CONTENTS
Friday, March 31, 1995
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and the amendment 11331
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11341
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11342
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11343
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11345
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11345
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11347
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 11348
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 11348
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11353
Bill C-81. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 11353
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11354
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion and amendmentfor second reading 11355
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11371
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11373
11331
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 31, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of
the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read
the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to make the
House aware that during the next 54 minutes of debate members
will have 20 minutes to make their speeches which will be
subject to a 10-minute question and comment period. After the
54 minutes, the House will proceed to the next stage of debate
and members will be allowed a 10-minute maximum.
[Translation]
If I am not mistaken, the last person who spoke yesterday was
the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and we were
at the question and comment period. Are there any questions or
comments?
Resuming debate with the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-76. For the benefit of
those who are watching us at home, let me repeat that this bill
deals with budget measures, notably the important issue of
transfer payments to the provinces.
I would like to remind them that, when we talk about transfers
to the provinces, for this past year at least, we are in fact
referring to three main sets of programs. We are referring to
three categories of transfers, namely those under established
programs financing, which the federal government has reduced
by $21 billion for 1995-96, under the equalization program,
which the government has reduced by $8.87 billion, and, finally,
under the Canada Assistance Plan, which the government has
reduced by $7.95 billion.
It is important to remember that transfer payments to the
provinces are a matter of particular importance in a federal
system, since, in a federal system, the relationship between the
federal government and the provinces is absolutely crucial.
Whenever financial considerations are involved, we must bear
in mind that a federal system is a system made up or based on
three components. In any federal system, first of all, you have
two main levels of government: a central government and the
so-called subordinate administrations.
(1005)
Depending on the particular system, these lower levels are
called provinces, or landers, or cantons, but where there is a
federal system, there are at least two levels of government, each
of which is supposed to have sovereign authority over every
areas of jurisdiction prescribed in the constitution. In the
Canadian Constitution, these areas are listed in section 91.
Section 91 lists the powers of the central government and
section 92, the provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Finally, the last characteristic of federalism is the
constitution, which is designed to delineate the respective
powers of the two levels of government. Why do I feel the need
to give these elements of historical background and political
definition? Because, if the Canadian federal system were
harmonious and responsive to the provinces, a system in which
the jurisdictions established under the Canadian Constitution
were respected, we would certainly not be passing or debating a
bill like Bill C-76.
Why am I saying that? Because, in a federal system with two
levels of government, where each level has specific
responsibilities, financial equilibrium is understandably a
matter of great importance. We can appreciate that, when one
level of government decides unilaterally, without consulting the
provinces, as this government is doing, to cutback transfer
payments to the provinces, this is designed to have a
destabilizing effect. We must keep in mind-and we will have
an opportunity to say it again during the various debates to
come-that, for all practical purposes, the federal government
plans to use this bill to cut transfers to the provinces by $7
billion.
Let us recall the three programs through which funds are
transferred. First, there is the Established Programs Financing
for which the federal government plans to set aside $21 billion.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Established Programs Financing
in place since 1977, is the government vehicle for financing
health care and post-secondary education. Of course, we know
11332
full well that, under the 1867 Constitution Act, these sectors do
not come under federal jurisdiction. Yet, over time, they have
interfered in these areas of jurisdiction. So the first vehicle is
Established Programs Financing.
The second vehicle is very well-known because, for a very
long time, the champions of Canadian federalism told us that an
original feature of the system was equalization, for which the
federal government plans to set aside close to $9 billion.
Equalization was born shortly after World War II. We must keep
in mind that this transfer system was aimed at giving all
Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia access to
the same range of services. Equalization saw the light of day
because Canada is an impossible country, a country of regional
disparities.
Because the provinces do not have the same ability to collect
taxes, because they do not have access to the same resources, nor
the same tax base, we decided to develop a redistribution
mechanism so that funds would be redistributed from wealthier
provinces with access to a broader tax base to poorer provinces.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the equalization formula is
extremely complex, involving some 40 factors, so that as we
speak, since 1989, in fact, the beneficiaries of equalization have
been Quebec, the Maritimes, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
(1010)
Again, to make it clear to those who our listening, there is a
third transfer mechanism, namely the Canada Assistance Plan,
which was established in 1966 and which is the solution found
by the federal government to get involved in the financing of
social assistance. Under the Constitution, as you know, the
federal government has no business in the financing of social
assistance programs in Canada; yet, it finances about 50 per
cent, or half of the welfare costs of the provinces.
Why do I point this out? It is, of course, because this bill seeks
to unilaterally deprive the provinces of some $7 billion.
Why did we end up with transfer mechanisms such as the
established programs financing, equalization and the Canada
Assistance Plan? It is because there was an imbalance between
the tax resources of the federal government and the provinces.
That imbalance must be viewed in an historical context. After
the first and the second world war, the Federal government took
advantage of the exceptional crisis situations generated by these
conflicts to move into direct and indirect taxation.
In the fifties, the imbalance became very obvious to the
provinces, which were considered somewhat like large
municipalities. Consequently, some mechanisms had to be
devised to transfer the wealth. These mechanisms are the three
to which I referred earlier.
The federal government was urged to spread the wealth and
therefore decided to finance sectors which did not fall under its
jurisdiction. This created a situation whereby the provinces
would provide services to their population with budgets
allocated by the federal government. Again, it is worrisome and
even catastrophic to see that the federal government now intends
to unilaterally cut $7 billion in the transfers to the provinces.
Do you think that the federal government consulted the
provinces to make sure that this measure would cause the least
amount of prejudice? Absolutely not. The provinces found out,
when the Minister of Finance tabled his budget last February,
that there would be a cutback of $7 billion, that would break
down as follows: in 1996-97, $2.5 billion would be cut from
transfers to the provinces; and in 1997-98, something like $4.5
billion. That is the scenario we are given in Bill C-76.
If we consider Bill C-76 and, more specifically, its impact on
Quebec, we realize that Quebec will have to absorb $650 million
in forgone revenue for 1996-97 and $1.2 billion for 1997-98.
Even more alarming is the fact that the federal government is
intervening in areas over which it has no jurisdiction. This
intervention, which has continued to this day, has a long history.
The provinces have, to a certain extent, remained dependent on
the federal government for these transfers which were used to
help develop health care and education services.
(1015)
There are not many examples of federalism left in a
continental country with a low population density and most of
its population concentrated along the U.S. border. All of a
sudden, because the federal government is in trouble, because
this federal government is an impossible government, the
government, with obvious contempt for federal-provincial
diplomacy and oblivious to the impact that these cuts may have
on transfers to the provinces and specific services provided to
users, decides to cut $7 billion.
The federal government, centralist as always, has gone even
further. It says: There will no more established programs
financing or Canada Assistance Plan. Instead, there will be a
new program called the Canada social transfer.
However, we do not know what criteria will be applied to
redistribution of the amounts the CST will contain. Our position
is that the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
provinces will have to consider the criteria for redistribution of
these funds, without necessarily being bound by an agreement.
11333
The official opposition believes-and as you know, the
official opposition's predictions tend to be very accurate-that
the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for LaSalle-Émard, a
Montreal member, may wish to put on the table a redistribution
rule that might severely penalize Quebec. We think that
redistribution of wealth might be based on population.
As several speakers have said in the House, the Minister of
Finance, who has systematically refused to exclude the
possibility of dividing the Canada social transfer envelope on
the basis of population, may well decide that Quebec will have
to absorb 41.7 per cent of the cuts in transfer payments to all
provinces in Canada in 1997-98, which would mean that in
1997-98, if that is the basis on which the government intends to
operate, Quebec will have to absorb not $1.2 billion but $1.9
billion in forgone revenue. And that is why the Quebec
government has reacted very negatively to Bill C-76.
What is most absurd in this situation is that the federal
government intervenes in the area of health. Here again, any
outsider looking in the Constitution Act of 1867 or the one of
1982, to find the authority, legitimacy or jurisdiction behind the
government's involvement in the field of health would be
searching in vain.
But everyone knows that there is a Department of National
Health in Ottawa, Health Canada, which requires about $1
billion just in order to operate, to pay the salaries of the public
servants there. This figure does not include the money allocated
by the Minister of Finance in his budget to run its various
programs.
According to an article published last month in a learned
publication there were more public servants at Health Canada
than in the individual provincial departments of health.
This is not the least of the contradictions. There is a two tier
structure, with the result that, even before any thought is given
to transferring funds to the provinces so they can actually
provide health care services to the public, funds must go to a
structure that requires $1 billion simply to operate. This is the
same sort of absurdity we find in the fight against AIDS.
(1020)
The federal government is trying to establish a
continent-wide health policy, which is impossible, because the
level of administration in the best position to be effective and
provide the finest and most useful service to Canadians, cannot
be the government farthest removed from them. And the
government farthest removed from them is the government in
Ottawa.
The federal government's attempt to set up a national health
policy, which aims necessarily at meeting the needs of
communities from Newfoundland to British Columbia, is just as
absurd as what it is doing in the fight against AIDS.
What happens when the government tries to intervene in the
health field? Let us have a look at Canada's strategy in the fight
against AIDS. In the early 1980s, with the appearance of this
most terrible disease, which will cruelly mark the turn of the
century, the government decided it should act.
Instead of using its tax leverage to mandate the provinces and
transferring additional resources to them so they could be the
real agents and fight AIDS intelligently, the federal government
established a national strategy.
It is an extremely loose national strategy, which really lacks
substance and is extremely inefficient, since we all well know
that the governments of Newfouland, of Quebec, of Ontario, of
Saskatchewan would have been better suited than the federal
government to lead the campaign, given their expertise in the
area of palliative care and health care.
The result is that the government has to maintain an extremely
cumbersome administration and that situations arise like the one
that arose last year. The federal government voted in its AIDS
strategy, and allocated it a budget of $42 million which was not
spent. The federal government, because it is the government
level furthest removed from the people and because it has
nothing to do with health care, is unable to deliver services in
the field, and the concrete result of this is that it is not able to
spend the allocated budgets approved by Parliament.
I see that this surprises government members, but it is
nevertheless the case. I will conclude by saying that last year, of
the $42 million that the government allocated for the AIDS
campaign, only $34 million were spent, and not in the most
useful ways. This is why people have gotten the impression that
the federal government is not the most efficient level of
government.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the
hon. member. I thank him for his intervention.
He complained about the transfer payments from the federal
government to the Quebec government being reduced. I wonder
if he could share with us how as a country we can reduce the
deficit and the heavy debt which is plaguing the country. If we
could balance the books, as six provinces have already done and
if we could wipe out the public debt, we could put a lot more
money into such programs as the hon. member is talking about,
for example, helping people affected with AIDS and so on.
Somehow the provincial and federal governments have to
work more efficiently, more co-operatively to try to avoid any
duplication. Then we will reach the goals that he wants to reach
not only for Quebec but for the entire country.
11334
Could he share with us what concrete recommendations he
and his party have for balancing the books, as the six provinces
have done, and for reducing the public debt eventually to zero?
(1025)
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary
secretary for his question. Obviously, it is quite clear to me how
we should go about balancing the books. Those of us on this side
of the House are convinced of the need to implement the
principle of subsidiarity, whereby the mandate to deliver a
service should go to the level of government in the best position
to do so. The problem with Canada, and, with all due respect, the
problem with the government's logic, is that all that is being
offered is an observation. The observation is made that we have
a debt of $600 billion, but no questions are asked about the
institutional structure that led up to this debt.
Let us not forget that the federal government used to have a
department of urban affairs and a department of recreation, and
that is why we have the debt we do today. It is because of an
imbalance that allows Ottawa to interfere in areas of jurisdiction
for which it has no mandate. This is the spending power system.
Unfortunately, the federalism we are seeing leaves much to be
desired. This is not to say that federalism could not be
interesting in theory, but for it to work in the Canadian context,
it must be centralized. And for it to be centralized, interference
in the affairs of the provinces becomes necessary.
My hon. colleague would be interested to know that before the
Department of Health even gets around to delivering a service, a
billion dollars has been set aside by the Minister of Finance for
its operating expenses. Does my hon. colleague share my
concern, my disbelief that Health Canada has more employees
than the provincial departments of health? This is not what we
should be seeing when it is not even the federal government's
mandate.
The best way to reduce the debt, and I do not know whether
my colleague will agree with us, is to undertake a political
reorganization with the goal of establishing an association
between two nations, two autonomous governments, who will
obviously have economic dealings with each other where
interests dictate, because we know that nations must put
interests ahead of feelings. I think that the best way for Canada
to reduce the debt is through an extensive political
reorganization.
[English]
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is contradicting
himself. He said that to have a healthy federalism we have to
centralize things more. On the other hand, he is talking about
two nations.
My wife comes from the province of Quebec. She has many
relatives there, nieces, nephews, and we meet with them quite
regularly. I am so proud of Canada when my nieces and nephews
visit us and speak three languages. They speak French, English
and Polish.
Is it not wonderful that in a country such as ours, in la belle
province, people can grow up fluent in three languages? If we
nourish this further, we will be the envy of the world. The United
Nations has named Canada as the number one place on this
planet in which to live. Why would the hon. member talk about
two nations? It took us 125 years to reach the level we are at
now. Now that the world recognizes that we did this properly and
Canadians have the best standard of living, why would we want
to dismantle this?
I would remind the hon. member also to talk to the
ambassadors here in Ottawa of the Czech Republic and
Slovakia. I keep in very close touch with them. They went
through the same phase. When they were talking about
separation they were talking about the same currency, no
obstacles at the border, common defence and so on. The minute
they separated they had to print their own currency, they had
very strict custom controls. It was the most painful thing they
had ever gone through. They are recommending not to let
happen to Canada what happened to the former Czechoslovakia.
(1030)
I am wondering if the hon. member would rethink and answer
who is representing my nieces, my nephews, my grand-nieces,
my grand-nephews because they do not want two nations. They
want to live and grow in this beautiful country as it is now. They
do not want to move out of la belle province but they will if we
go the two nation route.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is a
generous and intelligent man, so I am disappointed with his
comparison. I wish to tell him that, since the fall of the Berlin
Wall, 21 countries have achieved sovereignty and, out of these
21 countries, it is easy to talk about the economic difficulties
experienced by Slovakia. On the other hand, I can give him a list
of 20 countries which, not in the distant past but since the fall of
the Berlin Wall, have managed their sovereignty successfully.
We will have the opportunity to talk about this again later.
I wish to address one element of my colleague's question.
What I told the hon. parliamentary secretary is that there are
several examples of federalism in the world. Canadian
federalism has two distinctive features. Canada is a continental
country, unlike the other federalist countries we are familiar
with. It is a continental country with two nations. Since being
elected to this House, I have seen that there is a gap between the
parties. On this side, because we are in touch with Quebec, we
know that we are a nation.
11335
Prince Edward Island is not a nation. British Columbia is not a
nation. They are great places in the world, with generous people.
I spent my vacation in Prince Edward Island and it is a
wonderful part of the country, but it is not a nation. Again, it is a
wonderful part of the country. Being a nation involves having a
distinct language, a distinct legal system, government control, a
collective will to live together. These elements make us a nation
under international law.
Canada is indeed a great country, and I am able to recognize
this. But what I said about Canadian federalism is that, although
Canada is a great country, although I have many friends on the
other side of this House, including the parliamentary secretary,
Canada as it now exists cannot allow two nations to achieve
self-realization. That is why, in the next century-and saying
this does not show contempt, secessionist tendencies or
obtuseness-Canada must be redesigned so that both nations
can enjoy a relationship as political equals and economic
partners.
When my hon. colleague tells me that his niece, of whom he is
no doubt very proud, speaks three languages, it is something that
must be applauded. However, the hon. member is confusing the
collective dimension with the individual dimension.
I wish that all members of this House were multilingual.
Three mornings a week, I get up at seven in the morning to learn
English so I can discuss with my hon. colleagues. But all this
does not change anything to the fact that Quebec is a nation and
must have all the powers, its own country and its own
government.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
normally, when I rise in this House to participate in a debate on a
bill, I can say that it is with great pleasure that I speak to the bill
before us.
[English]
This is not a pleasant budget on which to be speaking. For
many of us it is a very painful budget. For many Canadians it is a
very painful budget. For us as Liberals it presents some
decisions we would rather not have to be making.
Liberals tend to want to be builders and creators, not to be
pulling back on progress that has been made and programs that
have been established. Following the second world war we were
able to invest in housing, invest in transportation, invest in the
education of our returning war veterans and yet pay off the war
debt within five years. That was in the time of an expanding
economy both domestically and internationally.
(1035 )
Liberals have been proud to create a package of social
programs that has offered Canadians a standard of living and a
quality of living second to none. We have been proud to
introduce security for workers who lose their jobs. We have been
proud to introduce security for Canadians who because of
disability and many other reasons are unable to support
themselves. We have been proud to share responsibility for our
fellow citizens in need.
It was a Liberal government that was proud to set as a national
target approximately two decades ago the elimination of poverty
among the elderly. We have achieved that.
However, these are different times. We now have to look at
how we can use the very limited resources of the nation and of
our taxpayers to continue the quality of life the nation has
enjoyed and to continue progress into the future. We also have to
face some very hard facts and that is what the budget bill does.
[Translation]
We must realize that 40 per cent of our national debt is held by
foreign countries and that, when we pay interest on the debt
every year, 40 per cent or $16 billion are paid out to foreign
lenders. That is money that does not get back into our national
economy; it does not work for us to improve our economic
situation, here, in Canada. This money is paid outside the
country and, therefore, not subject to Canadian income taxes.
This is a double loss to our economy.
[English]
We have to face the fact that we are now paying one-third of
every dollar we collect from Canadians and spend on
government programs and services just to pay the interest on the
debt. That proportion is rising year by year. If we continue to
allow that to happen we will have less and less to do the things
we want to do for the country and for Canadians.
I have sat in this House since 1988 and have heard repeated
promises of reducing the debt and deficit and that we have to go
through this pain to get to a certain objective. However, this is
the first time since I have sat in this House that there has been an
actual and substantial reduction in the deficit.
With the budget we are projecting the fulfilment of our 1993
campaign commitment to Canadians to cut the deficit by half in
proportion to the GNP by 1997.
I have said this is a painful budget. One does not cut one's
spending without removing from many Canadians certain
programs, services and benefits we have enjoyed as a nation. We
have done the budget in full consultation with Canadians. The
Minister of Finance has met with Canadians across the country.
We as members of Parliament have met with our constituents on
what should be in the budget and asked for their advice and
counsel in the difficult decisions we had to make.
In Ottawa West I was very fortunate to have several hundred
people come together and assist me in advising the finance
minister as to what we felt were the important issues to be taken
into consideration in coming up with the budget. The people of
Ottawa West told me they were concerned about the debt and
deficit. They are concerned about the continuing deterioration
11336
of opportunities for the future of the country, for its economy
and for the next generation.
(1040 )
They also said they did not want to sacrifice hard earned
progress which made this the best nation in the world in which to
live for the immediate gains on the debt and deficit. That is a
difficult balance but it is a balance the budget and the legislation
implementing it manage to achieve.
The people in Ottawa West and all Canadians told us they
wanted the budget to be fair. They believe no group in society
should disproportionately bear the brunt of the necessary cuts in
government spending. We have delivered on that and it is being
implemented in the budget.
Greater fairness in the tax system was the message from my
constituents in Ottawa West, and also to close some of the
loopholes. We have done that. We have increased the corporate
rate of tax so corporations are again starting to pay a fair share of
taxes. The capital tax imposed on banks is one element of that
fairness.
Through a number of such measures we have avoided an
increase in personal income tax which Canadians very clearly
said they did not want because they already feel their dollars are
stretched to the limit.
This is the first time I have had a chance to respond to people
in Ottawa West on the specific measures they raised with me
prior to the budget and tell them their voices and the voices of
other Canadians clearly made an impact. They asked that we not
tax their RRSP savings, and we did not. They asked that we not
tax health and dental plan benefits, and we did not. They asked
that we not touch the income of seniors, and we did not. We did
say that Canadians living outside of Canada who are earning a
high enough income should not continue to receive their entire
old age security. They should be treated the same as seniors who
are living in Canada and paying taxes here.
I can honestly report back to the constituents of Ottawa West
that the views they expressed to me most strongly have been
respected in the budget.
For a number of my constituents the changes we have made in
government spending will have a negative impact. These are
primarily people who work for the public service. It is not easy
to say that of the 45,000 jobs to be cut in the public service,
15,000 of those over the next three years will be lost in this
region.
However, through the bill and through other measures the
government is taking extraordinary steps to make sure the
number of people who will actually lose a job through this major
process is reduced to an absolute minimum. We fully expect that
at least 60 per cent of the downsizing will be achieved through
the early retirement incentives through regulation and the early
departure incentives done through the legislation today.
Through various training and placement programs that will be
put in place there will be various flexibilities about how people
manage their time if they know their particular position will be
affected. I want to send a very clear message that at the end of
three years, through all of this, at least 86 per cent of the federal
public service will still be in place, will still be working. There
is no question it will be a dramatically changed workplace and I
hope a dramatically improved workplace as we stop trying to ask
a shrinking number of people to do everything and accept our
responsibility as a government of deciding what programs to
continue and what programs to stop. It will be a very difficult
three years.
Canadians will know exactly where the government is headed,
what programs we think are important and we will have the
resources to carry out those programs well on behalf of
Canadians.
(1045 )
I express my appreciation to the business community, local
politicians in the area and many other people throughout the
national capital region who have come together as a community
to put in place programs that will assist people, whose jobs in the
public service are affected, to remain in the community and to
work in the community.
They are one of the great strengths of our region. That very
talented workforce will provide further economic
diversification and help to build a stronger economic future. I
say to them honestly that their members of Parliament and their
local community are 100 per cent committed to assisting them in
continuing to be employed here and in continuing to make this
their home.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon.
member. She said repeatedly that the budget was tough. It is
very tough indeed. To try to reduce the deficit to pay off our debt
is very laudable. We must do it.
I represent the rural riding of Matapédia-Matane, where I
recently met with some local groups. In my region,
unemployment matched with employment security is the norm
for 35 to 40 per cent of workers. I discussed the budget with
these various groups. The students did not understand. They told
me: ``How can we possibly pay more for post-secondary
education''? They do not accept that.
11337
I also met farmers who have herds of 30 to 35 dairy cows.
They told me that the situation in the region did not make any
sense. The Liberal member who accompanied me has a herd of
225 milk cows, which is not quite the same. For farmers, the
budget means a loss of $5,000 over two years, or $2,500 per
year, or 15 per cent for two years.
I also met unemployed people. A former Liberal member, Mr.
Bona Arsenault, once said that people were lazy. Let me tell you
that people in my region are not lazy. They are energetic. They
want to work. Given the opportunity to do so, they will work as
hard as anyone. The unemployed are very worried.
Why is it that, by contrast, some business people do not seem
very concerned. The hon. member referred to banks. The
government will get $100 million from the banks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I apologize for
interrupting the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane. I simply
want to remind him that the period for questions and comments
only allows five minutes. Unless he is just making a comment,
the hon. member should put his question if he wants a reply.
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a very simple question.
Why is it that the budget did not bother the multinationals too
much. From what I have heard, the banks are not overly
concerned by that budget. It is not the rich who are worried
about it, but the poor.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that,
in my own riding, five minutes from where I live, many
residents have the same concerns. Consequently, I can certainly
relate to what the member is saying.
It is for these people that we have to review and redirect our
programs. We have to make sure that there is a future for these
people, for women who have a very low income and who want to
provide a future for their children, for young people who may
have quit school five or six years ago and now want to get some
training.
(1050)
It is precisely for these people that we must have a strong
economy which, I hope, we will better control, so that we can
provide the training programs and the job creation initiatives
which will give them a good future.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again I clarify for the
House that the member for Ottawa West indicated she was
splitting her time with a colleague. That is why I made sure the
question and comment period was for a duration of five minutes.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the budget of the
finance minister for 1995-96.
The budget was about keeping promises: the promise
contained in the red book to reduce the federal deficit to 3 per
cent of GDP by 1996-97, the promise made by Liberal
governments past and present to preserve a sustainable social
safety net that provides for those who are most in need, and the
promise to ensure that all Canadians in all regions share equally
in the necessary burden of reducing the deficit.
Through a combination of spending cuts and revenue
increases the finance minister reduced the deficit for 1995-96 to
$32.7 billion. This is the second year in a row the deficit has
been reduced. I am proud to be a member of a government that
backs up its talk on deficit reduction with action. Unlike the
previous Tory government and some members of the third party,
the finance minister realizes there is a purpose to deficit
reduction and that deficit reduction is not an end in itself.
As a result of the huge debt that has been run up by the last
government, Canadians last year saw roughly 33 cents of every
taxation dollar go toward paying interest on the debt. This meant
less money available for services that Canadians deserve and
respect.
The large debt also creates a climate of instability which
discourages business investment and job growth. The purpose
therefore of deficit reduction is to guarantee Canadians an
environment for sustained growth and job creation both now and
into the future.
The government understands and respects its obligations to
Canadians to stop the practice of borrowing from future
generations to finance the spending habits of today. Therefore it
is not with enthusiasm that the government set about reducing
spending but rather out of necessity.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand this point.
In fact a recent poll confirmed it: 69 per cent of Canadians said
they approved of finance minister's budget, even though a large
number of those who approved of the budget expected to be
somewhat worse off under it.
I refer to some of the remarks made by my colleague from
Ottawa West. She said that some of her constituents spoke to her
about their concerns under the budget but were willing to accept
the cuts and to live with the budget.
Not only is the budget remarkable for the progress it makes
toward the goal of reducing the deficit. It is commendable for
the way in which it achieves deficit reduction. Reduction in the
deficit was achieved largely through expenditure cuts.
For the second year in a row the government did not increase
personal income tax rates. I congratulate the minister on his
willingness to listen to Canadians and to refuse to take the easy
way out by raising taxes. While personal tax rate increases may
have been easy they would not have been equitable.
11338
Rather, the finance minister has managed to reach his deficit
reduction primarily through expenditure cuts. For every $1 of
revenue increase contained in the budget there are $7 in
spending cuts. These cuts are reached largely through a
rationalization and downsizing of government while ensuring
that the spending cuts do not jeopardize the social programs
Canadians value so dearly.
I should like to comment on three specific areas which the
budget affects: social programs, small business and changes to
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
(1055 )
While many Canadians including myself were encouraging
the minister not to raise personal income taxes as part of his
campaign to fight the deficit, equally compelling was the need
to maintain the hallmark of Liberalism, our social safety net.
It was the Liberal government that built the social safety net
and it is the Liberal government that is committed to
maintaining our social programs. The problem was to adjust the
programs to reflect the challenges and realities of the nineties.
Too often complaints were heard about how the social
security system did not aid those most in need. At the same time
it was becoming obvious that the social safety net was in many
instances not providing incentives to Canadians to become less
dependent on assistance.
Helping individuals to get back to supporting themselves
must be a fundamental goal of any social system. In an attempt
to encourage innovative and timely approaches to social
security the government has established the Canada social
transfer. This payment to the provinces will combine payments
for health, post-secondary education and social assistance into
one payment called the Canada social transfer. It will allow
provinces the flexibility to pursue innovative approaches to the
programs.
In conjunction with the transfers the federal government will
impose national standards on all provinces as a condition of
receiving funding. It will ensure that our commitment to provide
for the most vulnerable in society will be maintained. For
example, the Canada Health Act and its standards of
accessibility, portability and universality will remain intact.
Further, the Minister of Human Resources Development is to
meet with his provincial counterparts to work out a set of
national standards to govern post-secondary education and
social assistance.
It has been said that the provinces will receive less funding
under the Canada social transfer than previously. However the
government has shown its commitment to social programs by
cutting its expenditures in this area much less than it cut
expenditures in other areas. Further, by announcing the changes
in its transfer payments this year to take effect next year, the
federal government has given provinces plenty of notice of the
changes so that they may have the time to prepare.
Statistics show that under the Canada social transfer total
transfers including equalization to the most needy provinces-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor when we
resume debate at the end of question period.
It being 11 a.m. we will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
11338
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to participate in an
infrastructure event in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
Announced were eight projects valued at $1.1 million for the
Victoria County Board of Education, including the installation
of computer wiring to give students better access to the
information highway.
There have been 153 infrastructure programs announced in
my riding in places like Fenelon Falls, Haliburton, Kinmount,
Minden, Bobcaygeon, Kirkfield, Apsley in Brock township and
my home town of Lindsay. They have totalled over $25 million
and created thousands of part time and permanent jobs.
The Canadian infrastructure program is an investment in the
future. It has improved communities. It has upgraded the quality
of life across the country. Most important, it has invested in the
education system for our future. It is a success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Turkish offensive against the Kurds continues to cause many
casualties. Today, 23 more Kurds were killed in Southeastern
Turkey.
While Turkey continues to violate the most elementary rules
of international law, Canada turns a blind eye. Even worse,
although Germany has suspended deliveries of all military
equipment to Turkey, the Canadian government has started
negotiations with Turkey on the sale of its CF-5 fighter planes.
This is one more indication that the Liberal government's
foreign policy is totally inconsistent.
The government must stop hiding its head in the sand and
condemn forthwith the unacceptable behaviour of one of
Canada's military allies by bringing this difficult matter before
NATO and the UN Security Council.
11339
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate a group of constituents in
my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan who are doing valuable work
on behalf of taxpayers.
Several months ago I followed the lead of my colleague from
North Vancouver by inviting interested citizens to get involved
in the Canada Employment Centre grant process. Since that time
this committee has been hard at work reviewing grants to
determine if tax dollars were being spent wisely. This practice
has resulted in constituents having direct input into the process
instead of having the MP simply rubber stamp these
applications, as is usually the case according to a senior official
at human resources development.
Based on the positive results from this committee, I am now
looking to establish other working groups at the constituency
level to get involved in everything from agriculture to
transportation.
This committee and others like it should serve as an example
to all MPs as to the value of getting constituents involved in the
democratic process.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the financing of medical care in Canada has
become a challenging task that the federal government is about
to make even more challenging. The current federal proposal to
change the way cash is transferred to the provinces will create a
patchwork of different delivery systems in different provinces
across Canada. Fortunately, some provinces have a progressive
view of health care delivery.
Thanks to good economic management, the Government of
Saskatchewan will introduce this year new and expanded health
services at the community level. These will include home care
and increased support for respite beds, and day programs that
provide some relief for family caregivers when needed.
Saskatchewan's health minister, Lorne Calvert, says that
these and other initiatives represent the most comprehensive
and people sensitive approach to community based health care
in Canada.
It shows that even in the face of financial difficulties a
province that cares for people can meet its health challenges. I
urge the federal government to ensure provincial initiatives such
as these are not undermined by a shortsighted and poor-
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Boniface.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
you may have noticed a number of our colleagues wearing a
black and gold ribbon over the past month. March is Learning
Disabilities Month and this ribbon honours all Canadians who
have learning disabilities and those who provide them with
support of all kinds.
[Translation]
One Canadian out of ten, which means 2.9 million Canadians,
has learning disabilities, which will affect performance at
school and may be a serious obstacle to learning to read, write
and do arithmetic.
[English]
Early diagnosis and remedial intervention is the key. Children
with learning disabilities become adults with learning
disabilities if there is no early intervention.
As a former educator, I recognize the importance of training
for all teachers in learning disabilities and the importance of
specialized training programs for adults with learning
disabilities.
Today I honour and recognize the learning disabled, each of
whom struggles daily to learn. I also honour those who provide
them with support of all types.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
farmers are no strangers to the hardships of climactic extremes.
As our economic climate becomes increasingly competitive,
farmers are confronting a growing storm of cutbacks and
continuing trade wars, especially downward pressure from the
American export enhancement program.
At the eye of the storm is the Canadian Wheat Board, one of
Canada's great institutions. In such a climate the board plays a
critical role by supporting the principles of orderly and fair
marketing and in essence works on behalf of farmers.
I have received copies of several hundred letters written by
Canadians from ridings across western Canada who feel the
same way. All of these letters say the board should remain a
strong selling agency for the Canadian farmer. Many suggest it
should be given an even stronger mandate.
In the truest sense, the Canadian Wheat Board is an
organization that works for Canadian farmers. I congratulate
those farmers and support their initiative.
11340
(1105 )
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to update the House on a successful Youth Service
Canada project conducted by the Institute for Enterprise
Education in St. Catharines.
The program provided training and practical experience with
local business people in entrepreneurial, interpersonal and
labour market skills. It paved the way for a successful school to
work transition.
With 19 full term students, seven have secured employment
within their career path objectives working with other
entrepreneurs. Nine have already begun business operations and
three are finalizing their business plans and proceeding with
their business start-ups.
I have worked with the youth enterprise program from start to
graduation. I am very pleased with the accomplishments of the
students.
We can all celebrate the successful program sponsored by
Human Resources Development Canada. I also congratulate the
Secretary of State for Training and Youth for working with our
youth and making this program such a success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as the official opposition pointed out during the debate
on back-to-work legislation for railway employees, the
Minister of Transport waited until the government had wielded
its big stick before starting the process of privatizing Canadian
National.
The Minister of Transport, who openly sided with the
employers and against the employees in the railway dispute, was
anxious to downgrade the terms and conditions of employment
at CN so it would be easier to privatize the company.
The minister did not even have the decency to wait and started
his privatization process less than a week after the passage of
back-to-work legislation. Now more than ever before, it is clear
to railway employees, and Canadians generally, that the
arbitration process put in place by the Minister of Labour in the
railway sector is biased towards the employer. The opposition
was right to condemn this bill.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday an Ontario court justice made a ruling
that could very well affect the safety of all Canadians.
Justice Peter Howden ruled that a section of the Criminal
Code clearly violates the rights of a criminally insane person
because the role and powers of the federal Criminal Code
Review Board are too broad and do not have clear standards.
This case centres around a criminally insane person who has
been convicted of criminal charges on four separate occasions,
including the beating of his aunt with a rolling pin. However,
this is only the start, as 1,100 similar people being held on
warrants wait for lawyers to find loopholes in the criminal
justice system.
The minister has been asked by the Ontario court to step in
and make changes to the code so that such a judgment would not
take place. The minister hesitated in dealing with the Supreme
Court decision in the Daviault case and we all know what
followed.
The minister now has a chance to redeem himself. Canadians
do not want a second blown opportunity. They want reassurance
of a safe community and reassurance that dangerous offenders
will remain in custody.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
On Sunday the Juno Awards for Canadian music excellence
were handed out. Among the winners was a young Inuk from my
constituency, Susan Aglukark. Susan received two Junos, one
for best new solo artist and one for best music of aboriginal
Canadian recording.
These Juno Awards are in addition to the rising star trophy she
received at last year's Country Music Awards and her 1994
National Aboriginal Achievement Award.
It is fitting that Susan should receive these Junos this month
as March is Aboriginal Language Month. An Inuk from Arviat,
Northwest Territories, Susan is proud to sing in her native
language, Inuktitut, as well as in English. Her newly released
album ``This Child'' is meeting with great success. Her music
touches the hearts of many.
Congratulations, Susan.
11341
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to a man who served his community, his
province and his country with distinction.
Don Morrow died in Ottawa on Wednesday at the age of 86.
He represented the people of Ottawa West in the provincial
legislature for 29 years, from 1948 to 1977, and served as the
Speaker of the Ontario legislature.
Don Morrow had been out of office for nearly 20 years.
However, his service to his community and his links with its
people were so strong that when Don Morrow walked into a
room or down a street, he was greeted with warmth, affection
and remembrance.
I think that is what we would all like to have at the end of our
careers.
I say thank you to his family for the time they allowed him to
give to all of us, and I offer our condolences on his passing.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the regional commissions have finished their work in Quebec
and have submitted their recommendations to the national
commission. Unfortunately, some remarkable facts came out of
all this which were not reported by the media. Many people set
aside the constitutional and political option to discuss a
blueprint for society, a society based on human values and social
measures that enrich all members of society and reflect the
philosophy that we are our brother's keeper.
They rejected out of hand a number of corporate values,
including those of multinationals who want no government
intervention, and free trade where the profit motive is king and
one must be competitive at any cost.
I am convinced the same exercise would produce the same
results across Canada, in other words, all Canadians want to live
in a country where human values come first, and the economy
must serve the people, not the other way around.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
strangely downplaying the importance of the increased number
of suicides in the Canadian armed forces, and, in particular,
among the military returning from peacekeeping missions, the
Minister of Defence finally agreed yesterday to look into these
tragic incidents.
The situation is very distressing. Why are members of the
military more inclined to use external rather than internal
resources to overcome the difficulties they face in adjusting on
their return?
The official opposition wants answers to these troubling
questions. It calls on the government to act quickly in this matter
and make public the results of the Minister of Defence's internal
inquiry.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, five Airbuses
purchased by the Department of National Defence at a cost of
$250 million three years ago have spent 11 months of the year on
the ground.
[English]
National defence's spending $250 million taxpayer dollars for
planes to sit on the ground for 11 months of the year is beyond
comprehension. All the while we are spending another $45
million per year just to move our troops around the country.
What is going on?
While it has been clear that the defence minister has many
troubles in his department, this simply cannot go on. These
planes and all the money we have been spending is not in the best
interests of our troops and not in the best interests of taxpayers.
So my message is, stop the waste and spend the money on
better equipment for our troops who work so hard and make
Canadians proud.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March was proclaimed Help Fight Liver Disease
Month.
The liver is one of the body's largest and most crucial organs.
Much like a complex chemical factory, the liver manufactures
essential proteins, cleanses the blood and stores energy vital to
the functioning of the human body.
There are over 100 known liver and biliary tract diseases,
including hepatitis, cirrhosis and cancer of the liver. An
estimated one in 12 Canadians of all ages, races and cultures are
expected to develop a liver disease at some point in their lives.
For over 25 years the Canadian Liver Foundation has been
striving to reduce the impact and incidence of all liver diseases
through support for research and education. Health Canada
contributes to the fight against liver disease through its support
for research into improved treatment and prevention.
11342
I salute the Canadian Liver Foundation and all its volunteers
who worked during this Help Fight Liver Disease Month.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak about an issue that has been at the forefront of the
news in my province of Newfoundland and indeed, all of
Canada, the conservation of the turbot stock.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the fisheries minister on
their unfailing commitment to the preservation of the turbot
stock on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
(1115 )
Last week I attended the 22nd annual meeting of the Canada
and European Parliaments and had the opportunity to discuss
with them fish conservation. I spoke to many European
parliamentarians, including those attending the European
fisheries committee. Many of these people expressed support
for Canada's efforts to conserve turbot stocks from overfishing.
As a result of these talks a joint resolution was signed by
members of both the Canadian and European delegations to
these meetings. The resolution recognized the need to ensure
that turbot and other fish stocks are fished in a sustainable
manner so they can be conserved for future generations.
I look forward to further progress being made on this issue at
the UN conference on straddling stocks that is presently taking
place in New York.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, baseball fans are worried about the calibre of play
this season if replacement players take to the field. If the second
stringers in the Liberal cabinet are any indication, fans should
be worried.
No one has dropped the ball more than the minister of defence
playing outfield. He missed the signals on the Bosnia
peacekeeping play. He misjudged airborne base hits and
dropped the Fowler ball. He cannot find the bases because he
keeps moving them.
Let us look at some of the other players. The heritage minister
writes notes during the game. The minister of Indian affairs is
drafting separate rules for aboriginal players. The health
minister is headed back to the minors. She swings her bat
without hitting. The minister for western economic
diversification hits every ball to the centre fielder, named
Winnipeg. The justice minister fired a bullet over the pitcher's
head and was arrested for playing with an unregistered bat. The
environment minister takes too big a lead off to suit the Prime
Minister. She will be tagged out.
Fans know it is time to get concerned when the star player, the
Prime Minister, tells the President of the United States that
Canada has won the world cup of baseball two times in a line.
_____________________________________________
ORAL QUESTIONS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
At a time when the federal government is bragging about the
new freedoms it is giving the provinces in the areas of social
assistance and post-secondary education, Ottawa is getting
ready to impose new national standards in these areas of
provincial jurisdiction, actually restricting the freedom of the
provinces and of Quebec.
How can the minister reconcile the statements he made
yesterday that the 1995 budget in no way shows any readiness on
the part of the federal government to impose more national
standards on the provinces, when legislative measures
introduced since blatantly encroach on the powers of the
provinces and of Quebec in areas which fall exclusively under
their jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no new conditions are set
out in the omnibus legislation.
As the hon. member knows, the Canada Health Act already
has a series of requirements for the provinces to meet. Those are
being maintained. There are also requirements under the Canada
assistance plan about mobility, to ensure that everybody in need
gets assistance. Those are the conditions which are being put
forward in the legislation, subject to future discussions and
negotiations with the provinces to see how we can provide a
more coherent approach to social programming across Canada.
Frankly, the assumption which the hon. member makes is
simply not the case.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that he is
adding conditions. This having been said, how can the minister
justify that the provinces, to whom the Constitution grants
exclusive jurisdiction over social assistance and education, will
only play a consultative role regarding the determination of the
new national standards?
11343
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposed transfer
program is a clear recognition that the provinces can take more
responsibility for making decisions.
We are freeing up and making far more flexible their choices
of priorities within a broad range of programming on education,
welfare and health. That is the whole point of consolidating the
existing transfer system, to give the provinces the freedom of
choice to look at programming which suits the individual needs
of their own areas.
At the same time, it is a national transfer program. There are
base conditions and those conditions are already X stamped, as
we said in the budget itself, such as the five conditions under the
Canada Health Act and the condition under the Canada
assistance plan which protect the mobility rights of Canadians
so they can move from one region to another and still be eligible
for some form of assistance. Those are the basic conditions
which were put forward.
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I understand clearly that national standards are here to
stay.
But given the government's policy regarding transfer
payments, which will ensure that Ottawa will dictate these
national standards and will reduce the provinces to mere
administrative branches, are we to take this as another example
of the flexible federalism so touted by the Liberals?
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 hon. member is obviously trying to use scare
tactics. The budget makes it clear that fewer strings will be
attached to the Canada social transfer than was the case for
transfer payments previously.
The conditions to be met in the area of health care remain the
same, as is explained in the budget. There have never been any
conditions tied to post-secondary education, particularly in
Quebec, which has opted out since 1964. All the conditions tied
to social assistance have been eliminated, excepting the one
barring any minimum period of residency to qualify.
Therefore, it is very clear, and the budget states this, that any
future federal-provincial agreement will be based on mutual
consent and, consequently, contrary to what the hon. member
would have us believe, there are fewer conditions to be met than
before.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, while it is recognized that social assistance and
education come under provincial jurisdiction, the federal
government clearly shows its intention to interfere shamelessly
in these areas of provincial jurisdiction by imposing its views
and goals on the provinces through national standards.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
How can the minister reconcile this denial of the provinces'
exclusive jurisdiction, which leaves the door wide open to
confrontation with Quebec, and the openness, mutual
understanding and flexible federalism he is talking about?
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, I am hearing the exact same argument being put
forth again and it is as flawed as it was in the previous question.
The budget clearly indicates that the requirements attached to
social transfers will be reduced and that, if social assistance
programs are subject to standards, these standards will be set by
mutual consent.
This is mentioned several times in the budget. There is no
mistake about it and I can only conclude that the members
opposite are, once again, misrepresenting to the people of
Canada and Quebec facts that are clearly stated in the budget.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the mere fact of thinking about imposing standards or
Canada-wide requirements in areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction constitutes in itself interference in Quebec's
exclusive jurisdiction. That is what the minister just said.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: Will the minister acknowledge that explicitly
linking transfer payments for social assistance, postsecondary
education and health, which are areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, to strict compliance with national standards
imposed by Ottawa looks like a new attack against Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
The propaganda effort continues, Mr. Speaker. The Bloc
Quebecois just keeps stating a position contradicted by facts, by
the budget and by reality.
I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely that the budget is
clear, that the requirements for social assistance have been
reduced, that, if any standards are established, they will be
established by mutual consent. It is very unfortunate that the
opposition informs the people of Quebec so poorly on such
major issues.
11344
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been reported today that diplomatic sources and
federal officials are deeply concerned that Canada's
peacekeepers will be targeted by the warring factions in Bosnia
and Croatia.
They say Canadian combat troops are entering one of the most
dangerous conflict zones at a time when tensions are rising and
fighting is escalating.
(1125 )
Given the government's expressed concern for the safety of
our peacekeepers, why are we now sending more troops to
Bosnia and Croatia?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that a variety of
scenarios can exist on peacekeeping missions, particularly one
of this nature where the requirements of the peacekeepers are so
varied and different, whether it is in Croatia or in Bosnia.
He also knows that the Canadian forces have a number of
contingency plans to counter any of these operations. We are
prepared. We have contingency plans. He also knows that it
would not be appropriate to divulge the contingency plans on the
floor of the House of Commons. I see he is nodding, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's ad hoc approach to peacekeeping in
the former Yugoslavia is unacceptable. It is sending our soldiers
into a war zone with no criteria to judge when that mission is
accomplished.
We are heartened to hear that the military is drawing up secret
evacuation plans but it should not need to because the
government should not be placing our troops in danger for what
looks to be a futile cause.
What criteria has the government established to decide when
our troops are to be withdrawn?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the hon. member had a conversation
with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, who voted
in favour of our troops in Yugoslavia, he may be enlightened as
to what it is we are thinking about.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): We still did
not find out the criteria, Mr. Speaker.
The last time the government renewed our mandate in the
former Yugoslavia, the minister said he would reconsider our
participation if the situation on the ground changed. The
situation did change. Canadian soldiers were taken hostage and
the minister was powerless to act. Instead of learning from the
past, the government is making the same mistake again.
Lord Owen is right. Our peacekeepers are the best in the
world. The government should not be putting them into obvious
danger. Will it reconsider its decision and move to withdraw
Canadian peacekeepers now while it has the chance?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to correct what I said, there was no vote when we
debated this a few nights ago.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca gave an
eloquent discourse which indicated why he as a member of the
third party supported our troops in continuing to discharge their
mandate like the other 34 countries in the United Nations, no
matter how tough it gets.
We don't quit when the going gets tough.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
This morning, we learned that five Airbuses bought in 1992
by the federal government from Canadian Airlines
International, at a cost of $250 million, are grounded eleven
months per year. At the same time, the government has a
$45-million-a-year contract with that company, to transport
military personnel.
How can the minister tolerate such a waste and, at the same
time, hit the poor so hard by slashing $307 million in this year's
budget for social housing, and over $6 billion in the UI program,
in the last two budgets?
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member.
Perhaps I could inform him and the House that the Canadian
forces cannot afford to buy aircraft both for strategic airlift and
for normal administrative movement of the troops.
The choice is to use either the airbus for strategic airlift and to
contract out for administrative flights or to reverse it and to
contract out for strategic airlift and use the airbus for
administrative flights.
The hon. member may not be aware that we cannot rely on
commercial aircraft for strategic airlift in time of crisis. We
have decided to opt for using the airbus for strategic airlift,
humanitarian purposes and for those things for which
contingency plans are drawn up and may be required at a
moment's notice.
11345
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister explain this situation other than by saying that
Canadian Airlines International is being systematically
favoured? First, that company benefitted from the sale of those
aircraft to the government, then it was awarded the contract for
their maintenance, and now it is enjoying a $45 million a year
deal to transport Canadian troops while these Airbuses stay on
the ground.
(1130 )
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member refers to the contract award to
Canadian Airlines International by the Department of National
Defence, he might want to take into account that at the time the
tenders were called for that service to be provided both Air
Canada and Canadian Airlines International made submissions.
What I thought interesting as a result of that is both airlines,
particularly the airline not awarded the contract, Air Canada,
stated publicly the process had been absolutely fair and
appropriate.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the biggest economic news since the budget is
inflation. During the last four months consumer prices rose at an
annual rate of about 4.5 per cent, well above the target of 3 per
cent set by the Bank of Canada.
In large part this inflation is caused by the depreciation of the
dollar and the higher prices of imports and exportables it has
brought.
Will the Minister of Finance admit this inflation if unchecked
threatens living standards much more than the spending cuts
needed to balance the budget and to fix the exchange rate?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, one of the main reasons for the increase in
inflation statistically was the actions of the tobacco factor into
the new numbers compared with the previous numbers.
Inflation must be monitored. The Governor of the Bank of
Canada has stated there are no inflationary pressures in Canada
at the present time. However, to anticipate such pressures is
clearly the responsibility of the Bank of Canada and the
Government of Canada, and we shall exercise that
responsibility.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear there are different ways of measuring
inflation. I am talking about the price increases in the last four
months annualized, not year to year inflation where the tobacco
increases are important.
The minister and the governor have already stated what the
minister just repeated. However, unfortunately the tightening of
monetary policy will again push Canada into a recession. It is
inappropriate since inflation is caused not by excess demand but
the depreciation of the dollar.
Will the Minister of Finance allow the Bank of Canada to
precipitate another recession to fight inflation or will he do the
right thing and stop the decline of the dollar by a new budget that
eliminates the deficit promptly and decisively?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite knows full well the independence of the Bank of
Canada is a very important asset to the country. Our record in
terms of low inflation, while very dearly bought, is also a major
asset in terms of job creation and it is something we intend to
maintain.
The hon. member knows the last budget is also a major asset
to the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to rule out the
possibility that Ottawa would hold discussions with Chief Jerry
Peltier and the band council about setting up a casino at
Kanesatake, although the Government of Quebec has
categorically refused to consider it, primarily for reasons of
security.
Given the refusal by the Government of Quebec, the sole
games and lotteries authority, can the federal government tell us
whether it plans to continue discussions with Jerry Peltier?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are well aware of the fact that casinos are a matter
of provincial jurisdiction at the moment, and I hope that it will
be possible to have discussions with parties wishing to set up
casinos anywhere in the country.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the
minister's response, are we to assume that the federal
government will put an end to any discussion, present and
future, on setting up a casino in Quebec?
(1135)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are rights of discussion and free speech in this
country. The Government of Canada cannot stop anyone from
11346
discussing anything. However I repeat that currently casinos
come under provincial jurisdiction.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the police association announced it was withholding support for
the minister's gun control measures until it has the assurance the
criminalization of current lawful firearm owners, such as
non-compliance with registration, is taken out of the Criminal
Code.
In view of this, will he now consider addressing the two areas
separately, one that imposes stricter penalties for the criminal
use of a firearm and one that deals with the regulation and
ownership of a firearm?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must slay the hon.
member's beautiful hypothesis with a brutal fact. Yesterday the
Canadian Police Association, representing some 35,000
frontline police officers, endorsed every element of the
government's firearms package.
I shall be happy to share with the hon. member a copy of the
resolution. It endorsed the government's prohibition on small
calibre handguns. It endorsed the government's prohibition on
assault weapons and it endorsed registration of all firearms.
In respect of the specific registration system proposed in Bill
C-68, the Canadian Police Association endorses it subject only
to two points, that the costs would not be taken from the
operational budgets in place at present for the police, assurance
of which I gave readily yesterday, and that some means be found
by which first offences for non-registration could be dealt with
on a regulatory rather than a criminal basis.
In respect of the second point, I expressed concern about
achieving compliance. The response given by the police
association was that perhaps instead of a criminal offence, if
someone does not register, the first time around their gun should
be confiscated. My response was that based on that approach
perhaps we can do business.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have in
my possession the stand the Canadian Police Association has
issued. It is clear it has concerns in other areas such as the lack
of enforcement regulations within the statute and the existing
Criminal Code.
The police association has expressed concern about the
inadequate enforcement of the present laws, as many of us are
concerned. In Cornwall last year eight individuals were charged
with possession of a prohibited weapon, three semi-automatic
weapons, breach of probation and possession of drugs. They
were given a $1,000 fine.
Given what the police association has said, given the case in
Cornwall and other similar cases across Canada, what
guarantees can the minister give us regarding the administration
of justice? Will it provide for the adequate enforcement of the
laws he is creating?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the course of the
CPA's discussions this week on a whole range of justice issues, it
identified areas where we can do better. There is no question
there is room for improvement in every part of the criminal
justice system.
It endorsed the firearms proposals by the government. The
question had to do with enforcement mechanisms for criminal
law. I assured the Canadian Police Association yesterday and
throughout the week that we look forward to having its specific
representations to the committee when it appears before it. If it
has suggestions about improvements on the enforcement side,
then working with the provinces, which are responsible for the
enforcement of criminal law, we should be happy to see to it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
As a result of an administrative error made by Transport
Canada employees, who, in July, applied measures which were
only to take effect in September, Canadian and foreign
shipowners were overcharged more than $1 million. Instead of
refunding the money, the minister is looking at introducing
retroactive legislation to legalize this illegal collection of fees
from shipowners.
(1140)
Will the minister admit that the bill that he is getting ready to
introduce legalizing this over-billing is a retroactive measure
which fully goes against the fundamental principles of a society
based on the rule of law?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): No, not
at all, Mr. Speaker. It all started with an administrative error, but
shipowners knew exactly what they were supposed to pay. A
standing joint committee acknowledged that an administrative
error had been made. It is nothing new in such situations to
correct the error through legislation, without there being any
bad intentions on anybody's part.
11347
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify penalizing
businesses retroactively for an error committed by his own
employees?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the error committed is one fully admitted to. The
difference is who the Bloc Quebecois wants to pay for the error.
The vessel owners understood there were fees to be paid. They
paid them. There has been an administrative error. It is not
unusual to have the Bloc Quebecois try to have the taxpayers of
Canada pay for administrative errors easily corrected by
legislation.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Obviously my Reform colleagues did not understand the
importance of the decision and the resolution taken yesterday by
the Canadian Police Association in response to its appreciation
for the safety to be brought to communities by the legislation.
Would the minister explain to us exactly who the Canadian
Police Association represents? Is it not the policemen who work
on the streets in our communities from coast to coast?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed.
We have had for several months now on the record a
resolution passed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police calling for a variety of measures with respect to firearms
already in Bill C-68 and supporting full registration.
Until yesterday the Canadian Police Association, which
represents the rank and file police officers, had withheld
expressing a position on the bill or on registration until it had a
chance through its own firearms committee to canvass the views
of working police officers across the country.
Yesterday delegates from across Canada came to Ottawa for
the purpose of making up their minds. They debated the issue
and issued resolutions in which they support every element of
the firearms bill the government has put forward subject to the
conditions I have mentioned having to do with budgets and with
decriminalization of the first offence.
It is extremely significant that this is a group representing the
working rank and file police officers on the streets, the persons
we look to for safety in the communities.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reformers knew it was only a matter of time before the Prime
Minister got back into patronage as usual.
Unlike his colleague, Jean-Robert Gauthier, Mr. Berger will
not be given a seat in the Senate but will be made ambassador to
Israel. Perrin Beatty, who stands to receive $5 million from the
MP pension plan, has been today appointed to the presidency of
the CBC. I am sure he will give up his pension as a condition of
that.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Between
junkets abroad and patronage appointments, why does the Prime
Minister insist on doing business the same way Mulroney did,
especially since the Liberals raised such a big stink on these
matters when they were on this side of the House?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to Mr. Berger, what was in the press is
simply speculation. Unless and until something happens in that
regard, there is really nothing to comment on.
With respect to Perrin Beatty, he is an experienced former
parliamentarian and minister who held portfolios involving
national revenue, foreign affairs and communications. It is felt
he has the necessary skills and experience to handle the position
of the president of the CBC.
I can confirm his salary will be reduced by the amount of his
pension. Therefore he will not be double dipping. Furthermore,
since Mr. Beatty sat in the House as a Conservative, it is not a
partisan political appointment.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
patronage is patronage.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1145 )
Mr. Silye: Patronage is an appointment or a promotion given
by a patron to a former patron. Politicians are all part of the same
old club. It is plums and rewards like this that Reformers want to
put an end to.
I have a supplementary question. With Kim Campbell going
off to Moscow when can we expect to hear or when can we get
confirmation that Mr. Brian Mulroney will be singing ``When
Irish Eyes are Smiling'' from the Emerald Isle?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the law passed by Parliament gives the responsibility
to the government to appoint the president of the CBC. It is a
responsibility that has to be carried out in order to ensure that
vital national institution operates.
11348
With respect to his idea that any appointment made by
government is improper patronage, I regret very much that he is
criticizing so severely the fact that his leader's father has been
sitting in the Senate under similar circumstances for many
years. He ought to be ashamed of himself for attacking his
leader's father.
Mr. Silye: He should have been elected.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the chairman of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Marcel
Beaudry, says that he attended a fundraising dinner organized by
the Liberal Party of Quebec because this was an activity for the
No committee. However, the dinner invitation, printed on party
stationery and signed by Mr. Beaudry, clearly refers to a
fundraising dinner for the Liberal Party of Quebec, which was
confirmed by the Liberal MNA for Chapleau, who said she had
collected $30,000.
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Considering these new facts, does the minister agree that Mr.
Beaudry knowingly lied before the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage last Tuesday?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was asked a similar question a few days
ago. I said quite frankly-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dupuy: Will they for once have the courtesy to listen to
the answer?
The Speaker: Hon. members, the questions are legitimate
and so are the answers. I would ask you to listen to the answers
as well. The Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Dupuy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other day, when
similar charges were made, I said that the chairman of the
National Capital Commission had the right to exercise his rights
as a citizen during his leisure time.
That is what he did. The event took place on a Saturday night.
I do not expect the chairman to be at his office on Saturday night.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
obviously, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not prepared to
act responsibly and do his homework.
My supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In
the light of these new facts, including the letter signed by
Marcel Beaudry on Quebec Liberal Party stationery and what
was said by Mr. Beaudry and the MNA for Chapleau, does the
Acting Prime Minister intend, once again, to submit this case to
the ethics counsellor for an opinion and to release that opinion
once it is received?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleagues are so blinded by their own
political passion they are now asking me to prevent a Canadian
from exercising his political rights in this country. I certainly
have no intention of doing so.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday an Ontario court justice ruled
that the section in the Criminal Code dealing with criminally
insane patients was unconstitutional. The judge has given the
government six months to change the section.
(1150)
What actions will the government be taking to meet the
September deadline?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I believe the
Ontario government will be considering the question of whether
to launch an appeal as it is a party to the proceeding. The federal
government intervened at the first instance and, if an appeal is
launched, may well intervene at the appellate stage as well.
Second, depending on whether an appeal is taken and
obviously depending on the timing of an appeal if it is brought, it
may be necessary to apply for an extension of the six-month
period which is permissible under the rules of the court. If that
were to be necessary I have no doubt that such an application
would be considered and, if appropriate, it would be brought.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are already concerned about high
risk offenders walking the streets of their communities.
What assurances can the minister give Canadians that the
government is taking steps to prevent innocent citizens from all
high risk dangerous offenders, whether or not they are
criminally insane?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know of the hon.
member's continuing concern in this area. I want to assure her
that I share it and that steps are being taken.
We have already announced our intention to strengthen the
existing dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.
Two weeks ago the Solicitor General announced the new
flagging system to make it easier for prosecuting lawyers to
have information about what people should be subject to such
applications.
In addition we have announced our intention to introduce
legislation to strengthen the dangerous offender provisions by
removing the requirement for two psychiatric opinions before
the court. We are also looking favourably at the recommenda-
11349
tion from the federal-provincial-territorial task force to add
long term offenders as a category to the code.
In May the Solicitor General and I will be convening a
meeting of constitutional experts and others to look at other
strategies we can take within the law to protect society from
those who are at high risk of reoffending.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's move toward a knowledge based
economy presents tremendous economic and educational
opportunities for all Canadians. It is very important that these
opportunities are made available to all Canadians, not only
those in urban areas but those in rural and remote areas as well.
Could the secretary of state tell the House what steps the
government is taking to ensure that Canadians in rural and
remote areas will have access to the opportunities afforded by
the information highway?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as member for the rural
riding of Portage-Interlake I share the hon. member's concern
for rural areas and thank him for his question.
The government is working very hard through programs like
SchoolNet, the community access centres and the senior centre
information project to ensure the information highway gets out
to all areas of Canada and that rural Canadians can benefit
equally with urban Canadians.
The community access centres program is now being piloted.
The first official competition will be due in October. We are
working hard so that the program will be a success and will
enable rural communities to participate. Members of Parliament
will be fully briefed on the program before the summer break so
they can help their communities in submitting briefs and
empower people from one end of the country to the other to
participate fully in the information highway.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The minister is always telling us about the progress he has
made in the air transport industry and the satisfaction expressed
by the presidents of the two main carriers. In fact, since his
international route allocation policy was announced in late
December, and because of his decisions systematically
favouring Canadian International in the allocation of
international routes, Air Canada shares are taking a beating on
the stock market.
My question is this: How can the minister maintain that he
acted fairly and equitably, when, according to Standard and
Poor, Air Canada has been hurt by the minister's recent
decisions giving Canadian International access to the American
market, Chicago and New York in particular, without any
compensation for Air Canada?
(1155)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as you can appreciate, the financial situation of any
company with publicly traded shares is a very delicate subject
matter.
I must, however, tell my hon. colleague that the reason why I
say that we have acted as equitably as possible in this whole
matter is that, after years of controversy and difficulties in the
Canadian air transport industry, the directors of both carriers are
telling us and stating publicly that we have acted fairly and
efficiently.
My hon. colleague should know, for example, that Air Canada
decided the day before yesterday to proceed with a $500 million
share issue and that, throughout this process, Air Canada
notified Canadians that it had to purchase new planes and hire
over 600 people. I think that, if we in the House of Commons
want to be fair and equitable, we should realize that great
progress has been made. The situation is not perfect, but we
think that both carriers are about to experience years of growth
that will be much more interesting than what we have seen in the
past.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister draw a parallel between Hong
Kong, a route which Air Canada is ready to start servicing in the
summer, thus creating 500 jobs, and Germany, a route which
Canadian cannot even start servicing by the end of the year
because it does not have enough planes?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very simple how we rationalize the decisions with
respect to all our cross border and international air travel.
If I use the thesis put forward by my hon. friend, we would not
have attributed all the rights we were able to negotiate with the
United States. My hon. friend will know that Air Canada has
orders with major aircraft manufacturers both in Canada and
outside the country to be able to service the routes we have been
able to negotiate internationally and with the United States.
If it were a question of only attributing routes or making it
possible for Air Canada and Canadian to fly to areas where they
have the aircraft for it, there would be a lot of things we would
not do that we have already done.
11350
We are saying to Air Canada and to Canadian Airlines
International: ``This is where you can go. This is how we arrived
at the decision. This is how you can plan for your future''. That
is why they can go out now and negotiate for the purchase or the
lease of aircraft to be able to fly to routes that were closed to
both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International in the
United States and around the world.
If the hon. member were to be careful and understand what we
have achieved for airports across the country and for employees
of both airlines, he would tell us that by the end of 1995 we will
have done more to improve the situation for both airlines than
was done in the previous 15 or 20 years in the country.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has recently
come to our attention that the RCMP is investigating developer
Jose Perez and his dealings with government officials.
I would like to have, if possible, the Solicitor General confirm
or deny this report.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has never been customary in the House to confirm or
deny RCMP investigations.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will switch
my tone then.
Let us talk about the Auditor General's report. On March 20
when I asked the minister a question he responded by quoting a
special Auditor General's report. We found out that it had
nothing to do with the question I asked. The dealings with
Canada Post were not even mentioned.
Why would the minister of public works quote from that
report because it has nothing to do with the matter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, aside from the fact that it is not a supplementary to the
member's first question, I want to say that I will be happy to
inform myself further about what the report says or does not say,
and then I will get back to the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of immigration.
The question concerns refugees who do not intend to buy
40-inch TV sets as their second or third purchase in Canada.
As the minister is aware no other country in the world charges
a fee of $975 for refugees. He has assured us, however, that
loans will be available to refugees from poorer countries who
cannot afford the $975 fee. There is a catch-22 however.
(1200 )
My question is for the minister of immigration. Will he deny
entry to those immigrants and refugees who do not meet the
criteria to repay the loan? Will he assure us that no refugee will
be denied entrance into Canada even though they cannot pay the
$975 fee and do not meet the criteria for qualifying to receive a
loan?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not true that other
countries do not charge various processing fees. We have
decided to charge a landing fee, not a refugee fee, for accessing
our system for two reasons. The first is so all newcomers to the
country can join other Canadians in all walks of life in ensuring
the prosperity of Canada into the future.
The second reason we are charging a landing fee is to ensure
the settlement services will continue. It is the people who the
member talks about that are in need of the settlement services
the most. If we were not going to go the route of the fee, my
impression would be that settlement would become a thing of
the past. Therefore, we are doing it with the intention of helping
the neediest coming into our country.
On top of that, the Minister of Finance has instituted a loan
program so they can take out a loan and repay the $975 to ensure
their future in the best country of the world, just like kids of
Canadian parents ask for loans of tens of thousands of dollars for
education so that they too can ensure their future.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
It is nearly a year since the Supreme Court ruled on the
Suzanne Thibaudeau case on taxation of child support
payments. At that time the government promised action on the
level, enforcement and taxation of child support payments.
Can the minister tell the House why no action has been taken
to make sure Canadian children get the support they need and
deserve?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the
government has not announced a formal plan in relation to this
matter, but there has been a great deal of action. A great deal of
work has been done over the last 10 months on the subject of
child support.
11351
The government is approaching the issue based on three
principles. First, that there should be guidelines or a formula
provided by statute to assist the court in determining the amount
to be paid for child support to relieve the parties of the expense
and anguish of determining that through litigation.
Second, that the tax system should be examined to determine
that it is fair to both custodial and non-custodial parents in
providing the best for the children of separated families.
Third, that there is an effective national strategy for enforcing
court orders once they are made.
In relation to the first matter, the
federal-provincial-territorial report with respect to child
support was published last January. It contains specific amounts
in a proposed formula that is now under public discussion. We
are learning from that discussion.
Second, in terms of tax, the Minister of Finance has been at
work in that area and is completing an analysis of the options.
Finally, in enforcement, we have developed proposals that
will be announced with the other two elements of the package
which we believe will enhance the enforcement of support
orders across Canada.
The Speaker: This brings to a conclusion question period, but
I have a point of order by the hon. member for Crowfoot.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order because I believe that the Minister of Justice has
contravened the sub judice conventions of this House.
In response to my question on Monday, March 27 he stated,
and I quote from Hansard page 11065:
The judgment that has been referred to is under appeal because the federal
government believes at first instance it was simply wrong.
He goes on to state:
We feel in good faith the judgment at first instance in Alberta was wrong. We
will pursue that appeal with every confidence that we shall win it.
Furthermore, on Wednesday, March 29, the minister, in
response to a question by my colleague from
Yorkton-Melville, stated, and I quote from page 11193 of
Hansard:
The fact is that the judgment has been appealed. We are taking the position in
the Court of Appeal that the judgment was in error.
(1205 )
Mr. Speaker, as you know citation 505 of Beauchesne's sixth
edition states:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the
courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice
convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and
persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a
voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and
fair play.
Furthermore, citation 506(1) and 506(2) state:
(1) The sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
(2) The precedents in criminal cases are consistent in preventing reference to
court cases before a judgment is rendered; however, the convention ceases to
apply after the judgment is given. Nevertheless, the convention is applied again
when an appeal is launched.
Applying the sub judice convention, the hon. minister has put
on the record that the Simmerman case is under appeal and he,
with respect, has commented on the case. He has stated on more
than one occasion that the judgment was an error. Mr.
Simmerman's interests could be negatively affected by the
minister's comments.
The convention covers all members of the House. This
instance, with respect, also brings the issue of undue influence
or ministerial interference into play. Ministers must be even
more circumspect with their comments and actions due to their
positions. With issues within their sphere of responsibility, they
must be even more vigilant.
Here we have the Minister of Justice not only discussing a
criminal case which is before the Alberta Court of Appeal, but
he also stated that the original decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench was wrong.
I suggest that this is where section (2) of citation 506 has been
contravened, when it states:
-the convention is applied when an appeal is launched.
This convention has come to be especially for cases like this. I
think members of the House will agree that the Simmerman's
interest of justice and fair play have been compromised by the
statements made by the minister.
I also bring the attention of the House to citation 493 of
Beauchesne, whereby members are not to make personal attacks
or censure judges and courts of justice.
The Minister of Justice on numerous occasions has stated that
the decision of the Alberta Queen's Bench was wrong or in error.
Furthermore, I would like to bring to the attention of the House
to the case, re Oulette Nos. 1 and 2, cited at 32 Criminal Cases,
second edition, page 149 whereby the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs at that time was held in contempt by the
Quebec Court of Appeal for making disparaging remarks about a
trial judge's decisions.
11352
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule on the minister's comments
and if he has, in fact, contravened the sub judice convention
and/or citation 493.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the
hon. member's point of order.
First, I take very seriously my responsibilities both here in the
House and outside, to respect the jurisdiction of the court, to
abide by the sub judice rule and to bear in mind that as minister
of the crown, I have responsibilities quite different from those
judges of the courts of the country.
I contend as well that nothing I have said here or elsewhere in
relation to the Simmerman case or its principle has offended the
rule against commenting on cases before the courts.
May I first observe that it is passing strange that the hon.
member should first ask me about a case in the House and then
raise a point of order because I commented on the case in
answering his question. It was in answering the very question
put by the hon. member that I am alleged to have breached the
rule. I was simply responding to a question put by the hon.
member, and doing so in good faith.
Second, as I mentioned the other day, when the hon. member
raised this point in question period, there is a great deal of
difference between on the one hand commenting on the facts of a
criminal case which is in process, whether at trial or on appeal,
in a fashion that might prejudice the party, the accused, by
indicating what findings should be made or who committed what
act-that is highly improper-and on the other hand simply
observing that we take a different legal interpretation of a
statute which, in fact, is what is at issue in the Simmerman case.
(1210 )
I have said that we regard the legal interpretation put on the
Criminal Code and the relevant sections at trial as not being the
correct one. In fact, the Alberta government is appealing. The
appeal is expected to be heard by the Alberta Court of Appeal in
about September of this year. The federal government is now
considering whether it will intervene in the appeal to put its
point of view before the Court of Appeal.
There is precedent for the proposition. I say there is nothing at
all wrong with a minister saying that we take a different legal
interpretation of a statute than that put on the statute by a court.
It follows that the interpretation relied on by the court at first
instance is not in accord with our interpretation. I suggest what
is an issue here is that first we must show proper deference and
respect to the court and its process and second, nothing must be
said or done by a minister or a member that would prejudice the
rights of parties in a pending case with respect to matters of fact.
I say that neither of those principles has been offended by
anything I said or did. This point of order is without foundation.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment very briefly to add to what the
hon. minister said.
First, in terms of the sub judice convention and citation 505 of
Beauchesne's, it is obvious its purpose is to protect the parties in
the case before the court. A member of Parliament has asked a
question in the House to which the answer was the position the
government would be taking vis-à-vis a particular case in an
appeal.
It stands to reason that if the government is appealing the
case, it is appealing it because it feels the original decision was
in error; otherwise there would be no point in appealing a
particular decision.
Second, the reference to the Oulette case is extremely
inappropriate; it does not apply to this case. That particular
issue had nothing to do with a comment made on the floor of the
House of Commons, as the Speaker will obviously determine
when he reviews the material surrounding that case.
Mr. Speaker, finally, you will recall through all cases I
remember in the House of Commons where the sub judice rule
has been invoked, it has been invoked and usually ruled on by
the Speaker to ensure members do not ask questions in the
House that are sub judice.
If there is a case to be made here, it is that the question should
not have been asked as opposed to should not have been
answered. Therefore, I am forced to turn the table around and to
urge the Speaker that if someone is admonished, it should be in
such a way as to remind the hon. members not to ask questions
when the questions are sub judice.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring two more facts to light with
regard to this point of order.
First, when the question was asked, it was asked with regard
to orders in councils that had been ruled out of order by this case.
The question was whether or not the Minister of Justice had the
authority to continue making those decisions. It was not a
reflection on the case in Alberta.
The second point I would like to make is this. The federal
government did not have intervener status in the provincial
court case, so the federal justice minister really had no authority
to make an intervention in a case that was not under his
jurisdiction.
Those are two very important points that need to be brought to
your attention, Mr. Speaker.
11353
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am going to take all of the debate
under advisement. I want the House to recognize and realize that
in the case of a convention, it is under the discretion of course of
the Chair to make whatever appropriate decision there is.
I would like to point out to all hon. members that the case of a
convention is like an agreement, a tradition that we go by in this
House of Commons.
(1215)
Whenever a case has been before the courts, there has been no
question there cannot be reference to that case in the House of
Commons.
Most of the time this is left in the hands of the members, in
their good judgment. In the case of a member asking a question
he or she should take into consideration whether there is any
infringement on this convention in any way.
On the other hand, when a responder is put in that position, he
or she also must weigh this. Basically it comes down to members
themselves.
With regard to this case, two cases have been put forth. I will
look at all the interventions put forth. I am sure the House will
give me the time to review precisely what was said in the
original statements.
If there is need to come back, I will but I would like some time
to review the whole matter again and perhaps give a little more
direction to the House as to what direction we should be going in
the case of a convention of the House.
If members would leave this with me, I will get back to the
House at the earliest time if necessary.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay
upon the Table a Notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the
Excise Tax Act.
I ask that you designate an Order of the Day for the
consideration of the said motion.
_____________________________________________
11353
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to a number of
petitions.
* * *
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the first report of the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, in both
official languages, on its deliberations on Bill C-67 with
amendments.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-81, an act to amend an act
respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce two petitions. One
petition is from people in my constituency in Balcarres and Fort
Qu'Appelle.
The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of crimes, support new Criminal Code firearm
control provisions and support legislation that will repeal and
modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public
safety.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the other petition is from people across Canada.
The petitioners point out the importance of the social
programs as the fabric of Canadian society, the importance that
Canadians have access to proper health care, old age security, et
cetera.
(1220 )
They are petitioning Parliament to maintain and enhance the
social programs which are our right and heritage.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to table.
11354
The first petition calls on Parliament to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to reject the
legislative proposal and to direct the Minister of Justice to
reconsider his approach with respect to the gun legislation.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition asks Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to the relevant provisions of our Standing
Orders, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by 41
petitioners who call upon Parliament to act swiftly to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to explicitly proscribe
discrimination based on sexual orientation in every area under
federal jurisdiction and take the necessary steps to have same
sex live-in partners recognized in federal legislation.
[English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition signed by approximately 100 residents of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury and neighbouring ridings which
calls on Parliament to ensure present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in law that
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or any
activity designed to terminate human life.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table two petitions
signed by the constituents of Lincoln.
The first petition calls upon Parliament not to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms by the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
The second petition calls on Parliament not to amend the
Canadian human rights code to extend spousal benefits to same
sex partners.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by 257 petitioners from my
riding who pray and call upon Parliament to ask the government
to abandon plans for voice mail for seniors.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by over 50 people who live
in and around my constituency which calls on Parliament to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals
from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions.
The first petition is signed by 53 people. It requests the
government not amend the Canadian human rights code and the
Canadian Human Rights Act in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 46 people and calls on
the government to request Parliament to delete section 718.2
from Bill C-41.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 134.
[Text]
Question No. 134-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
Will the government please provide statistical evidence showing that violent
crime has been and/or will be reduced and that public safety has been and/or will
be improved by each of the following measures (a) the registration of handguns
and other restricted firearms, (b) the prohibition of various types of firearms, (c)
Firearms Acquisition Certificates, (d) the inclusion of safe storage, handling
and transportation provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, (e) restricting the
sale of ammunition, and (f) the implementation of a universal registration
system for firearms and firearms owners?
Mr. Russel MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
The firearms legislation of 1978, 1992 and the current
legislative proposals have all introduced several different
firearm control measures concurrently. As such, it is not
possible for researchers and statisticians precisely to determine
the extent to which specific control measures are or will be
responsible for reductions in violent crime and increases in
public safety in Canada.
11355
The following reports were produced for the Department of
Justice Canada to provide the Minister of Justice and the
government with background research and statistical
information. These reports are available from the research and
statistics directorate of the Department of Justice: ``Firearm
Ownership in Canada,'' 1991, by Angus Reid Group, Inc.
(TR1991-8a); ``Domestic Homicides Involving the Use of
Firearms,'' 1992, by Dansys Consultants (WD1992-20e); ``Gun
Availability and Firearms Suicide,'' 1992, by S. Moyer and P.J.
Carrington (WD1993-3e); ``The Use of Firearms in Criminal
Incidents in Toronto,'' September, 1994, by L. Axon & S. Moyer
(WD1994-19e); ``Review of Firearms Registration,'' 1994, by
T. Wade and R. Tennuci of RES Policy Research Inc.
(TR1994-9e); ``Research on the Application of Section 85 of the
Criminal Code of Canada,'' 1994, by C. Meredith, B. Steinke,
and S. Palmer (WD1994-20e); ``Firearm Statistics,'' October,
1994, by Kwing Hung, Department of Justice Canada.
[English]
Mr. Duhamel: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
11355
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
I was speaking earlier today I was referring to the Canada social
transfer.
By announcing the changes to its transfer payments this year,
to take effect next year, the federal government has given the
provinces plenty of notice of the changes so they may have time
to prepare.
Statistics show that under the CST total transfers, including
equalization to the most needy provinces such as
Newfoundland, will actually increase in 1996-97 compared
with 1994-95. Total transfers including equalization to
Newfoundland in 1996-97 will increase by $28 million
compared with the 1994-95 levels. This demonstrates the
federal government's commitment to both national standards
and equalization among provinces.
(1225)
Other initiatives to social security under the budget include an
announcement that changes are to be introduced in September to
reform unemployment insurance. These changes are to result in
a reduction of 10 per cent to the overall size of the
unemployment insurance program. In undertaking these
reforms the Minister of Human Resources Development faces
many challenges and has an abundance of conditions to rely on.
This past fall the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development undertook extensive consultations with Canadians
on the topic of social security reform. During these
consultations witnesses came forward time after time to tell the
committee unemployment insurance systems often discourage
people from getting back to work. People tell stories of being
denied unemployment insurance because they wish to upgrade
their skills while others get paid to stay home. Others tell of
declining benefits while individuals whose spouses earn over
$100,000 a year collect generous benefits.
The impetus for any change in the unemployment insurance
system must be to design a system that has as its underlying goal
helping people get back to work while providing the limited
resources available to those most in need.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will keep
these goals in mind when he prepares to make the necessary
reform to the unemployment insurance system.
On the scheme of social security reform the finance minister
has promised to release a paper on the changes required to the
public pension system in order to ensure its continued
sustainability as our population ages. The underlining goal
again in this review will be to ensure those most in need receive
the limited resources available. Therefore old age security
benefits will be provided on the basis of family income as is
currently the case with the guaranteed income supplement. In
addition, the Canada pension plan will be reviewed this fall to
ensure its continued sustainability.
Another area I would like to address is the impact of the
budget on small business. Small business is the engine that
drives our economy. Today over 99 per cent of all businesses in
Canada employ fewer than 100 people. The small business
sector accounts for 40 per cent of Canada's GDP. More
important, it now accounts for over half of all the private sector
employment.
A recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business cited the deficit-debt as its number one concern. The
finance minister listened to this concern and is maintaining his
commitment to lowering the deficit, thereby providing the
environment needed for small business to prosper. A lower
deficit also means lower interest rates for small business
borrowers.
11356
The inability to access financing has also been cited by small
business groups as an area of major concern. To this end the
government has announced it will be working with the banks
to devise meaningful performance benchmarks for small
business financing. It is expected this process will be completed
by the fall of this year. This will make loans more accessible
to small business which in turn will generate job growth.
The government has further demonstrated its commitment by
maintaining tax preferences for small business such as the
$500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption for small business
shares and a lower tax rate on the first $200,000 of income.
These measures in conjunction with measures to reduce the
paper burden should ensure continued job creation through the
small business sector.
I wish to speak on a topic closely intertwined with my home
province of Newfoundland, changes the budget will bring about
in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance on maintaining his
commitment to the TAGS program. Under the budget the total
funding of the program remains at $1.9 billion over five years,
including the $1.7 billion of new funding announced last year.
This funding is to help Atlantic Canadians to adjust to the
devastation in the ground fishery, a situation over which they
have no control.
Atlantic Canadians are a proud people. Given the opportunity,
they would much rather work than receive government
assistance.
The funding is meant to help them to adjust to the sad reality
that the ground fishery has been mismanaged and overfished by
foreign vessels. Again the minister, through his commitment to
this funding, has ensured that the most vulnerable in our society
are protected.
(1230)
Other measures such as the merging of the coast guard with
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will enable Canada to
strengthen its conservation efforts even more outside the 200
mile zone at a time when it is most needed.
In summary, I am pleased to pledge my full support for this
budget. It shows that the Liberal government can do more than
simply talk about deficit reduction. By setting reasonable
targets for deficit reduction and then meeting them, this
government has earned the trust and respect of the people of
Canada. More important, this budget has managed to reduce the
deficit largely through expenditure reductions while ensuring
that those in society who are most vulnerable are protected.
While it is not with any great pride that many of these
expenditure cuts were introduced, it was out of necessity to
ensure that our economy stays on the road to recovery and our
social system can remain sustainable in the future.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
comment and ask a question.
Almost all of the Liberal members, including the hon.
member who just spoke, keep patting themselves on the back for
having attacked the deficit. Indeed, the announced deficit is
targeted to go down. However, the fact is that interest rates are
going up and the total interest payments are going up because
our total indebtedness is still so very high.
Many Canadians do not know that with this budget, total
government expenditures are actually destined to increase by
some $2 billion in this budget.
We need to lean into the debt and the deficit. It is my opinion,
which I believe is one shared by most Canadians, that time is of
the essence. The longer we wait the greater our interest
payments grow. Even if the Minister of Finance and the
government of the day meet their goals, we expect the interest
payments will have reached a minimum of $50 billion per year
by the time this Parliament is finished.
We need to recognize that of that $50 billion per year, a great
proportion is sent out of the country in the form of interest
payments to those international lenders who have loaned us
money. It totally removes that available cash for providing
government programs.
The Liberals keep speaking of providing these programs and
not wanting to give them up. That is admirable and is a
wonderful goal, but our interest payments are making it less and
less possible to continue funding those programs. As a matter of
fact, if we do not get a hold of it real fast our social funding will
disappear in deference to the requirements to pay the interest.
I would like the hon. member to respond to the statement on
the speed with which we are attacking the deficit. She will
probably say that they are doing great. But specifically, how
does increasing annual interest payments from $40 billion to
$50 billion help our social program funding?
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
As the hon. member knows, many factors have influenced our
budget ever since it was brought down a month ago. These
factors will continue to have influence. However, he is also well
aware that over the last two years we have met our budget targets
through the efforts of the minister. I am sure that effort will
continue. Yes, we are concerned with rising interest rates. I am
sure that is no secret to the hon. member as the minister has
spoken on that a number of times.
I do not believe and I am sure the hon. member, based on some
of the statements he has made earlier in this House, is very well
11357
aware that we cannot reduce the deficit on the backs of those
who most need our assistance. They are a very vulnerable group.
Perhaps throughout the next year the minister will again need
to do some readjusting as various factors affect our financial
position.
(1235 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before we resume debate,
I just want to apprise the House that we have now exhausted the
five hour maximum for the debate. We now go to the next stage
of debate, which are 10 minute interventions without questions
or comments.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to start my remarks on Bill C-76 by recognizing
that in February 1995 the Minister of Finance brought down a
budget which departs substantially from normal Liberal
philosophy.
This is the budget that should have been introduced in
February 1994. Rather than taking firm action then, the Liberals
just cried and moaned about the mess left by the Conservatives.
That was the time to really reduce spending and take corrective
action.
Even now, the unrealistic 3 per cent of GDP target chosen by
the Liberal government is akin to a high jump contest where the
bar is never raised above two feet. Anyone can clear the obstacle
because it is not a real test of capability. So the minister's
crowing about achieving or exceeding his budget goals is
ridiculous.
The aim should have been to present interim targets on the
way to a balanced budget by the end of this Parliament, along
with a plan to show how this was to be achieved. But this
government had neither the political will nor the courage to set
these realistic goals which are desperately needed if Canada's
vaunted social programs are to be protected and sustained.
There is no question that various special interest groups and
some Canadians would cry: ``Yes, cut spending, but not in my
program'', or: ``Yes, you should save money, but not on my
subsidy''.
The Reform Party has established that there is a large
constituency in our country which recognizes and is ready to
accept the need for meaningful spending reductions which will
lead to a balanced budget. Historically, governments, including
this one, have preferred to take the easier road, making a few
spending cuts and raising a few taxes but not taking the
measures really required to balance the books.
The federal debt has climbed from $28 billion in 1970 to
nearly $550 billion today, a 28-fold increase. Among major
developed countries only Italy has a larger debt relative to the
size of its economy.
I have trouble visualizing a billion. I can come into the picture
somewhat with a million, but a billion really escapes me. To try
to put it into context, I converted it into time and used seconds as
the basis. One million seconds is just under 12 days, 11.82 days
exactly. A billion seconds is almost 32 years. This puts it into
some perspective as to how large a billion is.
After running up a serious deficit during World War II,
Canada's debt to GDP ratio gradually declined until the
mid-1970s. The last federal surplus was recorded in 1970. From
that point on governments continually spent money they did not
have and in so doing accumulated the debt burden which saddles
us today.
It took Reform Party insistence and concerned taxpayers to
convince this government that Canada has a serious debt
problem which must be addressed not by increasing taxes, but
rather by reducing spending.
Then Moody's rattled the chains. Foreign investors expressed
their concern that Canada's finances are in serious trouble,
saying: ``Either put your act in order or we will invest our money
elsewhere''.
With one-quarter of our national debt held by international
money markets, Canada is hostage to their demands for a good
return on the buck. Furthermore, while Canada has been an
attractive place to invest money because of our stable political
climate, the Quebec problem has put that climate in question and
thus our finances are subjected to greater scrutiny.
As I said earlier, the federal debt is now almost $550 billion
and provincial and municipal governments owe another $190
billion. Under Liberal plans, within three years the federal debt
will increase by $100 billion to almost $600 billion and interest
payments on that debt will climb to $52 billion. The result is that
interest payments will account for nearly one-third of our total
federal budget.
In 1981 the share of the provincial debt for each man, woman
and child was $4,500. When a child is born here today, he or she
enters Canada owing over $25,000. In fact, everyone pictures a
baby being born and the doctor holding it up by the heels,
slapping it on the bottom to get it to cry and start its life cycle.
That is no longer necessary. All the doctor has to do is hold the
baby up and say: ``You owe us $25,000 and the baby
automatically starts to cry''.
(1240 )
When the Liberals took office, interest charges on our debt
were $39 billion. Under their projected budget plan, by the next
election those interest charges will have risen to $52 billion and
as I said before will comprise almost one-third of our annual
budget.
This means that more than 30 cents out of every tax dollar will
be devoted to paying the interest on the debt. At that time the
Liberals still project a deficit of $24 billion. Our debt is
continuing to rise as will the interest payments we will be forced
to pay.
This Liberal budget fails to deliver. The Liberals have no plan
to balance the books by the end of their mandate. They have no
plan to answer the problems rapidly approaching with an aging
population. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions has
11358
warned that the Canada pension plan will be exhausted in 20
years.
Despite the added pressure of an ever increasing deficit and
debt to service, the government must still deal with this
problem. It is clear the looming interest payments on the debt
will virtually kill pensions and other social programs. Also,
transfers to provinces for health, post-secondary education and
welfare will be lumped into the new Canada social transfer.
The deepest spending cuts are left until next year when the $7
billion in social program cuts begin. Provincial transfers will be
reduced by $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98.
To what extent will spending cuts be downloaded to the
provinces? A lump sum payment will be given to them and the
feds say: ``Find a way to save the money, but you must still live
by our rules or we will withhold the transfers''.
This budget does not place resources and responsibilities in
the hands of those levels of government closest to the people. It
does not include tax point transfers which would give provincial
governments the resources needed to pay for their social
programs.
Without social program reform, the provinces and the
taxpayer will have to carry the burden. They will be asked to
streamline programs. However, if the federal government does
not like the changes, it can withhold the money.
Programs to natives, Inuit and Metis will increase. Yet the
government has not taken measures to clean up what are clearly
identified as badly managed programs. Despite budget cuts,
spending will increase by $600 million because of escalating
interest payments alone. This budget is an example of the
consequences of not eliminating the deficit quickly.
On the other hand, the Reform Party's taxpayers budget would
eliminate the deficit in three years with spending cuts and no tax
increases. The taxpayers budget would restore labour market
efficiency through the reduction of social program dependency.
It would create an economic climate that would lead to lasting
private sector job creation.
What will it take to ensure governments-this one and those
that follow-live within their means by not spending more than
they take in? We can look to Switzerland for an example. The
Swiss enjoy one of the lowest marginal income tax rates, a high
standard of living and a generous social safety net. How do they
do it?
The Swiss government is required to go to the voters if it
wants to raise taxes or spend more money. The government is
constitutionally bound to live within its means. This has been in
place for years and it works. Government is accountable to the
people. Is that not the way democracy should work? It is
representation by the people and for the people with the people
having control of the purse strings. I wonder how those fat
pension plans for MPs would fare if they had to go to the public
to be approved.
The Swiss must also be consulted on any law or regulation.
Does anyone remember the Liberal red book's promise to scrap
the GST? In fact, the Swiss government asked the people to
approve a similar goods and services scheme. Three times the
voters said no. The fourth time the plan was successful and has
just been implemented this year. If the Swiss decide they do not
like the tax, they can rescind it by petitioning government to
remove it. I am sure every Canadian would approve of tax and
expenditure limits for their government.
This government had the good fortune to inherit a healthy
economy. If the economy slows, as is expected, added pressure
will be brought to bear at a time when the deepest budget cuts
must take place. If we call this a debt crisis today, what will we
call it then? This budget plan will still add to the debt and
continue the erosion of social safety nets.
(1245)
Our only hope is that the Minister of Finance will not be
swayed and will continue to find ways to save money and ensure
that programs are effective in their delivery while providing the
necessary means to evaluate the programs. If programs do not
achieve what they were intended to, they should be eliminated.
Spending cuts are important, but even more important is the
acceptance of the need to balance the budget and the
presentation of a plan that will take us there. Although too little
and too late the budget was a step in the right direction.
The government is now left to do what must be done: plan to
balance the budget during this term of Parliament and tell
Canadians how it is going to do it.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak on the budget. In the week
immediately following the budget I had two public meetings
with constituents, two meetings with farm groups, and one
meeting with the forestry industry.
My purpose in holding the meetings was to set out as well as I
could the facts arising from the budget so that together with the
constituents in my community we could understand the impact
in a real sense and manoeuvre and develop policies to address
the future.
In so doing I believe we were able to examine critically the
budget and to obtain constructive feedback. I will come to the
feedback later in my remarks. It is no secret that the priority of
the government is to restore Canada to fiscal health and meet the
11359
target of deficit reduction we campaigned on in the last
campaign: 3 per cent of GDP by the end of 1996-97.
The budget takes strong action to deal with the deficit. It is
tough and it encompasses painful program cuts. The government
strategy required savings on government expenditures, program
review, and some tax changes.
In so doing programs that many of us, myself included, hold
near and dear have been cut. We have attempted as a government
to be balanced across the regions and across the industries on
both the social and the tax expenditure sides. Regardless of the
facts it does not make dealing with tough fiscal measures any
easier or make the impact on those affected any less.
Turning to the meetings I have had with constituents, farmers
and especially my former organization told me in no uncertain
terms that they felt the budget was tougher on the agricultural
sector than on other sectors across the land, especially so when
the transportation changes are brought into the equation.
The loss of ARFAA and MFRA rates within Atlantic Canada
will impact upon primary producers. We have set aside
considerable adjustment moneys, $321 million. By providing
that money to the provinces there was concern expressed that the
provinces may not address the needs of producers as a result of
the changes in the budget.
We as MPs have a responsibility and must be involved in the
process. I intend to be involved. At the very bottom line we
certainly do need to have a national transportation policy in
place. The loss of the feed freight assistance in Atlantic Canada
could have a very negative impact on the Atlantic livestock
industry if we do not provide other compensating policy
initiatives to the livestock industry.
I will lay out the facts. I will not put a spin on them. I accept
the facts as they are. When the feed freight assistance program
in Atlantic Canada and the changes to the WGTA in the west are
combined, the cost of barley in eastern Canada as compared to
the west will be at approximately a $42 per tonne disadvantage.
That is the reality. I do not believe we should despair over the
facts.
(1250 )
The secretary of state for agriculture and agri-food will be
setting up consultations with the farm community. Adjustment
moneys are in place. The secretary of state and the Department
of Agriculture are certainly discussing with industry and
looking at new ways of developing the competitiveness of the
livestock industry in Atlantic Canada.
In the meetings with farmers I attended in eastern Canada
some concern was expressed about proposed changes to
Agriculture Canada, especially in the area of privatizing the
economic branch. There is a firm belief with which I agree that
the minister needs a division within the department to do the
economic analysis and the economic impact studies prior to
policy changes being made.
I am one who firmly believes that we should be holding
outlook conferences where the department has to put on record
where it thinks the movement will be in agriculture over the next
year and then come back and account for its prediction a year
later.
By privatizing the economic branch there will be no real
savings to farm out to economic consultants. In my mind it
would be much more preferable to get rid of some of the paper
pushers at the top, the people who do not really understand
primary producers in terms of getting their hands dirty in the
soil and understanding at the primary production level. We need
some discussion in that area.
There is no question the minister had difficult choices to
make. He will attempt to address the impact through improved
safety nets, adaptation programs and new policy thrusts.
Turning to some other meetings I have had in my riding, on
the Canada social transfer there were questions raised whether it
would be an effective vehicle to equally deliver social programs
such as post-secondary education and health care across the
country. Questions were raised on what effect block transfers
would have on the fight against child poverty.
I outlined to those in attendance that we had a very successful
hearing on HRD and social security reform review. Many good
points came out of the paper from the committee. I congratulate
it on its work. The committee did good investigative work, held
hearings and has come up with some sound recommendations
that the government and members of Parliament can look at in
terms of future initiatives in the social security area.
The debt and the deficit were discussed in great detail. The
main focus of discussion with respect to the debt and the deficit
was centred on the percentage of Canada's debt owed to foreign
investors. I am very concerned about that area. When a few
speculators basically playing computer games on the stock
market floor can bring down a country in terms of its financial
security, we have to look seriously at the issue. Whether it is a
new Bretton Woods agreement or some other measure we have
to look at it seriously. I believe the Prime Minister has put the
matter on the agenda for the G-7 in Halifax.
Public service reductions were talked about at the meetings as
well. Representatives from the public service expressed their
anxiety with regard to what many public servants are
undergoing and the demoralizing effect on the workforce.
Representatives questioned why the compensation, the early
retirement package, could not be offered to all public servants so
the resulting vacancies could be filled by surplus workers who
do not qualify for the package. We will be raising those points
with the ministers responsible.
11360
I must speak for a moment on the WGTA. It is widely known
that I have spent the better part of my life defending the
so-called Crow rate. I still believe there is an obligation the
railways have never met in all the discussions and changes over
the years. Regardless, the change is being made which will
affect western producers and communities.
(1255 )
Adjustment measures are in place, the $300 million
adjustment and the compensation for land prices. I underline the
fact that the WGTA has been in effect since the turn of the
century. It was the cornerstone of agricultural policy in the west.
I accept the changes but we must recognize the impact. There
will be impact in areas other than financial areas such as
highways, car allocations, quality control, the wheat board, et
cetera. We have to listen to the producers so they can outline to
us the changes they want.
These are different times. We must get our financial house in
order. The real solutions will be found in the country, in the
hearts and minds of the people who will be affected. We as MPs
must continue to consult with constituents to find solutions.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
a bad decision is made, nothing could be more justified than to
try to delay its implementation. That is why the dilatory motion
put forth by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is
relevant and why I support it.
In the next few minutes, I will try to demonstrate how
appalling the finance minister's budget is as far as the drastic
cuts to official development assistance it contains are
concerned. This decision without vision makes it clear why the
government did not want to make any commitments in early
February, when the Canadian foreign policy statement was
released. Also, the excessive focus on trade in this new foreign
policy is brought to light in the budget tabled on February 27.
The early 1990s signalled the end of any measure that would
have enabled Canada to reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GDP
for official development assistance. In the 1991 budget, aid
spending on Eastern European countries and the Commonwealth
of Independent States was increased at the expense of ODA.
In his 1992 economic statement, the Minister of Finance cut
$50 million in the international assistance envelope. The 1994
budget called for international assistance to be reduced by
another two per cent in 1994 and 1995, but what this budget says
is quite different. Ignoring this commitment to cut only 2 per
cent, the Minister of Finance decided to cut 21 per cent, or $532
million, from the development assistance budget.
In addition, the cuts announced between now and 1997-98
represent a shortfall of $1.3 billion for our international
co-operation programs. As I said, these cuts mean a 21 per cent
reduction in the total development assistance budget. I would
point out to this House that the cuts to the Department of
National Defence represent only 14.2 per cent. Surprising for a
government that acknowledged the threats to our society in the
post cold war period come, in large part, from development
problems.
In 1994, the development assistance budget corresponded to
0.4 per cent of Canada's GNP; in 1997, the figure will drop to
less than 0.3 per cent. This will make Canada one of the least
generous of the industrialized countries, because this figure will
be below the average of the OECD countries.
The budget of the Export Development Corporation grew by
$155 million, whereas the budget of the voluntary sector of
official development assistance will be cut by $45 million.
Where is the logic in all this? The cuts to the budgets of NGOs
lucky enough to still receive support are estimated at about 15
per cent.
The Bloc Quebecois' position on development assistance has
always been clear, unlike the Liberals' position in their red
book. It has remained consistent from the speeches by the
Leader of the Opposition during the 1993 elections to debates in
the House and in committee. Should I point out that the Liberals
had set 0.7 per cent of the GNP as an objective for official
development assistance?
We can understand, in a time of budget restraint, the
government's making major cuts in the development assistance
budget.
(1300)
However, in light of the work done by the special joint
committee, that assistance programs for volunteer organizations
will be hardest hit by these cuts is totally unacceptable.
Last Friday, CIDA announced a 100 per cent cut in funding for
NGOs working in the area of public awareness of international
development among Canadians. This will take effect on April 1.
The Bloc Quebecois obviously objects to these measures and to
the way they were announced, with only one week's advance
notice. I do not understand this budget measure. The savings the
cut will generate only account for 0.5 per cent of the total
official development assistance budget. The consequences and
the chain reaction that this measure will set off on the
international solidarity and co-operation network are
inestimable.
One thing we can already be sure of is that the future of close
to one hundred small NGOs which are mostly located in the
outlying regions, already raise 50 per cent of their funding from
other sources and co-ordinate the activities of thousands of
committed volunteers, is in danger.
11361
For a few years now a world-wide consensus has been
emerging that these non-governmental organizations, which do
remarkable work at little cost, are very efficient. It is in this
context, and despite the speeches and commitments it made in
front of international forums, that the Canadian government
quite unexpectedly cut the funding of close to one half of the
country's NGOs and is reducing by 14 per cent the funding of the
remainder.
But most of the witnesses heard during the vast consultations
led by this government on Canadian foreign policy were saying
the opposite. Following these consultations, the Special Joint
Committee Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy recommended
in November 1994 that public participation be considered a
priority for official development assistance.
After rejecting the joint committee's recommendation, the
government went so far as to cut this program's funding and
seems to want to perpetuate the ambiguous mandate of CIDA,
which is becoming increasingly interested in promoting
international trade and less interested in accomplishing its main
mission: promoting sustainable human development in the
poorest nations of the world. Particularly as Quebecers and
Canadians are adopting a new world vision of solidarity and
sharing rather than building up armed defence.
It should come as no surprise that the Canadian Council for
International Co-operation and the Association québécoise des
organismes de coopération internationale represent more than
100 humanitarian agencies. These NGOs depend on the
generosity and dedication of thousands of volunteers who
donate their time and money to help the poorest and neediest
men, women and children on this planet. Development aid must
help reinforce co-operation between institutions and Canadian
citizens and those in the third world, and the best vehicle to
achieve that is the NGOs, whose people become part of the
community they are helping.
Are we to conclude that with these new budgetary measures,
the government has abandoned this network of solidarity
between Canadians and the people of the third world?
Canada's annual budget for National Defence is around $10
billion; while the budget for development aid is only $2 billion.
We can assume that the defence industry is anxious to keep it
that way. However, the Canadian government cannot aid and
abet these questionable choices indefinitely. To maintain this
kind of gap between military spending and development aid is
unacceptable.
If they are not prepared to be generous, the political leaders of
this country should at least realize that development aid can be
profitable for industrialized countries. In Canada alone,
development assistance creates 45,000 jobs, supports 2,000
businesses and provides economic spinoffs for 80 colleges and
universities. Every dollar invested, and it is indeed an
investment, directly generates $6.42 in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-76, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
last February 27.
The finance minister has put forward a ground breaking
budget that has struck a delicate balance within fiscal toughness
and sensitivity to people.
(1305 )
The response from the Canadian public has been positive. In
my home city of Winnipeg our largest daily newspaper, the Free
Press, carried the headline the day after the budget: ``Tough plan
boosts buck, raises hopes''.
A column in the February 28 edition of the Montreal Gazette
read: ``[The] budget sets the country on a new course, one in
which the national role of the federal government must be
rethought, renegotiated and rediscovered. It's a good start''.
The Globe and Mail agreed: ``Canadians, and those abroad
who wish us well, must hope that this brave beginning-will
now be sustained''.
What is this brave beginning? It is the mark of a government
coming to grips with a cumbersome national debt which
threatens to foreclose on the futures of our children and
grandchildren. It is the mark of a government committed to
ensuring the needy among us from all walks of life continue to
receive the assistance they need. It is the mark of a government
that recognizes the need to streamline its own operations,
eliminating duplication and waste while improving delivery of
all services.
How will the government achieve these ends? First, it will
realize $29 billion in savings over three years: $5 billion in
1995-96, $10.6 billion in 1996-97 and $13.3 billion in 1997-98.
These measures are necessary to ensure that regardless of the
direction financial markets take in coming years, the
government will meet its target of reducing the deficit to 3 per
cent of the gross domestic product by year 1997-98.
These tough measures have proven the government is serious
about reducing spending and doing so only, in contrast to other
parties, after an exhaustive review of government programs
aimed at identifying priorities and eliminating waste and
duplication.
World financial markets reacted favourably by sustaining our
AAA credit rating. The importance of this rating must not be
underestimated. Had it fallen, interest rates could have risen and
the interest Canada would have been required to pay on its debt
would have increased dramatically.
11362
As crucial as these deficit reduction measures were to the
1995 budget, Canadians also expected something more. They
wanted to be reassured that savings would not be achieved
through deep cuts in Canada's cherished social programs,
particularly medicare.
Indeed, one vital component of the budget provides for
improved delivery of health care and enhanced research on
biotechnology as well as retaining funds necessary to ensure
improvements in the Canada assistance plan and to student
financial assistance.
The introduction of so-called block funding in the form of the
new Canada social transfer will enable the provinces to exercise
greater control over how moneys are allocated, thereby allowing
them the flexibility to fund programs according to local
demands for services. The delivery of social programs is the
constitutional responsibility of provinces and that they will
have. It is also the claim of provinces that they should have this
flexibility and that they will have.
This approach will bring health care closer to communities.
At the same time, the system allows the federal government to
continue to uphold the five principles of medicare enshrined in
the Canada Health Act: universality, accessibility,
comprehensiveness, portability and public administration. The
Minister of Finance said that flexibility does not mean a
free-for-all.
These principles of medicare are not subject to
federal-provincial negotiation. They are not negotiable, as the
two levels of government implement the agreement on the
Canada social transfer. Rather they are fundamental pillars of
Canadian society. They are the foundation on which our health
care system is constructed.
(1310)
The government has vowed in no uncertain terms that the
Canada social transfer ``will not sacrifice the quality of service
available to Canadians''. We must remember that it is possible
not only to maintain our current delivery of health care at the
current level of funding but to effect improvements. In other
words, we can do more with as much.
Key to this strategy is the practice of substituting equally
effective lower cost treatment approaches for traditional ones.
For example, we can make increased use of out-patient care,
encouraging patients to see family physicians before consulting
specialists and allowing non-medical health care processionals
to substitute for medical doctors in defined areas of care.
The same flexibility within the new social transfer which can
lead to improved health care also bodes well for the future of the
Canada assistance plan or CAP. The incorporation of the CAP
into the Canada social transfer provides the provinces with the
freedom and flexibility they require to deliver social programs
most efficiently and effectively. Again, the goal is to do more
without increasing actual government expenditures. This is an
attainable goal.
I mentioned earlier that the government has shown
determination to ensure a sound future for youth. This
determination is exemplified by the deficit cutting initiatives
that relieve our children and youth of some of the burden of the
national debt but it is found in other areas in the budget as well.
The federal contribution to university and college funding
will be rolled into the Canada social transfer, again guaranteeing
the provinces the freedom to distribute funds according to need
and using the savings achieved through avoidance of
duplication.
The government's continuing commitment to fund granting
councils which support the direct costs of university research
and which support the Canada student loans program as well as
post-secondary education for Indian and Inuit students all attest
to the government's commitment to our youth.
There is much in the budget to guarantee Canada both a
prosperous present and an even more prosperous future. Part and
parcel of that prosperity will be the maintenance of the social
programs which have served Canadians well in the past by
keeping our nation competitive and our citizens protected from
social catastrophe. Under this tough, yet sensitive budget,
Canadians can be assured that programs will become even more
responsive to their needs in the future.
The government faces a daunting task as it leaves the 20th
century and enters the 21st century. If government had simply
slashed spending without due regard for the underprivileged
among us, it would have turned its back on principle. If it had
continued to spend without due regard for the future of the
nation and the future generations it would have turned its back
on reality.
Instead, as has been the case so many times since it took
office, the government has taken the middle ground approach
and avoided extremist solutions suggested by the two parties
opposite. This balance is what ultimately will enable it to
succeed where other governments have failed.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am going to limit my remarks on the budget today to
transport, which is appropriate since I am the transport critic for
the Reform Party and the Reform Party being, of course, the
national opposition party.
Generally transport is an area that has great potential in
reducing government costs and the devolution of government
services to the private sector. In this area transport is generally
moving in a direction that I agree with. One item that is being
changed that I particularly agree with is the privatization of air
11363
traffic services. This is a good move, especially now that the
government has more or less agreed to go to the not for profit
concept, as opposed to the crown corporation concept it was
initially pushing.
(1315)
Airport devolution is a generally good idea although I have
some concerns about skimming. When I speak of skimming, I
am talking about when they take all the revenues from 26
national airports, put them into a group and apply them for the
most part to their general funding. At the same time they dump
on to various provinces and regions all the costs of the subsidies
to smaller airports. In most cases they are much less than the
revenues the government is realizing from national airports.
One big area in the recent budget is the WGTA, the grain
transportation subsidies. I have always supported the concept
that they could be reduced and ultimately eliminated, with the
caveat that the government must deal with many items that cost
producers money. These are items that do not produce revenue
for the government but take money out of the pockets of
producers. I speak specifically of things like rail car allocation
and labour disruption.
In a document the Minister of Transport put out coinciding
with the budget he explained and recognized a problem with rail
car allocation. He said it was something they would look into but
that they would not do anything with at this time. It cost
Canadian grain producers a tremendous amount of money. It is
not a cost factor for the government but it should have been dealt
with in conjunction with the reduction and elimination of the
WGTA.
Likewise we have labour disruptions; the shutting down of
ports, particularly the port of Vancouver; and rail strikes. We
had a strike in the port of Vancouver last year. The government
legislated the people back to work but did nothing to deal with
future problems.
We had another one this year. Again the government
legislated the people back to work but did nothing about a long
term solution. Immediately on the heels of the Vancouver strike
this year we had a national rail strike. Again the government
legislated people back to work but did nothing about a long term
solution.
These are matters that cost Canadian taxpayers and citizens
money but do not provide any revenues for the government.
These are matters the government should not be ignoring, which
has unfortunately been its method of dealing with them.
I turn to the subject of Pearson airport. It will be a great
surprise to many people that I would talk about it. Pearson
airport has major ramifications on this year's budget. A bit of
misleading information is coming out with regard to it and to the
budget.
The government is currently looking at putting in a new
runway, at a cost of something in the vicinity of $150 million.
On top of the cost of the runway a possible lawsuit is in the
works by the council on concerned citizens. It is concerned
because building the runway is in direct contradiction to the
findings of the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. It is
entering into a lawsuit and the government will have the cost of
dealing with the action, over and above the cost of the runway if
it is built. In addition we have the development contract
regarding terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport.
At minimum it will cost about half a billion dollars in
combination of cancellation costs and court costs dealing with
the cancellation. Even after it is all over with we still have to
rebuild terminals 1 and 2, which two years ago was to cost the
private consortium $750 million. We can be assured that if the
government built it at the same time it would cost more and now
we are talking two years later. We are talking of a minimum in
the vicinity of $1 billion for that aspect. In total we are talking
about an expenditure at Pearson of some $2 billion. It is
interesting that none of that money is in the budget.
Let us talk in terms of the Liberal budget. Is it good? Is it bad?
Does it do enough? We have to consider what it said and what it
should be saying. This covers a couple of items in the transport
portfolio alone. If the same type of misleading information
applies with all other departments in government, what other
surprises lie ahead of us? We have not seen the full picture.
Unfortunately Canadian taxpayers will not get the rest of the
facts until it is too late.
(1320)
The budget does not explain the true situation in Canada. It
does not deal with the true problem in Canada. As a result there
will be further problems ahead that have not been spoken as yet.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-76, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled on
February 27, 1995. For my constituents the bill should be known
as an act to kill the Crow or an act of unfairness to the prairie
economy.
Bill C-76 is the legislation that will allow for the payment of
compensation to the owners of farmland in the absence of the
Crow benefit. I quote National Farmers Union President Nettie
Wiebe:
The federal budget delivers a double hit to Canadian farmers. They are
increasing farmers' costs by cutting transportation subsidies and then hitting us
with fewer funds for farm safety nets, less money for dairy subsidies and
reducing the budget overall.
I will direct my remarks to two points. First, I will look at the
principle of withdrawing federal support from grain
transportation. Second, I will address the specifics of the
payment of the $1.6 billion outlined in the legislation before us.
11364
I have said previously in questions in the Chamber, in
comments to other speakers and in response to inquiries from
the media that the elimination of the federal financial
commitment to the transport of grain destined for export is the
single most devastating element in a very difficult budget.
On February 27 the federal finance minister announced the
elimination of the transport support program which, just two
years ago, was providing $720 million a year. The grain on the
prairies is grown on land that is farther from port than in any
other export oriented grain growing country in the world.
I have been consulting with farmers and community leaders in
areas supported by the farm economy. During the consultations
we took out our pencils and calculators and looked at the
implications of the elimination of the Crow benefit in real,
personal and community terms. The only word to describe the
implications of the federal government measure was
devastating, the word I used earlier.
In the province of Saskatchewan the loss of the Crow benefit
will mean that delivery costs from virtually every delivery point
in the province will increase by about $1 million a year.
Producers who deliver grain to local elevators will have
additional freight costs deducted at the elevators equalling
collectively about $1 million a year. With reduced incomes of
some significance there is a net community loss that is unlikely
to be made up elsewhere.
That is the point the federal government failed to address in
the budget. The withdrawal of federal support will have an
immediate effect on countless communities, most of which will
have neither the resources nor the ability to make up the lost
funds.
In spite of my questions and the questions of others, the
federal government has not produced a single page of study,
evaluation or analysis to indicate or prove the contention of the
finance minister that the elimination of the financial support
will lead to greater crop diversification or enhanced value added
production capacity in these communities.
I draw attention to the speech yesterday of the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance who talked in glowing
terms about the elimination of the subsidy encouraging the
development of value added processing and the production of
higher value goods. He said that the elimination would result in
a more efficient grain handling and transportation system. He
said that the elimination of the Crow benefit would help
maintain our market access for grain sales in foreign countries.
No evidence has ever been produced to prove these
contentions. What is there? What analysis has been made to
substantiate these claims? Absolutely none. Not one shred of
evidence has been produced to give us any confidence that the
investment to replace the lost income from increased freight
costs will magically materialize. Every delivery point in
Saskatchewan must find $1 million a year in new revenues just
to remain where they are today. How many more peas can we
grow? How many more pigs or cows can we produce? How many
new flour mills, ethanol plants or breakfast cereal plants can we
build by this time next year to replace the $1 million per
community that is being taken out of our province by this single
move in the budget?
(1325)
There are a lot of unanswered questions which deal with the
future of my province and even the uncertain future of the
Canadian Wheat Board that are not being answered. Yet the
government is proceeding with great abandon to ensure that the
Crow benefit is gone before the end of the crop year. It is sheer
madness.
On virtually every other issue the Liberals talk about their
election promises, the red book promises, the guide to direct
them in policy matters, but nowhere in the red book do we see a
promise to get rid of the Crow benefit and bankrupt agricultural
communities with such swiftness. I quote the red book: ``Our
goal is reducing input costs to make farming more valuable''.
What have the Liberals done? They have increased costs, not
reduced them as promised in the red book.
I have asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and
the Minister of Finance to postpone any actions on the
elimination of their commitment and responsibility to the west
until the long term implications are well known, thoroughly
reviewed, and mitigating measures are outlined and debated. It
is absolutely crucial that we look at what the long term
implications will be before the decisions are taken in the
Chamber by the members who are sitting here today.
In the legislation before us the government is barrelling ahead
with the decision to kill the Crow without knowing what it will
mean to those most affected. The legislation gives the
government the authority to make a transition payment to the
owners of farmland in western Canada in lieu of the Crow
benefit. Once the legislation is passed and the process of making
the payments is in place, it will be very hard, indeed it will be
impossible to go back and assess how bad the damage will be.
We have to defeat the legislation if we are to make the proper
assessments.
At the same time it is important to look at the specifics of Bill
C-76. There are three main problems with which I would like to
deal: the principle of the idea, the payout, and the process of
regulations. In principle the idea of providing $1.6 billion in a
payout is wrong. First, as I said, it should not be done. Second, if
the government insists on making the payout obviously it is very
inadequate.
Every member of the Chamber is aware that the Crow deal
was originally a condition of building the railway in return for
being given a lot of land on which they have made a lot of money
over the years. In return for the government building the railway
itself, the railway companies promised to ship grain from the
11365
prairies to the port. It was a very simple condition. It can almost
be called a condition of Confederation for western Canada.
Many farmers are very upset the government came along and
out of the blue announced the deal was no longer in effect. The
farmers have to pay once again for a service that was paid for
long ago, and the railways once again get off scot free. In
principle that is grossly unfair.
The $1.6 billion is an arbitrary figure that means virtually
nothing. ``Where did the government get this figure from'',
farmers ask. The prairie pools have made their calculations.
They said if the Crow benefit were to be eliminated and replaced
with a fair payout to farmers the bill should be providing
authority to pay $7 billion rather than the inadequate $1.6
billion which will do very little to compensate the landowner or
the shipper, no matter how we look at it.
Another problem with this section of the legislation is the fact
that it proposes to pay the $1.6 billion to landowners rather than
to producers. It seems the Liberals think that compensating for
the loss of land value, which they acknowledge will result from
the loss of the Crow benefit, is more important than
compensating farmers for the additional costs associated with
increased freight rates. Paying money to landowners means that
about 40 per cent of the payout destined for Saskatchewan will
go to the banks and other financial institutions such as the Farm
Credit Corporation.
Although the Liberals say that these institutions should pass
along the payout to those who lease land from them, there is no
guarantee, no certainty that anything will get passed on. At the
same time the legislation makes the payout to landowners
including the banks tax free; but money that finds its way to
farmers who lease their land, if the money gets to them, becomes
taxable. Obviously this means that the Liberals seem to have
much more sympathy for the poor banks than they do for the
poor farmers.
Third and last in this section, the legislation before us leaves
virtually all the details about how this is going to be handled to
the regulations. All the questions about who qualifies, what kind
of land will be paid for, when the cheques will be written and
mailed and so on will be decided in the minister's office. The
specifics will be settled in the regulations. The decisions are left
to the bureaucracy and there is virtually no public input through
this Chamber and members of Parliament.
In conclusion, there is much wrong with this idea. This
legislation should not be supported by the members of this
House.
I once again appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. I ask that all this stuff relating to the elimination of
the Crow benefit be put off until such time as a complete
evaluation of the consequences has been written and reviewed.
We cannot afford to abandon the farm economy and the
communities that depend on that economy.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11365
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move with speed to
adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate propaganda via
the electronic information highway while simultaneously preserving legitimate
use of the freedom of speech and expression.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us appeals to our core
Canadian values: respect for dignity, respect for self-worth, and
respect for the equality of all individuals. These values are
pillars of Canadian society. They are the glue that holds the
Canadian mosaic together. They are tools of harmony. We are
therefore fiercely proud of these values. They are the foundation
of this private member's motion.
The motion raises two fundamental questions: What is the
interrelationship between the information highway and the
freedom of speech and expression? How can we as a people
protect our core societal values without impinging on the core
area of the freedom of expression? Before I address these
questions Mr. Speaker, permit me to give an overview of the
information technology revolution and what it means for
Canadians and Canada in the world.
Indeed, we as peoples of the earth have entered the
information age. Information technology has reached a level of
progress which now gives people the ability to communicate
with others around the world via a network of computer systems
popularly known as the information highway or superhighway.
Although the phrase comprises many aspects, the computer
network most nearly synonymous with it is the Internet.
The Internet revolution started in the 1960s when the U.S.
defence department linked its various sites. By the late 1970s
this had expanded to universities around the globe. The real
turning point came within the last couple of years with the
introduction of the World Wide Web. Now the Internet
encompasses more than 30,000 networks and 2.5 million
computers. There are as many as 35 million users in more than
100 countries. Today one needs only a personal computer, a
modem
11366
and a telephone line to gain access to this amazing new
information highway.
Three basic services are available: electronic or e-mail, news
groups also known as bulletin boards, and files. With these
services anyone in the world can send a message at minimal
cost, post and look for messages on almost an infinite range of
topics and can also pick up information in the form of files
which contain text, images, data, and even sounds. Indeed,
Internet puts an incredible wealth of information at one's
fingertips.
(1335)
It is a source of pride for Canada that some of its corporate
citizens such as Northern Telecom, Unitel, Stentor, Videotron,
Rogers Communications and Bell Canada, have played
continuing leadership roles in the advent and growth of the
critical technologies, chief of which are digital communication,
wireless communication and fibre optic transmission. Canada
stands to gain from these technologies which have the power to
narrow the physical distances of our natural vast geography.
The new technologies are utterly revolutionizing the way
Canadians work, learn and interact with one another. It is in
recognition of this reality and of the benefits that can ensue from
it that the Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research,
Industry and Education, also known as CANARIE, a seven-year
$1.2 billion project, was launched by the government in 1993.
The project aims to develop the communications
infrastructure that will enhance Canadian competitiveness in all
economic sectors and thereby result in job creation and quality
of life for all. A nationwide high speed telecommunications
backbone is essential to making Canada's competitiveness in the
world economy that much more secure. Economic prosperity
means jobs for people which can only enhance self-reliance in
our citizens and our country and strengthen our national
identity.
Let me now address the two questions raised by my motion.
What is the interrelationship between the information highway
and the freedom of speech and expression? How can we as a
people protect our core societal values without impinging on the
core area of freedom of expression?
As with any tool of economic prosperity, the information
highway presents new social challenges. One such challenge is
to ensure that the information highway does not become a
highway of hate, does not become a vehicle of harm.
The Globe and Mail recently reported that notorious
Holocaust skeptic Ernst Zundel plans to spread his vicious
campaign of lies and deceit via the Internet. Neo-Nazis
worldwide are already using the Internet to spread their racist
ideology. More recent examples of postings on the bulletin
boards were threatening messages from the Ku Klux Klan. One
has only to look at news groups such as alt.skinheads,
alt.politics.nationalist.white, or alt.politics.white-power to see
the continuing and increasing presence of such hateful
electronic words.
Persistence of hate messages on the Internet certainly should
invite the attention of government to move in and regulate. The
ability to reach a wide audience via the Internet without
regulation has resulted in the proliferation of speech which
many Canadians find hurtful and which, if published or
broadcast through traditional media, would likely have attracted
prosecution.
Let me reiterate my motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move with speed to
adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate propaganda via
the electronic information highway while simultaneously preserving legitimate
use of freedom of speech and expression.
My motion calls on this House of Commons to exercise its
will and urges the government to act and to act now. I trust all
colleagues in the House will endorse this motion. My faith lies
in my belief that no one member of Parliament would oppose
halting the spread of hate propaganda, that no one member of
Parliament would insist that there cannot be limits to freedom of
expression. I submit that nothing, not even freedom, is absolute.
First, what constitutes hate in our judicial system? The
Supreme Court of Canada defines hate as:
-an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with
vilification and detestation. It is an emotion that, if exercised against any section of
the public distinguished by religion, colour, race or ethnic origin, implies that those
individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill
treatment on the basis of group affiliation.
(1340)
The spread of hateful propaganda is now covered under
section 319 of the Criminal Code. The code identifies two ways
by which offences can occur. One is by incitement, that is, by
communicating in a public place words likely to lead to a breach
of the peace. The other is by wilfully promoting hatred against
an identifiable group through the communication of statements
other than in private conversation.
It therefore appears to me that section 319 of the Criminal
Code could be applied to prohibit the kind of high tech hate
propaganda this motion seeks to eliminate.
Certainly accessing the Internet involves communicating by
telephone or visible means via the computer which is essential
to the definition of communicating in the code. Certainly also
the Internet could be considered a public place because it is a
place to which the public has access, if not by right at least by
invitation expressed or implied since one could buy in via a
11367
service provider. Certainly also the messages on the Internet
constitute statements since the code's definition of statements
includes ``words recorded electronically''.
At this juncture, may I note in this House that I do not know of
any criminal prosecution in Canada, despite repeated postings
of hate messages on the Internet. Neither has there been any
prosecution under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
where case law has documented the applicability to this issue.
Why has there not been any prosecution of the electronic
posters of this century? Is the difficulty related to the
determination of exactly who may be held liable: the network,
the operator, or the author of the hateful message? Is the
difficulty related to tracing the exact authorship or the point of
origin of the message? Is the difficulty related to authors being
beyond the jurisdiction of Canada? Is the difficulty due to lack
of interest on the part of local police and provincial attorneys
general? Or does the difficulty reflect the complexity of day to
day and moment to moment monitoring of the Internet?
Be that as it may, the Canadian public wants to know. I
acknowledge that the Information Highway Advisory Council
established by the federal government last year has identified a
regulatory role for the government to play. I quote: ``It supports
the principle that freedom of expression be preserved on the
information highway consistent with Canadian law''. I
underscore the phrase consistent with Canadian law.
This private member's motion is therefore consistent with
that recommendation of the council. The council has further
identified that it is in the midst of reviewing the capacity of
existing laws to address this situation. I will certainly defer to
the observation of the council on this particular point,
acknowledging that I am not a member of the legal provision.
I submit that if current hate laws do apply, we need to
implement them. If current hate laws cannot apply, we need new
measures. What then do I mean by ``adapt legislative measures''
in my motion? I have used this term in a generic sense. It implies
passing new measures on the assumption that current hate laws,
for whatever subtleties of legal interpretation, may not be fully
capable of coping with the issue before us.
I envision that new measures could include a variety of
approaches. I will mention a few.
Parliament, for example, could legislate a national code of
ethics or conduct to govern Internet service providers. This
could include a mandate for the creation of a complaint body
that would enforce the code through a predetermined process for
resolution.
(1345 )
Parliament could set aside a modest budgetary item to launch
a public education campaign to inform and advise Internet users
and service providers as well as parents, school children,
teachers and the public at large about proper use of the
information highway, about the privilege it offers and the
responsibilities we must bear.
The government, through Parliament, could also consider
setting aside funds to help facilitate the development of
technologies such as adaptive software filters, which homes and
families could use to prevent hate messages from being seen.
To address the issue of source beyond our borders, Canada
must ensure the obligations under international convenants and
agreements against hate propaganda are met and that other
signatory states are equally reminded of their obligations. If
need be a new global treaty could be drafted, as has been
advanced as an idea by the Solicitor General as one possible
approach to address the issue. There could be other approaches.
We must explore them.
At this point I would like to return to the part of the motion
that deals with freedom of expression. The Supreme Court of
Canada ruling on two recent cases has identified the purpose of
this essential guarantee, namely: ``to permit free expression to
the end of promoting truth, political or social participation and
self-fulfilment''.
Mr. Justice John Sopinka of the Supreme Court of Canada,
speaking November 1994 at the symposium on free speech and
privacy in the information age said: ``These values lie at the core
of the freedom of expression''. It is in this spirit that both
section 319 of the Criminal Code and section 13 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act have been ruled constitutional by the
Supreme Court of Canada.
The court has deemed that these legal provisions constitute a
reasonable limit on the freedom of speech and expression since
the freedom is only minimally impaired when weighed against
the sufficient importance of the legislative objectives, namely,
to respect the dignity, self-worth and equality of all individuals.
The government must act quickly. Technology is advancing at
a rapid pace but we know that the task we face is a daunting one.
We must also acknowledge that the problem is not unique to
Canada, nor is the search for a solution.
The United States Congress is also now in search of one. It has
before it the communications decency act of 1995, which would
impose a $100,000 fine on anyone who uses computers to
``annoy, abuse, threaten or harass''.
The Canadian Information Highway Advisory Council, in its
recent report, describes Canada's goal for the information
highway this way: ``The vision is to establish a network of
11368
communities around the globe in the fullest pursuit of
individual expression, creativity, learning opportunities and
entrepreneurship. Its essence is to provide a medium for us to
achieve our goals as individuals and as a nation''.
These are noble goals. The mission can only be accomplished
if all Canadians are made to feel welcome in cyberspace. It can
only be accomplished if hate and intolerance are not part of the
emerging language of the information highway.
I urge all members to take the opportunity to speak out for the
sake of our common future. Whether the information highway is
to become a highway of hate or a highway of harmony rests in
our hands.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Motion
M-384 put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North
brings to our attention one of the concerns which modern
technology arouses among the population.
Allow me to read this motion for the benefit of those who are
listening to us:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move with speed to
adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate propaganda via
the electronic Information Highway while simultaneously preserving
legitimate use of the freedom of speech and expression.
(1350)
Before moving on to the substance of this motion, I would like
to take a few moments to explain simply and succinctly to this
House and the public what is this information highway which
has been the subject of increasing media coverage lately.
I will address not only the problem presented by Motion
M-384 but also several related problems. Finally, I will share
with you the results of my research on this subject and my
conclusions. If I go beyond the 10 minutes allocated to me, I will
then ask for the indulgence of the House in allowing me to
conclude my remarks.
As everyone knows, the information highway is essentially a
figure of speech designed to help us understand a reality. Let us
take a look at it.
What this is is a system comprised of various means of
electronic communication, such as telephone lines, television
cable, optic fibres, radio and television antennas and towers,
cellular phones and waves transmitted by satellite.
All these technical means of communication are in common
use today. They are the channels through which information
travels in various forms: telephone for voice, television for
images, fax for documents.
These channels are very useful but also very slow. Indeed,
when large amounts of information need to be transmitted at
once, electronic channels get clogged up or jammed. That is why
major communications companies are putting into place more
powerful systems so that large volumes of information can be
transmitted.
A single optic fibre can transmit as much information as
thousands of telephone lines. Two satellites in orbit above the
United States presently handle 200 television channels at a time.
These new channels are called highways because they are larger
and more powerful than traditional channels.
Let me say a few words about the major Canadian companies
involved in the development of these electronic highways. Bell
and other telephone companies are grouped under the mane
Stentor. There is also the Unitel group and the Sprint group.
Cable operators are also represented. Vidéotron and Rogers for
instance are very much involved in the process. Two groups,
PowerDirectTv and ExpressVu, want to broadcast television
programming directly via satellite. These are the expressways
of the future.
On the slower routes available today, there is a global network
that already provides convenient information transmission
through the telephone system. I am referring to Internet. The
transmission of documents, images, voice, music, films-in
fact, any form of communication is possible on this network.
This network works like a telephone system. You can dial the
number of your correspondent and write or even speak to him;
you can have a conference with several correspondents; you can
leave messages with an automatic answering machine, a kind of
900 number, and the public can read these messages by dialling
the 900 number. The numbers are referred to as addresses, and
the services that provide access to these messages are called
Mosaic and Netscape.
This network has an additional feature. You can leave
information on a bulletin board, or take part in a discussion
group. This is a kind of 900 number where everyone can enter
information and read information entered by others.
We are now ready to deal with the substance of motion
M-384. The problem referred to in the motion is that some
Internet users leave hate literature in discussion groups, on
bulletin boards or in any of the documents accessible through
Netscape or Mosaic.
(1355)
Although the hon. member for Winnipeg North does not refer
to this in his motion, there are other problems such as obscene
literature, photographs and films. Hate literature and
pornography are not that widespread and are in fact a rarity on
Internet.
There are other problems we must consider as well, because
they are more widespread and have a greater impact, not only on
Internet but also for instance, on DirecTv, and I am referring to
the satellites that send us television signals from space.
11369
What we are talking about here are crossborder sales of goods
and services in contravention of the law, tax laws among others,
through which capital is illegally siphoned off to foreign
countries. We are also talking about the violation of copyright,
through which a lot of capital is drained from Canada to foreign
countries.
We should also stress the fact that Canada's Internet network
is funded by the public through grants to universities, for
example. This means that the whole population is paying for a
service that is only really available to a very select few.
Currently, this network is contributing to the emergence of two
classes of citizens, those with access to information and those
without. I am not saying that there are no solutions to these
problems, I am sure that one will be found, I am just saying that
these problems exist.
Let us return now to Motion M-384 which I have researched
thoroughly. First, I sent the following message to several
discussion groups on Internet: I would like to have your
comments on the government's motion regarding the
information highway, soon to be debated in the House of
Commons. This was followed by the text of the motion.
Allow me to read extracts from three of the many responses I
received.
So, from the Computer Science University of Manitoba:
[English]
``The answer to this one is in my mind very clear and simple,
don't''.
From Industry Canada, probably, an employee said: ``If the
wording of the proposed legislation said `forbidding the spread'
rather than stopping the spread, then the full force of the law
could be brought down on anyone who used the info highway to
spread hate propaganda, with that the notion implying that some
technical mechanism is needed is probably undoable anyway''.
Finally, a lawyer answered: ``What precisely does this motion
intend to accomplish and why is it necessary? There is already a
section in the Criminal Code which applies to the publication of
hate propaganda. As I read this legislation, it is capable of
applying to information distributed on the information highway
as well as to any other medium of communications''.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, from these few reactions, it appears that the
``internauts''-and that is how they are called-are in tune with
our present discussions. As an ``internaut'' myself, I am happy
to say that ``internauts'' do not hesitate to put those distributing
hate literature in their place. Thus, the Freenet message from
Columbus, Ohio, offering subscriptions to a magazine intended
for, and I quote, ``all the whites in the world'' received two
responses. They are both in English, and I will probably elicit a
few beeps in reading them.
[English]
``Get your racist [bell] out of the Internet and yes I am white''.
Another message: ``Get the [bell] out of Canada. Take the racist
Canadians with you to your garbage-infested world. I too am
white''.
[Translation]
What I want to say is that, thanks to these electronic means,
people who see the system is being abused literally flood the
abuser to the point of blocking his system.
I also did some research in the Criminal Code. Section 163
concerns obscenity. It provides that anyone who produces,
prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, exposes to public
view or possesses any writing, picture, model, record or other
obscene item is committing an offence. Section 163.1 refers to
mechanical or electronic means.
In terms of hate propaganda, section 318 of the Criminal Code
provides that anyone making a statement in a public place
inciting hatred is committing an offence. Furthermore, the
Criminal Code defines ``communication'' as words spoken,
written or recorded by electronic or electromagnetic means.
(1400)
Yes, Mr. Speaker?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was listening attentively
to the hon. member's remarks at the beginning of his
intervention when he expressed the desire to go beyond the
ten-minute maximum.
[Translation]
It is nevertheless my duty to intervene since the ten minutes are
up. Is there agreement in the House to allow the hon. member to
conclude his remarks?
An hon. member: For how long?
Mr. de Savoye: Two or three minutes at most.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the hon. member
allowed to go on for two or three minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Portneuf may continue.
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to hate
propaganda, section 318 of the Criminal Code indicates that
anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place,
incites hatred is guilty of an offence. The Code defines
``statements'' as words spoken or written or recorded and
``public place'' as any place to which the public have access as
of right or by invitation, express or implied.
11370
As can be seen, what makes a statement characterized by hate
or obscenity criminal is the fact that it affects the public. What
goes on between two individuals or in a private group of
individuals concerns them alone. But as soon as a statement
becomes accessible to anyone at all, it is deemed to be in a
public place.
Understandably the law must be implemented fairly and
consistently. Thus, if the law prohibits certain actions, persons
committing those actions should be dealt with in the same
manner, whether the actions were committed in a business, in
the street or on a telecommunications network. But we must not
confuse the messenger with the message, with the initiator of the
message, and think that the networks are responsible for what
they carry, any more than we should hold the telephone
companies or Canada Post responsible for the nature of the calls
or mail they transmit.
Is it possible to identify where these documents originate?
Not only is it possible, but it is quite easy, because each
document is preceded by the destination address and the
originating address. Of course, some organizations offer the
possibility of anonymity. But in the case where a criminal act
has been committed, they can reveal the sender's address.
Therefore, in Canada we are able to deal with these concerns.
The problem is that most of these statements come from abroad.
I did some research and it appears that Canada signed several
international treaties dealing with hate propaganda: the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide; the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; and the International Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Consequently, Canada should make arrangements with the
other signatories to ensure that each of these countries will, at
the request of another signatory, deal with the source of hate
propaganda, obscene items, or with the sale of goods or services,
on its own territory, which contravene its laws or the laws of the
country making the request.
Although the motion tabled by the hon. member for Winnipeg
North deals only refers to these issues indirectly, I understand
that its object is to ensure that the law is applied consistently and
that it is not more or less stringent when electronic means are
used. This is why I will support motion M-384.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North
for the intent and thrust of the bill.
The introduction of a private member's bill in the House is the
start of a long and torturous journey before the motion may
become law and it may be amended before it gets there. What we
are talking about today is the general intent of what we should be
striving to achieve, for the kind of society which we want, what
we find decent in our society and what we intuitively recognize
and know as wrong and indecent.
Earlier we had a very difficult circumstance to wrestle with,
the infamous killer cards. About this time last year we were
being inundated with petitions from outraged Canadians from
coast to coast asking why we allow this kind of trash to be
distributed in Canada. There has not been one word spoken
about it in recent times because Canadians, by and large, are
pretty decent people. We recognize something which has no
value. If it has no value it will not be supported and the normal
market forces will cause the demise of whatever should not be
around. That is exactly what happened with killer cards. They
have fallen from the national agenda.
(1405 )
The point is just because that happened does not give us the
freedom to say it is a perfect world and we do not have to worry
about people who would spread hate and spread propaganda and
sow the seeds of dissension and hurt in our society.
That is what this bill is all about. That is the intention. It is the
general intention we support.
I do not believe it is possible to legislate morality. I do not
think it is possible to legislate good taste. I do not think it is
possible to write legislation that will keep hate propaganda or
distasteful things we do not like to see off the information
highway.
We should make our general intent very clearly understood so
when the courts are adjudicating on a particular issue they know
full well where Parliament stands representing the citizens of
Canada.
We should stand shoulder to shoulder against the pernicious
spread of hate propaganda and things that would hurt our
society. We also have to stand shoulder to shoulder in protecting
freedom of speech. Here we have these two conflicting ideals.
How do we go about rationalizing and resolving these two
conflicting ideas?
We have to use the whole notion of responsibility. We have to
ensure anyone can get on to the information highway. We cannot
prevent it in any event and so why bother trying? The
information highway has grown from a year ago of 25,000
networks to 70,000 networks. The growth is exponential.
We should think of the information highway as the world's
largest library with no librarian and no index. To try to put a
handle on it will not work.
We should be working toward ensuring that when our courts
have to make a decision based on the freedom of access to
Internet that it comes back to personal responsibility. We have to
ensure that everyone who gets on to the information highway
recognizes they will be held accountable and responsible for
what they do, just as it is done in our daily lives today.
11371
All of us have and enjoy freedom of speech. It is part of of our
culture. It is us. We also recognize that with freedom comes
responsibility. We have the responsibility to use that freedom
responsibly. That means I cannot go into a crowded movie
theatre and yell ``fire''. I cannot do that with impugnity.
I can go outside and yell ``fire'' and people would think I am a
nut. If I did the same thing in a crowded movie theatre where my
actions put other people at risk I would be considered a criminal.
That is the distinction and the whole notion of personal
responsibility. That is why it is so important this debate take
place and that the intention of Parliament is very clear to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court at least in recent years
needs some clear direction.
I do not think our Supreme Court gets up every morning
wondering how to best represent the people of Canada. In my
opinion in recent years the Supreme Court has been getting up in
the morning wondering how to push the limits of tolerance of
ordinary citizens to the expansion of these charter ideals until it
drives everybody crazy.
This debate is of extreme importance. It should not be taken
lightly. We are not, at least I think I speak for most people in the
House, in any way constricting the right of freedom of speech.
We are sending a very clear message that one had better be
prepared to accept responsibility for what one does.
Earlier my hon. colleague and friend from Portneuf
mentioned that the Internet is by and large self-policing. Those
who have used Internet will notice if anybody does or says
something outrageous on Internet it does not take very long
before they are overwhelmed by a response from other people on
the Internet saying it is not right.
(1410 )
I do not think we should dismiss the potential and strength of
self-policing. For instance, when people in a bar having a beer
together are spreading these ideas and reinforcing each other's
ideas it is very different than putting an idea across the Internet
and being responded to by an avalanche of people saying:
``You're crazy, you're wrong'', just as my hon. colleague from
Portneuf mentioned.
We need to put this into perspective as well. There have been
some particularly good articles written about smut on Internet.
An article which appeared in the Globe and Mail recently made
the suggestion that everybody who was on Internet was an
oversexed teenager. That is not the way it is.
That certainly is part of life but I defy anybody to go to a
corner store and buy a quart of milk without passing a magazine
rack. We do have choices in our lives and we have to make them.
We can either stop and buy a smut magazine or we can pass them
by. It is a personal choice and a personal responsibility.
Using the same analogy, these magazines are now, as a result
of pornography laws in Canada, not displayed where kids can
get at them. They are displayed high up and many of them are
covered. What do we do in a situation in which we have the
expansion of the information highway through which young
people are far more familiar with the mechanics of it than we
are?
This poses a fairly difficult problem. How do we go about
keeping our children from scanning some of these very
offensive things like Deathnet and others and still keep this
freedom of information and freedom of speech alive? It is kind
of like a lockout. Parents have to take responsibility for their
children. It goes back to personal responsibility.
I think of the people in Edmonton waging this lonely but very
valid and important war. Their son committed suicide and their
concern is that his suicide was as a result of depression which
was enhanced because of his addiction to listening to CDs of
Nirvana and death music and that sort of thing.
It is part of our society and it is incumbent on us as members
of Parliament to do what we can to get at root causes of problems
and try to make the extra effort so that we keep our society the
kind of society it is by and large today, the kind in which we want
our children and our families to grow up.
Again I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North for
bringing this to the House. It will be a difficult and torturous
journey but it is certainly worth it.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of the motion put forward by my
colleague from Winnipeg North.
The idea of the propagation of hatred, regardless of whether it
is through the computerized bulletin boards and the Internet, is
morally repugnant and has been acknowledged as such in
Canadian law.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada anyone who by
communicating statements other than in private conversation
wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty
of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for up to two
years. It is also a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It is the government's responsibility to ensure public spaces,
whether cyberspace or not, are free from incitements of hatred
against any particular group in society. We must be vigilant. It is
not enough to be against racism, we must also be willing to fight
it.
We cannot fall into the trap of only fighting when it is simple,
easy and clear. Sometimes it is not easy. Questions of freedom of
speech and freedom of academic expression enter the debate but
we cannot hedge because we find the issues difficult. We must
bring tolerance and societal rejection of racism to bear entirely
in that debate.
11372
(1415)
I quote from the Canadian Bar Association, 1984: ``Canada
has never recognized the concept of unlimited freedom of
expression. In order to prevent harm to others, Canadian
legislators have imposed a number of reasonable limits on
freedom of expression''.
Laws in Canadian society which limit the ability of
individuals to communicate hate are based both on international
standards and on the the specific character of Canadian society.
Canada has signed two international conventions which require
us as citizens of the world to prevent the spread of hate
propaganda.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide was ratified by Canada in 1947 and
reinforced by article 20 of the United Nations International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada ratified in
1976.
Further it should be noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms does not necessarily guarantee an unlimited right
to free speech. Section 27 of the charter states: ``This Charter
shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation
and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada''.
Thus, one may argue that hate propaganda has no place in the
political discussion of a multicultural society.
The information highway is currently being used by over 40
million people. It can be an instrument of good or an instrument
of evil. For example, information can instantly be shared
between a university library in Germany with an online
university in New Brunswick. It compresses time and distance
like no other technology yet developed.
It creates a truly global village in which we can all profit from
the gains in knowledge in countries halfway around the world,
simply with the click of a button. On Parliament Hill and in
federal departments, this technology is being introduced and
used.
Since the government is actively promoting the use of the
technology, we have a responsibility to guard its innocence
because it is not only a tool used for good, but also for evil.
Organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and Holocaust deniers
have news groups that propagate their messages of hate and
intolerance toward minorities over the Internet. These messages
are fully accessible to the public.
I have read some of these messages and they are filled with
racial slurs and disgusting language. Not only are they using the
Internet as a conduit for their messages of intolerance, but I am
advised pro-Nazi groups have recruitment programs in which
they go to schools and encourage young people to embrace their
ideologies.
These postings on the Internet can easily be found by
children, who many would agree, and as my colleague has
mentioned, are among the most knowledgeable about this
technology. Many use the info highway in schools and have
greater understanding of it than their parents.
The child can easily be one step ahead of the adult, leaving the
parent powerless in monitoring the child's activities and open to
these postings. These messages have a powerful impact on
young minds. Herein lies the difficulty of parental control and
why it is important for the government to be engaged in this
exercise and to enact legislation that would actively prohibit
this kind of message from being sent in the first place.
Because of the complexity of this problem, it is important for
the government to establish a centre of responsibility to deal not
only with this question, but with questions of trade, copyright
issues and education, either by establishing a minister for this
technology or designating responsibility to an existing
department, or beyond that, it should be done by the Minister of
Industry.
We could follow the model of New Brunswick, where there is
already a secretary of state responsible for the information
highway. There has been considerable debate in my own
constituency of Fredericton-York-Sunbury around the
propagation of hatred on the Internet. It is my intention to strike
a committee that would make recommendations through me
both to the Minister of Industry and his advisory committee and
to Parliament on how some of these issues should be tackled. It
is a new problem and there is a need for broad input.
However, there must be a balance. We cannot let our efforts
here lead to incidents of excessive restrictions on speech. It is an
important right that cannot be ignored. There are laws against
the enticement of hatred against certain groups and they also
must be upheld, improved and their values applied to new
realities.
As a government we must promote the truth. We must also be
aware of those who are promoting another agenda. It is my
personal belief that within all of us is the instinct for tolerance,
fairness and compassion. It is only out of fear, misinformation
and insecurity that we turn to emotions that are less generous.
This is a global problem. If Canada were to adopt legislation
that would screen out certain messages, there is nothing
stopping someone from simply clicking to another country and
signing on from there. They would have access to everything.
That is why we need to work with other nations in formulating
guidelines for the information superhighway. The Group of
Seven meeting this summer in Halifax would be an ideal event at
which to engage our fellow member countries in the discussion.
(1420)
If we could agree on a vision for the future of this technology,
it would be a great step forward. We are a fair-minded,
resourceful and enlightened population and our resolve should
not be diminished by the magnitude of the task. I am confident
that a solution will be found which will ensure that everyone,
regard-
11373
less of ethnicity or lifestyle choice, will be able to use the
electronic highway free from fear of harassment and verbal
abuse.
I am pleased to second the motion of the hon. member for
Winnipeg North. I call on all members to say no to the
propagation of hatred, regardless of the medium.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to support the bill of my
friend and colleague from across the way on this very important
and much ignored aspect of the late 20th century.
Freedom of speech is something which we in our country have
held in the highest regard. It is a pillar of a truly democratic
society and, as such, sets us apart from the restrictive, abusive
and undemocratic societies that we have seen about us in the
past, such as those in Nazi Germany and in China. We have seen
repression where freedom of speech has not been recognized. In
fact, not having freedom of speech has enabled the few to stifle
the many.
However, like most rules we have in this world they are
inviolable. They too are subject to perversions, but when
common sense and logic are applied to them they bear no
resemblance whatsoever to what was the intended rule. Freedom
of speech is no different.
We live in a world today which our forefathers could not have
imagined and which those individuals who constructed the
aspects of freedom of speech as being a pillar of democracy
could not have imagined. They could not have thought or
dreamed of the challenges which we face today. As such, they
could not imagine the ways in which people could use free
speech as a shield or as protection to blatantly incite hatred,
violence and prejudice against other individuals. They could not
have imagined this because they could not have imagined
something like Internet.
I will give the House some examples of what has occurred on
Internet recently. In my region of Vancouver Island, in the city
of Victoria, something called a deathnet has occurred.
Specifically, it caters to teenagers and children. It is a program
on how to commit suicide. It tells them how to do it with plastic
bags, glue, knives, ropes and chemicals.
We have lauded the aspects of freedom of speech and freedom
of choice. As adults we presumably have the experience and the
knowledge to make informed choices. However, where this falls
apart is when we are dealing with children. All of us in the House
will recognize that one of the aspects of children is that they do
not have the maturity, the knowledge and the experience to make
informed choices. Where the Internet differs from the magazine
racks in our local corner stores is that in the corner store children
do not have a choice to make because the material is too high.
They are also monitored by the individuals who work in the
stores. That is not so with Internet.
Internet is basically a free-for-all. One of the sectors of our
society that is the most literate in computers is youth. Many
youths are more facile with computers than many individuals in
the House, myself in particular.
We also have hate mongering by the KKK and other groups
whose main intent has been to put forth abusive, hateful, spiteful
information on the deathnet for no good cause whatsoever.
(1425 )
This cannot continue. That is why my colleague who is a
physician and a very concerned person has put forward this
initiative. He has experience in these matters as a pediatrician.
He knows full well the dangers of allowing very impressionable
children to be subjected to this type of information. As I have
said before, adults are a different matter altogether. They have
choice but that does not necessarily apply to children.
There are laws which apply to the wire media, the print media.
There are rules and regulations which apply to hate mongering,
child pornography and such. There is no logical reason that
these reasonable rules cannot also be applied to the Internet.
There have been concerns that no, it is not possible to do this
because there are too many access points and there are too many
people logged on.
This country has proven to be a world leader in so many areas.
We can continue to do so by taking that leadership role on the
Internet. We can show the world we are not prepared to have hate
mongering within our country.
It is interesting to note that the United States Congress and
Senate also have a bill relating to the proliferation of this type of
information on the Internet. It is a worthwhile endeavour.
Perhaps through my colleague's initiative we as a country can
work with our neighbours to the south to push for this worthy
cause.
Just because it is difficult does not mean to say it is
impossible. A few other concerns exist on the Internet. I am sure
they will rise in the course of the prolonged discussions which
will come out of this initiative. They also involve personal
privacy and security of information.
Many of us in this House are aware that a number of recent
cases have come up of people's security and personal
information which are protected under the law but violated
through the Internet. Cyberspace is a free for all. Freedoms are
good but when they are abused against the common good, it is
intolerable and unacceptable to Canadian society.
I will close by giving my wholehearted support to my
colleague for this initiative. It is worthwhile. We should not buy
the argument that freedom of speech is something that is
inviolable. Like all rules, it can be subject to exceptions.
11374
The main reason for doing this is not so much for the adults
because of the freedoms we have but primarily for the children.
It is impossible, no matter how hard we try, to prevent children
from logging on and seeing the stuff.
For their betterment and for the betterment of Canadian
society, I hope this House will take it upon itself to support the
initiative of my colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)