing them go
south. I think Canadians would agree that those other programs
are far less important than health care and education.
Let us get to the election plan of the Liberal government that
was brought down yesterday. It is important to first establish a
real truth about the government. The real truth about the
government is that it cannot give to the people that which it has
not first taken from them.
The Minister of Finance stood in the House and brought down this
mini-budget. He has, in a magnanimous jester, which just happens
to coincide with the calling of an election, tried to out do the
tax relief of the Canadian Alliance Party. I am pretty flattered
that I have been part of a political party sitting in opposition
in the House that has been so effective in our calls for tax
relief in the last seven years that we have been able to
influence a Liberal government that throughout history tax relief
has been the furthest thing from any of its policies or
philosophies.
Just show me a book on Liberal governments going back to 1867
where a Liberal government came up with an idea all on its own,
where it would give Canadian taxpayers some tax relief. I would
love to see that book but it is not there.
Let us be clear. The finance minister and this government came
to this mini-budget last night kicking and screaming. They were
in fact dragged, drugged to that point over the last seven years
by the Canadian Alliance Party and the Reform Party before that.
An hon. member: He doesn't know how to use the past tense
of dragged.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: He sort of drug that one up.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: You need to drag it again, that's
gone.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member from
Nipissing unfortunately has been drug around by a horse a little
too long. It is starting to affect his thinking.
As I commented on once before, if one focuses on something too
long one tends to take on the characteristics of it. It is
obvious in his case he has by riding in that little cart behind
the horse.
There is one thing about the Liberals, and let us be fair, they
may be devious, they may be deceitful—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Devious we can get
away with but we cannot have him in a sulky if we are using
deceitful. So we would ask you to please withdraw the word
deceitful.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. They may
be at times seen—
1150
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, no. I am asking
you to withdraw the word deceitful.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word
deceitful.
The Liberals may be at times, in addition to being devious, seen
to be lacking in integrity. They may seem to be at times, by
some people, lacking in moral fibre. However, one thing they are
not is stupid when it comes to using the book of election
trickery. They know that book very well and they have read that
book very well. We saw an example here yesterday of just how
much they have been able to embrace that book of political
trickery over the years.
They have been stripping Canadian taxpayers of their hard earned
money for seven long years. They have put in about 40 tax
increases over the last seven years. They have taken over $50
billion of new tax increases over the last seven years. Now, on
the eve of another election, they are going to give them all
their money back.
What a gimmick. What a gift. They are going to give Canadians
back their own money. This is amazing. They think they are
doing something wonderful. It is like when my children were
small. When they misbehaved I would take away their toys. When
I would give them a few back and they thought they were getting
something new.
They have failed miserably in their attempt to out tax relief
the Canadian Alliance Party. Their program simply is not
believable. One only has to read the recent auditor general's
report on HRDC and on budget program 2000 and see the language
that is contained in that report.
Given all the evidence of the mismanagement of HRDC, the billion
dollar or so boondoggle, given the wording of the AG's report on
the budget 2000 that the minister has presented, a financial
document that is misleading, Canadian voters will be asking
themselves one question: Can we trust the Liberals? The answer
will be a resounding no on November 27 when they elect a Canadian
Alliance government to run this country properly.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talk about the beam,
beam me up, Scotty. I do not know where this member just came
from.
I do not know where to start. I do not know whether to call him
a well practised prevaricator, because he is at variance with so
many truths on this side of the House, or whether to say he
suffers from selective amnesia. He stood up and said that he was
going to tell the parliamentary secretary of finance where his
party was going to make the cuts. The cuts under that party's
flat tax plan would mean that we would have to make cuts of $25
billion.
I do not have the mathematical expertise of the hon. member for
Elk Island. I am just a farmer and a lumberjack from the upper
Ottawa Valley, but I have itemized this. He has $7.5 million, so
he is only about $24,996,000,000 shy.
First, he did make a rather caustic remark about me being in
harness horse racing. Yes, I am very proud of the fact that I
have my licence for harness horse racing. I have probably seen
more horses' asses than most people, so I know them when I see
them. I am looking upon them now because if that party expects
the Canadian public to buy its tax plan, it is treating the
entire Canadian public like a bunch of horses' asses, excuse the
language.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I know the hon.
parliamentary secretary understands that I know exactly what he
is talking about. I would ask that we not refer to each other or
to anyone else in that frame. As much as I enjoy it, I do not
think we should.
1155
Mr. Hec Clouthier: I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.
When the member wants to take a run at our Prime Minister—and
our Prime Minister can quite easily defend himself—but when he
starts to talk about $2 million and $3 million, which he has no
proof of, let us look at the scenario.
The Leader of the Opposition gave over $20 million in grant
money to golf courses, tuxedo rental shops and limousines in his
own riding and over $14 million has not been accounted for. Let
us not start taking a run at our Prime Minister because of
something that he may or may not have done.
Let us talk about health—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but we
are running out of time. We have to give the hon. member a
chance to respond.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am glad he finally
got to his question.
What I did when I stood up earlier was explain to the
parliamentary secretary some of the programs that we would cut.
Granted, we are talking at this stage only about $7 million or $8
million. If I had an hour we could put it up into the billions.
The member from Nipissing says that we are $25 billion short.
Let me state exactly where it is because hidden in this
magnanimous gesture of tax relief, in this mini-budget, is $52
billion in new spending. Twenty-three dollars billion goes to
health care, which it has ripped out of it since 1993, but that
still leaves about $25 billion in new spending programs that the
government is trying to hide in this mini-budget by talking about
all the tax relief; $25 billion in new spending. Just to make
sure that it got spent, just to make sure that no Liberal forgot
how to spend money, they brought in the ex-premier of
Newfoundland to remind them all how to spend money. We are going
to see that person in action if this Liberal government, my
goodness, I shudder to think, should ever win the next election.
I pity the people in the government, and there are two or three
who have some fiscal sense, because they are going to be crying
themselves to sleep every night as they watch the ex-premier of
Newfoundland teach all the Liberals who may have forgotten how to
spend money how to do it once again.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to enter the debate and talk about some of the numbers that the
previous speaker was missing.
He said that there was some more spending in here, and he is
correct, but look at the spending programs. The spending is on
the environment, on alternative fuels and on making our air and
our water safe. These are the things that the reform alliance
has no interest in. It also has spending to enhance our granting
councils, to put more money into research and development, to
invest in the brain power and the knowledge power of the people of
this country, to make this country a better place and to make us
more innovative in the world of global economy. These are the
things of course that the Alliance is not particularly interested
in.
I hear the members from across the way laughing and carrying on
as if this was some kind of funny game. This is not a game. It
is very serious to the people of Canada. The debate is about
public versus private spending.
The opposition would have us believe that somehow by stripping
out public expenditures they would simply go away. The reality
is that if we take money out of certain programs it will simply
have to be replaced by the private sector. I know the reform
alliance would just love to see this in the area of health care.
It was interesting that the other day one of their own speakers
was telling us about the access to health care in the province of
Alberta where in fact people have to pay their own premiums and
that there was a whole list of people in the province of Alberta
who, for whatever reason, were unable to make the premium
payments and, as a consequence, did not get health care.
1200
That is the kind of society the former treasurer of the province
of Alberta would have us live in. Canadians are not fooled by
those kinds of choices. Canadians do not want that kind of
society.
I would like to talk about the whole area of taxation. Certainly
the economic plan of the Minister of Finance was very forward
looking with its concept of reducing personal taxes. Across
progressive income tax rates we really have four income tax
brackets if we count the first one as being zero.
I would like to talk to some of the people out there today about
progressivity in the income tax system and the so-called vision
of taxation our members across the way would have us believe in.
Progressivity simply means that as people earn more money they
have the propensity and the ability to pay proportionately more
tax. In other words, they are not paying proportionately more
tax on all the money they have earned but only on that portion of
higher income they have earned.
Canadians have long accepted the concept of progressivity. If
one is wealthy, if one has been so generously endowed to earn
well, one will pay proportionately more in income tax. We are
not talking about rates. We can see today that our government
has reduced rates. The two different issues here are rates and
progressivity.
I would question all this business about exemptions, deductions
and so forth. They really mean nothing to the average taxpayer.
The only thing that means anything to anyone is total tax bite in
relation to total income. Subtract the two and what is left is
the disposable income with which one can actually go to the
supermarket or department store and physically buy something.
That is the only thing that is important to people.
I would suggest that people start thinking about all the taxes
they pay in their lives. We talk about municipal taxes, about
sales taxes, and about excise taxes. The one thing they have in
common is that they are all flat taxes. They do not go up as
one's income goes up.
If we took all of those taxes, included income taxes and looked
over the broad spectrum of people's earnings, guess what? Canada
has a flat tax system today. As incomes go up, in other words,
total taxes do not. I have statistics here from numerous
professors that will bear out this equation.
We can go into the reform alliance members' dream world, or I
should say nightmare, of a flat tax system that would take the
income tax system and also flatten it. They have backed away a
little from that. They have said they will not do that right
away. Maybe they will just wait awhile or sneak it by the door
and then stick it to people. The reality is that people are not
going to be fooled by that.
By the way, no countries in the western world have a flat tax.
No peoples in the western world have sat down and said it is a
fair and reasonable thing to flatten the income tax system. I
know the province of Alberta thinks it has one but it is not a
country yet.
If in fact the income tax system was flattened, what would
happen? Looking across the perspective of people's incomes we
would actually see the wealthiest people paying less
proportionate tax than the middle class. Let us think about
that. We would actually see a line on a graph. As people start
hitting $100,00 a year and over, their proportionate tax bite
would actually go down. I can think of nothing more perverse or
immoral from a party that talks about morality and values.
I can think of no situation that can justify such an immoral
position as transferring taxation from the wealthy to the middle
class. This is a fundamental issue as we go into this election.
1205
I have had the privilege to go to countries that actually have
this type of taxation system. They have it not by choice but
through corruption an an inadequate way of collecting taxes. Many
of the countries in South America often have a similar system.
There one finds a small group of wealthy people who pay very
little tax. They have their money hidden in foreign accounts and
so forth and do not contribute to the economy. Then one finds a
massive group of poor people who have no ability to participate
in that economy. It is not good for either the wealthy or the
poor. The wealthy cannot sell goods because there is nobody to
sell them to and the poor cannot consume them because they do not
have the money to buy them.
I suggest that this vision of reform alliance on flat tax would
drive us into a two income groups: one for the wealthy and one
for the poor. Few people in the existing middle class would have
the ability to catapult or make that astronomic jump from being
middle class to wealthy. That is the vision that party would
bring a vision where the wealthy get wealthier and the poor are
destined to be poorer and poorer.
The previous speaker talked about some of the wasteful spending
of the federal government. It makes the assumption that if
governments spend the money it is terrible, but if somebody in
the private sector spends the money it is good.
I have a list of HRDC programs. I look at the Alliance formula
here. They talk about all the stuff they would reduce to make
their little world work. They talk about reducing HRDC grants
and contributions.
I want to talk about some of the things that have occurred in my
riding of Durham. I look at the first one on the list of people
who received grants from HRDC: Independent Deaf Services.
Archibald Orchards and Estate Winery is a small business that is
trying to establish a winery in my riding, and very successfully.
They taught some young students skills they probably would not
otherwise have received because nobody would hire them. They
hired those kids to work in that business. The business is
successful, creating jobs in my riding and bringing in wealth.
The winery is also exporting product across the border, bringing
export dollars into Canada.
Another organization I presume the opposition does not like is
the Bowmanville Memorial Hospital. HRDC gave money to allow
people to work in the summer months at the local memorial
hospital.
The Bowmanville Zoological Park is another one. This is private
sector. They own a park. They are doing films. I cannot
remember the classic film about the elephants in Africa, but
those elephants came from Bowmanville. They train elephants for
movie productions. They created a school to do that. People are
coming from all over Canada to get this training, and we are
exporting that to the movie industry all over the world. This is
a success story that the reform alliance would have nothing to do
with.
I will refer to another so-called terrible expenditure.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
usually let members misuse our name three times before I rise. It
is now three times that this member has not called us by the
proper name as ruled by the Speaker. It is Canadian Alliance. I
would ask you to remind the hon. member of that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Elk Island is quite correct. The name of the Reform Party has
been changed to the Canadian Alliance. It has been clearly
understood that this is the name by which the party will be
recognized.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, we can dress them up but
we still cannot take them anywhere.
1210
The Central Seven Association in my riding received $10,000.
What does Central Seven do? It deals with the mentally
handicapped in my riding. This is a program the opposition would
be happy to stomp out.
Tyrone Mills is a privately owned historical site in my riding
that is having a very difficult time maintaining itself. It is
one of those areas where if it was not privately owned it would
have to be government funded and cost us twice as much to
maintain. We gave the historical site the terrible sum of around
$13,000 back in 1998 to help with some of their summer student
employment programs.
White Feather Farms is a very successful farming operation in my
community. It received $6,000 to assist in summer employment on
the farm. Young people got work experience in the agricultural
sector. These things would not have happened without these
programs.
The list goes on: the municipality of Clarington; the Durham
region community care association, which helps people with home
care; and other things the opposition, whatever their name is,
would do away with.
To the people of Durham it is not funny. The people of Durham
take this very seriously. They do not find it particularly
humorous to be told that these things are a waste or boondoggles.
They can see right through it.
I would like to move on to the so-called health care agenda of
the Alliance. It is interesting to read the letter the
Alliance's illustrious leader sent to the premiers on the
discussion of the health care formula. Essentially he talks
about the transfer of tax points to the provinces in support of
health care. This is the same party that refuses to acknowledge
the fact that back in 1997 the federal government entered into an
agreement with the provinces to transfer tax points in support of
health care. In its little booklet it shows a wonderful graph of
how the Liberals stopped spending on health care. What is
missing? The transfer of tax points, which is the very thing
they want to do. Its whole platform is not only ridiculous but
also unethical, frankly. It is not true.
That program of transferring tax points to the provinces would
simply mean the federal government would have nothing to say in
health care. Indeed, the provinces are arguing about that now.
In my own province the government refuses to acknowledge the fact
that it was transferred tax points back in 1997, as if it never
happened.
For those people who do not fully understand tax points, and
many of us do not, the federal government has a federal income
tax on which the provinces usually piggyback their taxes. With
tax points, rather than simply taking money in and sending
provinces a cheque once a year, the federal government would just
reduce its amount of federal tax and allow the provinces to
occupy the taxation room. The provinces would then collect
directly.
However, once the government does this it is almost like giving
candy to a baby: provinces consume the candy and want more. They
seem to forget the fact that they received these tax points and
have been enjoying the benefits since 1997.
That is the type of regime this party would impose on us in the
area of health care. In other words, rather than money being
sent from the federal government to the provinces, it would all
go through the position of tax points. That essentially means
the provinces would go their own route to creating a health care
regime.
1215
They will forget about the federal government which essentially
ends up in the creation of 10 provincial health care systems and
also systems in the territories, none of which make any sense to
each other, none of which would be portable, transferable or
accessible. The reality is Canada's health care spending is the
fourth highest per capita in the world and yet when it comes to
service delivery, we rank about 18th. The federal government did
not create those statistics, the provinces did because they are
responsible for the administration of health care.
It begs the question then why would we transfer more power to
the provinces that already created this inefficiency, this
inadequacy? Does this issue of commitment to health care by the
so-called Alliance help to get down to the root problems of the
health care system? No, it does not. It simply means that we
would transfer power from the federal government to the provinces
and there would be no uniformity of health care in the country.
I note in their little platform document that the Alliance says
it is interested in Canadian unity, yet when we ask people what
unites us as a nation we often talk about our social programs.
The fact that we have a universally accessible health care system
is one of the things that we see as defining us as Canadians.
This is the very central issue that the Alliance would do away
with, a universal health care system, and in fact it would allow
for the experimentation of privately funded health care.
I note in its documents the Alliance talks about needing more
doctors and nurses. I had a health care forum in my riding and I
brought in the people who run Durham Lakeridge Health
Corporation. I brought representatives from the physicians and
nurses. It was a funny thing; after discussion that night the
conclusion was that it has nothing to do with money. Sure, we
would like a little more money for our MRIs and for machinery,
but the reality was that the problems were fundamental. We had
too many doctors pushing paper, working on computers and not
delivering health care. We had an administrative system in our
provinces that mitigated against the delivery of health care.
The Alliance members celebrate that. They want to give more
money. They keep pouring money into the top of this thing but it
is not coming out at the bottom. That is why when we sat down
with the provinces we demanded there be an accountability
framework. We demanded that there be accountability on how we
are spending the money, on how waiting lists are being made
better, how the delivery of health care to average individuals is
being made better. We believe that there is a fundamental role
for the federal government in health care, of the lives of the
people of this country. That is a fundamental difference between
us and the party over there.
I would like to talk about some of the other elements that were
in the economic statement, not the least of which were some
interesting elements in reducing corporate taxes and also capital
gains taxes. I note that with our capital gains tax reductions,
capital gains tax in real terms relative to the American tax is
actually lower now. This gives Canadians a great opportunity to
invest in themselves and in the country. It has always been one
of our sore points that Canadians have often not invested in
themselves. We have allowed for greater rollovers of capital
gains. If we buy stock in small companies and then buy another
one, we can keep rolling over that money in Canada tax free.
I will end on that happy note. This is a great economic
statement. The party over there is in lots of trouble.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rather enjoy listening to the member because he has a
logical mind but sometimes he tends to distort things. It is
just the way it comes out, but I thank him for his speech.
I would like to correct one misconception. It is in fact true
that individuals in Alberta and British Columbia pay a premium to
have access to the health care system.
That is how those provinces happen to set it up.
1220
I would like to inform the member and everyone else who heard
him that people who do not have money do not go without health
care in Alberta. As a matter of fact, there is a means tested
system. If people do not have the means to pay the premium then
they are exempted from paying it, which is the way it ought to
be. I do not think the member raised a valid point.
I would like also to talk a bit about the health care system. I
noticed that the member wears glasses. I am sure he has been to
a dentist. It occurred to me that neither optometric services
nor dental services are covered under the Canada Health Act and
yet it seems that our Canadian population is well served by
private enterprise in those areas. We also have general
practitioners and hospitals and so on that are publicly funded.
That seems to work reasonably well most of the time except when
there are some severe glitches in the system as we have
experienced in Canada in the last seven, eight or ten years.
It would be disingenuous of us to simply say that we will never
discuss whether or not there is a role for private practitioners.
I think there is. As I have already said, there are a number of
different medical areas which are certainly essential. I would
be really lost, literally, if I did not have my glasses and yet I
do not expect anybody else to pay for them. We should have in
place a system whereby those who do not have the means to pay
should be able to get their glasses covered. I think they do
through our social welfare system. We are not against that.
As far as health care is concerned, the member really does
misrepresent our stand. We have always had, reflecting the
wishes of Canadians as a grassroots party, the health care system
as our highest priority. It has been a concentrated effort on
the part of our, shall I call them our political adversaries, to
try to distort our image on health care. I am getting very tired
of it. I am one who fully supports an adequate health care
system. I believe very strongly in and voted for our policy that
says no Canadian shall be denied needed health care because of a
lack of ability to pay. That is our policy.
I would like the member to stop his concentrated effort of
distorting what we believe in so that his party can somehow come
out as the defenders of health care when in fact it has been
under their watch that health care has seemingly suffered so very
much.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, the member for Elk
Island said that I was distorting his party's position. This was
concerning the list of people, possibly in Alberta and British
Columbia, who are required to pay their own premiums and if they
did not, it was possible they would not get access to the health
care system. I am only repeating what I heard the member for
South Surrey—White Rock—Langley say yesterday. We can go back
and look at her speech where she said those very things. She is
stating presumably the position of the Alliance. I would not say
she was misleading the House. I presume she was telling the
truth.
On the issue of other private sector provided health care, I
think members will find that in the area of dental care where
people do not have some kind of coverage whatsoever with their
employer they get poor dental care. We could go to the dental
association and others who will confirm that. Reality is where
the service is not readily available people do make economic
choices. If they have less money, they get less health care. That
is all there is to it and that is the kind of system the member
is promoting.
On the member's final point he said that I was distorting the
position of his party regarding the facts or the
balkanization of the health care system. I would like to mention
some statements from his own leader who sent a letter to the
premiers. In the letter he talked about allowing for, more or
less, a system of tax points being transferred to the provinces.
This will allow any province to opt out of cost shared programs
in areas of provincial jurisdiction with full compensation.
Opting out. Have we ever heard of opting out? That was Quebec's
thing years ago, “Opt out of this. Opt out of that. We will
create our own program”. That is exactly the health care system
that this party wants to promote, an opted out system where
everybody is going off on their own little bailiwick with no
accountability, with no commitment to the people of Canada and
certainly no harmoniousness across this country that we could all
share and respect as our health care system.
1225
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker,
I reject what the member is saying about our policy. We
believe that it is the role of the federal government to work
very closely with the provinces and come to an agreement with
them with respect to the funding of health care across the
country. Certainly there has to be accountability.
I find it rather amazing that a member from the government side,
after the gross mismanagement in HRDC and in native
affairs, that the auditor
general just decried—it is not us saying it—that he would
somehow imply that the Liberals are the masters of accountability
and there would be none under our programs. It is really just
the opposite. I need to rebut that.
I would also like to ask the member about tax credits. During
his speech he indicated that the view in our graph is somehow
distorted. He actually held it up even though props do not
usually appear in the House. I often wish we could. As a math
teacher I would love to show those graphs to help communicate. He
actually did it and got away with it. He showed that dip in
health care spending by the federal government which was indeed
cash transfers. I understand tax points. At the same time we
never noticed that our federal tax load actually went down. In
other words, the tax room was vacated but we were still being
taxed.
There is that aspect to it. The other part that rather confused
me is that he said “We are not acknowledging that they
transferred tax points and that this is good”. Then he also
said almost in the same sentence, and I may not be able to quote
it exactly, something along the line that when transferring tax
points, the federal government's ability to have a say in it is
removed.
I disagree with that. I think that tax points is a valid way of
arranging with the provinces for financing. I would like to ask
him if we propose tax points it is bad, if it is done by them and
we are not acknowledging it, it is good. I think he is
inconsistent and I would like him to clarify.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, quite frankly the decision to engage
in the tax point exercise was in 1977, certainly a long time ago.
I was not around. I believe that the government confronted with
the same choice would not do that.
It simply has not worked out. In the province of Ontario, the
premier continually ignores tax points. In fact he delights in
spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money showing how
little the federal government is contributing to health care,
totally and erroneously misrepresenting the position of the
province of Ontario.
When the member says that this is a fair and equitable
arrangement if we give tax points, it is not in reality in the
day to day push and shove of politics. Provinces will not come
clean. They will not stand up and say “We honestly understand
what happened. We honestly understand that tax points were given
to us. We will give you credit for it”. They just say “You
are not doing your share. You are only giving us 13 cents on the
dollar and therefore you have nothing to say in the area of
health care”. That is not true. We are not willing to accept
that. We are not going to accept it in the future.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I
wonder if I could find unanimous consent of the House to just ask
the member one more quick 30 second question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there consent to
continue questions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1230
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I will begin by saying that it is obvious to everyone that the
government had one thing and one thing alone in mind when it
brought down this mini-budget, and that was the upcoming
election. All economists and editorial writers today would
agree.
With the staggering, not to say exploding, surpluses at the
disposal of the Minister of Finance, we were expecting that he
would do something for those who were really responsible for
helping put the fiscal house in order, those whose efforts have
made the last three years of zero deficits possible and are
still being gouged by the federal tax system, those who are the
reason the Minister of Finance can stand here today and boast
about surpluses.
We thought that the main beneficiaries of these tax cuts would
be low and middle income families, not families at the top end
of the scale who can take advantage of tax loopholes not those
earning $250,000 and up, not millionaires and friends of the
Minister of Finance.
This year he dares to say that the surplus will reach $6 billion
only, whereas close to $12 billion is already sitting in the
federal government's coffers. This is more than double his
forecasts for this year. He could have done twice what he is
doing now.
He could have helped the most disadvantaged, low and middle
income earners, the folks who pay EI premiums, and the small and
medium size businesses which are now footing the bill for tax
cuts for the rich.
He could also have helped the unemployed men and women who are
not receiving any EI benefits because of the drastic cuts made
in the system and because of the tighter eligibility criteria.
It is the families in rural areas, young people, women and
seniors who are paying for the income tax cuts of the rich.
The government wanted to upstage the Canadian Alliance before
the election call and woo its voters. The government seized on
the idea of the flat rate proposed by the Canadian Alliance,
which was strongly criticized because it favours the
millionaires, and incorporated it into its mini-budget.
It took the $100 billion in surpluses from the pockets of low
and middle income taxpayers, off the backs of the unemployed,
women, young people, the sick and the disadvantaged. It is
totally indecent.
Do not get too excited about the tax cuts because we are not
going to get them right away—only in a year and a half.
It could have presented the same budget in February, but the
wealthiest in society will not really feel the effect of this
mini-budget for a year and a half.
According to the information in the Minister of Finance's
economic statement and budget update, a single parent family
with an income of $250,000 or more will enjoy a tax cut 40 times
greater than a family with one dependent earning $30,000. In
the case of an income of $250,000 the reduction represents
$20,000 net in income tax, and in the case of an income of
$35,000, it represents a mere $500, when there is one dependent
involved.
The government is giving millionaires a $20,000 cut in income
tax and middle income and disadvantaged families a $500 cut.
What is even more disgusting is that the government will give
the most disadvantaged families a government cheque for $125
because of the current oil crisis. This is really disgusting.
1235
The minister kept telling us that people earning $35,000 did not
pay taxes. We questioned him on several occasions, because we
knew that these people were in fact paying taxes, but he kept
telling us that they did not.
Oddly enough, now he admits that they do pay taxes, since he
just told us that they would be paying less. If this is not
trying to fool people, I do not know what it is.
This budget also shows that the government continues to
accumulate surpluses shamelessly because, as I said earlier, the
tax cuts will occur in one and a half year. Once again, the
government continues to fiddle with the figures by using tax
deductions as tax cuts.
This has to be seen. Members should take a look at page 97 of
the minister's economic statement, where a chart shows that the
employment insurance fund is being used as a form of tax relief.
The government is dipping into the surpluses of the EI fund to
grant tax cuts to high income earners. Moreover, it is fiddling
with the figures and using the child tax benefit.
The GST, a tax that should not exist when a government is
enjoying such surpluses, is part of the tax relief scheme. Even
the auditor general condemned this dubious practice and told the
government not to resort to it again. The government then
brought down a mini-budget and again fiddled with the figures to
create a smokescreen. It hid the real figures because it was
afraid to have a real debate on the real issues.
I currently am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance.
I was at the in-camera presentation of this mini budget, before
the Minister delivered his speech in the House. Out of
curiosity, I immediately checked where was the support promised
to women's associations that met with the Prime Minister last
week.
These women had 13 basic claims. They met with the Prime
Minister who told them to wait and see what would be in the
mini budget. That was the first thing I did. Believe it or not
there was nothing and even less than nothing.
There is nothing for low income single mothers who should pay
no income tax, nothing for social housing and nothing for the
former older workers of the Celanese plant in our region, which
has closed down.
These people contributed to employment insurance for 30 and 40
years. They were given a severance cheque, which they were told
was a gift that they should use, and later we would see if they
were entitled to employment insurance benefits.
These people, aged between 55 and 57, will have a hard time
finding a job because, as we know, entrepreneurs and employers
do not hire people of that age, whom they no longer trust. This
government had a duty to establish a program like the modified
former older workers program.
There is nothing in there for the former workers in
Drummondville, Jonquière or other areas who suffer the hardship
of plant closures.
There is nothing for employment insurance, parental leave,
foreign aid or for ordinary people who paid for those surpluses.
Nor is there any basic financing provided for associations
working with women.
1240
The government cut all forms of assistance and core funding to
these women's groups when it asked them to submit projects. It
assesses the merits of each project and then tells the women that
it will be sending a cheque with a maple leaf.
The women who work in these organizations put in between 70 and
80 hours a week to come to the rescue of other women faced with
some very basic needs. Instead of spending their time helping
other women, they now have to develop projects to find the money
they need.
They would not always have to look for money if the government
had taken its responsibilities and extended core funding to help
these organizations.
I want to remind the House that these groups that help women in
need are the keepers of the fundamental values of our society.
When a government has been able to generate a surplus on the
backs of low and middle income taxpayers, as this one has, one
of its priorities should be to meet the demands of women's
groups; it has a duty to do so. I imagine the government will
pay for this on November 27, the night of the election.
The Prime Minister laughed at them. Women's groups got slapped
in the face by the government. The Prime Minister knew full well
that women would get nothing from the budget update. He does not
care at all about the demands of women.
This government is laughing. Women's groups are of no interest
to it.
Yet it is the women who raise children and support society, but
that is not of any interest to the Liberals. They prefer the
people earning $250,000, those who have easy lives, those who
have no trouble getting around the taxation system in order to
pay less tax, and those who have no trouble keeping a roof over
their heads. They prefer to give presents to these people
instead of going with the real priorities.
It is indecent to present a budget like this one. There is
nothing for the provinces as far as health is concerned. A
transfer has been made, $21 billion put back in the Canada
social transfer, and now they are patting themselves on the back
for that. Yet this is just the money that had been cut from the
provinces. It is not even the government's money.
Ottawa's money is the taxpayers' money and it must be returned
to them via the provinces for health and education. Brutal
cuts were made and now the $21 billion is being given back to
the provinces.
Today, in spite of the accumulated surplus, they cannot even
index the Canada social transfer. The provinces still have a
great deal of difficulty delivering services in the health
sector because of the aging population, the high costs of the
new technologies and the high cost of drugs.
The provinces are still having serious difficulties and there is
not an ounce of compassion being shown toward them. They are
being given back the $21 billion that had been cut and ought not
to have been. With the surplus, as we can see, the provinces
are being dragged down, are being strangled.
The provinces are being made to bear the brunt of the burden;
they cannot deliver all of the health services they would like
because they cannot afford to, while the federal government is
busy congratulating itself. This is disgusting.
There is no reference in this budget either to the indexing of
funding to universities for post-secondary education. This is at
a thirty year low. Nothing is said about that. They are
patting themselves on the back about their $100 billion surplus.
1245
There is absolutely no indexation of the Canada social transfer
for health and the youth. The budget provides a one-time
allocation for heating costs. What a sham.
At present, a single elderly woman who has only her pension
cheque to get by on is living under the poverty level. A recent
study has shown that 47% of single elderly women are living under
the poverty level. Those who have an oil furnace will get a small
$125 cheque, with the all important maple leaf to boot, when
their bill has in fact doubled.
In 1999 the bill was between $500 and $600. This
year it will be over $1,000, $1,100, or $1,200. In colder areas,
bills will be even higher. Yet the government claims to be giving
a generous gift, a $125 cheque. That is absolutely unacceptable.
In the budget, senior citizens living under the poverty level
are also ignored. There is nothing in this budget for these
elderly men and women who have a made a contribution to our
society. The government should make them one of its priorities.
What will low income single mothers who spend 30% of their
income on housing do when their heating bill doubles? Will they
deprive themselves of food toward the end of the month or freeze
in their homes? The $125 cheque from the government will not be a
big help.
One hundred and twenty five dollars does not even cover one
grocery bill for a single parent family with two children.
The Liberal government has reduced the income tax for the rich
and the friends of the party. It has done just like the minister
who cannot understand that, because he has his ships built
somewhere else. He could not care less. That is also the reason
why there is nothing in this budget for shipbuilding yards;
nothing for the one in Quebec City and nothing for the other
yards across the country. He does not care. He has his ships
built elsewhere, just like he pays his income tax elsewhere.
These surpluses do not come out of his pockets. It comes from
the taxpayers, from the unemployed and from the workers who
contribute to the employment insurance program.
This right wing budget is an insult to all Canadians. It is a
budget that ignores the least advantaged members of our society.
The minister could have done a lot more. We have been putting
forward the figures he is proposing now for a long time. We have
been doing so for years. We have been telling him for at least
four years that he will have all those billions in his coffers.
He has always laughed at us.
While our figures match now, we in the Bloc Quebecois do not
have the same priorities. If I had more time, I would give you a
list of our priorities. With $147.5 billion, our priorities would
target women, the disadvantaged and the low and middle income
earners. For the government, it is the opposite. While we
concentrate on those with an income of up to $80,000, for the
government that is the level at which tax reductions start.
We would also invest in tax reductions, and we will discuss our
true priorities during the electoral campaign.
1250
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, before
making a comment and asking a question to my colleague from
Drummond, I would like, as a preamble, to indicate to the House
that last week I informed my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois
that I will not be seeking a third mandate.
I would like to take this opportunity to say to all my
colleagues in the House how I appreciated working with all of
them. It is indeed a privilege to represent our fellow citizens
in this House.
I would also like to say that as a member of parliamentary
committees and associations I had the opportunity to get to
know some of my colleagues better, to develop a
friendship with them based on mutual respect and consideration and to
recognize their competence and their involvement in issues which
we all wanted to see properly dealt with.
My only regret would be that it is still necessary to have
members from Quebec sit in the House. I would have hoped to be
the last federal member from Portneuf. I know that my colleagues
had the same hope because if Quebec were sovereign there would
be no need for us here.
Obviously the will of the people of Quebec has been different,
but the presence of the Bloc Quebecois in the House, as we can
see in today's debate and in those we have every day, is
essential for the protection and the advancement of Quebec's
interests. I might even add that it is more than ever essential.
Thank goodness the Bloc Quebecois is here.
That leads me to ask a question to my hon. colleague from
Drummond with regard to the mini-budget the finance minister
delivered yesterday. Here I will digress to say that while I
thought Christmas was on December 25, apparently it was
yesterday. However make no mistake, the minister is not a real Santa
Claus. He is a phoney Santa Claus because he is not delivering
real gifts. I want to talk about the particular issue of the subsidy granted
to individuals for heating oil. That is very nice, but not
everybody heats their home with oil; others use other sources of
heat. What about them?
Now that taxpayers will have a little more money in their
pockets to pay their heating oil bill, what is stopping oil
companies from raising oil prices? The law of supply and demand
is well known. Market forces are at play, and it is not because
the minister is offering that kind of fiscal measure that this
will change.
Since consumers will have more money available, it will be a
strong incentive for oil companies to raise heating oil prices
in order to pocket that money. Besides, is that not precisely
what oil companies have been doing for some time now, pocketing
our money at the pump or at the time one buys heating oil in
order to generate profits unheard of in many years?
In fact, the government is not dealing with the basic problem,
which is the fact that oil companies are now abusing a situation
I would describe as quasi-monopolistic and the consumers have to
pay for that.
Does the hon. member for Drummond not think that with this
fiscal measure of the finance minister there is a huge risk for
the people she talked about, women in particular, to get
swindled by the oil companies trying to put their hands on this
little amount of money, which is not even enough to cover the
additional costs they will be faced with this coming winter?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Madam Speaker, before answering my
colleague's question, I would like to tell him that we are sorry
he is leaving the Bloc Quebecois, but this is his decision.
He has worked with us for seven years. I can tell the House that
I have worked with him on some issues and that he is very
professional, he wants to get things done, he is a hard worker
and he has integrity. I think his constituents will miss him.
All the Bloc Quebecois team will miss him.
I would like to thank him for everything he has done during
these seven years for his constituents, for his riding and for
Quebec's interests.
1255
I do not have much to add to my colleague's question because he
has answered it himself. Yes, there might be a suspicion that
some people will be cheated. Perhaps the question I could ask—I
do not know who could answer it—is, when the government sends a
$125 cheque to help people with their heating bill, why will
everyone get a cheque?
Let us say that a single person lives with his or her mother,
for instance, or with a student or a roommate who is working
and that the person who signed the lease receives the $125
cheque to help with the heating bill, will the roommate also
receive $125? This second person does not pay the heating bill.
We are totally confused. All those who get a GST tax credit,
whether they have an oil heating system or an electric heating
system, will get $125, while this cheque is supposed to help
those whose heating bill actually doubled. This is all very
confusing.
The same holds true with the figures, which can be fiddled with.
This is really confusing. As my colleague said, we can assume
that there will be some slightly shady characters who will try
to collect this cheque.
Something must be done, and the government must think twice
before doing this.
I think that if this cheque is going to be given to people to
help pay their oil heating bills and if the government is going
to refuse to take steps to lower fuel prices in Canada, the
government should look into who will get a cheque to ensure that
it really goes to pay the oil heating bills, as these bills have
doubled.
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to note at the outset that I will be splitting my
time.
When I first came to Ottawa I made a point of meeting with the
Minister of Finance, in part to get to know him better and in
part because I had run on a platform that emphasized debt
reduction and tax cuts. We shared a coffee and exchanged views
on the current issues of the day. Over the past number of years
we have shared quite a number of other coffees, had a few meals
and played some pretty lousy golf.
I have always appreciated the Minister of Finance's candour with
caucus members, his intellectual grasp of the current issues of
the day and his ability to reflect in the budget the issues he is
hearing and give them force and effect.
I have also appreciated the support that the Prime Minister has
given over the past number of years in fashioning a variety of
budgets. Those budgets are in fact attuned to my set of values
and beliefs.
When I ran in the last election I said that our debt was way too
high and that we were becoming uncompetitive, with the United
States in particular and the G-7 in general, in terms of our
overall tax burden.
As I potentially face my constituents once again, I think I have
a pretty good story to tell. I will be able to say to them that
over the past three and a half years in the course of our mandate
the debt to GDP ratio has gone down from 71% to about 58%. I
will be able to tell them about the absolute reduction in our net
national debt of $28 billion. I will be able to say that the
reduction in market debt is even greater, at last figure $32
billion, possibly higher.
I will be able to say that the Government of Canada has run
fiscal surpluses for the last three years. They can reasonably
anticipate that debt servicing costs will be down by $1.7 billion
and that the debt to GDP ratio will come down to about 40% by
2005.
1300
As I reflect on my conversation with the minister some three
years ago, never in my wildest dreams would I have believed I
would be able to go back to my constituents and tell them that
debt story. I am amazed at the accomplishments of the Minister
of Finance and the Prime Minister in directing the resources of
the Government of Canada in dealing with its debt burden.
The other part of our conversation had to do with tax relief for
Canadians. Frankly I was quite vague about it. I did not really
understand what was meant by a $100 reduction, a change in a
threshold, or a percentage change. For me, it has been a steep
learning curve as the minister has fashioned three budgets and a
number of economic updates.
My own instincts have been to start where the impact would be
greatest, namely among low and middle income Canadians and then
work to upper income Canadians recognizing that when one gives
tax relief to low income Canadians, it does filter up our
progressive tax system. The system in some respects is
relatively simple but to think back three years ago and realize
that brackets have gone up substantially and that rates have been
going in the other direction is really quite a significant
accomplishment.
One has to earn $8,000 of taxable income before one gets taxed.
From $8,000 to $35,000 the rate has been reduced from 17% to 16%.
From $35,000 to $60,000 the rate has gone down from 26% to 22%.
From $60,000 to $100,000 the rate is at 26%. For over $100,000
it is at 29%. Every one of those percentage points literally
represents billions of dollars. Cumulatively the impact is $100
billion. These are very significant changes. These are
substantive tax reductions which frankly I never would have
believed based upon my conversation three years ago with the
Minister of Finance.
To be candid, I was not overly enthusiastic about the Canada
child tax benefit. However, I have come around to the view that
if we really want to benefit low income Canadians, we have to do
it through a combination of measures. Otherwise if we simply cut
taxes, it becomes terribly expensive to the treasury and it does
not necessarily benefit the people whom we want to benefit the
most. I was therefore more than pleased that effective July 1,
2001 the Canada child tax benefit will be raised with the maximum
benefit for the first child going up to $2,500.
In a similar vein, giving tax relief to Canadians who have
disabilities or Canadians who are caregivers, I am pleased to see
that the minister has raised the disability tax credit up to
$6,000 and the caregiver tax credit up to $3,500.
There is an enduring myth in the House that somehow or another
we should ignore Canadians with higher incomes or businesses,
notwithstanding the fact that we know that businesses generate
income and jobs. We somehow or another believe that they should
be ignored and taxed to the max.
I am pleased that the Minister of Finance does not buy into that
myth and that Bay Street, to coin a phrase, needs to be
recognized for the contribution it does make to the Canadian
economy and to the general well-being of Canadians. His
commitment is to lower corporate tax rates from 28% down to 21%.
He has already implemented a 1% cut and there is a commitment to
cut 2% for the next three years legislatively. In my view this
brings certainty to the tax structure which is something all
businesses can appreciate.
Reducing the capital gains inclusion rate from 75% to 66% to 50%
is an accomplishment that all entrepreneurs should welcome. That
puts us below comparable American rates. Tax-free rollovers will
be expanded and made available to more businesses. The size of
an eligible investment will be increased from $500,000 to $2
million and the companies themselves from $10 million to $50
million. This should be of great assistance to those who find
the tax structure somewhat restrictive in their entrepreneurial
activities.
1305
Finally, on the tax side of things, I want to congratulate the
minister and the Prime Minister for the deindexation of the
system. This was an item which was argued loud and long in
caucus. One of the members who argued it loudest and longest was
the hon. member for Durham. I congratulate him for his
persistence.
The minister pointed out in his speech yesterday that government
is more than simply balancing books. He, the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Health stood firm in their resolve that the
Canada Health Act be respected, that the provinces recognize that
we are more than 10 little independent principalities, that this
country has certain health care principles and that those
principles are enshrined in the Canada Health Act.
The message is clear. We are not above using cash to make sure
that all provinces give consistent quality health care across the
country. Health care should not be dependent upon the size of
one's wallet, or the various governments' budgets, or wacky
right-wing philosophies. People should not have to have a wallet
biopsy just to get treatment.
Notwithstanding the pathetic whining by the province of Ontario,
the Prime Minister saw fit to increase the cash component of the
Canada health and social transfer by $21.2 billion over five
years. Members will recall that prior to the February budget, the
province of Ontario was taking out ads insisting that the
Government of Canada cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. One minute
after the delivery of the budget the province of Ontario shifted
its focus on more money to the province of Ontario by way of CHST
transfer with no strings attached.
The inconsistency and hypocrisy of the province of Ontario is
obvious for anyone to observe. Even at the worst of times, the
province of Ontario had its transfers reduced by something less
than 2% of its overall budget which was restored immediately as
soon as funds were available. That was done last year.
Misinformation is a modus operandi for the Government of Ontario.
A little history is in order here.
In 1997 the CHST was created. The agreement was that the
Government of Canada would reduce its tax room and the provinces
would take its place. As Ontario's economy has grown, so also has
its tax revenues. Therefore, the tax component has grown which
has more than made up for the modest reduction in cash. With
this new money the cash component of CHST is increased by 35%.
The Government of Canada has hedged its bets though with the
mere certainty that the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Alberta
will stretch the notions of affordability, universality and
accessibility to the maximum.
I am returning to my constituency this weekend. I will have a
pretty good story to tell. I can go back to my constituents and
say we reduced taxes substantially, over $100 billion, that we
reduced debt substantially, $28 billion, and that we restored
Canada's health care system to the tune of $21 billion.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, the public sees the so-called
mini-budget not as an honest attempt to solve the economic
problems of our country, but rather as a cynical attempt to buy
the voters in the coming election.
Three things have happened over the last little while which I am
going to ask my colleague about, bombs the government has let
explode in its own lap. One is the access to information debacle
in that the government is vigorously trying to hide information
to which members of the public have every right of access. The
second is the mini-budget. The third is the auditor general's
report, which not only is a scathing attack on the government's
failure to spend the public's money wisely, but also is an
indication of its flagrant abuse of the public purse not only in
HRDC, but also in aboriginal affairs and many other areas. Last
is the government's frequent spending of the taxpayers' money all
over the country in a vain and failing attempt to try to curry
favour with the voters.
1310
Spending is taking place to put back the money the government
has taken out in health care, which was over $22 billion.
Incidentally, the money it will put in will only get us back to
1995 levels for health care and education in spite of the fact
that when this comes into play we will be 10 years behind the
eight ball.
How can my hon. colleague justify the government's spending an
additional $29 billion of the taxpayers' money beyond the money
that has already been allocated for health care? How can he
justify to his constituents that putting in $22 billion as of the
year 2006 which will get us back to 1995 levels is going to fix
our health care woes?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I do not know what figures
the hon. member is reading.
My recollection of the budget numbers is that spending absent
debt has basically been flatlined for the past two or three
years. The management by this government has resulted in the
ability of the government to significantly reduce debt. I would
have thought that the hon. member's party would have been more
than supportive of the notion that the nation's debt should be
reduced. I do not see how the hon. member thinks he can have it
both ways.
I cannot quite get my head around how the hon. member and his
party in particular can criticize the mini-budget. Reducing
taxes with cuts, which I understand to be the most significant
part of the hon. member's party platform, by accumulatively $100
billion, is a pretty significant cut for Canadians across the
board, both at the upper and lower ends. I cannot quite see how
that can be criticized. I cannot quite see how putting back $21
billion over five years into the health care system can be
criticized as a terrible thing. Over that period of time $21
billion is a significant sum of money.
We have also put money into technology research. We are in the
bizarre situation of spending 9% or 10% of our gross domestic
product on health care and having absolutely no idea how it is
spent, where it is spent or by whom it is spent and of having to
beat the provinces over the head just to have a reporting system.
I support the position taken by the government on this for the
simple reason that I would not want to continue to send money
down a sinkhole until we knew exactly where the money was going
and how it was to be spent. I would think I would have the
support of the hon. member for the initiatives taken by the
Government of Canada on that issue alone.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to deal with a few specifics but I would rather
talk a little about the philosophy of what the mini-budget is and
what it is not.
First let me deal with what it is not. It is not a document
that mirrors in any way whatsoever the philosophies or the
attitudes of the Conservative government in the province of
Ontario. I want to respond directly to my good friend the
treasurer, the minister of finance for Ontario, Ernie Eves, who
is quoted in the paper as saying “Give credit where credit is
due. I think finance minister Martin is moving in the right
direction. We have been preaching a lot of the stuff that Mr.
Martin seems to have picked up on since 1995”.
Let me be clear. One thing we did not do which Mr. Eves and the
Ontario government did do, is we did not borrow money to give a
tax cut back to the wealthiest people in the country. How does
one give a tax cut while continuing to run a deficit? That is
absolutely crass politics at its worst. While we appreciate the
fact that my hon. friend in Ontario congratulates the minister
and the government for bringing in a budget that he seems to
like, we do not need any lessons on how to balance our books, how
to reduce the tax load, or how to pay down the debt. In fact,
this government has shown true leadership in all of those
regards.
1315
I have been interested to hear some of the responses. I am sure
the members opposite were busy with all the spin doctors
yesterday trying to figure out how in the world they were going
to criticize this without looking like they want to take back
things that the government is giving to Canadians.
This is not a socialist budget, I can assure members. It is
absolutely not. I heard the leader of the NDP stand in her
place, and in a scrum, say that the government has clearly
decided that its agenda is based on tax reductions. That is
absolutely correct.
What does it do in terms of helping families? Let us take a
look at some of the examples. This is what is so puzzling when I
hear the socialists stand up and say that the government did not
do enough here, that it did not do enough there.
A two-earner family of four with a combined income of $60,000
last year paid about $5,700 in federal tax. Next year their
taxes will fall by over $1,000, a first year cut of 18%. A cut
of $1,000 for a family of four, a husband, a wife and two kids,
means that they have $1,000 more that they can use perhaps for
their children's education, for a family vacation or to pay some
bills they are behind on. Is that not all good social policy? It
makes a lot of sense to me.
A single mother with one child earning $25,000 a year received a
net benefit of just $1,400 last year. Next year she will receive
an additional $800, for a total benefit of $2,200. Maybe the
silk stocking socialists that inhabit the chairs in this place
just do not think that $800 is a lot of money. Let me tell them
that to a single mom in Mississauga $800 is a heck of a lot of
money. She can use that money to benefit her children, to pay
for something she needs, to help pay for their education or to
help pay for their clothing. Of course it is a social benefit.
Would the NDP take it away? Would it suggest that we not give
that tax break?
A one-earner family with two children making $40,000 last year
paid about $3,325 in federal tax. Next year they will pay about
$1,100 less, a reduction of 32%. This is a family in which one
spouse goes to work and the other stays home as a caregiver, with
two children. They are saving $1,100. This is real money. This
is real money back in the pockets of Canadians who need that
money.
We absolutely have the financial house in order in Canada and we
have turned around and given back that money to where it belongs,
in the hands and the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers.
Let me say what it also is not. It is not a Bloc budget. Why?
It actually strengthens Canada, which is clearly not on its
agenda, not in its interests and not in its party platform. It
would rather continue to drive wedges. Not only does this budget
strengthen Canada, it benefits Quebecers, because a lot of the
people I referred to, the two-earner family, the single mom, the
one-earner family with two kids, live in Quebec. They are going
to see that money coming back. Going into an election—let us
admit that is what is going to happen—the people of Quebec are
going to look at this and ask the Bloc why it is criticizing the
fact that the Government of Canada is giving them back some of
their money.
I can tell the House what this is also not. This is not a
federal Conservative budget. We had a number of years of federal
Conservative budgets under Brian Mulroney and, I might add, with
the assistance of the current leader of the Conservative Party in
this place who was a member of the Mulroney cabinet. With his
assistance they managed to drive this country to the state where
people were saying, in New York and other places around the
world, that Canada was bordering on being a third world country,
that Canada had run up a deficit, an overdraft, of $42 billion
with no idea of how to pay it off.
The Canadian people had an idea. While we stand here and take
credit for it, the true credit for eliminating the deficit, and
for this budget, belongs to the Canadian people.
1320
It is not a conservative budget. It is far-reaching. It is
visionary. It sends a message to all Canadians that says the
government knows they have suffered through years of cutbacks and
years of turmoil, and it is time because we do have a surplus,
not because there is an election. If there is an election in
November or in April, what is the difference? There is a fall
mini-budget or economic update that is done every year.
Those members know this. For them to suggest that the Alliance
should be able to put out its policy book and tell everybody that
it will do some of the nonsensical stuff it is talking about and
that we should just sit back and do nothing, excuse me? We have a
constituency in the country, a very large constituency. We are
the only party with representatives from sea to sea to sea,
everywhere in the country.
This mini-budget is not an Alliance budget, I can tell hon.
members that. The Alliance claims that we have somehow stolen
its ideas. What nonsense. It wants to put in a flat tax. I
will be making a statement later about what that really is, a
three-hump camel, so I will not go into it at the moment.
Let me just tell the House that the Alliance wants to bring in a
flat tax. Do hon. members know why? Because it is simple for
that party to understand. It can ask Canadians how they would
like to pay 17% or maybe 25%. It thinks that is simple to
understand.
What is the result of that? Add up the Alliance numbers. If the
Alliance was putting out a budget of this nature it would turn
the federal government into nothing more than a head waiter for
the provincial governments right across the country. It would
put the situation in such a disastrous state that all we would
need would be annual meetings of first ministers who would meet
somewhere, who knows, maybe in Charlottetown, or likely in Edmonton.
An hon. member: Maybe Mississauga.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, Mississauga. They would get
together, ask how much the pie is and then say “Here is your
share based on per capita”. They would eliminate regional
development.
What that party has attempted to do to decimate the HRDC plans
is a national disgrace, because the people it is hurting are
the people who need the most help. We have heard members from
that party say that they consider people in the maritimes lazy.
We have heard them denigrate all the different groups in the
country that we support and believe in.
We believe in economic regional development because it creates
jobs. It creates pride. It creates self-respect for Canadians
wherever they live in the country. Just because people happen to
live in oil-rich Alberta does not give them the right to have a
better standard of living than somebody who lives in Newfoundland
or New Brunswick.
It is time to go to the Canadian people, put our two visions on
the table and let the people decide.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I must say that natural gas emission rivals the
massive Sable gas offshore project in my province of Nova Scotia.
Unfortunately, when I speak of gas, this mini-budget with its
mini vision is really not going to offer the people very much
other than more postdated promises until after the election. What
we see happening is this approach by the government to come trick
or treating to the Canadian public, just on the eve of an
election, dangling these goodies out in front of the public only
to pull them back unless it gets the vote.
My question for the hon. member is, with this so-called
mini-budget, where is the vision? Where is the long term plan to
tackle the deficit and the debt? Where is the long term agenda
to try to pay down this national debt that we have?
What does this do for students? What about students who are
wrestling with huge debts coming out of university and with no
hope of getting on their feet or even a kick-start into the
economy? Right now their choices are either to go bankrupt or to
go to the United States. That is unfortunate and that is the
environment they are facing right now based on what the
government has set up. What are we going to do for students?
What is the long term plan to deal with the debt situation?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, it is really
interesting to get a question about debt and deficit reduction
from a member of the Conservative Party.
1325
With all due respect, this member was not here. Other members
of his family might have been but he was not here during that
time. The reality is that we do not need any lessons from the
federal Tories about how to eliminate debt.
What we have done with this budget is wiped out $28 billion. It
is gone, kaput, done.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Because of free trade. Don't forget
that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The benefit of that amounts to $1.7
billion in payments that no longer have to be made. That is $1.7
billion that can be used to invest in students.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Talk about the GST.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: If the member would stop chirping, I
will talk about students. Do not take my word for it. Take the
media's word which talks about a $3,200 tax credit going to
students to help them with their rent and their textbooks. I do
not think the member has even taken the time to read the document
if he actually has to stand in this place and ask what this does
for students.
This is one of the most progressive documents, which will assist
students right across Canada with research and investment, and R
and D in the universities, money for textbooks and tax credits to
help students pay their rent. It is visionary both in terms of
eliminating the debt, with $28 billion gone now, and a commitment
to reduce the debt every single year that we are in office.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
quite pathetic to listen to the member opposite trying to justify
that this vote buying budget is anything other than that, and
trying to put it in the realm of a budget that deals with social
ills.
Everyone knows that a budget is usually something that puts
forth the goals and objectives of a government and should be
addressing the major issues in our society.
A major issue that has been dominating the news for the last
number of months, which has slowed down a bit because the fishing
season has closed, is the dispute involving the aboriginal people
in Burnt Church and St. Mary's Bay. That is just the tip of the
iceberg, illustrating that there is a need to deal with the
problems confronting aboriginal peoples across Canada. This
budget does nothing whatsoever to deal with any of those
problems.
A big part of the problem relates to the residential schools and
the fact that the Anglican Church is now almost being forced into
bankruptcy because the government has failed to take a leadership
role in dealing with the residential school problem and has
failed to bear its responsibility in that matter. The budget
does not address that issue and it does not address many other
issues.
I ask the hon. member, what in this mini-budget does anything at
all to deal with the very important issue around aboriginal
peoples on reserve and off reserve?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, clearly this is not a
budget. It is an economic statement. It says so right on the
document. It is something that the finance minister does each
and every fall as he sees how the economy is performing.
We committed during budget 2000 that we would go faster if
finances allowed us to do so. This is the appropriate time.
I am sorry if the hon. member's party is not ready with its
platform. However, very clearly the government has an obligation
to say to Canadians “Here is where we believe we should be going
with your economic future and we want to put exactly what we are
prepared to do on the table”. That has been done with this
document and it clearly shows the vision for the country.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to follow that member of the Mike Harris
cabinet across the way talking about his very conservative
budget. I see he is putting his earphone on. I said that I am
very pleased to follow that fan of Mike Harris who spoke on the
budget a few minutes ago.
The ghosts of Liberals past must be rolling over in their graves
when they think of the sharp turn to the political right, this
very conservative budget, this mini-budget we had delivered in
the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance.
I have seen many budgets over the years but this is the most
conservative, right wing budget I have seen in the last 25 years
in the House of Commons. It is more conservative than Brian
Mulroney, more conservative than the former Prime Minister who is
now the leader of the Conservative Party.
This is a millionaire's budget. It is a Bay Street budget, with
$100 billion in tax cuts skewed to the wealthy and the rich. If
someone is making $300,000 or $400,000 a year, if someone is a
millionaire or a golf partner and buddy of the Prime Minister
making $400,000 or $500,000 a year, he will get anywhere from
$20,000 to $50,000 in tax cuts depending on capital gains.
A single person making $30,000 in Pembroke receives a tax cut of
only $521 a year. Compare this to the millionaires who are going
to receive $40,000 to $80,000 a year on tax breaks. That is a
sharp turn to the right by the Liberal Party which has been
influenced by the Canadian Alliance and by the politics of Mike
Harris. The ghosts of Liberals past, leaders like Lester
Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Allan McEachern must be pretty
disgusted with the government they see across the way.
1330
Let us look at the facts. There are $100 billion dollars in tax
cuts with only about $21 billion going into health care, social
transfers, welfare and education. That brings us up to 1994
levels only. There are also at least $31 billion in terms of
paying down the national debt.
The very size of government programs is dropping faster now than
at any time in the history of Canada. The government is taking
money away from social programs. When it took office at the end
of Brian Mulroney's term, government programs amounted to 17% of
the GDP. They now amount to about 13% of the GDP. The
projections in the mini-budget, by the end of the next term if it
is a majority government that lasts four or five years, will be
under 11% of the GDP.
The government is taking money out of health care and education.
It is providing less money for the environment. It is doing
nothing about our farm crisis. This is a government leading a
country, one of the few countries in the world without a national
highways program, that has decided not to put money into
highways. This is a government that is devising a tax system
that is not as equitable as it is giving big breaks to wealthy
people. This goes in the wrong direction.
If we look at results of polls and surveys we find that most
people in Canada want more money put into health care. If we had
a poll and asked people what to do with a surplus, whether it
should be spent on massive tax cuts that favour wealthy people or
put into health care and education, about 75% of the people would
say that we should put more money into health care, education and
the environment. That is the direction in which the Canadian
people want to go. Those are the values Canadians want pursued.
The Liberal Party, like the Canadian Alliance, wants to give more
tax cuts to wealthy people.
Why is this done? The Liberal Party has been drafting a very
cagey election program and strategy. What we saw yesterday was a
move to the political right to capture votes from the Alliance
and the Conservative Party in the 905 belt around Toronto, the
wealthy areas around Toronto, the Mike Harris belt around
Toronto. The big issue there is tax cuts so the Liberals are
going to cater to that and they have taken the Canadian Alliance
program. The Liberals left the Leader of the Opposition without
a plank.
We are going to see the election announced on Sunday. The
Liberals will come out with another red book and then they will
shuffle to the left. They will talk about investing in education,
in the environment, in people's programs and things of that sort.
That is what the Liberal Party is doing with this particular
economic statement before the House today. This is like the steak
and the sizzle. This mini statement is giving a lot of steak to
the wealthy and the privileged and only the sizzle to the poor
and ordinary citizens.
There are many programs that should have been enhanced. Health
care is the very best example of that. In 1995 we had the
biggest cutback in our history in health funding than we have
ever seen. That came from a party that at one time initiated a
national health care system where the federal government paid 50%
of health care. Before some of the money is reinstated, through
the agreement of the first ministers' about a month ago, the cash
funding for health care had fallen from 50% to 13 cents or 14
cents on the dollar.
Even with the $21 billion in social transfers, the cash into
health care only goes up to 1994 levels.
1335
Where are the priorities? The Canadian people fought to get rid
of the deficit. It is the Canadian people, through their hard
work and their energy, who have created a surplus in this
country. I argue that the majority of that surplus should be
spent on the social deficit that was created by the cutbacks of
the Liberal government from 1995 on.
I am sure that if the minister of financial institutions across
the way had his way he would agree with me that more money should
be spent in the social pocket rather than on wealthy tax cuts for
his big powerful friends on Bay Street. However, that is the way
the government has gone and that is not the right way to go. That
is not the vision of a new Canada. That is not a vision of
equality, a vision of justice or a vision of sharing. Those are
the values that the Canadian people stand for and the Canadian
people want.
If we look through the mini statement from yesterday there are
many things not mentioned at all. I think of my own province of
Saskatchewan. I have already talked about health care. Health
care was started in Saskatchewan by the CCF, by Tommy Douglas and
by James Shaver Woodsworth many, many years ago. After fighting
against the Liberals year and year out, health care became a
reality.
The Liberal Party promised health care in 1919, the year that
the minister for financial institutions was born. It was
promised in 1919 but it did not become a reality until the
mid-1960s, 40-odd years after promising it to the Canadian
people. It is only there because it was pushed and prodded by
the CCF and the NDP who started health care in Saskatchewan back
in 1961.
In 1961 when health care became a very volatile issue in our
province, when there were organizations led by the doctors and
others to stop medicare—they called it socialized medicine in
those days—the Leader of the Opposition was Liberal Ross
Thatcher. He was one of the leaders in the fight against health
care in this country. He went into the legislative assembly with
a photo op, and he kicked the door of the legislative assembly in
opposition to health care in our province.
Health care was so popular with the people that public opinion
was mobilized. Through the mobilization of public opinion it was
forced on the Liberal government in 1965 or 1966 and the
government of Lester Pearson brought it in across the country.
The Liberal government had been forced by the CCF and the NDP,
which shows the influence of a social democratic party as setting
a popular agenda of equality for the Canadian people.
That whole agenda has now been highjacked because of a paranoiac
fear of the Canadian Alliance. What the Liberals are doing is
adopting the Alliance policy and moving sharply to the political
right through $100 billion tax cut. Even the Minister of Finance
himself a while back was ridiculing the then Reform Party for
talking about a $50 billion or $60 billion cut in taxes. What
does he do? He betters that with some $100 billion at the
expense of the ordinary Canadian people and the programs that
make this country so definitely unique from the United States of
America.
We have the CA and the Liberal Party catering to the wealthy and
to the privileged. We saw that last night at a dinner in Toronto
where the corporate elite gathered. Tables were sold for this
dinner. I watched the television last night to see how many
ordinary grassroots Reformers there were from Wymark, Moose Jaw,
or Kindersley, Saskatchewan or Brandon, Manitoba. I watched to
see how many faces I would recognize of the ordinary people from
Yorkton. Does anyone know how many I saw? I did not see any. I
wondered why. Does anyone know why? It was because the cost of
a table was $25,000. Some grassroots party, catering to the
business arenas on Bay Street, to the big banks and the big
financial institutions.
The old Reform Party is dead and gone, the so-called grassroots
party that protested against this kind of elite gathering. We
now have a new Bay Street party in the Reform Party; $25,000 a
table.
They were sipping champagne. They were pigging out on caviar.
The party of the so-called grassroots people that rebelled
against Brian Mulroney, rebelled against Bay Street, rebelled
against this kind of imperial power, rebelled against these back
room deals, has changed its skin. Now it represents the party of
the wealthy, the rich and the privileged. That is the new
Canadian Alliance, the old Reform Party.
1340
What does the Liberal Party do? It gets scared. It is afraid.
It is afraid of this new party that is rising so it moves sharply
to the right. The member from British Columbia over there is
crying in his seat. He is afraid as he weeps in the House of
Commons.
What is in this budget? What is in this budget, for example,
for the farmers of western Canada? I can see the headline
“Farmers: An Endangered Species Survey”. A report from
Statistics Canada says that there are 22,100 fewer farmers in the
prairies this fall than last fall. The reaction it said was jaw
dropping from economists across the prairies. Yet we had a
surplus of $100 billion over five years to work with. What is
there for the prairie farmer? There are 40,000 fewer farm
workers in the prairies.
Farmers came to Ottawa last year asking for some help. The
Europeans massively support their farmers. The Americans
massively support their farmers. The government does
diddly-squat. There is nothing in the budget at all.
We had a big deficit. The Canadian people won the deficit
battle and now there is a big surplus. Where does the surplus
go? It goes to $100 billion on tax cuts. Where does the surplus
go? It goes toward cutting capital gains for speculators and
wealthy bankers. The surtax on the rich is gone. The tax
bracket was dropped in terms of what the rich pay in taxes in
this country. All kinds of tax breaks have been given to the
banks and we have 22,000 fewer farmers on the prairies.
I am surprised at the government across the way, but we have the
Canadian Alliance going one step further. It does not like any
support for farmers. The Alliance leader was in Regina back in
August. Does anyone know what he said about the Canadian Wheat
Board? He said that it should be voluntary. He said that if the
Canadian Wheat Board was not a single best seller then it would
eventually be eliminated and eliminated very quickly. That is
exactly what the Canadian Alliance wants to do.
Then we had the member from Interlake who was saying a few days
ago that the big drop in farmers is really a structural
readjustment. That is the sensitivity we have from the official
opposition.
What does the government do? It makes no response. There is
nothing there to help our farmers in a time of need. These are
things that were missing in the mini statement made by the
Minister of Finance in the House of Commons yesterday.
I look again across my riding and across my province. I see a
highway system that is collapsing because the government across
the way has allowed the rail lines to be abandoned forcing
farmers to take their grain to market in large trucks. The
highways are being destroyed and yet there is no money for a
national highways program to help rebuild the infrastructure of
rural Canada and rural Saskatchewan.
Where is that money? That money has gone to Bay Street and to
the wealthy. It has gone to pay down the national debt very
rapidly and to pay off the bond holders on Bay Street. Where is
the money for the ordinary people in Cupar, Dysart, Wynyard,
Elfros, Raymore, Qu'Appelle and all those other places across
Saskatchewan to make sure the highways are rebuilt?
It is a question of choices and a question of priorities. The
Liberals made their choice and their choice does not synchronize
at all with the preference of the Canadian people, which is to
reinvest in people's programs and in a new deal for people.
1345
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 1.45 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now
proceed to consideration of Bill C-45 in committee of the whole.
* * *
CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING ACT
House in committee on Bill C-45, an act respecting the
provision of increased funding for health care services, medical
equipment, health information and communications technologies,
early childhood development and other social services and to
amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, Ms.
Thibeault in the chair.
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order, please. House in committee
of the whole on Bill C-45. Shall clause 2 carry?
(On clause 2)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chairman, with
the government's support, I move:
This is what is in the agreement signed by the first ministers
in Ottawa.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Madam Chairman, we accept this amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam
Chairman, seeing that we are in committee of the whole and given
the fact there is a huge gaping hole in this legislation, I
would propose the following amendment, that clause 6 on page 3 be amended—
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: I must advise the hon.
member that we are not on clause 6 right now. We are still on
clause 2.
(Clause 2, as amended, agreed to)
(On clause 3)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chairman,
again after consulting government members, I move:
Again, this is what is in the agreement signed by the first
ministers, here in Ottawa.
1350
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 3, as amended, agreed to)
(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)
[English]
(On clause 6)
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Chairman, given the fact that we are in committee of the whole, I
am attempting to plug a big hole in this legislation. I propose
the following amendment:
That clause 6 on page 3 be amended at line 18 by striking out
“for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2001”, and
substituting “therefore on the day this bill receives royal
assent”.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Chairman, I suppose this is
interesting, however it is a charge against the public treasury
and it does not have a royal recommendation, as Your Honour will
know. It advances a contribution from subsequent years to a
present calendar year, present expenditure of the government and
a charge against this year's treasury.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Chairman,
on that point, the House and certainly the country knows that the
agreement in principle that was met by the first ministers was an
agreement that would restore all of the funding back to 1993
levels. This bill does not do that and so it behooves the House
to find a way in which the words of the first ministers can be
kept and in which we can avoid cheating provinces and territories
out of $2 billion to $3 billion that they would otherwise receive
as a result of the agreement in principle to go to full
restoration of the 1993 levels.
The minister has found a technical point. There is no doubt
that it would be possible for the government, if it chose, to
find some means to rearrange existing expenditures, to front-end
load the contribution by the Government of Canada so the word of
the Prime Minister of Canada could be kept and so all of the
funds that should go back to health and social transfers in the
country will go back now rather than two years from now.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: The question before the
Chair is very clear. It has to do with infringement on a royal
recommendation and therefore I rule that it is not receivable.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Chairman, I would also like to propose an amendment that
Bill C-45 in clause 6 be amended by replacing lines 12 to 15 on
page 3 with the following: “a cash contribution of $20.4 billion
for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2004, and $21 billion
for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2005”; that lines 23
to 26 at page 3 be deleted; and that line 20 at page 3 in the english
version be replaced with the following: “ning on April 1, 2002,
and”.
1355
Perhaps I could speak to that very briefly. It should be noted
there are many amendments that we would have liked to have
proposed in the Chamber today that I am sure would have been
ruled out of order and required a royal recommendation. This
proposal does not add any new money to the bill, much as we would
have liked to do that. It simply ensures that at the end of the
five year period around which this first ministers' deal has been
struck, the base would have moved from $15.5 billion to $21
billion. I move that constructive suggestion to the bill.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Chairman, as much as I
appreciate the intentions of the hon. member I would have to say
that, first, the bill respects to the letter the agreement
reached among the 14 first ministers and, second, as the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance have indicated, if in future
years budgetary conditions permit, issues about increasing the
amounts can always be considered at that time.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Chairman, I was very
interested that the amendment moved by the New Democratic Party
was one that was designed to be within the limits with respect to
the authority of parliament over expenditure. I would like to
take advantage of the presence on the floor of officials to ask
them whether in fact the amendment that was proposed is one that
meets the requirements with regard to the role of parliament and
spending. If it does, obviously there would be a desire on all
parts of the House to support an amendment that would ensure that
more money went into the system more quickly.
I call upon the officials here for clarification as to whether
this is a receivable amendment.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, the right hon. member
knows parliamentary rules better than I and he knows perfectly
well that officials do not speak in the House of Commons; members
of parliament do.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the
correction by my hon. friend.
Would my hon. friend consent to speak to his officials and to
convey through his voice their responses to the questions that I
have raised?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, the right hon. member
knows the rules as well as we all do and my hon. colleague, the
secretary of state, has indicated the bill totally respects the
agreement made with the provinces so I think it is the end of the
discussion to that effect.
The right hon. member does raise, as he usually does,
interesting issues nonetheless.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Chairman, the question is not
whether the government believes that the provision reflects the
agreement among the first ministers. The question is whether the
amendment presented by the New Democratic Party is one that is
consistent with the rules of parliament. It is on that question
that I would like the hon. minister to consult the officials who
are here on the floor of the House of Commons so that—
Hon. Don Boudria: It is in order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I am advised from his seat, by the
minister, that this amendment is in order. That means it
would—
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: I am afraid I have to
interrupt since it is 1.59 p.m.
(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and
passed)
1400
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
The Speaker: It is two o'clock. We would usually proceed
to statements by members and hear the point of order after
question period. However, because this carried on, I will give
the hon. member one minute, which means 60 seconds, to make his
point.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: An amendment was introduced at the
plenary stage that was deemed to be in order. The Chair did not
have the opportunity to call for a vote on that amendment. The
report was made before a vote had been taken.
Consequently the process was not completed, and through no ill
will. The House would certainly want to have the committee of
the whole, in either committee of the whole forum or forum of the
whole House, to be able to vote upon a motion properly put,
accepted as being within the rules of parliament, and overlooked
simply because of the fluctuation in time.
The Speaker: I am handed a note that says there was
agreement prior to this time that the bill shall be reported,
concurred in at the report stage, and read the third time no
later than 1.59 p.m. I find that was carried out. That is what
we are going to do.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
2000 MANIFESTO FOR PEACE
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last month, in the presence of the Speaker of the House
of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate, I was privileged to
hand over to the Director-General of UNESCO, His Excellency, Mr.
Matsuura, the 2000 Manifesto Pledge, signed by nearly 300
Canadian parliamentarians from both Houses.
This initiative was carried out under the auspices of the
Friendship Group of Parliamentarians for UNESCO and under the
umbrella of the International Year for the Culture of Peace
decreed by the UN.
May I remind you that the Manifesto 2000 for a culture of peace
and non-violence is a commitment to respect the life and dignity
of every human being, to practice active non-violence, to put an
end to exclusion, to defend freedom and cultural diversity, to
promote responsible consumer behaviour and sustainable
development and to contribute to the democratic development of
our communities with full participation by women.
* * *
[English]
FESTIVAL OF DIWALI
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on October 26 Hindus and Sikhs in Canada will light
their homes to celebrate the festival of Diwali. They will also
pray for peace, harmony and prosperity for all humanity.
Diwali celebrates the triumph of knowledge and light over
ignorance and darkness. Canada's Hindus and Sikhs feel proud to
share this celebration with fellow citizens of all religious
backgrounds.
1405
For my part I have had the honour in the past to celebrate
Diwali with my colleagues on Parliament Hill. Due to an imminent
election Diwali celebrations in Ottawa will be postponed. However
I invite my colleagues to celebrate Diwali with all their
constituents.
On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues in
the House of Commons, I wish Canadians of Indian descent a happy
Diwali and a prosperous New Year.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE ROBERT BEALE
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was
with great sorrow that I learned yesterday of the passing of a
friend, Robert Beale, a Canadian of unparalleled dynamism and
generosity.
Thirty years ago, with the support of Jean Béliveau and others,
Bob started sports cultural exchanges programs, under which
hockey tournaments brought young people from all corners of
Canada and their parents together to participate in the
tournaments and created long-lasting bonds among them.
[English]
I have known few Canadians and few friends as big hearted as Bob
Beale and none as committed to helping others. His programs of
sports cultural exchanges have brought together over the last 30
years many thousands of young Canadians and their parents from
all regions of the country. The programs have created lasting
bonds.
Bob was a tireless and selfless individual deeply convinced, in
his own words, that “adults through the history of many nations
have learned the ways to overcome racism, prejudice and
discrimination through the eyes and hearts of children”.
With great sorrow I mourn the passing of this special Canadian
and extend to his wife, Alice, and his family all my friendship
and sympathy.
* * *
MEMBER FOR EDMONTON SOUTHWEST
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to say a few
words.
If what is likely to take place does take place, this will
probably be the last opportunity I have to recognize and thank
all the members here. I specifically want to thank all the
francophones who have borne up so well under my French these last
couple of years.
I also want to thank all the House officers, the staff on the
Hill, my colleagues in the Alliance and colleagues across the
aisle, north and south. Although we have been adversaries we
have always been friends. I will take this place with me for the
rest of my life and carry it fondly in my heart.
I especially want to thank those I love and who love me for
their support over the years, my constituency association and
particularly the voters of Edmonton Southwest who have entrusted
me with this wonderful privilege over these last seven years.
* * *
CO-OPERATIVES
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to recognize both National Co-op Week in Canada
and International Credit Union Day and pay tribute to these
unique and democratic organizations that improve daily the
quality of life for Canadians.
There is no question that co-operatives lead by example. They
provide a way to successfully meet the social and economic needs
of Canadians. They also are an effective tool to help the
government address priority issues.
As the world moves toward a global economy, co-operatives will
be asked to play a greater role in our economy and society. By
investing in Canadian communities, which is the theme of this
year's co-op week, co-operatives can also play a new role, one
that transcends social and economic objectives. They can be
partners with government to ensure that citizens, no matter where
they live, receive the benefits of Canadian prosperity.
I offer my congratulations and recognize Canadian International
Credit Union Day and National Co-op Week.
* * *
SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY AWARDS
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the fourth
annual Spirit of Community Awards celebrated in my riding last
week. Eleven of the top citizens in Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam were honoured for their community action and volunteer
work. This event was presented by the Society for Community
Development.
David Driscoll, a well-known former mayor of Port Moody,
accepted the Lifetime of Leadership Award.
1410
I congratulate all the recipients of the Spirit of Community
Awards for their hard work, dedication and compassion for the
community. It is greatly appreciated.
* * *
CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this week has been designated National Co-op Week and
today is International Credit Union Day. Both are meant to raise
awareness of the special role co-ops and credit unions play in
our communities.
Co-operatives and credit unions have helped to shape our history
by providing social and economic benefits to many Canadians over
the years. I am confident they will continue to provide those
benefits to individuals, families and businesses in the future.
I ask Canadians to join me today in recognizing the significant
contributions co-ops have made and continue to make in our
society. I want them to take part in the many celebrations
planned throughout the country from now until October 21 in
celebration of this important occasion.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
upon a time there was a highway robber who lurked in the woods
to relieve passersby of their gold. He accumulated ill-gotten
gains of 1,000 gold coins in this way.
One day, he decided to give back 500 of these gold coins to his
victims. Foolish fellow that he was, he thought he could buy
back their friendship by doing so.
The robber's cronies were greatly impressed by this magnanimous
gesture. They were indignant that the victims showed no
gratitude and shouted at them “You could at least say thank
you”.
No connection with this little fable, of course, but yesterday
our Minister of Finance played Santa, yet he neglected to tell
us that this money he is redistributing so magnanimously came
from our own pockets, the pockets of the unemployed, the
workers, the employers, the pensioners.
I hope, for our minister's sake, that he is not naïve enough to
expect a thank-you from the voters, who will cast their votes in
favour of the Liberals. Despite what he seems to think, people
are not that dumb.
That was my last statement in the House, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
BRAIN TUMOUR AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
month of October has been designated Brain Tumour Awareness Month
in Canada.
Each year approximately 10,000 Canadians of all ages are
diagnosed with brain tumours. More than 100 different types of
brain tumours have been identified. Brain tumours are the second
leading cause of cancer death in children under the age of 20 and
the third leading cause of cancer death in young adults between
the ages of 20 and 39.
[Translation]
The mission of the Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada is to
collect funds for research, to provide support services to
people with brain tumours and their families, and to provide
information to the public.
[English]
I would like to quote for members the words written by a young
woman, Krista, age 19, who understands better than any of us the
devastation of cancer:
I look into the sky and what do I see?
A castle, a rainbow, and dreams for me,
An end to this battle which I must fight,
To rid my feelings of depression and fright.
An end to cancer is not far away,
It will be here soon...Someday.
Let us hope and pray that the someday—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane.
* * *
MINING
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to express my congratulations to the finance
minister for his outstanding economic statement. The mining
industry is thankful for the introduction of a federal tax credit
for flow through share investors. It will stimulate the upfront
financing of junior mining exploration projects all over northern
Ontario and Canada.
Exploration spending will result in the discovery of new mines,
which in turn will create jobs and result in billions of dollars
in new investment and export revenues. The constituents of
Timiskaming—Cochrane, the mining industry and I all believe
natural resources will continue to be the building blocks of our
economy in the 21st century. I thank the finance minister for
his support.
* * *
MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER QUADRA
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will not be a candidate for a third parliamentary mandate in
the forthcoming general election. When the Prime Minister
invited me to become a candidate in 1992, I said I would limit
myself to two terms at most. I see no reason to depart from that
today.
1415
In leaving the House, I am not entering on early retirement. I
am resuming my work in other national and international arenas
like the Institut de Droit International, of which I am the
current president.
Thank you to the electors of Vancouver Quadra for their kind
support and warm encouragement through two successive terms.
I want to thank MPs of all political parties for their
friendship, co-operation and goodwill.
* * *
HOME SUPPORT WORKERS WEEK
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while
the Canadian Alliance is ignoring the health concerns of
Canadians while wining and dining and wooing votes from their
rich corporate friends, and while the Liberal government did
nothing in its economic statement to ensure a comprehensive
health care system, the people in Nova Scotia recognize the need
for an integrated and complete health care system.
Nova Scotia is celebrating Home Support Workers Week. Home
support workers help thousands of Nova Scotians get the quality
care services they need in the comfort of their own home and
close to family and friends. Home support workers are an
essential part of the fabric of health care in Canada.
As we look to reshape health care in Canada and to hopefully
begin to undo the damage wrought by years of health care cuts
administered by Liberal and Conservative governments, we need to
ensure that home care is properly funded and that workers are
properly paid and work in decent conditions. The financial
support for those needing home care must be made available.
Home care workers offer experienced care, support, compassion
and dignity to many people in our community. Thank you to all
home care support workers for their ongoing efforts.
* * *
NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to National Co-op Week being held this
week between October 15 and 21 and to recognize the important
economic and social role co-operatives and credit unions play in
many communities in Canada. Credit Union Day is being celebrated
today, October 19. The theme for this year's celebration is
“Co-operatives and credit unions—investing in Canadian
Communities”.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to co-operatives in
Manitoba such as Credit Union Central of Manitoba, Federal
Co-Operatives Ltd. and Agricore.
Co-operatives play a major role in the Canadian economy, with
over 150,000 people working in the industry. Co-ops and credit
unions are an integral part of our economy, accounting for over
$167 billion in assets.
Whether it is in agriculture, financial services, insurance or
housing, co-operatives are growing, adapting and changing to help
shape a better world for all of us.
* * *
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The Speaker: I realize that today there have been a few
members I have not been able to recognize in standing orders.
There are a few reasons for this.
[Translation]
I too wanted to take a minute. There is no single word in French
to say goodbye. In French, we use expressions such as “À la
prochaine, au revoir, adieu”. Today, it is my turn.
[English]
I will take just a few moments to say goodbye to you. I do not
know if there will be an election but if there is, most of you
will be standing again to come back to this beautiful place, this
institution, the House of Commons of Canada.
If I may quote Laurier, he said that this was his home for 40
years. This was my home for 22. It is a home where I have
enjoyed working with you and your predecessors. In 22 years it
has been an adventure, surely with ups and downs, but for every
down day that I have had there have been 100 up days.
You have paid me one of the greatest honours that any member of
parliament could receive and that was to choose me on two
different occasions to be your Speaker. It is an honour which
very few of us could ever aspire to and one which I consider a
great gift and a great privilege.
1420
Over the last few days I have thought about how I would
say the words in this place that I have spoken a number of
times, like you, in my maiden speech and like you, on votes that
were particularly interesting and important for me.
[Translation]
During the time I presided over the debates of the House of
Commons, I sometimes had to make difficult decisions. I made
them. It was my duty to do so.
[English]
I thank the people who voted for me over the years and sent me
here six times. Once they decided they loved me so much that I
should stay with them in the riding for four years. For those
other six times I thought they were the most intelligent voters
in Canada. Even when they kept me home, I thought, well, there
was a reason for that too.
I wish you well, my colleagues, you who have served and you who
will serve in the years ahead in this House of Commons.
May I gently remind you of who you are, of who we are. We are
the representatives of the people of Canada. When they send us
here, they expect from us the best that we have to give.
Sometimes in the heat of battle we use words that in hindsight we
would have preferred to leave unsaid, but we get through that one
way or another.
I am told that there was a scratch on a stone after the battle
of Thermopylae, a little saying. If I had anything to ask you to
say about me, if indeed you ever do say anything, perhaps you
would consider these words. My colleagues, go tell the Canadians
that their Speaker, their servant, is leaving his post. His
watch is over.
I am ready to pass all of this on, as it should be, from one
Speaker to the next.
I hope that you will always cherish this place, as I have. No
greater honour could I have received. I thank you for this
honour you have given to me.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think all members share the sadness I feel because you are
about to leave your position as Speaker of the House.
You were among the first elected speakers of the House. You are
probably the longest standing elected speaker. You have
established a very important tradition.
[English]
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been colleagues in the House
for all these years and I can tell you that you have been a
wonderful colleague for me and for all those here. You have
always been a very committed member of the House of Commons.
You have represented your constituents with great honour and
determination.
1425
When you came to this job you honoured the House of Commons
and the job. It was not easy. A few times I found that you were
cutting me off a bit quickly, because the Leader of the
Opposition can prepare his question but I cannot prepare my
answer.
The spirit that prevails today, the fact that the Leader of the
Opposition and myself and all the members of the House can smile
and talk about recollections of you in the Chair and be in such a
good mood, is a reflection of the quality of the job you have
done.
As leader of your party, because all these times you were
elected under the Liberal flag—there was one year that it was
not flying properly and a lot of us had to do something for a few
years until they decided to take us back here—I just want, on
behalf of everyone, to say thank you for a job well done and to
wish you the best of luck in future endeavours.
You will always have the affection of all the members of the
House and you will always have the reputation of a man who has
served his country very well, and particularly the House of
Commons.
Good luck, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on one of the
rare times when the Prime Minister and I will be in agreement, I
would also like on behalf of my colleagues to extend our
gratitude and respect to you, Sir, for the job you have done.
I know how difficult it has been at times for you, and we have
seen you rule in a very even-handed way. We have sensed that
when you have ruled, as the Prime Minister said, against
unruliness on that side, and occasionally on this side, that
there is that moment of glare from your own colleagues that you
have to live with. You have done that with honour and
distinction and with even-handedness. We appreciate that and
respect that.
It is not an easy job, as Canadians who watch question period
must entertain, somewhat like herding cats at times, which is not
a negative, pejorative statements on cats. It must be somewhat
like that, yet in the short time I have been here the even-handed
approach you have taken has been very well noticed, remarked on
and respected by us.
Thank you for, as the Prime Minister said, the good mood that
prevails now, for a very few moments. We know how quickly that
dissipates.
Sir, you have served well. You have served with distinction.
We are honoured to have served with you. Thank you on behalf of
the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
too wish to express our gratitude. You will leave Bloc Quebecois
members with fond memories.
Like all members in this House, we have on occasion disagreed
with your decisions, but it was your duty to make these rulings
and you carry out that duty well, often under trying
circumstances, particularly when we first arrived here in 1993.
It was the first time that there were so many sovereignists, so
many in fact that we formed the official opposition. In that
context, you treated us with the same respect as other members.
I have fond memories of the numerous negotiations that we had in
the Board of Internal Economy, which you chair, and of how you
always made yourself available to members. We could always meet
with you when things were not quite clear, and also to discuss
in a democratic fashion issues on which we disagreed, in an
attempt to find solutions and to find a way to agree on how to
disagree.
You have performed this role with honour and I thank you for
that.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
we know that from time to time most of us have tried to sneak a
point of order past the Speaker in order to have a word on
something we felt strongly about.
On behalf of my colleagues I want to say that we appreciate your
allowing us some latitude in speaking to this issue.
1430
It has been well understood and much appreciated by all the
members of the House of Commons how much you love this place and
what it means to you to preside over parliament. No matter what
our differences, it has been very much your view and the tone
that you have set for debate in the Chamber that we are here as
the representatives of Canadians to try to make Canada a better
place.
[Translation]
I wish to thank you on behalf of my colleagues. During this
mandate, 15 of us were newcomers and we had a lot to learn about
the rules and traditions. You were always helpful.
[English]
I am sure I also speak on behalf of the five veteran members of
the NDP caucus. We appreciate the fact that you have always been
fair. From time to time, even though you have a very good ear
and a very quick eye, you have overlooked the odd transgression,
muttering under our breath words that might not be entirely in
order.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party I extend our warmest good
wishes and our heartfelt thanks for your generosity of spirit and
for the role model you have been in terms of expressing the love
for the Canada we are all here to work together to improve.
[Translation]
Good luck, and thank you very much.
[English]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if, as one of the newer members of the House, I might be
permitted to extend my great appreciation to you for your service
to the country and more particularly to the Chamber in a way that
has enhanced the reputation of Canada.
While I have only served occasionally under your guidance as
Speaker, I fondly recall the years in which we served together in
the House before you took that post. We tend to have a slightly
different evaluation of the election in which your constituents
kept you home. You will not take this at all personally, but
Sir, I rather wish there had been more of those.
All of us in the House know that the office of Speaker is not an
easy one. This is a House that can often edge to the borders of
being out of control. It requires not only firmness in the chair
but the kind of geniality in the chair you have demonstrated and
the kind of respect that everyone in the House knows that you
hold for parliament.
I know, Sir, that you are a hockey fan. You have seen a little
bit of high sticking here. You have called a few misconducts or
certainly a few offsides. You have maintained the capacity to
maintain the order and respect of the House and the respect for
the rules and the game that make it essential.
[Translation]
If I might add one thing, it is that part of your success as
Speaker of this House is, I believe, because you are more than
just an MP. You are also a teacher, someone with a background in
education. I believe it has always been important to you to
communicate to our fellow citizens the essence, the very nature,
of this House of Commons.
[English]
The skills you brought as a communicator, as a lover of the
institutions of Canada, as someone who wanted to ensure that our
institutions are well known in the country, have added to the
high regard in which you are held by all members of the House.
Thank you for your service et bon chance.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: If I had known you felt that way about me I
would have changed my mind.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1435
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago I was down the
street at a coffee shop getting a cup of coffee. The woman who
was working there asked if I was upset that the government was
making a weak attempt to steal the Canadian Alliance tax plan.
The more profound question I was asked came from the gentleman
who was working behind the till. His question in this cynical
attempt before an election to capture votes was “Does the
government really think Canadians are this dumb?” Will the
Prime Minister please address that question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we returned in September the first question raised
in the House was about having a mini-budget. They wanted the
Minister of Finance to say what he would do with the great
results he was having in terms of surpluses and so on. We
obliged.
We told the Canadian people that because of the good management
we have provided to the country over the last seven years there
was some money available. We were delighted to return some of it
in the form of tax reductions and at the same time investments in
education, research, medicare, and so on. I am sure the people
of Canada will recognize that they have been extremely well
served in the last seven years.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would
be willing to test that sense of confidence. I know he has a
busy schedule, but would he be willing to accompany me down to
the coffee shop just a few blocks down and try that answer on the
people who asked me the question? Would you like to try that on
with real Canadians? Do you want to try that one on?
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to direct their questions
to the Speaker.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I might be visiting a lot of coffee shops in the next
few weeks. I am very confident. We are going into an election
and members of parliament on this side are inviting me, the
Minister of Finance and other ministers of the government to
visit their ridings. We will visit a lot of coffee shops. When
we come back perhaps we will find the Leader of the Opposition in
another coffee shop.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the confidence of Canadians has been
shaken by the most scathing auditor general's report possibly in
our history, by the most scathing information commissioner's
report possibly in our history talking about a government
undermining democracy, and by one after another of RCMP
investigations.
They will be remembering a previous tax commitment where the
Prime Minister said he would abolish, kill and eliminate the GST.
How are these tiny tax cut commitments any different than the big
commitment you made and that you have never—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes all sorts of
accusations. I just want to say that in public administration we
always have some problems and we have to cure them.
On the wire a minute ago there was an item. I just learned this
morning that the company that owns and operates the Swan Hills
waste treatment facility in Alberta announced that it would no
longer operate the plant.
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this
project as his former government subsidized it to the tune of
$440 million, a figure confirmed by the auditor general.
Apparently the word for a situation like that, I have a problem
with this word in English, is boondoggle in Alberta.
* * *
1440
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, seeing that there are at least four police
investigations in the Prime Minister's riding about misuse of
funds, perhaps the Prime Minister should keep those kind of
comments to himself.
To return to reality for a minute, the auditor general has
graded the government's fiscal management. The auditor general
gave it an f for a grade. In fact he said that they have
placed little emphasis on the importance of maintaining financial
controls. Perhaps that is why its own budget estimates for last
year were overspent by a few billion dollars.
The government wants to open the floodgates even more on the
spending. Why should the voters of Canada give the Prime
Minister another—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have explained, and I repeat, that there are problems
in public administration anywhere in Canada. Sometimes even in
the private sector they have problems and they have to correct
the situation.
Today the premier of Ontario admitted that all governments have
administrative problems which need correcting. As he put it, “I
do not want to be casting stones at glass houses”. It is a
lesson for all of us.
This is why I have to show the hon. Leader of the Opposition
that it was only one project of $440 million that went belly-up.
I do not say they made a mistake. I just say that it is not a
success. They probably did it in good faith.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals seem to think that there is a connection
between massive spending and electoral success. They are right.
After seven years of boondoggle spending and widespread
mismanagement, the Liberals will find the more they spend, the
less they will succeed at the polls.
Canadians want their governments to manage their money carefully
and the government has failed them. Why should Canadians trust
the government with more of their tax money when that trust has
been so badly broken over the past seven years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general has reported. He said there were
some problems and we admitted that there were problems. The
minister put in place a program of six points that he approved
and said was working.
It is amazing and a great compliment to the Minister of Finance
that they do not dare ask a question on the budget.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance's budget is a budget for the rich.
Those earning $250,000 and up a year will get tax breaks of
$19,000, while those earning $35,000 will get only $550. So much
for compassion and values.
Will the minister admit that the main purpose of his budget is
to woo voters away from the Canadian Alliance, rather than to
promote the supposed Liberal values he claims to espouse?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
bulk of the tax cuts in our statement yesterday are for Canadians
earning under $60,000. There is a fundamental difference between
our budget and the Canadian Alliance's position, which would see
most cuts going to those earning more than $60,000.
Commentators in Quebec, such as Alain Dubuc, and the great
majority of economists are saying that this is a budget for the
middle class and for low income earners.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has not read all the newspapers. I also read that
the money he has used to give big tax breaks to the rich is
coming out of the EI fund. This means that he has used the money
he took from the pockets of unemployed workers to pay for tax
breaks for the rich. That is what has happened.
1445
Does he realize that he is using the EI fund, which should be
reserved for the most disadvantaged, that he has helped himself
to $30 billion from this fund, to pay for these tax cuts? Does
he not think this is just a little bit indecent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's budget is a great victory for Canadians.
The reason we had surpluses is because of Canada's economic
activity, which drove unemployment down from 11.5% to 6.8%. This
was because of the creation of 360,000 new jobs this year. This
was because of the efforts of Canadians.
If I might continue, Mr. Speaker, I much appreciate your
forbearance on your last day.
Things are going well in Canada, and because they are we can
now give Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's mini-budget neglected many: the victims of the major
oil companies were left out.
This morning, we learned that Imperial Oil has reported profits
of $1 billion, in the first nine months of this year alone.
What is the Minister of Finance going to say to taxi drivers,
who find nothing for them in the budget, to the truckers choking
on the price of gasoline, to the farmers whose profits are
disappearing into the pockets of the major oil companies? What
will he say to them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first off, when companies such as Imperial Oil, Esso, or any
company earns profits, we take our share and return it to
Canadians. That is one thing.
Second, we know full well that Mr. Landry, the Quebec minister,
shares the opinion that there is no point in lowering the tax on
gasoline, as it would disappear into the pockets of the oil
companies.
This is why we lowered personal income tax for the middle and
low income groups and this is why we put $1.3 billion into the
pockets of Canada's taxpayers, in order to help them with heating
oil costs.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how can the Minister of Finance claim that truckers, farmers and
taxi drivers are going to benefit from lower personal income tax?
They are penniless, in the red because of the price of gasoline.
How is he going to explain to taxi drivers, truckers and farmers
that he has given the amount they should have had to Canada's
richest taxpayers, by cutting the income tax of his millionaire
friends significantly? What will he say to them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for early January, we gave $2 billion to low income Canadians.
That is immediate.
Second, we asked the provinces if they wanted to share in a tax
cut with us, to co-operate with us. However, the PQ minister,
Bernard Landry, refused outright. Let the hon. member talk to
his head office.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government was elected because it promised a national plan for
pharmacare. It did not promise a national plan for stockbrokers.
Why has the Prime Minister chosen big breaks for stockbrokers
and no breaks for Canadian families struggling to pay their
medical bills?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 11 we met with all the premiers. We made an
agreement where the federal government will invest $21.5 billion
over the next five years in health care. In the debate we had
with them we agreed that this money was to serve among other
things to have a better system for pharmacare for the citizens of
all the provinces.
1450
The NDP government in B.C., the NDP government in Saskatchewan
and the NDP government in Manitoba signed on to the agreement.
They were among those who wanted to do pharmacare through a
federal-provincial agreement rather than have unilateral action
by the federal government.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, seven
years later and there is not one ounce of leadership from the
federal Liberal government on pharmacare. The government was
elected because it promised a national plan for home care. It
did not promise corporate tax cuts for high rollers.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why did he choose tax
breaks for high rollers and no breaks for Canadians struggling to
take care of their loved ones, struggling to take care of the
sick and the elderly in their own homes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should have taken the time to read the
budget but she was a bit too upset listening to the budget. Next
year a single parent with one child earning $25,000 will see the
net federal tax benefit rise by $800 to $2,200. The member only
has to read what is in the budget. I would like to quote Roy
Romanow, the premier of Saskatchewan, who said “This budget is
headed in the proper direction and is in the best interests of
Saskatchewan and Canadians”. I could go on and on like that.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the secret
deal at Downsview.
The Prime Minister will know that crown corporations established
by this parliament are subject to the access to information law.
Crown corporations established as Downsview was are not subject
to the access to information law. Is that the reason the Prime
Minister set up Downsview in a way that has been criticized by
the auditor general? Did he set it up deliberately to avoid
scrutiny by the access to information law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell the leader of the Conservative Party that
this was done under a law passed by this parliament. The Canada
lands organization has been set by this government. It has to
produce an annual report to the House of Commons. In the case of
the Downsview land that belongs to national defence, all of it is
reported through the estimates of the Minister of National
Defence for the participation of the Department of National
Defence. The annual report will be tabled in due course in the
House of Commons.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is talking about the Canada lands corporation
which is required to report. The Downsview corporation is not.
It is protected by the way the government set it up. The Prime
Minister can change that. He and the governor in council have
the power under the access to information law to designate crown
corporations that would be subject to the law.
My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister right now today
give us a commitment that he will later this day have an order in
council processed that would make the Downsview corporation
subject to the access to information law so these secrets will be
in the public domain so the public will know what is going on?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada lands is under an act of parliament and it
reports to the Parliament of Canada. It will follow the
instructions of the House of Commons. Its operation has to be
managed in this fashion. When the annual report is ready it will
be tabled according to the requirements of the House of Commons.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, three years ago the auditor general investigated the
abuse of expenses at the Canada Labour Relations Board and that
caused the chairman to be fired. In the eight years up to that
audit, the board spent an average of $200,000 a year in travel,
but last year that soared to almost $1 million. That is on top
of the airplane tickets that were paid out of another budget.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Why is she
continuing to let this board waste money on itself because it
seems to be treating Canadian taxpayers like a bottomless pit of
cash?
1455
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will know that there is a new chair of
the Canada Industrial Relations Board in place. New members have
been put on that board from the employer and employee side. The
board is doing very well and the chair of the board is best
placed to respond to these issues.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the best place to respond is right here in the House.
That new chair is no better than the old chair, because it is the
old board members who still have not been fired or turfed off the
job who are spending the $1 million. It is not the new board
members, it is the old ones who are still hanging around,
cleaning up the files and cleaning up the desks. The auditor
general said that they are taking an inordinate amount of time to
do it.
This board has gone bananas. It is out of control. I ask the
minister right now, will she fire and terminate the old board
members now before they suck all the money out of the Canadian
taxpayers?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we did keep some part time members because of the
backlog. We wanted to make sure that the people who were waiting
to come before our board would come before the board as soon as
possible.
I would like to inform the hon. member and the Canadian public
that two former members of the board have now finished their
work.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals
have supported the Bloc Quebecois motion, thus approving the
claims made during the march of women. Unfortunately, that
support did not translate into concrete measures in yesterday's
mini-budget.
How can the Minister of Finance not provide anything for daycare
services, social housing, employment insurance and old age
security, considering that they are part of the demands he
claimed to support earlier this week?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member should know that, in budget 2000, indexation was
reintroduced, increasing all the benefits to which she is
referring. At the same time, we increased by $100 the national
child tax benefit, which will bring the increase to $300 by
July 1.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
claims that he is helping people facing an increase in heating
oil costs. I checked and I found that, while older people will
see their heating bills go up by $500 or $600 this winter, the
minister will only give them a measly $125.
How can he claim to be helping them? Should he not have made it
a priority to allocate more money to help these vulnerable
people?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have some difficulty understanding why Bloc Quebecois members
are asking these questions, when they will not ask the same
questions to my counterpart, the Quebec Minister of Finance.
For example, our tax on diesel fuel is 4 cents, while in Quebec
it is 15.5 cents.
* * *
HEALTH CANADA
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers are paying for more than two
dozen public servants to go on cruises.
While this government is spending our money on cruises, we
continue to pay more taxes than ever before. This is the second
time such a thing has happened.
Why did the minister wait for this to hit the headlines before
looking into it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
made our position clear yesterday. We have been given an
explanation by the people concerned, who say that they did not
use public funds for that purpose. We have begun an
investigation nonetheless. I am going to disclose the facts. If
public funds were used for the purposes described by the hon.
member, I am going to call for the money to be paid back.
1500
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is classed as a professional
retreat and this is the second time it has happened this year.
The audit only took place after the story was released in the
press, which leads us to believe that it is a constant theme,
that many of these ministers have no idea what is happening in
their departments.
Just who is it that the taxpayers are treating here, the clients
or the staff?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, I have just told the House the man said that he did not
use public funds. We will get an audit and Health Canada will
report the results of that.
On the subject of audits at Health Canada, the member should be
reminded that last year when we released audits from all Health
Canada MSB programs for first nations and Inuit health, it was
found that over the last two years less than 2% of the total
programs audited required further follow up, representing .08% of
the total value of first nations' health spending. That is a
record that I will defend any day of the week.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Prime Minister took refuge behind the auditor general's report
and said that no politicians or public servants had benefited in
any way from the cases under investigation in the Department of
Human Resources Development.
Today, does the Prime Minister have anything to say to the House
or to the assistant to the auditor general, who took the trouble
to point out that the auditor general had never said anything in
his report that the Prime Minister could hide behind and that,
what is more, there had been frequent political interference in
the Department of Human Resources Development under the former
minister, who is now the Minister for International Trade? What
does he have to say?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the auditor general about
his report. I asked the auditor general if he thought money had
been lost. He said “No, the department knows where the money
is”. I asked the auditor general if he thought money had been
stolen. He said “There is no malfeasance. This is not about
money being absconded”. I asked the auditor general if he felt
the administration was outside the management control framework.
He said “Yes”. I said “That is what we found in our internal
audit”.
That is why we have implemented a very comprehensive plan to
deal with it and why the auditor general has given us an
unqualified endorsement of that plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, she got the
question wrong.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister how, as this term comes
to an end—it is probably the last time he will be answering one
of our questions on this topic—he can claim that the
administration is blameless, that the government is blameless,
when we have just discovered in a memo that, as of September 6,
his government was under police investigation in 21 cases, four
of them in his riding? And I am not including Placeteco in the
21, because that investigation has been completed.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have said repeatedly that there were problems and that we
were trying to do something about them.
As I told the Leader of the Opposition, these things happen in
all public administrations. If I may I would like to cite a
passage from the June 2000 report of the auditor general of
Quebec, which had this to say with respect to acquisitions of
services under the PQ government:
In addition, 58% of cases included violations of significant
clauses in the contract and yet no memos were on file to explain
these anomalies.
And with respect to Emploi-Québec:
In addition, we noted a perverse effect in the [manpower
training] fund management—
It reads further:
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, early in the 1990s the auditor general told the
government that there were major mismanagement problems with HRDC
grants and contributions. Later in the 1990s, the auditor
general told the government again but we had the same problems
and no solutions in sight.
What do we see in in this new century? We see a mismanagement
meltdown reported by the auditor general.
If financial mismanagement has not been fixed in seven years, is
it not true that the true legacy of the Liberal government is
that it has no respect for taxpayer dollars?
1505
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the auditor general said in his
commentary is that we are making, and I quote, “good progress”.
The auditor general said that what we should do is to make
today's extraordinary undertaking routine.
I commit to the Canadian people that we will do just that,
because on this side of the House we believe in grants and
contributions. On that side of the House, we know they would cut
every one of them. For us, we want to ensure the integrity of
the system, and we will do just that.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am concerned that the minister has not even read the
AG's report because here is what he did say. He said that
problems in managing grants and contributions worsened in the
nineties, and then he said that audits later in the 1990s showed
persistent problems identified previously. In this current
report, he said that there were breaches in authority, payments
made improperly, very limited monitoring of finances and
activities and approvals not based on established processes.
Is it not time after almost a decade that the government admits
that it has no respect for taxpayer dollars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have replied to those questions for months. Members
of the opposition, and this hon. member in particular, were
asking for money from the department. Listen to what I have
here. His own riding has received $30 million.
I would like the member to go to his riding and tell the people
who received this money, such as the Calgary Educational
Partnership Foundation, that it will not receive anything any
more; the Employment Leadership Council for Youth, nothing any
more; the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society, nothing any more;
the YMCA of Calgary, nothing at all; The Arthritis Society,
nothing at all; and Scouts Canada, nothing at all. I can go on
and on.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a number of things indicate that negotiations between
CINAR and Revenue Canada to reach an agreement on the amount the
company owes Revenue Canada are proceeding apace.
Can the Minister of National Revenue guarantee that this
agreement will not mean the dismissal of all potential fraud
proceedings against CINAR directors or former directors?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the Income Tax Act, all
matters relating to taxpayers are, by nature, confidential.
* * *
[English]
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in yesterday's economic statement the Minister of
Finance announced a new flow-through shares program to ensure
that mineral deposits will be discovered in northern Canada.
Can the minister expand on how the junior exploration companies,
as well as investors, will benefit from this great initiative?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two things that are very important about this.
First, clearly there is an incentive here that will encourage
exploration in northern Canada. That will take place as a result
of this incentive.
What is equally important, in fact more important, is the fact
that this arose not out of an initiative in the Department of
finance, but directly as a result of the hard work and dedication
of members on this side of the House, members of parliament who
would not give up, who did the basic research work, who met with
the industry and the workers, and who took on a challenge and
accomplished it. I congratulate those members. They are
responsible for what happened in yesterday's budget.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I just gathered a few quotes from yesterday's headlines: “HRDC
Scandal”, “Abuse Serious and Widespread”, “PM Won't
Apologize”, a word the Prime Minister does not like,
“Boondoggle”, and “Taxpayers Funds Were Wasted”.
Why did the Prime Minister allow that wasteful spending instead
of putting it toward the forgotten victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I draw the hon. member's attention to this release from
the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It states:
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) expressed
enthusiastic support for the federal government's fiscal strategy
as outlined in today's mini-budget, which supplements the 2000
federal budget. “We're impressed by the government's plan to
respond to both the short and long-term needs of Canadians...”
Here are some people who know what they are talking about,
unlike the hon. member.
1510
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think he even knows what I asked.
Let me ask then for Joey Haché. This is somebody I think the
Prime Minister will remember. This is what Joey Haché had to
say, “When I presented my petition to the Prime Minister he said
he did not have any more money for special interest groups”.
Joey Haché said “I am not a special interest group, I am sick
from hepatitis C”.
Why did the Prime Minister spend money on wasteful things
instead of giving some money to the forgotten victims of
hepatitis C like Joey Haché and those who he represents. Why?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the member likes to overlook is that this government, over
the course of the last two and a half years, has put over $1.7
billion into efforts to compensate and to treat those afflicted
with hepatitis C because of the blood system.
As a physician, this member should appreciate the initiative
taken by the government to rebuild and strengthen the Canadian
health care system. All those across the country who will ever
require health care will recognize the efforts we have made to
rebuild and strengthen public medicare.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
awfully tempting to ask the Liberals why they think that the new
look reformers have almost no questions about their budget, but I
think we know the answer. They are happy as proverbial pigs in
the barnyard with the budget.
New Democrats do have questions about the budget and so do a lot
of Canadians.
This government was elected because it promised to eradicate
child poverty. It did not promise big tax breaks for big banks.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why did he chose big
breaks for his country club friends and no breaks for this
country's poorest children?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the child tax credit that was initiated by this
government is the most revolutionary system we have had to ensure
that poor children and families receive money. In yesterday's
mini-budget the minister has given other incentives and help to
the people at the bottom of the ladder.
I can understand the frustration of the leader of the NDP. She
can attack as much as she wants but the people of Canada are very
happy with the balanced approach we have. We do not believe that
the government should do everything alone. We need the private
sector, but at the same time we know that we cannot give
everything to the private sector. We take the Canadian way, the
Liberal way.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister knows that not one poor child in this country will
have the benefit of the child tax benefit because the rules that
this government put in place allow the provinces to claw back
every stinking cent of those tax benefits.
This government was elected because it promised affordable
housing. It did not promise tax breaks so that its wealthy
friends could renovate their mansions.
Why did the Prime Minister chose to increase capital gains
exemptions instead of increasing the—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today the Prime Minister cited Roy Romanow in
favour of the budget. If I could simply cite Paul Ramsay, the
B.C. finance minister, clearly British Columbians are going to
have more money in their wallets. We believe it is crucial to
give working families and individuals opportunities.
1515
The question really is how come the NDP across the country gets
it and the leader of the NDP in the House does not?
* * *
[Translation]
JOB CREATION
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
February 7, the Minister of Human Resources Development told the
House that over 30,000 Canadians had found work thanks to the
transitional jobs fund. This is in contradiction with the
statement by the Auditor General of Canada to the effect that he
is unable to determine the number of jobs created, because the
department's files are in such a terrible state.
Can the minister tell us where these figures come from or did
they just come out of thin air?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed that number came from an
independent review by a reputable third party. The auditor
general himself has said jobs were created. There is discussion
over how many, but it is clear that these programs have had a
very important impact in high unemployment areas across the
country.
We recognize that we have to do a better job keeping our data
and we will because it is part of our action plan.
* * *
RCMP
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled that the
provincial court has the jurisdiction to hear six labour charges
arising out of the tragic drowning of RCMP Constable François
Carrière in December 1997.
These charges state that the RCMP failed to train, equip and
supervise Carrière during his underwater drug search. Now the
RCMP are once again seeking a court order to stop the trial on a
jurisdictional and technical basis to avoid answering the merits
of the case.
My question is for the solicitor general. This will be his
final question in the
House. Will he, rather than hiding behind
procedural delays to dull the sword of justice, let this matter
proceed to trial?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a tragic situation and I assure
my hon. colleague this is not my last answer in the House.
I take this matter very serious. My hon. colleague is also
aware that this is before the courts.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that a
ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the
table on Wednesday, October 18, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1530
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Marceau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Proctor
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 82
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am having trouble understanding something.
In connection with the Minister of Finance's budget statement,
the Chair accepted an amendment by the official opposition and an
amendment to the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois. Yet we have
just had a vote without taking into consideration the debate on
the amendment to the amendment and the debate on the amendment,
which ought normally to have been adopted or rejected before a
vote on the main motion.
I do not understand why we are not voting today when the
amendment and the amendment to the amendment were accepted and a
day and one-half of debate on them was tolerated. We are voting
on the main motion only, not the amendments.
If the main motion was not open to amendment, the Chair ought
not to have accepted amendments. Since it did accept them, they
ought to be voted on.
The Speaker: I am told that it is not the same vote. The one
the hon. member is referring to concerns Motion No. 13, under the
rubric of government business, while the other concerns ways and
means. These are two totally different things and that is why
we were able to proceed in this fashion.
That is the information the Clerk has given me. Perhaps if you
come forward, the Clerk will be able to provide you with further
information.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on this final day—we can
forget about tomorrow, because the government will not be
here—I would like to share our wisdom with
the House.
Under parliamentary law, how is it possible for us to vote on a
ways and means motion to implement a budget statement which has
not itself been approved, since the Chair has allowed an
amendment to an amendment and an amendment from the official
opposition?
We cannot vote on the implementation of something that has been
officially amended, debated in the House and not voted on.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to upset anyone, but you
are going to have a serious legal problem if you allow everyone
to leave like this and we do not vote on the amendment to the
amendment, the amendment and the main motion. This poses a very
serious legal problem. Think twice.
It does not matter to me, but it is the government's budget and
it should
perhaps be looking after its own affairs.
The Speaker: I have made my ruling. We will see what happens.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1535
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 17,
2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on Motion M-230 under private members'
business.
1545
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Caccia
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Venne
– 61
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hubbard
| Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Penson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 114
|
PAIRED
Members
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like my vote recorded in opposition to the motion.
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
1555
ROBERT MARLEAU
The Speaker: My apologies for taking so long
in getting to the business of the House. The business of the
House right now is to pay tribute to one of our colleagues who
has served parliament for some 30 years.
He is here with us today in our gallery. I refer to Robert
“Bob” Marleau, Clerk of the House of Commons and Special
Adviser to the Speaker. He is here with his wife, Ann, his sons
and his dear friends and colleagues who worked with him for so
many years.
If you permit me a few words to begin, I will
call you Bob throughout this because we dropped the terms
“Gilbert” and “Robert” a long time ago. Almost from the
beginning of my mandate as Speaker of the House, I did refer to
Bob Marleau not as “the clerk” but as “my clerk”. This
possessive was used with the greatest respect to publicly
indicate my complete trust and confidence in the man who was to
be, for the next seven years, my closest and most trusted
adviser.
As members know, Bob Marleau stepped down as Clerk of the House
last July. I did not then have the opportunity to stand before
you, my colleagues, to thank him on your behalf for his many
years of service to the House.
[Translation]
Bob has been a part of the House of Commons for 30 years, more
than a generation: committee clerk, treasurer of the Canadian
section of the Association internationale des parlementaires de
langue française, principal clerk, committees and legislation,
clerk assistant and, in 1983, Clerk of the House of Commons.
So much knowledge and experience and all of it available to the
clerks at the table, the members of the House and the Chair.
1600
[English]
In addition, Bob has been a key member of the Canadian Study of
Parliament group, a member of the Association of
Clerks-at-the-Table in Canada, a founding member of the
Association des secrétaires généraux des parlements membres de
l'AIPLF, and is frequently consulted for his parliamentary
expertise by his colleagues in other parliaments around the
world.
Bob, I thank you for many things, for your wisdom, your
judgment, your discretion, your humour, your golf game, even your
scolding because even Speakers need straightening out once in a
while and few people are brave enough to take on the task. In
your time on the Hill you have in your own quiet way greatly
influenced those around you. The members of Parliament and the
House of Commons, be they security guards, maintenance staff or
procedural clerks, all hold you in the highest esteem and speak
of you with genuine fondness. Not many people are so well
respected.
[Translation]
I am relieved to know that you will remain with me a few months
longer as special adviser. I know that your wife Ann and your
sons Kristian and Stéphane will enjoy having you around more
once you finally leave parliament.
[English]
Try to use some of that extra time to improve your golf, but not
too much.
[Translation]
Bob, I thank you on behalf of all the members and staff for your
years of service to the House of Commons and by extension to
parliament and the people of Canada.
[English]
Those of us who served alongside you, whether in the Chamber or
within the parliamentary precinct, will not soon forget your
contribution to this country, both here and abroad. Both
yourself and Camille Montpetit, who is with you today, and
others, are responsible for a book of rules that we will be using
in this parliament, if it follows practice, for the next 40 or 50
years.
Of all the things that I have said to you, Bob, I think in my
heart the most important thing that I treasure is your friendship
and your unflagging loyalty to this institution. Whenever I lost
sight, you were always there to point out that there are other
ways to look at things, which were better than the ones I was
looking at at that time.
So thank you, my friend, for what you have done for me
personally, for these members, for the House of Commons of
Canada. You are a great asset to the House. Thank you, Bob.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I
join you and all our colleagues today in paying tribute to a
remarkable man who has had an equally remarkable career here, in
parliament, Robert Marleau.
When I first met him, he was a young man from Cornwall, in the
riding of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, represented by the
chief government whip. I remember this ambitious young man from
eastern Ontario who was just beginning his career.
I myself had just arrived here, in the parliamentary restaurant,
as I often say. As for Mr. Marleau, he was starting out with the
committees. At the time, his hair was not as grey. As for me, I
still had some. This was the beginning of a brilliant career
that lasted over 30 years and culminated with his appointment to
the position of Clerk of the House of Commons.
Throughout his career, Robert Marleau has displayed
extraordinary professionalism and professional ethics, which he
has been able to pass on to his colleagues and successors. It
was great to work with Robert Marleau over the years. While we
were somewhat surprised to learn that he was retiring, something
which no one wanted him to do, he definitely deserves it. I
would like to wish Mr. Marleau—Robert, if I may call him that—all
the best and offer him my heartfelt congratulations on a
brilliant and successful career.
1605
[English]
I am a bit jealous that some people will miss Mr. Marleau's golf
game because I know no one will ever miss mine.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure also to rise to pay tribute to
someone who was the first man that I met when I was elected here
in 1993. He helped me sign in. In that parliament, you will
remember, Mr. Speaker, there were over 200 new people. We did
not know where our seats were, we did not know how to sign and we
did not know anything. Bob Marleau helped us to do that and
helped us to do much more as we learned the rules and learned the
ropes here in the House of Commons and I think learned to respect
the House of Commons in part because he respected this place so
much.
I think too of the procedural book that he co-authored with Mr.
Montpetit. I turned to it today. I thought that I would look in
it to see what it is that the clerk is supposed to do. There are
three full pages of work and duties of the Clerk of the House of
Commons. I switched right away over to the House leaders and
there is one line in there about the House leaders. Therefore,
there is more work to be done on the procedural book yet, I am
sure. That procedure book I think will become a standard not
only here in the House of Commons but increasingly as democracies
around the world look to Canada and look to this House of
Commons. They will pick up the book co-authored by Mr. Marleau
and say this is a way that democracy can be enhanced and be
respected.
I think overall that the biggest tribute perhaps to Mr. Marleau
is that although all members of the House of Commons are equal,
we all know that while that is traditionally true many members in
the House have much more power than others. That is just a fact.
Some are far more aggressive than others. Some are far more
demanding than others. However, through it all I have never seen
Mr. Marleau blink as far as being absolutely fair, absolutely
impartial, absolutely act with dignity and absolutely bring grace
and sort of a calmness to this place in everything he did.
Also, if I could, I think Bob would permit me to talk about our
coffee together that we had just by coincidence the other morning
in the cafeteria. I asked him “What are you going to do when
you retire”, because he has not really retired yet; he is
heading that way. He mentioned a few things that he had on his
mind but even in retirement the things that he is considering
have to do with helping charities, helping developing countries,
helping people in need, helping out Canadian organizations and
lending the organizational expertise that we have come to admire
so much.
I thought it is a great tribute to the man. The organizations
will be lucky people and we have been very fortunate to have him
in our midst. Thank you, Bob.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House to add my words to those of my
colleagues who have spoken before me, all of them reflecting, I
believe, what we all feel toward Mr. Marleau, who has left us,
or will soon be doing so.
I would, however, like to say, in order to be fair to Mr.
Marleau and Mr. Montpetit, who were directly attacked a few
moments ago, that I feel otherwise: the work they have produced
shows the full importance of the chief whip in that there is
more reference to that position than to that of the House
leader.
While that position may not have all the visibility and all the
deference owing to it, at least in the joint work of Mr. Marleau
and Mr. Montpetit we see the full importance, the full essence
of the position of chief whip of the various parties.
1610
Joking aside, I wish to express here the great admiration I
personally and my fellow Bloc Quebecois members have for the
work that has been done by Mr. Marleau, not just as Clerk of the
House of Commons, because the Speaker also mentioned his long
parliamentary career.
He started here in 1969 as clerk of committee. He then joined
the parliamentary relations secretariat. He served as
principal clerk, director of committees and private legislation,
clerk assistant and, finally, in 1987, was appointed Clerk of
the House of Commons.
He therefore has very broad experience, which he has shared with
all of us here in the House.
We are all indebted to him for his contribution to this Chamber,
for what he has done for us individually and as a group.
Earlier the Speaker was saying that he will soon be leaving the
House of Commons. On that score, I can say that he will never
really leave it, that there will always be a seat for him here,
because we have unanimously agreed to reserve for him the
distinction of honorary clerk of the House of Commons. He will
thus be able to join us and take part in the work of the House
when the mood strikes him. I invite him to do so as often as
possible.
What is particularly sad is knowing that this House will lose a
part of its corporate memory. There is no denying that there
have been a number of inroads on that memory in recent years.
In addition to Mr. Marleau, some very capable individuals have
left us.
There is Mary Anne Griffith, Camille Montpetit and Diane
Davidson, who, through a chance administrative reorganization,
has moved on to the Department of Justice and is now with the
Chief Electoral Officer. She also shared with us her vast
experience and considerable professionalism, as did Ms. Griffith
and Mr. Montpetit.
Here we have much of our corporate memory leaving us, and we
will have to make up for this loss one way or another.
I know that I myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois
have given Mr. Marleau, young retiree that he is, a few white
hairs.
Nevertheless, since 1987, although the Bloc Quebecois was not
around then, Mr. Marleau has weathered some rather stormy
situations. However, being a fine helmsman, he always maintained
a steady course and captained his ship exceptionally.
If we in fact did give him a few white hairs on occasion, I must
say right off that it was not our intention and that we had the
highest respect for his person, his duties and his contribution
to the House of Commons.
People move on and the institution remains, I think. However,
the memory of these people remains and does so for a long time.
Thank you for your contribution to the House of Commons. I
think your presence here and your contribution will long remain
within these walls. Thank you very much and congratulations. May
your well deserved retirement be a good one.
As my friend, the House leader of the official opposition put
it, I know full well that you are retiring, but you are not
retiring, because you have also told me what you plan to do in
your retirement.
I wish you good luck. I have not had the good fortune to
golf with you, but you have had the good fortune not to golf with
me.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today seems to be the time for goodbyes and of course those who
have the good fortune to choose the time of their retirement or
resignation have the blessing of an opportunity for colleagues to
express themselves about them.
I am sure that there are at least some in this place who will
not have that opportunity. They will just go reluctantly into that
good night on November 27. I say to Mr. Marleau that I am
glad we have had this opportunity before parliament ended. He
resigned in the summer and we did not have a chance to do this.
I was certainly anxious that we would have an opportunity to put
our thoughts on the record.
One always feels a bit more melancholy about people retiring
when they are kind of close to your age and when one has been
here almost as long as they were.
I feel almost that this clerk is someone of my own generation.
Certainly we have served in the House together for 21 and
a half years. He has been a part of our collective lives here,
part of my life here, and certainly part of that life I will
always recall with great affection.
1615
I appreciated his sense of humour. I appreciated the care he
often demonstrated for this institution and the integrity with
which he carried out his duties. I appreciated the work he and
Mr. Montpetit did to put together the procedural book.
I hope against hope he will not write a memoir, gathering
together the most eccentric behaviour he witnessed on the part of
members of parliament over the 30 years. However it might be a
best seller, one never knows.
I hope he will write a book on parliamentary reform. I notice
he has already authored an article or two in some journals about
this. Free of the constraints of the Table, and I say this with
all due appreciation for the Chair and the Table, he might be
able to offer us even better advice on how we might improve this
place than he was able to do as Clerk of the House of Commons.
Hon. Don Boudria: Report stage.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Report stage is just what I had written
down here. Maybe that was the reason he retired; he could not
face another marathon vote. In his retirement, if he could crack
that nut for us, that would be a good idea.
The clerk is obviously a party to many of the rulings. You also
are leaving, Mr. Speaker. I will tell both of you, given that
you probably conspired together on this, that only once did I
profoundly disagree with both of you. That was with respect to
the treatment of independent members and the whole question of
party status in the previous parliament. Even though I did not
agree with you, I never once doubted that you were acting as you
saw best and out of a sense of integrity and commitment to your
own view of what was appropriate.
I wish Bob and the members of his family, who have much to be
proud of, all the best in the future. Future clerks, including
our new clerk, have big shoes to fill. Bob has left a legacy of
service we will always cherish.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is also a great pleasure for me, a young member of
parliament, to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Mr.
Marleau.
[English]
He was perhaps one of the first people I met when I arrived
here, completely confused and overwhelmed by the tasks that lay
before me. Parliament and parliamentary procedure can sometimes
be described as navigating an incredible labyrinth and untying a
Gordian knot at the same time. Mr. Marleau was very quick to
come forward and offer advice and calm support. He was always
very deliberate and supportive any time I had the pleasure to
meet with him or request assistance.
Mr. Marleau offered that help on a very non-partisan level, as
has been alluded to. There was never a nod or a wink or any
indication that any member of any party of the House, regardless
of title or personal connection, received anything other than an
impartial and straightforward word of advice.
Mr. Marleau has also distinguished himself as an author. He has
made a very lasting contribution to this place through his
writings. He and his co-author, Mr. Montpetit, have left with us
a legacy that will serve this parliament and perhaps all
parliaments in the land for many years to come. The House of
Commons will no doubt miss his wisdom and his steady hand, but
through his writings he will be with us for many years to come.
1620
I would describe Mr. Marleau as the consummate impeccable,
professional clerk. His approach as viewed from a distance was
always very steadying in its influence on this place. Most would
be quick to agree that sometimes this place borders on the
raucous and out of control atmosphere we have come to accept.
Through it all Mr. Marleau was there, very much at the wheel,
very much guiding us through the important work done in this
Chamber. The old adage that quiet, calm deliberation
disentangles any knot comes to mind when I think of Mr. Marleau
and his stewardship in the House of Commons.
For his years of public service to the House of Commons we are
very thankful. As well, we must pay tribute to those who were
with him at the table.
I do not want to mix the tributes, but it has been my distinct
pleasure to have been in a parliament over which you have
presided, Mr. Speaker. I have had the honour to work with Mr.
Marleau. I hope it will serve me regardless of what happens in
the days to come.
On a personal level, it has been my great honour to say that I
know the man. I admire the diligence and patience he has shown
with new House members, including me, and with the many others
who have expressed an interest in our parliamentary procedure. I
believe he went above and beyond his service and the strict
professional definition of clerk when it came to inquiries from
outside this parliamentary precinct. He was always there, and
for that we can be very thankful.
I know his family is present. His family was always near,
always close to him. I remember being in his office and hearing
him speak with beaming pride of his sons. He also has great love
for and admiration of his wife and her support. I wish Bob, his
wife Ann, their two sons and their whole family many years of
happy retirement. I certainly hope we will cross paths again.
The Speaker: I am hosting a reception in honour of Bob,
his wife and his two sons in my chambers, 220 North. I invite
all of you to join me. We can continue this conversation there.
Bob, on behalf of all of us here we thank you for your great
service to the House of Commons.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the House leader's job on Thursday is to ask the
Thursday question, which is about upcoming business.
Canadians want to know what the business will be for the rest of
the day, for tomorrow and for the weeks to come. The government
made a lot important claims. It claimed it wanted to change
financial administration. It claimed it wanted changes to
immigration and citizenship. It claimed it wanted to change the
Young Offenders Act. It claimed a lot of things that are not
getting done.
Canadians want to know why an election when there is so much
important legislation we could be working on over the next couple
of weeks.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that
question for the Leader of the Opposition, who called for an
election, but unfortunately I cannot. I can only deal
with the business question, which I will do.
This afternoon we will deal with Bill C-44. Tomorrow we will
consider Bill C-15, water exports. We will continue debating
that item on Monday.
I wish to designate next Tuesday an opposition day.
1625
In the unlikely event that I am not able to participate in the
opposition day debate next Tuesday, when I would want to speak on
this subject, I want now to take this opportunity to thank the
the House leader of the official opposition, the member for
Fraser Valley; the hon. member for Roberval; the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona; and the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for the excellent work they have
done in their capacity as House leaders for their respective
parties.
By tomorrow this institution will have passed 111 bills, I
believe, since the last election. Perhaps there will be more to
come in the next few days and weeks. Who knows? We succeeded in
having parliament function well, given the five party system and
so on, largely because of the excellent work and leadership
provided by the people I have just named. I thank them for their
co-operation and dedication in making this great institution
work.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I take the point the government
House leader makes that the so-called pizza parliament has worked
out better. I would not say it went from being a pizza
parliament to a peaceful parliament but somewhere in between the
dire predictions that were made.
Obviously the business of the House for this week continues
unabated. I wonder if the House leader could explain to me why
there were no Liberals present a few minutes ago when the auditor
general appeared before the public accounts committee, which
meant that the auditor general, who has made a report that
everyone is interested in, could not be questioned by opposition
members.
It seems to me this has to do with government business. It has
to do with a matter of parliamentary business. It is very
shameful that no government members were there and the committee
could not meet. Perhaps the government House leader could
explain that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is difficult for
me, as a relatively junior member compared with the hon. member
for Winnipeg—Transcona, to intervene in this regard. However, I
am aware of the fact that committees are creatures of their own
invention. I do not know it is appropriate that this is part of
the Thursday question or a point of order associated with the
Thursday question.
If the government House leader would care to respond I am sure
there would be no problem.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that
only God is a creature of his own invention. Committees are
creatures of the House, and therefore somebody has to be
answerable when the government is behaving in this very peculiar
way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Perhaps the
government whip will be able to shed some light on this.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss for words. I will certainly look
into the matter. If what the member for Winnipeg—Transcona has
reported has occurred, and I am sure it is accurately reported,
it is totally unacceptable. This is something I would hope would
never happen. I regret if it did happen, and certainly I will
give it my utmost attention.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the government whip and House
leader that as the representative on the public accounts
committee for the New Democratic Party, I can confirm that no
Liberal representatives arrived at the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is obvious that
the government has taken this matter very seriously.
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester, Transportation; the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville, Gun registry; the hon. member for Davenport,
Communications.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1630
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question? Are hon. members rising on debate?
An hon. member: Debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On debate, the hon.
member for Joliette.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I appreciate that you had already started to put the
question and that you are now recognizing an hon. member. That
is fine. I am sure we are all accommodating in order to allow
enough time for people to come into the House.
That being said, I wonder if, for the benefit of Canadians
receiving the funds for which they will be eligible under Bill
C-44, the House would agree that at 5.30 p.m. the bill will be
passed in second reading, be deemed to have been passed in
committee of the whole, read the third time and referred to the
Senate for its consideration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
government House leader have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If I could just have the indulgence of the Chamber to go back to
the point of order raised by my friend and colleague from
Winnipeg—Transcona, because it is through our office and the
government whip's office that we co-ordinate committee work,
attendance, and so on.
I have just had the benefit of speaking to some of my staff, and
we in fact had people who were going to the meeting. My
understanding is that regrettably there was a change in the
location of the meeting, and while they were in transit or
getting from one place to another, the meeting was adjourned. I
can understand that, but believe me there was no intention on the
part of the government members to avoid attending that meeting.
It is regrettable that it did happen, but there was certainly no
intention at any time to avoid that meeting.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That point is now
finished. We have had the question and an explanation. If we
want to do more, we can do it behind the curtains. We are now
going to debate.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to inform the House that the public accounts
committee waited for over 20 minutes and nobody showed up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That was not a new
point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order, not
to continue the debate.
I simply wanted to tell the Chair that some speakers were
scheduled to speak and that we should not proceed with the vote
immediately. This is what I wanted to point out. But since you
indicated that we are resuming debate, you have answered my
question and I do not think there is any objection to proceeding
in this fashion.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today it is indeed a pleasure to
speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
Given the events of the last couple of weeks, I must say that
those of us on this side watching the actions of the government
are deeply disappointed in its failure to truly address
unemployment in the country in a meaningful fashion.
1635
If the government was truly interested in a long term, effective
plan to deal with the underpinnings of unemployment and
underemployment in our country today, it would have had a more
thoughtful approach rather than suddenly trying to pull out a
mini-budget because the official opposition has decided to put
forth a thoughtful way of lowering taxes and improving the
economy. Instead the government has chosen, in a haphazard
fashion, to merely lift many of the things from our platform and
say to the public that after this election it will implement
them.
The fact of the matter is, the public is going to see through
this. If the government truly wanted to get people off EI rolls,
to get people off welfare, to improve the lives of people who are
underemployed in our country and to improve the lack of
competitiveness in our nation, then it would address such things
as how we are going to improve our education system.
The government should pull the first ministers together and ask
how we can have national standards for education in this country
today, how we can have public and private partnerships on
improving the education system so that our young people will be
able to learn the skills necessary in the real world, in real
time, in order to be able to be employed in the future.
The government should ask how we can start addressing the
interprovincial trade barriers which, I might add, are greater
east-west than they are north-south. Is it not remarkable that
there are more barriers to trade between my province of British
Columbia and the province of Ontario than there are between
British Columbia and Washington state? That is a shame.
If the government was truly interested in improving the economy
of this country, it would have sat down with the first ministers
and said “We are going to lock ourselves in this room. We are
will sit in front of this table and come to an agreement that is
going to remove the egregious rules and regulations that have
been choking off the private sector in this country for far too
long”. That is what the government should be doing.
Not only should the government have been looking at lowering the
tax rates and taking a leaf out of our book, a little leaf, it
should have taken a large chunk of our book instead of only
asking how it could lower personal taxes and business taxes. I
compliment the government on the fact that this has been done to
some extent in this budget, but it should have been done a few
years ago.
The government should also be dealing with ways of equilibrating
the tax structure between high tech and manufacturing companies.
High tech companies pay a higher taxes than those in
manufacturing. Why is that so? There is not even any discussion
about it, but there is no lack of ideas, not only within the
House but also more importantly outside the House, from people
across the country, people in business, in the public and in
academia. Many of them have brilliant ideas on what we can do to
improve our economy and the health and welfare of Canadians,
which they have offered to the government.
There is an illusion going around that has been stuck in the
House for far too long, which is that somehow if one is into
lowering taxes, improving the economy and being fiscally
responsible, one is being socially irresponsible. The illusion
is that lowering taxes will somehow harm the poor and the middle
class.
The fact of the matter is that whether we are looking at
northern Europe, Sweden, Ireland, the British Isles, the U.S. or
southeast Asia, those countries that have taken it upon
themselves to lower taxes, rules and regulations and make labour
laws more flexible have improved dramatically. The health and
welfare of the people, particularly of those who were the most
impoverished in our society, has improved. Just as important, it
has given us the money to pay for the social programs that we
have come to rely on so much and that are so important in helping
those who cannot help themselves in time of need, be it with
health care, education, pensions or otherwise.
That is what the government should be looking at, for to be
fiscally responsible is to be socially responsible. They are two
halves of the same whole. If one is fiscally irresponsible, as
some NDP governments have been in the past, particularly in my
province of British Columbia, that fiscal irresponsibility of
spending more than is taken in, of spending the taxpayers' money
unwisely, crushes our ability to pay for our social programs.
1640
As a physician, I work in a hospital where it takes three and a
half years just to see an orthopedic surgeon, where I cannot find
a pillow in my emergency department for somebody with congestive
heart failure. The reason that is so, the reason we do not have
nurses for our emergency departments and hospital beds, is that
there is not enough money in the system. There is not enough
money in the system because our economy has not expanded so that
we can tax that money wisely and fairly and have it available to
pay for those programs that we are endeared to.
We are also not taking into consideration a brick wall that we
will slam into. A lot of people will be hurt. That brick wall
is our demographics. In the next 20 years our population over
the age of 65 will double. As our population ages so too do our
demands increase on programs such as pensions, health care and
other services.
Yet there is no debate. There is only deafening silence on what
we should be doing to prepare for the future and to deal with our
needs in health care and the demographic changes that are going
to be imposed upon our pension system. How will we do this? If
we do not, those who are going to be hurt are seniors, fixed
income people and those who will live lives of quiet desperation
unless we deal with the problems now. We cannot manufacture
these solutions overnight.
We have proposed for a long time that the Government of Canada,
the Liberal Party in this case, take upon itself to deal with
these problems now. We will work with them, as we will with the
public, to bring forth effective solutions to deal with that
demographic bubble that will hit our social programs with full
force, causing them to crumble and causing the most vulnerable in
our society to be hurt. This is something the government has
failed to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would
like some clarification. Are we not supposed to be talking about
Bill C-44 on the employment insurance reform? Is this not the
issue that we should be discussing? If so, could you tell me and
our viewers about the relevance of the hon. member's presentation
on demographics and health problems? I suppose that people are
more likely to get sick if they cannot get employment insurance
benefits, but I am trying to see how this is relevant to today's
topic.
Could the Chair indicate whether we are indeed dealing with
the Employment Insurance Act? If so, could the Chair call on the
hon. member to share his views and those of his party on the
appropriateness of the changes that are being considered and
indicate if his party wants more changes or less changes?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was amazed to hear
the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok refer to himself
as my humble servant.
However, he is quite right that this is Bill C-44 and I was
remiss, because we have been going a little astray from
relevance.
If the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca would care to be a
touch more relevant or to at least touch base every once in a
while, it would be deeply appreciated.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for being a foil to this speech because he has just come into the
most exciting part of the speech, linking EI premiums and what
the government has done by removing, for the member's
information, $100 billion in EI premiums from the taxpayer, from
hardworking people. Our party has said for years that the
government should be lowering those premiums because in effect
they are using the EI premiums as a tax on business.
1645
In the hon. member's riding in the province of Quebec I am sure
many of his business colleagues are telling him that the EI
premiums are too high, that the government has been taxing them
through EI premiums, pocketing the money and spending it as it
sees fit. It is not on the basis of need and not on the basis of
putting people back to work, but saying to the public “We can
live with EI. EI is an important program”. What the government
is not telling the public is that it is using $100 billion of
that money as a form of tax. Under those circumstances it hurts
the business people who would love to have money to reinvest in
their businesses.
Many small and medium size businesses, and most small businesses
have fewer than five employees, have said to many of us that if
they had more money, they could hire more people. If they had
more money they could reinvest in their business and be more
competitive, but the government is taking all that money from
them through payroll taxes and EI is one of those payroll taxes.
My point on my hon. colleague's excellent question is that the
EI premiums are too high. That is the bottom line. They are far
too high. Rather than being a help to the unemployed the EI
premiums are a hindrance to the unemployed and the underemployed.
As we have done for some seven years, we beg and implore that
the government lower the EI premium to make it far more
reasonable. If the government wants to know by how much it can
ask us because we have been asking for a substantial reduction
for a very long time.
Another point I want to make concerns people such as single
mothers and people on welfare who would like to return to the
workforce. They are actually penalized for trying to return to
the workforce. We should reward those people who want to get the
skills. Through the EI program, and in working with the
provinces on welfare, we should make sure that money will be
there to help them get a leg up. We should support them when
they say they want to learn the skills to get back into the
workforce but that they need daycare for their children. That is
something we could do. We could help them by providing the
resources so that in the long term they will get the skills
necessary to return to the workforce.
Currently those people who try to return to the workforce, who
are perhaps single moms, who are on welfare, who are in difficult
circumstances find it very difficult to return. The system
penalizes those who try to help themselves. Unfortunately many
of them say it is not worth their while to get off welfare, that
it is worth their while to stay on it, but they do not want to.
The government should look at reasonable ways to reform the EI
system rather than tinker around the edges.
The government has made a point of criticizing us on the issue
of seasonal workers. It believes that raising the EI amounts
that can be earned is somehow beneficial in some cases or that
lowering the bar on how much one has to work is somehow
beneficial. I wonder how often the government asks those
seasonal workers, be they in the maritimes or elsewhere, whether
they want to be seasonal workers or whether they want to work
full time. I have never met a seasonal worker who did not want
to work full time. I would venture to say that virtually all of
the people the government spoke to would say that they want to
work full time, that they want to work all year long.
Why does the government not use the taxpayers' money wisely to
provide people with the skills necessary to be employed all year
long, and not just 10 weeks or 12 weeks a year but all year long?
In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca many people in the
fishery have been displaced. Instead of providing moneys to
enable these people to be employed and to learn other skills,
much money has gone into wasted programs that have not enabled
them to be employed.
In my area, as there could be on the east coast, there are great
opportunities in aquaculture if they are done properly. If we
look at how the Norwegians and the Chileans do aquaculture and
not how the Indonesians have done it, it would provide people who
have been displaced by the changes in commercial fishing with
jobs in areas similar to what they did before.
1650
I am confident that as a country we can get back in aquaculture
what we had before. We can take the initiative so it is a
vibrant, sustainable and environmentally safe practice and that
many people in the fishery rather than hanging on by their
fingernails will be employed all year long in a different type of
fishing industry.
Those are the innovations we need to explore. We do not see
very much of that coming from the government and I would say
mostly from the Prime Minister's office. I know some of the
backbench MPs have tried to give the ministers at the front good
suggestions and we have as well but they have not listened. That
speaks to the fact that we do not live in a democracy. The single
greatest problem, the reason our EI system and so many other
things have not been fixed is that we do not live in a democracy.
We live in a four year dictatorship. The public has a chance to
vote only once every four or five years.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Rubbish.
Mr. Keith Martin: The member across the way who is
saying rubbish should bite her tongue. She knows full well that
the Prime Minister does what he wants. This country is ruled by
12 people. It is not ruled by this House.
Example number one is Mount Logan. The Prime Minister decided
to rename Mount Logan, so there it goes. The Prime Minister
decided to use HRD as his own little basket of Santa Claus
goodies. This is the situation. In spite of the fact that good
suggestions have come from all members across party lines, the
system is controlled by the Prime Minister's office and a couple
of cabinet ministers. Most of cabinet does not have much of a
say in what goes on in the country, sadly.
What a tragedy that we do not have a system that allows members
to do what the public, their constituents, the people who voted
for them want them to do. The central problem in Canada today,
despite the importance of health care, EI, pensions and
education, is that we do not live in a democracy.
There is one thing we need to do and I hope the public holds all
our feet to the fire on it. We need to ensure that the House
becomes a democracy again and that individual members of
parliament are beholden to the public who elected them and not
the leader of their party. We need to ensure that individual
members of parliament can vote freely in the House. They should
not be subjected to the ruthless and brutal tyranny of leaders in
the House who use their power as a carrot and stick approach to
reward or punish MPs who do not do their bidding as opposed to
the bidding of the public who elected them.
That is the central problem in our country today. If we
liberated this House, all other problems could be solved. We
would be able to get ideas from the public and bring them to bear
on the House in a meaningful fashion. It would involve
liberating the committees so that the committee structure would
be relevant, so that we could have free votes in the committees,
so that parliamentary secretaries could be removed from
committees, so that there is input on government bills, be it the
EI bill or others.
Bill C-44 should have been sent in a draft form to the relevant
committee. Then the committee and the public would have had
effective input on the bill. That is what is done in Britain and
in other countries.
If we were to liberate committees, hard earned and innovative
ideas put forth by the public would be listened to. This could
happen if bills came forward from the ministry in draft form and
we removed the parliamentary secretaries from those committees,
cutting the umbilical cord to the minister.
We need free votes in the House. We need fixed election dates
so that the Prime Minister cannot unilaterally decide to call an
election, not because it is better for the Canadian public but
for his own political gain. That is why the election will be
called on Sunday. It will be called for the government's
political gain, not because there is an effective plan or reason
for calling it. The public is a lot smarter than we are. They are
going to wonder why an election has been called. They are going
to ask tough questions of all of us so we had better have
answers.
1655
In closing, the bill presents a great opportunity to articulate
some of the great problems this country has. There is the lack
of democracy. We need to be more competitive as an economy. We
need to lower taxes. We need to remove useless rules and
regulations. We need to increase interprovincial trade and
remove the barriers to trade. We need to make our labour laws
more flexible. We need to invest in our education system and
ensure that we have an effective student loans system so that
students across the socioeconomic strata get the education they
want. We need to save our health care system not only by
investing in it but by restructuring it to address the
demographic changes that are going to hit us smack in the face.
We need to ensure that the CPP is sustainable because that too
is going to be unsustainable given the demographic changes.
There are many challenges, but we are lucky that this country
has a great deal of talent. We only need to use it and
this place will finally become a place that will work for the
people and by the people rather than for the Prime Minister.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent for the following
order: That at 5:30 p.m. this day, Bill C-44 shall be deemed to
have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the
whole and reported to the House without amendment, concurred in
at the report stage, read a third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent for the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore to present
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have heard my colleague from the Canadian
Alliance speak to Bill C-44 on employment insurance. I have
two questions for him. He himself has said that we are likely
headed for an election call this weekend. I trust that there
will be an Alliance candidate in my riding of
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. It appears that
2,800 new members of that party have been turned up in my riding.
I would therefore imagine that there will be a candidate and I
would like that candidate to find out from someone involved in
the leadership race where they found these people.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Under tombstones.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would really like to meet one member of
their party.
As for the seasonal workers I would like the hon. member to
gives us a clear and precise commitment on, if his
party were to form government,
the fisheries problem in eastern Canada.
1700
In January he sea is iced over. We cannot fish, the same
way that we cannot pick strawberries, and, in the lower St.
Lawrence, we cannot harvest peat either. This then is what raw
material harvesting is about.
Would the members of the Alliance Party agree with the
definition of seasonal work which
follows the course of nature? If biological rhythms require it
to take place over a period of 10 weeks as, for example, in the
case of lobster fishing, are they prepared to guarantee they
will give lobster fishers employment insurance, unemployment
insurance, since they need to eat 52 weeks a year? I would like
a clear answer on that.
Second, I would invite the candidate and member present to
explain why he said in his speech that aquaculture should not be
developed. Some things could be done in this area.
I have come from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
We travelled last spring to the west coast of Canada, and I
came to realize that a number of Reform members of the committee
more or less supported the development of aquaculture along the
west coast.
I would like the members of the Alliance to tell me in no
uncertain terms if they are in favour of the development of
aquaculture and would take fiscal action to develop this
industry, instead of simply making empty promises, because it
takes more than prayers. I await their response.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
[English]
There are two questions here. The first one deals with seasonal
workers.
It is interesting to see the community we have in my province of
British Columbia and la belle province du Quebec. We too have
seasonal workers. We will always have seasonal workers, but
there is one thing we can do. Some people who do not have full
time work develop other skills that enable them to do not only
their primary work but other jobs as well.
This is one place where EI has failed. It can be using that
money to ensure people have other skills they could perhaps use
when the waters are frozen. Many people have more than one skill
that enables them to do more than one job. This is an area of
innovation that the government ought to be looking at.
On the issue of aquaculture, we can use models which would work
from Norway and Chile. Norway and Chile were actually quite far
behind us in terms of our aquaculture capability. However what
has happened, because of a lack of innovation and the inability
of companies to have money to invest, is that both Norway and
Chile have acquired the innovation to take aquaculture far
forward. It is quite a booming industry for them.
We need to learn from that, learn how it works well there, and
employ it in areas such as the east coast and on the west coast.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will try
to be brief.
First, it is unfortunate that today, while we could have voted
unanimously on Bill C-44—although I do not think the bill goes
far enough—to ensure that people benefit from the amendments to
the Employment Insurance Act, the Canadian Alliance voted
against. It blocked a unanimous vote in the House of Commons.
I want this to be duly noted for the record.
I have a question for the Canadian Alliance member.
I would like him to rise in this House and tell Canadians once
and for all what his leader's position is when he says, in
Windsor, Ontario, that he is going to cut EI in the west, but
when he visits Acadie—Bathurst, he says that he is going to save
EI and that he is in agreement with people in my riding.
I would like him to rise in his place today and finally tell us
the truth. Where is his leader headed exactly? He says one
thing out west and another down east. Their intention is really
to cut EI. That is what the leader of the Canadian Alliance has
said.
I would like the Canadian Alliance member to finally tell
Canadians the truth and stop trying to hedge his bets in
anticipation of an election. They cannot have it both ways. It
is abundantly clear that, in the west, he said that he was going to
cut EI.
Earlier the Canadian Alliance member indicated that in some
areas EI was not required because jobs needed to be created.
1705
Last week in my riding the Canadian Alliance leader said “We
will save the employment insurance program”.
I hope the Canadian Alliance candidate is listening to my speech
this evening and that he will clearly understand what the
Canadian Alliance is all about. It is a party that is against
Atlantic Canada because it supports cuts to subsidies, to ACOA,
to employment insurance. It is an anti-Atlantic party. Just that.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is news coming out of the
other place that I think I should share with the House.
Apparently the leaders of both parties in the other House have
indicated as recently as about five minutes ago that if this
House was disposed to send Bill C-44 to them this afternoon
before we adjourn, they will commit themselves to pass the bill
before the end of the day tomorrow. That has just come to our
attention now and it comes from the leaders in both parties in
the other place. Having knowledge of that now, which I want to
share with the House, I want to know if the House would now be
favourably disposed to adopting that which was suggested a little
while ago, and I have a copy of it here. I will try it again,
because this is different.
I submit to hon. members, if they will just take a moment to
hear it, that they might have thought that by passing this bill
it would die on the order paper or not go anywhere. But this
information is verifiable. It is in the Hansard of the
other House and the hon. Senators I understand are prepared to
repeat it.
Having that information, I would now seek permission of the
House to propose this motion without debate. I move:
That at 5.30 p.m. this day, Bill C-44 shall be deemed to have
been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole and
reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report
stage, read a third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is
sad that the Liberal government, which knew that it had made a
mistake over the past four years, did not deal with this bill
last spring and did not ensure its passage, instead of coming up
with Bill C-44 at the very last minute, ensuring that it will not
be passed.
People will have to go through another harsh winter and it is
the government's fault.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think this is a point of order,
but part of the debate. We cannot have a debate on a point of
order. We are in a debate right now.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst asked a question to the
hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I believe we should hear
the reply to that question.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In reference to the House leader's recent pronouncement
to the House, we are pleased to hear that the other place is
predisposed to acting quickly on the bill that he mentioned. We
are glad to hear that. We do not have an official call yet of
any election. If this was to follow its normal course of
business, the House would be able to deal with it normally and it
would proceed into the other place. It is reassuring to hear
that they would deal with it quickly.
On that point, we are quite open to dealing with that bill in
the normal fashion next week if he should wish to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: I don't think the hon. member has
raised a point of order.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I just remind my hon.
colleague that the reason we are in favour of EI is because EI is
a program for temporary, unexpected job loss. That is what EI is
for.
An hon. member: Give us a break.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to what
my colleague said. He should understand this because he is
dealing with some people who are quite impoverished. Under Bill
C-44, people who are making between $48,000 and $115,000 a year
can still collect EI benefits.
An hon. member: Why not?
Mr. Keith Martin: Why not? Because what is happening is
that the government is getting money from all workers, from
people who are making $25,000 and people who are making $125,000
a year.
1710
We do not think it is fair to give EI benefits to somebody
making $48,000 a year, $60,000 a year or $100,000 a year.
What we are in favour of is for those people who have
unexpected, unavoidable job loss that this EI program provide
income supplementation so that they can be taken care of when
they are unemployed until such time as they can get their job
back.
I say to any colleague in the House who can stand and look face
to face with somebody making $18,000 a year and tell them that
they are paying money for somebody that is making $100,000 a
year, good luck to you because I do not think that is moral in
any way, shape or form.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, what is interesting here with the Reform Party is that they
keep calling it a temporary unexpected job loss. He is saying
they want something there for someone that has an unexpected
temporary job loss.
A seasonal worker knows every year they are getting laid off, so
what he is really saying is that his government would not have an
EI program for seasonal workers because it is an expected job
loss. It is a seasonal job.
The Reform Party is very clear. They would destroy the EI
program. He can go to Acadie—Bathurst and he can come to
Beausejour—Petitcodiac with his leader and it is clear he would
destroy the EI program and have those people suffer every winter.
Can he answer that?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon.
member to go back to her riding and speak to some fisherman who
is making $20,000 a year with dirt under his fingernails, who is
trying to put food on the table for his children, macaroni and
cheese, and say to him “No, we are going to allow you to pay
money to give to somebody who is making $48,000 a year.” I
challenge the member to do that.
We are all in favour of helping those who cannot help
themselves. We are in favour of an EI program that works to help
those people who have become unemployed. Yes, we are in favour
of those people who are seasonal workers receiving EI money, but
we believe they can do better. We want to work with them to not
only give them seasonal employment, but employment 365 days of
the year if they want it.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like you to know that I will be splitting my time with the
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.
I rise to speak today with great regrets and much animosity
toward this government. After four years of harsh cuts to the
employment insurance program, which I still call unemployment
insurance, the government has finally decided to soften its
policy and hand out some goodies. Yesterday, with its
mini-budget, it has handed out some goodies: caviar to those with
more than $250,000, peanuts to the middle class. To the least
advantaged it has said “Come back another time, we're all out”.
The government is about to call an election, it seems, because
everybody is saying “So long, see you later”. I presume the
people across the way are in the know. With Bill C-44, the
Liberals have proposed some timid measures that are not in line
with what workers need.
In my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, thousands of people
have protested against the cruel policies of this government's
system of wealth distribution.
I am, moreover, convinced that the Minister of National Revenue
could testify to that. When he came to our area last week, he did
not stay two minutes in the Saguenay. He had to pack up his bags
and head back.
Hon. members can see what this government is up to at the
present time with funds that do not belong to it, since it is not
the one making the contributions.
1715
It does nothing, but takes the kitty and then creates laws that
say “You there will have some; but you will not have any under
certain conditions”. The people at home are too proud. They
have said this to the Minister of National Revenue, who will be
coming back tomorrow.
I warn the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region that he
will be with us tomorrow. Do not forget to repeat to him what you
told him last week. What they are doing with your money is
unacceptable.
The money in the employment insurance fund—I still call it
unemployment insurance—belongs to the workers of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, of Quebec, of all the provinces
of Canada. I think it is theirs. Why does this government ignore
that? Contrary to what the Bloc wants it to do, it does not
acknowledge that there should be an independent fund administered
by workers and employers. These people know what is needed.
Mr. Speaker, let us imagine that you have taken out fire
insurance and car insurance. Imagine what would happen if your
insurer said to you after an accident “It is too bad, I am
changing the conditions. You have signed this, but today
conditions have changed”. You would not accept that. This is
exactly what the government is doing.
It says everyone agreed to pay into a plan in the event they
lost their job, but it says “No, you may well have paid, but I
am going to do what I like with it”. I say they are stealing
it, I am sorry, that may be a bad word, but it is the fact of the
matter.
It is helping itself to this huge fund. Even for the next fiscal
year, there will be a $7 billion surplus in the fund. And the
government will again take that surplus.
In Bill C-44, the government had the nerve to make a minor
amendment, which I want to tell you about. In one clause, the
government wants to divert and use for its own benefit the
surpluses in the employment insurance fund, even though they do
not belong to it.
In the past, it was the employment insurance commission that set
the conditions. The act used to state that, for each year, the
commission sets, with the approval of the governor in council,
on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of
Finance, the rate which, in its opinion, is best suited to
ensure an adequate income during an economic cycle.
It will no longer be the case. Now, the government will set all
the selection criteria. It will decide which rate to apply and
it will not be accountable to anyone.
When Cabinet is involved, everything is always confidential.
This is what the government wants to do with the employment
insurance fund. No, we will not let them do that. People will
never agree to that.
In my region, there are seasonal workers. What we are asking
for, and what I would have appreciated, is for a clear
definition to be included in the Employment Insurance Act of
what a seasonal worker is, with a degree of flexibility. But
this does not bother them at all. They do not pay employment
insurance with their big salaries.
I do not understand. Surely they must have seasonal workers in
their ridings, just as you do, Mr. Speaker. You do not have
problems with seasonal workers? Perhaps the climate is different
from what we have in eastern and central Canada. You may have
better weather than we do.
There will always be seasonal workers who have to contend with
what nature sends them. I would like a definition of seasonal
worker. That would help.
I personally have never known anyone receiving EI who wanted to.
People want to work, but when they have no job and there is no
training to help them find other work, they have no choice.
That is what is wrong with this system.
1720
For three and a half years now, I have been listening to lofty
speeches about Canadian principles and values, about great
Liberal values. Strangely enough, these speeches never bear any
connection with the everyday reality of ordinary people.
A few months from now, 250 older workers in my riding are going
to lose their jobs. How many years have we been asking this
government to restore passive measures to help these workers?
And what does the government say? It says that they will have
to be retrained.
When people have worked hard in a factory for 35 or 40 years, at
the expense of their health, and are reaching 55 or 60, they do
not have enough money to retire.
These people would like to leave and make way for young people
but they cannot. Their health is gone.
We are asking this government to have some compassion. But what
does it say? It tells us to retrain these workers and stick
them somewhere else. Where, I do not know. Or it says that
they should be mobile and go elsewhere in Canada. That is easy
to say.
I have heard senior officials who appeared before the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities. I think they have a direct line to
the values that drive the Liberals. They have no compassion.
They do not know what ordinary people are really going through.
I come from a region where people are proud, and we have had
enough of this nonsense. It will no longer wash with us.
Let the Liberal and Canadian Alliance candidates in the ridings
in our area take note: they will never again pull the wool over
the eyes of people who have taken steps to improve their lives.
It is painful to see what is happening in Canada at this time.
We saw it in yesterday's mini-budget; we see it in this bill. We
must put a stop to it; we must think about the people. The real
people are the people who vote for us, not big businesses, not
lobbyists. The real people are the workers, the ones who have
family responsibilities, the ones with hearts.
We must remember that women are the ones with precarious jobs.
This government has the nerve to pass a motion in support of
women's demands. Then yesterday there was nothing in the
Minister of Finance's mini-budget for them.
They do not recognize the value of women. We know that 52% of
voters are female. Being a woman, I am proud to say that the
demands the women made were very much a reflection of today's
reality and that we must move forward.
But government members did not get it, just as they did not get
this matter of employment insurance. These goodies they want to
give us have no relationship to reality.
I say to them to go back to their books. When they have done
their homework, and when they have let people tell them what they
really want, then we will talk.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech to the House.
[English]
I know she is very passionate and understands this issue very
well. Unfortunately there are many who do not.
The reform alliance speak very often about those who make a
great deal of money, more than a healthy income, who then access
employment insurance. If those members read the rules and
understood the dynamics they would understand that there was a
clawback that did not create this anomaly.
My question for the hon. member is on two fronts. With respect
to what the government has done, this cynical attempt to change
the system that it broke, to somehow try to fix the harm that it
created when these changes were made and these arbitrary rules
came into effect that affected seasonal workers in such a
terrible way, it created a black hole. Seasonal workers do not
have a choice. They do not put themselves in the position of
being in an industry that does not give them employment 12 months
of the year. Given the opportunity, any seasonal worker that I
have come across would like to work for a full year.
What has happened is that the system has changed. It has
created a black hole. When workers run out of work and run out
of EI they are left with no way to feed their families.
1725
We heard comments from the reform alliance saying that any
motivated, inspired person from the maritimes will move to
Toronto. That lacks a great deal of understanding and insight.
On this issue alone, the reform alliance and members of the
party have flip-flopped several times like a fish out of water.
We know they are fish out of water when it comes to understanding
issues in the maritimes.
The government is now in the cynical position where it is trying
to rush this bill through. This is the last minute piece of
legislation that it wants to get through. It is dangling it in
front of seasonal workers who have been affected by the EI
changes. It is holding it in from of them like an ice cream
cone, pulling it away and saying that somehow the opposition is
to blame for this. The government had ample time to get this
bill through if it was a priority.
Why does the hon. member think the government would do such a
thing? Why is it that this is such a low priority for the
government? Does it have anything to do with the pending
election? Is that the only reason the government would try to do
this, to buy back voters with their own money?
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the Progressive Conservative Party member, as I find his
question very appropriate.
This is indeed a cynical government. Does anyone know what cynicism
means? To be cynical is to do things to get people to believe
things, as if to say “I think it is perfect, but you deserve
nothing”. That is the Chrétien government. They wanted—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member may not
refer to a member by his name, I know she meant to say the
government of the hon. Prime Minister, did she not?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker.
In my enthusiasm, I let my anger with this government carry me
away.
This Liberal government says “I like you, worker, here, have
some candies”. The public in Canada cannot be fooled. They can
see it is ironic, cynical, and they will never understand why it
is in such a hurry to give them any old treats. This is a
government of goodies.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I tried to move this motion earlier today. I know we are
in the last minutes of today's sitting. Therefore I want to
raise this issue again of trying to get unanimous consent to pass
this motion.
I want to repeat to all hon. colleagues, because I know some
members are perhaps discussing this issue among themselves, that
the Senate has officially indicated on the record in
Hansard that if we pass this bill today in the House, it
will pass it tomorrow and it will be assented to tomorrow, to
give Canadians the much needed assistance that this bill will
provide.
Therefore I would seek unanimous consent to move that at
5.30 p.m. this day, Bill C-44 shall be deemed to have been read a
second time, referred to a committee of the whole, and reported
to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage,
read a third time and passed.
I ask all hon. members one last time to agree to this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the hon. government House leader. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. We have been
here for three and a half years and the Liberals waited until
the last minute to pass a bill.
If they were really serious about the plight of seasonal workers
in our regions, why did they not introduce this bill a month
ago? They had the majority to pass it, instead of trying to
blame the opposition for saying no.
This is regrettable and even disgusting.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe this is not really a point of
order, but these things sometimes happen in the House.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1730
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I call on the first member to
speak on this evening's adjournment motion, may I just express on
behalf of the other chair occupants and myself our appreciation
for the co-operation of all hon. members throughout this
parliament and say that if we do not get together next week, very
best wishes to all hon. members.
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am certainly pleased to rise on this question again.
On May 15 I asked about a program that the government invented
to provide $175 million for rural roads in the west. My question
was simple. Will the government provide a similar program for
the east?
In the east we have an inconsistent hodgepodge of programs. I
point out the inconsistency and the unfairness in the way the
federal government provides highway dollars in Atlantic Canada.
Newfoundland will get $105 million for highway money this year
and next year alone. New Brunswick will get $102 million this
year and next year alone. Nova Scotia will get zero, not a penny
in highway money under a federal-provincial agreement. It points
out how unfair the government's policy is toward the provinces
and how it distributes the highway money so unfairly.
As a result Nova Scotia ends up by having the only toll highway
on the Trans-Canada Highway in the entire country. It is forced
to do this because highway money is not distributed fairly or
equally. If we had some of the $175 million for rural highways
that the government just announced for the west, or if Nova
Scotia had some of the money that Newfoundland received or some
of the money that New Brunswick received, we would not have a
toll highway. Because the federal government is so inconsistent
with their money, Nova Scotia ends up with zero.
In Nova Scotia we have damaged highways and dangerous highways
now. The Tatamagouche to Truro highway needs to be completely
rebuilt and upgraded. Amherst to Parrsboro is a mess. Ecum
Secum to Guysborough is another important one, but the Amherst to
Parrsboro highway is a rough road. We are trying to generate
tourism business and they will not even come any more. When we
look at the numbers they show such a terrible inconsistency, a
terrible imbalance, a terrible unfairness.
Will the Minister of Transport change his mind and be a little
more fair? I am not even asking for $175 million for Nova Scotia
but I am asking for fairer treatment. The minister has given
$175 million to the rest. He should give Nova Scotia a fair
amount, something like Newfoundland received or something like
New Brunswick received.
Will the Minister of Transport treat Nova Scotia fairly and
allow us some highway money this year and next year in the same
way as he did for Newfoundland and New Brunswick?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government appreciates the opportunity to correct the
impression left by the hon. member's question, namely, the
Atlantic provinces are not receiving their fair share of federal
highway funding.
I remind the hon. member that the $175 million referred to was
for improvements to the grain roads in the four western provinces
as part of the grain handling and transportation reform announced
on May 10. To suggest that the Atlantic provinces need an equal
program ignores the numerous programs that we have put in place
for Atlantic Canada.
The government established the Atlantic freight transition
program which provided the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec
highway funding of $326 million between 1995 and 1996 and 2000
and 2001.
Under the auspices of the highway improvement program the
federal government committed to allocate $462.8 million to New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia to fund highway projects. A balance of
approximately $100 million remains to be spent in New Brunswick.
The government also contributed $43 million to New Brunswick and
P.E.I. to assist with the additional highway contribution
associated with increased traffic due to the construction of a
fixed link.
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to benefit.
The Newfoundland transportation initiative provides $640 million
over five years from 1997-98 to 2002-03 for major improvements to
the Trans-Canada Highway and to regional truck roads following
the termination of the Newfoundland railway.
All provinces also receive funding for the strategic highway
improvement program. It allowed the federal government to invest
$515 million between 1993-94 and 1999-2000 in highway projects
all across Canada.
In the 2000 budget speech the Minister of Finance announced over
$2 billion for municipal infrastructure and $600 million for
highways.
1735
Federal-provincial-territorial agreements for Infrastructure
Canada have recently been signed with several provinces.
Negotiations are still under way with other jurisdictions and it
is hoped that agreements will be signed shortly.
The formal negotiation process for highway infrastructure has
not yet begun. Funding for the strategic highway infrastructure
program only starts in 2002-03 and the program design is under
development prior to the start of negotiations.
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on June 14 I asked a question in the
House and the government has still failed to answer it. It was a
simple question.
In 1995 the justice minister promised the Liberal gun registry
would run a deficit of only $2.2 million over five years. In the
year 2000 the current justice minister delivered a deficit of at
least $308 million.
The facts are available in black and white, written in the
justice department documents tabled in the House in 1995, written
in financial spreadsheets provided to me under access to
information earlier this year and in a letter written by the
Minister of Justice published in the Toronto Star.
One of only two justice ministers is responsible for making this
$300 million mistake. Canadian taxpayers want to know who is
responsible. Why did the government ignore our party's warnings
about its low ball cost estimates? How did the government allow
this waste of hundreds of millions of dollars to occur?
Two weeks ago in the House the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice only added to the confusion with a totally
inaccurate statement about the costs of the gun registration
scheme. On October 5 the parliamentary secretary stated that
“The benefits of this program represent an investment of $2 per
Canadian for the past five years”.
I have known grade 4 math students who are better at arithmetic.
How did the justice minister's parliamentary secretary arrive at
this bogus number? Before he answers, I will give him the real
numbers so he can do the arithmetic himself rather than rely on
the crooked calculators in the minister's department.
Spreadsheets from the justice department show gun registration
costs for the first five years at $324.7 million. If we divide
that amount by 30.5 million Canadians, Statistics Canada
population estimates for 1999, it equals $10.65 for every
Canadian, not $2 per Canadian. That is more than five times the
untrue figure the parliamentary secretary told the House on
October 5.
Why did the justice minister mislead parliament about the true
costs in 1995? Why did the parliamentary secretary mislead the
House only two weeks ago? Why did the current justice minister
mislead Canadians when she wrote the Toronto Star on July
19, 1999, saying “User fees would cover the entire cost of the
gun registry program?”
On September 11 the Department of Justice sent me a response to
one of my access to information requests which said that as of
August 11, 2000, “ the total amount of revenue received by the
receiver general in respect of fees imposed under the Firearms
Act is $17,139,993”.
In the same access to information request the department
estimated that the Liberal gun registry project owed $1.2 million
in refunds to firearms owners. No wonder the minister and her PR
staff have quit saying that user fees will cover the entire cost
of the program. She came up more than $308 million short over
the first five years.
How much is the gun registration scheme costing taxpayers this
year? So far the officials in the justice minister's office have
refused to respond to my access to information request. They
have even refused to provide their proposed budget allocation as
they have in previous years. Why?
The minister's officials are even stonewalling the investigator
from the Office of the Information Commissioner. The
investigator informed my office last week that when he examined
the department's firearm registry project files there was no—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but his time has expired. I also understand that he has
suggested that some hon. members misled the House. I know he
will want to withdraw any such allegation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to
impugn motives to anyone. I withdraw that comment, but I feel
the figures and the statements that were made were misleading.
1740
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I very
much appreciate that. I rose on a point of order to bring that
to your attention. He also referred to the minister's crooked
calculator. I think he should withdraw that as well. However I
will respond and you, Mr. Speaker, can deal with that
accordingly.
I have been clear about the cost of the firearms program. I
said publicly that we have spent a cumulative total of $327
million on the program between 1995 and March 31, 2000. The
government of Canada is responsible for this program and is proud
not to have been shirking any of its responsibility concerning
this major public safety initiative.
The government is accepting its responsibilities, including its
financial accountability. It would be refreshing if the members
opposing this valuable legislation would accept their
responsibility for playing a positive role respecting the public
safety of all Canadians.
As of October 14, we have more than 1.3 million Canadians who
hold or have applied for licences under the legislation. More
than 1.6 million firearms are registered. Since December 1, 1998
more than 959 licence applications have been refused for public
safety concerns and 1,207 licences have been revoked from
individuals deemed not to be eligible to hold a licence because
they pose a safety risk. The number of revocations are over 20
times higher than the total of the previous five years.
The problems that I acknowledged with our start-up in the spring
are now well in hand. We have an aggressive program in place to
deal with providing enhanced service to Canadian firearms owners.
Elements of this include the following. We have been providing
face to face assistance to help people to complete their
applications for licensing. We have drastically simplified our
forms. We have implemented processing and system efficiencies
throughout to provide better service to Canadians more quickly.
We have enhanced our call centre services to provide better and
faster individualized assistance. At the same time as we are
providing better service to firearms owners, we are providing
better public safety to all Canadians. We are now able to
background checks before any legitimate firearm sales can
proceed.
We have had good results from these initiatives. Our outreach
programs have contributed to over 528,000 applications and the
numbers continue to increase. Our advertising program has been
appearing on prime time and specialty TV, in national and ethnic
press and on radio consistently reminding owners of their—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member but his time has expired.
COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 19 I asked the Minister of Industry whether the
competition bureau would investigate recent media mergers. At
the time the minister replied that these mergers were reviewable
under section 92 of the Competition Act but he did not indicate
he would request an investigation be launched.
These media mergers are becoming a matter of concern to
Canadians and let me explain. In July CanWest-Global
Communications Corp. of Winnipeg acquired more than 200 Canadian
publications as well as half of the National Post from
Toronto based Hollinger Inc., combining them with its Global
Television Network.
The announcement came just a month after CanWest had bought the
television assets of WIC, Western International Communications
Ltd. Then in September Montreal based publisher Quebecor
acquired Quebec's largest cable company, Groupe Vidéotron Ltée,
also of Montreal, for $4.9 billion. On September 15 BCE Inc.,
the Thompson Corporation and the Woodbridge Company announced the
creation of a multimedia company that would combine CTV, the
Globe and Mail, Globe Interactive, an Internet content
provider, and Sympatico, an Internet portal. The result is the
boundaries between print media, broadcasting, the Internet and
telecommunications companies have been blurred so much that the
industries are now virtually indistinguishable.
The CRTC held hearings on September 18 on BCE's change of
ownership application. The decision is still pending. The CRTC's
mandate is to regulate broadcasting and telecommunications in the
best interest of the Canadian public. It is trying to deal with
these multiple mergers and the rapidly changing technology. But
while the CRTC regulates broadcasting and telecommunications, it
does not have a say about newspapers or the Internet.
All three media mergers include both newspapers and Internet
services as well as broadcasting. The CRTC in reviewing the
BCE-CTV transaction asks broad questions about its impact on the
broadcasting system and on Canadian content, but it does not
address whether these transactions result in convergence in the
Canadian market.
1745
In light of these mergers, we can define convergence as
cross-ownership of newspapers, television stations and Internet
assets, plus possibly a giant phone or cable company.
Clearly it is the competition bureau's responsibility to
maintain and encourage fair competition in Canada. It can
determine whether these mergers result in lessening or prevention
of competition in the marketplace. It is clear also that such
massive concentration of power in the media is detrimental to the
public interest.
Again, I would like to ask the minister through his
parliamentary secretary whether he would launch a comprehensive
investigation in the public interest.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member,
my good friend from Davenport, for his question.
As well as the hon. member, a number of members in this House
have received expressions of concern from the public about recent
proposals outlined for mergers that could lead to increased media
concentration in Canada. I am referring in particular to the
recently announced proposal of CanWest to acquire control of
Hollinger Corporation as well as the proposed BCE/Thomson and
Quebecor/Vidéotron transactions.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention to the member
and to the House that the competition bureau has primary
responsibility to review mergers in order to determine whether
they will have an anti-competitive impact in our country.
I can assure this House and the member that if serious
competition concerns dealing with matters such as price or other
economic issues are identified, the bureau will not hesitate, and
I emphasize that, to immediately take appropriate action under
the Competition Act to remedy these concerns.
The competition bureau is an independent law enforcement agency.
As part of its analysis it will rely upon factual information
brought to its attention by market participants as well as the
input of industry and economic experts. These matters are
assessed on a case by case basis and it is impossible to make any
generalizations about the possible outcome of the bureau's
review.
A fair, efficient and competitive marketplace indeed provides
consumers with lower prices and greater product choices and it of
course encourages companies to innovate and to offer new
products.
Obviously many mergers also have a positive impact on the
marketplace. However, there have been a number of
well-publicized mergers in recent months, as the member very
eloquently stated, where the competition bureau has found it
necessary to intervene in order to remedy these issues that have
come before us. These have involved major industries such as
groceries, waste, propane, tobacco and cement—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but the time has expired and, as he knows, the rules in
this regard are very strict.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.)