36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 85
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 13, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| STATUTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION ACT
|
| Bill C-477. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1010
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Environment
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1015
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1020
1025
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1030
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1035
1040
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1045
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1115
1120
1125
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1130
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1135
1140
1145
1150
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1155
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1220
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1225
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1230
1235
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1240
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1245
1250
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1255
| Mr. John Williams |
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1320
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1325
1330
1335
1340
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1345
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1350
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1400
| VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| CHRYSLER CUP
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| FULLARTON BOOK LAUNCH
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| INVESTOR EDUCATION WEEK
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1405
| FONDATION QUÉBÉCOISE DU CANCER
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1410
| NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| SENATOR RON GHITTER
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| A “CANADIEN” AFIELD
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1430
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BANKING SERVICES
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| FRENCH LANGUAGE COLLEGES
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1445
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1450
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| WINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1455
| BANKING
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1500
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1525
| Mr. John Duncan |
1530
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1555
1600
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1605
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1630
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1635
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1640
1645
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1650
1655
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1700
1705
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1710
1715
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1720
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-214. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1735
1740
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1745
1750
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1755
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1800
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1805
1815
| The Deputy Speaker |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-214. Second reading
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1820
| Mr. Ian Murray |
1825
| Mr. John Maloney |
1830
1835
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1840
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1845
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 85
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 13, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table in both official
languages the government's response to the first report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Human Resources
Development Canada accountability for shared social programs.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. As the House is well aware, on December 1, 1999 I tabled private
member's Bill C-388, an act to prohibit the use of chemical
pesticides for non-essential purposes. It was seconded by the
hon. member for Leeds—Grenville. The House adopted it at first
reading. This bill would amend the Pest Control Products Act as
of April 22 which is recognized as Earth Day.
I am requesting the consent of the House of Commons to deem Bill
C-388 votable, to deem it adopted at second reading and to refer
it to the Standing Committee on Health.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine have the unanimous consent of
the House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour
to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1997-98 annual
review of the implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement
and copies of the 1998-99 annual report of the Indian Claims
Commission.
* * *
1005
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 52
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the fifth report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the meeting of the economic committee and the political
committee held in Brussels and Paris, February 20 to 23, 2000.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the second
report, “Ensuring Accountability: An Interim Report on the 1999
Internal Audit Report on Human Resources Development Canada
Grants and Contributions”. I would like to point out that this
is an interim report. It is the result of many weeks of hard and
serious work by members from all parties on the committee. The
standing committee will be presenting its final report by June 1.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the gravity and the serious situation with
HRDC, the opposition parties together felt there was no way we
could accept that report. We are tabling a dissenting report
unanimously. It is rather mind-boggling some of the things that
were alleged to have happened, such as the misappropriation of
funds, multiple criminal investigations, grants being approved
after payments made, withholding of information, allegations of
falsification of documents, and so on.
We felt that the majority report was simply glossing it over and
not taking the situation seriously. As a result we want to get
to the bottom of it for the good of the Canadian public and the
better use of tax dollars. We oppose the report and we are
tabling a dissenting report.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in connection with this report, I would like
to point out that—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
opposition is able to present a dissenting report. We will need
unanimous consent for any of the other opposition parties. Is
there unanimous consent for the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques to present
a dissenting report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I thank hon. members for their support.
The important point is that the dissenting report is a unanimous
report by all opposition parties, who noted that the
parliamentary majority in the committee was following the
government party line, that is downplaying the HRDC scandal.
Our report points out that action must be taken urgently, that
it is urgent for the past situation to be remedied, not just to
have a six point plan for the future. In this connection, the
interim report will have to influence what is done in future in
committee.
* * *
[English]
STATUTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION ACT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-477, an act to provide for
evaluations of statutory programs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this private
member's bill which I think can provide a great benefit to
Canadians and the Government of Canada. Basically it asks that
all programs provided by the government and all services the
government provides through its programs be evaluated on a
periodic cyclical basis by asking four fundamental questions.
1010
The first question would be what is the public policy the
program is designed to address? Once that is known, the second
question can be asked, how well are we achieving what we intend
to achieve? The third question would be is it being done
efficiently? The fourth question would be, can the same results
be achieved in a better and more efficient way? The bill says
all programs should be evaluated on a cyclical basis by asking
those four fundamental questions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from Canadians who are horrified by
pornography which depicts children. They are astounded by legal
determinations that possession of such pornography is not
criminal. They suggest that it is the duty of parliament through
the enactment and enforcement of the criminal code to protect the
most vulnerable members of our society.
The petitioners call 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 that law.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who are
concerned about the sanctions against Iraq. They urge that we do
all we can to stop the suffering and death among the Iraqi
people, particularly the suffering and death of children and
that, excluding an embargo on military materiel, all sanctions be
lifted. They urge that Canada and the United Nations vastly
increase efforts to provide food, medicine and funds to the
people of Iraq.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition
signed by approximately 750 people in the Saskatoon area. It
relates to two families, the Irimie and Kutas families who
suffered persecution in their country of origin and who fear that
will happen to them again if they return home. They have
exhausted all appeals and ask the minister and the House of
Commons to please allow them to stay in Canada. Many people in
Saskatoon have written to say that these people are model
citizens and ask parliament that they be allowed to stay in
Canada.
[Translation]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, a petition
signed by a number of my constituents. The petitioners call upon
the government to make it illegal for any company operating
passenger trains to dump waste water along the tracks in our
country. This practice constitutes a health risk to the
population as well as an environmental mess. I therefore
support this petition wholeheartedly.
[English]
BILL C-23
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of
Manitoba in regard to the same sex benefits bill. The
petitioners say that this is an inappropriate intrusion and it is
discriminatory for the federal government to extend benefits
based on a person's private sexual activity. They would not like
to see the bill pass through the houses of parliament.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 many petitioners from the province of Ontario
state that since Canada has the second highest incidence rate of
breast cancer in the world, they call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
BILL C-23
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have just short of 1,000 names on a petition. These
individuals draw attention to the significant empirical evidence
for the value of marriage as the cornerstone of public policy
producing real, tangible public policy benefits. They ask for the
withdrawal of Bill C-23 which has extended marriage-like benefits
to same sex couples. They ask that parliament, and it would be
the upper house at this point, withdraw Bill C-23 and instead
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution and
the cornerstone of public policy.
1015
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present this morning. The first petition
concerns Bill C-23.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to a motion
passed on June 8, 1999 reaffirming the House's position that
marriage is the exclusive domain of a male and a female.
They also draw the attention of the House to the introduction of
Bill C-23, and the fact that there was not a free vote. They
ask, pray and petition the House and the Chair that Bill C-23
hereby be withdrawn.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
next two petitions I have address the same topic.
On November 24, 1989 the House of Commons unanimously resolved
to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Since 1989 the
number of poor children in Canada has increased by 60%.
Therefore, these many petitioners call upon parliament to use
the federal budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve
the well-being of Canada's children.
[Translation]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here
a petition signed by a number of people in my riding. The
petitioners call upon Parliament to take all steps necessary to
guarantee that the possession of child pornography remains a
serious criminal offence, and that federal law enforcement
authorities are ordered to give priority to enforcing this
provision, for the protection of our children.
I wish to table this petition on their behalf.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 28, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill
C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled
in parliament on February 28.
The bill deals with important measures, such as increasing the
Canada health and social transfers, reinstating full indexation
of the personal tax system, increasing the Canada child tax
benefit amounts, increasing the foreign content amount for RRSPs
and amending the Employment Insurance Act, among other things.
Today our high corporate and personal tax rates create a
competitive disadvantage between Canada and our trading partners
in today's global economy. It is clear that competitive tax
rates are essential. Meaningful tax reductions combined with tax
reform will increase both economic growth and opportunities for
all Canadians.
The current Prime Minister has suggested that young Canadians
should leave the country if they are unhappy with Canada's taxes.
This kind of thinking reflects a sixties or seventies view of the
world. This option, unfortunately, is becoming increasingly
appealing to many young Canadians, particularly those in the high
tech sector.
When Canada loses its best and its brightest young people, it
loses both the capital and the talent essential to generate a
higher level of productivity and innovation. The Conference
Board of Canada states that the number of skilled Canadians
moving to the U.S. has increased from 17,000 in 1986 to 98,000 in
1997. This is a staggering sixfold increase in just 10 years.
In the last five years there have been 50 different tax
increases. Canadians now pay on average about 47% of their
income in taxes. Government revenue has increased by $40 billion
since 1993, including a hike of $24 billion in personal income
tax revenue.
The 2000 budget was the tax cutting budget. Before this budget,
Canada had the highest personal income tax in the G-7 and the
second highest corporate tax in the OECD. Surprise, surprise,
after these measures were implemented, due to more innovative and
aggressive tax cutting strategies by other countries, we will
still have one of the highest tax burdens in the industrialized
world, yet the government claims that it has put Canada on the
right track for the 21st century.
1020
The government continues to look inward when it should be
looking outward. Our trading partners have pursued policies of
lower taxes, less regulation and lower debt and their levels of
growth have been striking. For example, Ireland's real GDP per
capita growth has been 92% from 1988 to 1999. GDP per capita
increased 18% in the U.S. during the same period and in the U.K.
and Germany by 14%. In Canada our GDP per capita growth was only
5% during this time.
Furthermore, since 1990 American net disposable income per
capita has climbed over 10%, while Canadian real disposable
income has fallen by 8%.
The fact is that the government has had at least $115 billion
available to provide all Canadians with broad based, meaningful
tax relief. The finance minister pretends to be listening to the
call for tax relief and for meaningful action on the health care
front but he is not listening hard enough. The 2000 budget falls
short of its potential.
The case for deep and immediate tax cuts is real. Canadians now
pay about 47% of what they earn in taxes to all three levels of
government.
The PC Party of Canada firmly believes that Canadians have
suffered long enough. They should not have to wait until after
the next election for tax relief that falls far short of what
could have been delivered. The government has a surplus because
taxes are too high. That surplus ought to be returned to the
Canadian taxpayers.
Increasing the basic personal income amount by only $100 this
year, as the government has proposed, works out to be about 33
cents a week, or only $17 a year.
The finance minister's poor plan means that lower income
Canadians will still pay taxes on earnings as little as $8,200.
When we add on provincial taxes and payroll taxes, governments
are taking away as much as 30 cents on the dollar from people
with virtually no income.
What the government fails to mention is that since 1993, due to
bracket creep, the government has actually dragged 1.4 million
low income Canadians under the tax roll for the first time.
The PC Party would raise the basic personal amount from its
current level of $7,131 to $12,000. Increasing the personal
amount to $12,000 would remove 2.5 million Canadians from the tax
rolls and could save an individual taxpayer up to $1,200
annually. This tax cutting measure would benefit all Canadians
but particularly those in the low and middle income classes. I
feel it is indefensible that right now in Canada someone making
as little as $7,131 is paying income tax.
The greatest single disappointment in the bill is its failure to
address the real needs of Canada health care. At one time the
federal government shared the cost of health care 50:50 with the
provinces. In recent years that share has been reduced so that
now only 13 cents of every dollar spent on health care in Canada
comes from the federal government. Meanwhile, inflation,
population growth and the aging population are increasing health
care costs.
Brian Tobin, premier of Newfoundland, has said that the
government missed the boat by not reinvesting in health care. The
Canadian Health Care Association has said that the budget does
not recognize the severity of the current health care crisis in
Canada. They are right. However, the government has again
refused to restore cash payments under the Canada health and
social transfers to 1993 levels. A one time payment out of
lapsing year funds of $2.5 billion does not provide the kind of
long term stability that our health care system needs. It is
essential that the CHST funding be restored to the 1993-94
levels.
The government has no long term plan to save health care.
Instead, it has chosen simply to put a band-aid over an arterial
wound. Further, there is no serious intent on the part of the
federal government to sit down with the provinces and at least
attempt to fix the problem.
Bill C-32 amends the Employment Insurance Act and the Canadian
Labour Code to double the duration of maternity and parental
leave to one year. However, the government has continued to
refuse to reduce the ridiculously high EI premiums. This year
the government expects to collect over $18 billion in EI premiums
but only pay out $12 billion in benefits. That is a surplus of
$6 billion.
1025
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada proposes that EI
premiums be reduced immediately to $2 per $100 of insurable
earnings from the current level of $2.40.
EI premiums are a regressive tax on the poorest of Canadians.
Somebody making $39,000 per year in Canada pays the same amount
in EI premiums as somebody making $300,000 per year. It does not
seem like a fair system.
The federal government is making it harder and harder to qualify
for benefits. Currently only 30% of applicants who pay into the
system actually qualify for assistance when they need it. Changes
are needed to the EI system so that people can make proper use of
what the system was designed for: help those who paid into it.
It is not to be used as a fund to pad government books.
The tax grab from the EI fund of $19 billion that the government
has taken from workers and employers is disgraceful and shows the
true intentions of government.
The current arbitrary 20% limit for foreign content penalizes
investors when returns from foreign investments are higher than
returns on investments made in Canada. Bill C-32 increases the
current limit of 20% to 25% for the year 2000 and to 30% in the
following year. The PC party proposes that we increase this to
50% over the next two years.
The 1998 budget was called the education budget and the
following year 12,000 graduates in Canada were forced to declare
bankruptcy. The 1999 budget was called the health care budget,
but over the last year hospital waiting lists have grown longer
and the crisis in health care has become even bigger.
The 2000 budget has been dubbed the tax cutting budget, yet
after these measures in Bill C-32 are implemented, we will still
have the highest personal taxes in the G-7 and the second highest
corporate taxes in the OECD.
There are certain measures within Bill C-32 that the Progressive
Conservative Party support, such as the restoration of full
indexation to the personal tax system. However, with the
majority of the other initiatives, it is yet another case of the
government lacking vision and taking baby steps forward.
We could have lower taxes and better spending on health care and
social programs if the government had the courage to ensure that
Canadian taxpayer money would be invested carefully instead of
wasted rampantly.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, before I get into my half of the speech, I have a
question for my colleague from Ontario. I want to ask him what
effect these draconian cuts in health care have had on his home
province of Ontario.
I know the health minister, who is with us this morning, will
probably want to hear the answer to that as well being a native
of Ontario. Would the member to go through some of the
difficulties the Harris government has had in dealing with these
cutbacks?
This morning we heard the health minister from Ontario basically
admit—and I guess that honesty is refreshing—that the goal in
terms of the waiting list for cancer patients will not be as
radically diminished as she thought.
As health care critic, I want to hear some reflections from my
colleague on what he perceives as the biggest single problem in
Ontario with regard to health care.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, since
1993 the federal Liberal government has cut billions of dollars
from the health care system. What we are seeing now is a
struggle of not only my province but other provinces as they try
to address this situation.
In the long term, if this is a priority, the government will
have to restore investments to the 1993-94 level. The population
is aging in all areas of the country and this issue has to be
addressed. There are long waiting lists. Cancer patients are
going to the U.S. for treatment. If the federal government is
going to be a partner in health care it also has to come to the
table with cash dollars.
1030
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of
the hon. member. We in the Canadian Alliance Party have proposed
some solutions to the present unfair taxation system. One of
those solutions, solution 17, moves towards a single tax.
Included in that is a move toward equality for spouses with
regard to the deduction they are allowed.
We are proposing a $10,000 deduction for either spouse. It does
not matter who is earning the income. We are also proposing a
$3,000 deduction for each child. I wonder if the hon. member has
some reaction to that.
We feel that it would support the family and children. It would
not reduce the incentive for one of the parents to stay at home
if he or she so chooses. What reaction would the member have to
the proposal of moving to a single tax, increasing the deductible
to $10,000 for both husband and wife and increasing the child
care deduction to $3,000?
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem
with increasing the deductions for spouses so that they are
equal. The family is the future of Canada. It should be
encouraged to raise kids and perhaps parents should stay at home.
I think that is fair and equitable. I am not sure if if the
increase in the child tax is the right amount, but I think it is
heading in the right direction.
With regard to the flat tax, I agree that taxes are too high. If
we are to be a player in the global economy we have to
acknowledge that our neighbour to the south, the United States,
has a tax regime considerably different from ours. Its system is
based on entrepreneurship, innovation and encouraging people to
do what they can do. Somehow the tax system has to get flatter.
I am not sure flat tax is 100% correct but definitely tax rates
have to come down at all levels.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this very important
debate on the budget. I echo the words of my colleague from
Markham. We can take lessons from the past in terms of what the
Liberal government has done. The member made reference to the
education budget of couple of years ago. Promptly after the
announcement of that budget over 12,000 young Canadians declared
bankruptcy. I believe this is considered the budget of tax
reduction, so we can expect the same in terms of taxpayers filing
bankruptcy if its record is consistent with the past.
In the debate on the finances of the nation we have to move
beyond some of what we said in the House in the past. I would
like to go back a bit in history and talk about a budget
introduced in this place in 1979 which spelled the defeat of the
Conservative Party under the leadership of Joe Clark at that
time.
Mr. Clark has been unfairly criticized as not being fiscally
conservative. The record back in 1979 will show that. It is
probably too long for some members of the House to remember. It
was the first Conservative budget to be introduced in this place
following World War II. The budget at that time, just to remind
Canadians, was considered an 18 cent per gallon budget. The
finance minister at that time, Mr. Crosbie, made a commitment
that gasoline would be taxed at 18 cents a gallon and that the 18
cents were to be used to reduce the deficit and in the long term
eliminate our debt.
We would have been free of debt within a period of four to five
years.
1035
What happened to that budget? History tells us that it was
defeated on the floor of the House of Commons and was never
enacted. Since then our level of debt reached the point of
strangulation. We have basically killed ourselves with the debt
load.
I remind the House that there is no sense in pointing fingers
back and forth because we are all responsible. Every government
in the western world following World War II went on the bent of
deficit financing, assuming we would grow out of it and as the
economy grew we would pay down the debt. That did not happen.
In Canada we predicated the elimination of the debt on world oil
prices. The prime minister who succeeded Joe Clark and was prime
minister for 17 years, Mr. Trudeau, admitted that he had made a
mistake. We had predicated our finances based on oil prices
rising to something in the vicinity of $65 a barrel and thought
that would lead us out of the debt problem, simply because of the
revenues the federal government at that time would bring in from
oil production from western Canada. That was basically an insult
to western Canadians as well. That did not happen.
In the meantime our debt level has reached proportions that made
it very difficult for every government to deal with. I remind
the House that we missed the opportunity almost 20 years ago to
deal with it. In fact, it was 20 years ago because in February
1980 when Mr. Clark was campaigning on an 18 cent a gallon tax,
he was roundly defeated by the government that then went on a
spending spree for the next five years.
When we finally regained office in 1984, the Liberal government
bragged that it left the cupboard bare. There was no money to
spend. Therefore we could not do what Canadian people wanted us
to do. They had been conditioned to seeing the government spend
its way into prosperity. That is self-defeating. It is like an
individual who takes his credit card out of his pocket every time
he wants to make a purchase, assuming at the end of the day that
the bills do not have to be paid. We know they have to be paid.
The net result is that today we are strangled with a net debt of
approximately $600 billion. I remind members of the interest on
that. Without going through detailed charts and analyses, the
calculation is very fundamental. If we take $600 billion at an
average rate of 8% on the bonds holding that debt, it is costing
the Canadian taxpayer somewhere between $40 billion and $50
billion in interest charges per year. Again this is arithmetic
that a grade school student could understand. It is
approximately $1 billion per week in interest payments for the
Government of Canada. What could we do with $1 billion a week if
we were debt free as a nation? In about a month's time we would
cure our health care ills from coast to coast.
The member next to me from Markham who has a great deal of
authority on what works and does not work in the economy is on
the right path. He has been saying, as has our leader, that
reduction in taxes is the key. We have to get the economy
moving. We have to take off the restraints in the tax system
that are holding back economic development vis-à-vis our
neighbours, particularly the United States.
Today money has no boundaries. One can move money around in the
blink of an eye. Money will seek the jurisdictions where it can
do the best, work the hardest and the most efficiently. It
cannot do it in a country being strangled with taxation.
The government in the last seven years has missed a golden
opportunity. It brags about what it has done in the last seven
years. Indeed there is some room for boasting.
We have to give it credit for some of what it has done, but it
could have done more. It did not have to do it at the expense of
the provinces. The easy way out for the federal government,
which we can see in this budget as well, was simply to download
on the backs of the provinces.
1040
It has not yet figured out that there is only one taxpayer. He
is the same person, municipally speaking, provincially speaking
and federally speaking. We all pay those taxes, so when it
downloads on the provinces it has not accomplished anything. It
has simply hidden under its own mistakes. That is what the
federal government has done, and it has done it effectively.
Let us go through some of the reasons the government has
achieved something in the last number of years. Let us look at
some of its successes. Let us look at the deficit and why it was
reduced. Three letters will explain it, GST. Suddenly, after
seven years, it is admitting for the first time that it cannot
eliminate the GST. Why? Because it is bringing in
approximately $25 billion a year in revenue, almost the exact
figure in terms of its surplus.
In other words, if the government eliminated the $25
billion-plus a year from the GST, we would be back into a debt
position. Because of the initiatives the Conservatives took on
free trade, deregulation and privatization, the government has a
little bit of bragging room. It is not because of initiatives it
took but hard decisions that we took when we were on that side of
the House.
Before I conclude, I simply remind the Canadian people that the
government did not invent debt reduction. It did not invent free
trade. It did not invent the GST. It conveniently railed
against those issues when political opportunity dictated that it
was a wise thing to do.
Never once between 1988 and 1993 did the finance minister, who
does a lot of boasting, stand in the House to vote for anything
that meant a reduction in taxes or a reduction in the size of the
growth of government.
Why this magic transformation after 1993? It was because
reality set in. After 10 years of education between the
seventies and the eighties the Canadian people suddenly realized,
as Mr. Clark did in 1979 when he took office, that the debt
problem was a real problem that would not go away, unless we want
the IMF coming in here, knocking on our doors and running the
country as it did in other jurisdictions such as Argentia. The
government had no choice. It had to act and it did act. The
question is how did it do it. It did not do it with any pain to
itself. It downloaded on the provinces.
I look forward to continuing this debate. Hopefully I will have
a chance to respond to some questions and comments from members
on both sides of the House.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Progressive
Conservative Party was wondering if any of us were old enough to
remember back to 1979. I certainly assure the House that I am
old enough to remember. I remember the years of Brian Mulroney
and Joe Clark handling the finances of the nation and driving us
deeply, by hundreds of billions of dollars, into debt through
their fiscal management.
The debate today deals with the budget and budgetary matters.
Certainly modernizing the tax regime is an essential element in
Canada today so that we can be prepared for the future.
One area is the medical provisions of the Income Tax Act. I
have a little story to tell about the Boonstra family in my
riding who has a two year old child with a serious case of
diabetes which requires four injections every day. This is
putting mammoth costs on the Boonstras but they do not qualify
under the income tax provisions for a disabled child.
What would the member think if there could be some changes to
the provisions of the Income Tax Act to broaden the definition of
disability to include people like this two year old child in
Manitoba?
1045
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the second part of the
member's question is an important one and should be addressed in
the House, especially by the government.
The government I sat with in the 1980s, the Mulroney years, ran
on a day to day basis a balance sheet, and that is factual. What
strangled that government was that it did not lay a nickel on the
debt. It was the compound interest on the debt that strangled
the government.
I know in western Canada it has ridden the hobby horse for the
last 10 years, but that hobby horse's legs are just about ready
to collapse. History will record that it was the compounded
interest on the debt. That is why I used the analogy of the
individual and his or her credit. When it reaches a point where
the compound interest cannot be paid on the debt, we are in
trouble. That is the position the Government of Canada was in in
the 1980s right into the 1990s. We are barely getting out of
that. There is more the government can do in terms of tax relief
to grow the economy.
The member is absolutely right about the medication. The
definition of illness or what qualifies us for Canada pension and
medications, in terms of the families ability to wipe that off
and receive compensation from the government, has to be
considered.
I remind the member that in 1997 the present government, in
fact, the Prime Minister and his team, campaigned on a promise of
bringing in a pharmacare program. Talk about irresponsibility.
They cannot even pay the bills in the health care system today or
support the health care system to the level we as Canadians would
expect. At the same time, they campaigned on the promise of a
pharmacare program that they had no intention of fulfilling nor
had the capacity to fulfil. The health minister is still on that
same bent and talks about designer programs. The health minister
has his pet projects but knows full well that the system is
broken.
I think they have to get the fundamentals right and working
before they start talking about new programs. Canadians want
health care. In fact, they want a good health care system and
are willing to pay for it. They do not want the minister
tinkering with a system that would work given the chance.
We have to remind the member as well that primary health care is
the responsibility of the provinces. Under the Canada Health
Act, all the health minister can do is secure funding for the
provinces and hope that they live by the five principles of the
act. This was an act that the government introduced about 20
years ago. Now, in terms of its responsibilities, it is
attempting to unravel and climb out from underneath it.
There is more the government can do. Health care is the number
one issue on the mind of every Canadian. They are looking for
leadership on that side of House but there has been an absence of
that on this issue. We do not want to get off this point, but
when this budget was introduced, I knew it was not an election
budget. Why? The money that has been dedicated to health care
and education in this budget would keep our system running from
coast to coast for three days.
I have not addressed that need but we are looking for some
leadership on that side of the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am privileged today to stand in the House of Commons and speak,
not only on behalf of the taxpayers of Elk Island, but also, I
believe, on behalf of the taxpayers of the whole country on the
implementation of the latest budget.
It is interesting that we have not yet fully implemented the
previous budget. We still have some bills to pass. Today we are
talking about the current budget.
When I think of the implications of the budget, I immediately
think about families. Some time ago I read that one of the most
important factors leading to marriage breakups and family stress
are financial factors.
1050
I read somewhere that husbands and wives argue more about money
than about anything else. There is no doubt in my mind that our
tax regime and the government intrusion into our economy and
governments, of which the federal is only one of the three levels
of government in this country, but the combined levels of
government confiscate from the average taxpayer approximately
half of the earnings of that taxpayer. Psychologically, that is
very discouraging.
It means that as we earn money in order to provide for our
families that we actually get to use only half of it. The rest
of it is taken from us. Consequently, it makes it very difficult
for people to make ends meet and, as I have just said, this is
what adds to stresses in families because there is an argument as
to where the limited resources of the family should go.
I would like to preface my statements today on the budget simply
by emphasizing again that this is an anti-family government. The
Liberals do not do what is good for families. They do not do
what is good for children. They tax families to death and then
somehow they try to get out that they are doing all these
wonderful things by giving families money.
The government has no money. The money that it has is what is
confiscated from taxpayers and all it does is redistribute it. It
takes it from the pocket of one taxpayer and puts it into someone
else's pocket. The degree to which this government does it is
excessive.
I would like to also say that there is no implication here that
I do not believe in helping those who are less well off. I
believe their taxes payable should be even less and that benefits
for people who are in dire straits should be there. How they are
delivered is a matter of great debate. I, frankly, think that a
distant federal government in Ottawa trying to figure out how to
distribute the taxpayer's money and to identify people who need
it is just wrong.
We have noticed in the last couple of days that the government
has transferred a lot of money through Bill C-23 to a group which
statistics show are above average in income. The government's
anti-family agenda continues. I think it is time that we replace
this government and that we start having some policies and
principles in Canada which are pro-family and which allow
families to keep more of their earnings to pay for the things
that they need.
The previous speaker from the Progressive Conservative Party
spoke about the debt. This has been one of my chief complaints
about the management of the government. The message from the PR
department of the government is that everything is fine. The
Prime Minister likes to have people think everything is okay,
“don't worry, be happy”.
Yet the facts belie the situation. The government gets the
people to feel better by giving messaging that puts it in a very
good light. As a matter of fact the documents, the actual facts,
the numbers in the book, show a completely different picture.
They emphasize that the facts are not that rosy and what the
government, the finance minister and the Prime Minister do is to
simply try to persuade the people that things are really good.
I happen to have here a copy of the 2000 budget plan which is
the basis of the bill today. The bill we are debating is the
implementation of parts of this budget. I happen to have a copy
of the budget here. It is a fairly big document. It has about
350 pages in it. I think it would be wonderful if Canadians
would take the time to actually get on the Internet site and look
at these budget documents and see what it is that they really
say.
1055
I am on page 52 of the budget plan 2000. With respect to the
debt, it says “Net public debt”. We see in 1998-99 it was
$576.8 billion. In 1999-2000, the year for which the books are
not yet quite completed, although the fiscal year has ended it
will take a while for all of the government accountants to check
up, the number for the debt is exactly the same, $576.8 billion.
We look at the current budget. What is the government's plan to
reduce the debt? It's plan to reduce the debt is zero since it
has budgeted for a net public debt at the end of the year of
$576.8 billion. Then we have the projection for the next budget
for planning purposes. This is not part of the bill we are
discussing today, but it is what is expected to happen the year
following this budget. What is the number? It is $576.8
billion. The plan this government has to reduce our indebtedness
is zero.
When I first ran in the 1993 election, one of the things that I
did shortly after the election was make a number of visits to
schools. I still do a number of these, but for some reason or
other the number of calls that I get to come into the schools has
diminished a bit in the last couple of years, but at first I had
many visits. I used to begin my little talks to those students
by apologizing from my generation to the young people of that
generation. I used to say to them “I am so sorry that people in
my generation somehow did not exercise our political clout to
turf the people out who were putting this generation into debt”.
We have young pages in this place. Earlier today we had a
number of young people in the visitors' gallery. All of the
young people across the country are asked to pay the bills that
we in our generation have rung up. I take partial responsibility
for that because I sat on my hands. Yes, I always voted. I
voted for the PCs most of the time who were at that time the
least of all of the bad options. We were hopeful in 1984 when we
finally elected a Conservative government that it would do
something about the debt which was increasing continuously under
the Liberals. We had a great amount of hope that when the PCs
took power in 1984, that would be the end of the spiralling
growth of debt, the end of deficit spending. Did that happen? It
surely did not. As we well know, we had record deficits under
the PCs.
I heard my colleague from the PC Party speak a little while ago
and he addressed the debt question. He said, “As a matter of
fact that debt was simply the compound interest on what the
Liberals left them”. Mathematically he is correct. Let us take
the debt that the Conservatives inherited in 1984 and simply
apply an interest of around 9%. I did the calculation one time.
If we use an interest rate of around 9% or 10% it does bring us
to the level of debt that the Conservatives had when they were
brutally kicked out of office in 1993. That was because it took
us about nine years to discover that the debt that the Liberals
had built was not going to be eliminated by the Progressive
Conservatives since in that same time they allowed it to continue
to grow. Program spending was not greater than the amount of
their revenues, but every year they borrowed. The numbers are
obvious. The interest payments on the debt were around $35
billion, the deficits were around $35 billion. In the last year
it was over $40 billion. It is simply true that they did not
look at the debt. They pretended it did not exist. They did not
address it.
Are we any better off under the Liberals? The answer is no. As
a matter of fact, I happen to have the numbers here right at my
fingertips because I looked them up in preparation for this
speech today.
1100
In 1993-94 the debt was $508.2 billion. Under the Liberals it
grew approximately $37 billion in the next year, $32 billion in
the next year, and $24 billion in the year after. My numbers are
a little too high because those are the projected numbers. The
debt grew to its present number which, as I have already
indicated several times in my speech, is around $576 billion.
It is atrocious. While the Liberals communicate to Canadians
that they are wonderful, that they have beaten the deficit
dragon, the fact is that the deficits of some $40 billion a year
have been overcome simply by the fact that the government is
taking that much more in income tax revenue.
The Liberals say they did not increase taxes but they did. The
tax revenues are up. It is right in the budget document. This
is not political messaging; it is simply what we read in the
document. If we look at the income tax revenue in previous years
and compare it to income tax revenue now, it has steadily
increased to the point where now the government is taking about
$40 billion a year more out of the economy than it did when it
first took office.
Hence the deficit has been eliminated but not because of good
financial management by the government, but because it has
allowed bracket creep to continue over the last number of years.
Therefore the income tax revenue has gone up and it caused the
deficit to disappear because the taxpayers were putting in more
money.
The amount of actual program spending the government has cut is
minuscule. It is essentially zero once we cut out what it has
downloaded to the provinces through its reduction in transfer
payments.
It is not at all attributable to the Liberal government that we
are in better shape now. We are in better shape because the debt
is no longer increasing. It has not been because of the Liberal
government; it has been in spite of the Liberal government.
Added to that is all the wasteful spending which has been
brought to light by the auditor general. The auditor general is
a non-partisan officer of the House. His task is simply to
report to Canadians on the management of the money. Over and
over and over the auditor general reports that there are big
problems. He does not use the word boondoggle, we do. The
simple definition of that word is where money is being spent in
great amounts without proper accounting and without proper
control.
I have a surprise for a lot of people who do not know this. Many
people think that we are now in a surplus situation, that we have
money to spend and therefore we are really looking pretty good. I
found something that the finance minister never mentioned in his
budget speech. No one on the Liberal side has brought this to
the attention of the Canadian people, but here it is.
Once again I am looking at the actual budget document printed by
the Minister of Finance and delivered to the House of Commons on
February 28. It says on page 76, “For 1999-2000, a financial
surplus of $8 billion is expected”. The finance minister said
this lower surplus reflects the assumptions of a balanced budget
and lower sources of funds from the pension accounts, et cetera.
In 1999-2000, the year just ended, the government expects a
financial surplus of $8 billion.
We have to remember that was in the fiscal year in which we
passed a bill in the House which allowed the government to do a
bookkeeping entry by taking $30 billion from the pension fund of
the civil servants of our country. Our party believes that
probably the government was entitled to part of that, because
clearly there were overpayments and there is a surplus in the
fund. Undoubtedly the Canadian taxpayers via the government are
entitled to a part of it, but a part of it at least is due to the
employees of the government. The Liberal government defeated any
amendments we had to correct that and took $30 billion from them.
1105
It is also as a result of the fact that there are huge surpluses
in the EI fund. Have the Liberals corrected it according to the
actuarial standards? No, they have not. They have made some
little mediocre changes. The actuary said that the rate of
premiums for EI should be around $2 per $100 of earnings, but the
government continued to take $2.40 per $100 of earnings. The
Liberals brag that they have cut it, but they are still enjoying
huge surpluses in that form.
The next paragraph is the one which will shock members. It will
probably shock most Liberal members because the finance minister
has not brought this to our attention and he was mum about it in
his speech. It says on page 76, “For 2000-01”, the year this
budget covers, “a financial requirement of $5 billion is
expected, the first requirement in three years”.
We are back to borrowing money in order to run the operation of
the government. This is in the cash flow part. These are the
budgetary balances and the government is projecting for this
year's budget that there be a requirement of some $5 billion
worth of borrowing and it is keeping it a secret from us.
I have exposed the secret. It is in the book in a little
paragraph on page 76. I am sure that everybody was instructed
carefully, “If you see it, do not mention it, because we do not
want people to get the impression that we are not perfect
managers of the taxpayers' money”.
The lid has been blown off that one. We have seen all of the
wasteful spending, the spending not accounted for, all the grants
and contributions, the political slush funds. We have seen all
of that. The government is not responsible. Now we see it
communicating that everything is hunky-dory when in fact with
this budget it is bringing us once again into borrowing.
It is a shameful thing that the government simply cannot get its
act together. We live in a country which is rich in resources.
We have minerals. We have mines. We have oil. We have gas. We
have diamonds. We have forestry products. We have a
tremendously valuable agriculture resource, probably the best in
the world. Our farmers are the most efficient in the world. We
have a hardworking energetic population. Certainly living in our
climate we are a very hardy population.
There is no excuse in the world for this country not to be the
very best in the world. It should be debt free. If the
governments over the last 30 years had been dealing properly with
our money, we would not have debt. We would not have some $40
billion a year in interest payments which siphon off from
Canadian taxpayers the money that should be spent for programs
like health care and education. Those are programs Canadians are
demanding but which they cannot have because governments, both
past and present, the Liberal government and the Conservative
government, all of them in the last 30 years, have done this to
our young people, to our families, to our country. They should
hang their heads in shame because they have failed utterly.
We ought to get some people running the government who act like
business people, whose objectives and primary goals are to do
what is right for the people, to manage the economic affairs of
the country properly. They have to forget that the primary goal
is simply to get re-elected, which is what too often clouds the
financial decisions in this country.
In conclusion, I wish I had another 20 minutes to speak but
unfortunately the speeches of 40 minutes are gone from this
section.
1110
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak this morning to this bill on the budget.
Not that I support it. We in the Bloc Quebecois voted against
the budget. In this case, we are studying Bill C-32, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament
on February 28, 2000.
This bill has seven parts to it. As I have only ten minutes,
you will understand my limiting myself to only some of the
aspects of the bill.
The first part talks of amending the Employment Insurance Act to
increase the number of weeks of parental benefits to 35. The
number of hours of insurable employment to qualify for
employment insurance benefits is also reduced from 700 to 600.
None of this takes effect until December 30, 2000, at the end of
the year, in other words.
At first glance, the desire to help parents assume their
responsibilities may seem a good thing. It is hard to oppose
the principle of parental benefits. However, this is another
example of federal meddling in a field usually reserved for the
provinces. In the case of employment insurance, there was
agreement at one point by all provinces—in 1948, I believe—to pass
the Unemployment Insurance Act. The government is putting
certain social measures in place, such as this one.
What I think is needed is a real family policy. That is what
Quebec is aiming for and it has laid down some important
groundwork. For there to be real assistance, there needs to be
consistency. That would best be achieved by one level of
government looking after things.
That is what Quebec wants to do. It would like to see the
federal government put more into the Canada social transfer or
other programs so that the provinces can, if they wish—as Quebec
is doing and wants to keep on doing—implement a real family
policy. That would be the ideal.
Oddly though, the number of hours to qualify for this benefit
has been reduced from 700 to 600 in certain regions, but 420 in
others. I am referring here to high unemployment regions.
How inconsistent that regional disparity is not taken into
account with respect to parental benefits. As a result, if a
woman loses her job for whatever reason and is not expecting,
420 hours would be enough. But in this case, when she leaves
work to take up her responsibilities as a mother, she needs 600
hours. This is not consistent.
And there is another thing. Since 1991, we have been after the
government constantly because it is no longer contributing to
the EI fund. This fund consists of the premiums from employers
and employees. The government uses this money to enhance its
visibility but the money is not its to use. Once again, it is
money that belongs to employers and employees.
All the while, to reduce the deficit, when the government was in
deficit, the Minister of Finance was dipping into the EI fund.
Now that there is no longer a deficit, the government continues
to help itself in order to give itself as much scope for action
as possible. To what end? In general, to interfere in
provincial jurisdictions. It is completely ridiculous.
1115
I will now move on to the second part of the bill, which also
has to do with the $2.5 billion Canada social transfer for
health and social programs, to which the government has made
drastic cuts since 1995.
The hon. member for Mercier will remember the days when we both
sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
The committee went on a tour and there were protests everywhere.
Except for the witnesses called by the Liberal Party, at least
75% to 80% of the witnesses came to say “No, no, do not make
cuts, especially not in social programs”. But the government
went ahead anyway.
In 1993, a leaders' debate was held.
The current Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition,
asked a question to Ms. Campbell, the then Prime Minister, about
a reply she had given to a journalist. The then Leader of the
Opposition asked her “Is it true that you intend to make cuts in
social programs?” Mrs. Campbell replied “I do not want to make
that commitment. It is one of the options being considered by
the Conservative Party”.
The Liberal leader took advantage of the situation and scored
political points by condemning what Mrs. Campbell might do. But
it is strange to see that when the Liberal Party took office, it
made more cuts in social programs than the Conservatives had made.
I recall the letter written by the present Prime Minister to
minister Valcourt protesting the way he had begun to make cuts
to employment insurance and to tighten up the eligibility
requirements. At the time he found this terrible, but now that
he is in power he is continuing with the same policy and has
gone even further than what was envisaged in 1993, and we are
not supposed to react.
The same thing goes for the GST. He talked of abolishing it,
but what has he done? Nothing is changed. At one point, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage was forced to run in a by-election
as a sort of validation of the change of direction, but the
Prime Minister carries on as before.
The Bloc Quebecois is going to be voting against this bill
because its purpose is to implement a bad budget, one which
continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction and
does not properly serve the interests of Quebec.
When questions are asked of the Minister of Finance or the
Minister of Health, or others in this House, the responses often
suggest that Quebec is, or was, receiving its fair share. We do
not have the latest statistics, but it is true in some ways
that, until 1997, Quebec did receive more employment insurance.
This is normal, however. Historically, the average extra
payments to Quebec have long stood at 2%. The gap is now less
than before, because the Government of Quebec has adopted good
job creation measures, a fund to remedy poverty, and so on. It
is normal for more employment insurance to be paid out when
there is less work or more unemployment.
We have also been told that Quebec got more than its fair share
of the Canada social transfer two years ago. That too was
normal, because there were more poor people in certain regions.
It is paid out based on need.
This bill again repeats what the minister did last year, which
is to have the Canada social transfer no longer based on need
but rather on population figures.
1120
At a meeting the other day, people in my riding asked “We know
you are a sovereignist, Mr. Dubé, but how does the Canada social
transfer work?” I told them that it was now based on
population.
Someone then said “So why are we in the federal system? What is
the advantage? If it is on the basis of population, it should
be transferred to Quebec, to the provinces, and income tax
adjusted”. Sometimes the explanation is that there are tax
points.
Tax points are the same thing.
However, this is not real income from the federal government.
Negotiations were held in the 1960s to have the tax points given
to the provinces. Quebec has its own department of revenue and
collects its own taxes. The other provinces do not. The
federal government talks about tax points, but this is a
transfer of money to these provinces.
In response to demands by Quebec, the Minister of Finance is
trying through calculations to include the famous tax points.
He says “Quebec gets this amount of money, which is generous”.
But in the case of federal spending, the issue is not so much
quantity, but quality too.
Money coming in as transfer payments for social programs, such
as employment insurance, for example—although I know this is
workers' and employers' money—is not constructive money. It is
not constructive spending.
When we look at Quebec's share in various areas, we can see that
we get only 21% of spending on goods and services, 15% of
current transfers to business and 18% of federal investments
between 1992 and 1997. Specifically, that means 19.5% of the
jobs in the public service and 19.1% of the jobs in the armed
forces, although we represent 24% of the population. The annual
shortfall in the federal procurement of goods and services, that
is, the difference between Quebec's demographic weight and its
share of federal receipts amounts to $1.2 billion annually.
In the case of current transfers to business, the shortfall is
$339 million in investments. There is another $219 million that
Quebec does not receive. In these areas alone, the figure is
$1.7 billion annually between 1992 and 1997.
In the research and development sector, Quebec only gets one
quarter of the jobs in the national capital region, while
Ontario gets three quarters. Overall, Quebec receives less than
22% of the jobs in the federal public service, compared to 42%
for Ontario.
When I look at these statistics, I come to the conclusion that
we cannot blame Ontarians. The federal system serves them well.
Ontario is the province best served by the federal government,
in every respect.
The Liberals currently hold just about every seat in Ontario. I
can understand Ontarians, because they have always had the
largest piece of the pie, not to mention the auto pact, which
promotes southern Ontario's economic development.
Some researchers told the Standing Committee on Industry that,
if it were not for the federal presence, through public service
jobs, and for the auto pact, Ontario would be at the same level
as Quebec. These are the two major factors that put Ontario
ahead. This has to be said. This is great for Ontarians, but MPs
from Quebec are entitled to point out these facts, and so are
MPs from the other provinces, because the statistics for their
provinces are similar.
I am greatly concerned about shipbuilding. Unfortunately, I did
not see any additional moneys for shipbuilding. There is no new
program, no new measure for the shipbuilding industry. Nor did I
see much for small and medium size businesses. It is the small
businesses that create jobs, but I did not see any new incentive
for them.
1125
Exports are often mentioned. Large corporations are the best
placed for this sort of activity, but exports are not always
within the reach of SMBs. The government talks about
globalization and the Internet. Yes, small businesses, like all
other businesses, need to get connected, but we see that this is
not happening in the more traditional areas. The perishable
goods sector, for example, requires a different approach. The
regional factor, the fact of being distant from large centres
and large markets plays a large role.
We know that the federal Liberal government cut transportation
subsidies.
Now, for a business in a so-called remote area, it is more
difficult because transportation has to be taken into account.
We see the debate that took place over current gas prices. In
regions such as Lac-Saint-Jean everything costs more because the
cost of transportation has to be factored in.
This government is not listening to what the regions are saying.
It is not listening to low-income families. The minister
announced so-called tax cuts but, on closer inspection, these
cuts are truly minimal compared to what he could have done with
the surplus, which may top $100 billion in three years. The
Minister of Finance is cautious, if nothing else.
It is all very fine and well for the federal government to want
to save money, but not to pay more attention to what citizens,
companies and regions are asking for is not right.
I know that my colleagues will address other aspects of this
budget bill. I think that people are entitled to all the
necessary information. They should talk to their member of
parliament. I tell my constituents that, if they wish to have a
copy of the budget, detailed explanations, they should not
hesitate to get in touch with their MP. They are entitled to
objective information. They must see it for themselves.
Those listening will conclude for themselves that this budget
walks all over the provinces. It ignores provincial
jurisdiction. That is the main thing wrong with it.
Like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of
Finance is trying to crush Quebec, but he is using money to do it.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to begin by congratulating my colleague for his work on the
shipbuilding situation. He has shown that assistance from the
Government of Canada in this area is necessary, and not in the
form of grants.
I would like to hear more on his disappointment with the budget,
in this regard.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier has
provided me with the opportunity to say a little more on this.
The budget was a disappointment to me because there is not one
cent for shipbuilding. Positive things should be mentioned when
they come up, and there has been an interesting event in the
industry committee on which I sit. In its report, which was
tabled in the House on Tuesday, the committee made two
recommendations to the government. For once, it admits that
there are particular problems in that area.
One recommendation asks the government, via the various
departments concerned, to adopt new measures to help the
shipbuilding industry. Another is aimed at negotiations with
the American government in order to gain an exemption from its
Jones Act for Canada.
1130
Shipping and shipbuilding are not exempt. If there were an
exemption from the cost—people have studied the potential
impact of this measure—there would be a return of full
employment or of the level of employment existing prior to 1993.
An increase in demand is expected for the next five years.
Yes, the budget was a disappointment, but things do look better
than they did a few months ago in shipbuilding, since Bill C-213
was passed at second reading.
All that remains is committee work, which is scheduled for May 30.
We would have preferred it sooner, but there is a chance it may
be passed before the end of the session. It has to be or it
will be an incredible stratagem. The Liberals would pretend to
support it—in case there is an election in the fall—with the
bill before the election, but if it is not passed at third
reading, it would make no sense.
I thank the member for Mercier for giving me the opportunity to
explain this matter and to explain to my colleagues the
importance of acting on agreements in principle reached on a
bill. We must go further and pass it at third reading.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate what the member said, but I would ask him
to elaborate on the effects that EI premiums and Canada pension
plan premiums have on businesses in his community.
In my community those payments are certainly one of the big
concerns. The government brags about lowering EI premiums, but
then it raises CPP premiums. That adds to the costs of
businesses. It means they cannot hire the extra worker they
might otherwise have hired.
Could the member elaborate on how those premiums might affect
businesses in his community?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I cannot of course provide figures, because I do not
have them for my riding. But the member is definitely right. If
there is a reduction on the one hand, but on the other hand an
increase is imposed by the Minister of Finance on employers and
workers, then the first measure is offset by the second one.
Since he brought this up, I can tell the hon. member that in my
riding, until this year, the unemployment rate did not allow us
to benefit from the transitional jobs fund, which was strongly
criticized.
My constituents often ask me “Yes, but are there cases like this
everywhere?” We saw that these cases are predominantly in the
Prime Minister's riding. There are also some in Montreal, but
not in my riding.
The reason for that is simple: my riding was not eligible for
the funds, supposedly because the unemployment rate was too low.
But later on—and the hon. member must have noticed the same
thing in his own riding—we saw that the current minister had
another way of implementing the act. She applied it where there
were pockets of poverty. We all have pockets of poverty in our
ridings, but the minister made sure not to mention that rule.
Therefore, people did not know about it, and no projects were
implemented under that rule.
Under the new fund and the new standards, my riding is now
entitled, like the others, to money, but at a lower level. Over
the past year, about two businesses in my riding were able to
benefit from the new fund. Therefore, it still does not have a
significant impact on my riding.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget
implementation act because, as we know, a budget is a very
important issue.
1135
A budget is really about more than money. It should never be
seen as just being about money.
As we know, the budget sets the priorities for a government. It
sets a sense of direction. It says a lot about the attitude of
government and what government is all about. As we look at how
we apportion our funding and the kinds of things we do with the
money of Canadians, we are defining the kind of country we want
for ourselves, our children and our children's children. It is a
very important topic.
Usually a budget attempts to be good news. It tries to present
things in a very positive way so that people will come onside and
support it. However, I am afraid this budget was not good news.
It was not something which we could stand and be really proud of.
The Liberal government has ignored in this budget the
requirements to provide a long term plan to re-establish and
guarantee its commitment to the stewardship of Canada's social
programs. We know that social programs are very fundamental to
our country and need our support. Yet, when we look around the
country, the gap between the rich and poor is getting
increasingly wider as the days go by.
Did the government listen to Canadians when it fashioned the
budget? Did it listen to Canadians to get a pulse of what they
were saying and what was important to them?
I would like to give members a flavour of what people have said
in my constituency of Halifax West. I have held a lot of
meetings over the past number of weeks and months. I have talked
to people and listened to what they said. I will read a few
quotes which come directly from them. The words I will put forth
on the budget are not mine, they are the words of Canadians. When
members first hear some of these comments they may not sound as
if they are related to the budget. However, if they stop to think
about them they will see that they touch upon things that are of
importance to Canadians. They touch upon the attitudes,
priorities and the sense of direction that this country should
display.
One thing which came out loud and clear from many people was
that the price of gasoline was too high. We are talking about an
issue that affects people daily. Many people across this country
need their automobiles. Automobiles are no longer a luxury, they
are a necessity. The cost of gasoline is too high. That is an
issue that was not addressed by the budget.
Another comment was “You are the only politician who sends me
information, Gordon. Thank you”. People are concerned about
what is happening. They are very pleased when we communicate
with them. However, I am afraid the government did not
communicate with the public when it designed the budget.
Another comment was “How can the QE II hospital”, a hospital
in the Halifax area, “afford landscaping when it is $20 million
in debt?” Why are these hospitals in debt? Why is our health
care system suffering? It comes back to the lack of support by
the federal government in making health care a priority, which
Canadians said was their number one priority.
Another comment was “Everything has to go through the U.S. in
order to be sold. When they snap their fingers, we jump. We are
Americans. The signs just say it is Nova Scotia”. The attitude
of a lot of people is that we are slowly being caught up in
Americanization.
Again, this is very true when it comes to our health care
system. Look at what has happened. The government has started
to move toward allowing a two tier health care system. Only
those who can afford certain services will be able to get them.
Everybody else will wait in line. Health care in our country is
a very serious issue. What has the government done for health
care in the budget? Nothing.
Another comment was “The federal budget was not really a good
one for the average person. It did not address any of the
problems that students have. It was dressed up to look good”.
When we look at what was in the budget for education, we realize
that the income tax deduction was increased from $500 to $3,000
for scholarships. However, not all students receive
scholarships. Not all students are in a position to benefit from
that little change in the budget.
What we need to look at are those high tuition costs that are
causing great debt among our students.
Many of our university students are coming out of university with
a debt load of anywhere from $25,000 upward. That is an awful
way for them to commence a working career, with that kind of debt
load hanging over their heads.
1140
The comment from my constituent was very real and valid, that
this budget did not address the problems of students, but that it
was dressed up to look good.
Another comment was “The federal government is not listening
to the people. Why did it wait until just before the recent
byelection in Cape Breton to announce 900 McJobs?” The jobs are
classified as McJobs. It is true that the problems in Cape
Breton did not crop up overnight. They have been around for
quite some time. Any government with any foresight would have
been working to try to develop the means of making that part of
our province productive and meaningful, rather than waiting for a
crisis and then flying into the area and talking about patronage
at its very best, because we are getting close to an election,
and throwing out some jobs. This is not what people want.
People see through this. They realize that this is not
sincerity. It is not setting a true attitude of caring and
understanding for the people.
Cape Breton is a wonderful part of our province. It has all
kinds of potential. There are many opportunities for the tourism
industry and home businesses, with new technology and so forth.
A forward thinking government would certainly be moving in the
direction to try to promote some of those things, rather than
waiting for a crisis, waiting for an election and tossing out a
few tidbits around election time. People see through that.
Another comment was “What kind of influence would Paul Martin
have on whether or not we have a shipbuilding policy?” These
are the words of my constituent, they are not my words. “Canada
Steamship Lines has an aging fleet which will have to be replaced
by double hulls and it will be cheaper to build the ships outside
Canada”. In other words, people are starting to look at things
and they are saying “Why is it that the government is not
supporting a good shipbuilding policy for Canadians?”
I note that recently the industry committee submitted a report
in which one of the recommendations was for the government to
encourage the U.S. to repeal the Jones Act. I think that we all
know that the U.S. will not repeal something that is in its
favour to appease Canada and to try to help us. We need to look
at establishing our own legislation, our own policies that will
support and assist our workers here in Canada. We can do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt, but I was not paying strict attention earlier. Was it
the hon. member's intention to split his time?
Mr. Gordon Earle: No, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All right, then the
hon. member for Halifax West has 12 minutes left.
While I am on my feet, you cannot bring in the back door what
you cannot bring in the front door. It is not appropriate to
refer to members by their given names, even if it is in a letter
from someone else, just as a point of interest for everybody.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I had forgotten that for
the moment, and I thank you for reminding me.
Another comment which was made during the meetings I held was
“Will there be any infrastructure money for us?” We note that
the government announced in its budget that there will be an
infrastructure program, probably similar to the one that was
carried on previously, and we applaud that move as a very
positive move. However, our concern is that the details have not
yet been worked out. We understand that it may not be until 2001
before some agreements are worked out with the provinces to get
this in motion. We need the infrastructure now. We need these
programs to move in favour of the communities.
There are many small communities in my riding which would
benefit immensely from a good infrastructure program. We hope
that these programs will not be focused only on major
infrastructure projects like highways, but that the programs will
reach into the communities to assist them with the goals and
objectives which are meaningful to them, such as community
centres and structures to assist our young people and our
children, the real heartthrob of our country, to give them the
recreational and educational opportunities that are
needed.
We want to watch that infrastructure very closely. The question
from the constituent, “Will there be any infrastructure money
for us?”, is very valid because sometimes we know that these
programs are administered in a way in which, far too often, there
is much political manoeuvring around who gets what and how it
takes place, and that should not be the case.
We see the very result of that in the House today with the many
questions regarding the administration of the HRDC grants and how
they went to various ridings. We hope this will not become an
issue with the infrastructure program. With regard to the
budget, we certainly feel that the infrastructure program is
important and we hope it will be carried out prudently.
1145
The health care system is a mess. I have spoken about this
already. This issue was raised time and time again by many
people in my constituency who were concerned about the health
care system. I am glad to see that the government is now looking
at discussions with the provinces on how to move forward on some
of the very vital issues. We know that this must be more than
window dressing. It has to be sincere and it has to show that
the government is putting forth the kind of support that is
needed. Unfortunately, the fact that the federal government is
contributing so little to the health care system compared with
what it contributed years back is indeed something that has
caused a lot of problems, long waiting lines, a lot of
difficulties with our health care system.
The budget did not really address two very important aspects of
the health care system, home care and pharmacare. These are very
important issues. Many elderly people in my riding say to me
“On my fixed income I cannot afford the cost of the drugs that I
have to buy”. This is a very real problem for many people,
particularly seniors. We in the NDP feel the government has
strongly ignored aid and assistance to our senior citizens in its
budget.
Our seniors have contributed a lot to their communities and when
they get to their golden years, they should not have to be
concerned or worried about their next meal. They should not be
concerned or worried about needing medication and balancing their
budgets and doing without some necessity in order to get their
medicine. I know of many senior citizens who are going without
their medication because it is not available to them with our
present health care system. I have many comments I can make
about this issue.
One comment that came up time and time again was the fact that
the government does not listen. There is a feeling among the
public that when politicians campaign at election time, they will
say anything and everything to get elected. Once elected, they
become obsessed with power and do not listen to those who elected
them. In some cases, constituents never see their elected
representatives. The feeling is that government does not listen
to people. It does what it wants when it wants.
Another issue was the announcement by the government that it was
going to provide assistance to professional hockey teams. In
this case, perhaps the government did listen when people spoke
out loud and clear and said “We don't want it”. The government
backed off rather quickly because there was quite an outcry from
the public.
I quite often tell people in my constituency that they have
power in their voices. If they combine their voices with that of
others they can get some change. I have told them not to be
afraid to speak out on issues. I encourage people to make sure
they direct their concerns to the government or their MP when
they have these kinds of concerns. We have to make the
government listen. It is our future. It is our country. It is
our destiny.
Who can live on a $575 per month CPP disability pension? Over
and above the issue of the amount that is available for this
pension, people also find they have difficulties when they apply
for this. Many people in my riding come to me with obvious
disabilities and will never be able to work again. Yet, they
have trouble getting the disability pension. When they do get
it, it is only $575 per month. There is very little one can do
with $575 per month with the cost of housing and food. There is
not much left over. This issue was sadly lacking in the budget.
There was nothing to address the concerns of our senior citizens,
those who are living on disability pensions or those with limited
or fixed incomes.
What happened to the debt? Is the government not worried about
it? I am afraid of what we will be leaving our children with in
terms of the debt. That is a very important comment. What will
we be leaving our children? What will our legacy be to our
children? Will we just be passing on to them a system of
two-tier privatized health care where if they are not fortunate
enough to be earning enough money, they are not going to be able
to get access to the best medical treatment or will we be leaving
them a system which is universally accessible to all, one that we
can be proud of?
1150
This is what we in the NDP are fighting for. This is what we
feel the government should maintain. Unfortunately, we see the
government moving in an opposite direction. The government is
tolerating the setting up of private clinics and the operation of
“private hospitals”. I put it in quotes because people will
say they are not hospitals. The reality is when persons are sick
or their leg is broken and they go for service, they are not
questioning whether it is a clinic or hospital. They look at
whether or not that service is available to them. What kind of
system are we leaving to our children?
I will share another comment with the House because I like this
one in particular. It states “I don't understand why people
will not give the NDP a chance”. I think that is a good one. I
think it is time for people to start looking at their options and
realize that there is a voice out there speaking for them which
is concerned about many of these issues.
I will keep your admonition in mind, Mr. Speaker, about calling
people by names. I will leave out the name but another comment
states “It took Mr. X more than one year to answer my letter
regarding CPP”. This person was writing to a minister of the
government about her CPP.
Mr. Ken Epp: Was it the Minister of Finance?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, it was, Mr. Speaker. It was the
minister of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We do not want to
get carried away here. We can refer to the minister by the
minister's riding or the minister's responsibility. We just
cannot use the name. So feel free. The hon. member for Halifax
West.
Mr. Gordon Earle: In any event, it took this individual
one year to answer a letter. I know we all sometimes have
problems getting back on time with our correspondence. However,
the key is this. When people are looking to governments and
their leaders, they want to feel that there is some sense of
responsibility on these issues because these issues are very
crucial to them.
These are the kinds of comments that are coming forward. I
raise these in good faith to give an understanding as to why
people are concerned about the budget and why they are concerned
about the government.
I am not sure how much time I have left, but I want to bring
this to a conclusion on a positive note. I think it is very
important for each and every one of us in the House to examine
very closely the budget from the point of view, as I said before,
as to what it says in terms of priorities for people, priorities
for Canadians. What are we saying to the public about the
direction in which we want the country to go? We have to get
past the bottom line being just the dollar. By that I do not mean
that the dollar is not important. Of course it is important.
However, there is much more importance in having a sense of
decency about the way we conduct our business, about having a
sense of obligation and responsibility to seniors, students, the
ill and those who are afflicted.
There is much more to the budget than just the dollars
themselves. We notice that the budget did not really touch upon
many issues that would affect aboriginal people, our first
citizens of this country. These kinds of things determine what
attitude we have about our country, about where we are as a
nation.
In conclusion, I would say that we certainly were disappointed
with the budget. We hope that the comments of Canadians, such as
the comments that I read earlier, will be taken to heart and the
government will look at those things in a meaningful way and try
to do what is best for our country.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member from Nova Scotia talk about the
inadequacies of the Canada pension plan as far as disability
pensions are concerned. The member will know that the government
has arranged for the Canada pension plan premiums to be raised to
9.9% of earnings and that will take place over the next two or
three years. Along with that increase in the premium rate, we
are seeing a decline in the number of people in the workforce and
an increase in the number of people who are retired. Therefore,
we have more and more people retiring and fewer and fewer people
actually paying the premiums.
1155
I wonder if the member would enlighten us as to how he sees
curing that problem. More and more people are retiring and going
on disability on the Canada pension plan, fewer and fewer people
are paying into it and the rates are increasing and increasing.
Where does he see the rates stopping?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am really
qualified to say where I think the rates should stop.
I think the hon. member has raised a valid point with respect to
the increase in premiums and so forth because far too often what
is happening is that the government is constantly increasing
premiums and taking more money from people when in reality what
we need to do is readjust our priorities so that the money that
is there can be utilized in a more positive way to alleviate some
of the difficulties that people who must go on disability
encounter.
When we look, for example, at what happened with the EI premiums
and a program designed to help the unemployed, the government
took that money and threw it into its pot so that it could come
up with a surplus.
When we look at superannuation, the money is taken there and put
into a pot so the government can claim a surplus. When we look
at the pay equity struggle that workers had for years and years
and years, again, it comes back to priorities. If the government
will reorganize its priorities and think in terms of people, then
that issue that the member raised will come to a natural
resolution.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, thank you again for the opportunity to speak on Bill
C-32, the budget implementation act.
At first glance the bill tries to pass itself off as legislation
that will bring about tax relief and the elimination of bracket
creep. The bill attempts to appear to be beneficial to our
health care and our education systems. It has the appearance
that there is a claim that there will be increases to the
transfer payments to the provinces. The government would like us
to believe that the bill will make major breakthroughs for
families with the national child benefit.
When I actually go through the bill and really analyse this, I
can summarize the bill or the budget in two words. This budget
is about tinkering and tokenism and nothing more.
Canadians are getting less. Polls across this country indicate
that nine out of ten Canadians want substantive tax relief. We
have seen the Liberals take, take, take since 1993 when they
formed government. We have seen our disposable income
continually fall. We have become worse off. They take a dollar
and they claim they will give us back a dime, and I emphasize the
word claim as I am not convinced that that will happen, and we
are supposed to thank them.
There is something desperately wrong with this. This all comes
back to the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, he does not
understand that this is not his money. This money belongs to the
people of Canada. Until we change this institution, until we
change how we spend taxpayers' money and until we bring back
accountability, this country will be worse off.
I chatted with my colleague, the member for St. Albert. He
introduced Bill C-477, which I found very fascinating. There is
something that is quite startling in that bill. The title alone,
an act to provide for evaluations of statutory programs, really
goes to the heart of what I am talking about.
I want to read one little section of what he is trying to do.
Again, the member for St. Albert tabled four criteria this
morning. This bill is about the evaluation of government
programs and it is basically to replace a sunset clause.
One, what are the public policy objectives that the program is
designed to achieve; two, its effectiveness in meeting its
objectives; three, the efficiency by which it is delivered; and
four, whether its purpose could be better fulfilled by different
means.
1200
I would say that those are four very important fundamental
principles we should be thinking about every time this
institution spends taxpayer dollars, but that has not happened.
Time and again we see that there is no accountability. These
programs create a life of their own. They grow and completely
lose their objectives.
I am not suggesting that we do not need to look at investing in
this country but, as we have seen in the billion dollar
boondoggle in the HRDC program, the job creation funds and many
more, these programs often fail every single one of these tests.
This comes back to accountability and whether taxpayers are
getting value for their money. The member for St. Albert pointed
something out to me that really struck me. He said that we need
to show accountability with every single dollar going out of this
institution. Unfortunately, that is not happening.
Michael Mendelson, an economist from the Caledon Institute, said
“Fiscal doom does not await us if we decide to tax substantively
less than Ottawa is likely to do—even in this slower economy,
reduced taxes would turn that around”.
Sherry Cooper, from Nesbitt Burns Inc., said “It is precisely
because of economic uncertainty that tax relief to support
businesses and consumers is needed now. The Canadian tax burden
today is excessive, dramatically reducing our economic
well-being. Furthermore, substantive tax cuts will not
jeopardize the hard-won gains on the fiscal front”.
The guy who is holding the purse strings is the Minister of
Finance. We have to start holding him personally accountable for
a lot of these decisions, such as on health care.
I will give an example from my riding. In the province of
British Columbia we have two level two intensive care units for
children in all of B.C. One is in Vancouver and the other one is
in Victoria. They have been there for a long time and have saved
hundreds of children's lives. One of those institutions is about
to be closed. I spoke to the hospital administrator, the CEO of
the Victoria Regional Health Board. He looked at whether they
could be more efficient or whether they could do a better job by
centralizing but, he said “I have to acknowledge that this whole
debate started for one reason: money. There is not enough
money. The pie is not big enough. It gets smaller and smaller.
We have to shut it down”. This will have a dramatic effect on
how we deliver health care on Vancouver Island. It is wrong.
The guy who is cutting the pie and handing it out, but not back
to the taxpayers, is the Minister of Finance. We often hear that
it is the entire government but it is the Minister of Finance who
has the most influence on what is happening. It really perturbs
me that they take a dollar, give us back a dime and we are
supposed to thank them. Health care in this country is in a
crisis.
Let us look at some specific things that this budget does or
does not do. It talks about bracket creep. Bracket creep is
something that has already put one million low income workers on
the tax rolls and pushed another 2.5 million taxpayers into
higher tax brackets. Between 1986 and 1999 bracket creep created
an extra $10 billion in taxes.
I applaud the government for eliminating bracket creep. Let us
call a spade a spade. It eliminated bracket creep, which was one
of the most significant things in the budget, but it is calling
it tax relief. It is absolutely amazing.
It cancels future tax increases and that is supposed to be tax
relief. It is beyond comprehension. I do not know if we need to
send members back to school to take economics 101 or send them to
an economist. However, to cancel tax increases for future years
and then say that they are giving us tax relief is wrong.
1205
We have to put a solution on the table. I am extremely proud of
what the Canadian Alliance has put out there. The member for
Medicine Hat has worked extensively on what we refer to as
solution 17, which is a single tax rate of 17% for everyone. What
that will do is create an environment where the private sector
will help the economy flourish and create meaningful,
long-lasting, permanent jobs where people's lives will become
better.
While speaking to the member for St. Albert this morning, we
discussed his private member's bill that would bring back
accountability to how we spend money. An example that comes to
mind is the TAGS program. The government spent almost $2.8
billion paying fishermen to sit at home and wait for the fish to
return. We all agreed that something needed to be done for these
people but the people were worse off after the program ended than
they were when it began. It did not help them. All the money
was for naught. We gave them no hope and no future. They were
extremely frustrated five years later.
We do have situations that happen at various times for different
reasons and we need to address them as a government.
Unfortunately, the strategies we have seen coming from the
government have not helped Canadians. They have put them in a
much worse situation. Our health care system is crumbling before
our eyes. People are dying while on waiting lists. There is
less money in our health care and in the transfer payments today
than when this government took office in 1993. That is an
absolute disgrace.
Let us look at the billion dollar boondoggle. The government
will of course say that it was not a billion dollars. We know
there was no paperwork for 15% of the applicants. No one could
even tell us if the people had applied. There were numerous
other grants where people had asked for $60,000 and received
$100,000 and told to keep the change. I know how long any
experienced private business person would stay in business if he
or she operated in that manner. It is absolutely mind-boggling
that the government actually tries to defend these actions. It
takes the government so long to react on anything that when it
does, one wonders just what will happen.
Coming back to the billion dollar boondoggle, how did the
government respond to that situation? The budget was tabled in
the House in February. How did the government respond? It
responded by giving more money to grants and contributions this
year. In this year's budget alone it increased grants and
contributions to $1.5 billion. I do not know the exact number
but I think it gave $200 million or $300 million to HRDC alone.
What did health care get after years and years of cuts? It
received $1 billion. Our national health care is very sacred. It
is the cornerstone on which we should be focusing but the
government is dropping the ball and doing nothing.
The Canadian Alliance has a better plan. Solution 17 is a
single tax rate that will put money back into the hands of
taxpayers and families.
1210
Let me tell the House about the government's six point plan. I
do not have it in front of me so I will try to do this from
memory. I actually had a copy of the previous six point plan
before the government had its first six point plan.
The first point is, there is no plan. The second rule in the six
point plan is, if there are any rules, do not follow the rules.
The third rule is, locate Shawinigan on the map, memorize it and
send lots of money.
Some hon. members: That is not in the plan.
Mr. Gary Lunn: A member has said that is not in the plan.
Of course that is not in the plan and is not the fact but that is
exactly what happened and how it ended up.
Let me read from page 46 of the Minister of Finance's budget
plan 2000 dated February 28, 2000. By the minister's own
numbers, it says that by the end of this year we will have a
deficit. If the members on the other side want to follow along,
they should open the budget at page 46. Chart 3.1, Federal
Government Budgetary Balance. Throughout the 1980s and up until
1997 we see that we have gone up to about a $40 billion deficit.
We then have a little spike up over the line. Guess what happens
at the end of this year? It goes back to below zero. The
government will spend more money than it will take in.
Let me give the Minister of Finance's definition of what this
chart means. It is called “Financial Requirements/Surplus”.
It states:
Another important measure of the Government's finances is the
financial requirements/surplus—the difference between cash
coming into the Government and cash payments made for programs
and public debt charges during the year.
Why is the government spending more money than it is taking in?
It is because we are one year before an election. Interestingly
enough—and I found this quite fascinating because this chart
goes back to 1961—if we look at the year before every federal
election we can see that government spending goes through the
roof. The election machine kicks in, the goodies come out and it
is time to buy more votes. What do members think the billion
dollar boondoggle was all about?
The Prime Minister's riding received more money than two or
three prairie provinces combined, money that was completely
unaccounted for. The Prime Minister announced grants before
there was even any paperwork and before the department even knew
about it. People were backpedaling so fast to make it happen it
was not even funny. That is is so wrong. It is a culture that
has permeated this institution that we have to change. We have
to bring back accountability and respect.
I would ask hon. members to get a copy of Bill C-477, which the
member for St. Albert tabled this morning. He wants to bring
back an evaluation of statutory programs so that Canadian
taxpayers will get some value for their money. He wants to make
sure that the programs will do what they were intended to do.
Imagine that, somebody is actually suggesting we make sure that
programs are effective, that they meet the stated goals and that
they are run in an efficient manner and, if not, that they are
run in a better way.
The government is not interested in anything like that. It will
not let something like that see the light of day. It will shovel
the money out the back door faster than any of us could. It is
incredible. We see it day after day.
Who is holding the chequebook? It is none other than the
Minister of Finance. We saw the sort of unofficial leadership
race on that side of the House and we heard people talking about
the Minister of Finance. This is the man who has been in that
position since 1993.
He is the guy who has slashed and burned health care, who has not
put money in. He is the man who cut back transfer payments to
the provinces so much that officials are cutting one of two
intensive care units in Victoria where I am from. Children's
lives will be put at risk. People will die.
1215
Mr. Hec Clouthier: That is the province.
Mr. Gary Lunn: No, that is factual. It will be very
tragic. They will have to be airlifted to Vancouver. It is a
level two intensive care unit for children. It is a very high
level of care that has been there for some 15 years and all of a
sudden it is being shut down.
The CEO of the Victoria health board in his own words said that
the debate started because they do not have enough money. It is
wrong. It is time that the government did something about it.
We could go on and on but let us stick to the facts. Let us
talk about the standard of living since the government came in.
We live in a great country but we cannot take it for granted. The
standard of living since the government came to power has
dropped. The savings of Canadians have dropped. Young families
are struggling. Health care is in an absolute, complete crisis.
There is no accountability of how money is spent. We see such
things as the billion dollar boondoggle going on. It is a
disgrace. What is the government's six point plan? It is to
give it more money next year and give health care less. That is
wrong.
In my riding migrants were the big issue. The government is
more concerned about building more beds at provincial jail
institutions than it is for health care. I hope the members on
the other side have taken note. It is time to bring back
accountability to this institution and bring back respect. It is
long overdue.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank my colleague
for bringing to light the information in his speech.
It was interesting as I listened to him to reflect on some of
the promises the finance minister has made. He will increase
federal spending by something over $86 billion over the next five
years. It is amazing he would put that expense on Canadians. It
is almost $3,000 per Canadian, to increase spending to that
level. At the same time I hear my colleague talking about the
tragedy in Victoria with the closing of the children's intensive
care unit.
How would my colleague rectify this situation? It is impossible
to imagine that expenditures can be raised and still cut services
at the same time and at the level that the Liberals are doing it.
I ask my colleague to describe a situation which he sees would
not only improve the situation for Canadians but would provide
the services they need as well.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has touched upon
the very important point about the massive increase in government
spending. If the government put more money into health care,
that is one area which would get my support. However, where is
the $86 billion increase in spending going?
As we have seen, the biggest beneficiaries are programs such as
grants and contributions. Some of the grants are absolutely
mind-boggling. They are almost insulting to repeat.
It is important that we remind Canadians how the money is being
spent.
1220
Under Canadian heritage, grants have gone out for hanging dead
rabbits in trees, for setting up a call centre for prostitution
or phone sex or something like that as an art exhibit in Paris.
They are absolutely horrific. I cannot believe the government
would allow one thin dime of taxpayers' money to go to those. Not
only did it send it, it supported it. It defends those types of
programs.
The member made a very important point. There was an $86
billion spending increase. It is time to put money back into the
pockets of Canadians for them to spend. It would help stimulate
the economy and they would spend the money a lot better.
There are some things we need to spend money on such as health
care. We need to debate how to deliver health care in this
country. Our national health care needs to become stronger.
Whether Canadians get sick in St. John's or they have a heart
attack in Winnipeg or Vancouver, they want to know that they will
be treated without having to wait. Unfortunately that is not
where the money is going.
I was asked what could help turn the situation around and bring
back some credibility and respect. Our solution 17 would see a
single tax rate of 17%. It would increase the basic exemption
for people to $10,000. It would not discriminate against people
whether they were working or not and both people in the household
could get that. That would take one million Canadians off the
tax roll. People with lower incomes would be the biggest
beneficiaries. A family of four would have to earn in the
neighbourhood of $26,000 before paying one dime in tax. There
are people in the country right now who are below the poverty
line and who pay taxes. That is wrong.
Where does the money go? It goes to political patronage and to
the cronies of the people over there. That is so frustrating to
me. There is example after example. It goes out one door and
comes in another door called the Liberal Party of Canada. There
are lots of examples. It is corrupt and it is wrong. It is time
we changed that and brought back respect to this institution. I
am not going to quit until we do.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that I am from a
rural area in southern Saskatchewan. I would like to inform the
hon. member that I asked for and received some documents from the
Farm Credit Corporation about the number of farm closures that
would take place because of the situation that had developed
because of flooding and the poor commodity prices.
Had the government seen fit to take just a small portion of some
of the expenditures the member just mentioned, we could have left
many of those young families, if not all of them, on the farm
with the hope of survival. At least we would have done something
for them and their families. I would like him to comment on
that.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an
excellent point. We have seen the farm crisis. I brought that up
when we talked about the TAGS program for the fisher people in
Atlantic Canada.
We need to help these people but we need stated objectives. We
want to make sure that when we help people that the money we
invest in these programs actually reaches them. Unfortunately,
it goes down sinkholes and to government patronage programs.
Look at the TAGS program in Atlantic Canada; $2.8 billion later
and those people are worse off when the program was shut down
than they were when it started.
1225
On this side of the House we in the Canadian Alliance believe
there are situations where we are going to invest and help
people. We are going to have stated objectives. That is what
private member's Bill C-477 by the member for St. Albert
proposes: what is our objective, is it going to be effective, is
it being delivered efficiently and can we do it better?
That is what this is all about. For the people that need it in
circumstances like the farm crisis, yes we will invest in these
programs. That money will reach the people. It will not get
gobbled up in a bureaucracy. It will not get gobbled up in
administration. We will evaluate it and make sure that it is
doing what it is supposed to be doing.
We have heard the government talk about all the money it is
giving to the farm crisis over and over again. Many of my
colleagues are from that part of the country and they have told
me time and time again that it is not reaching anyone. These
programs are delivered inefficiently and ineffectively. That
goes to the core of the problem of the government.
I started off my speech by saying that this is a budget of
tinkering and tokenism. The government takes a dollar, gives us
back a dime and we are supposed to thank it.
The members in the Canadian Alliance are united more than ever
right now about making a difference in the country. They are not
going to stop until they do. It is time we brought change to
this institution, accountability and credibility. We are going
to fight for this to the bitter end and we are not going to give
up.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget that was tabled in the
House on February 28, 2000.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with my colleague
from Cumberland—Colchester. He will be taking half of the
speaking time.
It is unfortunate there was not more substance in Bill C-32 with
more need to implement more of the provisions that should have
been identified in the budget that was tabled in the House on
February 28. With budgets, government and governance, the
Canadian public is looking for something that is not terribly out
of the ordinary and it is not something that is terribly
difficult to understand. It seems the government has not had the
opportunity to talk to the people in places where they have a
tendency to be, the hockey games, the coffee shops in our
constituencies.
If we asked the small business owners and other people working
in those businesses, it is not difficult to understand what
Canadians want. They simply want to have and to hold a job, to
earn a living, to educate their children, to buy a house, to have
some luxuries, an automobile, and certainly food on their table.
They want to be able to earn dollars and to keep and control the
dollars they earn.
Unfortunately the budget does not speak to that. The budget
still says that if you are a Canadian and you work and you earn
money, then the government is going to take that money away from
you, because the government knows full well what is better for
you as a Canadian citizen and how those dollars should be
expended and spent on your behalf. The budget says please do not
think that you as a thinking Canadian who can raise that family,
keep that job and earn that dollar, know better how to spend
those dollars. The government does not believe Canadians are
capable of doing that. That philosophy is embraced in the budget
that was tabled in the House on February 28. I will speak to
that in certain areas.
Also a budget is not simply a financial blueprint; it is a
blueprint for the way our society and our country is to grow. It
is called vision. I know that word is sometimes overused but
certainly it has not gotten through to the members on the
government side of the House. They have absolutely no vision.
It was mentioned earlier by the hon. member who just spoke that
there was a tinkering in the way they do business. It is true.
1230
I use the term caretaker government. It is a caretaker
government with a caretaker prime minister who is simply waiting
out his days. He is saying that we should do business the way we
have always done business, not rock the boat or do anything new
and innovative.
However we live in a new and innovative society. We do not live
in the 1950s any longer like perhaps the Canadian Alliance would
like us to do. We live in a world now which demands that we
compete in a globalized world. It demands that our children be
educated to a level and standard that they can compete with other
nations in the world, not just simply with provinces or the
cities adjacent to them.
The government does not recognize that. It has no vision. It
has no vision on education. It has no vision on agriculture. We
have talked about that. The budget does not speak a word about
agriculture. Agriculture, the food on our tables that we eat, is
important to Canadian citizens. People who have families, who
have jobs and want to educate their children like to put food on
their tables, and that comes from agriculture.
The government has absolutely no understanding or idea where the
agricultural sector of society is going. There is no vision. The
government puts out false hopes, false statements and false
programs. Yet the dollars do not get to where they are supposed
to go. My constituents have a real feeling of depression because
they do not know what kind of future they have.
Let us talk about the lack of vision in health care. The
government stands in the House, pats itself on the back and says
that it put $2.5 billion into health care in the last budget over
four years. The $2.5 billion do not bring us back to a 1993-94
level of expenditure.
Two things are wrong with that. It is not simply the money. It
is the vision with respect to health care. The government will
not even sit down to work with the provinces, let alone listen to
the way it could possibly change the system for the better. It
is not prepared to do that because it has no vision and no
understanding of where Canadians want to go with that aspect of
their lives.
The government has no vision on transportation. Our country was
built on transportation, by the rail links, by air and by road.
The government does not even know where it is heading with
transportation.
Let us talk about Bill C-32 specifically. I mentioned the lack
of vision. The government has tried to deal with a couple of
areas. One of them was the basic personal deduction. Canadians
want to keep their money so they can spend it the best way they
see fit. One way to do that is for the government to take less.
It is the Progressive Conservative position that we should have
basic personal deductions of $12,000 per year. That is not much
money in today's society but it would be a step in the right
direction. However the government takes great pride in
increasing it by about $100 so that under this government
Canadian citizens are not given the right to spend their own
money.
Let us talk about CHST. It is not simply a matter of the health
dollars that are being transferred. As I said earlier, the
health dollars are abysmal. The government should be held
accountable for what it did to our health care system. The Prime
Minister will be known in history as the man who destroyed our
health care system. He did it almost single-handedly, although
his backbenchers and his government gave him full rein to do so.
They too will have to wear that in history.
What would we do with health care? We would do something that
is really foreign to the government, co-operative federalism. It
used to be that 50% of health care dollars were contributed by
the federal government. That has been reduced. In fact there is
a provincial government now that is suggesting it could be as low
as 11 cents or 11% of health care dollars.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: That is wrong and the member knows it.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, they like to dispute
that. Let us say that it is 25 cents on the dollar, which it is
not, even with the tax points.
Let us assume they can put that forward. I do not think
Canadians are gullible enough to believe that, but they will try
to put it forward and will try to get Canadians to believe
something that is not in fact true.
1235
There are three issues in health care. The first is that we
have an aging population. The government does not seem to
recognize it, because we are now back to 1993-94 levels of
funding.
I have talked about the new global economy. We live in a
globalized world. We have technology that we never considered
possible. We have it but we cannot afford it because the
government is not prepared to work with the provinces and is not
prepared to work on the health care system to make it available
to Canadians.
As I said, we have an aging population. There is also
technology and inflation. We need money in the system but we
also need to work with the provinces and we need co-operation. We
will not get any of those with this government.
Bill C-32 also deals with employment insurance. Employment
insurance is an insurance program for which Canadians pay a
premium so that they are entitled to a benefit from the program
when required. By law, the employment insurance program is a
flow-through, break even program, an insurance program.
The Liberal government collects $18 billion a year in insurance
premiums and pays out $12 billion a year in benefits. It pockets
$6 billion of our money. Members of the government do it and say
that they are wonderful. They pat themselves on the back because
they can use the $6 billion to spend the way they would like to
spend it, as has been done perhaps in Shawinigan and in some
other mismanaged programs for which they are so famous.
I am sorry Bill C-32 does not contain more substance. Yes, we
live in a great country, but Canadians must recognize that we
have to protect our standard of living. We cannot protect our
standard of living and our quality of life with the mismanagement
of this government.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to address one specific point. The member announced that
the Progressive Conservative Party, as part of its platform,
would like to increase a tax credit.
The member referred to it as the basic personal deduction. For
the member's edification, it is a basic personal amount, a
non-refundable tax credit at a rate of 17%. If we assume a 50%
provincial tax rate of the federal tax rate, the equivalent in
the pocket for a Canadian would be at a rate of about 25%. The
$5,000 increase in the tax credit the member is proposing would
generate $1,250 in the pocket of every Canadian taxpayer. That
is federal and provincial.
The member will probably know that in 1997, the last year
Revenue Canada reported on it, 14 million Canadian taxpayers
filed income tax returns and actually paid income taxes.
Therefore, if what the member is proposing were to be done, it
would mean that 14 million taxpayers times $100 would generate
$1.4 billion of cost.
What the member is proposing would cost the federal government
$12 billion. This is not something to be taken lightly. The
member also went on to speak about EI and $6 billion. Now we are
up to $18 billion.
I could deal with some of the other points, but in a very few
moments the hon. member had summarily eliminated about $20
billion of revenue each and every year to the federal treasury to
support programs and services.
1240
My question is simple. I understand clearly what the member
would like to cut in terms of the revenue base the government
uses to support health care and all other supports it provides to
Canadians. If he is to cut $20 billion-plus a year out of the
federal treasury, what is he prepared to cut each and every year
to ensure that we do not go back into the deficit that his party
put us into to start off this mess?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to
touch on that last comment. The reason we are in this mess is
because of a government led by a prime minister by the name of
Pierre Elliott Trudeau. That is where this mess started with
respect to social expenditures which, by the way, were funded out
of my son's future and my grandson's future. Let us get that
straight right now. The whole mess we are in right now is
because of a Liberal government and Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
If we went to $12,000 on the basic personal exemption, we would
be—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult
for the Chair to hear the hon. member for Brandon—Souris who has
the floor.
An hon. member: We do not want to hear him.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair wants to hear him and to
make sure that the debate is conducted fairly so that all hon.
members can be heard. I know that members will want to hear the
answer the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is giving to the
House.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, to the lack of substance
in the question from the hon. member for Mississauga South, based
on a basic personal exemption of $12,000 as has been suggested,
2.5 million Canadians would be removed from the tax rolls. It is
about $1,200 annually, which works out to about $2.5 billion.
The government's philosophy is that it can do it better than
individual Canadians. We are saying that individual Canadians
should be the masters of their own destiny. The money should be
given back to them. Something else the government cannot get
through its head is that when money is given back to Canadians it
generates the economy. It generates more dollars that can then
be collected by the tax creatures on that side of the House.
There are anywhere from $6 billion to $10 billion a year, but we
cannot get a real handle on the numbers because the finance
minister and the government will not tell us what is the real
surplus. The reason they do not want to tell us the real number
is that they hide it and squirrel it away so that they can spend
in places where it should not be spent. Those dollars should be
invested back into the pockets of Canadians.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is pleasure to speak to Bill C-32. I want to focus my remarks
on the transportation components of the bill and on how it will
impact Nova Scotia. After reviewing certain aspects and terms of
the bill and the budget, my conclusion is the bill is tokenism.
It is inconsistency and it is backfilling.
When the finance minister completed his budget presentation, it
is interesting that he conducted a poll to find out what people
thought of it. He found that the majority of Canadians felt that
he did not put enough money into health care, the number one
issue on everyone's mind. He did not have to take that poll. All
he had to do was to ask me. I did the same thing two years ago
in my own riding, and the number one issue was health care by a
long margin. Education was second. I was surprised that the
finance minister did not have that information and had to take a
poll even after he presented his budget.
In the budget he promised $2.5 billion over five years for
health care, education and infrastructure. The provinces have
been saying very loudly and consistently in unison that they need
$6 billion a year to maintain the system as it is. The government
has let the number one issue for Canadians, health care,
deteriorate to such an extent that it is hard to get a doctor in
a lot of places. It is hard to get nursing care. It is hard to
get into hospital. It is hard to get a hospital bed.
In return the finance minister brings this token amount of money,
and it is a token amount of money, to the provinces each year. In
the case of Nova Scotia, it amounts to about $15 million or $20
million a year for extra money for health care, and that is truly
a token. One hospital in our province is projected to cost
approximately $40 million or $50 million. That is one hospital.
This budget will give $15 million to $20 million a year to the
entire province. It is truly a token.
1245
Part of the infrastructure in the bill that the Liberals have
touted so much is for highway work. I will read what the
transportation minister in Nova Scotia said. He said that the
infrastructure program has a highway component to it. Ottawa
will provide less than $5 million per year for improvements to
Nova Scotia highways.
This is a real serious issue in Nova Scotia. There is a highway
in Nova Scotia called Highway 101. It has more fatal accidents
on it per mile driven than any highway in Canada. There is no
money to fix this highway. Yet the federal government allots $5
million a year to Nova Scotia for highway work. Again, in my
first remarks I mentioned that this is about tokenism and this is
a token amount of money for highway work for our Province of Nova
Scotia and all the other provinces.
The transportation ministers of every province have called on
Ottawa for a $17 billion highways program. What does the
government come up with? Five million dollars a year for Nova
Scotia. It is just a token and it is just literally a joke. Even
though revenues from fuel taxes and gas taxes have increased by
hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years, the last
decade, this is the situation.
I also mentioned inconsistency in this budget. Again, I come
back to Nova Scotia and its highway situation where there is one
of the most dangerous highways in Canada. Not only is it the
subject of fatalities regularly, but unfortunately the fatalities
are mostly young people. There have been 50 fatalities in the
last seven years and most of them were young people. All lives
are precious, but young lives are even more precious. For this
situation to be allowed to continue is unheard of.
The inconsistency part comes in when we consider that in the
next two years, under the federal budget and federal funding
programs, Newfoundland, the province on one side of Nova Scotia,
will get $105 million in highway funding.
New Brunswick, on the other side of us, will get $102 million in
highway funding. Nova Scotia in the middle will get zero
funding. It is Nova Scotia that has the dangerous highways, the
highways that are causing the fatalities.
Certainly, it is totally inconsistent. How can a government say
it will give this province $100 million and that one $100
million? I read in the paper yesterday that it may give the city
of Montreal $300 million to $100 million because it has traffic
jams. Nova Scotia is saddled with the most dangerous highway in
Canada and it cannot get one cent in infrastructure money for
that highway.
Again, if we look at the money injected into the provinces on
either side of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick got $465 million
between 1987 and 1998 and Newfoundland got $405 million. Yet
Nova Scotia gets zero dollars in the next two years. It is just
completely unfair and, again, it is inconsistent.
The amount allotted in the infrastructure program is
approximately $5 million a year and will hardly do any work, and
certainly will do nothing to solve the fatal deficiencies in
Highway 101 in Nova Scotia.
Another problem with the budget and the past practices of the
Liberal government, its practice now and its inconsistency in
transferring money and sharing the cost of highways, in Atlantic
Canada we have ended up with the only two unique toll highways in
Canada on the Trans-Canada Highway. We are the only region that
has toll highways, one in Nova Scotia and one in New Brunswick.
Why were these toll highways built? Because there was no choice.
The federal government had no consistent program of cost sharing
these highways.
Again, in the case of Nova Scotia, in the next two years there
is no money at all for highway construction. The provinces of
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came up with these innovative plans
which have proven extremely unpopular, so much so that both
governments which implemented them, the Liberal government in New
Brunswick and the Liberal government in Nova Scotia, are now
defeated and replaced by Conservative governments in both
provinces, much to the credit of their plan to put in the toll
highways.
1250
Recently the New Brunswick government eliminated the toll
highways. Hopefully the province of Nova Scotia will follow
suit, but at the moment Nova Scotia is the only province in
Canada to have a toll highway on the Trans-Canada.
Again, it is because of inconsistent programs with the federal
government with respect to highway funding. If Nova Scotia
received the same highway funding in the next two years that
Newfoundland or New Brunswick received, it could not only build
Highway 101, but it could probably take the tolls off the old
Highway 104.
The root causes are inconsistent funding, poor planning, and
little control. The auditor general said there is no
accountability of money given to the provinces. There is nothing
in the budget which will address any of these issues. They are
going to stay the same. Nova Scotia will continue to be saddled
with the toll highway until it has its finances in order so that
it can either take care of the highway or the federal government
finally comes around and deals with it.
I mentioned backfilling in my opening remarks. I see much of
this budget as backfilling. By that I mean it is replacing the
vast amounts of money withdrawn from infrastructure, withdrawn
from highways, withdrawn from education, and withdrawn from
health care, with tokens to try and help soothe the nerves of
Canadians. However, in particular with health care, it is not
working.
We have seen the provincial health ministers band together in
perhaps an unprecedented fashion. They have united, taken a
stand and forced the federal government into a corner. I think
we probably will see some movement now in health care funding
because the provinces are unanimous in their opposition to this
budget we are talking about today, they are unanimous in their
opposition to the tokenism provided to health care, and they are
unanimous in their opposition to the attitude of the Liberal
government which allowed our once famous health care system to
deteriorate and be reduced to just a shadow of what it used to be
when it was the envy of the whole world.
Along with Bill C-32, yesterday the Minister of Transport made
an announcement regarding VIA Rail. He has spent years pondering
a plan for VIA Rail. VIA Rail is a special interest of his and
in the past it has seemed to be even a passion. I really
expected that he was going to come out with an innovative plan,
at least along the lines of the recommendations made by the
standing committee on transport, which made several
recommendations. One would think that the minister would follow
these and try to resolve the problem.
The underlying root problem of VIA Rail is that is loses about
$200 million a year. There are ways to address that, and one
would think the minister would attempt something innovative,
something imaginative. What did he do? Yesterday he announced
an increased subsidy of $400 million. That is an increased
subsidy of 47% in the subsidies to VIA Rail, but there is no
vision. That is just to fix the equipment and infrastructure of
the VIA Rail system.
There is nothing new. There is nothing additional. There are
no additional services, no additional facilities, no additional
equipment. It is to maintain and upgrade the equipment which has
been allowed to deteriorate for so long.
The incredible thing about the minister's announcement is that
the government is going to give $401.9 million to VIA Rail and
then the government is going to ask VIA Rail for a business plan
with regard to how it is going to spend the money. Can we
imagine anyone in the private sector going to the bank and saying
“If you lend me $400 million, I will write you a business plan
after you approve it and I will explain how I am going to spend
the money”. It would not work and we all know it.
Bill C-32, from a transport point of view and from the point of
view of Nova Scotia is a budget of tokenism, inconsistency and
unfairness.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my remarks to
those of my colleague, who serves on the transport committee and
who is very definitely concerned with highways.
We cannot talk about highways and highway infrastructure without
someone from my area adding something to the debate. It is a
national disgrace across Canada and no one from any party on any
side of the House will deny that. Our highway system is
deplorable.
I would like to make this point to my hon. colleague.
The province of Saskatchewan has more miles of highway per capita
than any other province. I would like to inform the member that
if we extract what Saskatchewan will probably get, it is about
$150 million this year.
1255
I would like to explain to the hon. member that if we were to
sand-seal only number 13 highway that runs across just my
constituency, the $150 million would be gone. That is the end of
federal subsidies to highways in Saskatchewan.
I can assure the hon. member that the amount of money that the
province of Nova Scotia is getting is comparable to the pitiful
amount that we are getting. There will not be any improvement in
highway construction.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Souris—Moose Mountain for his remarks. We discuss this issue
constantly in the transport committee, both officially and
unofficially. The fact of the matter is it is a national
disgrace.
What has really gone on in Canada is that highways have not been
maintained properly for the last five to ten years. Highways do
not deteriorate on a straight line basis, surviving for a long
time and then suddenly starting to break up very quickly.
There is actually a highway deficit in this country. It is not
on the books of the government, but it is a very real debt and a
very real deficit. We owe money to our national highway system.
It is going to get a lot worse as these highways continue to
deteriorate. Once they break up, the moisture goes down, the
frost gets in, heaves them, breaks them more, more moisture and
more frost and so on. We are in for a tremendous requirement for
money for both our main and infrastructure highways.
My numbers for Saskatchewan are even less optimistic than the
member's numbers.
Mr. Roy Bailey: I was being generous.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the member is being very
generous, as he always is. Saskatchewan has truly not fared well
in the highway casino.
As I mentioned, the provinces on either side of Nova Scotia will
each get more than $100 million in the next two years. Nova
Scotia gets zip. I have Saskatchewan down here in my information
for a big zip, too. Saskatchewan is going to suffer from the
same problem as Nova Scotia.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-32, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament
on February 28, 2000. I do not want to go over in detail the
whole bill, but there are a couple of areas on which I would like
to comment.
When the Minister of Finance stands in this House and tables a
budget about how he is going to raise or lower taxes, how he is
going to spend on new programs and how he is going to eliminate
other programs that are obsolete, one would think as the chief
financial officer of the organization that he would have his
figures down pat and would know what he was talking about.
Part 4 of the budget implementation act deals with enabling 13
first nations identified in the schedule to impose a 7% value
added tax. The rest of the country has the equivalent tax called
the GST on fuel, cigarettes and alcohol. Now certain first
nations are being given the responsibility to collect 7% as well.
I want to point out a couple of things. The 7% GST goes to the
federal government. The 7% that is going to be collected under
this act is going to the first nations that will be collecting
the money. There are no regulations about how this tax is to be
administered. It only stipulates the right to collect it, no
doubt because under this Liberal government the first nations
have been given in essence sovereign powers to pass legislation
in their own right. We have to concern ourselves about the
regulations and how this money is going to be split between the
federal government collecting GST and the first nations tax.
1300
I had an occasion to stop at a gas station on a first nations
reserve. My gas bill was approximately $31. It was before gas
prices peaked in the last few weeks.
The guy in front of me paid for his tank of gas, which cost him
$12 because he did not have to pay tax. After he had paid his
$12 to fill his tank with gas, he bought cigarettes. Lots of
people buy cigarettes, but it seemed to me that the typical
purchase of cigarettes on the reserve was $130.
Behind the counter they had these little plastic shopping bags
full of the standard purchase of cigarettes, so that when
somebody was buying cigarettes they would get their $130 worth,
which to you and me, Mr. Speaker, or anybody else who would have
been buying the cigarettes, might have been worth $300.
I said to myself, other Canadians do not normally buy $130 worth
of cigarettes at a time, any time I have seen people buying
cigarettes in a store, so why would it be that the standard
cigarette purchase would be $130, tax free? I wonder, because I
have no proof of this, if it is because it was next to a large
city and perhaps these people had a ready market for these
cigarettes. Maybe not, but perhaps. It is worth thinking about.
As these cigarettes are purchased on the reserve by status
natives, the transaction is legal, according to our laws, but the
second transaction, if they sell them on the street at more or
less the going price for others, then that is illegal and the
Minister of Finance is losing out on his tax collection, if that
is happening.
Now that we have instituted this tax we will have the same store
collecting 7% in GST from Canadians and 7% on the alternative tax
from the natives who have the card which they can produce. It is
the exact same amount of tax. How will the Minister of Finance
be able to determine whether that tax should be remitted to the
Department of Finance or whether it should be kept by the band
for its own use? There are no regulations attached to this bill.
As I mentioned earlier, because they are largely sovereign, I
think they could tell the minister that they will write their own
rules as to how they will collect the tax. I am fairly sure we
will not see very much GST money. I gave the example of the
cigarettes. That disturbs me, because I spend, as chairman of
the public accounts committee, a lot of time focused on the area
of bribery and corruption.
When there are loose rules that are open to interpretation, open
to management, open to subtle bookkeeping and other
opportunities, it then starts to dribble down through the holes
in the floor and we lose sight of it. That concerns me because
it allows people to develop bad attitudes toward paying taxes,
being honest, having high morals and ensuring that everything is
honest and above board. I am seriously concerned that we are
providing these opportunities and challenges. It bothers me
immensely.
Continuing in the same vein, with respect to the Minister of
Finance collecting the taxes and ensuring that Canadians get
value for their money, the auditor general tabled a report this
week which had nine chapters. One of them dealt with elementary
and secondary education by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. I
really want to put the emphasis on the question: Are we getting
value for our money?
An hon. member: That is a good point.
Mr. John Williams: It is an excellent point, as my
colleague says. The auditor general said that the department
does not know how much money is being spent by the first nations
on education because it gives block funding to the first nations,
who then provide education. The department has the
responsibility to provide that education money, but it does not
know how much money is ending up in education.
It may be ending up in welfare. It may be ending up in someone's
pockets. It may be ending up somewhere else because the
department does not know how much money is being spent on
education.
1305
The report covers a number of horrifying things. In paragraph
4.72 the auditor general writes:
We further observed in one departmental region that a master
tuition agreement between the Department and the provincial
Ministry of Education had expired in 1992—
This is the year 2000. That was eight years ago. The agreement
had expired. No one had really bothered to do anything about it.
They just wrote the cheques and carried on.
What about things such as special needs? We are concerned about
special needs. However, the department does not know whether
special needs students are being appropriately identified or
assisted. Special needs students are those who are
psychologically disadvantaged or who have learning disabilities.
We agree with that, but because of the reported lack of
diagnostic expertise on the reserves, the auditor general
believes that the potential for under and over identification of
these students is high.
In addition, the department does not know whether all funding
provided for diagnostic and remedial services is actually used
for this purpose. The department does not know. In one region
this amounts to $581 per student. Take note of the $581, per
student year, for all students. Furthermore, the department does
not know the length of time the students are maintained in
special needs status. This makes it more difficult to identify
opportunities for improved services in another region, where
costs range from $2,047—remember that I said it was $581 in one
region, and now it is up to $2,047 in another region—to $65,650
per special needs student, and there is no process or mechanism
to ensure that the students' needs are being served.
I have a problem with these kinds of numbers. In one region
special needs students are getting $581 and in another region
they are getting $65,650 per student. Should we not be asking
the question, what is going on? There was no process or
mechanism to ensure that the students' needs were being served.
The Minister of Finance collects taxes and he gives the money to
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the
minister does not have a clue about what is going on in his
department. We know what happens with the minister of HRDC. We
have said many times in the House that she does not have a clue,
and now the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
obviously does not have a clue.
What about the lack of education funding agreements? I
mentioned one region that did not even have one. In one region
they noted 244 instances where they expected to find agreements
between first nations or the department and provincial
educational authorities to cover student enrolment in provincial
schools. However, the department was able to identify agreements
in only 58 cases. There were 244 instances where they expected
to find them, but they only found them in 58 cases. Further, the
department did not know whether any agreement was in force in 128
cases, and determined that no agreements existed for the
remaining 58.
What is going on, Mr. Speaker? Do you not think we are entitled
to ask legitimate questions about what is going on? Does the
department know what is going on? Or, should it just admit that
it does not know what is going on?
Our first nations are at the bottom of the economic and social
ladder in the country.
We surely have some obligation to help them take their place in
the economic society we have built and to provide some prosperity
for them.
1310
Native people watch the television ads which sell everything
from soup to nuts, cars, TVs, television programs and so on, but
they cannot have those things. All they have is a welfare cheque
that we hand out because they do not have the education required
to take a job, which would provide meaning in their life, which
would provide purpose in their life, which would motivate them
and give them the ability to understand this complex world. If
they could acquire that education they could work with computers,
such as we have in front of us. Native people cannot do that.
The department does not even know if they are going to school.
Paragraph 4.2 of the auditor general's report indicates that the
percentage of natives who are not enrolled in elementary or
secondary schools is 20%. The figure is not available for all
Canadians. The dropout rate before completion of grade 9 in
native schools is 18%. The figure for all Canadians is 3%. The
percentage of youth between the ages of 18 and 20 who left school
totals 40% for natives, 16% for all Canadians. Of youth between
the ages of 18 and 20, only 30% of natives graduated from school,
compared to 63% for all Canadians. The population with the least
high school education amounts to 37% on reserve and 65% for all
Canadians. Only 30% of the native population graduates from high
school and it costs taxpayers $1 billion a year. Only 30%
succeed in meeting the basic fundamental requirements.
The minister does not have agreements with the school boards.
The minister gives block funding to the bands and does not ask
them to account for the money. Agreements expire and he does not
follow up on them. Kids are dropping out of school and he does
not know how many. The department is a disgrace.
The Minister of Finance stood in the House on February 28 and
said that the government was going to tax Canadians. The
government continues to tax Canadians so that money can be given
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who
in turn does not know what he does with it. He has no clue.
Unfortunately, he is not the only one.
In the news the last couple of days we have heard much about the
scientific research tax credit. The idea was to motivate
Canadian companies to do research and development, and a tax
credit would be provided to them because this was good for
Canada. It was good for Canada. We got an extra $50 million
punch out of it. The bad news is, it cost $2 billion to get the
$50 million punch. For every $40 spent, we received $1 back.
Where is the logic?
I do not know where the logic is, but I do know that in 1997 the
Minister of Finance had an evaluation in front of him, telling
him that for every $40 spent the government would receive $1 in
return. The minister kept the study under wraps. In 1997, 1998,
1999 and again in 2000 he stood in the House and said “We are
providing value for money for Canadians”. In the meantime, for
every $40 the taxpayers put into this program, they got $1 back.
I cannot understand it.
How bad is it? Let us take one particular claim as an example.
It was a complex claim. Why? The taxpayer did not provide a lot
of documentation to say what he was trying to do.
1315
Revenue Canada sent in the auditors who spent 10,000 hours
looking at this claim. The average person works about 1,700 or
1,800 hours a year; throw in some overtime and call it 2,000
hours a year. That was five years of auditors' time on one claim.
There are 16,000 to approve. When are they going to finish?
They spent 10,000 hours on one claim.
They had to get some scientific expert advice. They spent
$300,000 of taxpayers' money to get a professional opinion on
this claim because it was not well justified. The claim finally
went through process. They said that the particular claim was
entitled to tens of millions of dollars. We are not sure how
many tens there were. Presumably somewhere between $20 million
and $100 million is what was paid out. In the final review they
scratched out the millions and doubled it for no particular
reason.
Let us look at the rationale. This is how crazy the rules are
and how the taxpayer gets taken to the cleaners.
The subcontractor did the research and development. He put in
his claim and got his refund of tens of millions of dollars. It
was in the bank. He sold the R and D to the main contractor who
said “This is research and development done in Canada, send in
the claim”. He got it again. The rules allowed him to get it
again. The reason it was doubled was it had to approximate the
claim by the general contractor.
Even though the subcontractor was audited and all the
information in its own files said that the subcontractor was
entitled to so much money, the main contractor had approximated
and exaggerated the claim. It was “unable” to verify that
because the main contractor did not have the files. They were in
the subcontractor's office which had been audited by Revenue
Canada but Revenue Canada said it could not look at the file a
second time. Knowing full well it was paying out too much, it had
to go with the main contractor's estimate and exaggeration.
The taxpayer paid and the Minister of Finance did not even blush
when he stood in the House and said he needed $165 billion to run
this country. I know and members know he could do it with a lot
less.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, members of the House, people across
Canada and I should thank my colleague for drawing our attention
to a very serious problem.
The second school I happened to teach in was in northern British
Columbia. The attendance was near perfect. The expenditure of
funds was letter perfect. For 21 years my signature went on forms
to extract money from taxes and government grants for special
education students. Whether it was in the Hutterite schools or
in private schools that I supervised or in the public schools,
whenever a claim was made for a special needs student, solid
proof was needed that the money was being expended on that
particular student.
1320
The situation that exists within my province and across Canada
is a sin against geography and the nature of government. These
children who are just as important as any child I ever had in
front of me or supervised are not getting funds spent on them for
education. What will we do? One word can sum up the last 20
years: nothing. Nothing has changed and it is getting worse.
I want to thank my colleague for drawing attention to this
situation. With the billions of dollars going out on these
expenditures, what does the hon. member recommend that the
government re-examine during the current fiscal year?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that
question because it allows me to wax on my private member's bill
that I tabled this morning. It deals with program evaluation.
Providing education to our young kids on the reserves is another
program provided by the government.
My private member's bill says that on every program provided by
the government, including education to our natives on reserves,
we should ask four questions. The first question is what is the
program designed to do? The goal is to provide educated children
on reserves. The second question is how well are we achieving
that? We will have to move further through the alphabet than
F to find out how the government is doing it.
Mr. Roy Bailey: F minus.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, it would be F minus
half a billion dollars I would think.
The third question is, is it being done efficiently? I pointed
out that agreements had expired in 1992 and it never bothered to
get them renewed. The government does not have a clue. There is
no efficiency. There is no productivity. The department's mind
is in a fog. The minister's mind is in a fog. Nobody seems to
care.
What about the student who is not getting an education? He or
she should care and we should care. We care and the government
should care.
The fourth question is can we achieve the same or better results
in a different fashion? We must always be creative in seeing if
we can improve ourselves.
There are four fundamental questions: what is it we are trying
to do, how well are we doing it, are we doing it efficiently, and
can we achieve better results in a different way? If we asked
these simple four questions for native education and everything
else, we could provide many more services for much less cash.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Calgary East
constituency. This is my second speech on the budget. I have
chosen to speak on this topic again because I would like to tell
the House what my constituents and other Canadians have been
saying. My remarks are based on two concepts.
The first is what constituents are saying are their two major
concerns. Time after time the phone calls I receive have one
theme, that people's take home pay is dwindling. People are
having a hard time making ends meet. One of my constituents
wrote, “We love our work but we are always in a financial bind
due to low wages and no recognition of our qualifications and
college degrees”. Despite having a college degree all she earns
is $7.50 per hour.
1325
I understand it is quite difficult to tell a business to raise
wages. But a lot of our money disappears into the government
coffers. It is interesting the way the whole taxation system is
designed. We take it at one end and then we go around in circles
and try to send it back in another way, and either we tax them or
we say that we do not tax them and that we are taking care of the
lower income workers. At the end of the day, at the time when
people need the money which is when they get their weekly
paycheque, the money is gone. It takes months for the money to
come back to them at the other end. In between what are they
supposed to do? How are they supposed to live?
My riding is made up of blue collar workers, single mothers and
parents trying to send their children to school. When I go
knocking on doors I hear time after time, “I am earning $30,000
and I cannot make ends meet. I am paying so much in taxes”.
Many government members have said to me “No, no, we are taking
care of all these things”. True, it comes back through social
outlets such as cheques for family allowance, child care, GST
refunds and all those things. The GST refund can take four
months. What are they supposed to do until then?
Why can the government not address the issue for single parents,
growing families and those who are earning low wages? Why not
give it to them up front so they have more take home pay?
I have a letter from another individual in my riding. He asked
for a T-1 slip. He had to go through a huge bureaucracy. Revenue
Canada said he had to fill out so many forms and the guy just
said to forget it, that he was not interested. The paperwork
burden in the taxation system is so humongous that people are fed
up. I have heard time and again “I am not going to respond to
Revenue Canada. I am not going to fill out all the paperwork”.
A constituent phoned me, a pensioner, who said on the one hand
the government gives money to pensioners and then, bingo, Revenue
Canada needs $248 back right away. For what? He got phone call
after phone call and letter after letter until he was fed up. We
intervened and the matter was resolved, but why did it not get
resolved in the first place?
The finance minister has said that we have not been asking
questions about the budget because he thinks the budget is great.
Perhaps the poll which came out today indicates why the
opposition has not been asking the finance minister questions on
the budget. There is nothing to ask. He will talk about budget
cuts and all those things but we know, Canadians on the street
know, and students know that when they look at their paycheques
and when they look in their pockets, their take home pay is less.
It does not agree with what the finance minister is saying. It
is better to tune out what the finance minister is saying than to
listen and ask where is the tax break he is talking about. He
gives a tax break, but at the same time CPP premiums are hiked
up.
Look at EI. Surplus after surplus is going into the EI fund
that the government is using to spend in other areas. It will
not even reduce the EI premiums.
How will Canadians feel? Will Canadians actually get the feeling
from their take home pay that taxes are going down when the
government is set on spending?
1330
We have people in the government who have their own agendae. Our
heritage minister wants to be recognized as the Canadian cultural
protection person. She keeps writing out cheques, cheque after
cheque, and doing her best, but what do we hear on the streets?
We hear on the streets from Canadians that their take home pay is
shrinking.
Let us go to the issue of the economy. I am critic for
international trade, so what happens in the economy is quite
important and of concern to me. I have been on many trips to see
how Canadian trade officials have been working hard to promote
trade in Canada. That is one of the areas of prosperity for the
country.
Time after time the Minister for International Trade boasted in
committee and everywhere that 43% of our GDP is in the export
market. That is great. I applaud him for that. I hope it goes
higher and higher. After all, it helps the Canadian consumer and
it brings prosperity to Canada.
I give credit to our trade officials, those who are in the field
and have been working very hard to ensure that Canadian companies
are out there seeking the opportunities that globalization has
opened for them. I commend them. I have seen them hard at work.
I have seen Canadian companies working hand in hand with these
people, promoting the goods and technology that Canadians have
developed.
The subcommittee on international trade is now studying how to
improve trade with Europe. As we know, trade with Europe has
been gradually declining. It is improving but not to the level
that we thought it should have improved.
All this points to the fact that there are people who recognize
the need for Canadians to be taking advantage of globalization.
If there are problems at home with Canadian companies which we
have not fixed, how will we market ourselves outside the country?
If the foundation at home is not strong, what is the point of
trading outside? Somewhere down the line it will crack.
We have free trade agreements through NAFTA with Mexico and
Chile. We are trying to get agreements with Costa Rica and other
countries. We have seen the demand coming in for Britain to join
NAFTA. These are all good things. They are great things, but we
need to address the issues at home.
Time after time new cries are being heard that there is a need
to address the issues at home and the need for productivity. The
biggest one is taxation, the way we are taxing our companies. The
way our economy is being overtaxed leaves little room for
companies to aggressively seek foreign markets.
Let me quote here for a second an editorial in the Globe and
Mail. Where it says country, I will substitute that by saying
the past government was too dumb to understand that 25 years of
high deficits would lead to a debt and tax crisis and maybe too
dumb to understand that another 10 years of uncompetitive taxes
and regulations would lead to a permanently reduced standard of
living.
Let me read from the Calgary Herald of today, written by
one of the CEOs of Alberta Energy Company Ltd.
He said that Canada looked good but was moving too slowly.
Perhaps the finance minister should read the article which
contains that warning from an executive of a very important
company in Alberta.
1335
All of them have one simple straightforward message: taxes are
too high. If the government does not address that issue and take
it seriously, 43% of GDP in exports will start going down.
Canadians will be unable to take advantage of the globalization
of economies that is taking place.
Our ambassadors, including the minister of trade and I, travel
around the world pushing to expand trade. We sign agreements but
if at the end of the day there is no competitive advantage for
Canadian companies, what is the point? They must be able to take
advantage of market opportunities. The government is not selling
the products. It is the Canadian companies that are selling
them. They are the ones who are out there selling their
products.
We talk about the greatness of Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin and other
big companies. At the end of the day we look at the companies
that do the majority of the exports. We could name 10 of them.
That is all. Big companies like Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin and
mining giants are the few that are on the international market.
If we want to have prosperity we need small and medium size
businesses. Everyone knows that. I do not have to repeat it.
Everyone talks about it. Everyone says they are the vehicles of
growth and that is what should happen.
Time after time when we talk to them they express concerns. They
do not have the infrastructure or the competitive advantage to go
out and grab these opportunities. The Americans are doing it and
now we have the European Union with its $500 billion market.
They take advantage. Canadian companies need to be aggressive.
We are saying that Canada should be the route for European
companies into NAFTA, into the U.S. market. That is a great
idea. It is fantastic if we can do it. At the end of the day,
if taxes in Canada are not reduced, competitiveness will not be
there. How will we become the conduits that we aspire to be and
our trade officials want us to be?
It is time the Minister for International Trade had a talk with
the Minister of Finance and said that something should be done.
There is no point in each one going in different directions. Then
the industry minister, who recognizes what is happening, tries to
speak out but his chain is pulled back.
Canadians are worried. Today's polls indicate the priorities of
Canadians. Health care is a priority of Canadians. Irrespective
of what the government wants to say, every Canadian knows that it
is the federal government that cut the money. This is creating
the crisis in the health care system across the country. It is
the number one concern, and rightly so. Why should it not be?
The population is getting older and is looking down the road to
see that health care will not be there when it will be needed.
This is a government run by polls. Everything it does is by
polls. Maybe it will wake up and address this issue. I am sure
it will. Today's poll said that Canadians want the federal
government to put more money into health care.
1340
We know what happened when the industry minister tried to give
money to professional hockey. I am glad that Canadians spoke up
about it. That is what Canadians should do.
Let us talk about health care for a moment. There is a hue and
cry about bill 11 in Alberta, saying that it is an attack on
health care. We listen to the grandiose statements of the
Minister of Health. He is a lawyer, after all, so he can use the
flowery words he loves, but at the end of the day the point is
that the government cut money for health care.
This has created a crisis for the provinces. They are trying to
address the needs of their constituents. The federal government
is saying that this is the money the provinces will get and that
is about it. There are millions of dollars sitting in Toronto
which have not been used, but we are asking for long term
solutions. We are asking for stable funding on which the
provinces can count so they can address their health care needs
and not deal with the business of either a reduction in the
budget or little more than crumbs.
There is no stable funding for the provinces so they cannot
address long term health care needs and issues. When they come
up with a solution we hear the government screaming. I would
like to state that it is very important for the government to
address what the economy is demanding. The budget has not
addressed it. We all know that.
The Canadian Alliance, with the proposal it is putting forward
in the 17% solution, addresses many issues. Why do we propose
the 17% solution? It is because we have heard from the
grassroots. We have heard from businesses. We have heard from
Canadians who have told us their priorities. The 17% solution we
are talking about is something Canadians want. Hopefully when we
form the next government that will be the solution.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been here for most of the morning listening to the speeches of
opposition members. I find them rather interesting. I snuck out
to see what the news media across the country were saying about
the budget. Overwhelmingly it is positive. There are articles
questioning a number of aspects, but it has been overwhelmingly
positive.
Perhaps my colleague could explain to me why it is that all the
speeches given by members of the opposition were negative.
Perhaps he could explain to me why one positive point was not
raised. Perhaps the member could explain to me why none of his
colleagues chose to talk about the investments the Government of
Canada made in the granting councils, the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation, the millennium scholarship and the 2,000 chairs.
Why did my colleague not talk about the elimination of the $42
billion deficit left by the Conservatives, the very party that
his wants to join in order to make it stronger? Why did they not
talk about the $58 billion tax reduction or the tax reductions
for businesses? Why did they not talk about the UN naming Canada
seven times in a row as the best country in the world in which to
live?
Why did they not talk about the low inflation rate, the low
interest rate, the employment rates which are the highest in
decades, and the first series of surpluses we have had in years?
Why? Can they not stand positive news?
1345
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right
in saying that this is the best country in the world, but if the
Liberals continue to govern for very long, it will not be the
best country in the world.
It is quite interesting that he would ask why we are not saying
good things about the budget. I will tell him why. If we ask
Canadians what has happened to their take home pay, perhaps we
will get an answer that will tell him why nobody in the
opposition is so thrilled about the budget.
We could look at today's poll and ask the people who want health
care. The hon. member's government is the one that killed the
health care budget. I am sure those people will tell him why
nobody is so excited about the budget.
With regard to reducing the deficit, that was done on the backs
of Canadians and not on the government's back. It did not come
up with any innovative ideas. Instead it has set us back. It is
just flying straight. Nothing great has come out of this. The
budget deficit was killed on the backs of Canadians. Ask them
about their take home pay. They have seen it go down and down.
That is how the budget deficit was killed. There is nothing to
be very excited about there. Let us listen to what Canadians are
saying and address the issues.
As I said, 43% of our GDP is now in export. Great, but it will
not last very long if you do not address the issues. Now you sit
sit over there and claim that the government is doing great. It
will not last too long.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I need to remind
hon. members that when passions get raised, they should address
each other through the chair so we can keep from coming to blows.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my
colleague's remarks about tax reductions. I know that he
mentioned how families need tax reductions and tax fairness. I
would be interested in having my colleague expand on his views
about the needs for Canadian families to have some tax relief
from the load that is placed upon them by the federal government.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
stating that absolutely correctly. Solution 17 addresses that
point. Let me just read what solution 17 is going to do for
families.
Solution 17 will create a marginal rate of 17%. It will
increase the basic personal and spousal credit to $10,000. It
will introduce $3,000 per year per child. It will decrease the
EI rate to $2 from $2.40. I see every member on the other side
has disappeared. I guess they do not like good news either.
Solution 17 will reduce the capital gains tax to about 20% from
nearly 40%. This is what Canadians are demanding. It will
address the issue of families trying to put food on the table.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions or
comments, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, who I am
sure will not refer to the absence or presence of other members
in the House.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. colleague not only for his presentation
but for his response. I want him to agree with what I have to
say about this because it is a very tenuous issue.
We talk about increasing funding to the attorney general's
department. Within that department at the present time we have
taken over 300 RCMP officers off the street to engage in gun
registration at a huge expense. Does my hon. colleague think
that is a good way to spend money, registering guns by taking
officers off the street where we need them?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague
has said is just one example of the waste of money that has been
going on. The government has the wrong priorities.
We need officers on the street. The auditor general has talked
about tools not being available to the RCMP. We are now taking
the RCMP away from the job of keeping our streets safe and
putting them into looking at a registry. That is a burden on
Canadians, a waste of taxpayers' money and will not address the
situation.
1350
This is the same as the $1 billion boondoggle with the grants
and contributions in HRDC. The government is giving money on one
side and taking money on the other, perhaps giving it to their
friends. Businesses with government connections are doing very
well compared to those which do not.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, the
budget implementation act, 2000.
Canadians expect budget 2000 to be a highlight and a major
departure from where Canada has been with regard to fiscal
restraints in this country. However, there has been a major
oversight by the government regarding health, education and
social transfers.
In recent years the provinces time and time again have been
backfilling the many cutbacks and program reviews that the
Liberal government has so steadily and efficiently deployed, all
in the name of fiscal restraint, debt reduction. Health care is
a major social structure component of Canadian livelihood.
Education in Canada is a major challenge for us.
Canada is a vast country. Major changes have happened in our
lifestyles, such as the role of families on family farms and the
small remote communities in northern Canada. People want jobs
with higher incomes such as can be found in the high tech
environment, but these may only exist in large urban centres.
With the evolution and revolution of technology through the
Internet and so on, these jobs could inevitably exist in remote
communities. One does not necessarily have to be a major stock
market player in downtown Calgary. This may eventually be done
in Cumberland House.
If someone wanted to trade some fresh fish from the Athabaska
Lake or Great Slave Lake, they could hook up on the Internet and
trade with Hong Kong, Germany or wherever. We have to look into
the future and the whole aspect of the technology revolution and
restructuring Canadian society.
Students visit Parliament Hill from many different high schools
from all corners of Canada. This has been a major highlight for
many of them. We must empower them. We must given them an
opportunity to dream of developing a better life in their
communities in Canada. We must provide them with the resources.
We must provide them with budgets, not empty bank accounts, when
they take their rightful place in society. They may be in this
place or they may become legislators in their provinces. They
may find their place as mayor or in the council rooms of their
cities and villages. They may take their elected place on band
councils in their first nations government.
1355
These young people have to be given hope and there is no better
place than in Canada. We must keep from dismantling our social
structures, things like medicare, health care and affordable
drugs. With regard to education, there is the high cost of
student loans, deteriorating universities, infrastructures, and
first nations education on which a report was released this week.
A previous government put on post-secondary caps, limits on
first nations accessibility to post-secondary education. What
dreams do the high school students and the junior high school
students have when they see that only a selected few will be able
to continue their journey to higher education? We need to
motivate them and give them an opportunity to dream for a better
future. This requires strategic financial investments.
The program reviews—I must applaud the government—are now
history. We must acknowledge that are no more cutbacks like the
$104 million cutback in the national parks. Not a cent of that
cutback has yet been returned to the national parks system in the
country. None has been announced.
We have a major initiative for our young people when they
graduate. A program exists for them if they are uncertain where
their careers are going or where their journey of education is
going. The program is called Katimavik. It is a very worthwhile
program for youth in the country.
The demand has been growing exponentially as successes grow in
each community and region. More people want to have access to
these community projects. Volunteers come from all over Canada
to work on these projects. The Katimavik program makes it
possible. There was no increase in the funding for Katimavik.
They work on environmentally sensitive issues and on community
programs that will not exist.
The Speaker: The member still has 14 minutes left
in his talk. I thought this might be a good place to interrupt.
It is almost two o'clock and it might allow us to get an
extra statement in before the end. He will have the floor when
we resume debate after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National
Volunteer Week is an opportunity for all Canadians to pay
tribute to the millions of volunteers who improve the lives of
their fellow citizens every day. The contribution they make
helps our communities to remain strong and is important in
maintaining the quality of life of all Canadians.
I am now actively working on developing a community program to
provide direct assistance to all volunteer organizations. Their
needs remain great, and we must do more to help them.
I hope I will have the unanimous support of all political
parties here in the House for my private member's bill.
Let us thank all these volunteers from the bottom of our hearts.
I take this opportunity to invite all parliamentarians to
attend the opening reception of the Volunteer Canada exhibit
tomorrow at 9.30, in Room 200 of the West Block.
* * *
[English]
VIA RAIL
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport
predicted the revival of passenger rail in Canada when he
announced an additional $400 million in funding for VIA Rail.
However, let us look a little closer at the announcement. The
Liberals have to put the money into VIA. After all, the
government provided a billion dollar loan to the American
passenger rail system Amtrak.
The minister says the loan will get commuters out of their cars
and on to the train. The only problem with this is that VIA Rail
does not operate commuter rail. The regional transit authorities
do.
The minister says that privatization would not work. Can he
explain why the Rocky Mountaineer, a profitable private company
that has never received a penny in government subsidy, would like
to buy VIA Rail's transcontinental route?
While the minister is correct in stating that trains helped
build the country, we need to remind him that train travel has
changed over the last 120 years. It is too bad that the
government's thinking has not.
* * *
1400
VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
we mark Volunteer Week this week, I want to acknowledge an
organization in my riding that runs on volunteers.
West Hill Community Services was incorporated in 1977 by a
caring and committed group of volunteers with a common goal: to
improve the quality of life for all persons within Scarborough
East. They did not choose to focus on any disadvantaged group,
but rather to choose a holistic approach and encourage volunteers
to help all social groups and all ages.
Today over 800 volunteers deliver 64,000 volunteer hours
annually to the West Hill Community Services. Churches, schools,
Boy Scout and Girl Guide groups and service clubs facilitate
drives that provide services for 9,000 families on an annual
basis with food hampers and great toys for kids. On an annual
basis 1,800 meals, prepared by volunteers, are delivered to
homebound people. Volunteers transport frail elderly—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
[Translation]
CHRYSLER CUP
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from April 12 to 16, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region will be
hosting hockey teams from throughout Quebec as part of the
Chrysler Cup tournament.
Some 226 teams will be taking part in these provincial ice
hockey championships in 13 cities in the region. The organizing
committee chaired by Louis Blanchette from Malartic has put
almost two years of work into making this event a success.
My thanks to the organizing team: Louis Blanchette, Robert
Meunier, Robert Larochelle, René Boucher, Pascal Pelletier,
Régis D'Amour, Jean-Gilles Racicot, Gilles Laperrière, Joël
Lacelle, Pierre Dupuis, Marc Moreau, Daniel Asselin, Serge
Demers, Laurent Demers, Mariette Brassard, Audinette Gagnon,
Jean-Claude Babin and André Lalonde.
My thanks also to the 2,000 volunteers, 4,436 athletes and 932
escorts and visitors. And we thank the Government of Canada for
taking part and helping young Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
FULLARTON BOOK LAUNCH
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as part of this year's ongoing millennium celebrations,
I want to congratulate and thank everyone who participated in the
Fullarton history book launch this past weekend. Entitled
Water under the Bridges: The Story of Fullarton Township,
this 950 page book examines the significant people and events of
the last 150 years that helped define the area.
Participants to the book launch were entertained by guest
speakers and local performances, including bag piping, gospel
singing, solo violin and theatrical performances.
My special gratitude goes to the 22 member history book
committee, especially the chair, Jean Park, who for the last
three and a half have been working extremely hard to see that
this project was a smashing success. Congratulations to all.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
this government has received a failing grade on its health care
spending. The finance department conducted a survey that found
nearly 70% of all Canadians feel that not enough money was put
into health care funding in the last budget.
The provinces have pleaded with Ottawa to restore funding
levels. The federal government countered with a lame tax point
strategy that is deliberately confusing and causing irreparable
damage in federal-provincial co-operative relations.
The federal government talks about solving the problems of
health care but no plan has been put forth. The provinces have
programs in development. The provinces have programs in effect.
What they need now is a funding commitment which will allow them
to proceed with assurances that health care funding will be
stable.
This government's actions have done little to assure Canadians
that this is something they can count on.
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to stay away from the
word deliberately. It always causes a reaction.
* * *
INVESTOR EDUCATION WEEK
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if our
young people are to be educated consumers of financial services,
it is important they have access to the most up to date Canadian
information about today's financial world.
To meet this need, the Canadian Bankers Association spearheaded
the development of YourMoney Network, an integrated network of
websites that contains neutral information for Canada's youth.
This initiative was developed in a partnership among the Canadian
Bankers Association, the Bank of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mint,
the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, the Ontario Securities
Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange and was launched last
year.
As part of this year's Investor Education Week, the YourMoney
Network is introducing a new online resource guide with over 800
financial topic resources and five new partners.
This is an outstanding initiative of Canada's banking industry
that will ensure Canada's youth are well prepared to make wise
decisions about their own financial futures.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
FONDATION QUÉBÉCOISE DU CANCER
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute today to the Fondation québécoise du cancer,
a non-profit organization whose main mission is to improve the
quality of life of those with cancer, and their families.
The foundation has developed a comprehensive approach to the
problems cancer causes for families.
It has therefore developed training and awareness activities for
health professionals, and it provides cancer patients and their
families with information, support, documentation, and
accommodation while they are receiving treatment.
The foundation has been in existence for 20 years now and has
taken on a lead role in the battle against cancer, with decision
makers, the media, the health system and the general public.
The Fondation québécoise du cancer never hesitates to make
public statements and make its position known on any matter
relating to the fight against cancer. My greetings to the
foundation and my thanks to all of its volunteers.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Transport on the
occasion of his announcement of a new set of measures providing
$400 million to revitalize VIA Rail over the next five years.
By offering a transportation option that is stable, safe and
environmentally friendly, the enhanced passenger service will
contribute to lessening highway congestion and greenhouse gas
emissions.
As well, VIA has the largest rail maintenance shop in Canada,
providing employment to more than 400 people in my riding of
Verdun—Saint-Henri, which encompasses Pointe Saint-Charles, an area
where unemployment is still very high.
The announcement of this investment brings a ray of sunshine to
a still snowy area.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is shocking that the Prime Minister would place the
safety and security of Canadians at risk to cover up his own
diplomatic foul-ups.
The auditor general's recent report makes it clear that the
government is currently incapable of dealing with 15,000 refugees
from Palestine without seriously compromising the safety and
security of Canadians. He says “We noted serious deficiencies
in the way it applies admissibility criteria related to health,
criminality and security”.
The current mismanagement of the immigration department
virtually guarantees that serious criminals, terrorists and people
with dangerous health conditions will continue to enter Canada.
Decisions to help refugees must be based on the capability of the
immigration department, firm recommendations from the United
Nations and sound CSIS information, not on the whim of a bungling
Prime Minister.
Canadians want to help genuine refugees but they are tired of
having their generosity abused by queue jumpers, by people
smugglers and, now, by our very own Prime Minister.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, having
committed a blunder in Jerusalem offending the Palestinians, our
Prime Minister, ever eager for balance, was careful to commit
one in Gaza, a second one, which, this time, offended the
Israelis.
On the subject, the next day, of the lake of Tiberias where
Christ walked on the waters, this tireless blunderer, tiptoeing
on the eggs of an ultra sensitive matter, went in up to his
neck, this time offending Syria before the dumbfounded gaze of
international opinion, which did not really consider him capable
of such a singular hat trick.
Now the world waits with bated breath to see how Egypt will
inspire our Prime Minister.
Will he, like Moses, who descended Mount Sinai bearing the
tablets with commandments, before a hundred journalists, descend
the steps of his hotel brandishing a peace plan for the Middle
East that will cause everyone distress? Or, as is his wont,
will he deliver his plan B in order to revive the conflict?
Anything is possible with this man. But one thing is sure. He
will oblige us to drink the cup of ridicule before world opinion
to the lees.
* * *
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
arrival of the new millennium was the subject of much
celebration. We also seized the moment to sing the praises of
the great achievements, especially the technological ones, of
the past century.
Right now, I feel very far removed from the 21st century and
more as if I were in the middle of an episode of Green Acres.
In my riding of Brome—Missisquoi, there are people having to
share a phone line. There can be as many as four parties on a
line. I remind you that my riding is 40 minutes away from
Montreal.
There are people, on this April 13, 2000, who have to pay
attention to the telephone ring to know whether the call is for
them.
So, forget the Internet, the fax machine and the many services
most of us take for granted.
I find this situation unacceptable and I find the attitude of
Bell Canada, which has still not rectified the situation, most
irritating. In two weeks, my riding will host the national
rural conference, where the subject of discussion will be rural
development. I think Bell Canada would do well to take part.
* * *
1410
NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to mark
National Poetry Month, I would like to read a poem entitled
“Aliénor” written by Herménégilde Chiasson, who lives on the
Acadian peninsula and has a Governor General's Award for poetry.
It goes as follows:
I will be with you.
You will be with me.
I will look ahead.
You will look behind.
And together we will see how far our world stretches,
How great our riches are.
No more will what is ours be taken from us,
No more will lies be told about us.
We will not be sold like slaves.
We will willingly go into the forest
And emerge bathed in light.
And my children will walk in that light.
Will play in that light.
And their lives will be their own.
For ages.
Forever.
Their own.
Life is all we will share now,
All that we possess, our only revenge.
I will forget the forest, yes,
The rain, the cold and the snow, yes,
But do not think that I will forget the beating of your
heart,
>
The words you breathe,
The warmth of your arms.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul would like to
know what the Canadian health care system will look like in the
future and how Canadians, through their federal, provincial and
territorial governments, will pay for the system.
We have yet to hear whether all health ministers in the country,
at their recent meeting, came to an agreement. My constituents
are not interested in federal-provincial disputes, but cry out
for co-operative leadership.
Medicare remains the number one priority of all Canadians. They
would like to be assured that the five principles of
universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and
not-for-profit public administration will continue to prevail.
We owe our constituents a duty to state where we stand on the
issue. Let additional new federal funding be coupled with home
care and pharmacare as vital components of a renewed medicare, to
ensure its sustainability in the future. This let us pledge to
Canadians.
* * *
SENATOR RON GHITTER
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to one of our great senators who
entered into public life with great dignity and integrity, and
has left with those same attributes intact after more than 30
years in the public eye.
I speak of Senator Ron Ghitter. True to his character, the
senator defended his good name in a defamation suit that began in
October 1998 against the member of parliament for Calgary West
and a senior advisor of the former Reform Party leader.
True to Reform's crass tactics, the two individuals slandered
the senator but, thankfully, justice prevailed this past week. I
want to quote from the apology that was elicited from these two
members. It reads:
Our attack on Senator Ghitter was unfounded and we now admit
having defamed Senator Ghitter. We further acknowledge that some
of our statements were based on facts that were false and on out
of context interpretations.
We regret preparing and sending the letter and wish to apologize
to Senator Ghitter—
I thank Senator Ghitter for standing by his principles. He is a
class act.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the Nunavut coat of arms sculpture was unveiled in
the Parliament Building's rotunda.
I was very happy that this historic event was attended by so
many Inuit and friends of Nunavut, including the new commissioner
of Nunavut.
It gave me great pleasure that the Nunavut Sivuniksavut students
who are studying in Ottawa from all over Nunavut and a group of
visiting students from Rankin Inlet were there to see the
Inuktitut syllabics carved into the stone in that historic place
where all the other territorial and provincial coat of arms are
displayed.
It was another historic moment for Nunavut and a very moving
ceremony. It would like to thank all those who attended and
participated.
* * *
[Translation]
A “CANADIEN” AFIELD
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
A “Canadien” afield
Far from his hearth and home
Through foreign land and weald
Blundering he did roam.
Through foreign land and weald
Blundering he did roam.
Pensive and serious,
Sitting along the shore
Of Lake Tiberias
Did he the waves implore:
Of Lake Tiberias
Did he the waves implore:
“Should you my country see, my country all in dread,
Please inform all my friends
That 'tis on eggs I tread.
Please inform all my friends
That 'tis on eggs I tread.”
These days the gaffes abound,
Out there for all to see,
My party at this frowned,
Will have no more of me,
And my dear home, oh zounds,
Is quite upset with me.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is overseas and
every single day he has been there he has embarrassed Canadians
as well as himself. His comments have been unwise and
indefensible. Everyone across the world knows that.
Our Prime Minister is unable to manage his government here at
home. He is unable to manage his words. He has been stumbling
from one mishap to another every single day that he has been
gone.
For Canada's reputation, if not his own, will somebody please
bring him home?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally
faulty and not based on fact.
The Prime Minister has had very successful talks with the leader
of Israel, with the leader of Egypt and with the leader of
Lebanon. He signed important agreements in Israel and Egypt.
The Prime Minister's trip is going very well and the hon. member
is totally wrong in criticizing it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the only thing I find more difficult
than the Prime Minister saying the things he is saying over there
is to have a Deputy Prime Minister defending him back home. It
is unbelievable.
The Prime Minister is clearly out of his league. We know that
he is endangering very fragile and tenuous diplomatic
relationships. In four days we have seen four gaffes. He is
igniting a controversy with practically every word that comes out
of his mouth.
I ask again, is it not time that he just came home?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is it not time that the hon. member stuck to the facts
and did not bad mouth the very active and successful efforts of
the Prime Minister to help advance Canada's interests and to help
bring peace to the region, efforts which have been praised by the
President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who knows a lot
more about what is going on there than the hon. member ever will?
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much it benefits to
start calling other people names and defending—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Look whose talking.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that I
am not trying to bad-mouth anyone. The Prime Minister seems to
be doing that very well on his own. It is a travesty.
We have seen that there are concerns today in the international
news that one of the countries that is supposed to be hosting the
Prime Minister is very concerned and might put it on hold. They
can laugh and yuk it up all they like over there, but things have
gone from bad to worse and the government should know it.
When will the government cut the losses of the Prime Minister
and bring him home before he does any more damage?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member has said about another country not
receiving the Prime Minister is totally false and she should
admit it. Now she is saying that she knows more than the
President of the world renowned Hebrew University of Jerusalem
about the Prime Minister's efforts. The President said:
—it is due to your personal leadership and courage, Mr. Prime
Minister, that Canada is a major player in trying to create a
world in which nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they know war any more.
Those are the words of someone who knows what he is talking
about, unlike the hon. member opposite who does not know what she
is talking about.
1420
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised before he
left for the Middle East that he would be careful not to cause
any controversy. Imagine the damage that he would do if he was
actually trying.
He is seriously jeopardizing delicate diplomatic relations. Why
will the government not bring the Prime Minister home before he
does permanent damage?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has not been criticized by the
leaders with whom he has met. They have been pleased with the
way the talks have been going. The Prime Minister has helped
advance the cause of peace in the area and the interests of
Canada through the important agreements he has signed in Israel
and Egypt.
My hon. friend is totally wrong in the way she is bad-mouthing
improperly and not factually the efforts of the Prime Minister,
which are going very well.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is blunder after blunder
by the Prime Minister. Every day brings a new surprise.
Before the Prime Minister goes any further in destroying
diplomatic relations, perhaps his deputy would tell the House,
just how many years will the Prime Minister set back diplomatic
relations in the Middle East? How many years will he set them
back?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. She should look at the former
leader of the opposition when he set back Canada's image in the
world by bad-mouthing Canada's financial reputation with
disastrous results.
Why does the hon. member not recognize that before she tries to
give lessons to the Prime Minister, who has an unparalleled
record of achievement in the international fora of the world?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Prime
Minister's statements were of no consequence, since no
newspapers reported them. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister's
argument no longer holds, because L'Orient-Le Jour, a daily
published in Beirut, Lebanon, reports that the Syrian president
may decide not to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the Prime Minister's
statements are hurting Canada's reputation on the international
scene?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
must thank the hon. member for saying words in support of
Canada's position as a united nation all over the world. I
appreciate the hon. member's support for Canada as a united
country on foreign policy issues.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not understand the Deputy Prime Minister's reply any more than I
understand the statements made by the Prime Minister during his
trip.
Before he left, the Prime Minister said that one of the
objectives of his trip to the Middle East was to see how Canada
could further promote peace in that region. Could the Deputy
Prime Minister explain to this House—if at all possible and I
wonder about that—how the behaviour and statements of the Prime
Minister are in line with the objectives being pursued?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is taking part in very positive talks with the
leaders of that region. Canada continues to be an active member
of committees promoting peace and the peace process in that
region.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even if the
Prime Minister has denied reaching an agreement to take in
15,000 Palestinian refugees, he has admitted discussing the
possibility of admitting some of them to Canada with the Prime
Minister of Israel.
In so doing, is the Prime Minister not interfering in an
extremely delicate issue, by voicing an opinion that differs
from that of the Palestinian Authority on this matter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Israeli Prime Minister Barak made no such request and Prime
Minister Chrétien has not committed to any such thing regarding
refugees.
1425
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a press
release dated March 30, the Prime Minister describes his
intention to travel to the Middle East in order, in his words,
to “explore ways that Canadian expertise—can be further
utilized to attain a just, durable and comprehensive peace in
the region”.
Is Canadian expertise not being very poorly represented by the
Prime Minister in a region of the world where diplomacy, tact,
finesse and an understanding of the issues are required?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is totally wrong in her criticism of the Prime
Minister. I personally appreciate his support on behalf of
Canada, a country of great importance in the world because it is
a unified country, despite the efforts of her party.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
for our part, we are not sure that we want the Prime Minister to
come home. When he travels within Canada he does things like go
to Alberta and tell Premier Klein that everything is okay.
In that respect, I would like to ask a question of the Minister
of Health. Yesterday, in response to a question from my leader,
he referenced his own letter to the Minister of Health of Alberta
in relation to the whole NAFTA question, but he simply asked the
minister of Alberta whether he had any strategies to deal with
this potential problem.
It is the minister's government which signed NAFTA. It is the
minister's government that is responsible for these kinds of
agreements. What kind of strategy does the Minister of Health
have for dealing with this possible problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, when the Prime Minister was in Calgary three weeks ago he
made it very clear that the Alberta government, like all
provincial governments, must respect the principles of the Canada
Health Act or the Government of Canada will act accordingly. He
made that very clear.
Second, in relation to NAFTA, I did raise the concern in my
correspondence with Minister Jonson. Frankly, I did not get from
Minister Jonson a satisfactory response. We have been examining
the implications of this bill under NAFTA. Yesterday we received
the opinion from Mr. Appleton, which is under study. Together
with the experts at justice and foreign affairs we are looking at
those implications now.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am having about as much luck getting a response out of
this Minister of Health as he is getting from the Minister of
Health of Alberta.
He has the opinion from Mr. Appleton. He now has a letter from
a former premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, on this matter.
It is not something that can be left for a long time. If the
wrong thing happens, NAFTA kicks in. If the bill passes and it
is vulnerable to NAFTA, it will not be able to be undone.
We want to know what the minister is going to do in the very
short term about this problem.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are fully aware of the need to examine the implications under
NAFTA of Bill 11. We raised these concerns with the Government
of Alberta. We are doing our own legal analysis through justice
and foreign affairs. We are also examining the various opinions
that have been made public, including the opinion yesterday from
Mr. Appleton.
I assure the member and the House that we will respond at the
appropriate time.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Transport made an announcement that he
has decided to set aside $401.9 million in new subsidies for VIA
Rail. The press release goes on to say that now that he has
identified the $401.9 million, he is going to ask VIA Rail for a
five year business plan and the details on how it plans to spend
this money.
My question to the minister is, how could you arrive at a figure
of $401.9 million with no business plan and no details of how the
money is to be spent?
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to please address
their comments through the Chair, as opposed to one another.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the announcement made
yesterday by the Minister of Transport on behalf of this
government was a giant step forward in providing a viable and
affordable railway passenger system for the people of this
country.
The corporate plan presented by VIA will be carefully examined
by the governor in council, in other words, by the cabinet, for
its approval.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I would point out to the hon. parliamentary secretary
that if he went into a bank and said “Would you lend me $400
million? I will tell you what I am going to use it for later”,
he would be thrown out of the bank. There are special rules on
that side. They identify money and explain it after.
The standing committee said in recommendation 3 that the
government should allow for and encourage innovative public and
private sector partnerships, yet when I proposed one of those
three weeks ago, the minister declined to even hear it.
1430
Will the parliamentary secretary ensure that future private
sector proposals will be considered for passenger rail service in
Canada?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposal was made
yesterday. It is very clear regarding commercialization aspects
of the entire program. We will have to be patient and wait to
see what commercialized ventures come forth for consideration by
all parties concerned.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in 1967 Charles de Gaulle shouted “Vive le Quebec
libre” and Canadians were outraged at this foreign interference
in a delicate domestic issue.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the Prime Minister's
outrageous intervention in the domestic affairs of Israel and the
Palestinian authority?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is totally off base. There was no
improper intervention in the domestic affairs of any country or
area in the region. The Prime Minister has been having useful
talks with leaders of the region and they have not complained at
all about the positions he has taken. Therefore I repeat, the
hon. member as usual is totally off base.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, first the Prime Minister did not know and did not
care what part of Jerusalem he was in. Then he told the
Palestinians to unilaterally declare independence. Then he said
that Israel should keep disputed territories that are in fact
subject to very delicate negotiations.
Why is the Prime Minister bent on damaging the delicate Middle
East peace process?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to visiting a certain area of Jerusalem, I
am informed that when Prime Minister Blair and United States
President Clinton were in Israel and in that region they did not
visit that area either. Therefore, I do not see why one should
criticize our Prime Minister for making a similar decision with
respect to his trip.
In any event, the Prime Minister is advancing the peace process
through his useful talks with leaders of the region. He is
advancing our economic relations through the agreements he is
signing. The hon. member should recognize this instead of
raising these baseless questions. He should get up and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning I released, along with
representatives of the other opposition parties, a unanimous
report on the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada.
Considering that light still needs to be shed on many HDRC
files, including Placeteco, will the government agree to set up
a public and independent inquiry which, in the opinion of all
opposition parties, is the only way to restore the public's
confidence in Human Resources Development Canada?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the work of a standing committee provides
a wonderful opportunity to advise and inform the government, to
advise a minister in a department, in this case mine, on
improving its operations.
I have had the chance to take a cursory look at the majority
report. I see it begins to look at the six point plan and to
provide information. When I look at the minority report however,
I see that the opposition has been unable to get beyond the
rantings that we see day after day in the House. To tell the
truth, I am really disappointed in that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The waste of public moneys
at Human Resources Development Canada has lasted long enough.
All the parliamentarians on this side of the House are unanimous
in demanding clear, fair, transparent and consistent rules to
put an end to the Liberal system of granting favours to their
buddies.
Will the government regain a sense of honour and act as it is
being asked to by all opposition members and by the public?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would agree. Enough is enough. We have
heard day after day the rantings and ravings of the opposition on
this issue. Canadians have identified, as has the government,
that we have a program that we are implementing to improve our
system.
1435
Canadians would appreciate, I am sure, the opposition working
with us to do what the auditor general suggests is so important,
to find a way of providing good service to citizens in this
country and at the same time balancing that with an appropriate
accountability structure for taxpayers.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP has been investigating CITEC, a company based
in the Prime Minister's riding, since February.
An audit released last week reveals irregularities in the
management of the $2.8 million grant from the Canada jobs fund.
In spite of these disturbing facts, Human Resources Development
Canada intends to give CITEC an additional $5 million.
Is the Prime Minister wasting public money strictly because that
money is going to his riding?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to funding, we have received
a letter from CITEC requesting a continuation of funds. The
department will be reviewing this and will report when it has a
response.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we were not surprised to learn that
the directors of CITEC have close political affiliations to the
Prime Minister. One of the men, Mario Pépin, is a veteran
Liberal Party organizer in the PM's riding. What is surprising
is that these men paid themselves large salaries and generous
stipends. They invested $2 million of the grant money in high
risk funds and nobody knows where the interest is.
How can the Prime Minister just turn a blind eye to these
activities and approve his friends' blatant abuse of spending
taxpayers' money?
The Speaker: My colleague, again, the way the question is
worded I would judge that it does not deal with the
administrative responsibility of the government. If the hon.
minister wants to respond, I will permit that.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only to say that as the hon. member
points out, this file is with the RCMP. It would be
inappropriate to comment further on it or to prejudge the
results.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING SERVICES
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the public
is scandalized by the billions of dollars in profit being made by
the banks every year.
Despite banking fee packages, the six major banks in the country
have recorded a $140 million increase in their revenue from
service charges in 1999. Yesterday, the Royal Bank announced a
30% hike in certain charges, and this is likely to affect people
with small amounts of savings in particular.
My question is a very simple one, directed to the Minister of
Industry. When will the government be sending a clear message to
the banks that these practices are totally unacceptable to
consumers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
you know, bank service charges are set by the private sector.
That said, in our new fiscal policy, we are in the process of
putting in place measures aimed at consumer protection.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is planning to introduce a bill in the near
future that will allow bank mergers, among other things.
Is satisfying the major Canadian banks the minister's sole
objective, or will he also be taking advantage of the opportunity
to ensure that consumers have access to affordable banking
services?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member across the way had studied the policy set out by
the government back in early June, he would have seen we are in
the process of creating not only an ombudsman position but also a
consumer protection agency, which would have answered his
question exactly.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have heard today another example
of how the human resources minister allows Canadians to be ripped
off. Two lucky friends of the Prime Minister, both already with
comfortable incomes, used grant money to give themselves $3,000
unearned a month plus a handsome bonus for attending board
meetings.
The minister has some explaining to do. Will she tell Canadians
why taxpayers were forced to foot the bill for this kind of
profiteering?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just say again that this file is
with the RCMP. It would be inappropriate to comment on it or to
prejudge the results.
1440
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Here is something else, Mr. Speaker. Now there is
a new twist on the misuse of the minister's grant money. How
about using grant money to buy a motorhome? That is what someone
did from the Strathroy Community Resource Centre, an organization
that is supposed to be “a proactive support system for
adolescents”. We cannot find out how this motorhome generated
jobs because our access request is past the legal due date.
I invite the minister to explain to Canadian taxpayers why they
had to buy someone a motorhome.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me a
chance to update the House on the number of access to information
requests my department has received this year. We are up to 602.
I would remind the House that while we have had 602 in this
first quarter, in all of last year we only had 531. We are
working diligently to provide the information that has been
requested. The department takes this very seriously and the
answers will be forthcoming.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Income Tax Act gives the Minister of National Revenue all
the powers necessary to shed light on allegations of tax
evasion. We feel that, over the past six months, the Minister of
National Revenue has had ample time to do his job regarding
CINAR. A report must be forwarded to the Minister of Justice
when an investigation seems to support the laying of criminal
charges.
My question is simple. Did the Minister of National Revenue
forward a report on CINAR to his colleague, the Minister of
Justice?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, as members know, I
cannot comment on a specific file, because of the rule of
confidentiality.
That being said, the mandate of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency includes a responsibility to ensure that the Income Tax
Act is complied with throughout the country.
I want to assure this House that, whenever issues are raised and
investigations must be undertaken, the department acts with
great diligence and does an excellent job.
* * *
FRENCH LANGUAGE COLLEGES
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the
signing of the Canada-Ontario agreement on French language
colleges.
Can she tell us how this agreement will be beneficial to the
development of the Franco-Ontarian community?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to have this question from a member from the
Windsor area, an area in southwestern Ontario which, along with
northern and eastern Ontario, will benefit from our investment
in these three colleges, through the opportunity provided to
Ontario students to be educated in their mother tongue wherever
they live in the province. This is good for Canada.
* * *
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last week both the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister promised to provide the documents with respect to the
Minister of Finance's involvement in the tainted blood scandal
now being investigated by the ethics counsellor.
Today we were told we would receive those documents. What did
we get? Two pages for six years worth of board meetings and half
of those pages were whited out. What is the government trying to
hide? Why will it not provide the board minutes? What is it
hiding?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that the ethics counsellor,
following a very thorough investigation, has reported fully on
this and confirmed what I have said, that there was no discussion
on tainted blood at the CDC board.
All the pertinent documents were part of the ethics counsellor's
report, including the ones to which the hon. member is referring.
At the same time he knows that a thorough investigation is being
carried out by the information commissioner to look into this
whole matter. All of that will also be revealed in due course.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we know the ethics counsellor told the Department of
Finance to release the board meeting minutes. It is not
believable to have two pages of minutes for six years, and to
have half of them whited out. That is not believable. What is
it trying to hide?
1445
Why will the government go to great lengths to make sure that
these documents do not get out? It is very selective about what
it releases. To wait six years for two pages is not believable.
We want the board meeting minutes. Why will the government not
release them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those minutes belong to the private sector, but those
minutes also dealt with everything about the subject in hand.
If the hon. member has any other questions, he could easily ask
them of the ethics counsellor. He should see the ethics
counsellor. That is the long answer.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
months after we first heard of the scandalous situation at HRDC,
Canadians still do not have answers. The only transparent aspect
of the whole mess is the government's mishandling of it.
That is why today the four opposition parties put out their own
report calling for an independent public inquiry. Apparently the
minister feels it is just ranting and raving. I can assure the
minister that upholding the public interest is not ranting and
raving. It is called getting to the truth. Why is the minister
so afraid to hold a public inquiry to get at the truth?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would seem that opposition members are
still confounded by the fact that the government did its own
internal audit; that the government made that audit, with all its
shortcomings identified, public; and that the government is
implementing a plan to fix the problem.
Let us remember that we presented a plan. The auditor general
accepted it and is working with us to implement it. I would ask
the opposition to work along with us so that we can fix this
problem and continue to provide good service to Canadians
citizens and improve our accountability to the taxpayers.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. I have
constituents with disabilities who have taken an IT training
course from a private company funded by HRDC. The company took
their money but provided no accommodation for their disabilities,
produced no graduates and found them no jobs.
How could the minister justify funding for-profit training
companies that produce no graduates or jobs when non-profit
public sector organizations—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that the
loudness that is going on in the House cease and desist. I think
we deserve the right to listen to the question and hear an
answer.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, how could the minister
justify funding for-profit training companies that produce no
graduates or jobs when non-profit and public sector organizations
are screaming for more funding and have up to 95% success rates
in providing real training and real jobs at the end of it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the
government takes very seriously the role that we can play in
ensuring that Canadians with disabilities do get jobs. That is
why I was very pleased to see in the budget the continuation of
permanency given to the opportunities fund, a very important fund
that supports Canadians with disabilities.
I am unaware of the particular case to which the hon. member
makes reference, but if she would like to provide me with the
details I will look into it.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is negotiating fishing
agreements with the first nations in Atlantic Canada but
continues to ignore the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance.
Processors and fishermen must be a part of the negotiations in
order for the negotiations to have a chance of working. Will the
minister commit to fewer press releases and more industry
consultation?
1450
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have met with the alliance and
its views were taken into consideration when we had a plan
researched.
We also had an assistant federal representative who continually
communicated and dealt with the industry to make sure its views
were taken into consideration. When I met with alliance
representatives they said that the minister should have access
through a voluntary retirement program and should make sure they
have the same regulations.
The access we have now is through a voluntary retirement program
and every agreement we have signed so far is based on the same
regulations and the same seasons. That is exactly what they
wanted when I met with them last year.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I appreciate those
comments, Mr. Minister.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for South
Shore will be address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. I have
some respect for what the minister is saying, but the fact
remains that signed agreements are being distributed freely among
the aboriginal community and the same government refuses to share
these same agreements with processors and fishermen.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans meet with the fishing
industry to brief it on the eight signed agreements and include
it in the negotiations that will affect its future?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not negotiate in public. It
is a responsibility of the federal government to negotiate
directly with the first nations.
I outlined to the fisheries committee the total number of
licences we have purchased and the amount of money we have spent.
At the appropriate time we will ensure that all the information
gets out for all the groups to look at, but right now we want to
make sure those agreements are negotiated. They are negotiated
not in public but directly with the first nations bands. We will
continue to do that.
* * *
WINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. A
recent vintners enterprise study out of Niagara says the wine
industry in Canada is waiting for federal recognition of the VQA
standard for wine.
Canadian access to European markets is hampered because we do
not have this national standard. What is the minister doing to
ensure that Canadians wines are recognized and when will he bring
in a national VQA standard?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food is working with the provinces, grape growers, producers
and consumers to develop a national standard for wine. That
certainly includes Vintners' Quality Alliance wines as well.
When that standard is completed and when it is developed, it
will certainly improve the opportunities for interprovincial
trade. Following successful negotiations that we are aiming for
with the European Union, it will certainly increase our
opportunities for export of wine to Europe as well.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance
stood in the House and promised that they would release the
minutes of the CDC board meetings for the time that the finance
minister was a member of the board. Now the ethics counsellor
seems to be stonewalling us.
Are these documents so damning that the finance minister is
prepared to break his promise to the House to table these
documents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question simply makes no sense
whatsoever. The fact is that the ethics counsellor has released
all pertinent documents in this particular case. The hon. member
has all pertinent documents.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday,
the Bloc Quebecois asked the solicitor general to launch a
police investigation into the Option Canada affair. He replied
that he would read our letter and get back to us.
Has the solicitor general now asked the RCMP to investigate
Option Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that
there is a process in place such that when I receive any letter
of this nature I refer it to the RCMP, no matter what it
contains.
I know my hon. colleague does not want to leave the impression
in the House that this has anything to do with whether an
investigation will or will not take place. In fact, my hon.
colleague could refer the letter directly to the RCMP himself.
* * *
1455
BANKING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Royal
Bank has announced that there will be a hike in service charges
on July 1. This comes at a time when the banks are making
billions of dollars in profits. Meanwhile the National Council
of Welfare has stated that banks could easily provide Canadians
with a minimum 16 basic charges a month for a fee of $2.
In light of that, will the minister send a message today to
bankers to tell them that financial services legislation will be
introduced in the House next month and that the legislation
includes a guaranteed access for all Canadians to a low cost, no
frill account that is available to everyone in the country.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the legislation will be tabled it will deal with
those issues exactly.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday with regard to the possible closure of CBC Montreal the
heritage minister said:
Not only have no options been made, but we have certainly
discussed nothing about it.
Yet a CBC spokesperson in Montreal says the closure is an
option, but I guess the government is completely unaware, even
though the decision will be made in two months. Will the
minister tell us why eliminating local English language
television would even be an option?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday was we had not been aware of
any information. In fact we have not discussed any such option.
Frankly, although I very much respect the arm's length
relationship of the CBC to the government, I do agree with the
hon. member that I think it would be a tragedy if English
television in Montreal were not operating.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The auditor general's report recently highlighted the challenge
of attracting skilled workers to Canada.
Could the minister tell the House if the new immigration
legislation contains any measure to facilitate those skilled
workers in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her
very important question because Canada is indeed competing with
the world for skilled workers to help our industries and sectors
in need of those people.
We are building on the success of our temporary worker program
by expanding that program through regulation, for example, for
sectors such as both the high tech and construction industries
which are experiencing a shortage of skilled workers.
Further, the new legislation which I tabled will contain an
in-Canada landing class for those people who come under the
temporary skilled worker program as well as students who have
graduated—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we know that the finance minister and the Prime
Minister promised that all pertinent documents would be released
in relation to the ethics counsellor's report on the finance
minister's involvement with tainted blood.
He just said in the House now that all pertinent documents have
been released. What he is saying is that two pages, half whited
out, are all the pertinent documents. We know that the ethics
counsellor has copies of the CDC, CDC Life Sciences and the
Connaught board minute meetings. Why will those not be released
today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethnics counsellor has released a report which is about this
thick. There are pages after pages of documentation which are
available to the hon. member if indeed he wants to go through
them.
At the same time the ethics counsellor conducted interviews with
a number of the people who were involved, all of whom confirmed
the fact that there were no discussions of tainted blood at the
CDC board. If the hon. member wants to talk to the ethnics
counsellor he certainly can feel free to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that there were no
major trade problems at the present time, but we know that many
countries are calling for mandatory labelling of GMOs and that
farmers are already having trouble selling their crops.
Does the minister not understand that because of his lack of
concern farmers may be unable to sell what they produce, thus
creating another major agricultural crisis in the country?
1500
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are a number of
countries talking about labelling for genetically modified foods,
but I am not aware, unless the member is knowledgeable otherwise,
of any country which has a system in place right now which
insists there be labelling for genetic modification in a product.
They are talking about it, but because they have not been able
to put together a system of criteria which is meaningful,
enforceable and credible, no country has that in place at the
present time.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, how
many visible minorities and aboriginals are there in the senior
ranks of Canada's land forces and regular navy? Too few to even
register, according to the defence minister's own advisory board.
Just as bad are the targets, with a visible minority target of
less than 10% for army and regular forces and less than 5% for
aboriginals in the same category.
Will the minister here and now commit to targets and dates to
increase representation in all senior ranks, including using fast
tracking where appropriate, and commit to fostering an
environment promoting diversity, as recommended by his own
advisory board?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, it is
an advisory board which I appointed because I want the Canadian
forces to be able to better reflect the population which exists
today.
I want to make sure that people from all parts of Canada and
from all socio-economic groups have an opportunity to be part of
this great national institution.
The board has come up with some suggestions which I think are
worthwhile. We are looking at them right now. I think we can
increase the numbers of people, reach out to them, and do it
without quotas and without lowering any of our standards.
It is important to reach out to these people and be inclusive in
terms of the Canadian forces.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to follow up on my last question.
The minister of heritage will have a say in anything major like
what is happening in Montreal. Would the minister guarantee
community based, English language programming in Montreal for
Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the member says that the minister has a say, in
fact the minister has a say in appointing the president of the
CBC and the Government of Canada appoints the board of directors
of the CBC. Then we have confidence that the president and the
board of directors of the CBC will manage the CBC to make sure
that it is available in all regions of the country for everyone.
That is their mandate and we are very confident that the
president and the board will carry out that mandate.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: My colleagues, today we had a very
impressive ceremony in the rotunda and I would like to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of one of our
distinguished guests for today, the Honourable Peter Irniq,
Commissioner of Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this being the most favoured day, Thursday, where we
get to ask another question after question period, I would like
to ask a very important question of the government House leader.
Would he be able to tell the House what the business of the
House will be for the remainder of this week and the week
following the break?
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are going to continue debate on Bill C-32, the Budget
Implementation Act, 2000, followed, time permitting, by Bill
C-25, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, and then Bill C-19,
the Crimes Against Humanity Act, and Bill C-11 on Devco, and if
we have time, Bill C-24 on changes to the form of the GST,
followed by Bill C-5, the Canadian Tourism Commission Act.
1505
Tomorrow, it is my intention to call Bill C-19, the Crimes
Against Humanity Act.
When we return on May 1, we are going to begin the second
reading of Bill C-31, the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act. Tuesday, May 2, will be designated an allotted day.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following consultations between all of the parties, I think you
would find unanimous consent for the adoption of the following
order on the subject of travel for the public accounts committee.
I move:
That the members of the Subcommittee on International Financial
Guidelines and Standards for the Public Sector of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts and the necessary staff of the
subcommittee be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., from
May 7 to 10, 2000, to meet with representatives of Congress, the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the General
Accounting Office and the Inter-American Bank to identify and
discuss the work that has been done and that is currently being
undertaken in the development of international financial
reporting guidelines and standards for the public sector.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
parliament on February 28, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to reiterate what I said before question period. I was
highlighting some of the program reviews that have taken place in
the country which brought us to budget 2000.
When budget 2000 was released, there was no mention of national
parks in it. National parks have been a great part of our summer
activities. When students take their summer break, they and
their families flock to our many national parks in the beautiful
regions of our country. The huge demands on our parks by our
growing population and by international visitors have put a great
burden on the ecological integrity of these parks.
If the Minister of Finance has any obligations toward seeing
environmental integrity take place, he must review his financial
and fiscal responsibilities in budget 2000. There is nothing in
the budget that mentions anything about improving the
opportunities for the National Parks Agency to increase the
resources for the management and wardens who care for these
parks. They require the human resources, seasonal resources,
technical and capital resources to make the parks a better place
to be and to protect them for future generations.
A part of our national parks heritage is to increase the
allocation of our parks in this country. We are going very
slowly.
There was an increase in designated parks in years past but
nothing was mentioned in the budget for the year 2000. There was
nothing planned for increased park allocations. There was
nothing from the government. I would like to highlight this as a
major oversight by the finance minister this year. We hope that
he will announce as soon as possible some initiative toward our
national parks and enhancing this issue in next year's budget.
1510
We would like to highlight the fact that national parks in
Canada have been overlooked in this year's budget. There has
been zero increase in their budgets. A greater demand on more
user fees has been coming from the parks. The revenue sources
that are being created at our national parks are not necessarily
a good thing for the ecological integrity of our parks. The
balance of restricting use and advertising for more use for the
sake of further revenue is not necessarily a good thing.
Another great oversight not only in this budget but in
government policy is in respect of northern development. The
issue of northern development in Canada is of great interest.
Many people will look at the north and see its vast natural
resources. The north has a sparse population. It is the final
frontier, as one opposition member mentioned.
I just returned from Europe where I looked at how development
has taken place there. Two concepts come to mind which I would
like to share with the House. One of them deals with the issue
of banking.
Everyone knows the banks of this country, CIBC, Royal Bank, Bank
of Montreal, are all making great profits and doubling their
profits every year. That is the investment banking side. But
regional development banking is lacking in this country. I am
not just talking about business development for businesses in
downtown Toronto, for example, or Halifax, Montreal or Vancouver.
We need regional development banking so we can look at the
economically deprived regions of Canada.
We look at the north as a vast region where communities and
populations have sustained a livelihood through many generations
of sustainable development. Sustainable development is the key.
But now because of a lack of financial resources, capital
finances that can be invested strategically to create jobs, to
create investments, to create resource management that reflects
the needs of communities, that is not happening.
Let me speak about investment banking. If a forestry operation
is to be developed in northern Canada, the investment banking
would take place in Toronto or in some stock market in New York,
Calgary or Vancouver. The company would usually be southern
based and in this case they would be looking at getting resources
from the north and bringing them south for development and
profit.
That is what we call colonization. Colonization is what brought
these vast institutions here. I am talking about the British,
the French, the Spaniards and Portuguese who wanted more
resources and further riches for their countries. They came to
Canada looking for new found land. But now we are a country and
as Canadians we have to protect our resources. Let us hold on
tight to our resources. The resources in Canada and the world
are dwindling. If we hold on to our resources, their market
value will increase. We must treasure our resources not only for
our immediate profit making, but to sustain them for future
generations so they have a means of livelihood in the future.
The whole issue of northern development was very much overlooked
in this budget, not only the developmental issue but also the
infrastructure issue and the high cost of delivering services to
the north.
Most people take for granted having a litre of milk and, in most
cases, two litres of milk. In southern Saskatchewan one can
easily buy a two litre carton of milk for $2. In northern
Canada, it costs $8 for a two-litre carton of milk, which is four
times the price of milk in other parts of Canada.
1515
We had a report about the sad situation of first nations
education. We cannot compare the education system in northern
Canada to that of southern Canada. There are school divisions
within and around the city of Ottawa where schools have a
population of between 500 and 1000 students.
Villages in northern Canada with a population of 500 may have 20
students in a high school. The student-teacher ratio might
diminish to 10:1. There is a high cost to having one teacher
teaching only 10 students but that is the reality of living in a
small community. Not everyone can be moved to an urban centre.
We must continue to support rural and remote communities. This
is the reality of being Canadian. We cannot pretend to be
England or Germany, or small countries that are the size of the
smallest provinces in this country. We are a huge country. We
must think big but we must also think of what is fair for
everyone.
Housing development is another issue I have mentioned. Our
communities are in the middle of the boreal forest region and we
lack housing. Why can we not build log or timber frame homes
that are community based instead of real estate or development
based? That is a challenge for the government. We should have
research projects that will foster the development of community
housing and create family initiatives to keep housing viable. We
should not have a housing problem in the middle of a boreal
forest.
We need research institutes to give us the best decisions on
designing a house. We do not have research institutes in the
north dedicated to the livelihood, resource management or the
economic viability of the north. I challenge any of the research
chairs that have been duly announced by this budget to
consciously choose northern initiatives. I doubt if they will
even look at the issues, aside from the genetically altered
subject on which we have spoken.
Biotechnology is a major initiative that the Department of
Industry has been working on. The moral and ethical issues
dealing with biotechnology have to be addressed as well. There
has to be a balance between what the consumers need to know about
genetically modified foods and the need to protect the
environment.
We mentioned the environmental aspects of the Kyoto protocol and
keeping greenhouse gases in check with emission controls. I am
aware of no initiative by this government that tells Canadians
what decisions we should be making on our automobiles.
The latest initiative we saw was yesterday regarding VIA Rail.
The government has finally woken up to the fact that trains are a
viable option for this country. We can travel from Halifax to
Vancouver on a train, and by making an investment, maybe that
train will be on time. There are trains in Europe that go 300
kilometres an hour and trains in Japan that are being tested at
500 kilometres an hour. I would rather be travelling on a train,
seeing the beautiful landscapes of this country than flying above
the clouds.
We also have a diminished opportunity to fly above the clouds
right now because Air Canada is the only airline. We have no
alternatives.
The schedules connecting western Canada with eastern Canada are
being dismantled. The schedules that were there before are not
there today. Flight schedules are being dismantled all for the
sake and success of the lobbyists who have successfully told the
government that one company cannot compete against another.
1520
A train is probably the cheapest form of transporting freight in
this country. In the land-locked provinces, where there are no
shores touching the Atlantic or the Pacific, we rely on trains to
take our agricultural products to market.
As a young person I travelled on the highways of northern Canada
and a train on a railroad track would have been a better
alternative. Rather than exercising the option of increasing our
rail access to other places in Canada, we have been dismantling
our railroad tracks, especially in western Canada. Railroad
tracks that existed fifty years ago have now disappeared.
We must reinvest in and reconnect our communities with a
railroad system and a transportation system that is reliable, not
just an Internet and information highway system. We need a real
highway system to connect real people with real places and real
people with other real people, not just virtual connections or a
connection on a TV screen. We must connect the French people
with the English people, the Dene people with the Inuit and the
Inuit with the Mi'kmaq. All these people have get to know each
other because we are all Canadians.
As parliamentarians, it is time we looked at restructuring our
system of governance. It is time to reinvest in education and in
opportunities for our young people.
The budget is certainly a spark in the right direction to no
more program reviews and no more cutbacks. It is time to
reinvest. However, let us invest in the right way and let us
invest with our hearts in the right place where it will be fair
and equal for all Canadians.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions of dollars will
be poured into VIA Rail and a lot of that passenger service is in
eastern Canada. It was only a few years ago that the government
withdrew all support for the grain transportation network on the
prairies, known as the Crow rate. Does the member feel that
there is some political interference here in the rail
transportation system in the country?
What is economically more important to the country, grain
transportation on the prairies or serving the passengers who
travel between Quebec City and Windsor? I realize VIA crosses
the country but that service is primarily in eastern Canada. Is
this fair? Does this seem like a good economic decision, or were
politics involved in this decision to spend hundreds of millions
on VIA Rail and leave the farmers on the prairies to basically
fend for themselves?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, having great faith in
our political system, of course it was politics. This whole
place is built on politics. A majority of the members are from
the Ontario region. We have a party reflective of the west. Then
we have a whole governance structure and bureaucratic structure
that seems to want to dismantle the whole issue of a
connectedness with the country.
The farmers have had opportunities to reflect on the political
wills. Governments have changed time and time again and the
whole issue of the farm family has been diminished. The complex
area of grain transportation, the technical changes, the
international trade in farming and the whole issue of the future
of farms should be documented once and for all.
1525
My solution would be to set up a royal commission on the family
farm, which would take the politics right out of it. The
commission would look at the family farm and document it once and
for all so that the next generation who will be able to make wise
investment decisions for the future.
Politics is politics. Maybe the VIA Rail decision is right. It
may be one example of a good investment the government is making
with its newfound surpluses. Maybe something will come for grain
transportation in the future but that is a big hope. Hopefully
we can work together to make that possible.
Farmers need help in grain transportation but young farmers need
direction. They need to know what kinds of decisions they will
have to make. Maybe a royal commission could wrap it all up in
one big package for them to really look at and study.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member talked quite a bit about
national parks and the national parks scheme.
It was very clear in the past that our national parks were
designed for people and families to have general access. However,
the mandate for the parks has changed and many of the practices
have changed so that now our national parks system is much less
available to the general public and families. At times some of
the existing available parks have implemented a user fee
schedule, to which the member made reference.
My analysis of those parks, which have put in a user fee
schedule, is that the national budget is still the same as what
it was before the implementation of user fees. There is a lot
more spending going on but no more facilities really present. The
user fee schedule has not really given the general taxpayer
relief.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on those two things.
The member also talked about rural infrastructure. We are very
concerned about what is happening in our rural communities. On
things like the universality and availability of health care, if
individuals cannot get to where health care is available it is
hardly universal. If the member would like to comment on that as
well it would be most welcome.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than
happy to highlight some of the political aspirations of certain
parties.
Not so long ago I knew a party called the Reform Party which
leaned a bit to the right. Some of its aspirations were cost
recovery. A major right wing agenda is to look at cost recovery
in health and for-profit health care. Cost recovery in national
parks is a reality. It is a dream come true for a right wing
government. Unfortunately we have a Liberal government that
seems to be listening to this right wing rhetoric.
We have to consider the social conscience of the country. We
have to consider the needs of our communities, our single parents
and our students who cannot afford to use the parks, as the
member said. We do have to raise these issues but we have to
make it a Canadian initiative. We cannot talk from both sides of
our mouth. If we care about our young people we have to invest
our tax dollars in areas that will help them. We cannot talk
about tax cuts and then diminish our services and programs. I am
talking about program and service enhancement.
It is nice that the hon. member has raised this issue. Maybe we
can get the government's assurance that it will keep the program
and services enhancement, especially in budgets to come.
As I said there has been a swing away from cutbacks and more
expending surpluses into the future.
1530
In some areas the infrastructure development is very unfair. I
tried to drive to Ottawa on the Trans Canada Highway. It is a
minefield coming here through northern Ontario. It is a single
lane highway that barely has any shoulders.
There is an intercontinental highway system just to the south of
us. Maybe that should be looked at in terms of infrastructure
development and job creation. There are highways needed in
western Canada. Grain trucks have been pounding our highways
because grain is no longer being hauled by train.
These are the sad facts and sad results. We have to look at
investments, which I call regional development investments. If
the infrastructure program is a possible avenue to make this
happen, I would very much welcome it, but it was not evident in
the finance minister's release.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think we could agree with a number of the items the
member mentioned.
One area which he did not talk about in his presentation was
regarding the government's talk about showing this huge surplus
at the same time that there is a $580 billion debt with a $43
billion interest payment on it every year. One of the big
concerns I had certainly before coming to this place in 1993 was
the fact that no government seemed to be dealing with that. I
was rather shocked that the present budget did not deal with that
item.
With $14.5 billion for health care and $43 billion for interest
payments, does the hon. member not think that by dealing with
that debt we could in fact help our social programs which all of
us are concerned about?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have to
have a balanced approach. Certainly our party has taken the
approach of looking at the deficit, the debt and program and
service enhancement.
By creating more wage earners through the opportunities that we
talked about, investment into infrastructure development, instead
of recipients of social services, we would see an increase in
national revenues. We would see a better economic cycle within
the regions.
People talk about the fear of globalization. The hon. member
should live in northern Canada and see the remnants of what our
globalization was. The Hudson's Bay Company and its stores still
monopolize our groceries after it tapped the sceptre here and
said “This is now Rupert's Land and part of England”. We still
live over there, yet we live here.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That is not true. The North West
Company runs all that.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: The North West Company and the
Hudson's Bay Company, under the same guise, under the same name,
still have the same colonizing effect today. Colonization and
globalization are in a similar realm. Let us invest in our
people and the people will get us out of our troubles.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly my pleasure to speak in the debate on the budget
that was set down on February 28, 2000.
A lot of people looked forward to that budget. They thought we
would get a millennium surprise, that we would get a forward
looking 21st century type of budget. Instead, I think we got a
shell game where money was transferred from one place to another
place to another place. A lot of people, not able to follow the
movement, said at least it was better than what we have had
before.
Let us talk about some of the failures of that budget. Mr.
Speaker, I know you are most interested in pinpointing those
because obviously within your caucus you would have been told all
of the good points. Let me try to highlight some of the less
than good points in the budget. I know you are looking forward
to this and will take accurate notes.
1535
First there is the total failure to even recognize the fact that
we have a debt. There is talk of this great surplus and what
will be done with the money, how the government can create more
programs. There is program spending. Certainly Liberals love
program spending. They have always loved to create programs
because programs lead to bureaucracy. Bureaucracy leads to
boondoggles. Boondoggles lead to ways to patronize friends. It
is a wonderful scene, except for the taxpayer and all those
people who are deprived of that money.
What about that debt? What about that $588 billion? Let us go
back and see where that came from. In 1969 we had no debt. By
1972 we had $18 billion in debt. As we went along through the
spending years we ended up coming to about $160 billion in debt
by 1983-84. At that point everybody said we must stop the growth
of that debt.
A new party came into power and said it was going to stop it and
it would not let it grow any more. Of course we know that by
1987 we had a debt somewhere in the neighbourhood of just under
$300 billion. At that point of course a new party, the forerunner
to the Canadian Alliance, was born as a response to that huge
debt. But that same government carried on. By the time it
finished, the debt was $490 billion with a deficit of some $42
billion.
Since then we now have a debt of roughly $580 billion. We have
an interest payment of about $43 billion, depending on how the
economy goes and so on. Let us look at where that places us. We
spend somewhere around $12 billion on education, $14 billion on
health care and $22 billion on pensions. There is Indian affairs
at $7 billion and defence at $9 billion. The critical thing in
these numbers is the fact that we have $43 billion in interest
payments. That is what we are passing on to future generations.
How does the budget deal with that? It says that as long as
everything is going fine, we may be able to put $3 billion on
that debt. Let us figure out the mathematics of that one. If
there is $580 billion and we add $3 billion a year while paying
$43 billion a year in interest, then we are not getting ahead. A
home could not be run that way. A business could not be run that
way. A farm could not be run that way. They would be bankrupt.
They would be taken over.
Obviously it is a great disappointment for Canadian taxpayers.
Future citizens and taxpayers, our children, our grandchildren
and our great-grandchildren are going to be burdened by that
debt. This budget did not even address that.
One could put one's head in the sand and not recognize that as a
serious problem for our country. That is why some economists are
predicting that within 50 years this country will have a standard
of living at 50% that of the Americans. Right now the quality of
life, the standard of living is somewhere around 70% that of the
Americans. Is that acceptable? Is that what we want to leave
for our children and our grandchildren? I do not and I think I
can speak for my colleagues in saying that they do not either.
That is the first failure, Mr. Speaker. I know you are looking
forward to hearing some more so I will satisfy your curiosity.
Let us talk about the business community and employment benefits
and the shell game that is played. The government trumpets the
fact that it has been able to cut EI premiums and that has saved
business and individual workers a great amount of money.
1540
About 38% of people can actually be eligible for employment
insurance but we do not talk about that figure. We also do not
talk about the fact that for the last five years and into the
next couple of years, CPP increases totally wipe out the EI
premium decreases. There is a net loss to individuals and
businesses. That means that small businesses, and remember that
is most businesses in Canada, are going to employ fewer people,
are going to have more overhead costs and are going to have a
greater chance of failure. This may not affect the big guys but
it sure does affect the 90% of Canadian small businesses.
What about the 11% increase in HRDC grants? I know it is in the
right phase of the cycle to be increasing because if we look at
HRDC grants and contributions, they go with elections. The year
after an election they are at their lowest point. As we get
closer to an election, grants and contributions increase. One
could say it is natural that in the 2000 budget there would be an
11% increase in grants. What about those grants? We have heard
much in the House about the boondoggles. Where it gets right
down to the nitty-gritty would be something I experienced last
Sunday.
A band in my community is leaving this coming Sunday for
Australia. It is going to be accompanied by a number of teachers
and parents. This band is doing a cultural exchange and wanted to
leave something in Australia that was a celebration of the
millennium from the town of Innisfail in Canada to the town of
Innisfail in Australia where it would be spending three weeks.
The cost was under $1,000 for a plaque. The government chose to
say in a letter to the band that this was not a very good
millennium project, that it does not really help Canadians to be
good Canadians, to be proud Canadians.
When I wished them well at the band concert on Sunday, I felt
sorry for the government for the letter that was read to the
parents and the students. Many people said to me after, “What
about the $250,000 for a fountain in the river? How about the
canoe museum? How about the armouries with a good view of the
fountain?” They asked about the $7 million spent on golf
courses and sock factories. They asked how it was possible to be
ineligible for any funding for a project that was truly, I
believe, a millennium project. The only answer I had was that
perhaps they had voted the wrong way. That is a sorry commentary
in a democracy.
There is another example in my riding and I should have brought
the letter to read but I can paraphrase it. The letter was from
the Deputy Prime Minister. The Alberta Sports Hall of Fame is
celebrating 100 years of sports in the province of Alberta,
Canada. It wanted to do a special display for all Albertans who
had been on Olympic teams representing their country over the
last 100 years. If that is not a millennium project, then I do
not know what is.
The letter from the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that this
project did not qualify because it was asking for 100% funding.
The community raised $3 million to build the building which is
finished and opens next month. The cost of the celebration of
the Alberta athletes who were in the Olympics for Canada was
going to be $750,000 of which $500,000 has been raised.
1545
They were asking for funding from the Government of Canada for a
millennium project to celebrate 100 years of Canadian athletes
coming from Alberta on Olympic teams. The answer from the
government was that it did not fund projects 100%, so it denied
their request for the millennium project. There was $3 million
raised in the community of which $500,000 was for that particular
project. That is not 100% funding coming from the federal
government. That is the kind of stuff that happens with these
grants. We have to be from the right place and not a safe seat
or something like that in order to get that. People in my
community do not find that very appealing and are not pleased
with the budget raising the grants by 11%.
Let us talk about health care. How did this budget deal with
health care? It gave $2.5 billion over four years for the
subject that all Canadians are concerned about. Seventy-five per
cent of Canadians polled say that they are worried about their
health care. A poll done by the department which was released
yesterday said that 70% of Canadians felt this budget did not
give enough money to health care.
The government says it has returned all the money. How does it
figure that? It is difficult to explain but let me attempt to.
It says that there are tax credits that make up half of its
donation to the provinces. Where did that come from? In 1977
the provinces and the federal government agreed on these tax
point transfers. Immediately upon doing that, the federal
government raised its taxes. The provinces were to have room to
raise their taxes. But they could not do it because the federal
government had already filled the space for that tax. They would
have had to raise taxes and take the blame for raising them for
health care. The tax credit is really a figment of the
government's mind. The money is really not there.
Let us talk about actual transfers of cash. What has the
government done with that? In 1993 the cash transfers were $18.8
billion for health care. In 1994 they were $18.7 billion. In
1995 they were $18.4 billion. In 1996 there were $14.8 billion.
In 1997 they were $12.5 billion. In 1998 they were $12.5
billion. In 1999 they were $14.5 billion. Guess what? Over the
the next four years they will be $15.5 billion. Remember, they
were $18.5 billion in 1993.
What has happened in between besides inflation? There has been
improvement in technology. Increased costs in our health care
system and medication have gone up by 17% per year. These have
not been accounted for in the cash transfers to the provinces.
Why does the health care system have a real crunch right now?
Because of the lack of funding. Who is to blame? It is not just
the provinces. The federal government can be blamed for it as
much as the provinces.
This government does not have a vision for health care in the
21st century. We have a 1960s state run socialized health care
system that would compare to North Korea and Cuba. We do not
have a health care system that would compare to any of the
industrialized countries. We are rated 23rd out of 29 in terms
of health care in the industrialized world.
1550
We are in fifth place in spending on health care. We have fifth
place spending with 23rd place ranking in our health care
delivery. There is certainly something wrong there.
I should state that we are opposed to two tier, U.S. style,
for-profit health care. I am sorry that the hon. member who
alluded to that earlier has left the Chamber. We are opposed to
that. We can clearly state that we do not believe in that. That
is not what Canadians want. Canadians would like to be in the
top third of OECD countries in the delivery of health care. That
is what they would like.
This budget did not deliver that. Last year it was $11 billion
over five years. This year it was $2.5 billion over four years.
That is after taking out $26 billion. That is just not good
enough. The responsibility stops right here and it stops with
this budget.
The other fact concerning health care that we should be
emphasizing is co-operation with the provinces. We need to
co-operate with them to solve a problem that is a Canadian
problem. The people in my constituency and in the Ontario
constituencies I have visited are not interested in who does it,
what is happening, or all of these facts and figures. They want
to have a better health care system. They do not particularly
care whether it is federal, provincial or whatever. They just
know that there is something wrong.
We could go through all the problems, but I do not believe we
need to do that. I think we can simply say that we must fix that
system. How do we do it? We have to do it by co-operation with
the provinces. What do we do to the provinces? We have our
drive-by smear that occurs. We have the taunting and the
constant attacks on the Government of Ontario. We have Mr.
Romanow and even Mr. Tobin asking for things and the government
treats them the same. One cannot even say it selects the people
it picks on. This government bullies the provinces. It does not
worry about co-operating with the provinces and, of course, that
is why the health care system of this country continues to
deteriorate.
Canadians want that fixed and they expected that in the budget.
Certainly our health minister was the big loser at the budget
table this year when one considers that grants and boondoggles
got as much money as health care. That is a disgrace, Mr.
Speaker, just as not touching that debt is a disgrace.
What about taxes? There was tampering with the tax system
again, but it was not adequate and not what people really needed.
We need to have a level playing field if we are going to compete.
We have 85% of our trade with the U.S. We need a level playing
field and that certainly has to be in the area of taxation. It
was disappointing.
With respect to agriculture, what did we do for our farmers? We
did nothing. We showed no interest in agriculture whatsoever in
this budget.
Finally, in terms of Canadian influence around the world, the
international perspective of the government, our position in the
world, was probably at its peak in 1945. Mr. Pearson did a lot
to maintain that, but where have we gone since then?
I am disappointed to say that in all the travelling I have done,
I have seen a decline. I have seen our peacekeepers, great men
and women, working hard in counties with 40 year old equipment.
You have seen them, too, Mr. Speaker. What are we doing to our
NATO and NORAD partners?
I was not happy with this budget.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments of
the hon. member for Red Deer. The alliance party has had a
number of different names, but I think we could safely call it
the party of hypocrisy. I do not know if it is a movement or a
party. Someone suggested it is a movement, but I think it is a
party.
There are many different flaws in the hon. member's argument. I
would like to focus on just a couple of them, if I may, Mr.
Speaker.
First, I find it very hypocritical when the member stands up in
the House and talks about the debt whereas in fact their
proposition when they ran with their platform would have meant
that the government would have been out of deficit two years
later than what this government did, which would have meant of
course that the debt would have increased even more quickly. I
find it quite irrational for this member to get up in the House
and make those comments.
1555
Canadians must be confused with this issue about tax points.
Let me explain if I might for the member opposite how it works.
In 1977 the federal government vacated 13.5 percentage points of
its personal income tax and 1 percentage point of its corporate
income tax. In other words the government said “We are not
going to charge citizens and corporate Canada as much federal
income tax, so we invite you, the provinces, to move into that
area. You charge citizens and corporations more tax”. Do you
know what, Mr. Speaker? That is exactly what they did.
The argument that the federal government later increased taxes
and the provinces did this and the provinces did that is totally
irrelevant. When the federal government vacated that tax room,
the provinces immediately filled it. Since 1977 the world has
changed. There have been a lot of things happening up and down,
back and forth.
When the member talks about expenditures, the level of
expenditure for direct program delivery of the federal government
is down $4 billion from 1993 while at the same time our transfers
to the provinces have been totally restored. Surely that says
something about the priorities of this government. Our direct
program expenditure is down $4 billion and the transfers to
provinces have been completely restored.
Therefore, I find the member's arguments spurious in the least.
The members talks about the grants and contributions going up in
this budget. I am wondering if he understands the fact that the
grants and contributions in the year 2000 budget are composed of
$900 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation so that
Canadians can be more innovative and have a more innovative
economy. It also includes the research chairs to establish us as
a pre-eminent research nation with our universities, our students
and our professors. Those are just two. I could go on and on.
I wonder if the member could clarify his understanding of the
debt and tax points because clearly he was muddled when he first
started out. I wonder with these comments if perhaps he has
absorbed that and he could rethink what he proposed before.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, it is just amazing after one
has been here for a while to see someone with their head in the
sand. Someone who believes his own propaganda is even more
amazing. The member does not even have a questioning mind for
some of that information and obviously cannot even get the name
of our party correct. That has to be another slur on that
member's mental ability.
The Liberal propaganda says yes, in 1977 they transferred the
tax room. Then they immediately started to raise taxes and by
1986 all of that tax room was used up by the federal government.
From then on there is not a dollar left in there.
The fact that the government continues to say that of the $81
billion that is spent on health care in this country, provincial
and federal, it transfers $14.5 billion this year, that is not
33% as it claims. It would have been in 1977 but if it goes that
far back in terms of its propaganda, it obviously needs some
research assistance as well.
There is $4 billion less in spending. Is that not something
when $43 billion is spent on interest payments? Is that not
something to stand up in the House and crow about, that the
government has actually cut spending by $4 billion when it is
paying $43 billion in interest, getting nothing, no services for
it and the government is proud of that?
1600
As far as the research grants which were mentioned, we are in
the bottom third of OECD countries when it comes to technology
and health care. That is nothing to stand and brag about. We
are losing half our graduate doctors. Of the 16 universities
training doctors, the number of specialist courses has been cut
on a yearly basis. That is something to talk about. Funding
should be returned to those programs so that we can fix our
health care system.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member indicated that Canada pension plan premiums were going
up and would offset some of the amounts that were decreased with
regard to EI premiums and taxes. He is quite right.
Would the member agree that historically we have had five
workers for every one pensioner and that current pensioners are
getting about $8 for every $1 they put in? Forward planning and
the actuarial numbers show that there will only be three workers
for every one pensioner.
Would he agree that it was necessary for the premiums to go up
to sustain the plan? Those premiums do not go into the
government general revenue but are over on the side. Would the
member agree that the role played by the federal and provincial
governments to sustain the Canada pension plan for all Canadians
was the right thing to do?
The member said that they were not in favour of a two tier
health care system. He was emphatic, very emphatic. He is
nodding his head. This is something they could not possibly
tolerate, at all. He is still nodding his head.
Given that fact, could the member for Red Deer explain to the
House and to all Canadians why they have not drummed the member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca out of their party? He is currently
running for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance on a platform
of establishing a two tier health care system, one for the rich
and one for everybody else.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, first I will deal with the
CPP. That plan is flawed. It was first introduced in 1966. Two
years later the people who built the plan said that it would not
work. From there on, governments ignored that advice and
continued to build up the debt and the liability on that plan.
How do we fix that plan? We would have to charge, as most
actuaries say, somewhere around 15% to fix it. If we start
charging 15%, obviously young workers will be on the picket
lines. What can we do about it?
I did an interesting project. I went to Santiago, Chile, which
has had a program for 26 years. I went door to door. I went to
the poor communities. I went to the middle class communities. I
went to the wealthy communities. I asked them to tell me about
their plan. They came out their doors with a card showing the
pension plan they invested in, plan A, plan B, and plan C. It is
government run. It is compulsory. It is 10%. It is there. They
can watch it. They buy their groceries at the stores in which
they have shares. They buy their cars from companies in which
they have shares. They are proud of it. It is sustainable. The
money is there in the country to invest. They do not have any
foreign debt because of it.
Mr. Paul Szabo: You said scrap it.
Mr. Bob Mills: The member will not try anything new. He
is not prepared to try anything new. Some members across have
their heads in the sand.
The final point is that we are not Liberals. We are the
Canadian Alliance Party. We believe in democracy. If somebody
running for the leadership wants to talk about something, he or
she has a right to do it. We do not throw people out like the
party on the other side.
1605
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on the budget
implementation act. I commend my colleague from Red Deer on his
response to that ridiculous question from the Liberal member
opposite. He pointed out that the Canada pension plan is flawed.
One of the reasons I got involved in politics was that I
resented the Liberal way of mortgaging the present on the future,
making future generations pay for its excesses in the present.
That is irresponsible and morally corrupt. On behalf of my
children and all other children in Canada, I got involved in
politics so that we could stop that type of destructive,
irresponsible behaviour by the government.
There are three parts of the budget implementation act I would
like to specifically address. One is the portion of the act that
amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to
implement a $2.5 billion increase in the Canada health and social
transfer over four years.
The fact of the matter is that transfers from the federal
government to the provinces were $18.5 billion per year when the
Liberals came to power in 1993. They were reduced to $11.5
billion and now they have been increased to somewhere in the
neighbourhood of $14 billion, still about $4.5 billion a year
short of the funding that was in place six and a half years ago.
It is worthwhile to note that if we add up the cost to the
health care system over the years of Liberal government there has
actually been a shortfall or deficiency of $25 billion compared
to the funding levels we had in 1993. That does not even account
for inflation or population growth.
Health care has been terribly underfunded by the government in
favour of spending the money on wasteful government programs and
not in favour of tax cuts. The billion dollar boondoggle in the
human resources department, the misappropriation or misallocation
of grant money, is a good illustration of irresponsible behaviour
and skewed priorities where the Liberals refuse to fund social
programs that Canadians care about, such as our health care
system, in favour of handing money to their political friends.
That is tax money, I might add, paid by hard working Canadian
families.
I would also like to address the amendment to the Excise Tax Act
to allow the Minister of National Revenue to obtain judicial
authorization to immediately assess and take action to collect
from a person GST-HST deemed remittable by the minister. Suffice
to say, I am opposed to that because it broadens the already
coercive tax power of the government by granting even further
powers to the Minister of National Revenue. When the Canadian
Alliance forms the government we will be looking at measures to
protect taxpayers and at having fairer methods of assessment and
collection instead of a heavy handed, uncaring and unfeeling
Liberal minister.
The Income Tax Act will be amended as of January 1 of this year
to reinstate full indexation of the tax code. That is a move we
have been urging the government to take ever since it took power
in 1993 because of the insidious, sneaky way our taxes were going
up year by year as a result of bracket creep. Tax brackets and
personal deductions were not indexed to inflation.
Although the government has finally corrected this and finally
listened to us after six years, it did not do so in any
retroactive fashion. In order to reintroduce indexation it
should have calculated the loss to taxpayers over the years by
the fact that there was no indexation and then implement
provisions whereby taxpayers would be able to receive the benefit
of that.
1610
There are numerous parts of the budget which I want to address,
but in consideration of some of the debate which took place
earlier in the day I will start by covering a brief history to
where we are now.
I am referring in particular to a speech made by a Progressive
Conservative member. It might have been the House leader. He
was trying to justify the massive increase in our national debt
that occurred during the Mulroney government, the nine year reign
of error by the Conservatives. He was addressing the deficit
which grew to enormous levels under their leadership.
When the Conservatives came to power in 1984 the national debt
stood somewhere around the $200 billion mark. It was increasing
as a result of deficit budgets by the previous Liberal
government. The Tories at that time were in a unique position to
reverse that trend and bring responsible fiscal management to
government. They could have eliminated the deficit very quickly
and very easily and began paying down the $200 billion debt.
Instead, they embarked on the largest expansion of government in
the history of our country.
Over a nine year period they increased taxes 71 times, but
government spending far outpaced their tax increases to the point
that annual deficits, by the time they left power nine years
later, were over $40 billion a year. They added $300 billion to
our national debt, more than doubling it. The fact that party is
now on the brink of elimination is fitting, considering the
fiscal mess it left our country in.
At this point I will discuss the legislative agenda of the
Liberal government. The budget implementation act is full of
flaws which we are illustrating for the benefit of the House. I
want to put that in the context of the legislative agenda of the
government. Not only is the budget deficient in many ways, but
instead of addressing the areas of concern the government is on a
very hollow agenda which lacks vision and is irresponsible.
I am referring to the fact that two days ago we debated in the
House an act to extend marital benefits to gay couples. We have
a $600 billion national debt. We have unreasonable levels of
taxation. Yet the government is preoccupied with redefining
marriage.
We have pressured the government for the last six years to
reform the Young Offenders Act, to introduce a victims bill of
rights into our criminal justice system and to address the
problems in our prisons and the problems with parole. Many
reforms are needed to the justice system and there was no
response from the government.
Another illustration of its lack of vision and lack of
responsibility is the child pornography issue. The government
refuses to act. Last June the official opposition put forward a
supply day motion on that topic urging the government to
intervene, invoke the notwithstanding clause and enforce the law
which made child pornography illegal, but it refused to do so.
1615
The HRDC billion dollar boondoggle is very telling. We have a
taxation system that is in dire need of repair and reform. The
government in the budget has increased funding to HRDC. We are
going to see more grants, more patronage, more suspicious payoffs
and transactions.
I will illustrate a few examples. It is my understanding that
the president of the Liberal constituency association in the
riding of the minister of Indian affairs received a grant of
about $150,000, which actually exceeded the legal limit of grants
under the program from which he received it. Not only was there
a patronage payoff for his political activity on behalf of the
Liberal Party, but under the grant program that it used to
administer the patronage payoff the law was even broken with
respect to that.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With due respect, I believe that an allegation of some payoff in
any form attributed to a minister is an inappropriate allegation
for this place and perhaps you could rule it not parliamentary.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is more concerned that the
hon. member concluded by saying that it appeared that the law had
been broken. I am sure that he would not want to suggest that
any member of the House had broken the law, unless he chooses to
take the appropriate steps, which of course have serious
consequences. I know he would not want to say that and I hope he
would retract those words and continue with his remarks.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify
that. What I was referring to was the fact that the guidelines
for that grant program were not adhered to. That is what I
meant.
It is rather ironic that the member for Mississauga South would
raise this point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, given the fact
that he is remarkably silent when it comes to advocating and
demonstrating any support for families, despite the fact that he
pretends to be an advocate of family values. However, when the
measure of that is put to the test, he fails repeatedly. I am
referring to the fact that he continues to support the Liberal
agenda, the anti-family agenda of overtaxing families, of unfair
taxation, of refusing to defend the definition of marriage, and
the list goes on.
One area of concern has to do with employment insurance
premiums. They are about 18% in excess of the break-even point of
the EI fund. The government is taking this excess money, which
is in the neighbourhood of $7 billion a year, diverting it to the
consolidated revenue fund and spending it on HRDC grants and
other scandalous programs.
This is very offensive to hard-working Canadians who pay these
employment insurance premiums for the purpose of receiving
benefits if they become unemployed. The government is violating
the intent and the spirit of the employment insurance program.
Equally important, I would like to point to an issue that really
needs to be addressed. Not only is the overpayment unfair in
that respect, but municipalities are public employers and, as
such, municipalities across Canada pay EI premiums, as well as
their workers. All of that money comes from property taxes.
The purpose of property taxes is supposed to be to provide
services to properties and projects in the local municipalities.
However, by virtue of the fact that there is an overpayment of EI
premiums, in effect what is happening is that the property taxes
being paid to local municipalities to provide services to those
communities are being funnelled into the consolidated revenue
fund of the federal government. Property taxes are ending up
being spent to support aerospace companies in Montreal, instead
of the communities for which they were intended and where they
belong.
1620
That is a good illustration of why the EI overpayment is unfair.
It is an excessive tax on workers and employers. When the
Canadian Alliance forms the government we will immediately lower
EI premiums to the break-even point and stop that unfair taxation
on property owners and hard-working Canadians.
The Liberal government is spending hundreds of millions of
dollars on gun registration. That has to be the absolute height
of stupidity, making law-abiding, responsible firearms owners
register their firearms. What possible benefit do taxpayers get
for this massive expenditure of money? Need I remind the
government that criminals do not register their guns? Whether a
gun is registered will not determine whether it was used in a
crime. In fact, it places responsible firearms owners at the
risk of potentially being implicated if their firearms are stolen
and used in the perpetration of a crime.
The relevance of this is that taxpayers are being forced to
shell out very sizeable amounts of money. I think that at last
count the cost of the gun registration program was over $300
million, but I stand to be corrected.
An hon. member: It was $316 million.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: It was $316 million, and it is projected
to exceed $1 billion. Just imagine the benefits taxpayers could
reap if that money was left in their own pockets.
It is very insulting for hard-working Canadian families to pay
such high levels of tax and then to see that type of waste.
I represent a riding in Saskatchewan. Last Friday the Prime
Minister appointed a person from Saskatchewan to the Senate
because there was a Senate vacancy. The Senate is another
example of waste and patronage. I have been advocating an
elected Senate for several years, as has our party since its
beginning. The Prime Minister also appointed someone from
Alberta that same day. I would like to point out to the House
that not only is the Senate in its current form useless and a
waste of money, but when the Prime Minister appoints senators—
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member, but I know that he has read the rules of the House
repeatedly and he knows that it is wrong to speak disrespectfully
of the other place. I would ask him to be very careful in his
choice of adjectives. “Unelected”, of course, is fair game,
but I think he wants to be careful about the words he just used
that might have been disrespectful of the other place. I know he
would not want to be.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we
could have great respect for the Senate if it was elected and if
we had an equal number of senators from each province, which
would balance the problems we have in the country.
Representation by population with regional concerns could very
effectively be addressed and balanced by having an efficiently
functioning Senate, with equal numbers from each province elected
and, therefore, democratically chosen by the people, as opposed
to being appointed, which only adds to that feeling of western
alienation when an Ottawa-based Prime Minister appoints someone
to represent us.
1625
I know the people of Alberta feel the same way. They have a
senatorial election act and they have elected two senators in
waiting. They are asking the Prime Minister to respect their
democratically chosen people, but the Prime Minister continues to
excite western alienation feelings by ignoring the expressed will
of the Alberta people and appointing his own people to the
Senate.
I have been urging the Premier of Saskatchewan to enact a
similar act so that we could elect our senators. We could have
senators elect, or senators in waiting, so that the next time
there is a vacancy we could plead with the Prime Minister to
appoint our choice for Senate representation. I hope that the
Premier of Saskatchewan will eventually come around to my way of
thinking.
I also want to point out that there is an agriculture crisis on
the prairies. It is a very severe situation, due to factors for
which the government is responsible, such as an inefficient grain
transportation system. The Canadian Wheat Board is an Ottawa
controlled marketing system for our grain in the west.
Liberal priorities are skewed. Instead of lowering taxes for
farmers and helping them through this crisis, instead of
reforming our grain marketing and transportation systems and
bringing forward responsible legislation, the government brought
forward this budget which will continue to gouge Canadians,
making us continue to pay excessive levels of taxation, and our
money will be wasted.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the House, and probably all Canadians, would take note that
the member was admonished at least twice during his speech for
inappropriate, unparliamentary remarks.
In fact, there were many others, but I took personal offence to
his comment about me and my commitment to the family, to
children, and to the institution of marriage.
When I became a member of parliament I made a commitment as a
private member to do some things which I felt very strongly
about. I would like to list a few for the member's edification.
The first bill I introduced was Bill C-237, which had to do with
income splitting between spouses, so that one spouse could stay
at home to care for pre-school children.
Then I introduced the conversion of the child care expense
deduction to a credit so that there would be fairness and equity
in terms of the tax benefit to the family.
Since I became a member of parliament I have written five books.
I wrote a book called Divorce: The Bold Facts. I wrote a
book called Strong Families Make a Strong Country. I
wrote a book called Tragic Tolerance of Domestic Violence.
I wrote a book called The Child Poverty Solution. I have
just issued, last month, a book called Fetal Alcohol Syndrome:
The Real Brain Drain.
If the member would like to see those, he could look them up on
my website. They are all available on paulszabo.com.
If the member wants to know about my commitment to the
definition of marriage as being the lawful union of one man and
one woman to the exclusion of all others, he should check the
transcript of the justice committee when the amendment from the
justice minister came forward. He would see that there was one
person who spoke up to make sure that the motion was relevant and
acceptable to the chair of the committee. That person was me. I
spoke on behalf of the government to make sure that the motion
was there and that the definition of marriage was incorporated
into that statute of Canada.
He could look at Motion No. 30, which deals with the caregiver
benefit for those who provide care in the home for pre-school
children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled. It is
my motion. It passed in this place by a vote of 163 to 29. In
the following election it was in the platform of this party. In
fact, it is in the Income Tax Act now. There are caregiver
benefits for those who provide care for an aged parent.
He could look at the increases in the child tax benefit. If he
looked at the report called “Investing in Children and Valuing
our Caregivers”, he would see that recommendation and he would see
that I was the author of that report.
If he were to look at Bill C-204, he would see a bill on
extending parental leave to a full year—
1630
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I am poised with
bated breath waiting for the question. I would expect that we
would get to the relevance of the long diatribe and get to a
question with respect to the member opposite.
The Deputy Speaker: It is questions and comments. The
hon. member for Mississauga South indicated at the outset that he
was provoked, so I guess we are getting the result of the
provocation in spades.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude with
Bill C-204, a private member's bill. The member knows how
difficult it is to get private member's bills acted upon in this
place.
He will also know that in the budget that we are debating here
today there is a provision to extend parental leave under the EI
plan to a full year, and that is my bill. So that the member
will know very clearly now and for all time, my commitment to the
family is clear. I hope that he restrains himself in the future
from ever casting aspersions on me or any other member in this
place when he does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the first thing the hon.
member said when he got up to make his comments was that he felt
I had said something inappropriate. As you know, Mr. Speaker,
while I was speaking, that member made a bodily gesture to me
that was very inappropriate and which you saw. I believe that is
somewhat hypocritical of him to say that. He talks a mean talk.
I support family values. He mentioned some book he had written
on income splitting but guess what, he voted for the government
budget. He supports the government which does not allow that.
Although he says he opposes the tax discrimination against
families, he supports it. How does he justify the fact that he
voted as he did on Tuesday night to change the definition of
marriage?
He also mentioned a book that he said was a child poverty
solution.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With due respect, the information the member just gave is
incorrect. In fact it is exactly the opposite of what he said.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid we are on a point of
debate here.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, he mentioned child poverty
solutions. I submit to that member and to the House that the
best solution for our children is to lower the tax burden on
parents so that they have more money in their pockets instead of
shipping it off to Ottawa to be wasted on Liberal patronage
programs.
Although the member tried to suggest that he is a defender of
families, his actions in the House in support of the government
budget, in support of changing the definition of marriage and in
support of the other anti-family measures the government insists
upon embarking on, to that I say actions speak louder than words
and his actions in attacking the family by the way that he votes
is deafening.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on some points that the hon. member mentioned.
Words like “representation by population” are nice words.
Another honourable aspect of that would be to see a collective
effort in the country to try to correct our whole correction
system. This budget highlights an increased budget for the RCMP.
Representation by population is very interesting to me because I
believe the correction institutes have a high population of
aboriginal people. We have communities that have many run-ins
with the law. If we look at the court dockets, many aboriginal
people have been lined up on these dockets in many communities
and in many court situations.
Maybe the relationship between the law abiding citizens and the
law keepers, the peace officers and the aboriginal community
would be much better served if there were measures to involve and
recruit aboriginal people to the policing institutions and the
corrections institutions on an equal basis to have racial
tolerance amongst our population as we work together.
Could the hon. member answer that?
1635
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things
here. First of all, the hon. member referred to the high
percentage of aboriginals in prisons. When we look at the crime
statistics in the province that I come from, in Regina the ratio
of crimes committed by aboriginals to crimes committed by
non-aboriginals is 10 to 1 and in Saskatoon it is 12 to 1, so we
would naturally expect that the higher percentage of the prison
population would be aboriginals.
I would like to say that a lot of social problems that plague
the aboriginal community are caused by the failed policies of the
Liberal government. Until we make all of our aboriginal people
in Canada full and equal participants of society, we will not
have racial tolerance or racial harmony, but instead, continued
discriminatory views and the continued cycle of poverty and
dependence among the aboriginal community.
I hope that hon. member realizes that and that he will support
the Canadian Alliance efforts when we form the government to help
aboriginals become full and equal participants of our society.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that a message has been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa,
April 13, 2000
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable
Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to
the Senate chamber today, the 13th day of April, 2000, at 6.00
p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills of
law (C-6, C-9 and C-13).
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. Larocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 28, 2000, be now read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville, Human Resources Development.
[English]
I should also advise the House that we are now commencing a
period of 10 minutes speeches in this debate.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
apologize to the House. I was a little outrageous with my tirade
about the family. I feel kind of strongly about the issue. I do
respect the rule of law. We will live to fight another day and
defend the sanctity of the institution of marriage, if that is
what the member is referring to.
I would like to spend my ten minutes talking about some of the
issues that have been raised by the opposition with regard to
this budget.
There was some talk about our national debt. I take a great
deal of interest in this, being a chartered accountant. People
tell us about the size of the numbers and that it concerns them.
I remember not too long ago the Fraser Institute did a research
study in which they tried to assess the valuation of Canada.
Excluding the land value of Canada, they found that the assets of
Canada exceeded some $3 trillion. To put that in perspective, we
would probably be in a better position to be able to respond to
people who would somehow suggest that Canada would be bankrupt in
view of the fact that there was a $577 billion national debt.
It is not the case. In fact members have said “There is only $3
billion going into paying down the national debt”.
1640
In this last budget there was that provision for the pay down of
debt, but that is not to be extrapolated out for all time to say
that it is only going to be $3 billion. In fact the economy
continues to grow. Interest rates remain at relatively low
levels. Our unemployment rates are lower than in the last 25
years. Canadians are working again and the economy continues to
be very strong in Canada. That is good for people to be working
and for our economy to be growing. It means that as we move
forward and as we address the needs of our health care system as
well as the other needs to stimulate and to innovate in Canada
that we will be paying down the debt in an accelerated fashion.
When the government took office in 1993, the annual deficit was
some $42 billion each year. That was another $42 billion being
added to the national debt. We do not just wipe out $42 billion
of deficit in one year. The government had a platform of the day
to reduce that amount to 3% of GDP during its mandate and it
exceeded that. The facts are that the government managed to
balance the books of the country to get our fiscal house in order
two years earlier than the Reform Party itself had said it would
during that election and in its election material.
The debt levels that we see in Canada today would actually have
been worse under the Reform Party simply because of its
commitments that it made in their own platform.
When we took office the debt to GDP ratio was some 70%.
According to the budget documents that the members have and
Canadians have that debt to GDP ratio will be below 50% and a
full 10 percentage points lower than the recommended level of the
auditor general.
One of the members talked about quality of life issues between
Canada and the U.S. It is an issue that I would really like to
have the House debate and perhaps study. When we consider the
differences in the whole mix of the environment in the U.S.
compared to Canada, we just cannot compare it and say “The tax
level is different than it is over there”. It is not just
taxes. Quality of life issues are very expensive. If we are
going to have the quality of life that we have in Canada, if we
are going to earn the recognition of the United Nations for six
years in a row of being the best country in the world in which to
live and to work, it takes investment in our people. It takes
investment in the country to make sure that we continue to
sustain that standard which is recognized around the world.
On top of that the members will know that health care is
included in our taxes. We pay for it in our taxes, but in the
United States they do not. They have to pay extra taxes. The
last time I was in the United States I remember asking a taxi
driver about his family. He said, “I have two children. There
are four of us”. He said he was paying $7,000 U.S. per year for
his health care costs. That is a very significant amount that
Canadians do not incur because it is part of our tax burden.
We know that taxes have to come down and we know that they have
started to come down. We also know that the finance minister has
made two important commitments and that is the money for health
care will be there once we get the plan right on how to fix
health care. It is not just a matter of throwing more money at
the same way of doing health care. We have to fix the system and
make sure it is meeting the needs of Canadians. I think that is
a responsible thing to do. That is why the provinces and the
federal government are talking today about how are we going to
address our health care requirements and also ensure that we have
sustainable funding for a secure health care system for all time.
That is a responsible way to do it, and not simply throw money at
it.
The issue of employment insurance came up in a couple of the
members' speeches.
1645
In 1993 when the Reform Party came to this place EI premiums
were scheduled to go up to $3.10. Today, as a result of the
changes made just before the budget and reaffirmed in the budget,
the EI rate is now down at about $2.40. That is a very
substantial decrease. Hon. members are quite right that there
continues to be more premium revenue than there is payouts under
EI. It is approximately $6 billion.
It would be easy to say that we should reduce the premiums, but
if we were to enter a recession as deeply as we did in the early
eighties, in one year alone the deficit under the old rates would
be about $12 million. We have already lowered the rate
substantially from the levels they were, which means that the
deficit on an annual basis within the EI plan could be much more
than $12 billion.
We are very fortunate to have continuous growth in the economy.
More people are working, which means that more people are paying
premiums and less people are collecting benefits. That is very
important.
We have been reducing premiums and the government has made a
commitment to continue to reduce premiums. That is an important
signal to businesses that we are committed to supporting and
stimulating the environment through investments, through grants
and through other incentives, by working with businesses to make
sure there is an environment in which our economy can continue to
grow and continue to employ as many Canadians as possible. Those
are some of the fundamental objectives.
There was some discussion about CPP increases. When we came
here pensioners of the day were getting about $8 out of CPP for
every $1 they put in. That is a very generous benefit, but at
that time we had five workers for every one pensioner. The
actuaries looked at it and along with the consultations between
the provinces and the feds it was discovered that with the aging
of society there would only be three workers for every one
pensioner in the future. This means that level of premium
support for the CPP program would not be available to sustain the
same level of benefits.
The only way to address it was to pay a level of premiums more
commensurate with the level of benefits being given under the
Canada pension plan. Based on consultations with Canadians, the
provinces and the federal government, it was decided that this
was the way to approach it.
I was on the committee during the study of Bill C-2. I also
spoke many times in the House on it. Canadians wanted the Canada
pension plan saved. I remember the Reform Party wanted to scrap
the CPP, to have mandatory RRSPs and to force Canadians to
contribute. They do not understand that there are people who do
not have the cash to put into such programs. They are living
from paycheque to paycheque.
The Canada pension plan is a shared cost between employees and
employers. It ensures that all Canadians engaged in the paid
labour force will accrue pension benefits for their future. That
is a very important aspect.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise, should I say finally, to speak to this bill,
which concerns the implementation of the budget.
I reiterate the broad lines of my party's criticism, which were
to the effect, for example, that surpluses much larger than those
revealed have been accumulated. This created a totally unhealthy
situation because these surpluses come essentially from cuts to
employment insurance and to the social transfers, which we are
still suffering from, despite the government's having put the
money back. It is far from returning us to 1994-95 levels.
1650
In 2003, the provinces will still face cuts of $33 billion.
Quebec alone will absorb $10 billion, because in the course of
the process, the government changed the rules and stopped
considering the factor of poverty. In the Canada social
transfer, from now on, the factor of poverty will not be taken
into account.
This surplus is unhealthy because it is hidden. One of the ways
of hiding it was to attribute to earlier years—we are beginning
2000—but primarily to 1999, major spending that otherwise
should have been included as spending in 2000 or 2001. Charging
the spending retroactively is one way to reduce the size of the
surplus.
I want to share with the House an experiment I conducted. I
brought together social groups that are used to manage budgets in
my riding. I gave them a copy of the budget and said “When you
have a surplus one year, can you allocate that surplus to the
previous year?” They said “No, you cannot do that, this is not
allowed”. But the Minister of Finance has done it repeatedly.
This is not good.
It is unhealthy because these surpluses still mean drastic cuts
to social transfers. They mean yet another EI surplus that will
not be put back in the fund. Annual surpluses of $6 billion are
anticipated again, but that money will not be put back in the
system. In spite of lower contributions, the surpluses will still
be of the same magnitude.
I now want to discuss an issue that few people raised, which is
extremely unfortunate. Even though this is a surplus budget and
even though the money taken through cuts was not given back to
the unemployed and to the provinces for health, education and
social assistance, there is a sector regarding which Canada had
made major international commitments. I am referring to
international development assistance.
In September 1990, Canada made a commitment to the UN general
assembly to achieve its objective of allocating 0.7% of its gross
domestic product to international development. At the time when
this commitment was made, Canada was allocating 0.48% of its GDP
to international development. In 1999-2000, it was down to 0.24%.
Let me quote what the Prime Minister said when he went to
Senegal, in November:
We are a rich nation and we should be able to share...There
are many economic and social problems throughout the world.
That is why the federal government's balanced approach, which
consists in setting aside money to ensure the development of
Canada while continuing to provide international assistance, is
important.
He said that it was unacceptable that international assistance
had dropped so considerably and that Canadian assistance would
therefore increase from that point on, commensurate with
Canada's economic growth.
He had said that the level attained was unacceptable. But, with
this budget, the amounts earmarked for international development
continue to drop in percentage terms.
1655
This is what Bernard Descôteaux pointed out in November, when he
indicated that the budget of $2 billion represented no more than
0.23% of GDP.
I find it disturbing, and I repeat what the Prime Minister
said, that a rich country is contributing so little to
international development and that its contributions are growing
smaller, when international development assistance is not just
something that concerns others. I have two reasons for saying
this.
Countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark have reached, on an
ongoing basis, the 0.7% to which they committed. How is it that
Canada's proportion keeps dropping?
The other reason it does not just concern others is that poverty
has become endemic in many countries. There are billions of
people living on incomes of less than $2 a day. Famine is
widespread and we know that AIDS has become endemic in Africa.
Rich nations cannot be rich alone. The Bloc Quebecois will
continue to urge that Canada finally meet its commitment.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the
debate on Bill C-32, which my constituents need to know is an act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
parliament on February 28, 2000.
The bill has seven parts to it. I do not intend to speak to
every part, but I do want to mention two parts of it that are
actually the government's key fiscal planks from the year 2000
budget. The fiscal health of any country is reflected in the
budgets it presents. The budgets indicate where the country is
going. The future financial health and security of all Canadians
are determined by budgets.
Budget 2000 has been presented by the government as being a very
good one with lots of positive things contained in it. I give it
some credit for changes that will help eliminate bracket creep,
which has been a serious problem. Between 1990 and 1996 bracket
creep accounted for $10 billion that Canadians should not have
had to pay had their taxes been indexed.
We need to look at what others are saying about the budget
outside the House to have an impartial view, neither from the
opposite side nor the government side. One of the most respected
organizations in the world that looks at all countries and
assesses health from an economic point of view is the
International Monetary Fund.
The International Monetary Fund has urged the government and the
finance minister to lower Canada's debt. The debt is sitting at
around $577 billion. Interest payments in the neighbourhood of
$40 billion a year are a mammoth drag. Until we are able to
reduce them, it limits our economic health and our options as to
what we can do to promote the country's well-being.
1700
They state that an ongoing fiscal restraint is also important
with surpluses used primarily for further debt reduction and
income tax reforms. It has been at least 38 to 40 years since
there were any significant changes made to our Income Tax Act.
I would like to refer to another outsider speaking on behalf of
the IMF, Mr. Robert Mundell. He is a Canadian-born economist who
earned a Nobel prize. This is what he had to say about Canada's
fiscal health, and it reflects on the budget that the government
brought forward. He stated that there is a major problem in
Canada, which is excessive taxes and excessive government
spending. He stated that at one time the Canadian dollar was at
par with or even a bit above the U.S. dollar. We see now that it
has slipped to approximately a 68 cent dollar, with no hope of it
coming back.
What does a country do when it gets into that situation? We
have had some good examples from around the world of countries
that have taken the bull by the horns and turned their economies
around. The most recent case that is being used is that of
Ireland. Ireland, 10 to 12 years ago, was a virtual basket case
in that it was not advancing technologically and had problems
retaining skilled and educated people. It began a dramatic
reform of its tax system. A large component of that was the
lowering of personal income taxes and corporate taxes, which gave
the required incentives for private business, not government but
private business, to drive the economy and keep the people in the
country and working.
Getting to the exact areas that I wanted to mention, let us look
at Part 4. Part 4 would enable 13 first nations to impose a 7%
value added tax. It would be along the lines of a GST equivalent
and would be applied to all sales of fuel, alcohol and tobacco on
reserve. I am sure that the first nations have spoken with the
government to negotiate an agreement and that this will happen.
I am not against first nations raising their own money from their
people and sales on reserve.
I think we have to look at some of the most recent issues that
have been brought up by the aboriginal accountability coalition,
which is primarily composed of people who are not in political
control of the reserves. We find that their numbers are quite
large and they have come forward with some recommendations to
provide accountability on the reserves.
I bring up the accountability issue because as the first nations
people gather in tax money, which is just a little different from
the grants and contributions idea, there has to be a system in
place to put checks and controls on those in power who will spend
the money.
Even with the systems we have within the federal government, we
have a very hard time keeping checks and balances and controls
over a government which operates in the fashion of the Liberal
government. The auditor general constantly comes out with
reports which show a lack of management, a disregard for the
rules and money being wasted.
One of the women I referred to, Leona Freed, was recently in
Ottawa. She spoke of the very things that the reserve
administrations, the elected officials, must put in place in
order to have accountability and the trust of their people in how
they use this tax money.
I do not think the government has ever really tried to help first
nations in that regard or negotiated agreements with that level
of government.
1705
One of the recommendations was for an ombudsman who could speak
on behalf of the aboriginal people who are not used to dealing
with their governments. We have provided an ombudsman for
non-aboriginal people, so why should first nations people not
have a similar spokesperson?
Electoral reforms are required on some reserves. I have heard
of a reserve in Ontario which has an official opposition-type
party that tries to hold the elected government to account.
First nations also need a free and independent press.
Recently, as reported in Manitoba, on the Peguis reserve, which
is in my riding, an aboriginal newspaper reporter was covering a
council activity and some public meetings and was escorted from
the meetings by four security officials answering to the chief of
that reserve. He was asking some very pertinent and direct
questions, trying to ferret out what was actually happening with
regard to the issues of the day with that chief and council.
The aboriginal people need an access to information act. That
would ensure that if their government tried to hide the facts and
figures about what was going on with band money, they would be
able to gather information. In our case, concerning the
management of the tax money of Canadians, the government always
tries to hide things that are damaging to its reputation and
which point to mismanagement. We find that with the Access to
Information Act we in the opposition parties are able to gather
information.
The reserves need an auditor general who would independently
check into the financial activities of reserve administrations
and report back to the grassroots people of the reserves, who
would then decide at the next election who they should vote for.
This budget has certainly brought forward issues which have been
discounted by the International Monetary Fund and it has not set
in place proper measures for the aboriginal people of this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to Bill C-32, the
Budget Implementation Act, 2000, and I would like to put forward
some ideas.
First, in my opinion, the budget shows very clearly that if the
government decided to restrict its spending to its areas of
jurisdiction, Quebec and Canadian taxpayers would get the most
wonderful tax cut they ever had in the whole history of Canada.
If the federal government decided that it would spend only for
defence, foreign affairs and other areas under its jurisdiction,
there would be a lot of spending it would no longer need to do.
As a consequence, the federal government would no longer be
tempted to impose national standards in areas that are not under
its jurisdiction. That would also have a good result at the
accountability level for elected members, because people could
require adequate social programs from their provincial
governments.
If, in a province like Ontario, people voted for a government
providing less social programs, that would be the choice made by
the population at election time. If, in Quebec, the government
decided to provide more substantial social programs, that would
be in accordance with the choice made by the population at
election time. This would rid the Canadian system of its
accountability problems.
As we know, Ontario is a perfect example of that; the Ontario
government makes choices and then the Liberal federal government
steps in, acting like the saviour of social programs in that
province, playing the role of the good guy, of the knight in
shining armour, but it is intruding in areas that are not of its
responsibility.
1710
The first thing we should hope that the federal government would
do in the budgetary area is to withdraw from all jurisdictions
where it has no business. This would be great for to all
Canadians.
There are people all across Canada who wish to see that happen
and we will see this developing in the next few months. It might
even be a major election issue in the next campaign. This year's
budget, which may be the last for the current minister and
perhaps for the Liberal government, does not appeal to us. It
tells us that the government wants to continue to intervene in
areas that are not its responsibility and continue to collect
money while not giving it back to the provinces through transfer
payments for example.
Let us imagine how wonderful it would be if the 10 premiers did
not have to practically beg for the money they need for health
programs, if each province could use this tax field according to
its vision of things and assume its responsibility, and the
federal government would give it the leeway. This would be a nice
way for the federal government to ensure that, in the Canadian
system, there is an appropriate accountability. There is no such
thing in the current program.
I would also like to emphasize another point that seems very
important to me.
For the current fiscal year, there will be a $6 billion surplus
in the EI fund. In March 2001, the surplus will reach a total
of $34 billion. This means that, over the last four or five
years, the federal government has borrowed $34 billion from
workers and employers across Canada in order to fund
expenditures that have nothing to do with the EI system.
If we took $14 billion out of those $34 billion just to cushion
the employment insurance system, there would still be $20 billion
left, which the federal government has collected and is using
for expenditures not related to the EI system.
When pay cheques are issued every week or two, people can see
that, as far as EI premiums are concerned, employees and
employers are contributing a huge $6 billion a year, which do not
go to the EI system.
Just imagine what a boost it would give the economy if
contributions to the EI fund were lowered reasonably or if the
unemployed received decent benefits. In spite of the $6 billion
surplus for this year, the average benefits paid to the
unemployed no longer amounts to 55% of their average wages, but
to only 50%.
With the infamous intensity rule, the federal government's
assumption, four or five years ago, was that the reason why our
seasonal workers were not working longer periods each year was
because they are lazy.
We have on record a statement very typical of the prime minister,
describing the unemployed as beer drinkers.
Today, the results are there. The third annual EI monitoring and
assessment report includes a study commissioned by HRDC and
conducted by Messrs Pierre Fortin and Van Andenrode, two well
known economists. According to them, the intensity rule has had
no effect on the number of weeks worked. Seasonal workers all
across Canada are not working longer, not because they are lazy,
but because there are no jobs available outside certain periods.
A 35, 40 or 45 year old worker who worked 15, 18 or 20 weeks in
the woods cannot become a computer technician overnight so he can
find a job for the winter.
A lumberjack cannot turn into a hotel welcome host come the
fall. Things do not work that way.
There is evidence. The studies are in. The government is
grabbing $6 billion a year from the EI fund while continuing to
cut benefits paid to seasonal workers. Seventy seven percent of
fishers are affected by the intensity rule. Soon, only 50% of EI
claimants will be eligible for benefits.
For those earning $100,000 a year, $10, $15 or $20 a week is
nothing. But a 5% cut on $250 a week in EI benefits leaves
unemployed workers with only $235 or $240 a week.
1715
These are the $10 or $15 a week that are needed to buy shoes for
the youngest one once in a while or are missing to pay the
grocery bill every week. It is very frustrating for someone who
has contributed to a plan, who has paid premiums, employment
insurance premiums in this case, and who sees surpluses being
racked up when he or she does not have enough money to survive
or have a decent income between two employment periods.
This budget falls far short in this regard. Tax cuts are
minimal for 2000. There is no improvement in the condition of
the unemployed. Although the unemployment rate is going down,
the poverty rate keeps going up.
This is due to the fact that, whether the economy is good or
bad, in the seasonal industry, there is generally no significant
additional income to compensate for the loss of employment
insurance benefits.
Some people today have a lower income than what they had three
or four years ago, even if they work a few more weeks. When they
do receive employment insurance benefits, they get less money
during a shorter period.
I read somewhere in a newspaper article the words “If I were a
rich man”. The choices made in this budget protect the rich. The
surtax has been eliminated. I am very happy to learn that some
people have more money in their pockets, but if we do not at the
same time make any effort to help those who earn less, it is not
worthwhile, it is unjustified and unfair. And yet, this is what
is to be found in the budget.
The federal government missed a golden opportunity to restore
fairness in two areas, first by making sure it only collects
taxes to pay for the services it is responsible for. It is
unfair to the Canadian federation as a whole.
It is also being unfair to the unemployed, and is not facing up
to its responsibilities to those who contribute to the
employment insurance system. The current system is unfair, it is
the blatant and systematic misappropriation of the money paid
into the system. We still do not know how the government is
going to pay back the $34 billion it owes the workers, the
employers and the unemployed of this country. Even when times
are good, it cannot do it.
I would like to talk about a third issue the member for Mercier
touched on in her speech and which seems very important to me.
With regard to international co-operation, did you know that 75%
of the aid provided by Canada is conditional?
This means that our generosity is not very genuine. During a
period of economic prosperity such as the one we are
experiencing today, we have responsibilities internationally as
well as nationally. I think it is very telling of the
government; if it had treated the less fortunate in our society
in an appropriate manner, it would have done the same at the
international level.
In both cases, it is trying to save face.
It is important for international aid to produce spinoffs for
Canada, but is just as important to provide aid without any
strings attached, to truly co-operate with people and find it a
worthwhile objective.
For all theses reasons, I believe the Budget Implementation Act
is inappropriate. It does not go far enough and does not restore
the fairness we would have expected from a government such as
this one during a period of economic prosperity.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in this debate on Bill C-32.
Generally speaking, the bill perpetuates the Liberal
government's commitment to ad hoc piecemeal and random fiscal and
economic policy.
The most significant change in the bill is the elimination of
bracket creep. I join thousands of Canadians and the members of
the Canadian Alliance who have been effective in pushing the
government to recognize bracket creep. I think the credit goes
to the official opposition for that.
1720
The one time increase to the CHST continues to frustrate the
provinces. Since coming to power, the Liberal government has cut
about $25 billion from CHST. It continues to frustrate the
provinces that would like to see stable funding for health care
and education rather than the incremental policy of the
government.
The extension of maternity benefits simply offers more
redistributive thinking. Only half of all mothers currently
receive maternity benefits. The maternity or parental leave
proposal excludes single income families. It excludes
self-employed parents, students and parents in the workforce who
do not have enough hours to qualify. It also excludes those who
cannot support their families on the employment insurance rate of
55% of regular income.
The changes to the national child benefit, the Canada child tax
benefits and the GST credit would benefit low income families.
Part 3 returns the administration of the student loans program to
the government after it had backed out. Part 4 attempts to
harmonize a patchwork of sales tax agreements with the first
nations bands. Part 5 broadens the already coercive taxation
power of the government by granting further powers to the
Minister of National Revenue.
This weak, arrogant Liberal government has tried in vain to
portray itself as caring and generous. These arguments can be
easily refuted.
The bill provides for no real tax relief for Canadians. Ending
bracket creep is not a reduction in taxes. It only means that
regularly scheduled tax increases will be postponed. The bill
also does not address the government's wasteful spending and the
use of taxpayer money at HRDC and other departments.
There was not a single word from the finance minister, any
cabinet minister or any member of the government about the
wasteful spending in HRDC, CIDA, the heritage department, the
industry department or any other department. It continues the
status quo by giving Canadians a little with one hand while
taking a lot with the other hand.
In addition, it does not address the lack of competitiveness of
our economy on a global scale. Nothing was said about
international trade or about the competitiveness of the Canadian
economy for investors who want to invest and create jobs.
With respect to families and parenting, we believe all families
should have greater choice and we have a sound plan, called
solution 17, to deliver it.
Let me point out that the political culture of this government
is to tax and spend. It has been taxing Canadians to death since
1993. It has been spending and wasting taxpayer dollars and has
not been accountable. It has given no information or explanation
on important questions that we have been put forward to hold
it accountable.
The other day we were discussing access to information. It
is a blackout for the government when we talk about that.
The other point I want to make concerns the government's tax
record.
While the Liberals are trying to take some credit, which I said I
will refute, I want to quote some statements made by the finance
minister on taxation in Canada. Let us begin with the first
year in which he became the finance minister.
1725
In 1994 the finance minister raised federal taxes on the average
Canadian family by $898. On February 15, 1994 he said “Our
ultimate goal is to lower taxes”. We want to hold him
accountable for that statement, but let us see what he said in
1995, a year later.
The finance minister raised federal taxes on the average
Canadian family by $779. In his budget speech on February 27,
1995 he said “Furthermore, in this budget, like last year's, we
are not increasing personal income tax rates one iota”.
Let us see how we can hold him accountable in the next year. In
1996 the finance minister raised federal taxes on the average
Canadian family by another $896. In his budget speech on March
6, 1996—look at his bizarre explanation—he said “This
government does not rely on tax increases to hit its deficit
targets—”. What does it rely on? It simply relies on tax
increases.
In 1997 the finance minister raised federal taxes on the average
Canadian family by $1,568. His excuse again in the budget speech
on February 18, 1997 was “In not one of our budgets has there
been an increase in personal income tax rates. Indeed in last
year's budget, and in this year's, we have not raised taxes at
all”.
Anyone who knows how to calculate will find out the figures I
have quoted are contrary to what the finance minister has been
saying.
In 1998 federal taxes on the average Canadian family were raised
by another $237 and there was still no admission from the finance
minister. He said “Let me begin by reaffirming our goal. It is
to reduce taxes. It is to leave more money in the pockets of
hard-working Canadians”. That was in the budget speech of
February 24, 1998.
By looking at these quotes, it proves that he talks the talk but
does not walk the walk, and it has been proven in the last five
years that I have mentioned.
The Canadian Alliance is ready to govern because there is only
one solution to the problem: We have to replace the Liberals. We
came up with a strong initiative, solution 17. Solution 17 would
remove 1.9 million taxpayers from the tax rolls, many with young
children. It would lower their taxes giving them more income and
therefore more options to work part time or full time. It would
provide substantial, immediate and direct tax relief for
Canadians who currently pay record high taxes. It would also
lead to a much more vibrant economy and greater wealth creation.
It is fair and it is simpler.
I am proud to be a member of the Canadian Alliance and proud to
debate and oppose Bill C-32 in this situation.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[Translation]
TREATIES ACT
The House resumed from December 1, 1999, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-214, an act to provide for the participation
of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with a
great deal of pleasure, pride even, that I rise to speak this
evening to Bill C-214, introduced by my colleague for
Beauharnois Salaberry.
This is a totally modern bill, in that it wishes to ensure that
Parliament obtains, takes over, resumes its past role in
approving important treaties. This means parliamentary
democracy will come into play with respect to treaties, which
increasingly concern the lives of ordinary citizens and their
role within their state. There may also be very considerable
consequences for the provinces.
To clarify what I am about to say, I will remind hon. members
that this private member's bill has four objectives. It wishes
to require the government to table treaties it has already
signed, for reasons of transparency, in order to ensure that
parliamentarians and the general public have access to the
information.
It also calls for treaties to be approved, in order to
compensate for the gap in democracy that arises out of a
situation where the greater number of treaties increasingly
deprives parliamentarians of power and, in a way, destroys the
relationship between the power of parliaments, members'
responsibility and the role of the executive of Canada, which is
becoming excessive.
I should point out that this requirement for treaty approval
applies solely to important treaties, defined as follows by my
colleague:
(i) the enactment of an Act of Parliament,
(ii) that Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada be invested
with new powers, or
(iii) the imposition of a tax by Parliament;
(b) imposing a substantial financial obligation...on Canada;
(c) concerning the transfer of a part of the territory of
Canada...;
(d) under which Canada undertakes to impose economic or military
sanctions...;
And continuing:
The institutions in question are international institutions.
According to my colleague's bill, these important treaties
should be submitted to parliament before they are ratified. I
know that certain of my colleagues have argued that already 99%
of treaties involve an implementation bill.
The problem is that there is nothing to back this figure up,
despite the knowledge shown by my colleague who spoke previously
on this issue.
Clearly, in the case of an implementation act, it is not
appropriate to talk about the major components of this treaty,
its relationship with the life of people, with democracy, or
about the impact it may have on the life of society or about its
implications for provinces.
Finally, this bill aims at guaranteeing consultation with the
provinces. There would be an obligation to involve provinces
having legislative authority with the implementation of treaties
in an area under their jurisdiction. The wording of the bill is
precise and was intended that way. The bill would guarantee
respect for the jurisdiction of provinces.
1735
In that regard, I emphasise that this was what the provinces
called for at the 40th annual premiers' conference, held on
August 11, 1999. They published the following text:
Premiers and Territorial Leaders therefore reiterated their
long-standing support for an immediate formalised
federal-provincial-territorial agreement on the
provincial-territories role in the negotiations, implementation
and management of international agreements.
I would like to add an extremely important element, which may
not be generally known.
Since 1966, when parliament approved the auto pact before
ratification, no other international agreement was ever
submitted to parliament before ratification. Yet, we know that
since that time, treaties, by their content, their nature, have
increasingly impacted on people's lives. For example, NAFTA has
had and will continue to have a considerable impact. Why was it
not submitted to parliament?
Of course, some will answer that these are complex issues under
negotiation and that as a consequence it had to be done in
private, in secrecy. However, what that really means is that
powerful lobbies, those who can be heard by powerful people and
negotiators for all kinds of reasons, are the ones who really
decide.
I would even go as far as to say that, if those treaties are not
submitted to parliament before their ratification, it may also
be that they are not even given proper consideration at cabinet
level.
Why are we so afraid of parliament? Countries like Australia,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom are moving towards
strengthening the role of parliament with regard to treaties
before they are ratified, which means in developing them,
integrating them into the statutes and assessing their impact on
society. Why are we so afraid of parliament here in Canada?
Of course, I could mention the fact that, in Canada, senators
are appointed, that there is no constitutional court that would
be legitimate for the provinces as well as for the federal
government. I could also mention the fact that we are used to a
very strong executive branch.
But it is precisely because of that and because, more and more,
these international treaties affect the lives of ordinary
Canadians that we must convince all our colleagues in the House
to give back to parliament the power it once had.
I ask the question again: What are we so afraid of? Would it not
be better for democracy and also more effective if we go to see,
before they are ratified, these treaties that affect the lives
of ordinary citizens?
That is why we will strongly support our colleague. We already
know that other parties have expressed their support. We hope to
convince our colleagues opposite to take their place as
parliamentarians and to play their role with regard to these
treaties, which are secretly changing our lives.
In closing, I will say again that we must make sure that the
provinces that have responsibilities with regard to the
implementation of these treaties be involved, that parliament
also be involved before these treaties are ratified, and that
government be transparent, show us the treaties it has signed
and table the text of these treaties. All these things are
essential to democracy, to a modern democracy.
1740
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
support this Treaties Act proposal sponsored by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry. I congratulate the member from the Bloc
Quebecois for his efforts. Even though the hon. member and his
party have more provincial concerns, they would like to smash our
country apart and leave, I share his frustration with the current
weak Liberal government that has no vision.
This private member's bill would require approval by resolution
by the House of Commons before international treaties may be
ratified. The bill also provides that the treaty be tabled with
an explanatory memorandum including a summary, implications for
Canada spelled out, new obligations to be undertaken, estimated
expenditures, proposed conditions for denunciation of withdrawal,
a record of consultations undertaken, an indication of any
legislation required for implementation and a list of existing
legislation requiring amendments.
The bill requires that the provinces be consulted in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. It also provides for greater efforts to
inform the Canadian public about the contents of the treaties
through publication in the Canada Gazette. The bill calls
for greater scrutiny of non-governmental parties consulted and
sent as participants in negotiations. This seems like a long
list, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. The
Canadian Alliance would go even further.
The Canadian Alliance wants the House of Commons foreign
affairs committee to have greater powers to examine treaties and
make recommendations. In matters of international agreements and
treaties, a Canadian Alliance government would uphold the vital
interests of Canada and our constitution and the individual
rights of Canadians, including the right to fundamental and
natural justice as being sovereign and paramount.
On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I will be supporting
this bill. But, as I have said, we on this side of the House
would go much further.
Treaties are like diamonds. They are supposed to be forever.
Treaties have significant and long lasting implications on
international institutions, families, our environment, our
resources, our economy, our taxes, our investments, trade,
competition, employment and financial institutions.
International treaties affect human rights, sovereignty,
security, jurisdictions, boundaries and borders, sanctions and
virtually every aspect of day to day business in the lives of
Canadians.
I wonder if people watching this debate realize how much the
weak Liberal government ignores or cuts out the House of Commons
in the treaty-making process in Canada. It is remarkable. If it
is not undemocratic, it is anti-democratic. The Prime
Minister is touring seven nations in the Middle East and writing
Canadian foreign policy on the bus between luncheon and dinner
engagements.
Most of the members of the House never see the treaties signed
by the government. Most of us know nothing about them because
the weak Liberal government handles them behind closed doors.
Sometimes we do not know who negotiates these treaties on our
behalf. Who signs these treaties? We do not know. Canadians
only find out about them by reading newspapers.
Between 1993 and 2000, during the life of the Liberal
government, it has signed all kinds of treaties and ratified more
than half of them.
This is typical of the old line traditional parties when they
formed the government.
1745
Typically the Tory and the Liberal governments concentrated too
much power in the Prime Minister and the cabinet. When it comes
to examining international treaties, not enough power is spread
around our parliamentary system in the House so that a thorough
examination of the treaty can take place.
The current foreign minister said to the secretary general, Kofi
Annan, “We want to make the Security Council of the United
Nations more transparent, more democratic, more open and to the
extent we can introduce alternative options for making
decisions”. Why does he not try this idea at home in Canada?
His preaching which he is not practising at home is so ironic
that he would recommend something abroad and not do it at home.
During the previous hour of debate on the bill that proposes to
make the Canada treaty process more open and democratic, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs said
“This bill seriously affects the division of powers in Canada
and questions certain priority aspects of Canada's foreign
policy”. Aside from the panic on the government benches
exhibited by his statement, I suppose the parliamentary secretary
got it right. We are asking for the priority of secrecy and lack
of input from Canadians to be scratched.
He also said “A treaty is strictly the purview of the federal
executive branch”. What a shame. “However, the legislative
branch is still responsible for implementing the ensuing
obligations”. Fair enough, but how can we implement the
obligations when the treaty has been signed and ratified with
flaws or political positions or other things that the legislative
branch of our government cannot possibly endorse?
Reading from the speech handed to him by the foreign affairs
department on his way to the House, the parliamentary secretary
said in the first hour of the debate “Not only do
parliamentarians receive all of the information, but they play an
active role in the implementation of the treaties that Canada
wishes to ratify”. He further stated “Because of this
implementation power, parliament is regularly required to study
and discuss treaties”. This was an unbelievable statement from
the parliamentary secretary.
He could not say in true consciousness that we on this side of
the House or anyone on the backbenches of the Liberal side of the
House has any power to implement or should I say prevent the
implementation of any treaties signed by the Prime Minister.
This government has broken Brian Mulroney's record of cutting
off and shutting down the debate in the House. Yet the
parliamentary secretary in his speech tells Canadians that we
have the power to implement treaties. What a laugh. What a
sham. When has this ever happened? Not since 1993. That is for
sure. Like Brian's Tories, the Liberals days are truly numbered.
Then the parliamentary secretary said further that Bill C-214
creates nothing new, but it imposes a tight framework on the
Government of Canada for consulting its provincial partners.
Good. As an MP from B.C., I know very well the western
alienation ailment that the weak Liberal government suffers from.
Anything we can do to get the Liberals to work with our province
is a step in the right direction.
The government opposes Bill C-214, claiming that the signing of
any international treaty lies exclusively with the Canadian
federal executive branch. He emphasizes it because the Liberal
government does not want duly elected MPs examining the secret
deals reached by their Prime Minister and other foreign leaders
behind closed doors.
He says “Bill C-214 adversely affects Canadian foreign policy.
Crises throughout the world must not be used for partisan
purposes”. Are treaties a crisis? No.
Is consulting MPs in the House a necessary partisan exercise? No.
1750
I know that my time is limited, but I would like to give one
more quote.
The parliamentary secretary stated that Bill C-214 would slow
down the treaty ratification process. What is the rush? Why do
we not follow the right procedures?
We know how the government signed treaties when it came to the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Kyoto emissions deal
and others. We know how it signed those treaties. Canadians are
not informed about the implications. There is very little or no
debate in the House. The treaties are signed, sealed and
delivered behind closed doors.
In conclusion, I will support this bill because it is a step in
the right direction. It complies with the Canadian Alliance
policy according to which at least five steps are needed to bring
sufficient transparency and accountability to foreign policy and
treaty making process. Very quickly, those five steps are to
require parliamentary ratification, including going before
committee; a national interest and impact analysis or assessment;
strengthen co-operative federalism with real provincial input;
ensure public information; and—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but his time has expired. Resuming debate, the hon.
member for New Brunswick Southwest.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this is an interesting bill before the House and one
that is worthy of debate. I want to put a few comments on the
record with regard to this treaties bill, an act to provide for
the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are
concluded.
The key word is “concluded”. I do not think we want the House
of Commons or elected members, although we want to be part of the
process, involved in the negotiations and this bill clearly sets
that straight from the outset. It is not talking about day to
day negotiations but being involved once the treaty is concluded.
We do understand the importance of government and leadership in
government and the need for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Minister of Fisheries to negotiate treaties on behalf of the
Government of Canada. That obviously means the people of Canada.
However, at the end of the day it has to be put before the people
of Canada right here in the House and that is what this bill
does.
I just want to bring a few points forward which I think should
lead to interesting debate on this bill. The summary of the bill
states:
Under this enactment, Canada shall not, without first consulting
the provincial governments, negotiate or conclude a treaty
Nothing in the Act in any manner limits or affects the royal
prerogative of Her Majesty in right of a province with respect to
the negotiation and conclusion of treaties in an area under the
legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces.
Here is a key phrase which I think is worthy of some more
thought on behalf of the member who wrote this bill. The bill
further states:
This enactment provides that Canada may not ratify an important
treaty unless the House of Commons has first approved the treaty
by resolution pursuant to the rules of procedure of that House.
That means this House, the House of Commons.
The key phrase in that is “important treaty”. The member
designates that in Bill C-214 as an important treaty and then
goes on to define an important treaty, and I think it is
important that we step through the definition of “important
treaty”.
For the purposes of this enactment, “important treaty” means
any treaty
(i) the enactment of an Act of Parliament,
(ii) that Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada be invested
with new powers, or
(iii) the imposition of a tax by Parliament;
(b) imposing a substantial financial obligation, whether direct
or conditional, on Canada;
(c) concerning the transfer of a part of the territory of Canada
or any change to the boundaries of Canada;
(d) under which Canada undertakes to impose economic or military
sanctions, whether direct or conditional, against a State;
(e) concerning the territorial jurisdiction of Canada, including
jurisdiction by Canada over any area of the sea or air;
(f) concerning international trade or investment or Canada's
place in the world economy; or
(g) concerning the participation of Canada in international
institutions, including the transfer of jurisdiction to such
institutions.
1755
This leads me to conclude or deduce where that would leave us in
terms of the land mines treaty which was negotiated by the
Government of Canada. I think every party in the House has given
the government a lot of credit for doing this, the credit going
in particular to our foreign affairs minister.
Under the definition of important treaties, that very treaty
would have been left out of this bill. I think that is one which
should have been debated in the House more than it was.
The other one is the international law of the sea. Where does
that leave us? It does mention it, but I am not sure if, under
the confines of this particular bill, that definition would fit
into what we consider international law, respecting our
obligations as a nation on the high seas beyond our 200 mile
limit.
I think the member has to take a look at that. It is something
which should be referred to committee for further study. It
could be an omission but we have to have some expert opinion on
that.
If we listen to what is going on in the world today in terms of
the refugee problem or crisis and Canada's obligation, where does
that leave us? In a sense these are treaties. They are
negotiations which take place at the highest levels, expecting
Canada to do something.
I am just wondering whether or not that falls into the
definition and whether or not it would exclude that type of
debate taking place in the House.
Witness the Prime Minister in the Middle East now, making policy
up as he goes along. Is that an example of what we should be
debating here in the House? We are not sure.
We do not want to condemn everything the government does but we
do think that some of those important issues should be debated
here on the floor of the House of Commons. We do not want to
make it up as we go along, which appears to be happening today.
In the world of globalization, Canada wants to be a player and
wants to be involved. This is the place where it should happen.
The other point which has to be made is that there is no mention
of the other place, the Senate of Canada, and the role it plays
in this bigger debate. That takes us back to a debate which is
going on in the other place this very moment in terms of the
clarity bill. The admission of the senate in this bill, which
obviously upset many senators, did not receive too much criticism
here in the House because of that admission. That is one of the
issues which has to be resolved that I do not see in this bill.
We look forward to the debate. I am sure the member is going to
get the kind of support he needs, on this side of the House at
least, to move this forward. We look forward to the member's
comments. We look forward to moving this to at least the
committee stage for further investigation.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address this important bill introduced by the hon.
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
This bill deserves our consideration. I hope it will make it
past this stage and be referred to a committee, before finally
being passed.
The first question concerning this bill may be: What is it all
about?
Under Bill C-214:
—Canada shall not, without first consulting the provincial
governments, negotiate or conclude a treaty:
(a) in an area under the legislative authority of the
legislatures of the provinces; or
(b) in a field affecting an area under the legislative authority
of the legislatures of the provinces.
1800
It is important to note that nothing in this bill in any manner
limits or affects the royal prerogative of Her Majesty in right
of a province with respect to the negotiation and conclusion of
treaties in an area under the legislative authority of the
legislatures of the provinces.
The bill provides that Canada may not ratify an important treaty
unless the House of Commons has first approved the treaty by
resolution pursuant to the rules of procedure of that House.
Under the bill, when Canada intends to ratify a treaty, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs must table the treaty in the House
of Commons, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum on the
subject matter and effects of the treaty, not later than 21
sitting days before it is to be ratified.
Put simply, Bill C-214 seeks to promote the participation of all
of us in the House, as democratically elected representatives of
all Canadians, in the process to conclude treaties.
We may wax philosophical about globalization and its importance
in our lives but, at some point, we must be practical and see
what it means in real terms.
I think all the members of this House will agree that an
increasing number of decisions affecting each of us in our daily
lives will be taken at the international level.
Whereas in the past, the government or the legislative process
was in the hands of people elected in certain countries,
including Canada, more and more decisions are being made
internationally, not by parliamentarians but by governments.
The process is a bit topsy turvey, in other words, things on
various subjects are negotiated internationally and then the
governments simply pass them without the people, the elected
representatives in the parliaments of the various countries,
having a say. This could perhaps be compared to a sort of new
piece of legislation created world-wide, where there is no real
democracy. We can talk about a lack of democracy
internationally and also federally or nationally.
At the end of November, beginning of December, I attended an
important conference, which the members followed with
considerable interest, the WTO conference in Seattle.
One of the points raised in the conference by the opponents of
the WTO process, was the lack of democratic control over the
WTO. These opponents, demonstrators, had supporters in most of
the countries, and they were saying “It is incredible that the
governments are negotiating such things without the public being
informed or consulted and without the people's elected
representatives having their say”.
The people demonstrating against the WTO, whether in Seattle or
here in Canada and Quebec, were right in that it is important,
in a world where more and more things affecting us in our daily
lives are decided internationally, for the elected
representatives to have their say. Such participation by MPs
could be strongly encouraged if treaties were systematically
tabled in the House.
Tabling treaties would have the advantage of informing members
of the existence of treaties signed by the government, and that
is already something, and of bringing to their attention the
legal standards in them that could have an effect on Canada.
Passage of the bill would mean greater transparency in the
matter, and we must not forget that greater transparency—
THE ROYAL ASSENT
1805
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of
the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1815
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor
General in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to
give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following
bills:
Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by
protecting personal information that is collected, used or
disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of
electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act—Chapter 5.
Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter 6.
Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final
Agreement—Chapter 7.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
TREATIES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-214,
an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons
when treaties are concluded, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we had a
most inopportune interruption in order to go and see someone who
is not elected, but appointed, in a room full of people who are
appointed because they are friends of the government. I cannot
help but point out that it is sad to see—and I can see you
rubbing your eyes with good reason—the work of this House being
interrupted, without any consideration for the speeches that are
made here.
Speeches in this House are made by representatives who have been
elected and therefore have democratic legitimacy, unlike the
person who signed and the people in the other place, where you
went yourself, because these people are appointed, not elected.
Before this inopportune interruption, I was saying that the
passing of the excellent, wonderful and important Bill C-214
introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry would bring
greater transparency to the conclusion of treaties.
Greater transparency also means greater support by Canadians and
Quebecers to the contents of the treaties. It is much more
difficult to support something that we know nothing about and
whose contents we are not aware of, than something of which we
know the pros and cons and that we have debated.
Bill C-214 would also confer upon the House of Commons the power
to approve what are termed important treaties. During the
break, I was informed that my friends over there have decided
not to support this bill. I am disappointed that they want to
remain powerless.
Over there they could have said for once “Yes, we do want more
powers, we do want more control”. Instead ,they have just
decided, once again, to be the government yes-men that they are,
saying “If the government says so, and does so, then it must be
all right, it must be a good thing”.
They are shirking part of their responsibilities,
responsibilities they should take seriously. The purpose of
this bill is to allow the House as a whole, not one or another
party, to have its say, as an instance of the federal government
with democratic legitimacy.
I suppose when one is used to being powerless, maybe one wants
to continue that way. I feel this is a pity.
This bill would enable members to debate the content of
treaties, but without limiting the government's leeway in
negotiating or signing treaties. The government's leadership is
not being challenged here. It is, of course, up to the
executive to negotiate treaties. That is the way it is done
throughout the world. The desire here is to ensure that the
balance between the executive and the legislative is not
completely tipped in favour of the executive.
There are also provisions in this bill aimed at involving the
provinces in the negotiation of treaties coming under their
jurisdictional responsibility, and requiring the Government of
Canada to consult them.
I myself wrote an article in the period leading up to the WTO
conference, a marvellous document if I do say so myself.
Again, the WTO is increasingly important. In my opinion, the
provinces must be as closely associated as possible with the
process of negotiation, and of representation in the event of
trade disputes too.
In closing, I would like to congratulate the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry on introducing this bill, which is intended
to enable us all in the House of Commons to have a little more
say in Canada's international involvement.
We cannot not pass this bill, not want to have it considered in
committee and go on to third reading, where it may be rejected
if that be the wish of the members, but we must have the chance
to debate it. We must, we the democratically elected
representatives of the people, seize the opportunity to have our
say on an international matter that affects us increasingly,
that will affect our fellow citizens increasingly in their daily
lives.
I ask all members of this House to join with my colleague and
vote in favour of this bill.
1820
[English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-214.
Canada's leadership role in human security, peacekeeping,
international co-operation and development is well known. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs has just announced the Canadian
initiative on the treatment of children in times of conflict.
Let us hope that the invaluable experience and sterling
reputation which Canada developed during its leading role in the
Ottawa process for the elimination of anti-personnel land mines
is put to use to help the innocent young victims of war.
Hon. members will understand the importance of having a good
system for concluding treaties, one which enables Canada to
conduct its foreign policy effectively in the service of
Canadians.
The bill introduced by the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry has compelled us to once again give some
thought to Canada's mechanism for concluding treaties. Is it as
flawed as the hon. member suggests? Does it need to be radically
overhauled as he is proposing? Does our current practice prevent
us from playing a role and defending the interests of Canadians
on the international scene? In my view, our current practice,
with its flexibility and capacity to respond to change, already
enables us to meet our objectives while recognizing the essential
role of parliament in implementing treaty obligations.
The problems facing governments often extend beyond national
borders. When countries decide to work together to improve a
situation in an area such as foreign trade, common defence,
disarmament or international crime, they negotiate and come to an
agreement commonly known as a treaty or a convention.
Under our constitution, the power to conclude treaties belongs
exclusively to the executive branch of the federal government. It
is the executive that agrees to bind and commit Canada to
obligations in the international sphere. It was, therefore, the
executive that signed and ratified the charter of the United
Nations and voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It was the executive that ratified the North Atlantic Treaty by
which NATO was formed, and it was the executive that ratified the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Canada is already party
to nearly 3,000 bilateral and multilateral instruments and, with
the growing need for states to respond to international trade and
political imperatives, this number can only increase.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is suggesting that the
House of Commons does not play a large enough role in the process
of concluding those treaties to which Canada chooses to become a
party. I have trouble following the hon. member on this point.
While it is true that the executive is responsible for signing
and ratifying treaties, it has always been a responsibility of
elected representatives to pass the implementing legislation for
treaties in Canada.
The constitutional power to implement treaties granted to the
House of Commons and the legislatures under the division of
powers and confirmed by the highest courts more than 60 years ago
ensures a healthy balance between the federal executive and the
people's elected representatives.
The federal executive must secure legislative implementation
from the elected representatives before agreeing on behalf of
Canada to be definitively bound by a treaty. Without this
approval, treaty obligations could not be implemented and Canada
would fall well short of meeting its international obligations.
Not only is it well advised to consult and obtain legislative
approval from elected representatives in order to implement
treaties, it is often essential.
When Canada wants to ratify a treaty involving one or more
provincial areas of jurisdiction, the executive automatically
consults with the provinces. On reading Bill C-214 one would
think there was no consultation between the federal government
and the provinces and that this legislation was absolutely
essential in order to remedy the situation. Nothing could be
further from the truth. For example, the provinces are
continually consulted on the Hague conventions on private
international law, which of course fall under the constitutional
jurisdiction of the provinces over civil rights. Canada has not
ratified some of the Hague conventions because of the provinces'
unwillingness to implement aspects falling under provincial
jurisdiction.
We have a practice that works, with no need to legislate or to
impose any requirement to conclude unwieldy agreements concerning
consultative mechanisms with the provinces. We already have
consultative mechanisms. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Incidentally, I would like to mention a crucial point brought up
by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, in the
first hour of debate on second reading of the bill. In his bill
the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry attempts suddenly and
indirectly to grant the provinces the power to conclude treaties.
The courts have been clear that in the Canadian constitutional
system the power to conclude treaties for Canada belongs
exclusively to the executive branch of the federal government. In
other words, there is no provincial power to conclude treaties,
nor has there ever been. Bill C-214 would be contrary to our
constitution.
1825
The current practice already provides a balance between elected
representatives who have legislative authority and the executive
which has the power to conclude treaties for the country.
The hon. member claims that members of parliament do not have
the opportunity to help formulate Canada's position in treaty
negotiations. Let us stop to consider this argument and look at
the role played by the all-party Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade when it is consulted about
negotiating and concluding international treaties.
The Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade held hearings and produced a report on the
conclusion of an agreement on the free trade area of the
Americas. In June 1999 the full Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade held consultations and produced
reports on the World Trade Organization.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that
the government presented its response to the committee's report
regarding the WTO on November 15, 1999. It is clear from that
response that the government greatly benefited from the
committee's recommendations in formulating its own position, a
concrete example of the important role of parliament.
Committee hearings provide an excellent opportunity for
parliament to consult, examine, analyze and debate Canada's
international commitments.
Another example of parliamentary participation in concluding
international agreements comes to mind. Canada and the United
States are currently in the process of concluding an agreement on
customs preclearance at Canadian airports. As members know,
there are U.S. customs officers at many Canadian airports
preclearing passengers who travel to the United States. This
reduces the waiting time upon their arrival at U.S. airports.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade studied Bill S-22, the purpose of which is to implement the
Canada-U.S. agreement before a final agreement is even concluded.
Why did it do this? To give parliament manoeuvring room to
determine on its own what powers it may want to grant U.S.
customs officers posted on Canadian soil. Needless to say,
during the committee meetings the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry still found reason to criticize this
government initiative.
Parliament is already regularly consulted on important matters
that may be the subject of international treaties. Here again
the hon. member is not inventing anything new. The advantage of
the Canadian practice of concluding treaties is that it is
flexible. It provides a balance between parliament and the
executive branch in concluding and implementing international
treaties and gives elected representatives an important role in
debating and studying international agreements. Let us not
forget that the government is responsible to this House for the
conduct of Canada's foreign affairs, including the conclusion of
treaties.
In summary, our system of concluding treaties, including the
practice by which it is governed, works very well indeed. Through
its flexibility it provides for the effective participation of
elected representatives, in consultation with the provinces in
areas of provincial jurisdiction, while guaranteeing that the
interests of Canadians are fully defended and promoted on the
international stage.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in the second hour debate of Bill
C-214. At the outset I would like to clear up two points raised
by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry in the first hour
of this debate last December 1.
The hon. member stated that “We are still waiting for the
treaties signed in 1993, 1994, 1997 and 1998 to be tabled”.
The 1994 treaties were tabled June 9, 1999. The 1993 treaties
were tabled June 10, 1999. The 1997 treaties were tabled April
13, 1999. Currently there are no treaties outstanding to be
tabled under the current practice.
With regard to the 1998 treaties, departmental officials are now
in the process of preparing 47 treaties for tabling. There is a
normal lag of at least one year with respect to multilateral
treaties. This period enables the depositories of these
treaties, often the UN, to advise states of their entry into
force and prepare the certified copies which are then tabled.
For example, the depository of Protocol II, annexed to the
Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Conventional Weapons, intended to bring mines into the
disarmament regime created by the main convention, advised Canada
on July 7, 1999 that this convention had entered into force on
December 3, 1998 and provided the certified copies.
1830
Such time lags are normal practices among depositories such as
the UN which manages hundreds of multilateral treaties and must
calculate the exact date of entry into force of the convention
based on the number of acceptances received and then prepare the
certified copies.
The hon. member also suggested on December 1 that this bill
would correct an obvious deficiency, allowing ordinary citizens
as well as parliamentarians access to international treaties.
This bill does no such thing.
The government already provides Canadians, including MPs, wide
access to treaties. They are published in a Canadian treaty
series and distributed to numerous libraries throughout Canada.
In addition, they can be purchased from the government publishing
centre on a cost recovery basis.
I remind all MPs in the House that they have access to treaties
tabled since 1990 in CD-ROM format through the Library of
Parliament.
This bill deals with the Canadian practice with regard to the
conclusion of treaties, an important element of the Government of
Canada's prerogative.
This bill seriously affects the division of powers in Canada and
calls into question the ability of Canada to pursue major foreign
policy objectives. It purports to democratize the treaty process
by providing parliament with a greater role. Parliament already
has a considerable role in our treaty process.
Canadian constitutional law clearly establishes that the
negotiation and signature of a treaty are strictly in the purview
of the federal executive. However, the legislative branch is
still responsible for implementing the ensuing applications.
If a treaty results in changes to current laws, or enactment of
new ones, the legislative branch alone can take such action.
Depending on the jurisdiction, implementing legislation must be
passed by parliament or provincial legislatures. As the hon.
member knows, this role is essential because in the absence of
any participation from the legislative branch, the international
commitments made by Canada could not be met for lack of domestic
enactments.
Because of this implementation power, parliament is regularly
required to study and discuss treaties.
On December 1 the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry stated
that:
Neither the Free Trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada, nor
NAFTA nor the recent treaties on Landmines and disarmament were
approved by this House before the government expressed its
consent to be bound by them.
This statement once again ignores parliament's crucial role in
treaty matters. All of these treaties were subject to intensive
study and scrutiny by the House when it considered the
legislation to implement them. It was up to parliament to decide
if it wished to enact this legislation and, if it were not
passed, the government simply could not have ratified these
treaties. Canada's most important treaties are already, and have
always been, subject to this legislative process.
The role of parliament in treaty making continues to evolve. Not
only is parliament involved in the implementation of treaties but
consultation on our most important treaties now takes place
before committees and prior to the government taking binding
action.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade and its subcommittee examined exhaustively and made
recommendations to the government on the multilateral agreement
on investment, on the WTO and the FTAA negotiations. They did so
prior to the conclusion of these agreements by the federal
executive. Let me be clear. Our current practice strikes a
careful balance between the constitutional power of the executive
to make treaties and the crucial role of parliament in
implementing them, providing for the flexibility and efficiency
which Canada needs to pursue its foreign policy objectives.
As another example, last spring parliament debated Bill S-22,
the implementing legislation of an agreement with the U.S.A. on
customs preclearance, prior to the conclusion of the agreement in
order to give parliament greater latitude in determining what
powers Canada would provide U.S. customs officers in Canadian
airports.
In addition, Bill C-214, with its proposal to provide for the
approval of treaties by the House of Commons prior to
ratification, would adversely affect the development of Canadian
foreign policy and would emulate the legislative approval system
in the United States. Crises throughout the world must not be
used for partisan purposes on the national political scene. The
Government of Canada, which is accountable to parliament, is
responsible for the country's foreign affairs. In order to be
heard and to be perceived as a leader, it must have a single
voice on the international scene.
The decision of the U.S. Senate not to sign the comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty stunned Canada and the entire
international community, dimmed the hopes for peace and
international stability generated by the treaty, and dealt a
serious blow to the United States' reputation, even though the
administration supported ratification.
This is a clear illustration of what happens when sterile party
politics find their way into the conduct of a country's foreign
affairs. Canada does not wish to undergo such a drastic change
in the conduct of its foreign affairs.
1835
The bill raises major constitutional concerns. Bill C-214
refers to the royal prerogative of the crown in right of a
province with respect to the negotiation and signing of treaties.
No such provincial prerogative exists. The prerogative with
respect to the negotiation and signing of any international
treaty lies exclusively with the Canadian federal executive.
Therefore, Bill C-214 violates the constitutionally determined
division of powers.
The bill would require the government to negotiate consultation
agreements with provincial governments in areas of provincial or
shared jurisdiction. Canadian constitutional law already
requires that the Government of Canada secure the support of
provinces before ratifying an international treaty requiring
implementation through provincial legislation. It is done
because it has to be done.
For example, the federal government is engaged in extensive
consultations with provincial governments developing a national
implementation strategy to allow Canada to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol to the Climate Change Convention and there are extensive
consultations to develop positions and policy to allow
implementation of crucial agreements in the trade area.
Provincial representatives are sometimes part of Canadian
delegations when treaties concerning provincial matters are
negotiated.
Bill C-214 creates nothing new in this area but it imposes a
straitjacket on the Government of Canada for consulting its
provincial partners.
Moreover, Bill C-214 with its requirement that treaties be
tabled 21 sitting days prior to their ratification, would
preclude Canada from playing a key role on global issues, as it
has done in recent years. Our current treaty-making practices
enabled Canada to be the first to ratify the Ottawa Convention on
Landmines on December 3, 1997 when the international community
came to Ottawa to sign the convention. Had Bill C-214 been law,
Canada would never have managed this feat.
Bill C-214 could also seriously affect our ability to enter
quickly into agreements on emergency food supply or peacekeeping
forces deployment in times of humanitarian crises. It would
fetter our ability to enter into ad hoc extradition agreements to
extradite criminals seeking refuge in Canada and damage our
commercial interests when time is of the essence to give an
advantage to Canadian businesses.
Canada must have a treaty-making process that allows it to
achieve its foreign policy objectives and to deal quickly and
effectively with changing and urgent situations. Our current
practice meets these imperatives.
There is already a major role for parliament with respect to the
implementation of treaties and parliament has been consulted on
our most important treaties prior to their conclusion. It is my
strong view that Bill C-214 provides for an overly complex and
inefficient procedure to replace a treaty-making process that so
far has well served Canadians, parliamentarians and Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am aware
that I do not have much time to speak to this bill, which I think
is a very good one, introduced by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
I am very interested in issues of globalization. In a world
where areas of activity that were formerly more the concern of
the United Nations are now making their way onto the world
stage, we will be increasingly called upon to make decisions on
an international scale and to ratify treaties.
One question comes to me right off the bat and it is this: What
is the role of parliamentarians in this regard? Should we
always rely on governments to negotiate treaties? I think that
one of the most flagrant examples we have seen is the
multilateral agreement on investment. People will recall that,
for two years, this agreement was being secretly negotiated by
the OECD, an organization of the 29 richest countries in the
world. Nobody in the world, except of course the negotiators, knew
this was in the works. We parliamentarians were not in the
picture. It took a leak by one of the negotiators on the
Internet before pockets of resistance began to spring up around
the world.
I think that this was an historic event because, for the first
time, we saw civil society join forces internationally, we saw
young people the world over ready to be mowed down rather than
see this agreement signed.
I am thinking in particular of the young people of salAMI in
Montreal, who resorted to civil disobedience.
1840
I may not approve of such methods. I am only pointing them out.
An international agreement was being negotiated behind closed
doors. When people saw what was in the agreement, they said
“This does not make sense. It should be discussed”. This is what
democracy is all about. It is about debating issues. It is about
wondering where treaties like this will lead us.
Unfortunately, this is all the time I have for today, but I was
pleased to—
The Deputy Speaker: I can assure the member for Lac-Saint-Jean
that when the bill next comes up for consideration before the
House he will have eight minutes remaining in his remarks.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have money freely flowing from the
Human Resources Development Canada offices to individuals and
businesses without being properly accounted for. But for our
farmers, they basically have to walk through fire to receive
money from another government managed program.
The internal audit of HRDC exposed severe mismanagement of 459
job creation programs worth almost $1 billion. Some of the major
problems were 80% of grant recipients showed no evidence of
financial monitoring, 72% had no cash flow forecast, 87% showed
no proof of supervision and 11% had no budget proposal or
description of expected results. In one instance, seven people
listed as unknown on the applications received $11 million. This
is hard to believe.
The money flows out of the human resources development
department without proper checks or balances. However, another
program, the agriculture income disaster program, or AIDA as it
is known, is the exact opposite. Farmers fill out, or in most
cases pay their accountants to fill out, complicated forms and
then submit their applications to an AIDA office. Months later
the farmer finds out if he qualifies.
One producer in my riding told me his application was submitted
in May 1999, but it took until March 2000 to be processed. That
is almost a year. How long does it take for a human resources
grant to be approved and distributed?
The AIDA applications are also heavily scrutinized. The forms
go through a number of government staff and each one looks for
ways to limit the payout to the farmer. In one case a farmer in
my riding found out that his AIDA application had been worked on
six times. By the time it had gone through bureaucrats, his
payout was a fraction of what he had expected.
Does this type of scrutinizing take place at the human resources
development offices when they are looking at grant applications?
Is it true that the officials in charge of AIDA have been told to
reduce payouts and limit benefits because it is agriculture and
not HRD? There appears to be a deliberate scheme to not support
farmers but to shovel taxpayers' dollars to patrons of HRD.
Should I be telling farmers in my riding to skip the AIDA
procedure and go to the human resources development office for
assistance?
A recent Globe and Mail article discovered 49 of Canada's
top 100 most profitable companies have received grants in the
past three years totalling $4.2 million from the HRDC office.
Each of these companies has made a profit of at least $70
million. Do we have to show a profit of $70 million and
contribute to the Liberals before qualifying for grants from the
federal government?
We have farmers who are struggling to stay afloat and one of the
main reasons for their problems is that the government taxes them
to death and does not defend them at the international bargaining
table. The government is taking dollars out of farmers' pockets
and funnelling them to rich corporations.
If the government does not want to give farmers their money
back, why does it not just reduce taxes? Taxes kill jobs. The
grants at HRD use tax dollars which come directly from the
farmer. In fact, farmers pay huge amounts of tax on the inputs
they buy to grow their product. Fertilizer, fuel, chemicals and
machinery all have a hidden tax component.
The grants at HRD are shovelled out through what is called a job
creation fund. Let us rename this the job destruction fund. It
is driving farmers off the land and many other Canadians do not
have jobs because of the high taxes needed to support the
Liberals' jobs destruction grants program.
It should not be easy to access public funds, but there is an
obvious double standard taking place when we look at the HRDC
programs and compare them to the AIDA program.
I would like to know how the human resources development minister
can justify handing out a billion dollars in grants with no
accountability while our farmers continue to struggle and cannot
access funds set aside to help them.
1845
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to have this opportunity to respond to my good friend across the
way.
I really cannot comment on the AIDA program because that was not
suggested in his earlier question to which I was preparing to
respond. However, I can respond to some of the allegations made
against HRDC. For example, he said that money was freely flowing
from HRDC in these grants and contributions. He should realize
that the section of grants and contributions that was audited,
and which had a very serious result that all of us took
seriously, the audit covered an audit universe that represents
less than 1% of the Government of Canada's budget.
We have now had months of allegations being hurled across the
floor from the opposition at us based upon 1% of the government's
budget. I want to assure the member that there is a strict
process for approval of these grants.
As far as his allegations about us working with big companies,
yes we do. We work with both the private sector and the
non-profit sector. In the private sector we work with both big
companies and small companies because we respect all businesses
and they all have a right to apply for assistance when they need
it.
As far as cutting taxes, as he is suggesting we should be doing
instead of creating economic activity, we have begun to cut taxes
now that we have eliminated the deficit and can afford to cut
taxes. There was a big plan announced in the last budget to that
effect.
How would the hon. member replace the $3 billion in economic
activity that we have managed to start through our investment,
for example, of $300 million in the Canada jobs fund? That
leveraged $2.7 billion from the private sector and the non-profit
sector and resulted in $3 billion of economic activity, which we
would not have otherwise had in the country, and in the creation
of approximately 28,000 new jobs.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been carried. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)