36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 47
CONTENTS
Friday, February 11, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motions Nos. 1 and 2
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motions Nos. 7 and 8
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motions Nos. 10 and 11
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 12
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motions Nos. 13 and 14
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motions Nos. 19, 41, 42, 43 and 44
|
1010
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1015
1020
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1025
1030
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1035
1040
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1045
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE DELPHINE PATRICIA COLLINS
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1100
| SUPER BLUE BOX RECYCLING CORP.
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| ERIC NEWELL
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1105
| DAVID PELLETIER
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| INVENTION FAIR
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| RAILWAYS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1110
| RENEWAL OF INFRASTRUCTURES PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| FUEL COSTS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| RURAL HEALTH
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1115
| ABORIGINAL REFERENDUM IN LAC-SAINT-JEAN
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1120
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1125
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1135
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1140
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1145
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1150
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1155
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PUBLIC WORKS
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1200
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1205
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1210
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-423. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-424. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1215
| NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-425. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-426. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-427. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1220
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
1225
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Rights of Children
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Transgenic Foods
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1230
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Sexual Assault of Children
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Violent Crimes
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Property Rights
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Young Offenders
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1235
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Report stage
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1240
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1245
1250
1255
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 7 deferred
|
1300
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 10 deferred
|
1305
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motions Nos. 3 and 20 to 32 inclusive
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motion No. 33
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motions Nos. 34 to 40 inclusive
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1310
1315
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1320
1325
| Division on Motion No. 33 deferred
|
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Motion No. 123
|
1335
1340
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1345
1350
1355
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1400
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1405
1410
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1415
1420
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 47
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 11, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, an act to
amend the Municipal Grants Act, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 44
motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report
stage of Bill C-10.
[Translation]
The motions will be grouped for purposes of the debate as
follows:
[English]
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 19 inclusive, 41 to 44
inclusive.
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 3, and 20 to 40.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 19, and 41 to 44 to
the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 8 on
page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 29 on
page 2 with the following:
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 5,
be amended by adding after line 25 on page 7 the following:
“(1.01) If the Minister decides not to make a payment under
subsection (1) to a taxing authority applying for it, the
Minister shall, without delay, provide the authority with written
reasons for that decision.”
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if the House would agree that we deem the
motions to be moved, seconded and read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government House
leader has requested that all of the motions be deemed moved,
seconded and read. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 5, be amended
(b) by replacing line 29 on page 7 with the following:
“may supplement the payment but where the Minister decides not to
do so, the Minister shall, without delay, provide the taxing
authority to which the payment is to be made, with written
reasons for that decision.”
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, Bloc Quebecois) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 26 on
page 7 with the following:
“(1.1) If a”
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 35 on
page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 9, be amended
“(2) Subject to subsection (3), if a frontage or area tax is
payable over”
“(3) The Minister shall notify a taxing authority to whom a
payment in lieu of a frontage or area tax is payable over a
period of more than one year, which method of payment referred to
in subsection (2) will be used to make the payment, and shall,
without delay, after that notification, provide the authority
with written reasons explaining why that method was chosen by the
Minister.”
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 12 on
page 12 with the following:
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 13 on
page 12 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 21 on
page 12 with the following:
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 23 on
page 12 with the following:
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 25 on
page 12 with the following:
That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 12 the
following new clause:
“10.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after
section 9:
9.1 For greater certainty, the Governor in Council shall not
make regulations adding the following corporations to Schedule
IV: (a) the Royal Canadian Mint; (b) Canada Post Corporation; and
(c) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.”
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 12 the
following new clause:
“10.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after
section 9:
9.1 (1) No regulation made by the Governor in Council under
section 9 shall come into force unless it has been approved by a
committee of the House of Commons that is designated or
established by the House for that purpose.
(2) A regulation approved by a committee of the House of
Commons under subsection (1) comes into force on the day
following its approval.”
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 39 on
page 12 with the following:
10.1 Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where a
corporation included in Schedule III or IV is authorized to make
a payment to a taxing authority in lieu of a real property tax, a
frontage or area tax or a business occupancy tax, as the case may
be, pursuant to regulations made under subsection 9(1), and
decides not to make that payment, the corporation shall, without
delay, provide the authority with written reasons for that
decision.”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 39 on
page 12 with the following:
10.1 Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where the Royal
Canadian Mint, Canada Post Corporation or Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation is authorized to make a payment to a taxing
authority in lieu of a business occupancy tax and the corporation
decides not to make that payment, the corporation shall, without
delay, provide the authority with written reasons for that
decision.”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 10 on
page 13 with the following:
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 12 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 14 the
following new clause:
“15.1 (1) The Minister shall, within twelve months after the
end of each fiscal year, cause a report on the administration of
this Act during the preceding fiscal year to be made.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report referred
to in subsection (1) to be laid before the House of Commons on
any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting
after the day on which the report is made.”
That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 14 the
following new clause:
“15.1 (1) The Minister shall, within twelve months after
March 31, 2004 and every four years after that, cause a
comprehensive review and report of the provisions and operation
of this Act during the preceding four years to be made.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report referred
to in subsection (1) to be laid before the House of Commons on
any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting
after the day on which the report is made.”
That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 14 the
following new clause:
“15.1 (1) The Minister shall, within twelve months after
March 31, 2005 and every five years after that, cause a
comprehensive review and report of the provisions and operation
of this Act during the preceding five years to be made.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report referred
to in subsection (1) to be laid before the House of Commons on
any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting
after the day on which the report is made.”
That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 14 the
following new clause:
“15.1 (1) The Minister shall, within twelve months after
March 31, 2003 and every three years after that, cause a
comprehensive review and report of the provisions and operation
of this Act during the preceding three years to be made.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report referred
to in subsection (1) to be laid before the House of Commons on
any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting
after the day on which the report is made.”
1010
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, actually
Bill C-10 is not that bad. It is a reasonable bill because it
changes the title of the bill to refer to payments in lieu of
taxes rather than grants in lieu of taxes. That is a pretty
reasonable thing to do.
Another thing we need to recognize is that the bill provides a
certain element of fairness and equity to municipalities so that
they can actually predict what will be happening and they can
make projections in terms of budgeting.
The bill is supported by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities. It is certainly consistent with Reform Party
policy, which is that governments should be paying the same
property taxes that other citizens of Canada pay. It is very
important that we have fairness, equality and equity in the whole
business of property taxes as far as the government is concerned.
However some very significant amendments need to take place at
this time. In particular, we need to recognize the
accountability factor in this bill.
The bill provides discretionary power to the minister. It gives
the minister the discretionary power to do a number of things. He
may pay the taxes; he may not pay the taxes. He may make those
payments or he may not. He may pay those taxes late. If they
are paid late, he may decide whether or not they are in fact
late. He also may decide whether he should pay supplementary
payments, such as interest payments, on those particular late
payments of taxes. All of that is at the discretion of the
minister. The same discretion also applies to the corporations.
While the constitution provides that the Government of Canada
cannot be forced to pay property taxes or make payments in lieu
of taxes, the coercion element cannot be done unless there is a
constitutional amendment.
Another factor could be introduced here. That factor is to
ensure that the minister, when he decides to change the
assessment, the time of payment or the supplementary payments in
lieu of interest or a late payment, in all of those cases the
minister should be required to provide a reason for his
particular delay or his change or amendment of the amount that he
should be paying to the respective municipalities. That should be
a requirement of the minister. It does not ensure that the
minister does not have discretion; he does have discretion, but
he must account for that discretion.
I think that is a reasonable amendment. It is one which I think
we should all expect. Why is that so important? In lieu of what
has just happened to one of the minister's colleagues in Human
Resources Development Canada, I would think that the minister
would welcome that kind of accountability. Then the
municipalities could not say, “He is just doing this for his
friends. His friends, if he has some in municipal government,
get paid right away and they get paid the exact amount. Others
who are not his friends get paid later or they do not get paid
interest or whatever”. There could be no accusation of
favouritism. I think the minister would welcome that sort of
thing. The same argument applies to the crown corporations.
I want to refer to how serious this can become. There are some
things that happened in that audit which was done recently. I
want to read a couple of those things into the record.
One of the findings of that audit was on 13 signatures that were
selected during the file review. It was revealed that in three
cases out of the 13, that is almost 25%, the delegation
instrument, that is, giving somebody the delegated authority to
sign something, in three instances out of 13 files, which is 25%,
the signing officer, that authority, could not be produced.
In 25% of the cases the guy had delegated power but he could not
actually say who had delegated that power to him. This is
serious.
1015
In six cases, almost half, the delegation was only valid upon
notification of acting and for a limited period of time. No such
notification had been received for the period the document was
signed. Even if the delegation had taken place, it was for a
very specific time, a time in which the person with the delegated
power exercised signature authority that was outside the
parameters originally delegated to him. That is pretty serious.
There is another one case under contracting. In four
contribution agreements out of every ten reviewed, irrelevant
clauses in standard agreements were not crossed out or blanks
were not filled in to specify conditions such as the periodicity
of the submission of claims or the period of notification if it
were necessary for HRDC to terminate the project before
completion.
Listen to this one. In one-third of the projects reviewed, the
original dollar value of the agreement was upward in most cases.
In 36% of these cases the reason for the amendment was not
documented. It requested one amount, the amount was reviewed and
it increased in 36% of the cases. This is the kind of thing that
should never happen. This has to be revealed through an audit as
an indictment of the process.
What we are trying to introduce in this legislation is a clause
that would protect and help the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services. It would be amended in such a way that it
would make it easier for him to have an administration that is
sound, honest, trustworthy and transparent and where the
processes will bear examination. It will make it clear to all
and sundry that the minister is doing his job uprightly,
honestly, fairly and in the best interests of all Canadians.
That is what the amendments in group one are all about. We
specifically suggest Motion No. 4. The bill currently reads that
“the minister may make payments”. It is not possible, as I
indicated before, that he be forced to make those payments. We
would suggest, however, that if he does not want to make those
payments, then he must justify that particular situation.
Are there such cases? Yes, there are. There is a dispute right
now involving the Halifax Citadel with regard to who should pay
the taxes on the property. The Department of Public Works and
Government Services has agreed to pay for the part that is a
shelter but not for the entire structure. The argument is that
this has to be interpreted. The department is suggesting that
the interpretation be done by a court, which is not unreasonable.
On the other hand, should the assessment be left to professional
assessment people? I think this is an argument that clearly
shows that Public Works and Government Services has done
something right. It is asking some good questions. However, the
point remains that there has to be a reason given whenever these
payments are stopped. In this case the payments were stopped.
The minister should be required by law to give a reason for his
particular noncompliance.
The other case has to do with the advisory panel that falls
under Group No. 2, which I will not deal with here.
I will now deal with Motion No. 7. Motion No. 7 would amend the
ministerial discretion which says “in the opinion of the
minister” as pertaining to the period that the payment has been
unreasonably delayed. The municipality sends out a notice of
taxation indicating that the bill is due at a particular time.
The dates are very clear and very specific. If the payment is
not made at that time but made at a later date—let us say it is
due on July 1 and the payment is not made until July
31—according to the act, if in the opinion of the minister that
payment is late, he may recognize it. This is not a matter of
opinion. It is very clear that if the taxes are due on July 1,
they are due on that date, not on July 31. If the taxes have not
been paid on July 1, then they are late.
1020
This amendment makes it clear that the minister should have a
clear explanation of what it is he is doing when he opines a
shift in date like this.
What this really does is it puts the payment in lieu of taxes on
a more solid footing and moves in the direction of making the
minister accountable. It is in the interest of all Canadians,
and I think in the interest of the minister, to have that kind of
protection in law. The minister would now be able to withstand
any audit that might cast aspersions that he has not administered
his department well.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to speak to Bill C-10. We have been following it closely for
some time in the riding of Saint-Jean.
We will be debating something very important here.
Historically, the Queen did not have to pay taxes to her
subjects. This is an old issue. The Anglo-Saxon people were
great colonizers and their practice was, as soon as they
conquered part of a continent or a country, to establish a rule
that the Queen, who had conquered the land, did not pay taxes to
her subjects. Quite the reverse, her subjects were to pay taxes
to her, often excessively.
Today we are in a longstanding debate, which the government is
trying to update, because it has been going on for some time.
There have been changes over the years. In the early days of
Confederation, the federal government, following in the
tradition of its predecessors, did not want to pay taxes to the
people and to municipalities. They did not want to make
transfer payments. The idea was to collect money to enrich the
central government.
Over the years, the government was obliged to assume certain
responsibilities, because the people in the municipalities knew
very well that they had to pay their municipal taxes to the
municipality. Not only did they pay taxes to the federal
government, but they had to pay them to the provincial
government, and they paid property taxes to the municipalities.
It was rather difficult for a subject to pay taxes on the full
assessed value of his residence and see that the Queen or the
central government did not pay taxes on federal buildings in
municipalities. Still the principle that the Queen does not
have to pay taxes was maintained in part.
To avoid saying that these were taxes the federal government had
to pay, they were called payments in lieu of taxes. This is the
point at which the arbitrariness starts, because I pay taxes on
the full assessed value of my residence, but things are not at
all the same for the federal government, which never pays on the
full assessed value of buildings and land it owns in
municipalities.
Over the years, some municipalities have come to realize that
the situation was not only arbitrary, but that it was also
extremely difficult to budget year after year, because they find
themselves at the mercy of the minister who can say “Listen, I
sent you X number of dollars last year or two years ago. Now I
am considering reducing that amount”.
I will give the figures for Saint-Jean. The city of Saint-Jean has
a budget of $50 million, out of which $4.2 million come from a
federal transfer in lieu of taxes. This is easy to understand.
There are many federal properties in the riding of Saint-Jean,
including the military base, Agriculture Canada's research
centre and the old military college. Incidentally, I hope the
government will announce in its February 28 budget that it will
correct the current situation and reopen the military college.
However, this issue was already a concern when that institution
closed.
When the military college closed, the city of Saint-Jean was
getting $900,000 in taxes from that institution. Members can see
why the city is anxious to find out what will happen regarding
these taxes.
1025
That amount was maintained in the money given to the military
college, with the result that, today, the city of Saint-Jean
receives $4.2 million from the federal government, out of a
budget of $50 million.
But when we found out that a consultation would take place and
that it would be important for the federal government to
determine certain conditions and provide certain specifications
on how it was going to hand out that money from now on, I
immediately warned not only the city of Saint-Jean, but the
various municipalities in which there are federal properties.
I did that because the examples from recent years clearly show
that when the government wants to reform soomething, it is never
because it wants to give back more to the public. It is always
to give less.
There are many typical examples, including the Canada social
transfer. At one time, before the Canada social transfer, the
federal government was giving money to the provinces for social
assistance, health and post-secondary education. What has the
Liberal government done since 1994? It has put all this into a
single program, a single item called the Canada social transfer.
And the amounts transferred are no longer the same. The
provincial government is currently experiencing a $1.7 billion
shortfall. No wonder things are bad in emergency wards, not only
in Quebec, but in the other provinces also.
Another example is unemployment insurance, now dubbed employment
insurance, where, in the name of reform, the government has
managed to arrange for individuals to receive less. Right now,
the government is pocketing between $6 and $7 billion, having
reduced eligibility for these programs and worked it so that now
people pay premiums from the first hour of work.
A lot more goes into the government coffers than comes out,
with the result that the government is getting richer.
We wanted to be sure that when the government said that it
was going to consult, to set up a panel with the municipalities
to discuss the issue, that these municipalities would not be
left worse off.
We know what happens when the municipalities have less. The
federal government hangs on to the money and the provinces,
municipalities and citizens are left to make up the difference.
The public is sick and tired of taxes and tell us so repeatedly.
I hope that the government is now going to introduce parameters
that are just and fair for municipalities.
In this connection, we have suggested a number of changes that I
hope will be implemented.
An advisory panel has already been set up, that will advise the
minister when there is a dispute with the municipalities. While
we are on the topic, one thing we would really like to see is a
lot of surveyors because they have the necessary specialization
and will probably establish as fairly as possible what the
federal government owes the municipalities.
This will also end arbitrary actions for once and for all. The
city of Saint-Jean will be able to annually budget an amount that
it can be sure to have, instead of the minister getting up on
the wrong side of the bed one morning and closing a federal
institution in a municipality and he no longer paying the taxes
since it has been closed or he wants to sell it to someone else.
Until it is sold, the municipality is in limbo, sort of,
deprived of revenue from the federal government.
I think that if we want the minister to have a good advisory
panel, this must include surveyors, and in order to keep this
from ending up, as usual with the Liberals, as another patronage
plum, or nepotism, it is also important for these people to be
appointed by a public competition.
So, generally speaking, we are fairly satisfied to put an end to
the arbitrariness. With the new measures, we feel the
municipalities are going to be in a far better position to
prepare their budgets efficiently, and I also hope the
government will not take seize the opportunity to say “Now we
have new parameters, we will reduce our transfers a little”.
We will keep an eye out for this. It is very important for
those of us in the City of Saint-Jean and in the surrounding
municipalities to be able to plan budgets properly year after
year. There are many federal buildings and we want to ensure
that the revenue from them will at least be the equivalent of
what we were receiving before.
We hope these new parameters will mean more municipal revenue
instead. It is important for me to speak on this matter today
because of the importance of federal government buildings to the
municipalities in the riding of Saint-Jean.
1030
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
participate briefly in today's debate on Bill C-10.
More than anything else, this bill reminds us of that horrible
time in Canadian history when the Conservatives formed the
government. It is one of those points that we cringe to recall,
but it is real. Those early years in the 1990s were terrible
years for Canada, terrible years for Canadians and, quite
frankly, a disaster for the House, with continuous contempt of
parliament and a disregard for the rules and traditions of the
House of Commons.
An hon. member: Which the Liberals pretended they cared
about then.
Mr. Nelson Riis: At that time the Liberals indicated that
they were concerned. Now they have demonstrated that they are
probably worse.
I want to concentrate on the Conservative government under Brian
Mulroney, and later Kim Campbell, because they started what this
bill attempts to address. In 1992, one of the low points in the
history of our country when the Conservatives were in office with
a huge majority, they decided they were going to do something to
punish municipalities from coast to coast. There were thousands
of municipalities and the Conservatives said “We are going to
freeze our grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities”.
The municipalities had just gone through difficult, struggling
times and were trying to predict their revenues for the next
year. After all, they were, and are, the closest government to
the people in terms of delivering programs. The municipalities
make decisions on sewers, water treatment, road building,
sidewalks, tot lots, parks and recreational facilities for the
people of their cities. Given the fact that most Canadians are
now living in cities, the municipal governments have become very
close to them.
The municipalities depend on their ability to predict revenue
sources to plan their budgets. There are somewhere between
50,000 and 60,000 federal properties in cities, which are all
supposed to make grants in lieu of taxes. This enables the
municipalities to plan and budget for the future, to plan to
introduce new programs to assist the needs of the people in the
various municipalities across the country. Along came the
Conservatives, who said “Forget all your work. Forget all your
planning. Forget all your projections. Forget all the
improvements you want to make to your city. We are going to
freeze your grants. We do not care what you think. We do not
care what you say”. There were no consultations, no
discussions. They said “We are so smart because we have formed
the Conservative government in Ottawa. We are going to freeze
your grants in lieu of taxes, and to hell with you. We do not
care what you think”.
An hon. member: They froze their grants off.
Mr. Nelson Riis: They froze their grants right off.
Imagine what that did to the leaders of the municipalities across
the country. They were shocked. All of a sudden their plans
went out the window. They had been dutifully planning, working
hard on behalf of the residents of their cities, all for naught
because the Conservative Government of Canada froze their grants
overnight without telling them anything about it.
You know how wrong that was, Mr. Speaker. You know how wronged
the people of Canada were at that point. You knew what a wrong
and inappropriate decision that was to take, but the
Conservatives took it nevertheless. It was a very dark day for
our country and a very dark day for the House of Commons.
I know that my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona remembers the
day when that announcement was made. It was a very dark moment,
but that is what we have to live with from time to time. My
friend from Winnipeg—Transcona says that to this day he has not
gotten over that shock. I know he means it because it was one of
those dastardly deeds that takes place every now and again in the
House of Commons.
Something had to be done. We could not allow the federal
government to do whatever it wanted to anybody and at any time.
Constitutionally it had the right, and it used it in a very
brutal and inappropriate fashion.
1035
I congratulate the people at the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities for the excellent work they do on behalf of
municipalities across the country. They have a thoughtful, very
democratic, grassroots approach in terms of policy direction.
They said “Something has to be done. We can't have this any
longer”. Therefore, Bill C-10 started that long process and
today it is at report stage and we are looking at some of the
amendments put forward by my hon. colleagues.
It is a bill that we support as New Democrats. Anything that
brings transparency, anything that brings a sense of
reasonableness, of decency, of fairness, of equity has to be
supported. This bill is a major step in accomplishing that.
Basically, the bill will change the term “grants”. Let us
face it, today “grants” has become a four letter word. It has
five letters, but basically it is a four letter word. It is a
nasty word because of what the Minister of Human Resources
Development has done. It is a very bad word because of the
abuse, because of the political favouritism, because of the
patronage, because of the pork-barrelling that the present
government used when granting moneys to various organizations.
Government members said “We have to get away from the use of
that term, so we will call it payments in lieu of taxes”, known
as PILTs. That makes sense, payments in lieu of taxes.
I recognize the positive aspect of this legislation. If there
is a federal piece of property in a municipality, the federal
government is obligated to pay taxes to the municipality to
reflect the property value. That is how municipalities raise
their funds, through taxation, through property taxes. The
government recognizes that federal properties must pay taxes;
however, there is a wrinkle. There is always a little wrinkle.
I applaud my friend from Kelowna for pointing this out.
There is a lot of discretion in the bill. This group of
amendments speaks to how the minister can decide whether the
government should make payments, whether it should pay penalties
on late payments, whether it should hold off making payments and
so on. There is a lot of discretion which is left to the
minister.
If there is one thing we have learned in the last few days it is
that when there is discretion left in the hands of ministers they
sometimes seem to abuse it. I use the example of our friend, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, whose constituency, by
and large, does very well economically and gets tonnes of grants.
As a matter of fact, I think we would look long and hard to find
a single business or a single organization in her constituency
that did not get a grant. She went up to people who were walking
down the street and said “Excuse me, I am the Minister of Human
Resources Development. Do you want a grant?” Why not? It is
very serious. That was a clear abuse of that position.
We are trying to find a way to get around this in the
legislation. I applaud my friend from Kelowna, who said that we
must ensure there is a clause which requires the minister to
explain why he or she is not doing what is asked by the
legislation.
We support this group of amendments. They state that if the
minister in his or her wisdom decides not to pay the taxes on
federal property in a particular city, that minister has to
explain why he or she is not doing that.
There are problems, and I will refer to two of them. My friend
mentioned already the situation in Halifax with the Citadel and
the discussion of who owns that piece of property, how much of it
is federal and how much is municipal. There is also the issue of
first nations properties within city limits. Is that federal
property or is it first nations property? Where does that come
in?
There are areas where it will take discussion and perhaps, in
the end, even a court decision before the final outcome is
determined.
This group of amendments would give the minister some
flexibility. However, ministers who have flexibility cause
Canadians to squirm. Therefore, we are saying “Yes, we will
give the minister flexibility to deal with these special cases,
but the minister must explain why he or she is not paying the
taxes that the municipality is expecting”.
1040
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the
first group of proposed amendments to Bill C-10.
Although I believe that the bill still does not go far enough to
ensure that municipalities get their fair share of property taxes
from federally owned property, I believe that it is an
improvement to the original Municipal Grants Act.
When the bill went to committee, my colleague, the member for
Tobique—Mactaquac, was successful in having his amendments
adopted by the Commons committee. One of the provisions of the
bill would create a new advisory panel to resolve disputes
between the government and municipalities over evaluation of
federally owned property and payments owed to municipalities.
Originally Bill C-10 proposed that the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services appoint all the panel members, pay them,
choose the chairperson, and he would be able to fire them at any
time if he disagreed with any of the panel's decisions. This was
a problem because public works is involved in most of the
disputes.
One of my colleague's amendments would give the panel members
more independence by having them appointed and paid by the
cabinet instead of the minister. This would ensure more balance
and fairness within the panel, although I personally would have
preferred a much more independent structure.
It is very clear that municipalities are not being treated
fairly with the system that is now in place. I met with the
people of the municipality of Alma last week and they have very
good reason to be upset with the government. This is what the
citizens of the municipality of Alma had to say about this
matter:
We are very concerned with this government's cuts in federal
payments in lieu of taxes that our municipality has been recently
experiencing. We are the Service Centre to Fundy National Park,
which is located in the Alma Parish. We have federal buildings
inside the municipality as well, those being the Alma Post Office
and housing owned by Fundy National Park.
Also they obtain money from the provincial government to help
cover fire protection for the local service district, which
includes the national park.
They go on to say that the assessments for the outlying areas
were cut by $2.5 million, which was reflected in a decrease to
the municipality over $3,000. They also lost $34,166 in federal
assessments, which cost them a decrease of another $3,921 in
revenue.
A small community with a population of approximately 312
residents cannot afford these cuts, as it cripples a community
such as Alma.
I agree with the people of Alma and I must add that the citizens
of the community of Dorchester in my riding are finding
themselves in the same situation because they have in their
community a federal correctional building.
I sometimes wonder if this is part of the government's long term
plan in closing rural communities.
Let us face it, first we took away employment insurance
benefits, which directly affected small rural communities. That
forced people to leave their communities, which forced schools to
close, meaning less families building in communities. If that is
not enough to shut down the community, the government cut federal
payments in lieu of taxes to make sure these municipalities could
not survive. That is the Liberal way.
Unfortunately the amendments we are debating today will not fix
all of the problems within the Municipal Grants Act and I will
explain why. One of the amendments proposed today is that we
change the language of the legislation so that the federal
government is compelled to pay its tax bills just like every
other municipal taxpayer. I certainly agree with the intent of
this amendment, but unfortunately municipalities are not
recognized as a level of government in the constitution or by the
federal government. They are entirely a creation of the
provincial government. It is understandable that my friend would
come up with a simple solution, which, on the face of it, would
appear to make sense. Why not treat the federal government like
any other taxpayer?
The problem is that we have a constitution that we have to live
with today. Although I am sure that we all have things we would
like to see changed in the constitution, none of that will happen
today. According to our constitution, as it is now,
municipalities do not exist, they have no jurisdiction in law and
they do not have any official relationship with the federal
government or the crown. Therefore, the federal government
cannot be bound by any decisions made by a municipality. It can
only undertake to voluntarily follow a decision or a bylaw passed
by a municipal government.
These amendments, although well meaning, would have the effect
of changing the constitution without going through the
constitutional amendment process. Nevertheless, I congratulate
the member for having brought forward this point for debate.
This is a subject which merits further discussion.
1045
With respect to Motion Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12, the member for
Kelowna is attempting to address the outstanding issue concerning
business occupancy taxes and certain crown corporations.
Specifically these amendments would require Canada Post, the
Royal Canadian Mint, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
and similar crown corporations to pay business occupancy taxes.
Certainly the mandate of these crown corporations has changed
over the years since the Municipal Grants Act was last updated.
It used to be that these crown corporations served a purely
public policy purpose and in the unlikely event they every made a
profit it was more by accident than by design. Now these
corporations serve two purposes. Not only do they continue to
serve an important public policy role, but they also have the
mandate to earn a profit in order to recover costs and to lessen
the burden on taxpayers.
I agree with the hon. member for Kelowna that if these crown
corporations are conducting business and earning a profit they
should be paying business taxes. The question is how much. After
the discussions our party had with representatives from the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and after having
questioned witnesses from the FCM at the public works committee,
we are convinced that this is a problem that will soon be solved.
Municipalities and the federal government are continuing to
negotiate over what portion of each crown corporation is devoted
to purely profit making activities. That discussion is not yet
finished. Municipalities have asked us not to hold up this bill
while those negotiations are ongoing as there will be an
opportunity to fix that issue in the very near future.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
all other speakers in the House today have noted, this
legislation ensures that the federal government pays its fair
share of taxes to all municipalities in a timely fashion. The
development of this legislation should be considered as a model
in terms of co-operation and consultation with interested
stakeholders.
When representatives of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities testified before the committee examining Bill
C-10, they indicated their strong support for the bill and
praised the level of consultation between themselves and the
Department of Public Works and Government Services. In light of
the depth of consultation that has taken place, including
amendments made by the Conservative Party that were accepted at
report stage, the government will not be supporting any further
amendments, specifically those listed in Group No. 1.
References have also been made to the dispute advisory panel
that is enshrined in this legislation. It will serve as a forum
for the presentation of respective positions of both
municipalities and departments or crown corporations when
differences of opinion respecting amount of payments in lieu of
taxes arise between the two parties, which is to be expected at
times. This was a key recommendation by the municipalities
during the minister's consultations.
Members will also note that appointees will be required to
possess a background of knowledge in the areas of real property
evaluation, real property assessment, real property or assessment
law, or other related disciplines. This is a relatively small
area of expertise and typically the same people are recognized as
impartial experts by municipalities, assessment authorities and
federal officials.
The municipal payments programs has served both the government
and municipalities well since 1950. Extensive consultations
between the government and municipalities have led to the bill
before the House today. It improves existing legislation and the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities supports the bill in its
current form. It applauds the relationship with the Department
of Public Works and Government Services. I believe it is time to
adopt the bill without any further amendment.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to see progress being made in the
relationship between municipalities and senior levels of both the
provincial and federal governments. The debate today concerns
Bill C-10 and the Group No. 1 motions.
Before I continue I would like to commend the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, the Association of Manitoba
Municipalities and the individual municipalities in my riding
that have contributed to and worked on the legislation to enable
the rules to be more clearly defined and set out, in effect
making the federal government responsible on paper and
accountable for the grants it will be giving to the
municipalities in lieu of taxes.
Legislation is never perfect. As a result several motions and
amendments are being submitted to try to improve the legislation.
I will touch on those later in my speech.
1050
I will now touch on the purposes of this act. Not everyone in
my riding is fully clear on what Bill C-10 is doing. It
essentially addresses the issue of compensation for untimely
payments. It deals with the fair and equitable administration of
payments in lieu of taxes, setting out clearly the
responsibilities of the senior level of government. It also
establishes an advisory panel to advise the minister on disputes
concerning payment amounts.
The interaction between government levels is of utmost
importance. We have another level of government in the area of
the aboriginal reserves which is getting into the situation of
acquiring additional lands by removing lands from the local
municipalities in given areas. In the riding of
Selkirk—Interlake the area of the Regional Municipality of
Grahamdale is running across this problem. It does not seem the
government has dealt fully with setting out the guidelines and
the terms for grants in lieu of taxes on behalf of Indian
reserves that should be made payable to local municipalities when
they lose their taxes.
That is an issue for another day and another debate, but it is
an issue that should be addressed. I am taking this opportunity
in the debate on Bill C-10 to raise it so clarity can be brought
to the relationship between Indian reserves and local
municipalities in how they deal with taxes between each other and
providing services to the citizens of those communities.
The history of concern over the levels of responsibility among
the different governments goes back to 1950 when the government
initially started making payments in lieu of taxes. It has taken
some time, but we now see that it is being codified in
legislation to remove a lot of the ambiguity.
The committee set up in 1995 was the joint technical committee
on these payments. It was formed to examine issues associated
with federal payments in lieu of taxes. Its findings addressed
some of the issues through non-legislative means, which is fine
and dandy when there is good co-operation between the federal and
provincial levels of government. As we are seeing in agriculture
today, that co-operation is not always there. The agriculture
issues I talk about are the safety net ones where the provincial
governments and the federal government are not working
co-operatively. That relates directly to the necessity for bills
like Bill C-10 to clearly establish this relationship.
One of the legislative changes that is primarily in place deals
with interest on payments made after an agreed upon date when the
taxes or grants in lieu of taxes should have been paid. The
legislation states that it is in the opinion of the minister and
at the minister's discretion.
With something as straightforward as the payment of taxes or the
payment of a grant in lieu of taxes which has a set and agreed
upon date, the minister does not need any leeway in compensating
municipalities for money they lose because the federal government
has failed to live up to its agreement to pay its taxes on time.
The average Canadian property owner who must pay his taxes would
quickly find out if he were late by one day that interest begins
to be applied.
I think that discretionary aspect of the legislation could
certainly be removed.
1055
With regard to third party leases there is some question in my
mind as to whether or not the people who lease government
property or a portion of a government property are paying their
full share of business taxes.
The Canadian coast guard building in Selkirk—Interlake has been
partially leased out to a private business entity. I have tried
to find out some information on it, but the coast guard is kind
of like HRDC. It does not want to give out any information. It
really drives us nuts, but we will keep trying. Is this business
entity paying its full and fair share of taxes, the same as any
other business located in the city of Selkirk? I raise that
question so that the government will hear it and address it if in
fact there is a problem in that area.
The amendments put forward by the official opposition and the
other parties should be seriously considered by the government.
Where they are actually improvements to the bill, I would like to
think that the government will support those amendments.
The Reform Party and I as the member of parliament for
Selkirk—Interlake support the legislation. As I have said, we
recognize that a lot of work by the municipalities and their
associations has gone into this issue. The most redeeming
feature of the whole legislation is the level of co-operation
that has been shown and the recognition that the federal
government should not be telling the provinces how they will
negotiate and imposing rules on local municipalities.
As I said, I am in favour of the legislation. It will be an
improvement to the relationship between the municipalities and
the federal government.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE DELPHINE PATRICIA COLLINS
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in memory of the late Delphine Patricia Collins, my friend
and the wife of our former colleague, Bernie Collins.
Del was born in September 1936 in Regina. She met Bernie in
high school and on July 30, 1955, they were married. Bernie and
Del raised eight children, all of whom became an important part
of Estevan, Saskatchewan.
Del was heavily involved in her local church community. She was
also a member and chairperson of the local public library board,
the regional representative of the board and an active member of
the Estevan branch of the Saskatchewan Association for Community
Living. Aside from this, Delphine worked hard within the Liberal
Party. She was, among other things, president of the
Saskatchewan Women's Liberal Commission, co-chair for the Prime
Minister's leadership campaign and a key figure in her husband's
campaigns.
I would say that although Delphine was a very active individual
her most significant contribution to the world was that despite
all the difficulties her failing health caused, she managed to
remain compassionate, caring and patient. She valued her friends
and family, and they valued her with equal vigour.
I would ask hon. members to join with me in expressing our
sincere condolences to the family and many friends of the late
Delphine Collins.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
100 farmers showed up at a meeting in my riding this week to show
protest, concern and disgust at the lack of concern by the
government in dealing with the farm crisis.
The family farm is in jeopardy. That means that small towns
across the prairies are in trouble and that businesses and farms
which families built up over two and three generations are likely
to disappear.
The Canadian Wheat Board came under universal condemnation. It
is an organization which is completely failing farmers today. I
heard how the wheat board prevented a 200,000 tonne export
shipment of canola from being realized. I heard how the wheat
board is more concerned about orderly marketing than maximizing
revenue to the farmer.
There is no justice in a wheat board that is answerable to no
one, has a monopoly on western wheat and barley, and fails
miserably in its obligation to serve the farmer. While every
farmer was concerned about whether he could survive, there was
universal agreement that the Canadian Wheat Board should not
survive.
* * *
1100
SUPER BLUE BOX RECYCLING CORP.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the House about a leading edge company whose
head office is located in Etobicoke. Eastern Power Limited has
developed a total solution waste management technology called
Super Blue Box Recycling Corp., or SUBBOR for short.
The SUBBOR process addresses two major problems confronting not
only Canada but indeed the entire world. First, it disposes of
municipal solid waste in an environmentally responsible way and
second, it meets our Kyoto commitment to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases.
Industry Canada has taken a key partnership role in this
technology through its TPC program.
Unsorted solid waste deliveries will be required for these
facilities. SUBBOR is working with municipalities around Toronto
as well as elsewhere in Ontario.
SUBBOR looks forward to bringing this technology to Etobicoke,
Toronto and the rest of Canada. Good luck SUBBOR.
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Black
History Month is dedicated to the recognition, learning and
celebration of black history in North America.
It started in the United States in 1926 by Carter G. Woodson.
The celebration of Black History Month in Canada first gained
acceptance in the 1960s as awareness among black Canadians of
their contributions to Canadian society was heightened as a
result of the civil rights movement in the United States.
Since then the celebration of Black History Month has become an
annual event in major Canadian cities. In December 1995
parliament passed a motion officially designating February as
Black History Month.
Activities that take place during Black History Month are varied
in both scope and nature. This month is an important part of
preserving our heritage.
The heritage of black Canadians is evident in my own riding of
Essex by the North American Black Historical Museum, the Nazrey
African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Walls Site to name a
few.
Southwestern Ontario is an example of how slaves who sought
haven contributed to the building of our great country.
This month is an opportunity to remember and celebrate the
contribution of black Canadians to the building of Canada.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
Kyoto commitment to reducing greenhouse gases has been described
as the greatest challenge facing this country since World War II.
A reduction in emissions of 6% from 1990 levels means a 25%
reduction from 1999 levels, or roughly 26 million tonnes of gases
are to be offset.
Since Canada has rarely experienced a year when greenhouse gases
have not increased, the challenge becomes enormous. Over the
past year hundreds of Canadian experts have been working hard to
submit recommendations to the Climate Change Secretariat which
will provide the basis for action.
In spite of the naysayers who think we cannot achieve our
targets, I believe that these recommendations will result not
only in a cleaner, healthier environment, but in an economic
upsurge through the utilization of our untapped renewable
resources. I urge all Canadians to support this giant leap into
the future.
* * *
ERIC NEWELL
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday, February 16, Mr. Eric Newell, chairman and CEO of
Syncrude Canada Limited was awarded the Order of Canada.
Mr. Newell hails from Fort McMurray, Alberta. As his MP I am
pleased to extend the congratulations of myself and all MPs for
his achievement.
Mr. Newell is not only extremely active within the world of oil
production, he is also very involved in his community
particularly in education related activities. His
accomplishments are far too numerous to mention them all, but I
will name a few.
Mr. Newell received the 1997 Canadian Business Leader Award from
the University of Alberta. He is the chairman of the 2000
Governor General's Canadian Study Conference. He is
vice-chairman of the Conference Board of Canada. He is the
director of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation. He
is on the board of directors for the Keyano College Foundation.
Accomplishments such as these deserve recognition. I am pleased
that Mr. Newell has joined the prestigious group known as the
Officers of the Order of Canada.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we need to reinforce our public service. We need to put
an end to the employment freeze. We need to drastically reduce
the practice of contracting out for temporary help. We need to
considerably diminish the number of term and casual employees.
Permanent employment is what we need to encourage young competent
Canadians to choose the public service as a profession.
[Translation]
Hiring young professionals full time would provide the public
service with highly qualified replacements, as well as
safeguarding its professionalism and corporate memory.
1105
It is vital for young Canadians to have the possibility of a
career in the public service, if we are to maintain the quality
of services to all Canadians in the years to come.
* * *
DAVID PELLETIER
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
weekend of January 30, David Pelletier, who is from the Quebec
riding of Matapédia—Matane, and his partner Jamie Sale, from
Alberta, won the Canadian figure skating championship for pair
skating. They won with the highest marks ever in that annual
event. They got five perfect marks of 6.0 and two 5.9s. This is
extraordinary.
As David's father Jacques Pelletier said, “This achievement is
evidence that work, patience, determination and courage allow us
to meet challenges, reach beyond our limits and to accomplish
goals deemed impossible by others”.
I wish the best of luck to Jamie and David in their next two
competitions this season, and I congratulate them on their
performance.
* * *
INVENTION FAIR
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first invention fair will be held in Montreal from
July 7 to 9, at the Maurice Richard Arena. The fair is organized
by the Association des inventeurs du Québec. It will bring
together inventors, innovators, designers and engineers.
Participants will represent the world of creativity and the
industry in general. The public will have an opportunity to
discover Quebec's engineering and innovative feats.
This is an opportunity to promote those who like to dare and
innovate. Often, a simple idea or a fortuitous discovery can
lead to surprising products and revolutionize an economic,
social or cultural sector.
We wish the best of luck to the organizers of that show and to
each and every participant.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the past the Minister of Human Resources Development has
repeatedly said that the department funds were being managed
appropriately even though at the time her own department knew
things were in very bad shape. She made the damaging audit
results public only because the Reform member for Calgary—Nose
Hill was going to if the minister did not.
Now the minister tells us she is going to fix the problems. This
is the same minister who said there were no problems. Her
credibility is gone and she should go with it.
There are 180,000 Canadians on health care waiting lists but the
minister gives $535,000 to a group which bought jewels and
claimed them as office furniture. It takes three months to see a
health specialist but a failed project at McGill did not have to
wait to get $100,000 more than it asked for from the minister.
The brain drain takes 1,400 doctors a year but HRDC paid students
$14,000 each for three weeks of work.
There is more, but the bottom line is that the Liberals'
priority is to buy votes, not the health care of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
giant, Bombardier, has just snagged another major railway
contract in the Netherlands.
This contract worth $660 million provides for the delivery of 13
four-car double-deck EMUs and 12 six-car EMUs.
Bombardier is a one of our companies that has made an
international name for itself. Its expertise in the area of
transportation is its vocation, and is a source of pride for all
of Canada.
Bombardier has long understood that the key to economic success
is to occupy much of the market and be based in an economic and
a political entity such as Canada.
We congratulate Bombardier on this latest success and encourage
them to continue their growth worldwide.
Indeed, Bombardier is a real jewel of our economy and we are all
very proud of it.
* * *
[English]
RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today I would like to raise again with the Minister of Transport
and with others an issue which I think should be of concern to
all members of parliament, or at least those members of
parliament who have rail lines running through their
constituencies.
The fact is that the railways, all of them, are running longer
and longer trains. We are now seeing 10,000 foot trains as a
rule. I am told sometimes there are 12,000 foot trains. They are
tying up railway crossings for a much longer period of time than
is allowed for in the rules. It is only supposed to be five
minutes.
However, there are crossings in my riding, and others may have
the same, where trains are taking 45 minutes to clear the
crossings.
1110
This means that traffic is backed up. It means that public
safety concerns are raised in terms of ambulances and emergency
services that cannot get from one part of town to the other.
I have raised this with the Minister of Transport before. This
is a real issue which needs to be dealt with. The railways are
abusing the rules and some day someone is going to die because
they are abusing these rules and because the government has
refused to do anything about it.
Once again I urge the minister to act.
* * *
[Translation]
RENEWAL OF INFRASTRUCTURES PROGRAM
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, really, the
more things change, the more they stay the same. It would seem
that the Liberal government wants to renege on another of its
commitments.
In a recent article in La Presse, we learn that the Liberals
would like to delay the renewal of the infrastructures program
in order to use it for purely electoral ends. This federal,
provincial and municipal program is vital to Quebec and Canada.
This is true too for quality of life and especially public
safety.
Quebec, the Canadian provinces and territories and the
municipalities have long called for this program. It would be
totally unacceptable and incredibly irresponsible if the
government were to delay it and use it for such partisan
purposes.
When will the Liberals finally honour their commitments? When
will they stop pulling the wool over people's eyes and when will
they stop making the provincial governments and the
municipalities pay and then turn the situation to their
advantage?
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Minister of Justice will table in the House
legislation to ensure that federal laws conform to our human
rights obligations. This represents the culmination of the work
of many groups and individuals around the country, too many to
name, who have worked so hard over the past 15 years to achieve
the goal of equality in our society. They deserve our thanks.
This historic legislation will enshrine in the statutes our
obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This is the right thing to do. It is also supported by a vast
majority of Canadians who believe that one of the most important
characteristics of our society is its tolerance based on the
elimination of discrimination.
Recent court decisions have indicated that our statutes must be
updated and this will end the need for constant litigation such
as that presently brought by the Foundation for Equal Families.
This is an important piece of legislation for all Canadians and
of particular concern to my constituents. I commend the
government for acting proactively in this place to ensure
equality for all our citizens.
* * *
FUEL COSTS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Nova Scotians who are
being severely threatened in relation to rising fuel costs. The
price of oil has jumped to more than 50 cents from 32 cents per
litre in recent days. Diesel has gone up 70 cents a gallon in
four months forcing truckers out of competition.
Nova Scotians are finding themselves financially burdened due to
the increase in fuel costs throughout the province largely in
part due to federal taxation. In April 1997 this Liberal
government was supposed to rid Canadians of the GST but actually
created the HST in three Atlantic provinces to a fixed rate of
15%. This tax is applied federally and cannot be changed at the
point of sale. This has hurt many citizens, in particular
seniors and low income earners. Essentials in life are becoming
more and more unattainable for those on fixed incomes.
I urge the Minister of Finance along with the Minister of
Industry to take immediate action to examine closely these huge
increases in prices of crude oil. Nova Scotians and indeed all
Canadians cannot continue to struggle under crippling high fuel
costs compounded by massive tax grabs. There is a budget coming.
Please give Canadians relief.
* * *
RURAL HEALTH
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Health and the new federal rural health directorate have been
working hard to tackle the special health problems of rural
Canada and small towns like Ingersoll and Peterborough.
The Summit on Rural Health Research in Prince George brought
together representatives of all stakeholders in rural health
care. There are in effect two health care systems in Canada: one
for the big cities and one for the rest of the country.
While it is clear that some major health facilities have to be
in large cities, there is no good reason why basic, rapid
response, modern care cannot be available to all Canadians. It is
the task of the federal government to make sure that our health
care system is available to all.
I urge that Health Canada be given the resources to translate
its fine preliminary work into action. This will improve health
care for all rural Canadians.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
state sanctioned discrimination is prominent in Canada under the
code names of employment equity and affirmative action.
Supporters of these programs hide behind subterfuge and
politically correct rhetoric in order to mask their true intent.
In fact, employment equity quotas are as insulting and offensive
to those they purport to help as they are to those against whom
they discriminate.
1115
Hiring quotas based on race or gender imply that members of
target groups are somehow inferior and therefore incapable of
competing on a level playing field. Such programs foster
suspicion and resentment, and rob us all of dignity and
self-worth.
Affirmative action programs breed resentment and suspicion among
co-workers, and these hiring quotas foment inequality and
bitterness in society at large. That is because of an
inescapable universal truth which is that it is not possible to
discriminate in favour of someone because of their race or gender
without discriminating against someone else because of theirs.
Affirmative action and employment equity programs are inherently
unfair, they violate the principles of equality and merit based
hiring, and they must therefore be stopped.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL REFERENDUM IN LAC-SAINT-JEAN
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
a few days from now, the federal government will hold a
referendum among the Montagnais of Lac-St-Jean. Let us take a
look at the clarity of the question that will be asked:
“Do you accept and approve the settlement agreement dated, for
reference purposes, the 14th day of December, 1999, between the
Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean and Her Majesty the Queen in
right of Canada?
Do you agree to sanction, pursuant to sections 38(1) and 39 of
the Indian Act, the absolute transfer to her Majesty the Queen
in right of Canada by the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean of all
rights and those of its members pertaining to all parcels of
reserve land on concession IX of the Ouiatchouan township?
By voting yes, you authorize the Chief of the Montagnais band of
Lac-Saint-Jean or any other member of the band council duly
authorized by resolution to sign on behalf of the band council
and its members all documents and to take all measures required
to put into effect the settlement agreement and the absolute
transfer of all parcels of the reserve land on concession IX of
the Ouiatchouan township. Yes or no?”
Is that clear, Mr. Speaker, as a question?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the human resources minister was asked to make
public a copy of her master list of grants and contributions by
riding. She continually denied that such a list existed.
However, the Toronto Star this morning tells a very
different story.
Yesterday, Liberal MPs were given a copy of a riding by riding
list.
Why did the minister tell one story to the public while giving
Liberal insiders special information?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report to you and to
all Canadians that according to a media report I saw this
morning, my harshest critic, the member for Calgary—Nose Hill,
agrees that our six point plan is actually going to work.
I note she recognized that it was long overdue, but from the
points she made I have the distinct impression she agrees that
what we are doing is exactly the right thing. I would say that
it must be a terrific day when we can agree on something as
important as that.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister continues to live in dreamland. I
certainly never said any such thing.
The human resources minister also stated publicly that
opposition members could not have a copy of a master list because
no such thing existed while Liberal MPs were being handed copies
of that very list.
I will ask her again: Why did the minister tell Canadians there
was no list when she knew full well that right then one was going
out to Liberal MPs?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat again, there is no master list
of all the grants and contributions that exist riding by riding.
However, I have a feeling that by the time this undertaking is
over, my department will be the master of making lists.
I have asked the people in my department to respond in a timely
fashion to all requests from members of parliament and the media.
I have also asked them if they would to look at all our data
bases to is if there is a way to bring this information together
in an effective way for the use of the members of the House.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the only group that ever gets information in a timely
fashion is binder boy and Liberal MPs.
The human resources minister has been caught in still another
cover-up. I am wondering if she can tell us what other
information she is hiding that the public has a right to know.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that in my department
we have taken particular pains to be open with the public. That
is why we made the audit public and why we make our performance
results available to the House.
We have one of the largest and most active web pages in the
government. The 459 projects, which have been of such great
interest to the House, are on that web site.
1120
I would just like to point out that it is the Reform Party which
has said that our department has has one of the best access to
information offices in Ottawa.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it would appear that there is a pattern
here. The minister claims that she was told about her billion
dollar bungle on November 17. However, on December 16 she stood
in the House and pretended that all was well in her department.
Yesterday she appeared before the committee and denied that
there was any kind of master list on the grants. Today we find
out from the Liberal newspaper in Toronto that her colleagues
were given a copy of just such a list.
Why does the minister not throw away her script and tell the
truth?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points that I would
again like to make. First and foremost, a billion dollars has
not disappeared. We know where it is.
I was just speaking to a group in Niagara Falls this morning
called the Business Education Council. It partners with the
Department of Human Resources Development and takes $2.9 million
of our Canadian tax dollars and invests the money in youth and in
helping citizens in that part of the country, who do not have
opportunities for employment, to find opportunities for
employment.
We know where the money is, but we will be improving and fixing
our system so that we can confirm to Canadians the wisdom of our
investments.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday this minister told the House of
Commons the proper process of obtaining a copy of a list of
grants.
I would like to know from the minister why Liberal bagmen,
binder boy and Liberal colleagues can get copies of the list but
the rest of the members of parliament cannot? Why does this
minister not provide a copy of the list to all members of
parliament? What is she afraid of?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid of nothing and we will
continue to be open.
As I have said in earlier responses to questions, I have asked
my department to look at the 40 different programs of grants and
contributions that we participate in to see if there is a way of
bringing that information together on a riding by riding basis,
if possible, for the use of members of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government House leader objects to having the legislative
committee studying Bill C-20 travel to Quebec to find out what
people there have to say. Yet a number of committees travel. We
in the Bloc Quebecois understand that this may be necessary and
we have never objected to committees being able to travel.
Can the government House leader tell us the reason he objects?
Why is he opposed to the committee coming to Quebec and meeting
with groups in various regions to find out what they think? It
seems reasonable to me and I do not see why he would object.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is perfectly aware that,
in my letter to the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois and in
what I have said to others, I did not mention prohibiting travel
to Quebec.
We spoke about the fact that the committee had to hold its
meetings in parliament. It is not prohibited in Quebec and
allowed in another province. So, first of all, that is false.
Second, the member himself must remember the school board study.
At that time, he did not even want to hear about a
parliamentary committee on this issue, let alone have it travel.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all
the parties in Quebec City agreed that it would be debated in
the National Assembly. There is a bad habit here of not
recognizing what goes on in the National Assembly of Quebec.
The committee traveled, and if it is a question of travelling
throughout Canada, not just in Quebec, I can tell him now that I
have no problem with it. It was done for prisons, it is going
to be done for the fishery, and it was done for free trade.
The government says that Bill C-20 is its priority. The
government leader said so himself, I heard him on television.
Why is there any objection, what are the reasons behind it? The
government House leader's answers seem contrived.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing contrived about
it, as the member well knows. I told him earlier. I even drew
a comparison with another situation in the past where he himself
did not want a committee for another initiative that was before
the House.
Members, the House and Canadians should not think that
committees automatically travel for all bills. That is not the
case.
1125
There are a number of bills where committees do not travel.
Some bills are not even studied in committee. They are the
exception, I agree, but nonetheless. Even that is not
automatic.
We agree that the committee's proceedings should be televised
and so forth. We have already said so.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
committees of the House travel a lot in fulfilling their
responsibilities.
For example, when the foreign affairs committee was looking at
circumpolar affairs, it went to such places as Russia, Finland,
and Denmark.
Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons admit
that travel to various communities enables committees to do a
better job, that it is customary and normal, and that therefore
the committee working on Bill C-20 on the future of Quebec and
Canada should be able to travel to Quebec?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already explained all of
this to the hon. member across the way. Not all committees
travel. The hon. member is well aware of that. It is not
automatic for travel to be connected with every bill. The hon.
member is also aware of that.
The hon. member's party asked us “Can we have a somewhat broader
definition in order to hear witnesses?” We said “Yes, provided,
of course, that it does not hold up the bill in question”. “Can
the committee be televised also, so as to make the information
available to the greatest number of Canadians?” Again, we said
yes.
In the opinion of the government, the best place to deal with
this bill is here in parliament.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to get back to the matter of committee travel.
Just a few days ago, the government majority on the foreign
affairs committee pleaded the case for authorization of a trip
to Asia, to the Caucasus, in order to establish a policy on that
region.
Why would travel be necessary for that committee, yet
superfluous for the one addressing the future of Quebec and of
Canada? It seems to me the argument is not reasonable and does
not hold water. The minister knows very well that it does not.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon.
member speak of this whole matter, of what is reasonable and
what is not.
The government introduced the bill in the House in
December. It has been before the House since then. Who was it
who spent all their time tabling press clippings in the House
instead of debating the bill? The Bloc Quebecois. Is this
reasonable? Who is it who spent all their time tabling motions
to hold up the debate? The members across the floor. Is this
reasonable? No.
The government has been reasonable. The ones who have not been
reasonable in this matter are the opposition.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development,
and it has to do with the so-called master list.
It seems to me that either the master list exists and the
minister is refusing to reveal it, or the master list does not
exist and the leaflets that binder boy was passing to the Prime
Minister originate more in his old rat pack imagination than
anywhere else.
Why does the minister persist in refusing to reveal this master
list? Why does she insist on questions on the order paper and
access to information? Why does she not just come clean with all
the information now as she apparently has done with the
government House leader?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assume from the hon. member's question
that he would like a master list that would cover all the grants
and contributions that are supported by my department. That is
40 different programs. Some of them can be managed and focused
riding by riding but for others we just do not have data riding
by riding.
As I indicated earlier, I have asked my department to look at
these 40 different programs to see if there is a way of bringing
the information together so that members of parliament can have
it in a consolidated fashion for their ridings. I would be glad
to continue to report to the House on this as we make progress.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, if that kind of information does not exist in that
organized fashion then how did the government House leader have
that kind of information about Winnipeg Centre? He had
everything that ever went into that riding, including the
salaries of HRDC employees who work in that riding.
Does the minister not realize that it is not a question of the
credibility of the Liberal Party or the Liberal government, it is
the credibility of government per se as a positive instrument for
job creation that is at stake here? She should be concerned
about that. Not everybody is. We are, she is. Why will she not
act in a way to restore the credibility of government as a job
creating agent and provide this information?
1130
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon.
member. Indeed that is why, when I received the results of this
internal audit, I took it seriously and why I made it public so
that Canadian people could understand that in the context of the
operation of my department there is work that we can improve
upon.
I could not agree more with the hon. member that grants and
contributions from my department are a fundamental way that the
government partners with individuals and communities in the
country and engages in ensuring that we do not leave anyone
behind so that we can all benefit from the greatness of this
country. I am taking it seriously and indeed that is why—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to choose her words very
carefully. Truth and accountability have been absent during this
scandal.
Yesterday I asked the minister a question about when she was
aware. She pretended to be even unaware that a problem existed.
I ask her one more time when she was first aware of problems in
the transitional jobs fund in her department.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked when I was
made aware of problems in transitional jobs fund, as you know and
as the House knows, I was answering questions about the
transitional jobs fund almost on a daily basis from time to time.
I was very aware of issues in the transitional jobs fund and I
was forthcoming in my responses. If the member checks
Hansard he will see that I identified circumstances,
administrative challenges in particular projects.
When we talk about the transitional jobs fund, it was one of the
first areas of interest to which I turned my attention upon
becoming minister.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I guess she still was not aware. The minister seems
to indicate that the TJF information is secret.
The Canadian public is kept in the dark about the biggest case
of government mismanagement in history, and yet Liberal MPs were
privy to all this dirty detail yesterday. Could this be because
companies in the minister's riding that cannot be identified
received $11 million in HRDC funding? How about some truth or
consequences from the minister and the government?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what makes this issue so difficult for
members of the opposition is that they will not take the time to
understand the difference between the internal audit and what it
represented and a particular program, the transitional jobs fund.
They should spend some time on that.
With regard to the hon. member's particular question about
grants and contributions in my riding, I am glad to say that the
numbers he is speaking about are numbers that were provided to
individuals in my riding for training, for fee payers, but
because they are individuals the Privacy Act stops us from
listing them name by name by name.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to believe that only $251.50
was misspent. What a joke. Let us see here: a $100,000
overpayment to McGill University; $200,000 to a bankrupt water
bottling company; and $1 million to a bankrupt Panda Aircraft.
Let us not forget the $600,000 to Shawinigan crony Pierre
Thibault who was a confessed embezzler.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. Is not the real reason he
is trying to dodge this boondoggle that his fingerprints are all
over it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I see Rick Anderson's fingerprints all over the
unwarranted question of the hon. member. No wonder that party is
going down the tubes. He cannot even write his own questions any
more.
The Prime Minister has acted perfectly properly in these
matters. He has not personally involved himself in the decision
making which, as far as we are aware, has been carried out
according to the rules.
In any event, the audit in question does not show
misappropriation. It does not show a basis for allegations of
criminality and, furthermore, the audit methodology is being
followed up by the auditor general in his own report. That is
the answer for the hon. member.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what a waste. The little guy from Shawinigan has turned
into the little guy that shagged the taxpayer. It reminds me of
a modern day story I saw in a film where a modern day Dr. Evil
sent out his evil henchmen to take and then bungle $1 billion—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will want to put his
question right away.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, is not the real reason he
is protecting the human resources minister that he knows the
footprints lead right to the Prime Minister's doorstep?
1135
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the other day one of his Reform colleagues talked about
Bre-X. I was thinking about that. There is a link between Bre-X
and the Reform Party. In both cases there is nothing there.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
continues to deny responsibility in the administrative mess at
Human Resources Development Canada. She said in this House on
December 16 that no funding had been given out without prior
authorization.
How in all respect for the House can she justify what she said
here on December 16, since the firm of A. Trahan of
Trois-Rivières received $76,000 from Human Resources Development
Canada in 1997-98, authorization for which was not given until
March 1999?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to all the points the hon.
member is making, I am taking my job seriously. I am dealing
with this information. We are implementing a new plan that will
fix the challenges we have had in the management of our grants
and contributions.
If I am understanding the particular project the hon. member is
referring to, and we can check it again, it is my understanding
with absolute clarity that there was a contract in place in
advance of the announcement. It was approved by the member of
parliament for the region. It was approved and supported by the
Government of Quebec. Yes, there were amendments to that
contract, but everything was in order before the announcement was
made.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, the minister cannot deny that
she said on December 16 that grants had all been given with
prior authorization by her department.
Why did she make such a statement when she knew then that the
Ropak company in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies had
received an unapproved grant of $181,174 in 1996-97, with
approval being given only in January 1999?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may correct the comments
that I made on December 16 to the House. Those comments were
made directly in relationship to the particular projects that had
been asked about by the Reform Party. If the hon. member would
take the time to read Hansard he would understand that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think
I could have given a better answer than that one. The Prime
Minister has been likened to the godfather of grants and
contracts. Donate to his campaign and one has a 33% chance of
getting a grant or a contract, so the bureaucrats and the
managers of HRDC have to bend the rules.
How else can the minister explain that one-third of the projects
got upward amendments to the original dollar amount requested?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we know to be true is that this
opposition party has no interest in having a Government of Canada
that participates with its citizens and communities to improve
the opportunities that could be made for those who need support.
What we know on this side of the House is that these people
would shut down all grants and contributions. What they would
have is for every man and woman to look out for themselves. On
this side of the House, our Prime Minister understands that the
Government of Canada can have a direct influence on the lives of
Canadians, and we stand behind him.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
more than a year now the official opposition has been raising
concerns about the grant and contribution process at Human
Resources Development Canada. Yesterday the minister said:
With reference to the transitional jobs fund, I have answered
numerous questions in the House...If the hon. member checks
Hansard he will see that I was also forthcoming about the
administrative problems with that program.
I suggest that the minister has a strange definition of
forthcoming. However, since she was told of these problems
months ago, why did she do nothing to address them until we
exposed her billion dollar bungle?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just on that very point, yesterday at
committee the officials in charge of access to information stated
that there was no access request from that party on the internal
audit until two days after we made it public.
1140
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development has just told this House that what
she said here on December 16 pertained to the project referred
to in the question of my Reform colleague, that is the projects
in the Prime Minister's riding.
What can she say about the project of the Auberge Mastigouche in
the riding of the Prime Minister, which received $300,000 in
grants from the budget ending in March 1998, when approval
followed only eight months later? What can she say about that?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we know as far as transitional jobs
fund programs go is that they have made a true difference in the
ridings of members with high unemployment. That includes the
hon. member for Saint-Maurice.
The transitional jobs fund has created 30,000 jobs for Canadians
that did not exist before. I would note again that in every case
the approval process had to include concurrence from the
Government of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what has gone
on here is very serious. The minister is denying one of the
statements she made on December 16, or, rather, is justifying it
by saying “I was not talking about all the projects. It was not
about those you are referring to. It was about those I was
being questioned on in the Prime Minister's riding”.
I have just shown that in the riding of the Prime Minister, in
the case of this project, the situation is exactly the same.
There are questions everyone is asking. What is she still doing
here? Why is she not resigning? She misled the House.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am here as Minister of Human Resources
Development Canada in this particular case to make sure that we
fix the problem with administrative deficiencies in the
management of grants and contributions. I am here to support our
side of the House which believes that grants and contributions
can make an extraordinary difference in the lives of Canadians.
My job is to fix the problem. We have a plan to implement it,
and I am glad that my colleagues on this side of the House
support me in doing that.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is holding a trust. Supposedly it
collects public moneys to spend in the public interest. In order
to ensure it occurs that way we have a Financial Administration
Act that binds the minister and her department.
The minister has broken this law. In a democracy ministers
resign—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. member in
preambles to questions should be suggesting that there has been
any breaking of the laws of this country in the House. If he
wishes to do that, there are proper ways of doing it and we will
not have it in preambles to questions. He will proceed with his
question directly.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in a democracy ministers
resign when they do not meet this standard. Why does the
minister think she is above the law?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say again is that I
am taking this undertaking very seriously. We have made it
public. We have a plan of action that is going to fix the
problem.
I would like to report to the House that today we have completed
yet another file of the 37 with the John Howard Society. We have
found that there is nothing untoward in that undertaking. We
will continue to look at the remaining files and report to the
House as the studies are completed.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Saskatchewan grandmother and farmer, Lillian Kurtz, has
been driven to hunger strike because the Liberal government is
ignoring her pleas to address the farm income crisis. At the
same time the HRDC minister has broken her own grant rules,
unlawfully diverting taxpayers' money that could have helped
people like Lillian.
Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on farmers like
Lillian Kurtz while still allowing the HRDC minister to mismanage
billions of dollars?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the hon. member's premise is totally wrong.
The government is providing over a billion and a half dollars of
assistance to farmers in Saskatchewan and elsewhere.
We are very concerned about their problems.
1145
The allegation that the Minister of Human Resources Development
is mismanaging government funds is totally wrong, totally
unwarranted, not demonstrated by the audit, and the auditor
general is carrying out his own audit. I am confident that this
will confirm that the minister is carrying out the right approach
in identifying and solving the problems through her six point
program, which the auditor general has also approved.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister,
whose statements in this House contradict her department's
documents, as I just demonstrated, also told us to do our own
research. She will not give us her lists, on the ground that we
have access to them.
We checked. I phoned Mr. Gagné, the regional director for
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, who referred me to the minister's office.
My colleague, the Bloc Quebecois leader, phoned in his riding of
Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
He too was referred to the minister's office.
Not only does she contradict her own department's documents, but
the minister is denying us access to them, contrary to what she
told the House this week, and contrary to what the Prime
Minister said.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report to the House that the
Deputy Minister of Human Resources Development spoke with all of
the regional employment officials yesterday and advised them that
they should tell all of their directors at the human resources
development offices to be prepared—
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: That's not true. False.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Members are entitled
to give answers and ask questions without interruptions of this
kind. I know that hon. members will want to be very careful in
the choice of words they use.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
We learned today, in the midst of a desperate situation for
farmers, that the Saskatchewan government terminated its 40%
share of funding in the joint federal-provincial agricultural
assistance program.
Will the 60% federal share continue to be given to our farmers?
What is the minister doing to secure a new nation-wide program on
farm income to help our farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan government, even though
it signed an agreement to participate with a 40% portion to
assist its farmers in a targeted method, has been asking to
withdraw.
I have given it the opportunity, if it wishes to withdraw. I
have guaranteed the farmers that the federal money will be
targeted to those farmers with serious difficulty. If the
Saskatchewan government wants to send money to farmers whether
they need it or not, for whatever reason, to do that it will now
have the opportunity to discuss that with the producers.
We will target our money and we will continue to improve the
criteria for the 1999 program.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when an
automobile manufacturer finds a flaw in a sample of vehicles,
then all of the vehicles are recalled and the fault is corrected.
A one-half per cent sample of the files in HRDC has shown an 80%
rate of accountability failure. It is statistically valid to
conclude that about 24,000 of the 30,000 files have faulty
administration or documentation.
How can the Prime Minister reduce this to $251.50?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member, as usual, is wrong in his assertions.
The Prime Minister is saying that 37 projects are being audited.
So far there is a question of $250. More projects are being
audited.
1150
The general point is that the sum of $1 billion of projects from
which the sample was extracted was found by the audit report to
be the subject in some cases of administrative problems. They
did not find misappropriation. They did not find political
interference. The six point program of the hon. minister of HRD
to correct the problems has been heartily approved.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. House leader love to refer
to all of the grants received by the opposition ridings, as if to
imply that we are part of the problem over on that side.
I would ask the hon. Prime Minister if he would show me an
opposition riding in which business cronies and criminals got
millions of dollars, just as they did in the Prime Minister's
riding when he interfered with the process.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's premise for his question is totally
wrong.
The Prime Minister has not interfered with the process. The
decisions were made by officials according to the rules. I hope
that is the case in the hon. member's riding and others, where
Reform and other opposition members pleaded in writing for
support from these programs. They pleaded, they begged, and now
they are saying they do not like the programs. What a double
standard.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of HRD.
Can the minister explain why in May 1997 the Liberal member
representing Vancouver East qualified for a TJF, and why two
weeks later, after the federal election, there were no further
funds to this riding, which is very poor compared to the
minister's own riding which did get funds? Even the website that
the minister is so proud of says that TJF is available in
northern Ontario only.
How does the minister explain these glaring contradictions?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize that the hon.
member represents one of the poorest and most challenged regions
in this country, Vancouver East.
I would like to recognize that we invest significantly, and I
think very wisely, in that area and we will continue to do so.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has not answered the question about the contradiction.
I know that my riding is not an exception. That is why we in
the NDP have repeatedly demanded in question period, in committee
and on the order paper a full disclosure from the government.
Yesterday the minister said to the leader of the NDP that she
could make it easy for us all if she put a question on the order
paper. Well, we did, before that.
But the real question is, why is this minister making it so hard
to get public information and full disclosure?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my intention is not to make it difficult,
and as I have said on numerous occasions today, given the
conversations that we had yesterday at committee, I have gone
back to people in my department and asked them to look at the 40
different grants and contributions to see if they can pick the
information out, put it together in some kind of reasonable
fashion, which then could be provided to members of parliament
for their use.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister of HRD tell the House how many TJF
projects were publicly announced by regional ministers without
the recommendation in support of the projects from the elected
member of parliament from that riding?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that too sounds like a question for the
order paper.
The Deputy Speaker: I must say that I agree.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC):
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the only losers in this scandal are
the people living in high unemployment regions.
I believe that this program can work if we take the political
influence out of it. I myself learned through the media that the
regional minister at the time had approved and announced $80,000
in TJ funds against my own recommendation. That company has
since then closed and no jobs were created.
We need job creation programs, but we do not need the abuse of
the government. What will the minister do to make sure the
abuse stops?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, when looking at the transitional
jobs fund, the hon. member herself I think recognizes the
importance to her region which that program has had.
We believe that there is a way in which to work in ridings with
community members, with the support of members of parliament and
others, to make sure our investments are wise and continue to
provide opportunities for those who need opportunities.
* * *
1155
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In 1997 the minister appointed a panel of distinguished
Canadians, led by former House Speaker John Fraser, to monitor a
major program of change initiatives within the Canadian Forces.
Recently that committee reported its findings.
What is the minister's reaction to this important report and, in
particular, what is going to be done to continue the professional
development of officers in the Canadian Forces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report from members of the monitoring
committee, which I appointed a couple of years ago, is most
welcome. It clearly indicates that reforms are taking place.
We asked them to monitor over 300 reforms that came from the
Somalia commission and numerous other reports on change to the
Canadian Forces. They said such things as: “We believe that
the reform program is gaining momentum. The department and the
Canadian Forces have substantially met the goals of the reform
measures”. It is a very positive report.
Those recommendations which are still outstanding—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a copy of our access request for the infamous
audit for which the minister tries to avoid taking
responsibility. This request is dated January 17, 2000 and was
delivered by courier to the department.
On the 18th the minister announced that she would be holding a
news conference to discuss something, and on the 19th, in the
interest of transparency, she made the audit public. I wonder if
these dates are merely a coincidence. Is that what the minister
is trying to tell us?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question.
Let me say that the whole undertaking was one which began with
the receipt of the internal audit, which I took very seriously,
and I directed the department to make it a priority, with an
undertaking to make the report public so the Canadian people
would know that we have opportunities to make significant
improvements and to assure Canadians that we are going to fix the
problems.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in August,
when she took over the department, the minister discovered she
had inherited an administration that was coming out of the
Middle Ages. This, at least, is the excuse she is giving to
exonerate herself.
Who then must be held accountable for the administrative mess in
her department: the current deputy minister or the minister's
predecessor, who is now the Minister for International Trade?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I am the minister who received the
report of the internal audit. I am the minister who is going to
fix the problem.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Last week the Barrett Commission in British Columbia urged the
federal government to finally join in assisting the owners of
leaky condominiums who face average repair costs of $25,000 per
unit.
When will the minister finally join the Government of British
Columbia in responding to this economic and social disaster with
grants, with tax relief and with no interest loans to the
province of British Columbia? When will he finally listen to the
people of British Columbia?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have received the
report of Mr. Barrett and we are studying it.
CMHC is working with all of the different local organizations to
try to resolve the situation and will continue to do so.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development is unaccountable for a
billion dollars of public money, yet the same minister is
insisting that Atlantic Canadians be accountable for TAGS
overpayments. Her department is clawing back TAGS overpayments
as small as $6.
How can the minister justify this sudden interest in
accountability for amounts as low as $6 when the same minister
insists it is okay for $11 million in HRD grants in her riding to
remain unaccountable and anonymous?
1200
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of many of the questions that
were just offered by the hon. member are wrong.
We are taking this seriously. We are developing a system so
that Canadians can hold us accountable.
We will work with the auditor general and outside experts to
ensure that we have a program that will fix the problem and make
sure it does not happen again.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provinces of British Columbia,
Ontario and Quebec claim that our refugee determination system is
costing money.
Quebec and Ontario want the federal government to give more
money to cover costs related to refugees.
What does the government have to say about this?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government transfers funds to the provinces under the health and
social transfers. These funds cover related expenses to
immigrants and refugees.
Let me further state that the three provinces are net
beneficiaries of our immigration and refugee system. As a matter
of fact our whole country is a beneficiary of immigration and
refugees.
It is prebudget season. Last week the request was for health
funding. This week it is for refugees. Next week it will be
something else.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is about the fact that we requested the audit on
January 17, and yet I heard the minister say in the House today
that our request was not sent until after she released the audit
herself.
Why is the minister deliberately misrepresenting the facts today
in the House?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill knows that it would not be proper to ask the minister a
question of that kind. I would ask that we treat the question as
having been rephrased. If the minister wishes to answer, I will
hear an answer. Otherwise, the question is out of order.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am only repeating what the officials in
charge of access to information said yesterday at committee.
They checked with couriers to see if there were receipts for
that delivery because they have no record of receiving the
request until two days after they made it.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over the past
two days, a number of events have taken place in this House.
Today, it is happening again.
Yesterday, referring to one of our questions to the Minister of
Human Resources, the Speaker of the House commented that the
question was too specific.
Earlier, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Prime Minister had told us “Your questions are too vague.
We would appreciate more specific questions. Give us examples of
mistakes that were made, of instances where money was
misappropriated”.
We did our best, even though we still do not have access to all
the lists, to find the most specific examples possible,
including one, which I raised myself, involving a $5 million
subsidy.
1205
With due respect to the minister, it seems to me that $5 million
is important enough an expenditure for the minister to at least
look at before authorizing it.
The Speaker of the House seemed to back down on this issue and,
later, he let us ask our very specific questions. Then, the
minister even told a Reform member that his question was too
vague and she wanted a clearer one.
You have the responsibility to tell us how my colleagues and
myself must act in this House.
Even today, after the minister replied that the question was too
precise, too in depth, you said you agreed with her. I have not
heard such comments very often in my life.
How should opposition members act to please you, Mr. Speaker?
Should we ask very broad questions, so as to allow the minister
to say anything, or ask very precise questions and be told they
are too precise and cannot be answered?
I would like to know the rules for asking a question in a
parliament such as this one. In the other one that I have known,
the more precise the question, the more accurate the numbers
quoted, the happier the journalists, the happier the public, and
the more the Speaker would let us carry on.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval has raised
a very specific point. I agree with him that, when questions are
asked in the House, the answer is very often to the effect that
the question is too vague, too precise or something of the sort.
This is perfectly normal when questions are asked in an
atmosphere of debate such as during question period in the
House.
Today, the question addressed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development concerned the percentage of applications or programs
where something happened. It is a matter of statistics. A
question that requires the production of statistics is a
question for the Order Paper. That is what the minister said,
and I indicated that I agreed with her to avoid having a
supplementary question that would have been identical.
I really had to interrupt the member when she asked the
question, and say that it was a question for the Order Paper.
The minister said the same thing. I indicated that I agreed,
that is all.
If the question is precise, it is acceptable. That is why I said
I agreed with the minister's answer, to stop the member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac from asking another question. I hope
everyone agrees on that.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 12 petitions.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question to the
government House leader concerning the business of the House? It
is a very short question—
The Deputy Speaker: Normally, the question concerning the
business of the House is asked on Thursday. Perhaps the two
members could—
Mr. Michel Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to make life easier for everybody. I do not want to
bother anyone and I will be very brief. To make life easier for
everybody, I would like the government House leader to tell me
officially what the order of business will be for today. Could
any changes be made or is the order of business fixed? That is
what I would like to know.
1210
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we intend to complete, if
possible, consideration of the bill introduced by the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services pertaining to payments
in lieu of taxes to municipalities and, after that, the
government intends to submit Bill C-7 to the House.
If we do complete consideration of these two bills, I do not
plan, I confirm that I do not intend to submit any other bill.
In any case, we will not submit any other bill today except
those two.
I wanted to confirm that for the members opposite because we
discussed it informally earlier.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee met and listened
to church, human rights and trade union organizations, as well as
Canadian government officials on the subject of human rights in
Columbia.
[Translation]
The committee denounces violence, kidnappings, massacres and
repeated attacks against human rights in Columbia and asks the
Government of Columbia to intensify its efforts in order to
prevent such acts of violence and such abuses of human rights in
that country and in order to put an stop to impunity, especially
in the case of crimes against humanity.
* * *
[English]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, an
act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits
and obligations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-423, an act to amend
the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that this bill is
very timely in that we are now just beginning to look at serious
revisions to the Canada Elections Act. This particular private
member's bill proposes to lower the voting age from the present
age of 18 to 16.
There are many reasons for this. At age 16 young people are
able to obtain a driver's licence and drive vehicles. They are
able to join the Armed Forces of Canada. They are able to get
married and raise children. They can leave school on their own
volition. A variety of things occur at age 16 but the one thing
they are not permitted to do is to vote for the member of
parliament of their choice.
I think the time has come to acknowledge that young people of 16
and 17 are much more informed these days than their counterparts
many years ago. To be part of the modern age, let us acknowledge
that the future belongs to our young people. This will be a
chance to recognize that by lowering the voting age.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-424, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and
the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential
services).
Mr. Speaker, seconded by my colleague, the member for
Laurentides, Monique Guay, I am introducing a bill that would
prohibit employers from hiring persons to replace employees on
strike or locked out where such employers come under the Canada
Labour Code or in the case of employees on strike in the federal
public service.
The purpose of this bill is also to maintain essential services
during a strike by federal public servants.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1215
[English]
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-425, an act to provide for the harmonization of
environmental standards throughout Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill
in the House along with my colleague from Winnipeg North.
The purpose of this enactment is to establish a process of
consultation with the provinces to achieve uniformity in the
environmental standard applied in Canada and in every province.
The minister is required to convene a conference of ministers of
the environment, propose the formation of an advisory committee
on uniformity in environmental standards and report annually to
parliament. Also the minister is to report to the House of
Commons. As well, his or her report should be considered by the
standing committee on environment.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-426, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce
legislation to amend the Criminal Code specifically concerning
the offence of theft of motor vehicles. This initiative is
restricted to those offenders who are in the business, so to
speak, of stealing motor vehicles. Organized crime and other
gang related enterprises are becoming quite active in this type
of criminal activity.
The purpose of this legislation is to impose a mandatory minimum
sentence of four years of imprisonment for anyone who is
convicted of more than one theft of a motor vehicle.
I ask all members of this place to support this legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-427, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(abduction).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce this
legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically the section
concerning the offence of abduction of children. Section 281 of
the Criminal Code currently provides for the offence of abduction
of persons under the age of 14 years by a person other than the
person's parents or guardian. I propose to change this offence so
that it applies to the abduction of all children under the age of
16 years.
I ask that all members support this initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the first report
of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations presented on
Friday, December 10, 1999.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to concur
in the report?
An hon. member: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I move that the first
report of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations
presented on Friday, December 10, 1999 be concurred in.
1220
The Deputy Speaker: The motion proposed by the hon.
member for Wetaskiwin is not receivable by the Chair because no
notice has been given by him of this motion. Accordingly it
cannot be put to the House at this time.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The chair of course is the authority on procedure in the
House, but it is my understanding that I could move this motion
in the name of the hon. member for Surrey Central. Am I mistaken
in that?
The Deputy Speaker: Only if there is unanimous consent.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, therefore, I would like to
ask for unanimous consent to move this motion in the name of the
hon. member for Surrey Central.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to move this motion for
concurrence that stands on the order paper in the name of the
hon. member for Surrey Central?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two
petitions pertaining to child poverty.
The petitioners point out that one in five Canadian children
lives in poverty. They also point out that on November 24, 1989
the House of Commons unanimously resolved to end child poverty in
Canada by the year 2000. Since that time the number of poor
children in Canada has increased by 60%.
1225
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to use the
federal budget of 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve
the well-being of Canada's children.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
five petitions with almost 200 signatures from constituents in
and around the riding of St. Albert, including the city of St.
Albert, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, Morinville and Legal.
The petitioners call on parliament to call on the government to
invoke the notwithstanding clause and override the recent
decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on child
pornography.
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
one petition with over 30 signatures also from constituents in
and around St. Albert. They call on parliament to recognize that
children have a need and a moral right to be loved and nurtured
by both parents and members of extended families, and that the
legal obligation should be fundamentally the same for both
parents before and after separation and divorce.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 300 constituents of my
riding of Selkirk—Interlake. It states that one in five
Canadian children live in poverty. The House of Commons in 1989
unanimously voted to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
Since then child poverty has increased by 60%.
As a result they are petitioning the federal government to use
the budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
and I think you would find consent to adopt the following two
motions, which I would like to now put with unanimous consent. I
move:
That the report stage amendments on the order paper for Bill C-2
in the name of the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
be transferred to the name of the hon. member for Kamloops.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
proposal by the government House leader in respect to the
amendments on Bill C-2?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, now that the first motion has
been accepted, I believe you would also find unanimous consent
for the following. I move:
That for the remainder of this day's sitting, no quorum calls or
dilatory motions may be received.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to proceed in the manner
outlined by the government House leader?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by over
100 of my constituents calling on parliament to use the federal
budget for the year 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to
improve the well-being of Canada's children.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present.
The first petition is from the people of Yukon who are
incredibly concerned with the growing rate of child poverty. They
are calling on the federal government to take positive action to
remedy this in the upcoming budget.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is about nuclear weapons and has been signed by people
from B.C. and the Yukon. They want the government to take the
lead in abolishing the use of nuclear weapons in any form as they
have no place in our modern society.
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC FOODS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I table a
petition signed by 1,380 constituents of the riding of Drummond,
in the heart of Quebec, that I represent.
The petitioners are calling on parliament to quickly pass
legislation making it mandatory to label all fully or partially
genetically modified foods.
[English]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would
like to present three petitions on behalf of the constituents of
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.
The first petition is from the Orangeville area. It calls upon
parliament to uphold the present wording of the constitution and
preserve the truth that Canada was and is founded upon principles
that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the Mount
Forest area. It calls upon parliament to take all measures
necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography
remains a serious criminal offence, and that federal police
forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of children.
1230
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from the Caledon
area and calls upon parliament to use the federal budget in the
year 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children.
SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILDREN
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present the third
instalment of a petition from Mrs. Nancy Caldwell of Middleton,
Nova Scotia.
Mrs. Caldwell has gathered a further 5,200 signatures calling on
parliament to enact legislation providing for tougher penalties
to be meted out against those who commit sexual assault against
children. This brings the total number of signatures to
approximately 18,000.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition from the people of Haliburton, Minden and area.
They are calling upon parliament to take all measures necessary
to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to
give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our
children.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have four petitions to present.
The first petition I am pleased to present is one from a number
of people in my constituency who signed a petition asking
parliament to use budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to
improve the well-being of Canada's children.
They also request that parliament fulfil the 1989 commitment to
end child poverty by the year 2000. I have had this petition on
my desk since before Christmas and it is now past the year 2000
mark.
VIOLENT CRIMES
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 467 people from my
riding of Prince Albert who are calling on parliament to repeal
the expensive and ineffective firearms legislation and to
redirect the funds to more cost effective measures aimed at
reducing violent crime and improving public safety.
In the petition they list a number of ways in which this could
be accomplished.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition concerns strengthening private property rights.
The petitioners support the strengthening of property rights in
Canada.
They call upon parliament to guarantee that all people will have
the right to enjoy their property, the right not to be deprived
of it without fair compensation, and the right to appeal when
their rights have been infringed upon.
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth petition concerns young offenders. It has been signed by
a number of my constituents who wish to express their deep
concern about crimes committed by youth.
They call upon parliament to bring in new laws to deal with the
problem and request that existing laws be vigorously enforced.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from about 200 Canadians from all
parts of the country on the issue of child poverty and the
resolution of the House in November 1989.
They call upon parliament to use the federal budget this year,
2000, to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of
Canada's children.
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 to present three petitions.
The first petition is on behalf of a number of residents
throughout western Canada. They are saying that if we want to
actually save some money to the tune of at least $15 million a
year, a good thing to do would be to abolish the Senate which
would take care of that and I suspect make people across the
country an awful lot happier.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second petition goes on at some length
about people concerned about violent criminals.
They are asking the Parliament of Canada to amend the criminal
code to prevent people convicted of serious crimes from being
released from custody pending the hearing of their appeals except
in exceptional circumstances.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the third petition is about child
pornography. Like some of my colleagues have already indicated,
people are outraged about the recent developments concerning the
child pornography situation in British Columbia.
They are asking parliament to do whatever we can possibly do to
strengthen the laws relating to the possession of child
pornography and to ensure that it is never legalized.
* * *
1235
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 59 and 63.
.[Text]
Question No. 59—Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:
With respect to the federal government's sponsorship for La
tournée des 20, a cultural event taking place in the riding of
Brome—Missisquoi in 1999, can the government tell us: (a)
which federal government bodies contributed to the sponsorship;
(b) what amounts were awarded by these federal bodies to make
up the sponsorship; (c) for how many years the federal
government has been contributing financially to La tournée des
20; and (d) what amounts were contributed by Ottawa in each of
these years?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): (a) Public Works and Government Services
Canada; (b) $10,000; (c) one year; and (d) 1999, $10,000.
Question No. 63—Mr. John Williams:
Regarding the Canadian Rock Festival listed on page 10.4, Volume
II, Number II, of the Public Accounts of Canada 1997-98: (a)
where and when was the festival held; (b) how much did the
federal government spend or contribute to the event; (c) what
was received in return for the federal government's contribution;
(d) who appeared at the festival; (e) how much were the
performance fees per act; (f) why are the six groups or
individuals listed going to be compensated for potential legal
liability, and (g) what was the federal government liable for?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): (a)
The Canadian Rock Festival listed on page 10.4, Volume II, Number
II, of the Public Accounts of Canada 1997-98 did not take place.
It had been scheduled for Mexico City, December 7 to 14, 1997.
(b) $27,113.36.
(c) The festival was to promote Canadian rock music and
products, CDs and videos, as part of the program marketing
Canadian cultural products abroad. The groups which were
scheduled to participate are business organizations with products
for sale. In addition to live performances the groups were to
meet Mexican distributors, Mexican wholesalers and retailers,
carry out promotional activities and meet with the Mexican
cultural media.
(d) As the event was cancelled, no groups appeared. The groups
scheduled to appear were: BTK, Joe's Funeral, superGARAGE,
Surrender Dorothy, RED and By Divine Right.
(e) No performance fees were paid by the Government of Canada.
(f) Since the event was cancelled on extremely short notice the
groups were compensated for non-refundable airline tickets and
other incurred travel costs.
(g) The groups were provided ex gratia payments to cover the
cost of the non-refundable airline tickets they had purchased and
not used as well as incurred travel costs.
[English]
* * *
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 13, 14 and 58.
Due to the number of responses today, I ask that all three
starred questions be printed in Hansard as read.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
print the answers to the three Starred Question Nos. 13, 14 and
58 as read?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
*Question No. 13—Mr. Jim Hart:
With respect to the Sea King shipborne helicopter which entered
into service with the Canadian Armed Forces in 1963: (a)
what was their original estimated operational lifespan; (b)
what is their current estimated operational lifespan; (c)
what measures are being taken to extend the operational life of
the Sea King fleet; and (d) what are the operational
capabilities of the current fleet in the following areas;
(i) radius of action, (ii) endurance, (iii) flight in icing,
(iv) weapons stations, (v) MAD, (vi) data
recording, (vii) EMP/TREE, (viii) aircraft
self-protection suite, and (ix) sonobuoy relay?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (a) The original
estimated operational lifespan of the Sea King was 15,000 hrs or
25 years, 1988.
(b) The current lifespan of the Sea King has recently been
extended to 2005. The aircraft with the most flying hours totals
12,011 hours. The average flying hours for the fleet is
approximately 10,511.
(c) The following measures are being taken to extend the
operational life of the Sea King:
i. Center Section Repair: This involves replacement of the Main
lift frames of the helicopter required as a result of fatigue
cracking. Repairs to 19 of the 30 aircraft have already been
completed. The replacement of the main lift frames for the
remainder of the fleet should be completed by may 2002. Each
replacement is performed concurrent with the
ongoing third line repair and overhaul contract.
ii. T-58-100 Engine Upgrade: This involves replacing components
of the T-58-8F model engine that are no longer available with
parts that are more readily available and in widespread
commercial use. The upgrade, which also provides more engine
power, is performed concurrent with the ongoing third line repair
and overhaul contract. Five of 30 aircraft have been fitted with
the upgraded engine; upgrades on the remaining aircraft in the
fleet are to be completed by May 2002.
iii. T-58 Engine No. 4 Bearing Housing: This involves replacing
the current bearing housing as the part is no longer available.
This replacement started in 1997 concurrent with the ongoing
third line repair and overhaul contract.
iv. Main Gearbox Upgrade: This involves upgrading the main
gearbox with more durable internal components and an improved
lubrication system, required as a result of flight safety
concerns—such as incidents where the gearbox overheated—and the
T-58-100 engine upgrade. One of 30 aircraft has been modified
with the modification of the remaining aircraft in the fleet to
commence in January 2000, to be completed by July 2002.
v. ASN-123 Tactical Navigation System Replacement: This involves
replacing the obsolete ANS-501 TACNAV computer with the ASN-123
TACNAV, which is a more modern system. The replacement started in
1997, concurrent with the existing second line periodic
inspection effort, at 12 Wing, CFB Shearwater.
vi. DC Power Upgrade: This involves either replacing the
transformer rectifier units with solid state devices that are
more compatible with some of the more modern avionics recently
installed or using in-line-noise suppression filters to clean up
the aircraft power. Both options are currently under review.
Prototype design and installation should occur in fiscal year
1999-2000, with modifications on the remainder of the fleet to
commence in fiscal year 2000-2001.
vii. Emergency Inverter Replacement: Repair parts for the
inverter that is currently being used are becoming increasingly
difficult to purchase. Prototype design and installation will
occur in fiscal year 1999-2000, with replacement on the fleet to
commence in fiscal year 2000-2001.
(d) i. & ii. Radius of Action and Endurance: In an
anti-submarine warfare configuration, 2 hours 15 minutes, plus 30
minute reserve, and in a surveillance configuration, 2 hours 52
minutes, plus 30 minute reserve.
iii. Flight in Icing: No capability.
iv. Weapons Stations: Two external stations, each capable of one
MARK 46 torpedo.
v. MAD—Magnetic Anomaly Detection: Seven of 30 aircraft
fitted—CH124B model and operational test and evaluation
aircraft.
vi. Data Recording: No mission data recording capability:
Commercial video cassette recorder, VCR, available for recording
forward looking infra red, FLIR, data.
vii. EMP/TREE—Electro-Magnetic Pulse/Transient Radiation
Electrical Effects: No capability.
viii. Aircraft Self-protection Suite: Not fitted. Prototype
system fitted and tested in one aircraft. Prototype requires
additional engineering.
ix. Sonobuoy relay: One channel 5 minute transmit per 15 minute
wait—limitation is high frequency, HF, radio duty cycle.
*Question No. 14—Mr. Jim Hart:
What were the operational capabilities in the statement of
requirements for the cancelled EH-101 helicopter in the following
areas: (i) radius of action, (ii) endurance, (iii) flight in
icing, (iv) weapons stations, (v) MAD, (vi) data recording, (vii)
EMP/TREE, (viii) aircraft self-protection suite and (ix) sonobuoy
relay?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (i) Radius of Action:
—Sub-surface
surveillance: 100 nautical mile transit, 1.5 hours
on station, 30 minute attack, 100 nautical mile transit, 30
minute fuel reserve;
—Surface
surveillance: 40 nautical mile transit, 4 hours on
station, 40 nautical mile transit, 20 minute fuel reserve.
(ii) Endurance:
—Sub-surface surveillance: 4 hours 10 minutes—3 hours 40
minutes, plus 30 minute safety reserve;
—Surface surveillance: 5 hours 10 minutes—4 hours 40 minutes
plus 30 minute safety reserve).
(iii) Flight in icing: Equipment required to permit continuous
flight operations in icing conditions at pressure altitudes up to
and including 10,000 ft.
(iv) Weapons Stations: Two external 1,500 lb. weapon stations,
each capable of carrying one MARK 46 torpedo or next generation
weapon.
(v) MAD—Magnectic Anomaly Detection: Essential.
(vi) Data recording: Aircraft must have equipment that is
capable of recording passive and active acoustics, forward
looking infra red, FLIR, electronic warfare, communications and
mission data, and must be equipped with cockpit voice
recorder/flight data recorder, CVR/FDR.
(vii) EMP/TREE—Electro-Magnetic Pulse/Transient Radiation
Electrical Effects. Essential that aircraft have the capability
to continue operations after being subjected to EMP and TREE.
(viii) Aircraft Self-protection Suite: Essential that an
electronic warfare sub-system and self-protection countermeasures
are provided.
(ix) Sonobuoy Relay: Essential that a single channel sono-relay
capability be provided.
*Question No. 58—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
With regard to the $1.5
billion in assistance that the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food pledged to farmers under the agricultural income
disaster assistance program, AIDA, what has the government
determined to be the amount paid out to Saskatchewan farmers as
of November 30, 1999?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the Hourse of Commons, Lib.): As of December 1,
1999, $100,717,300 had been paid out to Saskatchewan farmers.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the
Municipal Grants Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Ottawa government has finally put before the House of Commons
Bill C-10, respecting payments in lieu of taxes.
The need for such legislation has been obvious for years, and
the issue has been studied several times over the last five
years.
However, the wheels of government, as we know, grind exceedingly
slow when it is not seeking to encroach upon the rights of
provinces, as in the case of the so-called clarity bill.
In this case, of course, the government moved quickly, even to
the point of imposing closure, as it did yesterday. But better
late than never. The Minister of Public Works and Government
Services has finally recognized the need to legislate, and I
quote from clause 2.1 “to provide for the fair and equitable
administration of payments in lieu of taxes”.
For 50 years, the federal government, as everyone knows, has
been making payments in lieu of property taxes to municipalities
with regard to federal properties.
Except for some reservations, which are reflected in our
amendments, we consider Bill C-10 to be an improvement over the
existing Municipal Grants Act.
Under the new act and regulations, crown corporations will have
to pay interest on arrears and supplementary payments just like
departments. Crown corporations will also have to make payments
when their tenants do not fulfil their obligations. This is
obviously a step forward.
Currently, the municipalities' finances are in order. The same
would be true of higher levels of government if the rule the
municipalities must abide by had been followed, a rule that
every head of household knows very well: Never borrow money to
buy groceries.
However, the drastic cuts in transfers to the provinces by the
federal government have had compelled Quebec to share the
financial consequences with the municipalities, in addition to
putting the health care and education systems in jeopardy.
Therefore, payments in lieu of taxes made by the federal
government represent a greater share than ever of revenue in
many municipalities, including the six cities in my riding.
Of course, Bill C-10 does not go as far as to force Ottawa to
make payments in lieu of taxes to cities and villages on the
basis of the municipal evaluation rolls, as is the case for all
the taxpayers. That would be asking too much. Rather, the real
progress achieved in this bill is the extension of the type of
structures covered by these grants and the reduced arbitrariness
in the determination of amounts to be paid.
1240
Our amendments are designed to improve the law and, since they
are based on common sense, I am confident all my colleagues will
approve them. Some were mentioned this morning by my colleague,
the member for Saint-Jean. Among the other amendments that were
tabled, one aims at defining more accurately certain terms
which, because of their ambiguity, might be open to dispute when
the legislation is implemented.
We are also asking for a statutory review of the law on a
regular basis. This review is important because it will allow us
to follow up and make appropriate changes. With this review, the
municipalities will also be able to express their views clearly
and directly.
In conclusion, the bill before us is good, and it will be made
even better by our amendments. We are living and will
increasingly be living in a universe where the globalisation of
the economy and the levelling of cultures will threaten the
individual in his heartfelt sentiment of belonging to his
community.
After his family, his municipality is the community with which
he has the closest ties. I am thinking here mostly of the cities
in my riding, which are large enough to provide their citizens
with all the services they need and, at the same time, small
enough to maintain warm human relations instead of seeing them
lost and diluted because of high numbers.
But this community must have sufficient resources, and that the
buildings owned by the two levels of government actually not pay
the full cost of the utilities provided to them, the same
services provided to the residents, that is security, water,
roads, and so on.
With Bill C-10, the federal government is encouraged to take on a
fair share of those expenses. Our party will vote in favour of
this bill and do everything it can to see that it is implemented
as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a couple of comments on the way the bill is
being administered. Everyone in the House basically agrees that
it should go ahead and that the bill has merit. The Federation
of Canadian Municipalities, even though it has some concerns, is
in favour of seeing the bill go ahead, but the government has not
invoked time allocation as it has done close to 60 times when
anyone wanted to talk about something that it did not agree with.
I commend my colleague, the critic for this department, on his
work on Bill C-10. The bill is highly technical. I congratulate
him on his analysis and on the amendments he has proposed which
have been designed primarily to increase ministerial
accountability. Given what has gone on in the House in the last
week, ministerial accountability is a virtue sadly lacking in
some departments, in particular HRDC.
Grants seem to be a feature of life where the government is
concerned. When granting procedures are as unstructured as they
seem to be in HRDC—and they are certainly not mentioned in
law—and a program is put together to please someone, there is
political pressure, allegations of corruption, favouritism and
those kinds of things. I feel the bill goes a long way toward
addressing some of those concerns.
We would not want the industry minister, for instance, to make
decisions without guidelines when he is handing over taxpayer
money. He had in his mind that he would turn over about $20
million of Canadian taxpayer funds.
However, people felt their wallets getting a little lighter. They
felt the industry minister rifling through their wallets and they
were an uproar. Without a structured plan in place these kinds
of abuses can take place.
1245
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is to be commended for
putting the pressure on the minister to come forward with
guidelines.
The two certainties in life are death and taxes. In
Saskatchewan we are seeing the death of many communities because
of the state of our economy. The amount taxpayers have to pay is
often not known because of uncertainties in income going to
municipalities. This bill will address those uncertainties.
Municipal governments have been at the mercy of federal
governments when making decisions on what buildings they will be
given grants in lieu of taxes and on the amount of the grant.
This will help a lot.
The bill attempts to address a problem that is in our
constitution, which exempts the federal government and crown
corporations from paying municipal taxes on their properties. It
took from the date the constitution was written until 1950 to get
something in law to establish a program of grants in lieu of
taxes. Up until then everything was left up to ministerial
accountability. As I said previously, that has created no end of
difficulties for municipalities because they do things much the
same way as HRDC does and the way the industry minister has
attempted to do things. People need certainty in their lives
beyond death and taxes. They need to know when the money is
coming to them.
The Reform Party has proposed a number of amendments. Motion No.
4 reminds us that the bill currently reads that the minister may
make payments. One of the things we do not agree with in the
legislation is the minister having the ability to make the
decision without being held accountable somewhere and in some
way.
In order to hold the minister accountable for any changes in the
payment or for the lack of payment, this motion would require the
minister to sit down and write to the taxing authority, which
would be the local government, the reasons for the changes or the
withholding. Local governments need to be given a certain level
of respect by this place. Currently, that does not often happen.
We can see that in the way payments in lieu of taxes are handled.
Motion No. 5 reads that it is up to the opinion of the minister
to decide whether or not a payment has been unreasonably delayed.
We want to lessen the minister's discretion in that area so it
is not based just on his opinion. The requirement in Motion No.
5 is that the minister provide written reasons to the taxing
authority if he decides not to make a supplementary payment. This
provision would hold a minister of the crown accountable for
decisions that he or his department has made. He would not be
able to just simply say “Well, it is my opinion. You have to
live with it. That is as good as it is going to get”. It can
get a lot better if the minister has to sit down and explain his
reasons.
Throughout the bill we see “in the opinion” or “may” or
something like that. My colleague's amendments are based on
holding a minister to a standard that requires him to make a
rational decision and to put it in writing so that the taxing
authority can make the decision known to the people they
represent. They are after all going to the same well as the
federal government. When they have to increase taxes, the people
should know why.
Motion No. 8 deals with discretion as to the method of payment.
This would again require the minister to provide written reasons
to the taxing authority. It also provides for ministerial
accountability. Why was the method of payment chosen by the
minister? Can it be made in annual instalments? Yes, it can.
Can it be made with interest if it is on an annual instalment?
Yes, it can. Can it be made in a lump sum payment without
interest? Again, the answer is yes. Does the minister have to
say why he chose to do it that way? No, the minister does not.
This amendment should make it possible for the local authority to
find out why the minister made the decision that he made.
1250
There are three government agencies, the Royal Canadian Mint,
Canada Post and CMHC, that hold property in local communities. We
would like to see these agencies make payments in lieu of taxes
as well. In order to do that at the present time, it would
require an order in council, which would give the minister far
too much discretion because of the way these types of things are
done.
Motion No. 16 provides for crown corporation accountability with
regard to non-payment in lieu of taxes. Like the minister, crown
corporations may make payments in lieu of taxes. And again,
without constitutional amendment, the bill cannot read that they
must make payments. However, there are ways to get around that.
In order to provide for some level of accountability, crown
corporations should be required to provide, in writing to the
taxing authority, their reasons for non-payment.
We have a number of concerns over inconsistencies that the
government is able to introduce into its method of making
payments to taxes. In one instance it can get out from under a
requirement one way or it can basically lead a municipality
around without letting it know why it is doing what it is doing.
The last motion deals with how the advisory panel provides
advice to the ministry. The minister may accept or reject the
advisory committee's advice, and that is acceptable. After all,
that is what advisory committees do, is advise based on the best
information they can get. However, the minister does not have to
provide a rationale for why she or he accepts that information.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 1. All those in favour of Motion No. 1 will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
1 lost.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
1255
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I therefore declare
Motions Nos. 9, 12 and 19 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
2 lost.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 4. All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry. Let us
go right back to the beginning, if we may. It was a close vote.
In my wisdom, or lack
thereof, I determined that the yeas had it, which then created a
problem on the division. We have a choice and I need to get the
mood of the House. We can go back to the beginning.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am going to have
to catch the mood of the House. I will ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to revert to the vote on Motion
No. 4. Do I have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I do not. On a
voice vote I had determined that the yeas had it. I need to make
sure I do this absolutely correctly.
I will have to pay particular attention to make sure that my
right ear is more attuned. We are in a situation now where the
recorded division on the motion will stand deferred. Depending
on the circumstances that come later in the day, we will deal
with it with a recorded division on the motion.
A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question in on Motion No. 7. All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
1300
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply
to Motions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 15 negatived
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on
Motion No. 41. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 41 negatived
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on
Motion No. 42. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 42
lost.
Motion No. 42 negatived
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on
Motion No. 43. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 43
lost.
Motion No. 43 negatived
1305
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on
Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 44 negatived
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier this day, the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed
moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 3 and 20 to
40 inclusive.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 36 on
page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 22
to 24 on page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 22
to 24 on page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 24 on
page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 24 on
page 13 with the following:
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36
on page 13 the following:
“(2.1) Where the advisory panel gives advice to the Minister
under subsection (2) and the Minister decides not to accept that
advice in exercising any power under this Act in respect of the
subject-matter of that advice, the Minister shall, without delay,
provide the advisory panel and the taxing authority in respect of
whom the advice was given, with written reasons for that
decision.”
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36
on page 13 the following:
“(2.1) The Minister shall, within thirty days after advice
is received, cause a copy of the advice to be published in the
Canada Gazette.”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36
on page 13 the following:
“(2.1) The advisory panel shall make available to the public
any advice it gives under subsection (2).”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36
on page 13 the following:
“(2.1) The Minister shall make available to the public any
advice received from the advisory panel.”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36
on page 13 the following:
“(2.1) For greater certainty, the advisory panel shall give
advice on the basis of any relevant evidence and after consulting
with all interested parties.”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36
on page 13 the following:
“(2.1) The advisory panel shall also give the Minister
advice concerning any real property or immovables developed or
used as a public highway that, in the opinion of the Minister,
does not provide, as its primary function, immediate access to
real property or immovables owned by Her Majesty in right of
Canada, and this advice shall be made public as soon as
possible.”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, lines 39 and 40 on page 13 with the following:
“(3) Le président assure la supervision du comité et dirige
les activités et le fonctionnement de celui-ci.”
That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 40 on page 13 with the following:
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated during debate on the first group of amendments, this
bill has a lot of merit and a lot of support from the
municipalities in Canada, and we want to register that support.
However, there are improvements that can be made to the bill.
We are now addressing the motions in Group No. 2 and I wish to
address my remarks specifically to Motion No. 33, which is the
motion dealing with the advisory panel. I would like the folks
watching the debate this afternoon to be aware of exactly what
this section provides. I will read clause 11.1(2) of the
proposed bill. Clause 11.1(1) establishes an advisory panel and
11.1(2) deals with the mandate of the advisory panel. It reads:
The advisory panel shall give advice to the Minister in the event
that a taxing authority disagrees with a property value, property
dimension or effective rate applicable to any federal property,
or claims that a payment should be supplemented under subsection
3(1.1).
The creation of an advisory panel of this type is a commendable
move. It brings into existence a mechanism which would allow the
minister to test his particular orientation and also that of his
officials so they could look at the assessment being proposed and
the amount of taxation being levelled against particular
properties and make sure that the advice has the benefit of
consultation and expertise. There are some very good reasons for
that.
I will give an example. I referred earlier to the case dealing
with the Halifax Citadel. In this case Public Works and
Government Services Canada agreed to pay for part of the
building, that part which was designated as shelter, but it was
not prepared to pay the other part. I commend the department for
recognizing that there is a difference, but we get into some
difficulty in interpreting exactly how we go about making the
determination as to where the shelter begins and ends.
The suggestion was made by departmental officials that this
interpretation, which is essentially a civil one, should be done
through the civil courts. That is not a bad suggestion, as I
said earlier this morning. However, there is a better and a much
less costly suggestion, which is the advisory panel. It could
come to grips with this very nicely. Its members would be
business people. There are some suggestions that there would be
professional assessors on the panel and some legal people, so
this could all be done with competence, by people who are well
versed in this area. Let them do the work rather than going
through the legal channels of the court system.
The Citadel is an immediate case that could come to the
attention of this panel.
The other example is Sable Island. In this controversy the
department has stopped payment altogether. It has simply said
that it is not paying any taxes until it knows to whom it is
supposed to pay the taxes.
Who has jurisdiction in this area? Is it the province? Is it
the federal government? To what degree are the respective groups
responsible?
1310
That of course would not be a problem for HRDC. It would simply
pay, but that is not the case here.
I commend the minister for taking responsible action, but what I
would like to do, and what the Reform Party wants to do, is to
make sure that there are precautionary measures which would allow
the minister to be sure that he is accountable and that these
kinds of things do not disappear.
I want to refer to the amendment because I think it is
important. What we would really like to do is add a section
which would follow immediately after the provision for the
establishment of the panel to ensure that the panel provides
advice to the minister. The way the act reads now, the minister
may accept that advice, he may reject it, he may simply ignore
it, or he may amend it. What we are suggesting in the amendment
is that where the advisory panel gives advice to the minister
under subsection (2) and the minister decides not to accept that
advice in exercising any power under this act in respect of the
subject matter of that advice, the minister shall without delay
provide the advisory panel and the taxing authority in respect of
whom the advice was given with written reasons for that decision.
Why do we believe that written reasons are so important? I
think there is a very good example that came out of the audit of
HRDC.
I will refer to two lines of that report, which say that the
original dollar value of the agreement was amended in one-third
of the projects. That is one in three. These are agreements
that came out of HRDC and money was given to these projects. The
amount of money was reviewed, and in most cases it was revised
upward. In 36% of these cases there were no reasons given for
the change in dollars awarded. The people asked for an amount of
money, they got more, and there is no documentation as to why
those amendments were made.
There is another example. I will read directly from the
auditor's report. When it comes to the monitoring or the
overseeing of projects, “some program officers expressed the
opinion that financial monitoring was not required if the results
were achieved within the agreed budget”.
What that really means, or could mean, is that there is
absolutely no accounting. As long as they did not spend any more
money than they were given on a particular project everything
would be okay. Whether the results actually were achieved is
another issue. Whether they actually did not have to spend all
the money on that project was not important either. If they
provided an inflated budget and the HRDC people, or whoever was
doing this, granted the full amount, and they actually achieved
the results and only needed half of the money, or a portion of
that money, then that was perfectly all right. That is
irresponsible.
When people in a business have a budget for certain expenditures
for equipment, installation or services that are provided for
that business, and it will cost roughly $10,000 to do it, and
then they discover as they go along that it really will cost only
$8,000, what do they do with the $2,000? Do they automatically
take that $2,000 and let it disappear, or do they apply it in
another way and let it come back to be disposed of in a way that
is most beneficial to the business?
There is no doubt in my mind that a private entrepreneur would
take that money and reapply it and not automatically inflate the
expenditures in that area to meet the allocated budgetary
provision.
That is precisely what we are looking at here. That is one
area.
The other thing we are looking at is to make sure that the
minister, while having tremendous discretionary power given to
him by the constitution, the law of this land, which is to
protect the interests of the people of Canada, is accountable and
transparent, and that the processes are such that they are fair
and equitable to all concerned.
That would be good for the municipalities. That would be good
for the provinces. That would be good for the minister. That
would be good for the government. It is time we brought about
some fairness and equity in all of these cases.
Where a minister is not required to take a particular and
specific requirement that he must pay, he at least must provide
reasons for what he did or did not do.
1315
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened
with great interest to what my colleague from the Reform Party
has had to say. His remarks were totally relevant.
The Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-10, although we
might have liked to have seen a little less discretionary power
left with the minister, a little more of a framework for the
minister, just for the sake of transparency. I believe the
municipalities would have been pleased to see that.
Unfortunately, apparently out of concern for efficiency, the
minister's discretion will be exercised a bit more in the
shadows. That is the major reason why the Reform Party and our
own party felt some reluctance to pass the bill.
That is why I had proposed so many amendments, in order for the
committees set up by the minister under the act to include
people with expertise in assessing and surveying property in the
various ridings. That was the primary purpose of the amendments
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
Unfortunately, they were not accepted, apparently out of concern
for reaching a decision as efficiently and rapidly as possible.
We bow to that argument in the end, because we are aware that
the municipalities are anxious to see the bill adopted at all
stages.
We will not delay its passing, but I would nevertheless make a
recommendation to my colleague over there, the government House
leader. Next time, in order to avoid a debate like the one we
have been having today, he might suggest to his ministers that
the bill include provisions to make it transparent, unlike the
goings on at the present time in Human Resources Development.
I think everyone would stand to gain from this. The
municipalities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities also,
would agree with such a proposal, as would all of the
stakeholders.
I am the last Bloc Quebecois member to speak. We can move on to
passing this bill, with the hope that the municipalities will
find what they want in it, after such a long wait.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address a couple of issues raised in this last
portion of the debate.
It is true that the panel's recommendations would not be binding
but we must understand that the property of Canada was exempt
from taxation under the Constitution Act, 1867 and federal
payments in lieu of taxes remain at the discretion of the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The
discretionary powers of the minister under the act may not be
delegated to another body. There is no doubt however the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services would place a
high value on the advice of the panel which will be structured to
be as independent as possible from the Department of Public Works
and Government Services.
In respect to making the recommendations of the panel public, I
would like to remind members of the House that the panel's
recommendations will be provided simultaneously to the minister
and the taxing authority which requested the review.
In summary, this bill ensures the prompt payment of taxes. It
provides certainty. It gives structures for dispute mechanisms
and an ongoing joint technical advisory committee. It has the
full support of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The
government has accepted amendments at committee. All parties
except the Reform Party are satisfied with the bill in its
present form.
The government respectfully suggests that the bill be adopted in
its present form without amendment.
1320
I would like to give my personal compliments to the minister who
travelled around the country to get input from all
municipalities, the departmental staff who have done an amazingly
good job of putting everybody's requests into the bill and
particularly the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which
co-operated so effectively.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
3 lost. I therefore declare motion No. 38 lost.
(Motion No. 3 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
20 lost.
(Motion No. 20 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
21 lost.
(Motion No. 21 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
22 lost.
(Motion No. 22 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
23 lost.
(Motion No. 23 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
24 lost.
(Motion No. 24 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
25 lost.
(Motion No. 25 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
26 lost.
(Motion No. 26 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 27 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
28 lost.
(Motion No. 28 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
29 lost.
(Motion No. 29 negatived)
1325
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
30 lost.
(Motion No. 30 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
31 lost.
(Motion No. 31 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
32 lost.
(Motion No. 32 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion 33. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 39. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
39 lost.
(Motion No. 39 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 40. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
40 lost.
(Motion No. 40 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Normally at this
time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However the
recorded divisions stand deferred until February 14 at the end of
government orders.
* * *
[Translation]
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
The House resumed from February 9, consideration of the motion
relating to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act
to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential
amendments to another act.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
come to the end of a week of parliamentary work marked by
interesting and less interesting moments, including the adoption
of a closure motion to shorten debate on Bill C-20 and second
reading of this bill, which the Bloc Quebecois considers
anti-democratic.
The Bloc Quebecois would nevertheless, as is its practice, want
to show the people of Quebec and Canada that it knows how to act
constructively before this parliament and give its support when
it is appropriate to do so to bills introduced here.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is saying once again in this
House that it supports Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal
Records Act.
There can be no doubt—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt,
but this is probably the appropriate time to end debate for
today.
1330
[English]
It being 1.30 p.m, the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should adopt a
national housing strategy and housing supply program, in
co-operation with the provinces, that recognizes housing as a
human right and meets the goal of providing an additional one
percent of federal budgetary spending to meet basic housing needs
in Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a homeless man died. He
died alone underneath a park bench huddling to protect himself
from the blistering cold winds of winter. He died a few hundred
yards from where we stand today. He died behind the Chateau
Laurier in the shadow of Parliament Hill.
Unfortunately, this story is not unusual. Homeless men and
women are dying in cities and towns right across Canada: Robert
Cote; Eugene Upper; Irwin Anderson; Gino Laplante; Mirsalah-Aldin
Kompani; Lynn Maureen Bluecloud; Al; Vernon Crow; Jens Drape.
These are just a few of the names of those we have lost to the
homelessness crisis.
I read their names into the record of this House because it is
this House and the Liberal majority in it that failed them.
It is this government that must bear the responsibility for this
terrible loss. It is their retreat from social housing
construction and their steadfast refusal to initiate a national
housing strategy and supply program that has contributed to a
housing crisis that has ballooned out of control.
Canada is the only developed country in the world without a
national housing strategy. What a disgrace. As parliamentarians
we come to Ottawa to enact laws and to push forward policy that
will better the lives of all the people of Canada, the rich and
the poor. But I say today, the rich can care for themselves. It
is on behalf of the poor that we must work the hardest, because
in a country as wealthy as ours nobody should be forced to live
out of doors, to beg for food, or to die on the streets.
That is why I introduced this motion, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should adopt a
national housing strategy and housing supply program, in
co-operation with the provinces, that recognizes housing as a
human right and meets the goal of providing an additional one
percent of federal budgetary spending to meet basic housing needs
in Canada.
The root cause of homelessness is lack of housing. It is as
simple as that. Housing activists have said it, reports have
confirmed it, homeless families know it and yet the government
refuses to act on it.
Canadians know what needs to be done. We need the government to
commit to a national housing strategy, a strategy that calls for
the following: a federal investment of an additional 1% of
overall spending on housing, or $2 billion annually; a national
approach that is national in scope and in vision. That means no
more patchwork solutions.
We need a return to the supply of social, not for profit and
co-op housing. The federal government has not built any new or
co-op housing units since 1993.
Ottawa must heed the call of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities and take the lead by funding a new housing program
that would create 70,000 units each year for 10 years.
I know the Liberal members will stand up in the House today and
point to the announcement made by the minister responsible for
homelessness in December and argue that it is sufficient to deal
with this crisis. I am sad to report that this is absolutely
untrue.
On December 17 the minister responsible for homelessness went to
Toronto to announce a three year $753 million homelessness
strategy. The problem was that she left out the homes. It is
like agreeing to build the house but cutting off the money before
the roof is on.
After months of travelling and consulting and with a projected
$100 billion budgetary surplus at their disposal, the Liberals
only announced one new program: the supporting communities
partnership initiative.
It is a $305 million investment but it is over three years.
Beyond that, the details remain very hazy. Most people have
interpreted it to be a source of matching federal funds for a
patchwork of one time local projects. The rest of this so-called
new money targeted to existing emergency and RRAP programs will
go toward shelters and temporary beds.
1335
Will the Liberal plan announced so far solved the homelessness
and housing crisis in Canada? It will not. The reason it will
not is because it fails to reverse the government's fateful 1993
decision to withdraw from social housing construction.
The Liberal solution it appears is to institutionalize shelters,
and that is no solution at all. By offering their support to
this motion, members of the House of Commons can rectify that
mistake. We can send a message to the finance minister that we
want to see a real commitment to end the housing crisis on
February 28 when the minister rises to outline his government's
budget priorities.
Instead of handing out tax breaks for their wealthy friends, the
Liberals should direct some of the projected $100 billion surplus
to social housing construction. If they forgo on just one of
their proposed tax breaks, the elimination of the 5% surtax on
people who earn over $65,000 a year, the diverted dollars could
build 10,000 desperately needed social and co-op housing units.
Furthermore, based on research by the House of Commons research
branch, if the government met the goal of the 1% solution
advocated by this motion and by others the initiative would
employ 44,550 Canadians each year for 10 years.
The upcoming federal budget is an opportunity for the finance
minister to recall his own words of 1990, a decade ago. Then in
official opposition and as chair of the Liberal Party's task
force on housing, he condemned the government of the day, the
Mulroney government, for doing nothing while the housing crisis
continued to grow out of control. This is what he said:
That is what the now finance minister had to say a decade ago.
Three years later, the now finance minister steamrolled his own
report and in its place introduced a budget that slashed all
federal funding for the creation of new social housing units.
This single act meant that 75,000 new social housing units that
had been targeted for construction were never built, a decision
that has denied tens of thousands of families the right to decent
and affordable housing. What an absolute shameful act.
It is time to right that wrong. It is time to admit that this
decision was not only short-sighted, it was shameful. If the
government refuses to admit that, if it continues to keep its
head in the sand, believing that band-aid solutions are the only
solutions worth funding, then the sad reality is that more people
will die.
I call on all members of the House to support this motion as a
way of sending a message. In doing so, they will be joining a
massive wave of support which has come in from across the
country. In truth, I have been overwhelmed by the public
outpouring of support for this motion and the 1% for housing
campaign.
Thousands of people lent their names to our petition and
postcard campaign in support of Motion No. 123. These are piled
up on my desk just as a sample of what has come in from across
the country. The petitions continue to flood into my office, and
that is not all. I have received hundreds of phone calls in my
Ottawa and Vancouver offices. Many people have called in simply
to express relief that housing is finally on the agenda. Hundreds
of other Canadians have contacted me by e-mail to lend support
or, in some cases, to share a story of how the housing crisis has
impacted on their life or on the life of a friend or loved one.
I know too that hundreds of letters and e-mails have gone to the
minister responsible for homelessness because people sent me the
copies of the letters they sent to her: people like Randall
Ducharme, who works in a shelter in Vancouver and met with the
minister responsible for homelessness when she travelled to
Vancouver in the summer.
1340
Randall wrote this message to the minister the day after he had
received news of yet another death, this time a teenager, “a
bright light” he says, who “succumbed to the perils of an
increasingly selfish Canada”. He letter reads:
Claudette, when you visited me at Dusk to Dawn—a Vancouver
shelter—in the summer of 99—you promised me something would be
done. Thus far your government has only applied more band-aid
solutions. Libby Davies has a motion that will enable the
government to set into motion a long-term solution that is in
line with the spirit of a Canada I can be proud of. I urge you
to support M 123.
Al Mitchell, who runs a shelter in Vancouver, says:
Has it occurred to anyone that that if existing programs were
adequate, we wouldn't be trying to get your attention to a
crisis!
I also received hundreds of letters, many from individuals and
many others from organizations, shelters, frontline housing
advocates, politicians and unions. The list is too long to go
through, but I would like to give an indication of some of the
kinds of support that came in.
The Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, which was the initial
champion of the 1% solution, has done an absolutely amazing job
in bringing the national disaster of homelessness to the
forefront of the public agenda.
We have support from the New National Housing Network and the
Tenants Rights Action Coalition in Vancouver.
I would particularly like to thank the Canadian Auto Workers
Union for its leadership. It launched its own national campaign
and actually put up $1 million to support housing. It showed
that it was very committed.
We also have the support of the National Anti-Poverty
Organization, the city of Nepean, the Canadian Federation of
Students, the Working Group on Poverty in Vancouver, the Street
Nurses Network in Toronto, the Canadian Mental Health
Association, the Calgary and District Labour Council, the
Canadian Labour Congress, the Centretown Citizens Ottawa
Corporation, the Alliance to End Homelessness in Ottawa, the B.C.
Government Employees Union, the Brunswick Street United Church in
Halifax, Hope Cottage in Halifax, the United Steelworkers of
America, the Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice, the city of
St. John's in Newfoundland, Lu'ma Native Housing Society, the
United Native Nations, the Kettle Friendship Society, the
Hospital Employees Union, the John Howard Society, the Community
Social Planning Council of Toronto, the Carleton Graduate
Students Association, the Franciscan Sisters of Atonement in
Vancouver, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and the Social
Planning Council of Winnipeg.
We have support from End Legislated Poverty, an organization
made up of groups in my home province of British Columbia working
to end poverty. They have sent a statement that I think is
representative of the overwhelming call to action expressed by
most of these groups. They said:
Emergency shelters provide immediate crisis services, but the
existing shelters are severely overburdened. Shelters are not
enough: we need real, long-term housing solutions.
Those are just a sampling and a fraction of the organizations
that have supported this motion.
The time has come to turn the disgrace of being the only
industrialized country without a housing strategy into a rallying
point for those of us who care about social justice and want to
live in a country governed by compassion, not contempt for those
struggling to make ends meet.
It is time to stop the desolation. It is time to curtail the
housing crisis in this country.
I call on all members of the House to support the community's
call for help. Homelessness is an unnatural disaster. It can be
solved if the political will exists.
I will end by asking if I have the consent of the House to make
this a votable motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Vancouver East has asked for the unanimous consent of the House
to make this motion a votable motion. Does the hon. member have
the consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the hon. member who is presenting this motion to the
House and, in particular, her appeal for the compassion in the
hearts of Canadians for the plight that exists on some of our
streets with the homeless people.
I really think that is noble.
1345
To ask for a strategy is also a good idea, but it assumes that
there is a policy which determines the overall focus and
direction of the government. Unfortunately, a strategy without a
policy to determine the focus really ends up being nothing more
than a program to throw money at a problem. Unfortunately, that
is precisely what the Liberal government is doing all the time.
It does not have a a focused program to deal with problems.
Whenever something happens that is a bit of a problem, the
government just throws money at it and thinks it will go away.
We have to look a bit deeper. What should a national housing
strategy really be achieving? I want to commend the hon. member
for bringing this forward. She has indicated very clearly that
Canada does not have a national housing policy. The Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not have a national housing
policy. The government does not have a housing policy.
There are all kinds of patchwork programs. Probably the most
blatant of these was the one announced on December 17. It was a
joint announcement made by the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and the Minister of Labour, who is
responsible for homelessness.
The motion suggests a national housing strategy. It suggests a
housing supply program. It suggests that housing is a human
right—and I agree that everybody has the right to shelter—and
it suggests that an additional 1% be added to the federal budget
to meet basic housing needs.
There is nothing wrong with looking at these things and saying
“This is what we should have”. The difficulty is that we do
not have anything that pulls all of this together. I would like
to suggest that the hon. member do that. Had she done that, we
might have come to a conclusion that would mean more than simply
throwing money at the problem. We might have actually come to
grips with what is at the heart of the issue and what needs to be
done.
We have a majority government. It can run anything it wants.
It has a surplus and it has the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, with all of its talents, abilities and research.
Why does the government not have a policy? It seems so obvious
that there should be a policy.
With the difficulty that the HRD minister finds herself in
today, I now know for sure what the problem is. The problem is
that if the government has a policy, a direction, an objective
and a focus, then it also can be held to account for achieving
that focus and that objective.
If it does not want to be held accountable, if it does not want
to be held responsible, if it does not want people to say “See,
you did not do it”, all it has to do is say that it does not
have a policy and throw a few dollars at the problem so the
people will be quiet and go home.
I think that is what is happening. We really have to be
careful.
Let me give a few examples. Look at the leaky condo situation
in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It is absolutely
unbelievable what is happening. We have had many conversations
about this. The buildings are rotting from the inside out
because there is a failure in the exterior envelope. It is
pretty obvious from all the discussions that have taken place
that errors were made by the builders, the inspectors and the
architects. Errors have been made virtually all along. The one
thing that is being avoided is placing the blame on the building
code.
Probably there is fault in all four areas. The building code is
at fault, the inspectors are at fault, the builder is at fault
and the architects are at fault. One of the insurance companies
that insures architects for errors and omissions has declined any
further renewal of policies for architects because it feels there
will be so many claims on the leaky condo issue.
Canada Mortgage and Housing, which has guaranteed these
mortgages through financial institutions, says it is not
responsible for anything that happens in these leaky condos, that
all it is insuring is the mortgage. In other words, it is saying
that its only legal obligation to the financial institution is
the repayment of the mortgage.
1350
I know that there are a lot of people who believe, perhaps
incorrectly, that when the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation grants them the assurance that it will repay the
loan, there is an understanding that the building which is being
mortgaged is sound and that they can depend on this. Obviously
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not think that
is right. Therefore, it feels it has no obligation. We will
find out if in fact there is no obligation.
There is another issue. The only person who is not protected is
the poor consumer.
We have to look at a lot of other areas to see why it is that
people are found on the streets. Why are there so many who are
homeless? There are many reasons for this. We could argue that
some of the social policies, both at the provincial and federal
levels, have failed and have thrown people on to the streets who
are unable to look after themselves. They have been told “Mind
your own business. Find your own food. Find your own shelter.
Find your own clothing”, when it was known fully well that they
could not do that.
We have to look at this very carefully. It is not a simple
matter of throwing money at the problem. We have to look at what
is the policy we should have.
What is the government policy that we should have? This is the
way the minister approached it. On December 17 he said:
I am pleased to provide you with the details of the contributions
of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation...to the Government of
Canada's strategy to address homelessness which was announced by
the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw and myself on December 17,
1999. Funding for existing housing renovation programs for
low-income households will be increased substantially and there
will also be several policy enhancements aimed at focusing some
of the additional spending more directly on homelessness.
In total, a further $311 million will be spent over four years
on these initiatives. This is in addition to the $300 million
over five years that I announced in 1998 for the Residential
Rehabilitation Assistance Program...the Emergency Repair
Program...and Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independence....The
$311 million in total funding is broken down as follows:
$200 million to double the current annual budget for RRAP...
$40 million over four years for a new component of RRAP to
facilitate the conversion of non-residential buildings to
residential use...
$28 million to double the current budget for On-Reserve RRAP over
four years...
$43 million in additional funding for the Shelter Enhancement
Initiative over four years (...$12 million per year for the
following three years) and an expansion of the program to include
shelters and second stage housing for youth.
By April 1st of next year, nearly $138 million per year will be
spent on CMHC housing renovation programs, compared to
approximately $60 million annually prior to this announcement.
This represents more than twice the amount that CMHC invested in
these programs in previous years.
Note the $138 million on CMHC housing renovation programs. It
was $60 million prior to this and now it is $138 million. How
many different ways does the government count the same dollars?
The hon. Minister of Labour, the federal co-ordinator for
homelessness, on December 17 announced $753 million to alleviate
and prevent homelessness. A cornerstone of that program is the
new supporting communities partnership initiative which will
amount to $305 million over three years. The total is $753
million. Of that total $305 million is new money. That is all.
The minister is saying she is doing all of these things, but in
reality about $400 million is simply being moved around. She is
doing something all right. She is moving money from one hand to
the other. That solves nothing. This is an insult to Canadians.
The national housing policy is a major issue for Canadians. The
government should be held to account and asked when it is going
to come up with a national housing policy that will work and
solve the problems. It should not just throw money at it. It
has done that for years and it has not solved anything.
1355
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate. I congratulate my NDP colleague for
introducing this motion in the House.
The subject at issue is no longer a secret to anyone. Recent
years spent fighting the government's budget deficit have hit
society's disadvantaged the hardest. It is therefore
appropriate, when the first fruits of this new budgetary era are
gathered, to think right off of those who have suffered most at
the hands of this government's policies.
The problem of social housing is one specific and eloquent
example of this government's approach in recent years.
Barely a few months after it took office, during its first
mandate, the Liberal Party decided unilaterally to get out of
social housing as of January 1, 1994.
This is when the government began negotiating with each of the
provinces and territories to move away from this responsibility,
knowing full well that these agreements did not meet the
provinces' real needs.
For Quebec, this arrangement comprises essentially a transfer of
management to the Société d'habitation du Québec for all social
housing funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
To fulfil that mandate, it gets nothing more than the funds
required to meet the CMHC's existing commitments regarding
existing housing units, which in no way meets the current needs
of the poorest households.
The provinces that have already signed on are getting a share of
CMHC's budget that is equal to or in excess of their demographic
weight or needs. As for Quebec, based on CMHC's budget
expenditures for 1995-96, it only receives an 18% share, while
its demographic weight is 24.5% and its needs amount to 27.4%.
Why is it so important to invest in social housing?
Between 1990 and 1995, the number of Canadian households
spending more than 50% of their income on housing went from
583,710 to 833,555, a 43% increase. We know that single-parent
families, persons living alone, young people under 25 and older
couples are very affected by the lack of affordable housing.
It is urgent that the federal government realize the scope of the
needs and give new moneys to the provinces, so that they can set
up an investment plan for social housing that will reflect the
realities of the neighbourhoods, cities and regions.
The federal government's withdrawal has had a negative impact,
particularly on women. Indeed, in the area of health, employment
insurance and other areas, women were hit particularly hard by
the cuts made by this Liberal government. Social housing is no
exception.
Being a woman and a tenant often means being unable to find good
quality housing at an affordable price. A recent document
prepared by FRAPRU shows the housing situation as lived by
women. The Liberals would do well to read that document.
Let me give two examples. I was stunned to learn that in
Drummondville, which is in the centre of Quebec and which is the
largest municipality in my riding, there are 2,370 households
with an average income of $20,640—with women being the primary
source of income in 44.7% of the cases, that are spending more
than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, 1,105 households,
or 20.9%, are spending more than half of their income on
housing.
1400
Let us not forget that, according to the government's criteria,
a household spending more than 30% of its income on housing is
paying too much for housing. Imagine when this figure climbs to
50% and higher.
Yet the economy of the city I represent is in good shape, proof
that housing is not just a problem in certain less fortunate
regions. It is a problem throughout Quebec, throughout Canada.
But there is worse—and I will give two examples—because, in the
Prime Minister's own riding, the situation is catastrophic.
Instead of favouring certain rich promoters in his region in
order to buy votes, the Prime Minister should look after the
poor, the least fortunate in his riding.
In Shawinigan, the main city in the Prime Minister's riding, the
average income of households where women are the primary earners
is $16,072. The figures show that 1,635 of them, or 55.5%,
spend over 30% of their income on housing and that 870
households, or 29.5%, spend over half.
I think that the Prime Minister cannot honestly be proud of the
situation of poor women who rent housing in the municipality of
Shawinigan, which he represents in the House. Their average
income of $16,072 is the lowest of the 59 cities studied by the
Front populaire pour le réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU.
On October 27, 1999, the Bloc Quebecois asked the minister
responsible for the homeless the following question:
—the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the homeless, is
the first to admit that the federal government has made cuts
that hurt the most disadvantaged.
Could the Minister tell us, of the cuts the government has made,
which ones most hurt those most disadvantaged in our society:
cuts to employment insurance, cuts to social housing or cuts to
the Canada social transfer, which forced the provinces to cut
services?
And here is her answer:
This is unbelievable. It is really hard to understand that, in
her visits to food banks and self help groups, the minister did
not realize that a large majority of people who go there do not
necessarily have psychiatric problems, but are simply poor. It
is unfortunate that the minister should make political hay on
the backs of those most in need and the homeless instead of
giving them back immediately the money her government has taken
away from them.
As if this contempt for the homeless were not enough, the
government has more than once used the Prime Minister's ways to
repel protesters who want to show how desperate they are and to
ask for assistance.
On the hill, the RCMP pepper sprayed protesters, and, a couple
weeks ago, force was used against several people who were trying
to deliver their message directly to the Prime Minister's
office. Some compassion.
Action is urgently required. Ten years ago, the federal
government promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
The year 2000 is here.
To make up for its broken promise, the government has to
understand that child poverty means there are also women and men
living in poverty. Some families have to cut back on basic
necessities and food to pay the rent.
Social housing is a crucial weapon in the fight against poverty.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand before the House today
on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and as the member
of parliament for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac to debate Motion No.
123.
1405
I believe that the lack of safe, secure, affordable housing is
one of the most important factors contributing to poverty for
many Canadians. I thank my colleague the member for Vancouver
East for presenting this very important motion to the House and
for giving us the opportunity to debate this growing problem.
Although we support this motion, I must add that we have some
concern regarding the requirement to spend exactly 1% of the
federal budget on housing needs. We believe that allocating an
exact amount without knowing what is needed is a problem when
indeed that amount may not even be sufficient to solve this
growing problem.
It is unfortunate this is not a votable motion.
To address this growing problem we need first and foremost a
national strategy to deal with homelessness. That strategy must
provide affordable housing and address the problem of growing
poverty. We need a plan to reduce homelessness with targets for
reducing poverty and an increase in the amount of affordable
housing available to Canadians.
Will that plan include the commitment of new finances? Of
course. We may need more than 1% of the federal budget or we may
need less. New money has to be part of an overall strategy to
wrestle this problem to the ground but it is not the answer in
itself.
Recognizing that there is a key link between economic policy and
social policy and that good social policy is good economic
policy, the PC Party of Canada has a long history of concern with
poverty and its consequences. For that reason on March 3, 1999
the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
announced the creation of the PC national caucus task force on
poverty.
Many members of our party caucus from both houses of parliament
held meetings across the country during the spring and summer of
last year to listen and learn from a wide variety of witnesses.
We were shocked by the conditions under which so many Canadians
are forced to live. However, we were inspired by their courage
and by their refusal to relinquish hope. We were awed by the
hard work and dedication of the many groups and individuals who
are striving for positive change.
The task force acknowledged that no single strategy, no matter
how well designed, could be expected to address all aspects of
what is an extremely complex, multifaceted and challenging
problem. It is also recognized that such an objective cannot be
accomplished overnight. Therefore the recommended initiatives
target the near, medium and longer term.
Flexibility is also required as is a mechanism by which to judge
the success of the strategy in reducing and eliminating poverty
in order that various components can be modified as necessary and
new ones added.
The key to the success of any attempt to address the causes and
consequences of poverty and homelessness in Canada is by
developing partnerships among the federal, provincial,
territorial and municipal governments, people living in poverty,
organizations representing them, and the business community.
While the task force's recommendations made it clear that it
does not have any desire to intrude on areas of provincial
responsibility, the federal government must play a facilitating
and leadership role with the support and co-operation of other
governments in Canada as well as the non-profit and business
sectors.
During these meetings witnesses made it abundantly clear that a
lack of safe, secure, affordable housing is one of the most
important factors contributing to and compounding the poverty of
many Canadians, and that action is desperately needed to ensure
that such housing is available to the thousands of Canadians who
are inadequately housed and homeless.
An income deficiency rather than a housing deficiency is at the
heart of inadequate housing and homelessness. People in poverty
have a housing problem not because there are not enough homes but
because there are not enough safe, secure affordable homes
relative to their level of income.
In our report several recommendations were made in regard to
support for children living in poor families, employment, income
support and taxation, housing and homelessness, special
assistance for vulnerable populations, support for the voluntary
non-profit sector, and accountability for results.
1410
Among the recommendations dealing with affordable housing, our
party's task force recommended that the federal government in
partnership with provincial, territorial and municipal
governments develop a national housing policy which acknowledges
the need for the federal government to be an active partner in
the provision of funding and leadership in the area of social
housing and commits Ottawa to provide the provinces and
territories with significantly increased funding to implement
programs designed to meet specific objectives in support of this
national housing policy.
A portion of this federal funding should be directed to new
co-operative housing supply programs and housing trusts. The
money that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is now
required as a result of the passage of Bill C-66 to pay the
government as compensation for the crown guarantee of its
mortgage insurance program should be reinvested instead in
affordable housing.
Such recommendations would ensure that a long term solution be
found for the growing shortage of affordable housing. By
undertaking a well managed affordable housing program, valuable
government moneys could well be spent to stem the chronic
shortage.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I notice that there is not a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
requested a quorum call. We are under a special order in which
there will be no quorum calls or dilatory motions, so it is to no
avail.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate there
are not enough members interested in the serious problem of
homelessness in the country. In those of us who are here we
certainly have quality, but it would be nice to have numbers.
Usually numbers are what really count here.
The PC task force on poverty also studied direct ways of
eliminating the causes of homelessness and made recommendations.
First, the federal government should work with provincial,
territorial and municipal governments and the non-profit sector
to develop and implement a national homelessness strategy. It
would include a comprehensive range of measures aimed at
preventing and alleviating homelessness in Canada.
Second, the federal government should present an annual report
card on homelessness to Canadians to be tabled in parliament
detailing federal measures undertaken to address homelessness and
setting specific objectives for the following year. I am sure if
we had had a report card under HRDC we might be able to find out
where that money went.
Third, the federal government should work with the provincial
and territorial governments to help them fund a series of
measures to be delivered by organizations active in the mental
health field and those working with homeless people, including
the provision of mental health services, community support,
addiction treatment, employment assistance and housing, to help
homeless Canadians develop greater personal autonomy and
facilitate their reintegration into society.
Finally, the federal government should make available at no
charge the use of federally owned facilities which are not being
used for other purposes to temporarily shelter homeless people in
response to requests from local governments.
Such recommendations would help to eliminate in the short and
long term the causes of homelessness and would get the homeless
off Canada's streets, especially at this time of year.
All Canadians agree that the federal government needs to do
more. The announcement made by the Minister of Labour and the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services in December to
build more homeless shelters was a start. However with the use of
over $300 million to conduct new studies on ways to administer
such programs, all agree that the money could be better spent
helping the homeless. We also need a national housing strategy
that includes affordable housing.
The PC party supports the motion presented by my colleague the
member for Vancouver East but we would argue that adequate
financial resources need to be allocated in order to solve this
growing problem.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to address Motion No. M-123 presented by the member for
Vancouver East.
Time and again the member has spoken out on this issue calling
attention to the importance of housing. I do not think anyone in
the House can doubt she is a passionate advocate. I am pleased to
say that our government already shares her concern on this
question and has taken a number of steps to help low income
Canadians generally and to ensure Canadians have access to
quality housing.
The motion recognizes that the issue of housing need is directly
related to the root issue which is that of poverty. A housing
affordability problem occurs when a large portion of a family's
income is consumed by housing costs to the extent that money for
other necessities is lacking.
1415
The Government of Canada has recognized the needs of low income
Canadians and is currently taking action. Last year 438,000 new
full time jobs were created. Over 1.8 million jobs have been
created since the government took office in 1993.
The Speech from the Throne set out ambitious new goals and
objectives to create new prosperity and enhance our quality of
life. This is supported through prudent economic and fiscal
management and additional support for the less fortunate in our
society.
We have and will continue to strengthen support for low income
families. Significant investments in the welfare of children
have been made, including the introduction and enrichment of the
child tax benefit. The child tax benefit will reach an annual
level of close to $7 billion by the middle of this year.
We are working with the provinces and territories on the
national children's agenda to improve supports for families and
for their children. We have sought to reduce the burden of
taxation on low income families. Targeted tax cuts in the 1998
and 1999 federal budgets have taken 600,000 lower income
taxpayers completely off the tax rolls. The significance of this
initiative cannot be overstated. Some 600,000 lower income
Canadians no longer pay a penny of federal tax.
Income support is not the only approach. My hon. colleague will
recall that last year the government made the commitment to
invest $11.5 billion in our health system. This represents the
largest single investment we have ever made. Because
administration of the health system falls under the
constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, the
federal government made this offer on the condition that each
provincial and territorial government must commit to use these
funds exclusively for health care.
This additional funding was designed to help the provinces and
territories to deal with immediate concerns in the health system,
including diagnostic and treatment services for those with mental
health issues or drug addictions, those most likely to be found
on the streets in need of adequate housing.
Members know that decent housing at a reasonable cost is
essential. There are current housing problems in the country
which need to be addressed such as the pressing housing needs
that exist in a number of aboriginal communities. We must
address the changing needs of an aging population. There is the
problem of homelessness particularly in larger cities across the
country.
Our government is committed to action across the broad spectrum
of housing issues. We are taking a comprehensive approach. We
are seeing concrete results. The primary instrument for the
Government of Canada's action in the area of housing is the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As Canada's national
housing agency, CMHC is responsible for the government's housing
policy. The corporation's goal is to promote affordability,
accessibility and choice in housing for Canadians. Each of
CMHC's core activities supports this goal.
The corporation's work on behalf of Canadians rests on four
solid pillars: housing finance, assisted housing, research and
information transfer, and export promotion. Let us take the
example of housing finance. CMHC mortgage insurance, which
guarantees mortgage loans issued by financial institutions, plays
a crucial role in helping Canadians gain access to home ownership
or rental accommodation with the lowest possible down payment and
interest rates no matter where they live in Canada.
For generations of Canadians saving for the down payment on a
first home has been a challenge. Thanks to CMHC-protected
reduced down payments, home ownership has become a reality for
more than 610,000 first time home buyers since the program's
inception in 1992.
The second important pillar that supports the valuable work of
CMHC is research and information transfer. CMHC's research helps
Canadians to understand and meet the housing challenges of
tomorrow. Working in partnership with the housing industry,
research into housing issues results in developing solutions to
improving the quality and technical performance as well as the
affordability of housing.
As well there is the commitment to assisted housing. The
Government of Canada currently contributes $1.9 billion annually
to meet the housing needs of low income Canadians, supporting
644,000 units across the country. For years Canada's social
housing services have been provided in partnership with
provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and with
housing agencies and sponsor groups.
Another successful program which the Government of Canada
supports through CMHC is the residential rehabilitation
assistance program. The minister responsible for CMHC announced
last December a further $200 million over four years, effectively
doubling the budget for RRAP. This is part of the Government of
Canada's overall $753 million strategy to address homelessness.
As well the minister announced the creation of a new component of
the program to convert non-residential buildings to residential
use for a total contribution of another $40 million.
1420
The current budget for RRAP on Indian reserves was doubled,
which will result in an additional $28 million over four years.
These funding increases are in addition to the $300 million over
five years announced in 1998 for this program.
RRAP is a very successful program. It provides funds to low
income home owners and owners of properties where low income
Canadians live. The owners use the funds to bring their
properties up to minimum health and safety standards. They have
been referred to by other speakers as safe, clean and affordable
buildings.
Over the years we have seen firsthand that RRAP makes a tangible
difference in the lives of thousands of disadvantaged people
across Canada. The examples of RRAP's success stories are too
numerous to list, but the program is having a positive impact in
communities across Canada.
I will give the House a brief glimpse of what the government is
achieving through two examples. In Winnipeg there is a 40 bed
rooming house in the inner city called Nakiska II. This facility
is primarily used by natives from communities in northern
Manitoba who come Winnipeg for medical care. Nakiska II received
a RRAP commitment of over $380,000.
In Vancouver there is the Metropole Hotel, a 60 unit building
that received CMHC loan insurance to purchase the building and
$1.1 million in RRAP funds for much needed repairs. The
Metropole provides affordable housing for low income inner city
residents.
These are just two examples of what RRAP is achieving throughout
Canada. What these projects all share is that they are based on
partnerships and involve the local community. They prove the
worth of our emphasis on community solutions.
In closing, I stress again that CMHC is committed to ensuring
that Canadians remain among the best housed people in the world.
However, our government is aware that there are too many of our
citizens who do not have adequate housing. Rest assured that the
government through CMHC will continue to improve Canadians access
to quality, affordable housing. By working together with our
partners at other levels of government, with community groups and
with the housing industry, we will continue to help Canadians
buy, build and rent homes. In so doing we will improve the
quality of life for all Canadians.
Housing is a joint responsibility of all levels of government:
federal, provincial and municipal. For this reason the
government cannot support this specific motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are eight
minutes remaining in the debate. The last five minutes of the
debate go to the sponsor of the motion, so there are three
minutes remaining for any member who wishes to rise. Seeing no
members on their feet, I invite the hon. member for Vancouver
East to sum up in the last five minutes of debate.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to the debate of the various party representatives.
I thank the members present who participated in the debate on
this important motion which certainly has a lot of support. It
was interesting to hear the perspective of the different parties.
From what I heard, the Reform Party member basically said there
was not too much wrong with the motion. He talked about the
problem with leaky condos, with which I would concur. It is
interesting that the Reform Party, which I do not think
historically has been an advocate of social housing, seems to
think that housing is a human right.
The member said that there is a need to have a national housing
policy. I do not care whether we call it a policy or a strategy
as long as we get the housing built. The member believed that
was important. When this matter comes up in future debates I
urge the Reform Party to be true to its word, to show its
commitment and support, particularly when it comes time for the
budget, and to be committed to an allocation that will result in
housing being built.
I say to the member from the Bloc Quebecois that only two
provinces are still constructing social housing in Canada. Those
are British Columbia and Quebec. Both provinces are doing a good
job of trying to keep up with the demand, but as the member
outlined so well it is often the poor or single women or lone
female heads of households who suffer the most. I know from my
own experience in Vancouver East that unless those federal
dollars are present the provinces simply cannot do it alone.
That is the reason we need a national housing strategy.
1425
I also appreciate the comments of the member from the Tory
party, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
Concern was expressed about the 1% for housing. I would like to
explain that the 1% for housing emanates from the fact that right
now governments spend about 1% on housing. The member from the
government side told us that CMHC spends about $1.9 billion
currently on housing. This motion calls for an expenditure of
about $2 billion. That is what is committed now. We are saying
that an additional 1% is required in order to meet this very
basic need in Canada.
The Tory member also talked about her party's task force on
poverty. For the record it was the Tory government that began
the demise of Canada's social housing programs. It was continued
by the Liberal government and we are at this crisis today.
Nevertheless I was happy to see support for the motion.
In terms of the government position, after hearing the long list
of all it is doing, it begs the question, why do we have a crisis
in this country? Why do we have a crisis in homelessness and
housing despite the RRAP programs which the member spoke about,
despite the research, despite the mortgages that exist? It is
because we are not constructing new units.
I am very glad that those 660,000 units exist. I know families
who live in that housing and their lives have changed as a
result. However unless we can build new social housing with a
federal commitment for dollars, then we will still see people on
the streets.
It is unfortunate that the government rests on what has been
done in the past and does not recognize the reality before us
today. I think we would all agree that homelessness is caused in
part by poverty. It is a lack of housing and it is also growing
poverty.
We have to look at the social policies that have been decided on
by the Liberal government. The cuts to EI have forced many women
into poverty. Child poverty has increased 50% since the
resolution was first brought forward in 1989. These realities
are a result of social policy that has come from the Liberal
government.
I did hear that there is support for this motion. If there is a
commitment, if there is a will, then we can address this issue
and we can decide that we want a real national housing program
with the federal government present in co-operation with the
provinces.
I call on members of this House and seek unanimous consent to
have this motion made votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Vancouver East has asked for the unanimous consent of the House
to have her motion made votable. Does the hon. member for
Vancouver East have the unanimous consent of the House to move
the motion?
An hon. member: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As the
motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is
dropped from the order paper.
It being 2.28 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday,
February 14 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m.)