CONTENTS
Monday, November 21, 1994
Bill C-48. Report stage (with amendments) 8015
(Amendment agreed to.) 8017
(Motion as amended agreed to.) 8017
Division on motion deferred 8020
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 8025
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8026
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8029
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.16 p.m.) 8032
The House resumed at 2 p.m. 8032
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 8036
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8036
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8036
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8037
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8037
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8037
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8037
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8037
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8037
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8037
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8038
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8038
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8038
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8038
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8043
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8043
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8043
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8043
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8043
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8044
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8044
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8044
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8045
Motion for concurrence in 49th report 8045
Consideration resumed of motion 8047
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8047
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8050
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8062
8015
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 21, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-48, an act
to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend
related acts, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am prepared to make a ruling
on Bill C-48.
[Translation]
There are six motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for the report stage of Bill C-48, an act to establish the
Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts.
[English]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion
No. 2 proposes to delete certain lines from the bill, but since the
committee's minutes of proceedings indicate that these lines
were deleted at the committee stage, Motion No. 2 is therefore
redundant and will not be selected.
[Translation]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate but voted
on as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 4 applies to Motion No.
6; (b) Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately.
[Translation]
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
(1105 )
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-48, in new clause 6(a), be amended by deleting the words
``integrated management and''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in setting the major goal for the new
Department of Natural Resources, I would like to commend the
minister for having made a change in committee following
second reading debate in this House.
At that time the many goals of this bill included sustainable
development but it came further down in a long list. Therefore it
was almost interpreted as being an added on consideration of a
low priority and prompted interventions to the effect that
sustainable development ought to be the top priority of the
newly established Department of Natural Resources.
Considering what has happened in the fisheries and
considering the debates and the controversies in forestry, and
considering the overall commitment by this government to the
concept of sustainable development as announced and defined
in 1987 by Madam Brundtland in the report entitled ``Our
Common Future'', it would only stand to reason that sustainable
development be given priority in the function and goals of the
minister of this new department.
I am very pleased to congratulate the minister for having
made this change in committee and having brought sustainable
development into a place that corresponds to its importance for
the future activity of this department.
I have to draw attention to the clause as presently drawn in the
bill. It contains two concepts. It gives the natural resources
minister responsibility with respect to integrated management
of Canada's natural resources and sustainable development. In
other words, it does two things in the manner that it is drafted
now. It puts sustainable development in a secondary position to
integrated management. Integrated management in the clause as
it stands now, the goal as now defined, is first. It is followed by a
subsequent secondary consideration in the way it could be
interpreted in a court or by a judge or anyone who reads the bill,
from the deputy minister to you name it, as a consideration that
comes after integrated management.
8016
I submit respectfully this sequence is to be examined and
possibly reversed. I appeal to the minister to give this her closest
positive consideration.
(1110)
The second point that has to be made in this connection is that
these two concepts, integrated management and sustainable
development, could at times come in conflict and could not be
neutrally supported.
Third, in the bill sustainable development, if it is not clearly
defined, is clearly understood by way of the definition given in
the Brundtland report and virtually universally accepted.
Therefore we have as the major goal for the department a
concept that is well defined, sustainable development. However,
we cannot say the same for integrated management.
A situation could arise in forestry, in fisheries or in any other
natural resource tomorrow, in 10 years or in 100 years whereby
pursuing the principles of integrated management as it is
proposed now would not be in the interest of sustainable
development.
When there is such a conflict which of these two concepts will
the minister of the day choose? Therefore to remove this
ambivalence, to remove this dichotomy, to remove this
uncertainty I am submitting by way of this motion an
amendment to the particular portion of the bill whereby the
Minister of Natural Resources has as a main responsibility the
implementation of the principle of sustainable development and
the clarification of other considerations related to management.
I think it will make the task of the minister of the day clearer,
politically saleable and also less in conflict with other
considerations.
We have had too many experiences in recent years with
natural resources where there was a visible conflict between a
natural resource, concepts of management and sustainable
development. It is time to cut this umbilical cord and give very
clear direction to the department in charge of such an important
natural resource for the long term.
We have sufficient examples that have already brought about
the adoption of long term considerations on the part of this
government, and I am glad to see the minister of fisheries in the
Chamber who has done so already on a number of occasions, and
very courageously so.
To support my argument I bring into the House the red book
and the fact that one of the main chapters in the red book is
devoted to the concept of sustainable development and not to
integrated management. Sustainable development is one of the
pillars of the policies of this government. It was our
commitment during the election and today it is our commitment
as well.
It would be a great pity if in launching the new Department of
Natural Resources this commitment would be somehow derailed
by considerations of integrated management of which we do not
know the definition and of which there is no definition in the
bill. It could be the detracting factor in the long term interest of
natural resources which this department is expected to protect
and enhance.
This is my argument and I rest my case.
(1115 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are debating
something which is a little more fundamental than semantic.
The basic premise expressed in this amendment is that sound
management practices and sustainable development are
mutually exclusive. This I cannot accept, nor can my party. If we
remove the two offending words, integrated management, what
we will be suggesting to the department is that the traditional
and honourable concept of multiple use of resources is to be
thrown out the window.
I maintain that all that will be left is the equally undefined
concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development
is in the eye of the beholder. Surely if it is to be sustainable it
must be properly managed. On that basis and that basis alone the
Reform Party will oppose this amendment.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest this morning to
the discussion of my hon. friends and particularly to the
comments made by the hon. member for Davenport.
Let me say that I appreciate the interest and time he has taken
in relation to Bill C-48 which creates the new Department of
Natural Resources. I want to point out that I have listened very
seriously and have taken very seriously his concerns in relation
to this government's commitment to sustainable development.
Because I take that commitment very seriously, I instructed my
officials to reorder clause 6 of Bill C-48 in such a way that our
commitment to sustainable development became clause 6(a).
This morning the hon. member for Davenport indicated he
would like further amendments to clause 6(a) of Bill C-48.
Again I think my hon. friend raises some very important
considerations for all of us. If it is appropriate at this point I
would like to proceed with moving an amendment. I move:
That Motion No. 1 be amended by adding:
; and
(b) by adding immediately after the word ``resources'' the following:
``and the integrated management thereof;''.
Clause 6(a) would indicate that the minister shall have regard
to sustainable development and to the integrated management
thereof. Let me explain why I am proposing such an amendment.
It is because I think the paramount consideration and concept is
8017
obviously that of sustainable development and therefore
sustainable development should have pride of place in clause
6(a).
My commitment as minister is to the sustainable development
of Canada's natural resources, but integrated resource
management is the means by which we deliver on that
commitment. It is the how of the implementation of the concept
of sustainable development.
My opinion is it is important not only to include the
commitment to sustainable development, but also to indicate
how in the resource sector we achieve and deliver on that
commitment. We do it through integrated resource management,
the integration of the values of economic, social and
environmental considerations. Therefore I have proposed the
amendment as outlined.
(1120 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there any further debate
on the amendment by the hon. minister? If not, I will just take a
few moments to consult with the table and then we will proceed.
Debate is on the amendment of the Minister of Natural
Resources.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Just a few short comments, Mr. Speaker. I rise in my place
to support the amendment to the amendment proposed by the
Minister of Natural Resources.
In the 15 years I have had the pleasure of knowing the hon.
member for Davenport he has consistently displayed and
exhibited in his participation in public life an absolutely
unyielding and uncompromising commitment to the principle of
sustainable development. To borrow a phrase from Jeffrey
Archer it is no exaggeration to say if it can be said of anyone
among us in this place he is the first among equals on the
question of sustainable development. That is without question.
It is also true for those of us who have been here for some time if
there has been one who has enlightened and educated us and
painfully and patiently explained the value of this principle over
the years, it is indeed the member for Davenport.
I am not surprised to see that the member wants to give the
Minister of Natural Resources, as the minister would want, the
greatest possible obligation and commitment first and foremost
to the principle of sustainable development. All else must flow
from that. I said I have known the member for 15 years. I have
known the Minister for Natural Resources for a year. In my
judgment, after sitting with her in council for a year, the
minister shares the great commitment of the member for
Davenport to sustainable development.
In the amendment moved by the minister and which I was
proud to second, the minister has reflected the kinds of
standards and principles the hon. member for Davenport has
always exhibited in this place. The hon. member is a
fair-minded and principled man. I hope he will find the
amendment acceptable. I hope we can proceed with this
amendment with all reasonable and proper haste.
(1125 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment to Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 1, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion as amended agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ) moves:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-48, in clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 35, on page
3, with the following:
``7. The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later
than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next following the end of
each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department of Natural
Resources for that fiscal year.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois find it easy to speak to Bill C-48, an act to establish
the Department of Natural Resources, because we, as a
sovereignist party, were elected by Quebecers to defend the
interests of Quebec and to initiate dialogue with the rest of
Canada.
The purpose of the amendment we are now proposing is to
ensure that we will have all the information necessary at the
right time, in order to better defend the interests of the Quebec
taxpayers who elected us. Before we become autonomous, I
must ask and ensure that this government respect Quebec's
jurisdiction and that there be no reduction in our existing
authority through unilateral action by the federal government.
The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate unjustifiable
delays. We are bound to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction
with respect to natural resources. However, in order to fulfil our
mandate, we need all the information available. We would be
remiss not to ask for this information, and we would not be
serving those who elected us if we remained silent before this
bill, which does not set out any specific date for the tabling of its
annual report and which therefore leaves the administration
with full latitude in this regard.
(1130)
In Quebec, the electorate's choice in the last federal election
could not have been clearer. For the first time in our history, a
sovereignist party formed the official opposition in this House.
In addition, we were elected with the mandate to monitor as
8018
closely as possible the administration of the public interest. This
means that Quebecers are calling for more autonomy, more
sovereignty, more independence and, above all, greater
transparency. They are demanding that our governments be
increasingly transparent and that nothing be hidden from the
taxpayers. This is the object of our amendment.
An end must be put to the proliferation of structures, to
duplication and especially to cover-ups. Can it be held that the
taxpayers or their representatives, which we are, have all the
facts in hand before it is too late?
Unless complete information is provided by a given date, how
do you expect us, elected representatives, to serve the people
adequately? Our proposal has no other purpose but to serve the
people adequately. We cannot allow this department not to be
accountable to the people of Quebec and Canada. Quebecers and
Canadians alike have had it; they are fed up with paying twice
for the exact same services, services that cost $3 billion in
Quebec alone. Imagine what this amounts to Canada-wide.
The requirement to table an annual report by a certain day will
ensure that the effects of duplication cannot be concealed from
the taxpayers and enable us to react much more quickly. We,
Quebecers, would be much better off financially if we gained
independence and had only one level of government. In the
meantime, it is our duty to make sure that we get our money's
worth. Rest assured that we will carry out our duty and demand
that this government be as transparent as can be.
If public funds were managed better, we could do more for
rural regions where unemployment has taken on nearly
catastrophic proportions as well as develop our natural
resources better. We could take care of our own business much
more efficiently. Never will this government accept any real
decentralization of its powers. It is therefore imperative that it
be forced to report on scheduled dates.
I would just like to remind this House that the Department of
Natural Resources has, in actual fact, been in operation since the
summer of 1993. The provinces were not consulted beforehand.
I will also remind you that, under the existing Constitution,
natural resources are an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Could
at least the Constitution that governs this country be abide by, so
that we can serve our taxpayers better? No, this government
would rather continue its flag fight. It will do its best to conceal
as much of the facts as possible. So, the requirement for tabling
an annual report by a certain day will give us a better chance of
getting at least a minimum of information. This is an absolute
necessity in a democracy to account to those who have elected
you.
This government prefers to make its presence felt wherever it
can, at any cost, while we are unable to react because more often
than not, we do not have the information required to react at the
right time.
(1135)
As the Auditor General of Canada pointed out in his 1992
report on page 342 about the Department of Natural Resources:
``Prudence in administration requires that outcomes and results
be scrutinized in the context of their costs to determine whether
Parliament and taxpayers are receiving what was paid for''.
Once it is passed, Bill C-48 would invest the minister
responsible with the powers, duties and functions now assigned
to the Minister of Forestry and the Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources. The structure being established is therefore
quite significant.
Our amendment, which is aimed at creating more openness
and requiring this new or modified structure to table regularly
scheduled reports, is totally justified in our opinion. The current
government is hiding behind the principle of good government
management established by the former government in 1993 as it
sets out to create an independent Department of Natural
Resources. The federal government is hiding behind the
principle of good government management as it is about to
interfere in another area of provincial jurisdiction.
The requirement to table the annual report by a certain date
will probably bring our worst fears to light. It will become
impossible to hide reality. This requirement will confirm that
there is indeed encroachment and duplication and that taxpayers
do not really receive what they pay for.
This government is hiding behind the principle of good
government management to create another area of dual
jurisdiction. The first amendment we want to see adopted-and
I hope we will have the full and total support of this House and
the government-reads as follows:
The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later
than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next following the end of
each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department of Natural
Resources for that fiscal year.
Knowing how slow government administration usually is, we
cannot leave it up to the minister to table this report before each
House of Parliament as he or she sees fit, as soon as practicable
after the report is prepared.
What does ``as soon as practicable'' mean? What does it mean
to the government machinery? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. It
means absolutely nothing. I will give you an example: I asked
the Minister of Natural Resources for a report she had asked
experts to write about the Eastern Quebec Development Plan,
which should have been renewed months ago. The minister has
8019
had this report for a long time. Although I have asked for it
nearly every day, I still have not received it. That is government
machinery for you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would just like to
remind hon. members that those who speak on these motions
have 10 minutes. For this reason, I would ask the member for
Matapédia-Matane to kindly conclude in a minute or two,
because he has already gone beyond the 10 minutes allowed. The
hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude. When there is no
precise date, we notice that it takes a very long time to get
information.
(1140)
By setting a precise date, our amendment would enable us to
have more information and thus report back to our constituents
and to taxpayers, who are entitled to this information. We want
that information and that is the purpose of our amendment.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with
considerable impatience while the hon. member for
Matapédia-Matane weakened the case for his eminently
sensible amendment with a lot of separatist cant and whining
provincialism. Surely we can debate matters of this nature
without constantly getting off track and riding that horse into the
sunset.
With respect to the merits of his amendment and without any
special reference to Quebec, I agree it is not good enough that
information be provided piecemeal by the departments to
members of Parliament. There should be an annual report.
The suggestion in the hon. member's amendment that this be
in a fixed timeframe is also excellent and the Reform Party
supports this. We are aware that there will be costs involved but
it is important that the principle of accountability to Parliament
be maintained.
However, I hope that future Parliaments will not be satisfied
with reports of the nature that I have seen from previous years
where we are given a bunch of pretty pictures and platitudes. I
would like to see some meat in these reports.
However, with that caveat, the hon. member's amendment is a
good one and we will support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add a few comments to the speech made by my colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois. The hon. member referred to a
quantitative report, that is a document which would contain
sufficient data to inform every Canadian.
I also want to say that this report should also be more
qualitative, or more specific. In the past, as the Reform Party
member just pointed out, a very thick document would often be
released but would not include truly relevant information on the
appropriateness and the efficiency of the department's
operations.
Through clause 7 of this bill, the government indicates that it
might be sufficient for a minister to table Part III of the
Estimates, to demonstrate the good work of the department for
which he or she is responsible. This is not good enough and that
is why, through its motion, the Bloc Quebecois is asking that
that clause 7 be amended to require that an annual report
showing the department's operations be laid before the House.
That department must have a specific mandate as well as
defined objectives; it must demonstrate its usefulness and show
that the budget allocated to it was well spent. Many Quebecers
and Canadians question the role of various departments.
Indeed, the role of too many departments is being questioned
and, at a time when the Minister of Finance wants to cut $9
billion from the federal budget to make ends meet, one cannot
help but think that other departments, not the Department of
Human Resources Development but others like the Department
of Natural Resources, should do their part and at the very least
justify their expenditures.
Quebecers and Canadians have a right to ask if the budget of
that department was really spent on valuable projects, and they
have a right to demand that the minister make sure the money
goes to the right place; after all, it is his duty to do so.
The public also has the right to know if the programs which
the Department of Natural Resources wants to develop, and
which are the very reason for such spending, are useful and
efficient. Consequently, we could obtain from that department,
every year, a report on its programs and objectives, on the way it
has tried to achieve these objectives, as well as on the money
spent on each project. It will be possible to determine whether
the department provides a worthwhile service to the people of
Canada and Quebec.
(1145)
At the present time, the advisability of cutting certain social
programs is a frequent topic of debate, and such discussions are
entirely appropriate, considering what we want government to
do. In the end, however, perhaps a cost-benefit analysis of each
program, and not only of the Department of Natural Resources,
should be done for the benefit of the public.
I think it is appropriate to require that in Section 7 of the bill,
to minister produce, in future, an annual report to inform both
Houses whether his department did what it set out to achieve and
whether its budget takes into account the interests of all
Quebecers and Canadians.
8020
There are people, including other members, who may see this
as an additional expense. I do not agree. I think that a report on
operations fills a need. In most cases, this kind of report is
already produced for departmental use, in other words, senior
executives review their programs and make recommendations
for improvements. The same report could be made available to
us, which means we would no longer have to wait for months to
get information on a particular subject or project, as the hon.
member just said.
Releasing this departmental review to Parliament would
enhance the quality of management in the department and
increase much needed transparency in government. I realize that
such action may take some political courage on the part of the
minister, but citizens have a right to demand this kind of
forthrightness of their minister, especially considering the
national debt and our annual deficit.
In concluding, I want all members of this House to realize that
we do not necessarily want a detailed and wide-ranging report,
because the departmental reports we get at our offices are often
terribly discouraging for the person who has to read them. All
we want is a report that gives us some insight into the
government's activities and a chance to evaluate its
performance. I think that any department that has done a good
job of identifying its objectives and managing its current
programs has no reason to be ashamed of publishing this
information and should even be proud to do so.
It is therefore entirely appropriate to amend this clause, and I
hope that the majority in this House will agree.
[English]
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion of the hon.
member. He seeks to make it mandatory that the minister
provide the reports.
I submit that the answer is clearly there. In conjunction with
the budget speech normally delivered in February each year, the
President of the Treasury Board tables on behalf of the
Department of Natural Resources part III of the estimates which
reports on the operations of the preceding fiscal year and the
current fiscal year and as well includes proposals for the
upcoming fiscal year. Therefore the intent of this amendment is
already being met by those provisions. However, flexibility is
needed as to when the report is delivered to Parliament so as to
conform to the budget process.
We may ask why the obligation to table an annual report is not
contained in this bill. Section 153 of the Financial
Administration Act was amended on May 1, 1991 to permit
statutory reports to be discontinued by order in council when
they contained the same or less information as the estimates
frompublic accounts. This provides a streamlined reporting to
Parliament while ensuring no less information.
The cost savings as a result of this continuation of 23 statutory
reports is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $500,000
annually. Is the tabling of an annual state of forests no longer
obligatory? The obligation to table this report in Parliament has
been removed. This does not preclude the minister from tabling
a report in Parliament. In addition the report could be required
by regulation of the governor in council. The clause as written
provides greater flexibility for parliamentarians to request
changes to reports and timing of these reports.
(1150)
The CFS has indicated that it may be more useful to see and
measure progress on forest management and other forest related
issues if such reports are every two or three years. If
circumstances require, shorter time frames for reporting to
Parliament on specific aspects of natural resources could be
identified.
Changing a regulation is less cumbersome and consuming
than changing the act.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote is on Motion No.
3, standing in the name of Mr. Canuel. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-48, in clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14, on
page 9, with the following:
``government of any province for forest protection and manage-''.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ) moved:
8021
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-48, in clause 35, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 11, with
the following:
``ter may, at the request of all the provinces''.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-48, in clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 33, on page
12, with the following:
``plans under subsection (1), the Minister
(a) shall cooperate with the provinces;
(b) may enter into agreements with the government of any province or any
department, branch or agency of such a government;
(c) with the agreement of the concerned province, may make grants and
contributions and''.
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek my
colleagues' support to amend two clauses of Bill C-48, which, I
believe, distort the very nature of this department by not
explicitly recognizing the overriding authority of the provinces
over natural resources.
First, clause 27.(2) is theoretically aimed at allowing the
Minister of Natural Resources not to seek the approval of the
Governor in Council when entering into contracts or
agreements. This change is said to be in the interest of
streamlining public service operations. Keeping in mind this
laudable intention, let us look at the effects of the following few
words included in clause 27.(2), page 9, line 13:
-government of any province or with any person for forest protection and
management or forest utilization-
The words ``or any person'' cannot be legitimately included
since only the provinces have the authority, the right to define
their own forest policy.
(1155)
Therefore, even though the legitimacy of the Canadian
Minister of Natural Resources is very much in doubt, it is still
important to correct those clauses having an impact on the
provinces' authority in matters of exclusive jurisdiction. Under
subsection 92(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, natural
resources are described as exclusive provincial jurisdiction, in
particular with regards to development, conservation, and
management of non-renewable and forestry resources,
including laws in relation to the rate of primary production
therefrom.
These few words open a wide door to interference by the
federal government in the area of forestry which could be
perceived by provincial governments as contrary to their
policies or discriminatory towards some provinces.
The issue is not the value of the federal involvement, the point
is to make sure that the federal government remains within its
areas of jurisdiction. The federal Minister of Natural Resources
must consult and obtain the consensus of all provinces before
promoting a so-called national policy. For example, Quebec
never signed the National Forest Strategy, therefore, the federal
government cannot, unilaterally, intervene on its territory with
policies, however well intentioned, actions or agreements not
endorsed by Quebec.
Quebec has its own forest management strategy, like many
other provinces. Trying to harmonize the different policies is the
responsibility of the provinces themselves. Any interference on
the part of the federal government, if it is not the result of a
unanimous request from all provinces can only be a source of
duplication and waste.
The people of Canada, like the people of Quebec, should not
have to pay twice because of the squabbling between the two
levels of government since the rules are clear: natural resources
belong to the provinces.
The provinces have precedence in the area of natural
resources, yet, it is quite clear that the words ``any person'' put
the provinces on the same level as any given person selected by
the minister. It is obvious, therefore, that such equality between
a person and a province cannot stand: these words must be
deleted.
To continue with this same motion, I now move on to the
explanatory notes on clause 35, section 6, which state that the
new section 6(a) provides clarification by allowing the Minister
of Natural Resources to conduct or co-operate with persons
conducting applied and basic research programs instead of only
conducting such programs.
The word ``co-operate'' seems quite appropriate in a piece of
legislation requiring the federal government to co-operate with
the provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It seems quite
appropriate that this clause should reflect this willingness to
cooperate by incorporating the proposed amendment, which
merely states that, at the provinces' request, the minister may
recommend, promote or co-ordinate a Canada-wide policy or
any basic research program needed.
These few added words clearly show who should give
directions and identify needs so that the federal government can
be instrumental in helping the provinces in these fields instead
of taking the lead.
This clause should clearly reflect the federal government's
willingness to co-operate by recognizing the provinces'
supremacy in identifying their needs, the openness to receive
provincial requests as an established fact, as well as the
minister's ability to honour these requests in the provinces'
interest depending on available resources.
I do not want to elaborate needlessly on this amendment, but
the federal government's willingness to co-operate should
allow it to accept this amendment. I do not want the amendment
to be redundant either.
On the last point, namely clause 35, lines 21 to 39, I want to
talk about something that reflects very well Canada's
constitutional problems. Clause 35.7(2) proposes that in
carrying out
8022
any plans coming under the Department of Natural Resources,
the minister may-repeat, ``may'':
(a) cooperate with the provinces and with municipalities;
(b) enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government
of any province or any department, branch or agency of such a government,
respecting the carrying out of those plans; and
(1200)
And third:
(c)make grants and contributions and, with the approval of the Governor in
Council, provide other forms of financial assistance.
I think that these three proposals contain the seeds of
federal-provincial disagreements on many issues.
First, the federal government, through its Department of
Natural Resources should, and not just may, co-operate with the
provinces. The federal government has no legitimate authority
over the provinces' natural resources. If it absolutely wants to
be involved in provincial fields, it should do so with their
consent and for the greater good of all, of course. However,
where their resources are concerned, the provinces would
certainly want to discuss what is good for themselves in order to
have the program that suits them.
Second, the federal government must not conclude any
agreement to implement federal programs with anyone in the
provinces unless the provinces are informed and have agreed.
Provincial consent must be required for any private agreement
to take effect. It is hard to imagine anyone changing a province's
natural resource management policy without the province's
consent.
So, any agreement between an individual or group and the
federal government can only be made with the agreement of the
province concerned. Again, why duplicate and risk wasting
money, despite good intentions?
Third, in the same vein, if the federal government, through a
joint policy, wants to promote a particular sector or project, it
should do so with the consent of the province concerned, so that
the federal government can make the grant or contribution.
Nothing in clause 35 says or indicates that the provinces have
priority when natural resources are involved. As the Official
Opposition in this House, we can only call attention to this fact,
which is not something the provinces are demanding but a basic
agreement of this Canadian federation. Under these
circumstances, how could we not insist that many federal bills
or laws lack legitimacy?
Several federalist members point out that the federal
government must do this or that for the general welfare, without
hurting the provinces. These members may be in good faith, but
imagine what the federal government would say if provincial
legislators intervened in federal programs and set conditions for
them. The federal government would be the first to talk about
interference and want to put them in their place.
The Canadian system defines the roles of each level of
government and changing them requires reopening the
Constitution and new negotiations. That may not be a bad idea.
The Canadian Constitution needs many adjustments. Quebec's
idea of ``opting out'', that is, the provinces' ability to withdraw
from a federal program with full financial compensation, is one
that could meet its particular needs and show the ability of this
federal system to adjust.
For these reasons, we believe that putting our terminology in
clause 35 7(2) would much better reflect the provinces' needs
and the federal government should consider it an improvement
and support it. I think that my motion as a whole justifies the
necessary amendments to the clauses previously mentioned and
Bill C-48 would correspond more closely to the reality of
Canada as a result.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-48
and on the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Abitibi.
For one year now, I have been hearing Bloc Quebecois
members talk about duplication, overlapping, waste and the
need to make cuts. I find it very disappointing, and also very
prejudicial to Canada, to see Bloc members use any bill to try to
promote their only objective, namely the separation of Quebec,
instead of dealing with the real issues and improve the situation
of Quebecers.
[English]
Bill C-48 amalgamates two previous departments, the
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and Forestry
Canada. This is a logical and practical step that demonstrates the
government's commitment to Canada's resource industry and to
good government.
I understand that the amalgamation of these two departments
has already saved some $16 million, c'est ça couper dans le gras,
messieurs les députés.
In the debate on Bill C-48 it is essential that we keep in mind
the vital contribution that the energy, mining and forest sectors
make to Canada's economic health and to the high standard of
living that Canadians have come to enjoy. Together, these
industries represented $86.2 billion or 13.4 per cent of Canada's
GDP in 1993.
8023
(1205)
Canada's advantage in international trade is tied almost
exclusively to natural resource based goods. These three sectors
provide jobs for 700,000 Canadians and sustain the economies
of almost 500 communities across the country. In many regions
of Canada, natural resource industries are not only the principal
vehicle for economic development, they are the only vehicle for
highly skilled jobs.
[Translation]
Energy, mining and forestry are high-technology industries
which are essential to Canada's prosperity in the future. If only
we can have an adequate policy developed and implemented by a
single department, these industries will keep contributing to job
creation and economic recovery for a long time to come.
Bill C-48 sets out the minister's duty to promote sustainable
development regarding energy, mineral and forest resources in
Canada. This means that the economic, social and
environmental objectives of the government will have to be
taken into account in every decision related to the development,
the management and the use of resources.
In its quest for sustainable development, the new department
will rely, among other things, on the work done in these
scientific sectors. The Canadian Forestry Service, the
Geological Survey of Canada, the Canada Centre for Mineral
and Energy Technology, and Geomatics Canada will remain
dynamic activity centres in the field of science and technology.
Bill C-48 officializes the grouping of two statutes of the
Parliament of Canada which exist, under one form or another,
since many years. Consequently, that legislation does not in any
way increase the power of the government of Canada. The
duties, the authority and the functions of the Minister of Natural
Resources will only apply to those areas that come under the
jurisdiction of Parliament.
[English]
This new department will continue to work in partnership
with the provinces to make our natural resource sectors both
sustainable and competitive.
There are many examples of such partnerships. For instance,
the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers has recently agreed on
a framework for future co-operation in the areas of science and
technology, international and trade issues, regional
development, aboriginal forestry and national co-ordination.
In the mining sector, the Whitehorse mining initiative
represents a valuable partnership that unites the efforts of
federal and provincial governments, industry, labour, aboriginal
people and environmental groups. In fact, for Canada's mining
and mineral sector, the Whitehorse mining initiative
demonstrates the commitment by all the stakeholders to
co-operation and dialogue to improve the future prospect of
mining for the country.
On this point, I am proud to note that on September 13, 1994
the Whitehorse mining initiative leadership council accord was
signed in Victoria, British Columbia. This accord sets out
principles and goals designed to assist all stakeholders in their
efforts to ensure a prosperous mining industry that is committed
to sustainable development.
[Translation]
Another of the department's agencies, the Canada Centre for
Mineral and Energy Technology, has set up a successful
partnership. In an editorial published on November 7, the
newspaper The Northern Miner reported that co-operation
projects undertaken by this agency positively contributes to our
economic growth and job creation in Canada.
Also, partnerships between federal and provincial
governments in the goematics area allow Canada to help other
countries. For example, last month, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs announced new initiatives to help the Ukraine.
Among these initiatives was a $2.3 million contract awarded
to an Alberta company for the second stage of an important land
registration project in the region of Kossiv, in the Ukraine.
Following this project, private interests in this country are
expected to be able to purchase land. This project is the result of
close co-operation between the industry, the Alberta
government and Natural Resources Canada.
(1210 )
[English]
In closing, Bill C-48 demonstrates the government's
commitment to good government. It is a bill that emphasizes
progress toward sustainable development of Canada's energy,
mineral and forest resources. In addition, Bill C-48 emphasizes
co-operation, la coopération entre les provinces, which own the
natural resources, on le reconnaît, so Canadians can move
together into the next century and beyond.
I urge all members to defeat these amendments.
Mr. Morrison: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon.
member for Abitibi seemed to be addressing portions of
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The hon. member for Timiskaming
seemed to be addressing none of them.
Before I make any comments, I would like to know if this is
going to be the end of the debate on the motions? Will we be
voting on the motions immediately after?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The debate is on Motions
Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Members can choose to speak to one or all
collectively. Yes, on completion of the debate I will put the
question.
8024
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I assume we will be voting on
the amendments separately but I would like to speak on all of
them in the interest of time. Is my assumption correct?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Yes, when we get to the
votes, as I understand, Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately.
The vote on Motion No. 4 will be applied to Motion No. 6. There
will be two votes. I hope that is of assistance to the member and
others.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hold up
the business of the House with my questions, but it is nice to
know where one is going.
With respect to Motion No. 4, the principle that the federal
government does not interfere in matters under provincial
jurisdiction without first gaining the co-operation of the
provinces is a well-established Canadian custom.
I do not see any harm in spelling this out by insisting on the
word ``shall'' in paragraph (1)(a). It appears to belabour the
obvious but since the motion will be voted on with Motion No. 6,
in order to support Motion No. 6, I will support Motion No. 4.
Motion No. 6 is an amendment that would restrain the federal
government from entering into forest protection and
management agreements with private entities. I hope the object
of this amendment, although the mover did not spell it out,
would be to restrain federal porkbarrelling. Certainly it will
have that effect if passed. Therefore we support the motion.
The object of Motion No. 5 seems to be to prevent the federal
government from acting on purely technical matters without a
unanimous request by the provinces. In a federal state this is
absurd. The 10 provinces of Canada can never agree on
anything. We are not talking about policy. We are talking about
simple technical decisions.
An excellent case can be made for reduced federal
government in technical activities under provincial jurisdiction
but this is a matter of policy. It requires no changes to the act. It
only requires a change to the government.
Therefore I will have to oppose Motion No. 5 because it is so
couched that it would hamstring or put into a straitjacket the
functioning of this department.
(1215)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to commend the hon. member for Abitibi on presenting
these amendments.
Earlier, in this House the Bloc was accused of playing
politics. I do not think standing on our rights is playing politics.
I do not think talking about Quebec's history is playing politics.
To support my case, I would refer hon. members to a federalist
and a Liberal to boot, but a great man just the same: Jean Lesage.
In 1960, Mr. Lesage said that resource development was
exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that it was
part of the rights and priority requirements of the provinces,
which were in a better position than the federal government to
take effective and lasting action. That was Jean Lesage, who sat
in this very House.
He also said that one of the fundamental rules of our
federalism should be that Parliament's exceptional powers
should be just that and not be used to encroach on areas that were
normally the responsibility of the provinces. Some people might
say, sure, but what about the development plan for Eastern
Quebec? Is that not a valid exception? They are right, but it
should remain an exception, as Mr. Lesage said.
I could also quote what was said by two of his predecessors.
Daniel Johnson senior, certainly more of a nationalist than his
namesake, referred to exclusive jurisdiction over the
exploration, conservation and development of natural
resources. I could also quote what was said by Jean-Jacques
Bertrand. In any case, what we in Quebec want, and I hope the
other provinces do as well, is to prevent the federal government
from dealing directly with individuals, because when I read the
bill, it says the federal government would be able to deal with
the provinces or with persons. I think eventually, this would
mean not duplication but three levels of intervention, not all of
which would be governmental, since it would be possible to deal
directly with individuals, over the heads of the provincial
governments, and we object to that.
When it talks about co-operation, the federal government
should say to the provinces: What are your demands? What do
you want? In that case, the lines would be clearly drawn.
Co-operation would be on a fair and equitable basis, which is
what we want, and that is also the purpose of the amendments we
proposed. I hope that everyone in this House will realize that
this is not just for Quebec and that these amendments are useful
for Manitoba, Ontario and all the other provinces, and I would
ask both sides of the House for their support in adopting these
amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote on motion No. 4
will also apply to motion No. 6.
(1220)
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
8025
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
During the ringing of the bells:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, I have been requested by the chief opposition whip to
defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to
Standing Order 45, the division on the question now before the
House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m. at which time
the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more
than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 16, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
read a second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-53, an Act to establish
the Department of Canadian Heritage.
It is a very interesting bill, except it comes at a time when the
Minister of Finance has just realized, a year too late, that
Canada's economic situation is unbearable, at a time when the
Minister of Finance has just declared we should cut
expenditures and at a time when interest on the debt has
exceeded the GDP.
This is the moment when the Liberal government chooses to
establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and increase
duplication and overlap, thus increasing expenses. Indeed, the
Liberal government stubbornly insists on making unilateral
moves in the cultural area in Quebec.
(1225)
This has been going on far too long. Enough with the
unilateral approach of the federal government. There is a reality
here, there is a francophone nation in Canada, with its own
cultural values and its own language, a nation that has been
claiming its own rights for too long.
This House must remember all the representations Quebec
has made over the last thirty years in the cultural sector. Since
1966, all of Quebec's premiers have asked that the cultural
policy and related budgets be repatriated to Quebec. All were
unanimous in stating that the social, economic and cultural
development of the Quebec people should be under Quebec's
jurisdiction.
Should I go over it again? In 1966, Mr. Johnson demanded
decision-making authority in the area of cultural development.
In 1969, Mr. Bertrand claimed that cultural affairs were under
Quebec jurisdiction. In 1971, Mr. Bourassa asked for a review of
constitutional powers in the area of culture. In 1973, he
requested a transfer of cultural policies and budgets. In 1975,
Quebec asked for exclusive law-making rights. In 1978, Quebec
requested the opening of negotiations between Ottawa and
Quebec. In 1985, Quebec was still raising the need for a
constitutional agreement. In 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission stressed the need to give Quebec exclusive
jurisdiction and responsibility over its social, economic and
cultural development, as well as over linguistic matters.
Successive federal governments systematically ignored those
requests. The present government is no different. Incapable of
recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness, it tends to oppose its
development.
In 1994, the federal government introduced a bill, the sole
objective of which was to deny the distinctiveness of our
society. Yet, our society is distinct! The government is rejecting
a series of claims.
8026
Liberal members must lift the veil covering our cultural
reality. The bill mentions the Canadian identity, something
based on the primary characteristics of Canada: bilingualism
and multiculturalism.
First of all, we have to wonder whether there is a Canadian
culture. Is there really such a thing? I ask you! Such a definition
of Canadian culture negates the existence of the other culture,
the Quebec culture.
Instead, the Liberal government should be working at
balancing the CBC's budgets. To share the budgets fairly
between the French and the English networks, fifty-fifty, is a
must derived from bilingualism. Before we can believe in the
subject-matter of this bill and in its implementation, there is
still a long way to go.
The sharing of responsibilities between the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage is simply
incoherent, a fact we have been witness to in this very House.
Both ministers have authority in the same areas, but have
different visions. Moreover, there is no consultation whatsoever
between the two of them. We were given the opportunity to come
to that conclusion on several occasions, particularly with
respect to the information highway advisory committee.
The Liberal government must get its priorities straight; the
interests of the industry and those of a people, a language, a
culture, are not the same and cannot be dealt with from the same
perspective.
(1230)
It is inhuman to keep writers, creators, performers waiting for
over six years for a reform of copyright and intellectual
property. It is crazy to want to turn these creations into an
industrial market. I say an industrial market, because the
Minister of Industry prefers the American copyright system to
our copyright and neighbouring rights system; there is no clear
choice yet, even though the Minister of Canadian Heritage must
favour the latter since it is the only one which recognizes
creators' efforts and highlights culture.
All these considerations and a lot of others, which could be
debated for months and months, make it only more apparent that
the bill, as tabled, does not give the Department of Canadian
Heritage the mandate it should have. Given this fact, the Bloc
Quebecois supports the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish
the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal
certain other acts, be not now read a second time but that the
order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject-matter
thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
rise today and share with the members of this House my views
on Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
It is my firm belief that the passage of this bill is essential to
the promotion of Canadian identity and the development of our
country. The Department of Canadian Heritage has been
working for over a year now in a variety of areas important to all
Canadians. It has pursued its mandate with confidence and
success, in all its areas of activity. The bill, which officially
establishes the Department of Canadian Heritage, is a
housekeeping measure.
The department works in several areas of responsibility that
are not just important, but vital to Canadian identity. Whether it
be in cultural development, the arts, official languages,
multiculturalism, conservation of cultural property, national
parks, national historic sites, or amateur sport, the Department
of Canadian Heritage is called upon to play an essential role in
the life of all Canadians, in all regions of the country.
The Department of Canadian Heritage develops policies and
manages programs the objectives of which include promoting a
greater understanding of our diversity, encouraging the
participation of all citizens in the life of our society and
ensuring an increased awareness of our abundant cultural and, of
course, natural resources.
The department is of major importance to Canadians. We can
all identify the various ways in which this department has an
impact on us. All its policies and programs have a bearing on our
daily life and our identity as Canadians. For example, the
multicultural make-up of Canada is one of the most enthralling
features of our society and it reflects the fundamental values of
this country.
This diversity that characterizes the Canadian society is
valuable and we have every right to be proud of it. Several
countries are attempting to bring closer together population
groups of different ethnic, cultural, linguistic and racial
backgrounds and turn to Canada to look at the Canadian model.
We have built a country in which French and
English-speaking minority communities can develop and make
a full contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of the
society. Linguistic duality is part and parcel of what constitutes
the very essence of Canada's identity. This duality is deeply
rooted in the very nature of our country. A Canada whose values
would not recognize the importance of our two official
languages would be unthinkable. With its official languages
programs, the Department of Canadian Heritage gives
Canadians the opportunity to appreciate this rich legacy and to
benefit from it to the fullest.
(1235)
Protection, conservation and development of our natural sites
and national historic sites are closely linked to our national
identity. Parks Canada, which is under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Canadian Heritage, plays a prominent role in that
regard. Our 36 national parks and 750 historic sites as well as
our heritage canals and marine conservation areas are precious
national treasures that all Canadians can appreciate. These
illustrate the sort of cultural and natural heritage that we can all
enjoy.
8027
Parks Canada's heritage conservation work is recognized
world-wide. Parks Canada is leading the way in terms of
protecting commemorative and economic unity by complying
with international conventions.
Obviously, the policies and programs of the Department of
Canadian Heritage are powerful tools for promoting Canadian
values and they incorporate responsibilities that make Canada a
unique place to be.
The contribution of the Department of Canadian Heritage is
essential to the development of our country and the survival of
Canadian values.
I urge all the hon. members to support this bill, to allow the
department to pursue its mission and promote Canadian identity,
so that Canada can continue to develop in the era of
globalization we are now entering.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak on this bill. I note that recent disclosures indicate that the
Liberals plan to spend $24 million of taxpayers' money to
establish a Canadian race relations foundation in Toronto.
Not only will this entail an immediate cost to the Canadian
taxpayers, but it will entail an ongoing cost. This is just the
latest example of the absurdity of government funded
multiculturalism.
Hospital beds are being closed in this country. Social policy
review is under way right now. All kinds of government services
are being eliminated or reduced to the taxpayers. In the same
breath we have this government telling us that it is going to
spend $24 million to establish the Canadian race relations
foundation in Toronto.
Does the Liberal government really believe that Canadians
agree with the expenditure of this kind of money for this
purpose? Does the Canadian government really believe that the
taxpayers of this country would ever agree to support such an
expenditure? If the taxpayers could check off on their income
tax returns whether or not they agree to having a portion of their
contributions going toward this expenditure, how many
Canadians would actually tick off the box and say: ``Yes, send
my money to pay for this new $24 million race relations
foundation in Toronto''.
This is another example of how badly out of step this
government is with the Canadian people and how badly it has its
priorities organized.
We are in a deep fiscal crisis in this country. The Canadian
taxpayers know that and the government knows that. We see
evidence of that every day. In the face of that, because we have
this philosophical conviction on the part of the Liberal
government that these things must be funded, they are being
funded to the exclusion of other programs.
In concluding my short remarks, I must say that this
government once again demonstrates and makes it very clear to
all members of this House and to the Canadian people that this
entire rationale for the heritage ministry is undermined by the
very actions that this government is engaged in even as we
speak.
(1240)
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to take part in today's debate and to
support the bill introduced by my colleague to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
First of all, I want to specify that the purpose of this bill is
essentially to grant official status to an organizational structure
created over a year ago and to provide legal means to transfer
employees to this new department.
I really believe that each and every member of the House of
Commons should realize like me that the time has come to
straighten out the status of these departmental employees in
order to give them a sense of belonging.
This government firmly believes in transparency, justice and
full participation of all Canadian citizens in our society. This
government also believes that multicultural communities play a
crucial role by contributing to the economic, social and cultural
wealth of our country. The concept of Canadian identity is at the
centre of all the responsibilities and duties of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
This is why heritage must first and foremost demonstrate the
relationship between members of a community, as well as its
distinct characteristics and its milieu.
Consequently, the range of responsibilities and activities
assigned to the Minister of Canadian Heritage under this bill is
justified. The Department of Canadian Heritage is active in
three main areas that have a common objective. First, there is
the management of the natural and physical heritage comprising
our national parks and our historic monuments and canals.
Second, the management of programs which protect our official
languages, promote amateur sport and ensure other cultural
contributions that can make our society better. Finally, the
management of cultural development in Canada and of means
of communication that are essential not only to preserve our
uniqueness but also as a powerful instrument of economic
development.
8028
Such are the functions of this department and what our
national heritage is all about. Now I would like to examine in
more detail certain aspects of each of these three main areas.
Our heritage is first of all a collection of sites full of history,
which include 36 magnificent national parks, 750 historic sites
and nine canals located throughout Canada. This is a significant
economic sector generating annual revenue of more than one
billion dollars, including $275 million come from foreign
visitors, and employing approximately 30,000 Canadians.
A single figure speaks to the popularity of these sites with
Canadians and foreigners: in 1992, some 27 million people
visited our national parks and historic sites. Therefore, this
sector is at the heart of our tourism industry and makes the envy
of the international community, since we are at the forefront of
what can be called ecotourism.
The multicultural policy is for all Canadians; it is based on the
principle that social change is needed to overcome difficulties
and that society as a whole must assume responsibility for it.
The diversity of the Canadian people must be recognized and
appreciated not only by the government but also by the
institutions, including the media, the health and education
communities and the private sector.
Therefore, the federal government's responsibilities in this
area relate to human rights, equality, equity and access. They are
aimed at eliminating discrimination and building a
multicultural Canada that is vibrant and harmonious.
As far as culture is concerned, the notions of culture and
identity must be considered in the light of the new realities of
our world if we want to have a broader and more relevant
conception of Canada's cultural life.
(1245)
Above all, culture is a window on the world. It is not the
business of the happy few, to use a popular expression. It
encompasses all the characteristics that are representative of a
community or even a country. Culture is an integral part of our
social fabric and our identity.
So, without culture, we have no identity. It must be
emphasized that culture is not an abstract concept but a vital
bond that joins us together. Canada's cultural policy was built on
that premise.
I will use the economic argument by reminding you that, in
1991-92 the total contribution made by the cultural sector to the
GDP was $22 billion or 3.7 per cent of the GDP. Moreover, this
sector employs close to 500,000 Canadians. Therefore, it is
fitting that the government should pay close attention to it.
I would go as far as to say that it is more important than ever
that the government intervene judiciously in this sector, again
for economic and cultural reasons. At a time when borders are
becoming less clearly defined and it is imperative to protect our
identity, the concept of a national cultural policy takes on a
whole new meaning.
After all, let us ask the question in plain words: what is the
purpose of this government's cultural policy? It is not to impose
actual choices to Canadians but to ensure that quality Canadian
cultural products are available on our own market. That is why
we must provide to our creative artists a favourable environment
for the production of their works, and safeguard our Canadian
culture and truly Canadian cultural industries.
In summary, I have to say that I understand the logic behind
the establishment of this department. It groups together the
components of the Canadian identity and by the same token
gives Canada a vision of its future identity.
It is with pleasure that I support Bill C-53.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I already
had the opportunity to speak on the amendment by my colleague
from Rimouski concerning this bill.
Today, I would like to expand on what I have already said and
also remind the hon. members of the context under which I am
examining this bill.
First of all, the bill proposes that the Minister of Canadian
Heritage be responsible, among other things, for cultural
heritage and cultural industries, including performing arts,
visual and audio-visual arts, publishing, sound recording, film,
video and literature.
Having said that, we must realize that the powers given to the
minister extend to all matters not assigned by Parliament to
other departments, and I am referring here to clause 4.(1) of the
bill.
The last time, this had led me to conclude that, for all intents
and purposes, this bill gives the minister of Heritage the power
to talk about heritage, but no regulating power, no intervening
power, no real power whatsoever to ensure the protection of
Quebec and Canada's values at whatever level. However, in the
last minutes, I have been listening to my colleagues claiming
that this bill will have many benefits for the heritage issue.
Today, I would like to give you a concrete, specific example
which illustrates that this bill does not address in any way the
potential threats to our heritage. This example came to me after
reading a recent article written by Mr. Henri Lamoureux in Le
Devoir, entitled ``Indecent Proposals for Artists'':
(1250)
``Indecent Proposals for Artists''. ``The HRD minister's plan
stems from a desire to make the poor foot the bill for extravagant
government spending''.
8029
By the way, Mr. Lamoureux is an author, a member of the
board of UNEQ and a member of the Quebec social
development council. He teaches at the school of social work
of the Université de Montréal. He also sits on the federal
sectoral council for culture.
You see, Mr. Speaker, now is the time to cultivate, to build
tomorrow's heritage. But the minister of Canadian Heritage
leaves a number of matters in the hands of his colleagues, the
minister of Human Resources Development in particular, the net
result being that culture and Canadian talent are in jeopardy.
Author Henri Lamoureux says that the social security reform
proposal put forth by the Chrétien government may well affect
creative artists at many levels. If it were to be implemented as is,
it would make life quite unbearable for a number of us.
Let us try and set this in context. Creative artists are
professionals with self-employed worker status. Bear in mind
also that some are free lances who lend their services to
producers for a fee. Take authors for example. In their trade,
they have to sign contracts whereby they assign part of their
royalties in exchange for a cut on the sales of their books. The
sad reality is that most of them live in conditions that border on
poverty and must rely on some other generally insecure and
low-paid job to survive, perform their art and build our future
heritage.
Allow me to complete this picture by adding that in many
cases, more often than not, they have to go on welfare, but this is
not of their own free choice.
So, how can the heritage minister ignore this reality? Why
does he not have a word with his colleague, the HRD minister?
Allow me again to quote Mr. Lamoureux, who said this: ``For
example, how can we reconcile the need to be available for work
with the requirements of the novel- or poetry-writing process?
How can we allow artists to use the resources allocated to job
training, when we know that artists will train while practising
their art, generally among peers?''
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the heritage minister of
some realities he seems to be unfamiliar with. You see, reading,
writing, observing, realizing are research activities which to a
writer are practical, professional and learning experiences.
The actress learning a role she hopes to play some day,
familiarizing herself with an author, paying for dancing or
singing lessons, learning while practising her art, is working on
her art. To engage in these activities, artists must learn how to
negotiate contracts, how to sell their products or services, even
how to use computers. Artists must be versatile.
Mr. Speaker, allow me again to quote Mr. Lamoureux for the
benefit of the heritage minister: ``The Liberal government's
narrow economic and strict industrial vision of job training
suggests that we as artists can expect little from this
government''.
That is not all, as the heritage minister should note. As far as
their access to social programs is concerned, artists are in dire
straits. For instance, a writer who accepts small jobs in order to
practice her art will see her eventual UI benefits reduced in
proportion to her spouse's salary. This is a totally unacceptable
form of supervision not only for artists but for everyone. We
know that, unfortunately, this measure would affect mostly
women.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Mr. Lamoureux for
the benefit of the heritage minister:
(1255)
``As for artists collecting UI benefits, how will the
government manage the requirement to register for job training
or retraining programs that the minister wants to impose on
those who get so few contracts that they are condemned to
precarious employment? Will a famous author who takes three,
four or five years to write a novel be penalized because he takes
short-term jobs to pay the rent, thus frequently having to rely on
social security?''
He goes on to say: ``The real motivation behind the proposed
reform is to make the poorest pay for government
extravagance''.
My colleague from Rimouski questioned the heritage
minister's ability to play tough with the industry minister. Now
we have to add the human resources development minister. With
the bill before us, we really do not have to wonder any more: the
game is becoming quite illegal. Again, I quote Mr. Lamoureux:
``It is not right. No more so than Jean Chrétien's
contemptuous mantra that individual dignity is wholly
dependent on work, taken to mean some stable, paid, taxable
activity''.
I would really like to appeal to the Prime Minister himself to
support his heritage minister and revise this bill, but I fear that I
would be wasting my time.
In conclusion, I could not do better than to quote Mr.
Lamoureux again: ``Needless to say, in this field as in others,
Quebec artists will massively side with their national
government in Quebec City''.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the
opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-53, an act to
put into law the organization of the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
This bill, as previous members have stated, includes
responsibilities in the areas of cultural development,
multiculturalism, official languages, heritage conservation,
national parks, national historic sites and amateur sport.
8030
I would like to address from this responsibility of the
department two areas that are particularly sensitive in my riding
of Broadview-Greenwood, which is downtown Toronto. The
first has to do with cultural industries.
I have in my riding close to 14 motion picture sound stages.
This is where Canadians are busy working sometimes two and
three shifts a day manufacturing motion pictures mostly for
export, and not just the North American markets. As of just
recently, as you know, Mr. Speaker, ``Degrassi Junior High'' can
be watched in China. When you are in your hotel room you can
use your channel server. There are not very many channels in
Beijing. When a group of us went there a few months ago, we
noticed that Degrassi was being aired in China.
I want to talk about this industry because I think there is a
great misunderstanding in the minds of Canadians about the
value that the motion picture industry brings to the economy of
Canada. Quite often Canadians will only focus on that part of the
industry that they tend to see in lights. They tend to see the
actors and actresses, the Academy Awards and the long
limousines. Yet there is very little time and energy spent on
appreciating what goes into making up that great industry which
is so much a part of our culture.
We are talking about cameramen and women, set designers,
costume designers, costume makers, lens grinders, carpenters.
(1300)
These are craftsmen recognized right now as being the best in
the world. The Canadian motion picture factories are recognized
by the Germans, by the Americans as being an elite
manufacturing force. It has taken many years to build that
industry in this country. It has been this department of heritage
that has really traditionally provided a lot of the seed money that
went into supporting the artists and the craftsmen and women
who go together and who today have made a world class
industry.
I think it is important for all members of this House to realize
that when we are speaking to the importance of this bill we never
forget that the motion picture industries, the cultural industries,
are a tremendous economic impact in a positive way to our GNP.
The fact that this bill is going to make this department of
heritage much more efficient is a credit to this government
because with such limited fiscal resources these days we have to
make sure that we do not do anything to diminish the support for
this industry which is integral to the job creation commitment
we made in the red book during the last election.
The second part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, is something
that is a little closer to your heart and it has to do with amateur
hockey. I believe that Canadians need a wake up call when it
comes to amateur hockey. It is not just hockey, it is amateur
sport generally. Too often in the past amateur sport has been
taken for granted in this country and once again we are facing a
crisis with sport in this country. As most Canadians can see
right now we are going to have our first ever Grey Cup final as a
Canadian and American event. We have watched the demise of
the Canadian Football League.
I know that is professional but the reason I think it is
important is that the underpinnings of whatever sport we have in
this country at the amateur level must be sustained because
ultimately if our amateur level is in good shape then that will
have a profound impact on the professional experience that
happens in our country with whatever particular sport it is.
I would like to spend a minute or two on amateur hockey.
More than ever at this moment in our history Canadians have to
rally around hockey in our country because we have actually no
set of books on what is going on in hockey. We do not know the
number of jobs involved in Canadian hockey at the amateur
level. We have no complete analysis of this. We have no idea in
terms of what is happening in terms of exports related to the
hockey industry.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are in danger right now of
losing hockey as one of our prime movers and as one of our
prime galvanizers. Let us take for example the teams in Atlantic
Canada, in Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton and there is
also a team in New Brunswick. I think those teams are
vulnerable and I think we stand a very good chance of losing
them. I link the relevance of that to amateur sport because once
again I think that we as Canadians have to make sure that we do
not do anything in this country to diminish our commitment to
amateur sport in general.
Sometimes when we get involved in sport or cultural
industries we enjoy them so much that we do not focus on the
economic side of it. I believe we have always taken these
industries for granted. If we are not very careful we are going to
be in danger of losing these industries and the next thing you
know, Mr. Speaker, you are going to see hockey not being run
out of Canada, but out of New York.
(1305 )
I think one way we can ensure that industry along with all the
other cultural industries that are part and parcel of this bill is for
Canadians to look at them not just in terms of our Canadian
identity, not just in terms of holding this country together, but
also looking at them in terms of the economic impact they have
in making sure we have a very vibrant economy for Canada.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I agree with the
comments of the previous speaker from
Broadview-Greenwood that hockey does need some
fortification. As a former principal of a high
8031
school in which hockey has just become an athletic sport in rural
Manitoba, I subscribe very much to that enterprise.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to join the debate and
speak in support of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department
of Canadian Heritage. Passage of this bill will enable the
department to continue to successfully pursue its mandate.
Bill C-53 is a part of a greater reorganization of government
that will provide streamlining of services and will allow for a
more efficient organizational structure which will prove of
greater benefit to the Canadian taxpayer.
Although this department has its origins in the steps taken by
the previous government in 1993, the current government has
improved on these changes which are reflected in the
accomplishments the department has achieved in one full year.
The Department of Canadian Heritage reflects the sweep of
the new department's mandate, a mandate that includes
responsibilities in the areas of cultural development,
multiculturalism and official languages, heritage conservation,
national parks, national historic sites and amateur sports. In
these areas the department has a common objective of
promoting Canadian identity.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is the chief custodian
of our natural parks, parks preserves, national historic sites,
heritage railway sites, historic railway sites, historic canals,
marine conservation areas, heritage rivers, federal heritage
buildings and of course historical markers.
These national symbols contribute to our national identity in
many ways. They depict a diversity of cultures and natural
environments. They are national symbols and yet they can be
located in virtually any part of this country, urban, rural and
remote. They are tangible links to our illustrious past and help
us to understand where we as a people have come from.
The traditions of Parks Canada began in 1885 and are now
embraced by the Department of Canadian Heritage. These
traditions will continue to protect, preserve and promote these
natural parks and sites which are important to Canadians.
Another key aspect to Canada's parks and historic sites is the
importance to the Canadian economy. National parks and
national historic sites generate annual revenue in excess of $1
billion, including some $275 million from foreign tourists, and
provide jobs for some 30,000 Canadians, both men and women.
Heritage tourism in Canada is also a major job creation
activity. Taking national parks and historic sites as an example,
it is estimated that for every person year of employment
generated as a result of Parks Canada expenditures, between 2.5
in the Atlantic regions and 12.5 in the Alberta region person
years are supported as a result of investment by partners in
sectors directly or indirectly linked to tourism.
A large portion of these jobs are generated in economically
less advantaged areas of the country.
(1310)
The Department of Canadian Heritage recognizes the cultural
diversity of Canada through its multiculturalism policy. I have
heard the members opposite denigrate the efforts of the
multiculturalism sector of the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
The sector works in partnership with Canadian institutions,
ethnocultural communities, individuals, immigrant serving
agencies and other organizations to eliminate racism and
promote integration of ethnocultural minorities in Canadian
society.
Certain members opposite would have us believe that
multiculturalism is multimillion dollar boondoggle. However, I
would point out that on a per capita basis multiculturalism
grants cost each Canadians less than $1. The multiculturalism
program has the aim of promoting equal opportunity for all
Canadians to participate in the social, cultural, economic and
political life of this country.
It would be foolish to get rid of multiculturalism on the
mistaken notion that it exists to finance ethnic folk dances. The
aim of multiculturalism is to help immigrants fit into Canadian
society.
I might also point out to the members opposite that they say
the multiculturalism model does not work. I would like them to
become aware and consult with those Canadians who are
grateful for the multiculturalism policy and its benefits.
The Department of Canadian Heritage not only recognizes the
Canadian diversity among Canadians but also our linguistic
duality. Canada's two official languages are intrinsically linked
to Canadian identity and culture.
Canada's linguistic landscape is dominated by our two
official languages, as English or French is spoken by 98.6 per
cent of the Canadian population.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is committed to
supporting the development and enhancing the vitality of
linguistic minority communities in all sectors and encouraging
Canadians to learn their second official language.
The Department of Canadian Heritage, with its official
languages policies, provides funding for second language
instruction for all provinces and territories. The French
immersion experience constitutes the most studied phenomenon
in the recent history of education in Canada and it is the
consensus of experts that it is an excellent method to learn a
second language.
Another facet that fosters the Canadian identity is the amateur
sports component of which I spoke briefly a moment ago, which
is also a valued component of Canadian heritage. Games and
8032
related events like the Canada Games and the 15th
Commonwealth Games held this summer in Victoria are a
fundamental vehicle for fostering and illustrating important
Canadian values such as the pursuit of excellence and cultural
diversity.
Finally, the Department of Canadian Heritage has focused its
efforts on the management of cultural development in Canada.
The Department of Canadian Heritage nurtures and supports
culture. It does so because it not only enriches our lives, it also
improves the economic well-being of Canadians.
Despite what other members would have us believe, culture
adds richness to our lives, giving people a way to express
creativity and at the same time creates jobs and wealth. Bringing
the cultural functions together in a single department will enable
the Government of Canada to take more concrete action, making
it possible to defend the interests of cultural minorities across
this country.
In addition, the department is responsible for providing
funding and encouraging cultural agencies that have a national
mandate such as the CBC, the National Arts Centre, the Canada
Council, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board.
Clearly the mission of the Department of Canadian Heritage
is closely linked to the major issues facing Canada today. It is
more important than ever to start thinking of the importance of
Canada's cultural complexity as an asset at a time when
economies are opening up in different countries and around the
world. That is why I strongly urge the quick passage of this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45 I have been requested by the deputy government whip
to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to
Standing Order 45 the division of the question now before the
House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which
time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not
more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, because of the rapid progress
made this morning I think you might find unanimous consent to
suspend the sitting until 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion by the chief government whip. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.16 p.m.)
[Translation]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8032
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, does a civilized
society allow people who commit criminal acts to be exonerated
if they are so intoxicated of their own volition as to not be able to
form the intent to commit the crime? I think not.
After reading the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in
the Henri Daviault case I find that I must agree with the
dissenting view. Although I can understand the legal arguments
put forward by the six Supreme Court justices I do not accept
them. I believe there is a point where common sense must be
used instead of common law of this nature.
It has been suggested this defence would be so rare that
corrective measures would be unnecessary. In the two months
since the decision there have been four successful uses of the
drunkenness defence. The dike is about to open.
The point is simple. Individuals are accountable for their
conduct notwithstanding their intoxication. The message must
be loud and clear: Drunkenness is not a defence. I ask the
Minister of Justice to promptly legislate this common sense rule
for the integrity of our justice system and for the good of
Canada.
8033
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
brand-name pharmaceutical company in the Montreal area,
Biochem Pharma, has made an important scientific and medical
breakthrough with its AIDS drug, 3TC. With clinical results that
have been called spectacular, 3TC well illustrates the research
work done by brand-name drug companies.
This result could not have been achieved without the
protection provided by the Drug Patent Act, which encourages
multimillion-dollar investments in this field in order to increase
the potential of biomedical research. Nevertheless, prudence is
in order and we must not raise false hopes. Our society has a
moral obligation to act cautiously, in a way that respects AIDS
patients.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
commemorate Trough Day, this auspicious day when 52
members mostly from the Liberal caucus have achieved that
noble milestone of having served for six years. Today they are
about to reap the rewards of that remarkable achievement.
I must say that these Liberal MPs must be breathing a huge
sigh of relief. Their red book promises seem to jeopardize their
pensions, but the Prime Minister being the good guy that he is
has come through for them. His inaction on MP pensions has
guaranteed that the trough is in fine working order in spite of the
red book rhetoric.
Oh what a happy day for all the newest members of the
pension payoff as they witness the old trough filled to the brim
with hard earned taxpayers' dollars.
A word of warning to our gleeful colleagues though. These
pensions are not regarded as a sacred trust by either the
Reformers or the taxpayers. We will use whatever legal means
are available to dismantle the trough and end this shameful
abuse of taxpayers' money just as soon as we are sworn in as
government after the next election.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, November 20, Canadians all over the
country celebrated National Child Day. The Government of
Canada designated this special day to pay tribute to children and
everything they offer us today and in the future.
[Translation]
November 20 also marks the adoption, by the UN General
Assembly, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That
convention is important because it deals with every aspect of the
life of children and youth. It recognizes that, to reach his full
potential, a child needs to grow in a climate of happiness, love
and understanding. In short, the convention provides a
framework to value and respect children and youth as
full-fledged human beings.
[English]
I call on members of this House to join in the celebration of
children and to think about some of the more pressing issues still
facing children and youth in Canada. By working together we
will realize the full potential of the convention on the rights of
the child.
* * *
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today we have heard the need for stricter gun
control from representatives of the Coalition for Gun Control
and women's groups. I congratulate these groups for pointing
out how controlling the legal acquisition of firearms is an
important issue for women.
According to Statistics Canada a woman is shot to death every
five days in our country. Guns are the weapon of choice by
husbands who kill their wives. Indeed, almost half of the women
killed by their partners are shot and 78 per cent of the guns used
are legally owned.
We believe that enhanced gun control will go a long way
toward reducing the number of women killed by their partners.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to remind the House that November is
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Awareness month.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in
Canada today. More than 80,000 Canadians will die this year
from heart attacks and strokes.
CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is a simple life saving
skill learned in less than four hours, yet less than 3 per cent of
Canadians know how to perform it. The Heart and Stroke
Foundation of Canada in co-operation with the Canadian Red
Cross Society, St. John Ambulance, the Canadian Ski Patrol, the
Royal Life Saving Society of Canada and the Advanced
Coronary Treatment Foundation encourage all Canadians to
take the time to learn CPR.
CPR efforts complement cardiovascular disease strategies
implemented under the Canadian heart health initiative. These
8034
have been developed between the 10 provinces and the Heart and
Stroke Foundation of Canada.
I ask members of the House to support the initiatives and
programs of CPR Awareness Month and to urge all Canadians to
familiarize themselves with CPR. A few hours of your time
could save a loved one.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister of Canada displayed a great deal of
condescension last week when he deigned to stop in Vietnam.
The Prime Minister said: ``I could have visited much larger
countries, but I am a Liberal and I do not want to always side
with the big ones. I like being with those who experience real
difficulties''.
What a nice attitude on the part of the Prime Minister towards
a country whose population is three times that of Canada. His
paternalistic feelings towards such small countries are quite
something, especially when it comes to raising the issue of
human rights. The Prime Minister expresses his democratic
convictions much more timidly when he is with the biggies.
Indeed, during his trip to Asia, the Prime Minister insisted to
fraternize with several heads of state who systematically violate
human rights, thus showing very little consideration for the
victims.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, real consequence is often necessary in life and living to
prevent a strong willed child from touching a hot stove or to
keep a young person from a life of crime. Real consequence is
missing from the Young Offenders Act.
Canadians want changes to the Young Offenders Act calling
for greater deterrentce and accountability of the offender and
greater protection for the rights of the victim. One petition
printed one day just over one month ago in the Vancouver
Province resulted in over 13,000 letters and faxes sent into my
office from across B.C. They were from concerned citizens who
chose not to just read about but act upon their concerns for our
youth.
I am pleased as their representative that the minister has
agreed to accept their many testimonials, letters and petitions in
a presentation in the House lobby today.
On behalf of those Canadians I call on the Minister of Justice
and all members of the justice committee to look past social
philosophy and respond to the concern in our communities.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say just how much I welcome the good news that
the Great Whale project in northern Quebec has been shelved.
I hope this comes to be seen as a watershed decision after
which our civilization's energy problems will come to be solved
by changes on the demand side through conservation and the
pursuit of soft energy paths. The Government of Quebec is to be
congratulated on this decision.
[Translation]
This decision is a great victory for environmental groups and
natives in the region who fought against the project. On behalf
of all Canadians, I thank them for their courageous efforts and
for giving us hope.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to stand and praise Bill C-41 that has now passed second
reading and has been sent to the justice committee for
consideration.
Bill C-41 clearly states that acts of hate shall be considered
for additional punishment over and above the original crime that
has been committed. In other words if the intent of assaulting an
individual is not only to inflict pain but to intimidate others,
then two crimes have been committed, one of violence and one
of hate.
I fully support this legislation. It will benefit all Canadians
since every Canadian has a colour, religion, age and sexual
orientation. I urge all members to support Bill C-41.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Canadians marked a day that is very important for the
family unit and for society in general.
National Child Day is an opportunity for us to emphasize the
importance of children in our society. We must all work hard to
ensure that our children can lead happy and productive lives,
because they are Canada's future.
8035
[English]
It is our responsibility as members of this House and for many
of us as parents to ensure that no child in Canada should have to
live in poverty, die of hunger, suffer from sexual abuse or be a
victim of child pornography or prostitution.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I also want to draw the attention of the House to
the fact that community organizations in the riding of
Saint-Denis are doing an incredible job in working with
children. I would like to refer more particularly to what is being
done by the Jouthèque de Villeray, which assists disadvantaged
women and children in many ways.
Finally, I wish to commend the hon. member for Ottawa
Centre on his contribution towards creating this important day.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
cancellation of the Great Whale hydroelectric project
announced on November 18 represents a great victory for the
Cree people. Under the fine leadership of Matthew Coon-Come
they led a successful campaign mobilizing public opinion
against this ill-conceived project.
Let us hope its cancellation will lead to the future adoption of
policies whereby the environment will be taken into account
before decisions are made. In this case no consideration was
given to the fact that flooding would once again lead to the
formation of methyl mercury which in turn poisons the fish and
those who eat them.
Let us also hope that the era of large hydroelectric projects in
Canada has come to an end and that future energy needs will be
met through greater energy efficiency and conservation, through
greater discipline in energy consumption and through
intensified research on alternative and renewable sources of
energy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on April 20, 1989, an aboriginal leader rose in the State
House in Augusta, Maine, to speak to its representatives about
the James Bay agreement. He said that as a people, they had won
the assurance that they would be able to preserve their way of
life, including hunting, fishing and trapping rights and their
language and culture.
(1410)
Thanks to the agreement, they obtained what they never had
before: full responsibility for education, through the Cree
School Board, for social and health services, for the
management of their land, and a strong voice in the approval of
new developments on their land, rights that respect the land's
resources, rights that guarantee police protection and a justice
system adapted to their needs, and guarantees that they will be
able to participate fully in the development of sub-arctic
Quebec.
The speaker was none other than Matthew Coon-Come.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport keeps suggesting that the
Reform Party is putting the taxpayers' money at risk in the
Pearson contract. The truth is it is the government that did this
by refusing to act on my proposal before this issue went to court.
Large sums of the very taxpayers' money the government
claims to be concerned about is now being spent on ineffective
legal roadblocks trying to delay the court action. If the minister
had agreed to the proposal I sent him last month, funds could
now be spent determining the truth instead of trying to cover it
up.
There are many ways in which the claims against the
government could be effectively reduced, particularly in the
case of third party contractors. These solutions will never be
found if the government continues to try and protect itself by
changing the laws instead of seeking practical solutions.
I now call on the minister to meet with me so that we can
arrange an alternative that will see justice done without
unnecessary expense for the Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 26, the Bloc member for Lévis insinuated that the
Minister of Human Resources Development was trying to go
against the Quebec government in the matter of youth service,
and I quote:
Does the minister not admit that his attitude in the youth service matter
clearly shows that he is trying to muzzle the Quebec government?
According to the Quebec newspaper
Le Soleil, because of the
enthusiasm created by the first two parts of Youth Service
Canada some 52 schools and community agencies proposed
projects.
8036
But we also learn that two weeks ago the assistant deputy
minister of education, Mr. Jacques Lanoue, wrote Mr. Michel
Walsh, director of adult education at the Portneuf school board,
one of the 52 organizations wishing to benefit from the Youth
Service program, to ask him not to sign any agreement with
Ottawa. This request by the Quebec deputy minister is
disquieting because it will prevent young Quebecers from
getting an important part of the budget of $15 million.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians love success stories, especially about themselves.
That is why everybody is talking about the Prime Minister's
trade mission to Asia. One hundred and forty political leaders
and 350 executives created the impressive Team Canada. They
signed almost $10 billion in contracts in China and Indonesia.
New contracts lead to new jobs and help us in our task of
getting Canadians back to work. But this mission achieved
something even more impressive. It re-established an
atmosphere of co-operation in federal-provincial relations. It
showed Canadians that the premiers and the Prime Minister can
work together. It showed them that federalism does work.
Nothing succeeds like success. I for one am hopeful that this
new sense of co-operation is the basis for future success stories
and that Team Canada carries on.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his Liberal red ink book had
promised to reform the MPs pension fund. While in opposition
the Prime Minister was concerned that this issue was of such
importance he wanted to recall Parliament to end double dipping
and establish an age requirement with respect to the collection
of pensions.
Today 46 more Liberal trough feeders are joining the crew.
The golden pension for these 46 will cost Canadian taxpayers
almost $1 million when they leave Parliament.
The government had to borrow $158 million to top up the
pension plan in 1992. The Prime Minister should end this lunacy
and live up to his promises of past and present. Regardless of
what his 46 new trough feeders think, he should make any new
pension reform retroactive to election day, October 25, 1993.
8036
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Liberal members have decided to resurrect the
third option favoured by the Trudeau government to reduce U.S.
influence on the Canadian economy. The majority report's
recommendation to make the Asia-Pacific region Canada's
export market par excellence is the one that will be debated and
that has been submitted to the government.
People will start wondering why the government did not
concentrate on developing our trade relations with the United
States now that NAFTA has been ratified.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he
endorse the misgivings of his members who see trade relations
with the United States as a problem rather than a benefit, and
should we see this as lingering Liberal opposition to the free
trade agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly not. However, everyone realizes that the
Pacific is becoming increasingly important. At the APEC
Conference held in Jakarta, where the United States and Canada
were represented, everyone was in favour of free trade in that
area, because that is where the world's population and economic
growth are concentrated. And that is why Canada wants to
participate. In fact, the Americans do as well. This will not
affect our trade relations with the United States. There are
considerable opportunities there for Canadians and Canadian
industry. I think this was a joint decision by all Canadians, since
nine Premiers representing three political parties were there,
and they all agreed with our decision to take advantage of
expanding markets in the Pacific to create jobs in Canada.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that 80
per cent of Canadian exports, and a little more last month, go to
the United States, while the figure for Asia is about 7 or 8 per
cent.
That being the case, I would ask him whether he endorses the
suggestion made by members of the committee who, now that
NAFTA has been ratified, recommend eliminating trade
commissioner posts in the United States and Mexico.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, we signed NAFTA, and I have had
discussions with, for instance, the President of Chile and the
President of Mexico, and in those discussions we supported the
inclusion of Chile in NAFTA, because we believe it is important
8037
to have more than just three countries in this association, and we
will definitely talk about this at the summit next month in
Miami.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we do not need good intentions. We need concrete
action on government policies. I would ask the Prime Minister
whether he does not consider it essential to maintain the network
of Canadian trade commissioners in the United States in order to
support the efforts of Canadian businesses, especially SMEs
that want to take advantage of new markets that have opened up
as a result of NAFTA.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade is always looking at our country's needs everwhere in the
world. Of course with the restriction that every department is
facing at this time there is a review of all the posts that are open.
We will keep those that are absolutely needed in accordance
with the amount of money we can spend.
There is no such proposition whereby we want to reduce the
level of trade with the United States. At the same time we want
to increase trade with the Pacific rim. Our economy will benefit
through good trade relations with the United States and better
relations than now with the Pacific where the growth and
potential is at this time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday in Washington, the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of
the Crees, Matthew Coon Come, continued his systematic
campaign to denigrate Quebec in the United States, accusing
Quebec of racism towards the Crees. In the same speech, he
referred to the James Bay Agreement as an instrument for
oppression and dispossession.
Does the Prime Minister dissocate himself from Mr. Coo
Come's untruthful remarks? Does he intend to instruct the
Canadian embassy in Washington to intervene and set the record
straight concerning the Crees' situation in Northern Quebec?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not read this speech by the chief of the Crees of
New Quebec. I believe that it is not the government's role to go
and make speeches whenever someone says something we do
not quite agree with.
This Cree chief makes speeches; he has opinions and he
expresses them. This does not mean that we must agree with
him. In a country where freedom of speech exists, all citizens
are entitled to express their own point of view. When someone
says things with which the Bloc Quebecois does not agree, it can
respond. It has the right to do so. If the Liberals do not agree,
they can do the same.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
noticed that the Prime Minister neither completely agreed nor
completely disagreed with Mr. Coon Come. It would be
interesting if he could tell us what he agrees with.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that instead of hunting
separatists, his ambassador in Washington should spend more
time putting the facts straight, since the Cree defamation
campaign is bad not only for the image of Quebec in the U.S.,
but also for the image of Canada as a whole?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was saying earlier that there is freedom of speech in
Canada as well as in the United States. No one, anywhere, is
supposed to have his or her speeches cleared by the ambassador.
People make speeches and if the hon. member does not agree
with them, he can answer them. The audience of the Cree grand
chief is known. The hon. member can write and put the facts
straight.
I know that Crees in Canada have many long-held grievances.
I was Minister of Indian Affairs and I know that the citizens of
the First Nations have been complaining for a long time. They
did not always get justice, and they have reason to complain.
As for his choice of words, when I was minister, I was the
target of some inflated vocabulary but I am not the one to
rescind their freedom of expression.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the biggest day on the government's parliamentary
calendar trough day, when over 50 MPs qualify for lifetime gold
plated pensions, well over 80 per cent paid for by the taxpayers
of Canada.
For over one year the Prime Minister has promised to allow
MPs to opt out of these obscene pensions and to make private
arrangements on the same basis as other Canadians.
Does the Prime Minister agree that MPs pensions should be
brought in line with private sector standards or not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said clearly in the red book that we would deal with
some problems regarding pensions of members of Parliament.
We talked about double dipping and the situation that prevails
when some retire very early in life and get a very big pension.
8038
These two problems are mentioned in the red book and will be
corrected when the President of the Treasury Board will
introduce legislation within a month or two in this House.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister mentions correcting the age problem. It has
been suggested that the government may raise the age of
eligibility for the MP pension to 55. On this basis alone, the MP
pension would still be more generous than 99.9 per cent of all
private sector plans.
Will the Prime Minister admit that such tinkering is totally
inadequate to deal with the problem?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have always defended the compensation that
members of Parliament receive.
I understand the Reform Party believes that they are overpaid.
I do not understand why. They look at themselves and they think
they are overpaid.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the Prime Minister's salary were tied to the financial
performance of the Government of Canada, he would be
overpaid by about half a billion dollars a year.
In recent years both the Alberta and Prince Edward Island
governments have made significant reforms to their pensions,
reforms that affected past members already benefiting from the
excesses they had voted themselves.
(1425 )
Will the Prime Minister commit in principle to applying any
reform to MP pensions to past MPs as well as to sitting MPs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I have to
smile, Mr. Speaker, because some of these members were
grandstanding when they offered to cut their pay by 10 per cent.
Now they say that they have not received any credit for that so
they will stop. I think they are just grandstanding again. The
people of Canada understand that that party has been a complete
failure since the election.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Last week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated
that, with only minor modifications, the facilities at Kingston
would be able to accommodate all Canadian Forces officer
cadets as early as next year. For this reason, he dismissed the
proposal for a gradual transition that the mayor of Saint-Jean
had made and that was perfectly acceptable to the Quebec
government.
Can the minister tell us if there is any truth to the rumour that
the government plans to build additional facilities next year to
accommodate some 700 officer cadets to meet the requirements
resulting from the closing of the military college in Saint-Jean?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec keeps playing with the
lives of members of the community in Saint-Jean and with those
of the teachers.
We have an agreement in hand, an agreement signed by both
levels of government, ensuring that the college in Saint-Jean
can survive, while the community continues to prosper. There
are no hidden costs. All costs are in the open and there are
substantial savings to be made by concentrating our military
college operations in Kingston. The situation remains
unchanged. All I am asking from the Quebec government is that
it honour its signature on this document, which constitutes an
agreement in due form between the governments of Quebec and
Canada.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
interpret correctly what the minister said, additional facilities
will indeed be built next year. That is what I understood.
Does the minister recognize that, in spite of the major outlay
of capital forecast by the government to increase the
accommodation capacity of the college in Kingston, existing
facilities will definitely not meet the needs during the transition
period, while the officer cadets population is brought down from
1,200 to 900, this being the opinion of the commanding officer
of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean himself, Colonel
Parisien?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of the
financial facts dealing with the closure of the two colleges were
tabled at the standing committee some months ago. They were
not challenged by members of the opposition. They were not
challenged by other members of the public.
There were expenditures that were authorized by the previous
government to begin construction in 1995. These had nothing
whatsoever to do with the consolidation of the colleges into
Kingston but had to do with the need for ongoing repairs and
new facilities that would have been required in any event.
With respect to some allegations that we will have to build a
dormitory, that is entirely false because there are enough
dormitory beds available at CFB Kingston to accommodate the
overflow until we get to a steady state of about 700 to 800
cadets, which will be within three or four years.
8039
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, for almost three weeks now three Indian bands have
illegally blocked the road to the Apex ski resort near Penticton,
British Columbia. Two hundred and fifty people have been
denied their right to work. The owners of the resort are facing
financial ruin and the 300 homeowners in the Apex area are
subjected to daily harassment.
Feelings in the non-native and the native communities are
running high and the battle lines are being drawn in a dispute
that I fear is headed for violence. Yet the minister of Indian
affairs has refused to act.
Will the minister live up to his constitutional responsibilities
and take immediate action to end this dispute peacefully?
(1430 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member stated
this has been going on for about three weeks. The deputy
minister, John Walsh, who is also my nephew by marriage, by
Ojibway custom, has been meeting with senior officials of the
band. Some proposals have been put forward. I am not at liberty
to state what they are. I do not think negotiations are going well
and the province of B.C. is bringing injunctive action this
morning.
I do not know the results of the injunctive action. My hon.
friend and I will probably hear at the same time and we will
know the results of the injunction later today.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this situation is reaching
near-boiling point and something is going to happen unless the
minister takes immediate action.
This dispute over the Apex resort is only a symptom of a
deeper long-standing problem. This year federal government
funding to the Penticton Indian Band is more than $2.5 million.
In spite of denials by the band, some of this money is being spent
to pay those manning the illegal blockades $10 an hour.
Meanwhile the 250 employees at the resort are paying a terrible
price and some have to draw UI at the taxpayers' expense.
Will the minister of Indian affairs immediately suspend all
funding transfers to the Penticton Indian Band, as he did
recently with the Lower Similkameen Band election dispute,
until the illegal roadblocks are removed and the band sits down
at the bargaining table?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a man in my friend's
riding named Tom Landecker. He wrote a letter. I adopt the
method he is proposing. He uses the ski area. He says: ``Every
time I do so I am reminded of the 100-year history of the
relations between our two communities, a history littered with
broken promises and missed opportunities''.
At the end of it he says: ``The only resolution to this situation
is through mediation of the provincial government''. I think it is
appropriate and is something that is being done. If it breaks
down then there is the recourse to the court, which is happening
as we speak.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
During the Prime Minister's recent trip to Asia, a group of his
Liberal members from Ontario proposed to the Joint Committee
for the Scrutiny of Regulations that the regulations made
pursuant to Bill C-91 be abolished. This unusual procedure used
by the committee could have jeopardized major investments by
brand-name drug manufacturers.
Is the Prime Minister dissociating himself from his
colleagues' initiative and does he promise to immediately allay
the concerns-
Some hon. members: Order!
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, from time to time,
questions are asked which do not deal with the government's
administrative responsibilities. Perhaps the hon. member could
rephrase his question a little to make it admissible.
I would ask him to rephrase his question a little so that it deals
with the government's administrative functions.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister
dissociating himself from his colleagues or does he intend to
keep the regulations made pursuant to Bill C-91?
Some hon. members: Order!
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I will allow the question if
the Prime Minister is willing to answer it. The Hon. Minister of
Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that questions must
deal with matters for which the government is responsible and
not with committee matters.
[English]
I would like to point out to the hon. member that if the Bloc
Quebecois does not believe that parliamentary committees
should scrutinize regulations, its members ought to say so. For
my part, I believe I have stated many times in the House the
position of the government on Bill C-91. Despite the fact that
we have continually reiterated that position, the Bloc has
difficulty understanding it. That I find very strange.
8040
[Translation]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have a supplementary
question?
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
regulations made pursuant to Bill C-91 cannot be reviewed
before 1997. The Prime Minister said last spring that the
government would not touch Bill C-91.
(1435)
Can the Prime Minister assure us that the law will not be
reviewed before the spring of 1997?
The Speaker: Again, dear colleagues-
[English]
The government does not control what is going on in the
committees per se. However, in a very general way I will accept
the question.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, the member was
asking whether we intend to reform
[Translation]
-Bill C-91 before the parliamentary review already
provided for in the bill. We answered this question several
times. We will honour our international commitments under
NAFTA and under the Uruguay Round agreement.
As far as the matter of regulations is concerned, there is a
parliamentary committee with the authority to review the
regulations. This committee has the jurisdiction to do what it
wants.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has agreed to an
open, civilian led inquiry into the allegations of gross
misconduct during the Canadian Airborne Regiment's
deployment to Somalia.
However I am concerned that he seems determined to delay
this inquiry for several months. Such a delay will inevitably
involve the events becoming more remote, the trail more cold
and the truth more difficult to ascertain.
Why will the minister not initiate this inquiry immediately so
that all the facts can be determined and the cases evolving from
it settled in the full light of public scrutiny?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered
this question in reply to the Leader of the Opposition last
Thursday when I announced the inquiry.
It is imperative that all of us ensure that justice be done and
the judicial proceedings involved with the court martials be
concluded before any inquiry takes place. I have given
assurances that once the judicial process is completed, the
inquiry will be open and civilian, and will answer all of the
questions that the hon. member has.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister misses the point. No one questions that the
military justice system is constitutional and generally effective,
but the Somalia situation seems to be an aberration.
There is concern that evidence has been deliberately
suppressed or destroyed. Some aspects have been described by
Kyle Brown as a turkey shoot. Both those accused and the
Canadian forces themselves have come under suspicion which
can only be resolved by a prompt, open and absolutely unbiased
investigation.
To ensure justice is done and seen to be done, will the minister
order that the now scheduled court martials be delayed until
after the civilian inquiry is completed?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the
reasons I have already stated, no.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In his Bill C-41, amending
the Criminal Code, the Minister of Justice proposes harsher
sentences for those who commit hate crimes, including those
based on the victim's sexual orientation. A large of group of
government members openly challenge this amendment and the
authority of the Minister of Justice.
Does the Prime Minister intend to demand a party vote on Bill
C-41 or will he submit to the sixty or so members of his caucus
who oppose this bill and are calling for a free vote on this issue?
[English]
The Speaker: Once again we are getting into party things as
opposed to administrative functions of the government. I would
ask hon. members if they could raise their questions so that we
deal directly with the administration of a particular department
of government. It would facilitate matters.
I will permit the Minister of Justice to respond if he so wishes.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I make it clear that
the Prime Minister has already said that this is a government bill
and it will be presented to the House on that basis.
8041
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, am I to
understand from the minister's answer that the Prime Minister
will force the sixty or so members who oppose the justice
minister into line, reminding them that this is a government bill
as well as a party promise?
[English]
The Speaker: I rule this question out of order.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The provincial government announced new measures which
would crack down on under age strippers by fining club owners
and having their licences suspended if they continue with their
hiring practices.
In keeping with the Liberal red book promise of stricter
penalties against youth exploitation, can the minister tell us
what he plans to do?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians I
was appalled to learn that adolescent or juvenile girls might be
exploited in these strip clubs. It has to stop. All levels of
government have to collaborate in making it stop.
As the hon. member knows, there are provisions in the
Criminal Code which make it criminal conduct to present an
obscene performance. The participation of a juvenile girl in
such a show might itself be sufficient to render that performance
obscene.
I would hope that those sections already in the criminal law
would be enforced vigilantly by the province through
prosecutions.
As the hon. member pointed out there are also provincial steps
that can be taken in relation to licensing. Last, there are
municipal zoning that steps can be taken. Working together all
levels of government must bring an end to this deplorable
practice.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of immigration.
Despite the minister's call for a judicial inquiry into the
performance of vice-chair of the Immigration Refugee Board,
Michael, Schelew, it looks as though it might not get off the
ground. After the announcement of the inquiry Schelew said he
would not co-operate.
Given that Schelew thinks he is above the law, will the
minister of immigration admit that the best way to deal with Mr.
Schelew is not send a pretty please invitation to a judicial
inquiry but send him a pink slip and immediately demand his
permanent resignation from the board, like he did with his other
friend, Inderjit Singh Bal?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday we made public the
fact that I had recommended under section 63(1) of the
Immigration Act that we move to a judicial inquiry because
enough questions had been raised about the response by the
deputy chair and the initial report by the chair.
The matter is now in the hands of my colleague the Minister of
Justice. The terms of reference and the judge will be appointed
by him. No one is above the law. We are following the law and
we expect everyone to participate.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
trust that the minister will recommend that the judge hold Mr.
Schelew in contempt of court for refusing to appear.
Given that the minister has called a judicial inquiry, will he
expand that inquiry to include IRB members who have been
artificially inflating acceptance rates? Will the minister refer an
investigation of the entire IRB executive to the Standing
Committee on Immigration?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for weeks on end that party
has lectured the House about quasi-judicial boards. Now the
member suggests that I call a judge and give that judge
direction. I will do no such thing. The Minister of Justice has the
responsibility. He is a responsible minister.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last Friday, the defence minister touted the merits of Unisys,
which he said was the best company in the world for providing
computer services for Canadian frigates. From 1992 to July
1994, defence department officials in charge of this issue
denounced Unisys's incompetence and inability to meet the
terms of the contract and deplored the waste of public funds.
How does the minister explain his refusal to follow up on the
recommendations of his officials who have repeatedly
denounced the waste of public funds in the Unisys matter?
8042
(1445)
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know how many times one has to repeat answers to get through
to the hon. members opposite. This was essentially the same
question that was asked by one of his colleagues on Friday. I
gave the answer.
If the hon. member still does not accept the answer then I
would invite him to attend a briefing to be given by national
defence officials. We will lay out all the terms of the contract,
how it was renegotiated, how the concerns were met. I am sure
the hon. member then will not continue to do what his colleagues
started on Friday, denigrate a very worthy company based in
Montreal which happens to be in his province, Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the defence minister to understand that whether it is a
Quebec company or not, if public funds are wasted, we will
denounce it. If officials have told the department that the
company was not fulfilling its mandate, the department ought to
let the company know.
Are we to understand that in order to hide this waste of public
funds, his department has decided to remove the officers
responsible for monitoring contract compliance?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
department did not put aside any officials. There was a problem
with the development of the specific combat training systems. I
explained that on Friday. It is not unusual when you are dealing
with high tech, highly specified equipment. The terms of the
contract were renegotiated and the first tests are under way right
now with the Canadian patrol frigate and I do not see where any
problem remains.
I would invite the hon. member to be briefed by my officials
and after that briefing I would challenge him whether he will ask
these same questions in the House because I think he will be
entirely satisfied.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the Deputy Prime Minister was quoted as saying ``when
you make policy as a government you can't make laws based on
exceptions''. That is good advice. Perhaps she could have shared
it with the Minister of Justice.
The Criminal Code in this country states that people should be
punished for rape, physical assault and battery except, it
appears, when the criminal has had too much to drink or is too
stoned to realize what he is doing.
The justice minister does say he is concerned. Is he concerned
enough to end the drunk defence now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am concerned enough
and this government is concerned enough to end it as soon as we
can responsibly prepare a provision for the Criminal Code that
will withstand an attack under the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and that will achieve the objective we all have in mind
which is accountability in the criminal law.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
where there is a will there is a way and this government, with all
the resources at its fingertips, could have that thing ready by
week's end.
The minister quickly put an end to the possibility of a cultural
defence when he thought perhaps it could hurt his political
career. The minister could close this loophole today if he wanted
to.
The Speaker: I invite the hon. member to get to her question.
Miss Grey: He would have support across this House. Will
the minister put an end to the drunken defence today? Justice
should be blind, not blind drunk.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the publication
of the consultation document 10 days ago I have heard from
among others women's groups from across the country that are
very anxious to speak with me in detail about the proposals
because they are very concerned about the suggestion of a
criminal intoxication offence.
I want to hear them out. I want to listen to the provincial
attorneys general who will enforce this law. I want to discuss
this with the people who participate with the federal government
in the administration of the justice system and I want to prepare
a law that is going to get it right. That is my opinion.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Natives in northwestern Ontario are experiencing a fourfold
increase in heart attacks and kidney disease compared with
average Canadians. These medical crises have a preventable
cause, that is type II diabetes.
What are the government's plans for preventive measures
which will reduce the negative effects of type II diabetes among
First Nation populations?
8043
(1450 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that
question because Health Canada has a great deal of concern
about type II diabetes among aboriginal peoples as well as the
complications of type II diabetes.
We have worked specifically in northern Ontario to deal with
Sioux Lookout where there is a dietitian right now who works
for the hospital and with the community. Regular sessions are
held to meet with the people, to educate them with regard to
their diet.
More generally, however, we are working with First Nations
people to deal with prevention and treatment at the community
level and the national level so that we can provide the kind of
culturally sensitive prevention and care that is necessary.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. We just learned that the
federal government is about to spend over half a million dollars
on a series of television programs to be aired weekly to promote
federal services, but only in Quebec.
The Director of Communications for the Department of
Human Resources Development said that the project has nothing
to do with the referendum, and she added: ``We are not getting
involved in politics''.
If this is not a pre-referendum operation, will the Prime
Minister tell us why these documentary films on federal services
will only be aired in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over a year ago a
communications firm approached a number of federal
departments to suggest that with the major reorganization of
departments going on it would be very helpful for Canadians to
understand the range of services provided by integrated
departments such as human resources, heritage and others.
As a result a series of information documentaries is being
prepared that will be shown across Canada. It will be available
to help Canadians understand the availability of services and
how they can effectively use them, how they can make the best
use of the resources we have. That is the whole purpose.
The program is being paid for out of a reallocation of existing
communications money. No new money is being added. It has
nothing to do with the referendum. It has something to do with
good service to Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand
that this advertising campaign is in response to a Prime
Minister's request that the communication services of each
department submit promotional projects on Canadian unity?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the
comments of the hon. member.
As I said in my opening response, what happened is that last
fall of 1993 an independent communications firm made a
proposal that was originally directed toward my department as a
way of providing proper information services for all Canadians
right across Canada. We thought it was a good idea to work with
other departments to provide a joint program. That program is
now being implemented to ensure that all Canadians understand
just what good services they receive from this government.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the Minister of Human Resources
Development pointed an accusing finger at the automotive
industry regarding misuse of the unemployment insurance
system.
In actual fact the federal government lays off over 70,000
persons every year at a cost of $400 million to the program; that
is more than five times the cost of the auto industry. Yet the
minister is not shy about pointing an accusing finger and
singling out the automobile industry for abusing the system.
Why is the minister singling out any specific sector of the
economy and how does finger pointing at any specific sector
improve the problem or help solve the problem?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not pointing an
accusing finger at anybody. We are simply tabling the facts. In
the last 10 years the frequency of use of unemployment
insurance has gone from about 13 per cent to 40 per cent.
I want to inform the hon. member that I had a very useful
meeting this morning with representatives of the automobile
industry and the unions in that industry. We agreed that it is
something that we should jointly look at. We have agreed that
we will collaborate and co-operate on sharing information. It
shows that this government is interested in co-operating with
people and working out solutions to our problems.
8044
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are a lot of Canadians who are really distressed
with what has happened to the unemployment insurance system
in the country.
It is passing strange that someone earning $20,000 a year is
subsidizing people who could make up to $40,000 a year through
the unemployment insurance system which has really become
income redistribution.
(1455)
Will the minister ensure in the forthcoming program review
that unemployment insurance is returned to its original
mandate, that is to protect employees from transitional or
temporary harm due to temporary job loss, and remove it from
being a make work project or an income supplement project?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the major
objectives is to have an unemployment insurance system that is
both efficient and cost effective.
At the same time one of the most important ways of ensuring
it is cost effective is to ensure that we use resources from that
fund to help retrain and upgrade many workers who do need to
face the adjustments that the work place poses, especially now
when we are going through such massive changes.
I simply point out to the hon. member that we have presented a
series of proposals as to how we can use the unemployment
insurance system to turn it into an employment insurance
system to give people a much better chance of having the
opportunity to be employed.
It is really getting a job, holding a job and improving that job
that is the primary purpose of our review.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
For obvious reasons, this House is often preoccupied with one
of Canada's largest provinces, Quebec, but I would like to ask
the Prime Minister a question about the province of Ontario
today.
It concerns the fact that Ontario is increasingly being treated
unfairly by the federal government with respect to the
diminishing share of social assistance costs that the federal
government is picking up. The federal share is now down to 29
per cent when in eight other provinces it is at 50 per cent.
We know why Quebec gets the attention but why has the bloc
Ontario that is in his caucus not done anything about the way the
federal government is treating Ontario the way it did under the
Tories and the way it is now doing under the Liberals?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
refer to the green paper that we tabled dealing with reform of the
social system he would recognize that we put in that paper an
objective to ensure a much fairer distribution of benefits
throughout Canada.
I have had discussions with ministers of the Ontario
government to say that the best way that they can ensure that
Ontario does receive proper attention is to become a part of the
process of review. That is what we want to do. If we could have
the full collaboration of the Government of Ontario we could
work out those formulas.
In the meantime I would say to the hon. member that he might
want to direct the question that he has raised to his own leader
who seems to be opposing the benefit it would bring, close to $3
billion worth of jobs to Ontario in developing the Candu reactor.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last spring the Minister of Human Resources
Development introduced major reforms to expand and improve
student assistance.
As part of these reforms, a new approach to addressing
student needs was developed. However, as the minister knows,
students are concerned that the new needs assessment approach
was too harsh, that the contribution by parents was too high for
many families and too much emphasis was placed on student
income.
Will the minister take immediate action to address this
growing concern?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of certain events
the announcement we made last week concerning the
improvement to the student loan program was somewhat
overshadowed by an impromptu lunch I had in the front yard of
Parliament Hill.
I would like to point out that the federal government has met
with its provincial counterparts. We have come to an agreement
that we will provide for a very different set of rules as applied to
the existing student loan program which will allow part time
income to be more broadly accepted, to allow parental income to
be revised in a different way and to ensure there is much better
flexibility.
I can report to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are very
interested that it was very broadly and strongly endorsed by
students' associations in this country.
8045
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Over the weekend, VIA Rail experienced two incidents: one
in Brighton, close to Toronto, and the other close to Rimouski, in
Quebec. Both could have resulted in tragedies. Luckily, no life
was lost, although 44 people were injured in Brighton. These
incidents, which appear to involve mischief, raise questions
about the security measures taken by VIA Rail to ensure the
protection of the public.
(1500)
Will the minister confirm that the two incidents involving
VIA Rail trains, which almost resulted in tragedies, were due to
vandalism and will he demand that VIA Rail, Canadian National
and Canadian Pacific improve their security system in order to
better protect the lives of passengers and the public?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone who is aware of what happened on the
weekend in the Gaspé and on the route between Toronto and
Montreal is obviously very, very concerned. The matter is under
investigation. It is being investigated by the appropriate police
forces and by the transportation board.
What is very important in matters of this kind, because we are
dealing with literally thousands of miles of rail in this country,
is to make sure that every precaution is taken by the appropriate
authorities and that we not raise unnecessary fears but that we do
maintain every degree of surveillance we can to ensure that
these very unfortunate incidents do not reoccur.
Particularly to those people who were injured in the incident
on the VIA line between Montreal and Toronto, we extend our
deep concerns. I agree with my hon. colleague that everything
that can humanly be done should be done.
I do want to say to my hon. colleague, to members of the
House, and to Canadians generally that in dealing with matters
of this nature it does not serve any useful purpose to speculate.
We can only hope that if there was any mischief involved in it
that it will not be repeated. I want to assure the House that every
appropriate step will be taken to ensure the safety of Canadians
travelling on VIA and by other modes of general transport in the
country.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): A few minutes
ago the Prime Minister mocked Reformers for taking a
voluntary pay cut, as if that is a bad thing somehow. I would say
that when the day comes that he cuts his pay for even one day or
passes up one perk then he will have the right to criticize.
This time I want him to answer this question: Does he agree
that allowing MPs to take a fat pension at age 55 would be to
mock taxpayers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have replied to that question. I said that there was a
commitment made by this party that some elements of the
pension plan would be reviewed in legislation that will be
introduced in the House of Commons in the next couple of
months at the latest.
_____________________________________________
8045
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, may I ask the House if we
can return to an item later. You may continue with the rest of
Routine Proceedings while I find out whether we have any
answers to petitions.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the House give its
consent to come back to Questions passed as Orders for Returns
later on today?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 49th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
(1505 )
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 49th report later this day.
Madam Speaker, I move that the 49th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the
House this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
8046
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition on
behalf of my constituents asking that the Canadian Human
Rights Act not include the phrase sexual orientation as a grounds
for discrimination. I place the petition on the table.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I want to submit three petitions.
[English]
The first petition deals with sexual orientation. The
petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation. The
petition contains 77 signatures.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the second petition contains 82 signatures. The
petitioners pray that the government act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings. I would like to add that I agree with the
petitioners.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the third petition contains 76 signatures. The
petitioners ask that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and also that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia. I would like
to add that I also agree with the petitioners.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of 86 Albertans, many of whom are my
constituents.
These petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including
amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Not only am I pleased to present this petition but I endorse the
petition as well.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have two petitions dealing with the Criminal Code. The first
petition deals with euthanasia.
The petitioners ask that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition has to do with the Criminal Code dealing
with child abusers. The petitioners call upon Parliament to
amend the Criminal Code to ensure stiffer sentences and
mandatory treatment for all child abusers. I support both of
these petitions.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour on behalf of the
constituents of Vegreville to table two petitions in the House
today requesting that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia
and physician assisted suicide in Canada and that the present
provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which
forbids the counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting of persons
to commit suicide, be enforced vigorously. The petitioners also
request that Parliament consider expanding palliative care so
that it would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
(1510)
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
addition I would like to present a petition in which the
petitioners request Parliament not to amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
I concur with all three petitions.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present
the following petitions from my riding of Comox-Alberni
which contain 506 signatures.
The petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
8047
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present two
petitions today, both of which I support.
The first is signed by over 300 constituents of Crowfoot. The
petitioners would like to draw our attention to the fact that a
natural and fundamental relationship exists between
grandparents and grandchildren. However, grandparents as a
consequence of the death, separation or divorce of their children
are often denied access to their grandchildren by their
guardians.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to amend the Divorce
Act to include a provision similar to article 6(11) of the Quebec
civil code which states: ``In no case may a father or mother
without serious cause place obstacles between the child and
grandparents'' so that grandparents who are granted access to a
child have the right to make inquiries and be given information
as to the health, education and welfare of the child.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition is from people who believe that if section 241 of
the Criminal Code was struck down or amended the protection
of our most vulnerable members of society would no longer
exist and the disabled, the terminally ill, the depressed, the
chronically ill and the elderly would feel an implied pressure to
end their lives.
They therefore ask that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 in any way and that it uphold the Supreme Court of
Canada decision of September 30, 1993, to disallow assisted
suicide.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8047
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 18 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure today to speak on the social policy review. This is
something that touches everyone. I think all of us from talking to
our constituents know just how much people are concerned
about this entire review that is taking place.
During the break when I was back in my constituency, I had
the opportunity to conduct a number of town hall meetings. I
started on Monday with a group in an agricultural community.
Many people came out and we had a great discussion. From
there I went on to service clubs and a couple of other town hall
meetings.
In all cases the approach that I found worked was to first talk
to people about the real financial problem in which we find
ourselves. Most people have just a fleeting concept of what a
billion dollars is and exactly how serious the situation is.
To put it all into perspective, if you tell people we are
spending in excess of $160 billion and we are only taking in
$125 billion, they very quickly get the message. If you go
further and say that of the $160 billion, roughly $80 billion goes
to social services, $40 billion to other government services and
$40 billion in interest payments, you will get their attention.
They will have an understanding of just how real the social
reform package is and how serious they must take it when they
look at plans the government has.
(1515 )
I talked to a group of people who were discouraged because
they did not get any real answers from government. Instead they
got another discussion paper, one which gave them only a few
highlights of what the government might have in mind three,
four, five years, or whenever down the road. They want to hear
some hard facts. They want to hear the suggestions that the
government might have with regard to these changes.
As far as the interest payments are concerned a lot of people
ask why we would not just write off the debt and the deficit. Very
quickly we ask them if they have any Canada savings bonds,
T-bills or pension plans that might be part of this Canadian
investment. They answer that they do so the interest payments
must remain. Obviously, the single biggest threat to our social
programs then are those interest payments themselves which we
must get under control.
As far as the social programs are concerned all of us value
them as Canadians. We all feel they are an important part of
being a Canadian. We would like to maintain as many of the
social programs as possible but we recognize it must be done
within our budget. I believe all Canadians know the programs
must be changed. Ask any group. They will tell you that there
are abuses and there are areas which have to be changed.
Looking at the ongoing studies the one thing we have learned
more than anything else from Alberta is that you have to take
action; you know what you have to do and you do it and then you
show people how it will benefit them. It seems the longer we
study something the longer it is put off. The longer it goes on and
8048
on the less likelihood there is we can ever change it. There have
been enough studies and enough input. Everybody knows about
the problems and abuses. It is time to get on with the necessary
changes.
I would like to quickly look at some of the areas of our social
safety net and examine them briefly as to what some of the
problems and possible solutions might be.
Certainly from the standpoint of OAS it is rather dangerous to
say that we are going to cut pensions. When we approach it by
asking whether those over 65 earning a family income of over
$54,000 need to get OAS, most will answer that no, they really
do not need it. In other words, while the idea of universality is
very nice, it is something we cannot afford any longer. If people
understand that, they are prepared to accept that as their portion
of the cut.
We must also remember that in the next 15 years the number
of people over 65 will increase by 40 per cent and the burden on
others will be unbearable. Obviously we have to come back in
terms of pensions and seniors and promote everything we can to
help people realize they have to take care of themselves.
We have to show them that RRSPs are the way to go. Certainly
taxing them will be the most disappointing, negative and
reactionary thing that could ever happen from this House. We
cannot let that happen because it flies right against people taking
care of themselves.
Let us look at the Canada pension plan. When it was started in
1965 we were basically told: ``Give your money to government.
Government knows how to take care of it for you better and will
guarantee the return of this money when you retire''. I was one
of those people just starting in the workforce. I was told that I
should give my money to the government, that it would take care
of it and guarantee a pension to me.
(1520)
It was an insurance plan but now people are saying: ``Let us
take care of our own pension plans, but obviously we want back
what we paid into Canada pension''. Remember there is an
unfunded liability of close to $500 billion. It is like the airlines
with their frequent flyer points. Those are real liabilities.
Whether you like it or not those are going to come back to haunt
future generations. We must address the problem of Canada
pension self-sufficiency.
Of course UIC has major problems. Again, I do not know
many who would not tell you they have a problem with UIC or
that they know somebody who has had a problem with it. All
kinds of things crop up: seasonal workers, false claims, abusers,
people who lie and cheat with regard to claiming UI. There are
no free lunches. We have to change the attitudes of people
toward this whole program. It has to be an insurance program,
one that is there for between jobs, not instead of jobs. All of us
have said that. We are going to have to act on that and very soon.
What concerns me most in this House is that I hear a minister
who sounds almost like a 1970 socialist and believes in a utopia
out there where everybody can have everything they want and
somebody will pay the bills. That somebody is finally not going
to appear. We are going to have to look at this from a real solid
standpoint. We have studied it enough. Let us fix the problem.
Let us not study it any further.
What kinds of things can we do? The first is to provide more
jobs. We need more jobs in our society so that we do not have to
depend on things like UI. How are we going to do that?
First we are going to lower taxes. We can lower taxes and
reform the whole tax system and look at a flat tax. If the system
is considered to be more fair, more people will be providing
jobs, there will be more small businesses and the whole system
should improve dramatically in the area of jobs.
We must break down the existing interprovincial trade
barriers. We lose some $6 billion a year just from
interprovincial trade barriers. Those are negative to jobs and
negative to getting this whole economy rolling and not so
dependent on UI.
We have to destroy the massive bureaucracy. If you visit
companies in any area of Canada you will find they have one or
two and sometimes three levels of management, but they never
have six, seven or eight levels of management as you find in the
bureaucracy. We have to get some efficiency into our system.
Obviously as a result of seeing that businesses will say that now
that we have our act together the jobs will come.
We have to break down the regulations governments seem so
set on putting into place. Of course above all we have to destroy
the underground economy which saps dollars from our entire
system of our social safety net. I come back to tax reform and a
flat tax system. If people saw a fair tax system they would not
mind paying the tax. It would be lower and they would not need
to be part of the underground economy. Things like the GST
have driven people to become criminals. That will continue
unless there is a massive reform of the tax system.
We need to look at self-funding of the whole UI program. It
should never have to depend on government. It should be a
temporary program. Above all, we can certainly consider the
concept of working for UI. I do not believe UI is something
someone should expect. People could easily work for it and it
would then start to mean something.
8049
We must lower federal taxes. We must return a lot of the
programs to the delivery level which is at the provincial and
municipal levels of government.
(1525 )
Let us look at the fourth area, social programs and the welfare
area. There will always be people in our society who need help.
The problem is that number has grown. It is like the Australians.
For so many years they brought their young people up to say: ``I
do not mind going on pogey. It is expected of me and I can enjoy
the beach''. We have to change the atmosphere and environment
which creates that sort of thinking. Everyone knows about the
abuses. It is the government's job to provide an environment in
which jobs can be provided for the people.
Through our education system we must provide the pride of a
work ethic and certainly in some cases even prime the pump
through training. Above all we have to get people off the dole
and out working with some pride for their country.
On the health care system Canadians want the very best. If
there is one area we really do not want to sacrifice that certainly
would have to be it. I do not believe we need to sacrifice it. It
seems so often when we downsize in the health care system we
go after the beds and the nurses instead of going after the other
end. A great deal of savings could be had from looking at the
administration end of things rather than the other end.
Post-secondary education is our future and another area we
cannot sacrifice. From working in the foreign affairs area many
of us realize what we have in terms of our advanced education
system. It was probably best brought home to me this summer
when I was visiting with Swedish businessmen in Stockholm,
Sweden. They said that over the course of the last three years
they had hired 700 Canadian graduates to work in Swedish
invested companies in Canada. They said that they would
always hire Canadians over Americans or anybody else because
of the training and reliability of the Canadian graduate. That is
something we should be proud of.
For the last seven years the Reform Party has had the voucher
system as part of its program. This system should be examined
and looked at. It might not be the answer to everything but it
should at least be looked at as another way to provide some
accountability in our advanced education institutions. There
should be some competition for the students. It is a more
positive system if students are controlling that through
vouchers.
Again we come back to the top heavy nature of
administration. I am sure that in examining our educational
institutions savings can be made and efficiencies can be found.
In conclusion, instead of carrying on more and more studies, I
say for the hon. member across the way that he missed my
portion on the flat tax-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I watched it on
television.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Certainly we need to have that flat tax
system. We do not need to study it any more. We need to change
our UI system. We do not have to study that any more. We need
to change and reform these systems, but we do not have to study
any longer. We need action.
There are 295 MPs who can bring here the words of their
constituents through town hall meetings. We do not need to have
high priced studies nor listen to a bunch of special interest
groups and academics tell us how to do things. The people will
tell us how to do things. It is the job of the 295 MPs to get out
there and find out about it.
There is a questionnaire from the Minister of Human
Resources Development. That is a pretty good item. The only
thing is we can predict every single answer we are going to get
because we have already done that.
Above all we need to destroy party discipline in this House.
We need to go to a free vote system whereby we can really get
into voting the way of our constituents. Rather than sending
people across this country at a cost of $800,000, $1 million or
whatever, we have the information and we know what people
want. Now is the time to act on it. In terms of social reform, that
is what I encourage the government to do more than anything
else.
(1530)
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Red Deer. I
found that his remarks other than the free vote remark were very
well thought out.
It is a pleasure to see that everyone in this House has taken
this issue of social security reform seriously. It is very important
for Canadians to see that.
I have a question for the member, a very serious question
coming out of his remarks that I would like him to consider. He
mentioned in passing that he thought that the delivery of
programs should be downloaded to the provinces rather than the
federal government.
I just wish to say that I had trouble with that. I know it is the
Reform Party platform point but I have trouble coming from
Ontario where I am not entirely satisfied with the way the
Ontario government handles education for example.
There is a lot of unevenness in the way various provinces
handle various programs. I would like him to consider that. Does
he not think that actually it is preferable and more efficient if the
federal government keeps as many programs as it can to itself
and make them more efficient rather than relying on the
provinces to do so?
8050
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, the point that I
would really like to make about offloading from the federal
government is getting down to the actual delivery level,
particularly in some of the areas like welfare.
Those sorts of areas lend themselves probably the best to
getting them down to the very delivery levels themselves.
Obviously that means that the federal government has to give up
something. It has to give up the collecting of that money to the
level that is providing the service. As so often would happen, we
would not want to go that step. We would just want to give them
things to do to keep the money for ourselves. That will not work,
obviously.
They can feel part of it by cutting out those tiers of
administrators. So often we have that. In Ottawa they think they
know how to do it this way and that message then comes down to
the province and the province then translates it to its particular
political bent. Then it goes down to the municipality and it
delivers the service.
By the time one gets all that bureaucracy, one has lost the
efficiency, lost the true delivery to the people. That is what I am
getting at. I can understand the member's point. Certainly some
provincial governments are less desirable than others and that
would be a concern but I guess we have to trust the people to
simply replace that government if that were the case.
I would much rather trust the local officials to deliver than I
would somebody here in Ottawa.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is nice to have you back
here in the House. We have not seen you for a while.
I would like to begin by reading from the conclusion of this
working document that was given to us by the Minister of
Human Resources Development. It is the chapter entitled
``What can be accomplished by reform?''.
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate interest and debate
among Canadians over the coming months about how together
we can reform one of our great national institutions, the social
security system.
It is a system, a set of programs and services that reflects the
best of who we are, our compassion for those less fortunate in
our society and a commitment to equality of opportunity and our
belief in the dignity of work.
As times change, so must our institutions. Without exception
provincial governments have recognized this and many of them
have launched discussion papers of their own, setting out reform
priorities. This is the federal government's contribution.
(1535)
I want to congratulate the Minister of Human Resources
Development for undertaking such a comprehensive push on
reform to our social security system. I believe, quite frankly,
that very few men or women in this House could actually take
this challenge on other than the minister. I say that because I
think most members of this House and most people in the
country who know the minister realize that his history, his
tradition in public service over the last 25 years has
characterized him not only as a strong Canadian nationalist but
also as someone who has always been there for the most
disadvantaged in our communities.
I can remember in the last government when we were in
opposition whenever the minister would speak it would drive the
Conservative Party nuts because many viewed his vision, his
feeling, his caring for the country as a sort of radical left
position. I never viewed his position as radical left. It is very
important that someone who has won the trust of our
communities in caring for people who are disadvantaged lead
this charge. This is a very comprehensive review.
We are talking about reviewing a program of reform that is
almost $39 billion in taxpayers' money. We are talking about the
Canada assistance plan of $8.2 billion; the Canada student loans
program of $.5 billion; the post-secondary education
established programs financing of $6.1 billion; the UI
administration of $1.2 billion; UI maternity, parental adoption
and sickness, $1.7 billion; unemployment insurance regular
benefits, $12.4 billion; employment programs for
developmental uses, $1.9 billion; employment programs
consolidated revenue fund, $1.4 billion; vocational
rehabilitation for disabled persons, $.2 billion. That is a total of
$38.7 billion.
Obviously I cannot in this short time take on every aspect of
this particular reform initiative. I would like to address my
remarks to a very special, very tight area of this debate, women
in poverty.
All the statistics of children in poverty and women in poverty
have been talked about in the last few months before this House.
I believe it is incumbent upon all of us who are involved in this
creative exercise of reform to really make sure that when the
recommendations for renewal come forward at the end of this
debating exercise, we make sure we have the most enviable
program in the world for women who are involved at the lower
end of the income spectrum.
We cannot miss this opportunity. I say that because I believe
that women in the entrepreneurial sense and in the business
sense are one of the great untapped markets of opportunity to
help revitalize the economy of this country, and in so doing
bringing dignity not only to themselves but to their own
families, especially their children.
I want to remind colleagues in the House about something that
is happening in the United States right now. Women owned or
partnered businesses in the United States are employing more
8051
Americans today than all the Fortune 500 companies combined.
That is a staggering statistic.
(1540 )
The force of women in the United States is becoming a
recognized fact. I do not believe that it has hit the consciousness
of this country yet or sunk in to all of us in this Chamber who are
presently charged with redesigning the social security system.
As the minister has asked us for ideas during this debate, I
would like to present the idea that we consider as a Chamber and
as a government to set up women in business centres all across
Canada. I am talking about centres the purpose of which would
be to offer women training and support in developing
businesses. We are talking about centres that would facilitate
access to capital for women in business, centres that would be
test sites for innovative, educational and technological efforts.
These centres would also act as a catalyst for business and
entrepreneurial opportunity. It would ultimately improve the
business and entrepreneurship capability in Canada.
I have to talk about a personal experience for a moment that is
driving me in this direction about women in business. My
grandmother was a widow at age 48. She had 14 children but at
age 48 she still had eight of those children at home. Four of her
sons had gone off to join the RCAF, one of them being my father.
This single mother was left with eight children at home. We
are talking now about the early 1940s. She had a small, home
based business. It was a very simple business. She rented tables
and chairs for banquets, weddings and social functions. My
grandmother managed, because of her own creativity and her
hard work, to raise that family of eight children under her roof
and to provide a respectable living for all of them. As time went
on she eventually developed the business and it grew into
something that looked after many other families other than her
own children.
My point in bringing this example up is that this happened at a
time when there was absolutely no unemployment insurance and
no welfare system. There was no social security system to look
after a single mother in the early 1940s who had eight children.
They had to use their own creativity, their own work ethics and
had to rely on their friends and neighbours. Certainly there was
not a lot of support from the banks for a widowed mother with
eight children. That just was not part of the scene in those days.
That example of what an individual can do under great stress
for me has always been testimony that if there is a will there is a
way as long as there is some kind of support system from your
friends and community.
I think what the minister of human resources is saying to us in
this debate is that defending the status quo which is not working
is not in the cards and by wanting to defend the status quo we are
defending a decline, not to mention the fact that we are spending
almost $40 billion a year and we are not getting the results.
When we go through this exercise we have to look at every
idea presented to us. I use as an example my grandmother who
was a single mother with eight children at home. She built a
family business from her home with no government grants, no
support. It shows me that if we give a little bit of support to
women in business throughout the country, we can probably get
a lot more Canadians working. The most important thing is to
raise the standard of living of a lot of women who are currently
trapped in a welfare system that is certainly not working. It is a
system that none of us in the House wants to defend.
(1545)
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. It is a
comprehensive challenge that the minister has placed before us
but if we use the premise that we put all of the ideas on the table
and keep an open mind concerning those ideas, then I believe at
the end of this exercise we can create a new social security
system that will be the envy of the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
also glad to see you again. We did not forget you while you were
away.
I listened very carefully to what my colleague had to say. Of
course, in 15 or 20 minutes, he could not touch on all the various
aspects. Given the examples he used concerning the family, the
underprivileged women and all the problems he mentioned, I
would have liked to hear his views on education.
Unemployment is the big problem. It is an economic problem
and we have to pay for it. Unemployment causes other problems
to develop. For example, our youth are faced with problems like
dropping out of school, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on. In the
reform currently under review, we are being asked to reconsider
student loans. I, for one, say that education is the cornerstone of
the whole system.
If we do not invest in areas like human sciences, where we
should inject a lot of money into research and development
when, in fact, we are cutting research, if, as I said, we do not
give education all the tools needed to catch up in this area and to
undertake important research projects, we are heading not only
for bankruptcy, but for real chaos.
I would like my colleague to comment on these cuts in
education and research and development, which the government
wants Canadians to swallow.
8052
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I
would like to begin by thanking the member for his question.
As I stated in my opening remarks, the minister responsible
for human resources is calling for a debate where we advance
ideas on how we can take the current $38 billion expenditure and
redesign it in a way that we can get a better bang for the
taxpayers' buck.
I believe that education is paramount in this debate. No one is
questioning that. In fact there are no further cuts. It is a redesign
of the current system.
I share the member's view. Education is something to which
we must continually commit ourselves and of course the R and D
that the member mentioned as well.
(1550 )
In order to make sure that the resources are there, to make sure
our educational system can handle not only the R and D aspect
but also make sure that our younger people have access, we have
to create an economy where they have income so that they can
afford to pay for their tuition rather than take student loans. The
greatest problem that our young people have had, especially in
the last three years, is they have not been able to get decent work
to pay for their university education. The whole economy has
been flat.
The member knows full well that if we can create a more
vibrant economy where younger people can get work it does not
take long for a student, working part time and in the summer, to
raise $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 a year which goes a long way
toward paying for his or her education.
We are going to have to put more emphasis on the macro
economy rather than just the old system where we would
automatically write cheques.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague's comments.
I want to state categorically that the question of status quo is
not only unique to Quebec, as I found from travelling with the
pre-budget consultation hearings on the finance committee. It is
a preoccupation throughout Canada from one coast to the other.
I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. colleague two
valid ideas that surfaced from a workshop in my riding this week
on the reform of human resources. One was that small business
people who are unemployed and try to start up a business find
that they cannot collect unemployment insurance. The
suggestion was brought forward that perhaps a person who is on
unemployment insurance should be allowed to collect their
benefits at the same time as starting up a business.
The other question I would like the hon. member to comment
on is this. He mentioned the need for assistance for women in
business. Another suggestion from our workshop was that the
older group, the 55 year plus, have a wealth of experience and
cannot find jobs. They would be willing to work 5 to 15 hours a
week to help the women that he mentioned and youth who want
to start up small businesses. Could he put in his idea the concept
of allowing older people to give the benefit of their experience
to the young and the women to start up their businesses? Could
he not consider these two ideas in his proposal also?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I
want to say to my colleague this is when a debate becomes most
enjoyable. We are advancing ideas. We are building on ideas.
The idea of taking a counsellor assistance program, not unlike
the one in the Federal Business Development Bank, and
marrying that with the youth and my pet project, women in
business, is a great way to go. That is a way of using up the great
wisdom and experience that exists from people who have taken
perhaps early retirement from a 70 to 80 hour a week job but
want to only work 10 or 12 hours a week.
I would certainly support that idea. It is a great one. That is the
kind of thing I believe our minister needs to hear.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciated the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments,
especially with regard to his grandmother and the eight children.
I have two questions stemming from that. The first one is a
question on welfare and whether he thinks there is a possibility
that had welfare, as it is now, been available to his grandmother
that instead of finding her own way she might have gone on to
welfare and become a burden to taxpayers. That is the first
question.
(1555 )
The second question is about programs for women. Had it
been your grandfather with the eight children in the same
situation, the same difficulty, would he have been any less
deserving than your grandmother?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, first
I want to answer the question about welfare.
I knew my grandmother because she looked after me.
Probably she would have figured out a way to avoid the welfare
option. However that is my own declared bias for my
grandmother. Maybe she could have fallen into that trap as well.
That is one of the real problems we have in our society today.
The system is set up in such a way that it becomes the thing to
do, and people are not challenged to their depths in terms of their
work ethic or their creativity. We have to redesign this program
in a way that the basic inner strength of people, their creative
8053
skills and work ethic are maximized. By changing the welfare
system that will happen.
As to the second question, I do not differentiate because we
are all equal. However society is much more receptive to men
who are involved in the business realm than women. As a
government we have a chance to do something unique in this
mandate by moving women in business from the back burner to
the front burner. If we were a House of Commons that did that, it
would be one of the great experiences we could leave this place.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in today's debate on the social programs
reform. I did not think this issue would show up so soon on the
Order Paper, but I am glad it did, because I spent last Thursday,
November 17, working with my riding assistants to organize
public hearings, since I feel that the Gaspé constituents will be
hard hit by the measures proposed in the social reform.
So, along with my assistants, I decided to hold public
hearings, because the closest the Parliamentary Committee will
come to my area is Rivière-du-Loup, a one day journey away.
As you can understand, my constituents wanted to be heard on
this issue. However, because of the distance, few will able to
make it to Rivière-du-Loup on December 11.
I organized these hearings with the firm belief that this social
programs reform is such a crucial issue that it goes beyond
partisanship. With this in mind, and that will make some of the
members opposite smile, I asked the director of an hospital
centre, a known Liberal, as well as a former PQ minister and
MNA for Gaspé, to give me a hand. With these two
commissioners on board, we heard something like 18 witnesses,
including representatives of at least 16 social organizations.
If only to pay tribute to these people, since this had to be
organized rather quickly because I also thought crucial to start
the discussion in my constituency, I would like to mention them
in this House.
So, the following have made themselves heard: the Regional
Municipality of Côte de Gaspé, the Gaspé Chamber of
Commerce, CRCD, the concertation committee of the Regional
Municipality of Parbock, the Regroupement contre
l'appauvrissement dans l'est du Québec, the United Church,
CASA, the Anglophone Social Action Committee, the
Ralliement gaspésien et madelinot, the Anse-à-Valleau
Development Committee, the Denis Riverin Unemployment
Action, the Regional municipality of Parbock Work Action, the
Gaspé CNTU, the Association des capitaines propriétaires de la
Gaspésie, the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud
de la Gaspésie.
(1600)
We also heard from Rural Dignity and the Regroupement des
femmes and others whose name I forget. These are either
regional or local groups and this was reflected in their
comments. But they are all wondering if after the reform
proposed by the minister the safety net which we have now in
Canada will still suit Gaspé constituents. Madam Speaker, allow
me to state at the outset that people are very sceptical about that.
I would like to state a few facts. First of all, people from the
Gaspé Peninsula know how to read. They heard about the leaks
in the Toronto Star regarding the possible cuts of $7.5 billion
and another $7.5 billion that would accompany this reform.
Every time they were questioned about their briefs, they would
talk about these cuts. They would tell us also that, from their
viewpoint, the objective of the reform is not to improve
assistance to the needy, but rather to cut assistance to the
disadvantaged. To them, it is absolutely inconceivable.
Some facts about our riding are in order. As I have already
mentioned to the Minister of Human Resources Development,
the riding of Gaspé receives approximately 27,000
unemployment insurance applications a year. About 33 per cent
of those applicants have worked only 10 or 11 weeks. It is not
because they do not want to work longer. There are no jobs. Our
region has to live with the seasons.
If I look at the situation in some areas in particular, in the
Chandler area for example, 38 per cent of UI applicants have
worked only 10 or 11 weeks. These figures were provided to me
by the employment centres for the Gaspé Peninsula and the
Islands. In the Magdalen Islands area, and my colleague
opposite can correct me if I am wrong, close to 40 per cent of UI
applicants have worked only 10 or 11 weeks.
I used to work for the fishing industry, representing
fishermen, and I wonder where these people could go to work
more weeks, especially considering the fact that this resource
has been scarce. When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
declares a moratorium on fishing, his goal is the conservation of
stocks, but the Minister of Human Resources Development is
telling us we should be working more. In the Madgalen Islands
and the Gaspé Peninsula, our economy is seasonal in nature.
Tourism is a seasonal industry, although we have started to take
action in order to extend the season. We have yet to reap the full
results of those measures and reach our ultimate goal, which is
to have people work during at least six months each year in
viable businesses.
Forestry workers would also like to work more. The problem
they face is winter conditions. When winter begins, at about this
time of year, at the beginning of December, there is already a fair
amount of snow high up in the mountains beyond
Sainte-Anne-des-Monts. It is very difficult to work in the
snow, not onlybe-
8054
cause of the cold, but also because it is hard to haul the timber
out.
(1605)
Of course, we could use heavy equipment, but it gets
expensive for businessmen to clear bush roads every time there
is some timber to haul out whereas, during the summertime,
roads are always open and accessible. Springtime conditions are
no better. It is hard to work in the bush when the snow is melting.
When you are using a chain saw, you need to have your two feet
on solid ground. There is also the haulage problem, which can be
serious in the spring.
I have already dealt with fisheries, but I could add the
example of lobster fishing. The data on resource preservation
show that, for as long as I can remember, at least since the
beginning of the 1970s, lobster fishing has been limited to ten
weeks. The resource itself makes it impossible to fish for a
longer period. Around the Gaspé Peninsula, they go lobster
fishing from Mother's Day to the beginning of July. In
Nova-Scotia, they go a bit later. For example, some areas are
still open around Nova Scotia. However, the resource is subject
to a limit of ten weeks.
How can we find a way for these people, who have a highly
specialized job, but one which does not provide them work for
any longer than that, to continue to earn a living? In the past,
they used to rely on cod fishing, but there is no more cod to be
caught. We worked with these groups in order to create other
projects for them to start fishing other species and diversify, but
it is not an easy task. The first years when you start working
under a federal program made mostly for shore workers, there
are no incentives that would allow for a lucrative kind of fishing
to emerge, such as soupfin shark, or spiny dogfish as we call it in
my region.
However, I will admit this is a remarkable effort and I know
the people opposite in the government co-operated. I hope we
will get the same kind of co-operation next year and the
following years. The Gaspé Peninsula needs tools like this. It is
not because we did not reach the objective this year that we
should forgo the experience next year. On the contrary, we
should profit from what we have learned this year.
I am going from one subject to another, but I would like to
mention some other points. First, I am somewhat moved by this
because life in that region flows with the seasons. We need this
form of support. If we want to do without social programs like
unemployment insurance, the question is: Are you people
listening to us this afternoon willing to pay two, three, four
times what you are paying now for your seafood? Maybe you
are, maybe not. One thing is certain, we will have to be given
time. What we want are the tools to give more responsibility to
people in the industry. Marketing tools, of course, but also tools
to clean up the industry, in particular as regards incidental
captures.
Last spring I attended hearings where I heard a number of
groups from the Atlantic region. Whether they were from
Quebec, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, people wanted to be part
of the discussions on their future. People wanted to be
consulted. More than that, they wanted to be able to intervene
locally on matters of interest to them. Unfortunately, this is not
possible under the present system.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Human
Resources to the fact that a debate on this subject is
forthcoming. Last week, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
recognized that we would have to review the whole fisheries
administration in Canada. I congratulate him for acknowledging
that we have a problem. I also let him know that the province of
Quebec had submitted a project that might solve the problem.
He told me that, naturally, he had to consult the other provinces.
During the next few weeks I will follow up on that, to make sure
that the minister has, indeed, started discussions with his
counterparts and that officials of the two levels of government
are doing the necessary groundwork. It is most important.
(1610)
I would like to go back to what my constituents said because it
touched on all of this. They said: ``We do not understand this
reform. We are in dire straights, and we would like the
government to help the poorest members of society, to give us
the necessary tools to break this vicious circle''. Before, it used
to be called the 10/42, from now on it will be the 12/38. The
government is tightening eligibility, increasing the number of
work weeks, while shortening the benefit period. It is very
disappointing for people.
People would like to have the tools to take care of themselves.
But the government is not providing them. With respect to the
unemployment rate in the Gaspé Peninsula, the government
came to the brilliant conclusion that we do not have too many
people out of work, we have too many people for the number of
jobs available.
The second point which really irks people is the matter of
employability. A fisherman told me this: ``In our village, with a
population of 200 to 300, should everyone become a welder?'' It
does not make any sense to retrain some 30 fishermen to all
become welders. What I want to point out with this story is the
fact that we need the tools to modify the economic structure of
our regions.
We will not be able to transform the Gaspé Peninsula
overnight into something like Montreal. Montreal also has its
share of problems. The unemployment rate in this city is
somewhere around 13 per cent, I believe. People are warning me
that if this reform goes any further, it will trigger an exodus.
Where will people go, if they have to leave an area where the
unemployment rate is now 17 per cent to go to an area where it is
13 per cent? It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
8055
But this will not solve the problem; our problem is one of
structural unemployment. We are not showing our people how
to become self-sufficient. We are not giving them their own
decision-making tools, we are not allowing them to manage
their own affairs. These tools should be transferred to them,
people should be consulted, and yet it is not done; it is one of
their main comments.
I would like to point out that I will supply the Minister of
Human Resources Development with a summary along with
these briefs. I will also give it to the parliamentary committee,
which is on the road right now.
But I would still like to raise a few points. As I believe was
mentioned by some hon. members a few minutes ago, shared
time is one solution to the employment problem being used by
the CNTU in the Gaspé Peninsula. People are ready to discuss
solutions, to look at all the possibilities. As I said earlier,
fishermen throughout the Atlantic provinces, not just in Quebec,
mentioned that they are hoping, and indeed are asking, for a
bigger share, for permits with more variety.
Some of the things I heard were amusing. There was one
woman who said: ``The Liberals are forever consulting, but we
need more than that right now. The barn is on fire and we need a
fireman who knows what to do''.
Madam Speaker, as I told you earlier, I was accompanied by
two commissioners. I am merely repeating what people told me.
One woman asked: ``Why are we reforming social programs,
when the problem is elsewhere?'' The problem is in the lack of
employment, in the fact that the government is facing excessive
debt, that over half this debt is owed outside the country and that
we are going to be in serious trouble if we do not get our finances
in order soon.
The message is that the Bloc Quebecois agrees that the deficit
must be reduced and said so during the election campaign.
However, we do not want cuts to be made blindly. We want there
to be respect for the public. If there is an objective to be met,
people should be asked what tools they need to reach it, and
whether it is feasible. If it is not feasible then, as a society, we
will have to make a choice. We will always need fishermen.
(1615)
One of them told me: ``I am willing to work 12 months a year,
but is the Minister of Human Resources Development willing to
thaw the gulf in the wintertime? Is he willing to stock it? If so, I
could fish 12 months a year''.
Of course, we had a bit of fun. In spite of the seriousness of the
problems, people in the Gaspé Peninsula came to these hearings
with a smile on their face and kept their cool. They suggested
solutions. They also sent a serious warning to the government. If
it realizes what their needs are and gives them the necessary
tools, they will meet the objectives that the government wants to
set behind their backs.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me begin by
congratulating the government and the Minister for Human
Resources Development on his initiative. Indeed, it is a bold
approach that in my view will respond to the nineties and
beyond.
This is one segment of an overall strategy and overall action
plan which will be proposed by this government over the next
year or so in order to respond to a commitment made by the
Prime Minister on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada as well
as on behalf of the people who elected him. Those commitments
were made in Creating Opportunities or the red book as people
might call it.
There are three aspects of the proposal. One looks at the whole
way in which we deliver our social programs in Canada, as well
as human resources training and development. The second
aspect will look at the overall industry in Canada and the way we
deliver our goods and services here and abroad. The third aspect
is to try and put our house in order in terms of looking at the
overall finances of the government.
There is no doubt in my mind that if one is to look at Canada
from the outside, which the United Nations has done on a
number of occasions, one would come to the conclusion that we
live in the greatest country on earth. I knew that 20 years ago
when I came here. I knew I was going to heaven on earth. I am
sure that my colleagues in this House and all Canadians would
agree and would know that we live in the greatest land on earth.
To keep Canada in the forefront in terms of equality of social
programs that we provide our citizens, the quality of education
that we provide and access to the finest medicare in the world,
we have to do a number of things.
Before I enter into a detailed explanation I want to share with
you some statistical information in terms of the status quo, the
situation that now exists in Canada.
Today approximately 10 per cent of the Canadian population
are considered to be senior citizens. By the year 2031 that
number will double to the point where more or less about one in
every four Canadians will be a senior citizen. In parallel with
that if we are to look at the number of people who are entering
the workforce, we have a shrinkage. Today there are a lot less
people in the workforce than there were 10 or 15 years ago.
The challenge is to use the output or the productivity of those
people who are in the workforce to try and support all of the
programs, social benefits and everything else in order to contin-
8056
ue to provide the quality of life that we have been providing to
Canadians for the past 100 or so years.
To that extent one would say that we not only have to work
harder but we have to work smarter.
(1620 )
I would be misleading the House and Canadians if I were to
say that at the turn of the switch things are going to be better.
Canadians know that in order for things to get better we all have
to make sacrifices. We all have to take a bold approach toward
changing not only the appearance but the fundamental structure
when it comes to the kinds of things we do and the programs we
provide.
The reason I say this is because if we look at the programs that
we have today, many have been in existence 25 to 50 years in
some cases. Some of those programs have kept up to the demand
and to the technological changes and have been updated. Other
programs definitely require a closer look.
I am going to give a couple of examples. Let us look at the
figures for 1972. In 1972 the Canadian government spent $3
billion on unemployment insurance and social assistance. Guess
how much we spent in 1993? We spent $33.4 billion. Looking at
how much we spent on education, it is interesting to note that
Canada spent perhaps more than any other country in the world
on education. All governments together spent in excess of $50
billion a year on education.
When it comes to the overall expenditure on all of the social
programs, that would put Canada behind Sweden as the country
that spent the most on social programs of any country in the
world. That is why we have the finest support services anywhere
on the globe. That is why we have to make sure we do everything
we can to continue to provide the quality services that are
required.
If we look at what we are spending in terms of resources,
gross, financial and otherwise versus in terms of how much we
need in order to continue to support those programs, the devil
will show up. That devil is a tremendous amount of debt that
totals in excess of $700 billion if we combine the federal as well
as the provincial governments' debts.
To support that debt in terms of the deficit it is in excess of
$37 billion to $40 billion on an annual basis. If we add this to the
amount of funds we are putting in to support social programs
and our educational system and if we continue to do the kinds of
things we are doing today without some major overhaul, it will
take us quite a while to catch up. I might suggest that we will
never be able to catch up because, as my colleagues know,
cutting services alone is not going to solve it.
If the government was to fire every public servant we would
still have a deficit of approximately $20 billion a year. Cutting
programs is not going to solve it. What will solve it is if, as the
Minister for Human Resources Development has suggested, we
look at the way we provide those programs and services to the
community and try to fine tune those programs and services so
they will meet the needs and the challenges of the 1990s.
Second, we have to improve our productivity and our standing
on the international scene as well as here in Canada in order to
create wealth. The NDP's theory of redistributing wealth failed.
We have seen it in Ontario as well as in Saskatchewan and
British Columbia when they were in power. It does not work.
The second theory of ultra independent capitalism without
government being at least there in order to provide a fair and
proper environment also does not work because the private
sector alone will not solve it. As well, if we leave it up the public
sector alone it will not work.
Historically, the best approach to solve our socioeconomic
problems has always been the Liberal approach. Would the
House not agree?
(1625 )
Mr. Rideout: Absolutely.
Mr. Harb: That is basically what this government is doing.
We are looking at the way we deliver our services and our
programs. We are trying to put in place a mechanism that will
help us move ahead to control the deficit, reduce the national
debt, eventually eliminating it, and continue to provide quality
social programs for people, including our seniors, and continue
helping our youth so they can obtain the kind of education they
need.
There are some challenges. I would like to share some of
those. Now in Canada over 38 per cent of the Canadian
population is considered to be functionally illiterate. In other
words, these people may have difficulty to calculate properly,
read or write properly, fill out an application form properly
and/or properly read manuals that might relate to their daily
work.
The cost to the business community alone on an annual basis
is over $4 billion. It costs the government $10 billion a year in
terms of lost productivity and other accessories that go along
with it. Looking at the national deficit of $40 billion alone, it
costs us about 25 per cent of that. If we lived in an ideal world
with no illiteracy, we would not have a problem. I know we have
to catch up in order to reach that particular state.
I spoke earlier about the fact that there is a shrinking in terms
of the number of people who are entering the workforce. That is
a result of two things. First, the productivity rate in Canada is
decreasing, not increasing. Second, there is a major problem in
our educational system. Out of every three students now there is
one student not finishing high school. Did anyone know that?
About 33 per cent of our youth are not completing high
school. Instead, they are getting low paying jobs at Dairy Queen
or at McDonald's. As a result of that eventually, if they are
unlucky, as are many of our youth, they will find themselves in
the unfortunate situation of not finding the job they need. They
go on welfare or UI. They find themselves outside of the safety
8057
net this country has provided its citizens for the past hundred
years or so.
We have to make sure the system is open, accessible and ready
to provide opportunities for those who would like to take
advantage of them. On the other hand I will look at the overall
situation in terms of the opportunities that exist for us as a
country.
Let us have a look at the other programs. I want to share some
figures. We spent about $33.7 billion annually on UI in 1993. In
1972 we spent something like $3 billion. One would think if we
had spent more in 1993 that the figures in terms of
unemployment would improve. In other words we should have
less people on unemployment.
Unfortunately, the numbers of unemployed since the fifties
until now have not been improving. They have been going
backward. In the 1950s, the number of unemployed people in
Canada was in the range of 4 per cent to 5 per cent. In the 1990s
unfortunately that figure exceeds 10 per cent of the population.
That does not include the people who are on welfare.
We have to work harder and we have to work smarter. I have
said that 33 per cent of our youth are not completing high school
and 38 per cent of the population is functionally illiterate. Our
world is changing. My colleague from the Atlantic provinces
would know that in the past in order for us to support our social
programs all we would do was get a back hoe, dig some gold or
metals and raw material and sell it. That was easy. We would
take a few chain saws, cut a few trees and sell wood. That was
easy. Or fish.
(1630 )
However the fish are being depleted, the number of trees is
declining as are our raw materials. If we sold all the raw
materials we could it would not be sufficient to support the
expenditures our government and past governments have made.
To that extent we have to do things a little differently.
According to a study published by employment and
immigration in the past three years, by the year 2000
approximately 67 per cent of all jobs in Canada will require at
least a grade 13 education. Looking at the present situation we
will not be able to catch up. We will have to take the kind of bold
approach the Minister of Human Resources Development is
taking. We will have to take the kind of bold approach the
Minister of Finance will be taking when he delivers his budget
next February. We will have to take the same kind of bold
approach the Minister of Industry will be taking. We will also
have to take the kind of bold approach the Minister for
International Trade or the Minister of Health will be taking.
We have to look at the way we do things. The Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs has been embarking on a major
undertaking to look at the programs the government is
delivering and to see if those programs can be better delivered
by another agency or another level of government. We will see
what we as a federal government can do and what the provincial
and municipal governments, agencies or crown corporations can
do. That review will definitely lead to a more efficient and
dynamic, a more progressive and upbeat government that can
move forward with flexibility.
We will never abandon our social programs. The Liberal
government will never abandon its commitment to those who
need assistance and support. However, we have to look at things
and see if they still meet today's needs. I will give some
examples.
Despite the fact that we spend some $34 billion on UI and
social programs I am amazed there are still 1.3 million children
living below the poverty line. A large number of single mothers
still cannot find work and cannot make ends meet without a
social support network. They cannot get the education required
to make a better life for themselves and their children.
There is no doubt in my mind that a review is needed as the
Minister of Human Resources Development has stated, that will
be effective, affordable and fair. I am very much interested in
the aspects of the proposal the minister has put forward which
deals specifically with child care and child poverty.
In Canada approximately 450,000 lone parents are on welfare.
Ninety per cent of them are women who could work if they had
the right support, such as child care. Instead of helping single
mothers and their children to get out of the welfare trap the
percentage of single mothers who work is actually declining
rather than increasing. The problem is that good quality child
care is expensive and not readily available.
Most parents are in paid employment. In 1993, 63 per cent of
women with children under the age of six were actually in the
workforce, up from 47 per cent in 1981 and up from 35.5 per
cent in 1976. Despite this increase the supply of licensed child
care spaces in Canada is limited. Only 28 per cent of children six
years and under with working parents are in licensed day care. I
am sure that many of my colleagues know of some people who
experience those kinds of difficulties.
(1635)
The shortage of affordable child care could keep parents,
especially lone parents out of work. As well, the lack of flexible
work arrangements such as job sharing and compressed work
weeks make it difficult for working parents to balance work with
8058
family needs. One would ask how we can help those families and
those parents do better.
The minister came up with a number of options. He proposed
that we can and should work with the provinces to increase the
number of child care spaces. The government already has set
aside new funding for up to 150,000 new child care spaces and
we will work with the provinces to decide how the money will be
spent. Also the government could work with employers to find
ways to encourage flex time and a shorter work week.
Also we can invest to help meet the child care needs of parents
in paid employment. That makes good economic sense. Some of
the benefits would perhaps include more productive employees,
jobs for child care workers and less pressure on welfare
programs.
Those are some of the things we can do. I could go on but I see
that my time is coming to an end. I conclude by congratulating
this government on a job well done and I welcome the Prime
Minister home after a wonderful trip. It is going to create many
jobs for now and the future.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first I
want to compliment the parliamentary secretary on an excellent
and insightful discourse. The sheer volume of facts, figures and
information was quite edifying for all members of Parliament I
am sure. I would like to ask a couple of questions in two areas.
With his experience in international trade as parliamentary
secretary to the minister, I am sure he is aware of the types of
educational requirements needed. If we are going to make this
economy work, not only do we have to make government
function better but we have to make the economy grow. The
Prime Minister in his trip to China and the Asia-Pacific has
shown the opportunities that are available to Canadians. We
have to make the Canadian workforce ready for those
opportunities. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could show
us how the social safety net could be utilized in order to take
advantage of those international opportunities.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could also discuss some
of the things experienced in New Brunswick. There are
disincentives built into the present system. I am thinking
particularly of the UI system in which it is better to stay on UI
than to go out and get a job. I am thinking of the welfare system
in which it is better to stay on welfare because after taking a low
paying low skilled position and getting off welfare the benefits
available under the welfare system such as dental care, clothing
allowances and allowances for single parents are lost.
For anyone to say that the status quo is acceptable, that we can
leave things exactly the way they are obviously has no real
understanding of the tremendous change that is necessary and
which this government has embarked upon.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to comment on the
disincentives in the UI system and in the welfare systems in the
different provinces and also to offer some hope to Canadians
through the opportunities in the international marketplace.
Mr. Harb: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. It was
because of his effort and his former experience as a mayor on the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities that I was inspired along
with my colleague from Nepean to co-chair the Liberal
infrastructure task force which went across the country. It
visited his home province. The task force came back with a
report that was adopted by our caucus. I thank him again for his
interest in the well-being of his constituents.
(1640 )
The hon. member asked me to mention the kinds of things we
could do to prepare our workers and industries. We have to focus
on training. Training and retraining is the key. People might ask:
Training for what? That question deserves an answer.
The global economy as they call it and you can call it
whatever you want, but every country in the world economy is
using high technology tools such as computers, robotics,
machinery with advanced technology. Canadian industries have
not adapted to that. About 50 per cent of Canadian companies do
not use advanced technology instruments to help productivity.
After Belgium, Austria and Australia, Canada's expenditures
per capita on research and development are the third largest in
the world but the private sector is nowhere to be seen. Canada's
private sector, industry in Canada is not spending enough money
on research and development. Because the job market is going to
require at least a grade 13 education and the required
information base, understanding and knowledge, we have to
invest in the areas of research and development, education and
training.
The member asked what we could do to improve employment
services. The minister is already looking at ways and tools to
improve these services such as individual job counselling,
helping people develop their own employment plan, providing
information about the job market, pointing people in the right
direction, giving them access to basic skills training, and
helping them with reading, writing and math. We must give
them better training programs to acquire skills that match-a
key buzzword-the local labour market. That is very important.
Train them for what? That is the key. Many of my constituents
ask what they are being trained for.
We must work in co-operation with the private sector. It takes
two hands to clap. You cannot clap with one hand. Government
cannot do it all by itself. We need the co-operation of the private
sector. We have to work with it hand in hand.
8059
With respect to trade this government has probably done
more in that area in a short period of time than any other
government in the history of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, let
me go back to what the hon. parliamentary secretary said at the
beginning of his speech, namely that it must be recognized that
the reform under way is aimed at reducing the debt and the
deficit. I do not want to repeat the figures, but he admitted that
this reform was a total package in relation to the existing
economic situation.
He confirmed that the debt and the deficit will be reduced at
the expense of the less fortunate, that is, the seasonally
unemployed, students-some of whom we saw last week on
Parliament Hill-, single mothers, high school drop-outs, to
whom he also referred in his undoubtedly accurate figures. It is
true that over 33 per cent of our students drop out of school. We
must of course put our fiscal house in order before it goes
bankrupt, but not at the expense of the less fortunate.
I wish he had mentioned other ways to reduce the deficit.
There are other ways such as family trusts, to name just one.
What is keeping them from taking action on this front? What is
keeping them from going after the millions of dollars we are
losing because the GST is poorly administered? We could then
achieve the same goal, that is, reducing the debt and the deficit,
but not at the expense of the less fortunate.
(1645)
Mr. Harb: Madam Speaker, I would like us to reread the
``blues''. I never said that all this government wanted to do is to
reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor. On the contrary, I will
again repeat what I said, in case the hon. member did not hear
me. We will continue to set up and launch the necessary
programs to help Canadians. Let me quote what the minister said
in English:
[English]
``A hallmark of our Canadian society is our commitment as a
government to people who cannot work because of illness or
injury, low income families struggling to make ends meet,
people with disabilities or chronic illness and children living in
poverty. Our social programs are the way in which we offer
protection and hope to Canadians''. He goes on to list some of
the social programs that we have in place.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the minister is dealing with the needs of
people who ask for help.
I especially want to point out to the hon. member that I never
said in my speech that we would reduce the deficit on the backs
of the poor. I am sure he agrees with me that we must control the
deficit. To control the deficit, we must act more intelligently. If
the hon. member tells me that $50 billion a year is not enough
spent on education, well, I do not know, but we spend more than
any other country in the world.
Probably what we need in the end is to harmonize the systems,
eliminate duplication and deliver services better, and I am sure
that we will end up saving money, but never on the backs of the
poor and those who need assistance.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a number of areas that I wanted to touch on but I
keep adding as I listen to this debate here today.
One of the areas that I would like to touch on briefly are the
comments made by the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood. I listened with interest to his heart
warming and somewhat inspiring story of his grandmother. I
believe that many people have similar stories. It does show what
people are able to do under adverse conditions when the need is
really there.
One of the interesting things is that we have gone too far. I
think the pendulum has swung the other way. I do not think we
want to return to conditions under which he mentioned where
there is absolutely no help for anyone under virtually any
circumstances. It is very warming that his grandmother was able
to persevere in the face of that kind of adversity.
Nowadays we have a different situation. I have one friend as
an example who has a son who plants trees. This may be alien to
some of the people in some regions of the country but in British
Columbia tree planting is a very active profession during the
summer months. Someone who is a good tree planter can make a
great deal of money during that season; $35,000, $40,000 or
more in a three or four month season for those who are very good
at this. It happens that his son is one of these who is very good at
what he does and he makes very good money.
During the balance of the year under the existing system he
collects unemployment insurance. When I talk in terms of the
pendulum swinging too far the other way, this particular
individual belongs to something that is known in my riding with
some satire, with tongue firmly in cheek, as the UIC ski team.
He is an avid skier. This particular individual spends a lot of
time at the local ski hill and to his credit volunteers a lot of his
time to the voluntary ski patrol which is very worthwhile.
The interesting story that his father conveyed to me is the fact
that this individual one season was offered a job at the mountain
to be on the regular ski patrol and to be paid for it. He went home
that night and pondered his situation. He looked at his UIC
benefits and looked at what he would be paid as a member of the
ski patrol.
8060
(1650)
He weighed all the factors and he went back to the ski hill the
next day and told them that he would be happy to remain a
volunteer at the ski hill, but if he took the job he would give up
his UIC and his net benefit would be a drop in income. He did not
particularly care to do that.
We have improved over the hardships that people like the hon.
member's grandmother had to live under and deal with. As I say
I think perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way
and these are the kinds of things we are going to have to look at
when we talk in terms of social reform.
One other factor that I want to touch on while still on the
subject of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is that
of women in business. Once again it is something that is moving
in the right direction but with a potential problem as well.
We saw recently in the province of Ontario a provincial
government ad that said in essence white males need not apply.
There is no question that women, whether it be in business or in
any other area, have been discriminated against in the past. I
hope that time is coming to an end. I am sure there is still
discrimination out there but it is being reduced, it is being dealt
with and it is something that people are now very much aware of.
However, it is hard to really properly deal with it by
introducing various types of reverse discrimination. There is a
risk in doing that if you can help a woman to go into a business,
to assist her and give her some benefit that is not available to
other people. We see this not only in the area of women in
business but we see it in many things. It applies in general
business without categorization-it might be men to men-but
nonetheless we have to take a very cautious look at any area
which offers specialized help for any one group no matter what
it happens to be.
We obviously have to reduce the amount of money we spend,
the payments that we make, as it were, under social programs. It
has been said by very learned people that by some time in the
next decade the cost of our social programs combined with the
interest on our debt-those two factors alone-will exceed the
government's income. Obviously reductions can be made in
other areas but if you eliminate everything, if you eliminate the
departments of agriculture, fisheries, defence, foreign policy
and all other departments, totally eliminate them, we still would
not deal with our debt problem. Obviously changes have to be
made under social programs.
However, before we start reducing payments made under
these programs we have to first reduce costs in other areas.
These costs have to certainly be in the delivery of social
program benefits. Not just under that, we have to look at all the
other programs and all the other departments as well.
One of the things that will happen is if we stop removing so
much money from people in all the other areas it puts less
pressure on the social programs.
Something we might want to look at under agriculture, for
example, is grain car allocation so that the farmers are better
able to get their grain to market; likewise, the labour disruptions
at ports. These are problems that affect the revenues of farmers.
Not only that but as we saw in the last labour disruption in the
port of Vancouver, it had a spinoff effect that started to shut
down factories in other parts of the country that had absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with farming or grain. It is a matter of
problems that tie up the ports and then start to affect people in
other areas.
In my own riding Cominco Ltd. had I think about three days
worth of supplies left before it had to start providing layoff
notices. These are things that we have to look at.
On business subsidies, we are talking in terms of women in
business. These business subsidies also apply in other areas.
One of the problems with business subsidies is that not all
people get them. How do we reconcile the fact that we give a
subsidy to one business and not to another? We could end up
with a government subsidized business competing directly with
a similar business that receives no subsidy.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood had a question
after his talk about why there cannot be some form of program
that allows people on unemployment insurance to start a
business of their own while collecting it.
(1655 )
There is such a program called SEAP, the self-employment
assistance program, which does exactly that. One has to be on
unemployment insurance in order to apply for it. The benefit
that one gets is one year from the point of time that one's
program is approved one gets to remain on unemployment
insurance for one year while one starts his or her business.
That has some potential but again it is one of these things
where one cannot just arbitrarily say what a wonderful program.
I have had cases come up in my riding recently in which people
who were on unemployment insurance were given the
opportunity to start a business and had their unemployment
insurance benefits continued while they did this for one year.
However, two cases have come up in which they are in direct
competition with existing businesses.
The latest case that has come up has resulted in the person
getting this assistance dropping his prices to carve his niche into
the market which will result in the other competitor who is
already there and did not get assistance before and is not getting
8061
assistance now probably laying someone off. Our program in
this particular instance does not work.
We also have to look at such things as interprovincial trade
barriers. The Atlantic provinces, for example, receive economic
development grants as do other regions of Canada. Just to put it
into perspective, the cost to the Atlantic provinces of
interprovincial trade barriers exceeds the benefit they get from
the economic development grants. Obviously we have some
changes we could make there that will enhance the prosperity of
the region and take the pressure in some areas off of the social
programs.
We have the salmon fisheries on the west coast. The salmon
fisheries are now headed down the road that many of the Atlantic
fisheries have already travelled. We have a problem out there
and this problem has to be dealt with. It has to be dealt with
openly and quickly or we are going to have the same kind of
problems in the west, at least in the fishing industry, that
Atlantic Canada has experienced for many years.
We then have the firearms legislation. We are now talking it
seems about the registration of rifles and shotguns, anywhere
from seven to twenty-one million of these rifles and shotguns
depending on whose figures one uses. Let us say it is probably
somewhere in the middle between those two figures. The
expected cost of that could run as high as a billion dollars or
even more. That is a cost to the taxpayer.
Even if we charge an amount for each registration that is equal
to the cost of the government registering them, it is still
removing a billion dollars out of our economy that is doing
absolutely nothing to resolve any of the other pressing problems
of government or the deficit and debt problem.
RRSPs are probably one of the most dangerous things that the
government is playing with right now because it is trying to get
some revenue out of possibly attacking RRSPs, the cost of which
will be future problems down the road. If we have a shortage
now because we are trying to pay pensions and other benefits to
people who in some cases do not need it, think of the problems
we are going to have further down the road when we are telling
people they have to be more responsible for themselves, they
have to look after themselves if they are able to do so when we
potentially may set in force legislation today which will affect
their ability to look after themselves somewhere down the road.
On the unemployment insurance commission, before we can
go out to industry and start attacking industry that we feel may
not be acting in the country's best interest, the government has
to get its own house in order. The minister responsible for UIC
specifically singled out the automotive industry. Maybe he
should. Maybe there is a problem there. I am not an expert in that
area but what I do know is that there is five times the cost that the
auto industry causes the unemployment insurance program right
in the government to the point that it is costing some $400
million a year because of seasonal benefits in the government.
The government cannot attack industry until it has its own house
in order.
(1700 )
Under the question of consultation there is a problem that I
have seen. I realize that this is my opinion and the government is
free to counter it. I have seen a lot of instances in different bills
in which the government loves to have a long list of all those
groups it has consulted with. When we see this list of businesses,
organizations and individuals who have been consulted with, we
are supposed to assume that the government then automatically
has listened to the input from these people it has consulted with
and drawn its legislation based on that.
We know the reality is that does not happen. The most prime
example is the Minister of Justice again. The Minister of Justice
has been quoted as saying with regard to the firearms lobby: ``I
will not produce legislation on the basis of head count. I will do
what I believe is the right thing''. This could be very easily
interpreted as: ``I do not care what you want, I know better''.
Reform consultation is ongoing on this particular thing as it is
with the Liberal members in their various ridings. We are going
to great length in trying to consult with people to find out what
changes they will accept, what alternatives they have to suggest
and how they see we should deal with the problem. The question
is will the government consider our input after we have had this
consultation or will it continue with its own agenda?
I am having quite a number of meetings in my own riding. I
am setting up to meet with pension groups, medical
professionals, education professionals, labour groups, employer
groups and student associations. In addition, to get a feeling of
the general constituents in my riding I am holding ten town hall
meetings over the winter break.
With regard to dealing with student groups, I have a particular
concern that we do not make significant further cuts to transfer
payments in support of post-secondary education. We talk about
government spending in the past. Whether it be Liberal or
Conservative does not matter. We are here now and that is what
happened in the past. Nonetheless we are in a situation in which
we have mortgaged our children's and grandchildren's futures.
When we start dealing with student groups we have to
recognize that we have already placed a huge penalty upon these
people. Let us not add to that by placing another obstacle in their
way to their getting the implements they need to deal with the
legacy of debt we have left them.
8062
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, you are not quite out of time.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke, Pearson International Airport.
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, my colleagues are pointing out
that I have placed you in a position in which you have to
interrupt me to tell me that I will be speaking further after I
finish speaking.
I am pretty well wrapped up on this, other than to say that
consultation will take place. The very first thing I said when I
rose in this House for the first time at the beginning of the
session in the spring was that I am not here to oppose for the sake
of opposition. I will be the first to applaud the government when
it brings in legislation I or my constituents agree with. If I do not
agree with its legislation then I hope I would be able to offer
some constructive alternatives. That is what we are trying to do
in terms of meeting with the people.
I have my own certain ideas. I am not trying to sell these at
town hall meetings. I am trying to explore with people what
types of alternatives are out there, what the bottom line is that
we have to reach, what the government is proposing and then
listen the kinds of choices they make. I hope we will have good
opportunity for consultation. We will not take an adversarial
roles, saying we cannot accept anything you do because it makes
less of our plan or vice versa. In the end we want what is going to
work for the people of Canada. I trust we are all working toward
that goal.
(1705 )
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Kootenay West-Revelstoke for his comments on my earlier
remarks.
I assure the member that we are sincere. The Minister of
Human Resources Development is someone I have watched in
this town since 1980. He is someone who respects good ideas.
Without ideas we are dead around here.
The members opposite should feel that any good ideas they
put forward here, no matter where the members come from, if
they will make the fabric of this country better we are going to
take them.
I want to pick up on the member's comments about the
unemployment insurance ski team member. I have problems
with the UI ski team. I have problems for a number of reasons. I
think the member said this person was making approximately
$40,000 in three months working in his forestry career. If
someone is doing that in three months and then all of sudden
going on this unemployment insurance system, I think of the ski
unit, if it happens at a time when it might displace someone else
who needs more than the basic minimum wage that a UI cheque
would give I think we are putting that other person at a
disadvantage.
In other words if I were looking for a job on the ski slopes and
needed to get $15 or $20 an hour because I did not have the
$40,000 income for the three months, and if all of a sudden I do
not get the job because here is a fellow who is volunteering his
time and it is not costing the employer a nickel, we are working
against ourselves.
Does the hon. member not think that when a firm receives the
benefit of having someone contribute toward the health and
viability of his business where it is being funded by the
taxpayers through the UI system perhaps there should be some
accountability so that we are not working at cross purposes?
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, I am not sure exactly where we
ended up with that question. I am sure the member will correct
me if I get too far off the track.
In the case of this particular individual I mentioned in my
example, there are both volunteers anyway and full time people
they are required to have as part of their licence. This individual
by volunteering was just that, a volunteer who would if he had
taken the full time job hopefully have been replaced with
another volunteer. The full time job that he did not take because
he was a volunteer still existed and still had to be filled by
someone else. In that particular example he was not taking away
someone's job by volunteering while supported by his
unemployment insurance benefits.
I think where the problem comes overall is we have taken
some of the incentive away. It is not just a matter of policing.
Some would argue that if there is no work for this individual and
he is getting unemployment in any event he might as well be on
the ski hill.
The argument is that one of the things we are looking at in our
policy dealing with unemployment insurance is if someone
makes $40,000 a year, should he be able to collect benefits
which are paid in part by someone who has a $27,000 a year job
and works 52 weeks of the year paying premiums so that
individual can be off.
There has to be some cut through which we say you have made
over a certain amount, you have gone beyond what we have
guaranteed you would make and therefore you are not eligible
for further benefits or at least it would be at a severely reduced
point.
(1710 )
I am sure the hon. member is aware of our concept of old age
pension for people with high income. If we applied the same
type of principle to the unemployment insurance program, the
saving would run to quite a few billion dollars.
8063
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, first
I want to emphasize a positive point made by the Reform Party
member. I agree with him when he says that, as regards
post-secondary education, the federal government should not
put students deeper into debts. Consequently, the hon. member
would oppose a reduction in federal transfers to the provinces
for education. I hope his views are shared by the rest of his
caucus.
The hon. member approves the reform and every measure
related to it. In fact, he said that on top of implementing this
reform, we should also look at program expenditures. I agree
that many departmental programs should be reviewed. However,
my question is: Before implementing a social program reform
which targets the poor and the unemployed, does he not think
that we should take a look at foregone tax revenues for the
government, because of family trusts, because of a major
shortfall in GST collection, and because of subsidies granted to
industries which do not appear to need them? Does he not agree
that, before implementing this reform, the government should
try to recover all the money it is losing right now?
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, certainly there are problems. I
assume the hon. member was referring largely to such things as
the underground economy and how a lot of revenue the
government should be collecting is disappearing. There are two
ends of the scale. There are allegations that at the top end of the
scale there are people who use tax loopholes to escape paying
their due portion and at all ends of the scale from the bottom up
there are people who are using this underground economy to
escape paying high taxes and particularly the GST.
These are things that definitely have to be addressed. One of
the ways we are looking at addressing the tax system is using a
flat tax type of system. Interestingly, one of the models I have
looked at was originally devised by a member of the Liberal
Party. Unfortunately it did not get a lot of response at the time.
We have system that we have devised in which we will ensure
that each person pays a fair share. The only deductions that will
be allowed are those that apply to the most general population
across Canada. With regard to the money we are losing in things
like GST and so on with the underground economy, one of the
problems is if we put so much burden on people, they finally will
get to a point at which they justify in their own mind that it is
proper, that it is actually the right thing to do to avoid paying
taxes wherever possible. We saw this in the case of the cigarette
tax in the east where people openly flaunted the fact that they
were buying cigarettes that did not have the tax paid on them.
People will get to the point at which they say enough is enough.
These are things that have to be dealt with. We think the only
way that will be dealt with, rather than extracting more money or
enforcing under GST, is to get government's end under control,
which is the spending. We have to reduce the government's need
for those tax dollars. We have to deal with the tax burden that is
placed on people so we are not taxing people to the extent that
they find every loophole they can get, legal and otherwise, to
avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
(1715 )
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
special privilege for me to participate in this debate. I am going
to spend my time talking about what this government has been
doing and proposes to do in support of older workers who sadly
find themselves displaced from a job at a time in life when it is
not easy to find a new job.
I want to preface my remarks by saying that I have
tremendous confidence in the Minister of Human Resources
Development. He has put a set of options on the table that I
believe are historic. They are based on extensive consultations
which took place earlier this year. They are packaged in a format
that Canadians can easily understand. I am confident that when
the message is fully out and all the options are fully explained,
Canadians will significantly support what it is we need to do to
put Canada's social security safety net on a solid foundation for
the future.
I have had a number of round table discussions in my riding of
Algoma over the last few weeks. I have met with a wide
cross-section of the community to discuss how these options
might affect them and to elicit their feedback. I have been most
impressed with some of the things I have learned. I will not
dwell on those items today. I am not finished those consultations
and in fairness to the participants, I want to give them a
summary of those meetings. I will report their comments, the
consensus and disagreements to the standing committee and to
the minister by early December.
I get the sense that Canadians agree something has to be done
to improve how we take care of those in need, how we make sure
our young people get a proper education, how we take care of
older workers who find themselves displaced. I am confident
that the proper choices will be made when legislation is
proposed next year.
I especially want to spend time talking about the men and
women who have devoted their lives to building this great
nation. I know hon. members will agree that older workers
deserve the same consideration as do all Canadian workers. Of
course older workers generally find change much more difficult
to deal with than younger workers, which is quite
understandable.
In years past workers could count on being at a job from their
late teens or early twenties until it was time to retire.
Unfortunately and regretfully times have changed and the world
of work has changed. Our country is very much enmeshed in the
global
8064
economy and it is not so easy for people now to look forward to a
lifetime of work at the same workplace.
We require of our citizens and of ourselves a lifetime of
learning and adaptation, but there are older workers who find
themselves trapped. We are all creatures of habit. After
spending 25 years or more at one job it is quite a challenge to
suddenly be out of a job and faced with finding another job. This
is usually a shock to the worker and his family. If it is part of a
large lay-off in the community it is a shock to the entire region.
Canadians are resilient. We have adjusted over many decades
and I am sure we will be able to do so in the future. This
government is certainly not abandoning older workers during
the reform of our social security system. They are very much
full participants in the reform process.
This stage of social security reform is a learning process and
we are learning from the measures we have already taken for
older workers. For example, I remind hon. colleagues that the
government did not abandon older workers who were hard hit by
the decline in a large number of this country's industries. We
have seen tremendous dislocation over the last 10 years. We
have not and will not abandon those in need. The coming
changes will ensure that those in need are protected.
(1720)
One program that has been most helpful and has come into
play in a number of difficult situations is the program for older
worker adjustment, commonly known by its acronym POWA.
Through absolutely no fault of their own many older workers
find themselves out of a job and sadly with very little chance of
finding a replacement job. This is where the program for older
worker adjustment can be so helpful.
Canadians want us to show compassion for those individuals,
those hard working men and women who have contributed to the
economy of Canada for the greater part of their lives. Let me
emphasize that POWA is not a disincentive to seek work. By
helping older workers adjust because they cannot find a job is
not keeping them away from the workplace but simply providing
a safety net or a bridge until they can make an adjustment or
until their old age pension comes into play.
This program is only one of a broad range of options available
to older workers. As I say, it is only one measure the government
has taken to support older Canadian workers. POWA has been a
carefully crafted program that addresses the needs of workers. It
is a fine example of government innovation and partnership
between the federal government and various provincial
governments to provide long term income assistance to older
workers with little or no re-employment prospects.
I can say from personal experience and the experience of
hundreds indeed thousands of workers in my riding of Algoma
that a number of laid off workers have benefited from the
program for older worker adjustment. Since 1990 we have seen
the loss of nearly 4,000 mining jobs in the community of Elliot
Lake. In this group of nearly 4,000 workers many hundreds have
been in the awkward age of 55 to 60.
The program for older worker adjustment has been of
significant help to many hundreds of laid off workers in Elliot
Lake and the north shore region of my riding. While POWA
cannot solve the financial problems of every individual family,
it can play a major part in making life a lot easier during a very
difficult time for these laid off workers.
I would like to point out another example of where this
government has exhibited its extreme interest in older workers.
In the province of New Brunswick there is the New Brunswick
job corps program. It is a proactive program that helps older
workers get back into the labour force. It is different from the
program for older worker adjustment. It recognizes the need to
try different things in different areas and is a newer initiative.
I will explain how the New Brunswick job corps initiative
works. I will use the example of Gilles, which is a name I will
use for the purpose of this discussion. He is a 53-year old
worker who was on social assistance. Like many others his age,
he had years of work experience but could no longer find work.
At 53 it was very difficult; the new technology had simply
pushed him aside. He was in danger of getting caught in the
welfare cycle and Gilles being a proud person did not want to be
on welfare.
Thanks to the federal government's strategic initiatives
program, we have been working in partnership with the New
Brunswick government and since last July Gilles has been
employed through the New Brunswick job corps. This older
worker is now employed by the city of Bathurst in its parks,
recreation and tourism department. How does Gilles feel about
this? To quote him he says: ``I would rather be here than on
welfare''. I do not think it matters so much the kind of work
Gilles is doing.
I am certain all of my hon. colleagues will agree that very few
people who find themselves on welfare, family benefits or
unemployment insurance actually prefer to receive their income
through those programs. As the Prime Minister has often said
the very best form of assistance and the best form of income is a
job. One can achieve the dignity of bringing home a paycheque
with which to purchase the family's food and shelter.
(1725)
People like Gilles, and there are many thousands, can benefit
from the kinds of initiatives this government is bringing forward
8065
that will give people a chance to have dignity each day as they
bring home a well earned paycheque.
The strategic initiatives program is a partnership with the
provinces and territories. Together we are funding projects on a
50:50 basis. In the New Brunswick example it is a $40 million
investment over five years. This new kind of partnership, along
with POWA which has been in existence for a number of years,
is an example of the leadership of this federal government in
trying to get this country back on the right road. Another
example is job link in Ontario, a creative idea to allow welfare
recipients broader opportunities to get back into the workplace.
Gilles is only one of about a thousand participants in the New
Brunswick program. Older displaced workers between the ages
of 50 and 65 are given a guaranteed annual income of up to
$12,000 in return for a minimum of 26 weeks of work. It gives
these deserving men and women the opportunity to feel good
about themselves. They are doing meaningful work and
contributing to the prosperity of their province.
The strategic initiatives program is enabling us to test
innovative and cost effective ways of reforming our social
security system. It is helping us to determine the best approach
to creating lasting employment, to understanding what is needed
in education and training and to adjusting income security
measures so they address the realities of the 1990s.
Of course the question often comes up: What have you done
for us lately? This past Friday on behalf of the Minister of
Human Resources Development I was involved in the
announcement of a major study that will eventually help us to
understand measures needed to assist older workers and other
laid off workers.
This major study was announced in Elliot Lake. It will
provide valuable information, research that is available
nowhere in the world on what happens to the community, the
businesses, older and younger workers, families, spouses,
children, teenagers, when there is a major layoff in a
community.
The study will be undertaken by a research team from
Laurentian University in Sudbury in co-operation with the
community. It will study the long term effects not only on
displaced workers but on their community.
Something like 4,000 jobs have been lost since 1990 in a
community where the population was roughly 18,000 and
several more thousands in the nearby north shore. There is only
one mine left with about 550 workers. In spite of that some
marvellous things are happening in the community of Elliot
Lake and the surrounding area. You would be surprised at how
vigorously the community has responded to the tremendous
challenges it faced when the major layoffs occurred. I am very
proud to have this community and this region in my riding.
I believe this study will show that this occurrence and the
response of the community will be an example to the rest of the
country on how to deal with major layoffs. Imagine nearly 4,000
workers out of a population of 18,000. That is nearly 25 per cent
of the entire population. They had good paying jobs in the
mining sector. Take 4,000 jobs out of a community and see what
happens if there is no creative response.
Come and visit the area and see the miracle that is occurring,
the response. In fact the population did drop a little bit. It is
about 13,500 now. Projections are that it will soon start growing
if it has not already done so.
(1730 )
This research announcement is again a partnership initiative
with the province. The federal government will invest a little
over $2 million under the innovations program. I believe great
things will be learned from this exercise.
In Quebec the federal government recently announced joint
assistance to help eligible unemployed older workers between
the ages of 55 and 59 whose benefits after unemployment
insurance and other normal assistance programs had run out.
Major lay-offs which meet the program criteria are designated
by federal, provincial and territorial ministers on a case by case
basis after being assessed according to a range of socioeconomic
factors.
The government is not sitting back, lying down and waiting
for things to happen. We are acting proactively to anticipate
what Canadians need.
This is all part of social security reform. Older workers are
invited, in fact encouraged to give their views to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development during the
committee's current public hearings. Their input is welcome and
will be given as much consideration as that of any Canadian. Of
course all citizens are entitled to express their views to their
member of Parliament. I am sure that each member will ensure
the minister and/or the committee will hear their views. It is
important that we reach a consensus on how to repair the social
safety net.
As I said earlier, older workers are full participants in social
security reform. Through the various programs and services that
address their needs we will gather valuable information. I assure
the House that the information will be reflected in our
development of new social security policies and programs.
I have been focusing on older workers particularly. The
critical needs of our older workers must never be forgotten. The
workplace has changed permanently and we must be creative in
our search for solutions.
I would like to conclude there. I mentioned earlier the round
tables that I have had in my riding. I have been amazed at how
much I have learned sitting around a table with average
Canadians. We were all equals at the table. With all due respect
to this place, I have learned as much around the table over a cup
of coffee with average Canadians as I often have at meetings
here in Ottawa. It is amazing the insights that one can get and
garner
8066
from the experiences of folks who are living with their problems
in their communities every day.
I encourage those members who have not already planned
their round tables or public meetings to do so. They are well
worth the trouble.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker,
throughout his speech, the hon. member had nothing but praise
for his minister, the Minister of Human Resources
Development. I wonder whether tomorrow morning he will go to
his office to receive a token of appreciation.
The hon. member said that the document we are discussing
was the result of extensive consultations, and that is the point I
would like to discuss: those extensive consultations that
produced a reform to be implemented at the expense of the most
vulnerable in our society-the unemployed or the beer drinkers,
as they call them.
If these consultations were so meticulous, why, when we are
consulting the public, does the minister send his go-between to
do the ground work in our regions? The hon. member for
Outremont is now scouting around Quebec to get the pulse of the
people. In my own riding, in Chicoutimi, only fifteen people
turned out.
This is a waste of taxpayers' money. In Jonquière, the number
of spectators, because that is what they were more than anything
else, was even lower, and in Roberval they had to cancel the
consultation. Since people do not want to hear about this reform,
because it will be at the expense of the most vulnerable in our
society, I think the minister should do his homework all over
again. The public consultations being conducted by the
committee across the country are a sham.
(1735 )
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member
for Chicoutimi for his comments and his question, although I
believe he has it wrong. To suggest that the member for
Outremont needs to go out, scout around and prepare the way for
the Minister of Human Resources Development misses the
point.
First, I would suggest that a turnout of 15 at the meeting he
refers to might also suggest that people are satisfied with the
options that have been put on the table. They were not so worried
that they had to go out and participate. I put that forward as a
possible explanation for the low turnout. In polls that I have
read, something in the order of 60 to 65 per cent plus Canadians
support the initiatives we are taking in repairing and renewing
our social safety net.
Canadians have confidence that we will not take measures
that will hurt those in need. To suggest we are doing this on the
backs of the needy flies in the face of the philosophy on which
our proposals are based. It is an attempt to deploy dollars in a
more effective way so that those truly in need can get the help,
retraining or assistance they need in order to become players in
the workplace.
The hon. member really has it wrong. I would suggest that he
re-read the documents. The pulse I get from talking to the
people on the street is to keep going for the changes. Move
ahead. Do not be worried about our detractors, those who would
speak negatively of our initiatives. We all agree changes have to
be made. The status quo is not acceptable.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with enthusiasm to the report by the member. I would
like to participate in the debate by sharing what my hon.
colleague already knows, that I get a little bit upset when I hear
day after day, when the government advances any type of
reform, we are doing it on the backs of the least fortunate. To use
this as an occasion to exploit those more unfortunate for
opportunistic reasons I find is self-serving.
My colleague and I both sit on the finance committee and we
listen intently to the debate that is going on about the deficit. We
both know that if we were to attack or remove outright the
subsidies to small businesses, as business has told us, if we were
to tax lottery and gambling winnings, and simply do as members
of the Bloc Quebecois have said: ``Cut government spending
and defence spending'' by 25 per cent, I put it to the House that
the $3 billion the finance minister needs this year and the $6
billion the finance minister needs next year, the $9 billion could
come from these.
How can members of the opposition continually stand in the
House and say that we want to reform social security on the
backs of the unemployed, students and the least fortunate? As
the member knows, the status quo is not acceptable, not only in
Quebec, it is not acceptable anywhere in Canada.
Does he not agree with me that the present programs are
outdated, no longer respond to the needs and aspirations of
Canadians and Quebecers alike?
Mr. St. Denis: Madam Speaker, my colleague is dead on. He
has in very few words concisely put our government's agenda in
the proper perspective.
(1740 )
My colleagues-at least the colleagues who would admit it,
which would be the members of my party-and I are not
receiving from our constituents the complaints about leaving
programs exactly the way they are. ``Do not touch them''. We
are not receiving those kinds of comments. People generally
recognize that change has to take place. To argue: ``Don't make
8067
changes because this will happen or the sky will fall down'' is
totally inappropriate.
Those in need, the poorest of the poor, need us to make
changes so they can more properly take their place in the work
place. One of the previous speakers from the governing party
mentioned literacy for example. There is a 38 per cent illiteracy
rate in Canada. Almost four out of ten Canadians experience
some serious degree of illiteracy where they have difficulty
functioning in number or language skills.
This is part of what we are talking about in dealing with a
redeployment of human resources. To say that we are doing this
on the backs of the needy is churlish in my view. It is
complaining for the sake of complaint. Let us get on with the
job. Let us recognize and acknowledge that what we have done,
as my hon. colleague said, for 20 or 30 years is not acceptable
anymore.
Times have changed. The world is changing. We do not want
huge sectors of our society being left behind as we move into the
next century. If we care about our fellow Canadians, we must
gather them up and move together. If we do not take action now
and improve our safety net programs, we will leave those folks
behind. That would be a tragedy of epic proportions. We have to
take action.
I suggest the options that have been placed before Canadians
are the right place to start.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the government's
proposed social policy review today. I have been pleased to take
the charge the government has suggested to participate in
fostering informed public debate by taking up the debate in my
constituency in the last several weeks.
Today I would like to spend the majority of my time on the
issue of the family as it relates to child care. First let me echo the
surprise and concern of some of my constituents as I talked to
them in the past while.
First, when the whole social security program was presented,
including old age security, the CPP and federal government
transfers to provinces for established programs and
equalization, the people in my community were convinced that
surely we cannot avoid reducing expenditures in social program
areas, as this represents a very major portion of government
expenditures.
In fact at present rates of growth in these very programs,
social program expenditure and debt service charges alone will
exceed our total revenue in government within just a few years.
Cuts must be made. However, they feel that taxes must not be
increased, specifically as relates to our CAP. They were shocked
to hear that the federal government forbids a work component in
any welfare assistance.
There were a few things they were shocked about. They were
shocked to hear of the unsecured liability of over $500 billion,
as great as the federal debt, in the CPP program alone. They
were angry at a government that would possibly consider
taxation of RRSPs when its own security programs for seniors,
including the old age security program, are becoming totally
unsustainable.
Changes must be made to provide a social security system that
addresses the real needs now and for the future of our citizens.
(1745)
As we speak of the future, I would like to spend the majority
of my allotted time on the foundation for that future. The
Reform Party believes in the importance of strengthening and
protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of
individuals in society.
The family, I believe, is the fundamental building block of our
society. Not only is it the best institution for the transfer and
protection of values, of culture and of social stability, it is the
very best institution for the practical realization of our social
policy renewal.
I stand distinct in this House today in the fact that my
background has basically been one of a homemaker. I have heard
in this House people complain about different programs that
government proposes or that are actually in existence that make
one spouse dependent on another.
I am not sure that is always a bad idea. A dependency in our
social structure between people especially if those people can
create a unit that will indeed strengthen the base of society is not
a bad thing. There is strength in numbers. There is strength in
combination of talents. There is strength in bringing viewpoints
together.
Our society must be built on values such as commitment and
understanding, shared goals and willingness to sacrifice. These
things are epitomized in our families and they should be
honoured in that situation.
Recently while attending the Standing Committee on Justice
concerning changes to the Young Offenders Act I was not at all
surprised to hear a witness remark that he felt that government
legislation had worked against families.
I see it often in my constituency office in stories from
distraught parents as to how those provincial and federal laws,
their programs and their bureaucracy have affected their
children, their ability to make a living and even their hope for
their future.
Short term planning and ever escalating government
programs have removed authority from parents. They have
skewed their responsibilities in all directions and even hinted
that perhaps they should not even work together in the home, it
is better to work outside the home, and then they diverted their
energies from their families into basic economic survival.
With the social policy review, once again the government
proposes new and bigger programs that will adversely affect
8068
families. Even presently according to the children's bureau
federal spending on children exceeds $15 billion a year.
Again much of the government's social policy focus is not on
families but on children and more specifically to our discussion
today the issue of the best care for our children. Like all
Canadians, I would like to see the most effective means
available to create opportunity for the families of these children.
This solution, however, may not be-I do not believe it is in
government programs-only addressed to children. Children
are a part of families.
Specifically as relates to child poverty, the backgrounder to
the discussion paper reads: ``The very best way to fight child
poverty is for parents of poor families to have a job''. Given the
present levels of government debt and spending, potentially
made even worse as I have mentioned by increased government
programs, let us take a closer look at this statement.
What happens when a family gets a job, particularly when a
single parent family gets a job? May I suggest that single parent
families or one earner families have a very difficult time in
making ends meet even now. Let me explain.
Recent statistics out of Port Moody-Coquitlam, my home
riding, tell us that over 80 per cent of families are composed of a
husband and wife and 12 per cent to 16 per cent, depending on
the community, are single parents. Surprising to some, this
actually is quite consistent with out national statistics.
Nationally approximately 80 per cent of families are dual
parents. Twenty per cent are single parents and that is up from
approximately 17 per cent in 1981. Of concern are the low
income families, that is those that fall below the StatsCan low
income cut off point.
What I found interesting was that over one-half of single
female parent families, precisely 51.6 per cent, are low income
when they work. They have a job but they are still low income.
Almost one-quarter of one earner dual parent families are low
income. These tell me that a job alone is not enough. One earner
is not enough.
(1750)
What is there in this make-up that encourages the single
parent to actually get a job? There is not much. Over half of them
will still be in a low income category.
Given our present unacceptable high taxation directly
resulting from continued government debt, spending and
continued government program creation this poverty trap
cannot be solved by a job alone.
Recently during consultations in my riding I had a long
discussion with a single mom. She already was having to do
dishes at two o'clock in the morning after juggling work, child
care and unfortunately right now time with a sick elderly parent.
She was asking me what more can she do. When I said to her that
the family should be the primary care giver she asked me if we
were asking her to do more. She just could not comprehend her
ability to do more than she is already doing.
However, it is ever increasing government spending that will
end up asking her to do more in the long run. Less and less of
what she earns when she is working will be put toward her
family. It is decreased government spending, decreased
government programs at all levels that will actually free her to
make more decisions and to apply her time the way she should.
We are simply asking that the government do less and allow
her greater choices with her consequently saved tax dollars.
Such savings would allow individuals such as this single mom to
be more self-reliant. Families would be able to choose their
child care. Communities would benefit from the increased local
resources and businesses would thrive and share in programs to
support their local needs. This is a real long term and far
reaching solution.
Government economic and fiscal policies not only affect the
income levels of Canadians, StatsCan figures reveal the average
middle class after tax income was $39,500 in 1980 and by 1991
that figure had dropped to $37,200. Government economic
policies have actually been instrumental in forcing dual parent
families into dual earner families simply to make ends meet.
Presently most Canadian parents are in the workforce including
those with preschool children because of the demands of taxes in
their lives.
The federal government presently spends more than $400
million every year on institutionalized day care. Its red ink book
promises $720 million more tax dollars over three years on
subsidization or the creation of up to 150,000 new child care
spaces. The 1994 budget promised $360 million tax dollars
toward a national day care program over two years if economic
growth hit 3 per cent this year.
Reformers totally reject such a program regardless of our
economic growth. Child care should be a personal choice. I
along with many Canadians believe that the very best care is in
the home. Canadians reflect that in their present decisions.
According to a 1994 Statistics Canada report less than 40 per
cent of child care presently takes place in day care centres.
In my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam the clear choice of
child care for most parents is to have their children in the care of
a sitter, a neighbour or a relative. Private child care is a natural
part of many neighbourhoods. Moms with young children can
opt to care for their own children and the children of working
neighbours. Communities can work together. Child care needs
are met in the communities.
The government's proposal would create unnecessary spaces
at a high cost to the taxpayer. Subsidization exclusively for their
programs would coerce participation in government facilities
over more casual arrangements as well as create yet another
8069
penalty against that parent who chooses to stay home to raise his
or her own child out of their own convictions.
(1755)
Relating to the government child care activities in the
national day care program, let me read yet another interesting
quote from the social policy review discussion paper: ``Linking
child care and child development could represent a
comprehensive and preventative approach to social problems at
the earliest point in life. Rather than using our money to rectify
social problems which eventually occur as a result of a lack of
support or security for young children, investment at the front
end could save us enormously in both human and financial costs
10 to 20 years down the road''.
The parent state seems alive and well in this government's
agenda. What I read here is a government that feels it is a better
parent than a parent of the child. It is no secret that failed full
employment policies and failed nanny state systems of the past
10 to 20 years are now being lived out through social turmoil in
the former Soviet Union. It proved, and it will be proved again,
that the state is not the best parent. A healthy family with a full
choice for child care is the very best way to create a healthy
society.
We propose that child care programs must subsidize financial
need and not the method of child care chosen. Any such subsidy
must be directed to the children and to the parents, not the
institution and professionals, in order to allow a full choice of
that care including the choice of the parent to stay home.
Surely a government which would consider direct payment of
fees to students in its latest program of student fee transfers
would consider the validity of a direct payment of child care
costs to the parents of the child.
We support the regulation of day care standards but at the
provincial level. It is at this level that medical and social
services and the decisions that go with them are made. These
relate directly with the needs of day care regulations. More
fundamentally, as so much of the issue of the need for child care
stems from economic factors, we support the concept of income
splitting between legally married couples to help support and
nurture families. Why should a family with a single wage be
penalized with higher taxes than dual earners with the same total
income?
Another more possibly distant solution would be a system of
flat tax for all Canadians. I am encouraged as members from
both sides of the House investigate this as a possibility. Within
such a system accommodation could be made for the needed
care of children through social assistance program support
where it is needed, at the level closest to that need.
This government can continue to promote short term
solutions. More government programs will demand more
taxpayer dollars. The need for the increased taxpayer dollars
means less money for individual use. Decreased disposable
income will create fewer real jobs and less incentive to work and
in turn will create more poverty, which in turn will create more
poor children.
We need long term vision for the solutions. We reject a
national day care program. Fewer government programs will
allow individual Canadians to have choice and self-reliance.
Families and their importance in our society will be enhanced
for stronger communities.
We speak often of citizenship and the necessity of
participation in the community. It is time the government
dropped the rhetoric and faced reality. I believe, and may I add
that single mom agrees with me, that our sense of citizenship
and belonging will come through our strength as families and
our participation as families in our communities.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Port
Moody-Coquitlam for her remarks. I have to say that I think
she makes some very good points. The member talked about a
national day care program. There are still a lot of questions that
have to be answered with respect to day care.
(1800)
If I may, I will point out to her a little experience I had just
recently with respect to that issue which might throw some light
on it for her. It concerns a meeting I was at where a for profit
lobbyist found her firm in a confrontation. They were hired by a
private day care centre in a community to get established in that
community. They were up against a publicly funded day care
advocacy organization, in other words a special interest group.
This special interest group which was supporting national day
care and government controlled day care won the issue and the
privately funded day care centre was forced to close.
When we approach the issue of a national day care program, I
think we all agree that the opportunity must be there however the
opportunity is expressed. I think government has to be alert to
the fact that we have a lobby group out there now that has for
many years been funded by government and that lobby group is
very alive and active.
I certainly agree with the member that this is something we
should debate. I certainly do not have my mind made up on it. I
think we can carry it forward but I hope the debate will be done
between ourselves or out in the community rather than without
the intervention of special interest groups.
I do not know whether the member would like to comment on
that but I would invite her to do so.
8070
Mrs. Hayes: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's
comments. I certainly am interested in the anecdote that he
mentioned.
This is probably the way things will progress given the
present scenario of government involvement in day care. It will
become increasingly impossible for an alternative to exist. This
is the point I was trying to make. It will take away the choice
from parents in communities and force on them a government
dictated and funded program which will end up being more
expensive.
The root of this problem and so much of what has happened
with government funded programs is around those special
interest industries, shall we say, the very people who are
employed and get their future security rally around the programs
that the government proposes and then build their industry on
that. I have seen it in immigration and in different areas of
government involvement. If there is money to be had, security
of employment and an opportunity for garnering government
funds, we can be sure hands will be out and people will be there.
This is certainly a problem with national day care especially
as the government funds the institutions and the professionals
that are involved rather than the families. Maybe that comes
back to me underlining what I mentioned in my talk. If funds are
needed to support child care that money should go to the parents
for them to make the choice and be able to put wheels on that
choice by choosing what they feel is the best care.
Giving the money to the professionals, giving the money to
the day care centres simply creates that special interest
environment. Those people will be there to encourage a
self-perpetuation of that system. That is not to the betterment of
our families, our kids or our communities. I thank the member
for his comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
was interested to hear what the hon. member had to say,
especially when she talked about preserving the family unit,
which is the nucleus of our society, and I think everyone in this
House would agree wholeheartedly with that view.
Today, however, we must realize that as a result of this
reform, the family as we know it will change. We will be left
with only two kinds of families. We will have very rich families
with a lot of tax shelters and very poor families. The middle
class will disappear altogether. What kind of country will we
have as a result? A very wealthy class and a very poor class. No
more room for the middle class.
(1805)
You also pointed out that you were against introducing
measures for spouses. I respect that, and I agree.
Today, employers and employees pay very high
unemployment insurance premiums. You said that to help
families, it was necessary to create jobs, and not temporary jobs
but well-paying jobs. In that case, in order to create jobs and to
help employers and SMEs create jobs, present UI premium rates
should be reduced.
I would appreciate hearing the views of the hon. member and
her caucus on the possibility of reducing UI premium rates for
employers and employees in the very near future.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. There were two major points made. I will address the
first one. There are two kinds of families, the wealthy and,
increasingly, the poor as indeed the middle class seems to be
buffeted on all sides.
What is it that is destroying our middle class? The very thing
that is taking the power and the resources from that middle class
is the increase in the government programs that are ever
increasing its taxes.
The poor become trapped in a cycle of not breaking out of
poverty because, for instance, single parents families get jobs
but earn hardly more than they receive on welfare. They choose
not to because it works against themselves to do so.
I believe the best way is a fair taxation system and
government only doing what it has to do so that the resources are
left in the hands of Canadians. A fair taxation system, for
instance the flat tax system I suggested, would fairly treat
wealthy and middle class, and allow and accommodate for
poorer people so that Canadians would be able to use the money
to address the needs they have. That way I believe the middle
class can survive and the families of the middle class can
survive. The more government we have the worse it is.
I am not sure I quite understood the second half of the
member's question. Again it may go back to the same
philosophy. I agree we should not be asking for more
government assistance for programs. The government money
should go to people who need that money. Our social assistance
programs should be designed to be targeted only to those who
need them and if it is a social program, whether it be day care,
UI, or any of the other many programs that are there. We could
take it right to the equalization to provinces. Social spending
should go only to the people who need it. Perhaps then
employees and employers and indeed the families represented in
those relationships would have more money to do what they
need to do.
I am not sure I answered the question but again it goes to less
government involvement, therefore less government spending,
better targeting for government spending long term. That is a
solution to most of these problems.
8071
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
certainly a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to rise today
and speak to this motion. I would like to focus my comments
on the opportunities that Canadians have for input into the
social security reform process and to encourage Canadians to
participate.
(1810 )
Certainly, social security reform is one of the most important
initiatives undertaken by government in many years. Canadians
have an unprecedented number of ways of making their voices
heard on this particular subject. All Canadians must be able to
have their say on how we should rebuild the Canadian social
safety network for the 21st century.
Let me outline the many ways in which Canadians will have
an opportunity to share their concerns, ideas and solutions on
how to redesign our programs. These consultations will help to
make our programs not only more efficient but certainly more
effective, which is one the big goals of this whole social security
reform.
It has been about six or seven weeks since the launch of the
discussion paper. Public interest in the document has certainly
been quite high and remains high. Since October 5 the ministry
has received over 12,000 calls requesting material and
information. In total, we have distributed about 114,000 copies
of the discussion paper and almost 210,000 copies of the
summaries of that discussion paper.
We want a mutual exchange of ideas with the public on the
federal government's initiative to reform social security and we
want to hear from as many Canadians as possible. To encourage
this we have recently released a workbook called ``Have your
say'' which seeks the public's input on our social security
reform options. We supplied a postage paid envelope in each
workbook for the return of the response. All answers mailed
prior to January 16, 1995, will be part of a final published report
on what Canadians have said.
As well we will be sending the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development an interim report in late
December. The analysis of the responses will be conducted by
D.R. Harley Consultants Limited, an Ottawa based firm which
assisted in the development of the workbook to ensure its
objectivity.
The workbook is widely available through postal outlets,
Canada Employment Centres, many grocery stores, the YM and
YWCAs across Canada. It is also available by calling the 1-800
number, a toll free number, or by calling your local member of
Parliament.
The 1-800 line is a source of information and an avenue for
Canadians to express their views on social security reform.
Canadians have already made extensive use of this line and it
continues to be heavily used. I think this alone is a prime
example of the importance that Canadians place on social
security reform and the government's commitment to hearing
their views.
In addition to the workbook and the 1-800 line, Canadians
have an unprecedented number of ways to make their voices
heard on social security reform.
The Department of Human Resources Development Canada
has produced a wealth of information on the reform that is
available to the public. The information is not only available in
print and alternative formats, but much of it is also available to
Canadians on the information highway.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
is the focal point for the consultations on this reform. All other
forms of consultation will be fed into the standing committee for
its final report.
We should not forget that the committee is comprised of
members from the three largest parties represented in this
House. I am pleased to say that there is significant interest in
appearing before that committee. More than 80 national
organizations appeared before the committee between October
26 and November 8 of this year. In general, these national
organizations supported the need for reform and the principles
laid out in that discussion paper. Most groups expressed a wide
range of concerns about the specific options available in that
paper.
The committee has now started its consultations with
Canadians. Fifteen members of the committee will travel for
five weeks to 22 cities and towns in provinces across this great
country. This will present Canadians, whether they live in an
urban or rural setting, in the far north or in downtown Toronto,
the same opportunity to participate. Once again, interest from
the public has been overwhelming. Nearly 500 requests came
into the committee from the western portion of its trip. The
committee is making every effort to hear from as many groups
and individuals as possible.
Those who cannot appear have the opportunity to submit a
brief before December 9, 1994, so that committee members can
benefit from the widest range of views and ideas. We would
encourage Canadians who may not be able to appear before the
committee or attend any of the local workshops presented by
members of Parliament to submit a brief to the committee before
December 9.
(1815 )
Social security reform consultation encourages each member
of Parliament to become involved in these consultations.
Working within their own constituencies to inform the
electorate, MPs provide Canadians with yet another avenue to
express their concerns, ideas and solutions on how to redesign
Canada's social security system.
8072
Recently I had the pleasure of hosting a social security
workshop in my riding of Lincoln. Approximately 70
constituents took the time to come out and address their
concerns. They raised a number of important issues.
They felt that government must remove the disincentives to
work and that government should provide some sort of income
supplement but only to those individuals who need it. We must
stop duplicating training programs. We need to work with
industry and the provinces to ensure that they are efficient and
practical. Industry and government have to work together to
ensure that programs meet the needs of tomorrow's workers. We
should look at more effective ways of forecasting for jobs. We
also had widespread endorsement for the idea of restructuring
student loans based on the ability for students to repay those
loans.
Since the release of the discussion paper more than 190 public
town hall meetings have been planned by members of
Parliament, including several members from across the floor.
The feedback we have been getting is that Canadians understand
the need for reform and recognize that change is not only
inevitable but essential. Canadians may differ on the solutions
but whether these town hall meetings are held in Bridgewater or
Whitehorse, Canadians want to be an integral part of the
dialogue and the debate.
Community agencies are getting involved in the consultation
process. Agencies such as the United Way, the Laurier Institute,
the Atlantic Provinces Economic Agency and the Institute of
Urban Studies at the University of Winnipeg are organizing
seminars across the country on social security reform. The
seminars are designed to provide Canadians some of whom are
the individuals most affected by social security reform with an
opportunity to offer their views. I am pleased to report that some
500 Canadians are taking part in these seminars.
Finally, a series of four policies colloquia will provide an
opportunity for experts to brainstorm on some of these options
in the areas of lifelong learning, post-secondary education,
training and employment development services and child
poverty. These colloquia will take place in January 1995 and are
being organized by institutes such as Caledon and the
Conference Board.
The purpose of these colloquia is to broaden the dialogue on
some of the more contentious issues associated with social
security reform. These issues are identified in a discussion
paper but have not to date been fully addressed in briefs,
submissions or other forms of consultation.
As this update illustrates we are serious about consulting with
Canadians. The public may be heard through the 1-800 number,
the workbook, the standing committee, their MPs at town hall
meetings, in consultation seminars and through policy
colloquia. In addition, Canadians are encouraged to write
directly to their member of Parliament or to the Minister of
Human Resources Development or to fax or send electronic
mail to the minister. We want as many Canadians as possible to
take part in rebuilding our social security system to meet the
needs of Canadians today and into the 21st century.
I want to make a couple of points based on the discussion I
heard today from a number of colleagues from across the floor.
One of the first speakers today from the Reform Party had
indicated they wanted government to say more on this
consultation process. The purpose of the consultation is to hear
from Canadians and not to bias the discussion in any way, to
make sure that the whole process is very transparent and open.
We are doing that.
The other comment was that we need to act now and that we do
not need to consult any more. I do not believe this type of
consultation has happened before. It has never happened before.
Government will show leadership by taking action after
listening to Canadians. We will be acting in a way that reflects
Canadians' concerns.
Another comment made was that taxpayers' money was being
spent uselessly. I beg to differ. As I mentioned in my discussion
constituents in my riding came out to speak with me. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development came out to meet with the people of Lincoln to
discuss and consult on what the options were. We heard what
some of those options were and received feedback from
constituents.
(1820)
I will close by saying that our government will listen and lead.
That is the leadership Canadians have asked for and that is the
type they will receive from this government.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House after
listening to the Liberals describe how they have discovered
consultation after 125 years of sharing power with the
Conservatives. It is long overdue but a very welcome discovery.
We would recommend it to them at any time.
It begs the question of course: What were they doing for the
previous nine years as they sat in opposition? What were they
doing with their red book? It is a good thing it did not take them
as long to organize the red book as it has taken them to organize
what needs to be done here. It could be that what we have in front
of us is a softening up process.
Everyone agrees that changes have to be made. Everyone in
the country knows we cannot go on the way we have been and
that changes are required and must be made. We all agree on the
principle, it is the policies that are going to be a little difficult.
8073
I would ask my hon. colleague from Lincoln who has
delivered such an impassioned, reasoned address: What should
be the criteria? He mentioned in his discourse that the criteria
for social benefits must be based on need which would preclude
then that social benefits should be determined by want. They
should be addressed on need and certainly I think most
members in this House would concur. What will be the criteria
for need? Has the hon. member opposite given any thought to
what the criteria should be for those who are to receive social
benefits from the taxpayer?
Mr. Valeri: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I would certainly like to recognize once again that the
hon. member does agree with the whole process and I thank him.
We are certainly on the right track. I am hearing from my
constituents that consultation is long overdue and is something
our government is moving on quite rapidly.
When I reflected in my discussion on what the town hall
participants said I was reflecting what my constituents have said
to me. One of those things is to assess our programs and try to
make them more effective and more efficient.
When it comes to need, we are absorbing that information
from the constituents and from the various sources of
information and different processes that are available. Once the
consultation period is over we will be coming forward with very
concrete responses to that question.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I was most impressed with the delivery and the
content of the message given by the hon. member for Lincoln, as
well as the hon. member across the way from Edmonton
Southwest.
Mr. DeVillers: Somewhat less.
Mr. Dromisky: But somewhat less.
However, the member across the way recognized the
importance of the red book this government has been using for
guidance, a bible as one might call it.
This publication is the result of the efforts and contributions
of tens of thousands of people over a two year period. It is a
beautiful example that for the first time in the history of this
country the democratic process was put into operation prior to
an election over a very lengthy period of time. It produced an
enlightened document and provides us with the guidance we so
require in order to guide this country out of the turmoil it is
presently in.
(1825 )
I would like to point out, as the member for Lincoln has
pointed out, that the democratic process we have been using is
very time consuming. It is true. If this was a dictatorial system,
we would have an answer immediately. Because we adhere to
basic, democratic principles, we will always listen to the people
for guidance. That is exactly what we have been doing with the
document pertaining to our social network and social services.
As a result, from coast to coast, a multitude of strategies have
been put into operation. We are, as our eloquent speaker has
already pointed out, receiving the type of guidance that is
required to be sure that no one is suffering because of drastic
changes in financial support or human resources or any kind of
policy whatsoever.
Mr. Valeri: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat once more that
the whole process is about listening first and then leading. That
is the leadership Canadians have asked for and that is the type of
leadership they will receive from the government.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I too
have a question or some comments for the hon. member. We
have seen two types of consultation take place in regard to this
process. The first type is members of Parliament consulting
directly with their constituents. Certainly Reform has been
doing that for some time. I am pleased to see that the Liberals
have picked that part up. That consultation has been very useful.
The second type of consultation has been through the human
resources development committee. That is the travelling road
show. It has been much less successful. I liked the hon. members
comments on that.
A young person approached me in my constituency. He said
he had been invited first of all to Calgary to meet with the
minister to discuss advanced education on less than 24 hours'
notice. This young person was then invited to the meeting in
Edmonton. He was cancelled from the meeting in Edmonton.
The person who told him he was cancelled said to him that the
committee is in a shambles.
I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Mr. Valeri: Madam Speaker, I want to address the hon.
member's comment on consultation. Certainly he realizes that
he does not have a monopoly on consulting with his
constituents. The Liberal Party has been doing that for some
time.
As far as the committee is concerned and whether it is
working properly, nearly 500 requests came into the committee
for the western portion of its trip. The committee is functioning.
Canadians have an opportunity to appear before the committee
and I encourage more to do so.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
want to congratulate the hon. member for Lincoln for his speech
this afternoon. Obviously the hon. member has a firm grasp on
the importance and relevance of this issue to Canadians and to
his constituents in the riding of Lincoln.
8074
As far as the member from Windbag, Saskatchewan, what is
it, Gasbag, Saskatchewan, I have to say that I find it somewhat
humorous if not ironic, maybe even hypocritical, when we hear
the reforming social security part of this agenda for growth here
in this great country of Canada-
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My hon. colleague opposite referred to Windbag, Saskatchewan.
I wonder if the Chair might ask the member opposite to be a bit
more explicit. Did he mean Windbag, Alberta?
Mr. Keyes: If there was time allowed, I would get into much
detail on this hon. member's riding. As I said, the hypocrisy I
see here is that we are talking about reforming social security as
part of our agenda for growth.
This is a concept that the Reform Party does not quite grasp.
We know the Prime Minister, the Minister for Human Resources
Development, all Canadians, those in my riding of Hamilton
West, or in the riding of Lincoln, where the hon. member hails
from, realize that these programs put together will put people
and jobs together. The programs we have today do not do that
well enough and we are making sure that it will be working for
Canadians in the future.
(1830)
Mr. Valeri: Madam Speaker, I certainly concur with what my
hon. friend has said in that there is much need for reform of these
policies. These policies have been in existence for a long time,
for decades. Canadians are looking for more effective ways of
dealing with these policies. This reform process and the
consultation process will point us in that direction.
_____________________________________________
8074
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it seems to be a fairly standard procedure for me to end
up in adjournment proceedings whenever I ask a question of the
Minister of Transport. The purpose of adjournment proceedings
is to try and get an answer when you did not get either a full
answer or any answer at all during Question Period. That occurs
almost every time I pose a question to that minister.
The question that brought me here tonight is can the Minister
of Transport advise the House how he justifies denying any
Canadian the right of due process? It is not the first time I have
asked that question and it is not the first time that the minister
has declined to answer.
The minister instead came up with his usual type of rhetoric.
One of the comments he made, which of course I have heard
before, is that I want to help my friends, that I want to help my
Tory friends.
I would deal with that the same way I would deal with it when
it has been brought up before. Only 18.5 per cent of those on the
Pearson consortium were known to have close Tory ties, while
over 50 per cent are known to have close Liberal ties. I have
never heard the minister suggest that I am out to help the
Liberals, although God knows they could use some help.
What I would ask instead is with regard to due process. How
can he justify denying it to any Canadian?
Had the Pearson consortium been made up of American
companies or Mexican companies, the minister would have had
to give them the right of due process because it is guaranteed
under the North American free trade agreement signed by the
Liberal government.
Interestingly, the Prime Minister rose in this House in early
October and stated for the record that José Salinas Mendoza, a
sexual predator who has been deported from this country and is
back again now claiming refugee status, has the right to due
process.
I had a conversation on air with the chairman of the Standing
Committee on Transport who says that is not valid, that is
criminal law and we are not dealing in Pearson with criminal
law, while the NAFTA argument was civil law.
Civil law or criminal law notwithstanding, it seems that
everyone including foreign companies and illegal immigrants
have the right of due process. Why will the minister not grant
that to Canadians?
This could set a dangerous, unbelievable precedent for all
kinds of different companies and organizations throughout
Canada that have contracts with government.
Where is the actual break point between what happens with
Pearson and what happens with any other company in Canada
that has a contract with the government?
The minister said in answer to my question, an alleged
answer, that if this thing ends up in the court the court could find
that the contract was valid and entered into in good faith, in
which case damages would be awarded, and we do not want to
pay that money, so consequently we will ban them from the
court.
He also said Reform has no respect for the court or the law. On
the contrary, we have respect for both of those institutions and,
more important, we have respect for all Canadians and their
right to due process.
8075
I will repeat my question to the minister, hopefully to get an
answer. How do they justify denying the right of due process
to any Canadian or Canadian company?
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I stand
here amazed by the member's approach to this issue. The real
question must be is anybody on the top side of God's green earth
prepared to defend this deal on its merits? Is the member
defending the way the members of the now defunct
Conservative administration set up this deal? Do we understand
from this that the member is defending the consortium's right to
$445 million of taxpayers' money when it did not put one new
nail in the terminal, did not paint a wall and did not pour a drop
of concrete?
It is up to Parliament to decide on the public policy and to
defend the interest of taxpayers. Out of curiosity, is there anyone
else on that side of the House who would believe that we should
increase the deficit by $445 million in one fell swoop?
The Reform Party decries the length of time it takes to go
through due process for individuals, wanting us to tell judges
what they should be doing. When it comes to taking care of the
taxpayer, after this government reviewed the process and public
policy questions on this deal, the Reform Party cries for due
process.
Sure, the member wants due process for his new found Tory
friends who are anxious to protect their claim for $445 million
of taxpayers' money. People on the west coast must be reeling
trying to keep up with the Reform Party and its new found ties to
the erstwhile targets in the Senate. They have had the experience
of watching their members embrace a $445 million Tory trip to
the trough and now we have the incredible sight of the
Reformers in bed with their Tory bosom buddies in the other
place taking a final fling up the coast.
I can promise that we will be vigilant in protecting the
taxpayers' interests especially in light of the apparent
abandonment of any fiscal responsibility by the party opposite.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)