CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 26, 1995
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11803
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11805
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11806
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11807
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11807
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11807
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11807
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11807
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11807
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11808
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11808
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11808
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11808
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 11808
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11809
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 11809
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11809
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 11810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11810
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 11810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11810
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11810
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11811
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 11811
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11811
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11811
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11813
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 11814
Bill C-84. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 11815
Bill C-84. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to. 11815
Bill C-322. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 11815
Bill S-7. Motion for first reading agreed to. 11816
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 11816
Motion moved and agreed to. 11816
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11819
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11819
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11819
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 11819
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 138; Nays, 90 11819
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 11820
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 11822
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11828
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 88 11831
(Bill read the second time and referred to the committee.) 11832
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11839
11803
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 26, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, lead is
a poison that can cause animals and humans to die. It certainly
makes them sick.
In Canada we are moving steadily to eliminate lead from
gasoline, paints and our drinking water systems. The U.S. is
proceeding in this direction even faster than us.
I urge that we now move to eliminate the use of lead shot for
hunting and lead sinkers for fishing. Non-toxic steel and
bismuth shot is easily available. The U.S. has already banned
lead shot for wild fowling. The only lead poisoned wildfowl
seen down there are ours, birds that have flown from Canada.
This is a change which will not affect hunters and anglers and
one which will simply make our environment more healthy.
Mr. Speaker, let us just do it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois and Quebec's artistic
community are outraged at the heartless attitude of the Minister
of Immigration, who has denied an entry visa to Ms. Koudil, an
Algerian filmmaker living in France.
This woman, whose courage is an example to all those who
dare denounce publicly the treatment of women by Muslim
fundamentalists, particularly in Algeria, has been unjustifiably
denied entry into Quebec and Canada. Because of her honesty
and courage, Ms. Koudil must be given this visa so that she can
show her film here.
The stubbornness of Canadian authorities in this matter shows
how subjective and arbitrary this kind of decision often is.
In the name of women and artists, we are calling on the
minister to intervene on behalf of Ms. Koudil, whose film
highlights the dangers of fundamentalist oppression.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada is deep in debt and
continuing full speed ahead with government overspending
toward the inevitable crash into the debt wall. The government
claims to be using innovative ways to reduce its overspending
but it is obvious it has no idea what it is doing.
The latest example is with the government owned VIA Rail
system. This crown corporation receives over $800,000 a day in
government subsidies. It was told to cut its costs but instead it
cut its fares in half. It seems the only thing it can do well is lose
money and now it is going to be twice as good at it. These fare
reductions will continue until the end of May and they are
devastating the private sector bus industry.
Using the taxpayers' money to subsidize poorly run crown
corporations so they can unfairly compete with Canadian
business is not only wrong, it is idiotic.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
a great deal of pleasure today to stand and congratulate Premier
Gary Filmon of the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party on
his third decisive victory last night. Premier Filmon captured 33
seats, the New Democrats 22 and the Liberals only 3.
The Manitoba provincial Liberals campaigned on a platform
using a copycat provincial Liberal red book. I am proud to say
that the general electorate discovered the reality of the
provincial red book and sent them a strong message saying that
they wanted no part of it.
We have discovered the reality of the federal Liberal red book
which is amounting to broken promises. This is a message to the
11804
Liberal Party that it should heed that what happened in Manitoba
is about to happen in the next federal election.
The PC party is back, alive and well. I welcome everyone to
come to Hull this weekend to see our 1,500 delegates in action.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in the House today to draw attention to an event that will
take place in the city of Hamilton this weekend.
Canada's Minister of the Environment is hosting a meeting of
environmental ministers from the world's most industrialized
countries, the group of seven. Also in attendance will be senior
environmental officials from the European Commission and the
United Nations.
The two days of discussions will focus on how G-7 countries
can continue to work together to improve the world's economic
and environmental health.
I would like to congratulate the minister on her fine work as
Minister of the Environment both in Canada and internationally.
(1405 )
I am happy that the subjects under discussion will include,
among other things, species conservation, climate change and
international management of toxic substances. Discussion will
also centre on how we as industrialized countries can encourage
such organizations as the World Bank and the United Nations to
take a more environmentally sensitive approach to
development.
I urge the minister to use this conference to encourage all
countries, including Canada, to live up to the commitments
made at the Rio conference.
It is essential that when the leaders of the G-7 countries meet
in Halifax this June, the concerns raised and discussed at the
environment ministers conference this weekend are addressed.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Earth
Day is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate the successes we
have had in the environment which reminds us of the great work
that remains.
This past Saturday was the 25th anniversary of Earth Day. The
students, parents and teachers of Harry R. Hamilton Elementary
School in upper Sackville in my riding of Halifax West marked
Earth Day in a very fitting way. With federal government
support, they have initiated a number of very important
environmental projects.
I had the pleasure of joining them last Saturday morning for
an outdoor spring cleaning. Working in rubber gloves and rubber
boots, we removed garbage, tires, and even an old car from the
pond behind the school. That pond will now be an excellent
setting for those kids to learn about science and nature.
I want to congratulate all those involved for showing the kind
of environmental responsibility we all need to exercise.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since its inception in 1975 the Forum for Young
Canadians has become an institution for moulding a national
identity.
For the past 20 years the forum has provided a rich and varied
experience to approximately 10,000 young Canadians from
across the country. Every year, 500 students from across Canada
come to Ottawa to share their regional perceptions and
concerns.
I believe that after living and working with their peers from
all parts of the country these same students return home one
week later having learned more about themselves and each
other, their perceptions and concerns, as well as their common
interests and bonds. They leave the program challenged,
inspired and ready to play a leadership role in their
communities.
I congratulate the students who have participated in this very
valuable forum, the generous corporations and individuals who
have made the work of the foundation possible, and the many
volunteers and sponsors of the Forum for Young Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
it first came out, the federal Green Plan was an unprecedented
environmental initiative. After gradually cutting off funding,
the Minister of the Environment recently confirmed that the
Green Plan was dead.
Its replacement with a series of scattered and inconsistent
guidelines shows that the Liberal government is giving up on the
issue because it seems unable to set global objectives and
propose a concerted approach.
Creating the position of environment commissioner, whose
mandate and powers are very restricted, can never replace a
concrete, global policy.
The minister is not fooling anyone by claiming that Canada is
a world leader in environmental matters. She does not impress
us either by proposing a so-called policy that does not even
compensate for a dismal record.
11805
The minister should consider the environment as an economic
investment rather than something that can be managed
haphazardly.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages
told us that official bilingualism was, to all intents and purposes,
a failure.
Moreover, he noted in his report that even government
departments do not meet the standards set in the Official
Languages Act. It is obvious that the Liberal government's
commitment is purely symbolic. The time has come to review
this policy to better serve the people of Canada, perhaps on the
Swedish or Belgian model.
[English]
We believe that a language policy which leaves language and
culture in the hands of the provinces will better serve the
linguistic needs of each province.
The BNA Act of 1867 ensures minority language and
education rights are respected. I will be tabling a private
member's motion later in this session. I hope that members in
this House will support me in bringing a practical alternative-
(1410 )
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bruce-Grey.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tobacco use is one of Canada's greatest public health concerns.
Each year tobacco causes over 40,000 preventable deaths.
While the number of Canadian smokers has declined over the
last 20 years, there are still 6.5 million smokers. Even more
distressing, thousands of young people begin to smoke every
month.
Tobacco use is a major risk factor for stroke, heart disease,
circulatory disease, cancer of the lungs, larynx, pancreas,
mouth, esophagus, bladder, kidney and cervix.
Pregnant women who smoke increase their baby's risk of
premature birth, low birth rate, inhibited child development and
sudden infant death syndrome.
In Grey and Bruce counties 26 per cent of the population
continue to smoke. As a result, the Hamilton Regional Cancer
Centre predicts that 287 residents in my riding will die this year
from tobacco related illnesses.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings (Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow at its annual meeting in Montreal, Northern
Telecom will be marking a century of progress. Founded in 1895
as a small manufacturer of telephones, it has since become a
world leader with revenues of over $12 billion.
Today NorTel employs 21,000 Canadians. Four out of ten of
those jobs are linked to export success. In the city of Belleville
in my riding, close to 1,000 constituents are employed in
NorTel's production of telecommunications equipment for use
in over 90 countries.
I think it is particularly important to note NorTel's continuing
investment in Canada. Not only does it invest in R and D to
develop networks of tomorrow, it also commits itself to
Canada's students. Last year NorTel hired over 600 new
graduates from Canadian universities.
NorTel is an excellent example of the benefits that research
and development and export success bring to Canada. I
congratulate NorTel on its first 100 years and wish it all the best
for the next century.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 6 the crew of the British sailboat
Longo-Barda, en route to England after competing in a race off
the coast of Australia, was attacked by pirates near Somalia.
They fired mortar at the ship and were prepared to hijack it when
one of Canada's new warships, the HMCS
Fredericton speeded
to the rescue, responding to the crew's distress call. The would
be thieves fled the scene at once.
The navy officers aboard the helicopter frigate had heard the
sailboat's mayday call en route to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia where
the ship is used to promote Canadian technology.
On behalf of all Canadians and particularly those in
Fredericton, I congratulate and thank the captain and crew of the
HMCS Fredericton for their act of heroism.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Apparently, Mr.
Speaker, the latest constitutional position of the Liberal Party in
Quebec was another flash in the pan. Ridiculed in Quebec and
without governmental support in Ottawa, it fizzled out in a
matter of hours.
With the Martin budget and Bill C-76, the federal government
has started to make changes in Canada that run counter to
Quebec's traditional demands, which the Quebec Liberal Party
has not even restated.
This morning, Lise Bissonnette indicated that the wishes of
the committee, which is to some extent the last stronghold of the
11806
Liberal Party in Quebec, are being trampled and even ridiculed
by Bill C-76 and the recent budget measures behind it.
Basically, she is reminding us that, with Bill C-76 and the
Martin budget, Quebec Liberals are no longer able to defend
Quebec's traditional interests.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow will mark Yom Hashoah, Holocaust
Memorial Day and the 50th anniversary of the allied liberation
of the concentration camps in Europe.
Yom Hashoah is a day to reflect on the horrors of the
Holocaust. It is a day to make a pledge for the future: never
again. It is a day to rededicate ourselves to the sacred principle
that all people are born equal regardless of race or creed.
When racist extremism flourished in Nazi Germany, the
Jewish people were targeted for death and six million were
murdered. Millions of others were also killed. When the rights
of some are attacked on the grounds of race or religion,
ultimately the rights and freedoms of all are undermined.
On behalf of the Reform Party, I solemnly vow that we shall
honour the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust by
remaining vigilant against those who would divide us by
promoting hatred and discrimination.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a document entitled
La souveraineté, des réponses à
vos questions, the Parti Quebecois says: ``No new structure, nor
a superstructure. There will be no need for a new political
organization governed by another elected parliament. This is
demonstrated by the increasing number of customs unions and
free trade agreements throughout the world''.
After listening to the comments made on Monday by the Parti
Quebecois leader, Quebecers find it difficult to understand this
about-face by sovereignists. Indeed, this is not just a change of
direction, it is a complete about-face which can only lead to a
massive pile-up on the road to separation.
Let us not forget that we live in an extraordinary democracy
and that changes are possible because of the flexibility of our
Canadian political structure. That structure is based on dialogue
and harmony. Let us work safely together to reach many new
agreements.
11806
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for the first time since the CRTC was established,
the cabinet is about to force this independent body to change one
of its decisions. Furthermore, this interference by the
government will benefit a group whose main shareholders are
friends of the government and even close relatives. In a new
development which may have far reaching consequences, we
heard today that, in a communication sent to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, the CRTC formally expressed its concern
about this interference.
I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister to tell us from his
seat whether he refrained from taking part in any discussions in
cabinet on this matter, since his son-in-law is one of the
directors of Power DirecTv, a subsidiary of Power Corporation?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, the government intends
to table in the House a document that will clearly set forth the
position of the Canadian government on direct to home satellite
services.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, this does not answer my question, and
second, from what the minister just said, I must assume that the
government ignored its fundamental responsibilities and
decided to intervene directly and interfere with a CRTC decision
on a matter that was crucial to the public interest.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, who has remained strangely
silent on the matter and who is the leader of the government who
is directly concerned by the ethical aspects of the case, to tell us
whether he would confirm that his principal adviser, Eddie
Goldenberg, intervened directly in the matter of Power DirecTv,
this according to the Minister of Industry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the opposition leader's strategy is highly
improper because-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): If they have any accusations
to make, let them make them. However, I can inform the House
that, in this particular case, although I have no personal interest
in the matter, in order to avoid laying myself open to criticism, I
did not take part in any discussions and, when the time came to
discuss this matter in cabinet, I abstained, and the acting Prime
Minister presided over the rest of the meeting.
11807
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I must say I appreciate the fact that the Prime
Minister rose in his seat to answer the question, so I will ask
him another one.
We are talking about a very important matter which requires
clarification as a matter of course, since according to the
government's conflict of interest guidelines, subsection 23(3):
``A public office holder shall not accord preferential treatment
in relation to any official matter to family members or friends or
to organizations in which they, family members or friends, have
an interest''.
(1420)
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he consulted his
ethics counsellor on this matter.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must say I have no interest in the matter and did not
participate in any discussions on the subject. I did not discuss it
with anyone, including the ministers. That is my answer. I have
nothing further to add.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
notice sent to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the secretary
general of the CRTC said that the federal cabinet would be
overstepping its bounds if it went ahead with its proposal to use
orders in council, which are too specific, too narrow and go
much further than the general policy set out in the Broadcasting
Act. The CRTC even believes that such orders in council could
lead to legal action.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, for the first time in
history, cabinet orders in council would force the CRTC to
reconsider its decision and that this action would constitute
preferential treatment for Power DirecTv?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry answered this question
yesterday.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Prime Minister deny that this is a clear case of favouritism,
given that, in the CRTC's opinion, cabinet orders in council
compromise the independence and integrity of its licensing
process to such an extent that the government exposes itself to
the risk of being taken to court over these retroactive orders?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the legislation allows cabinet some say concerning the
CRTC's decisions. In the circumstances, cabinet has reviewed
the situation and made a decision which will be made public
later this afternoon.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week the federal debt passed the $550 billion
mark. Yet the government's mismanagement of taxpayers'
money continues. The latest example, TAGS, the Atlantic
groundfish strategy with $1.9 billion committed over five years,
is a program already headed for a $385 million shortfall. Worst
of all, it provides little in the way of concrete results.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. How much more federal money is the government
planning to commit to this ill designed and unsuccessful
program?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are facing the largest
layoff in the history of Canada as a result of the collapse of the
Atlantic fishery. It is the responsibility of any federal
government that cares about the real needs of people in that
region to respond in the most effective way possible.
The government established a budget last year of $1.9 billion
that would help us to reduce the core fishery down to a point
where it is a manageable size, which the minister of fisheries is
responsible for. We also undertook to provide a variety of means
by which people in that fishery could secure other alternative
means of livelihood.
In that period of time we have provided counselling for
upward of 25,000 people. We have over 15,000 people enrolled
in training programs. We have a number-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Silye: The question is: How much more money? How
much more money? Answer the question.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker,
apparently the Reform Party does not want an answer to a very
serious question. Perhaps most important is that the hon.
member was probably not listening in the House as I replied
yesterday. For thousands of individuals we restored a sense of
hope at a time when they are facing a real calamity in their lives
and the lives of their families.
That is what the federal government is doing, not the
meanspirited nit-picking of the hon. leader of the third party.
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we all know that TAGS is a fiscal disaster, but the most
tragic aspect of the program is the fact that it fails the very
people it was designed to help.
11808
When TAGS was announced it was supposed to break the
cycle of dependency. The government predicted not that 25,000
fishery workers would be counselled but that they would be
retrained for new jobs in new industries. Yet $40 million later
HRD officials admit that less than 12,000 people have even
participated in the program, that precious few have found any
work, and that now money is being diverted from the training
aspects of the program back into dependency support.
How does the minister plan to change TAGS so as to produce
the results and the hope for affected Canadians in Atlantic
Canada about whom he professes to be so passionately
concerned?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first
response, we are dealing with probably the most massive, large
scale adjustment program ever faced by the country.
Mr. Manning: It is not working.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member says: ``It is not working''. He does not know. Like
most things, he simply does not know. He is simply making it up
and engaging in fiction, not fact.
We have example after example of people who have started
their own businesses, been retrained for new occupations, have
started projects to develop new resource conservation and have
received mobility grants.
I challenge the hon. member to come with me to Atlantic
Canada to talk to the people down there to find out just how well
we are beginning to provide an alternative option for the people
of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister could tell me when we are going to go, I
am perfectly willing to go.
TAGS is part of a bigger project. It was originally billed as a
test run for the whole human resources approach to social
security reform. The test has been a failure. TAGS was meant to
tie income support to training, education and retraining, and it
has not done that. Instead it is another example of a Liberal
social megaproject that simply does not work. It is based on
principles that do not work.
Has the minister learned anything-and I know this is a
challenging question-from his disastrous social experiment?
How will the failure of TAGS affect his overall program of
social policy reform?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned is
that the last person in Canada to listen to about what works in
social reform is the hon. leader of the third party.
In response to the kind of major challenges we faced in
developing those adjustment programs, we commissioned a
major study by Price Waterhouse that gave us a report on
examining where the program was working and where it was
not. I can report to hon. members of the House that my
department has acted on every one of the recommendations
made in the Price Waterhouse study.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
On Monday, the Minister received an opinion from the CRTC
concerning the cabinet's draft directives on satellite
broadcasting. According to the CRTC, the federal government
would be open to legal proceedings, because the cabinet's
directives are too specific and would call into question the
integrity of the CRTC, a quasi legal, autonomous
license-granting body.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is
responsible for the CRTC. Would he tell us whether he informed
the Prime Minister of the content of the CRTC's opinion on the
proposed directive at yesterday's cabinet meeting?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister's answer to
opposition questions indicates clearly that the matter was out of
the question.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime
Minister.
Does the Prime Minister not consider it at least inappropriate
that, for the first time in its history, cabinet is changing a CRTC
decision and that this historical first just happens to benefit his
son-in-law?
(1430)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we will be tabling a
document setting out the government's position this afternoon
in the House.
I understand the opposition's impatience, but it will just be a
few hours more. Then there will be days and weeks for
questions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last year in debate Reformers called the Atlantic
11809
groundfish strategy, or TAGS, a job security program for
tinkering, meddling bureaucrats and further that handouts do
nothing for people. They destroy people and they destroy their
spirit and will.
The Minister of Human Resources Development said words to
this effect: ``Trust us. We know what we are doing''. Now
Atlantic Canadians have learned that this big government has
failed them once again.
Can the minister explain why he chose to ignore our advice
last June and proceed with such a flawed program? If you had
listened to us you would not be in this big mess right now.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you always to make
your remarks to the Chair.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why we
proceeded with the Atlantic groundfish strategy. Over 40,000
men and women in the Atlantic region had just lost their
livelihood. They needed help in securing enough income to keep
their families and themselves in the basic necessities. They also
needed to be given certain tools for retraining, for counselling,
for new employment and for alternatives that would provide
them over time the opportunity to find an alternative way of
making a living.
That is why we proceeded with the Atlantic groundfish
strategy. That is what the groundfish strategy is doing today.
Rather than having the Reform Party try to make a blanket
condemnation of the noble efforts being made by all kinds of
people in the Atlantic fishery to find a new life for themselves,
they should join in to help, rather than trying to hinder the
program.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister claims that his program is working.
If the minister will not listen to us, here is what some other
people are saying. The senior director for TAGS says this about
the training component of the program: ``Much of it has led to
nothing and it is training for what?''. The chair of the committee
calls it lunacy and crazy.
Why does the minister not acknowledge that on the job
training is many times more effective than institutional training
and build his job creation strategies on the strengths of small
businesses in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had any
understanding at all, he would realize that you have to have
small businesses first for people to start.
We are dealing with between 40,000 and 50,000 people whose
families for 400 years have earned their living in the fishery. All
of a sudden for a variety of reasons, many of which we have seen
such as overfishing by foreign nations, it has finally come to an
end. It is a calamity beyond the scope of anything we have faced
before. It requires major adjustment and changes. We are doing
our best to meet that.
I used examples and I will repeat them for the hon. member.
Rather than listening to press commentary about what was said,
talk to the woman who has just received a series of new training
programs and has started her own business as a result. Listen to
the family in Newfoundland that has now got new people started
in their own businesses. Talk to people who are now doing
college education courses to find new alternatives. Listen to the
people who are being affected by the programs, not to some
half-baked commentary in the Globe and Mail.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I appeal to you to make both the
questions and the answers a little more precise.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of National Defence confirmed that his
government is about to acquire four British conventional
submarines. He even stated that the negotiations with British
authorities were practically wrapped up.
How can the Minister of National Defence justify spending
$1.6 billion on four secondhand submarines, given the
government's current financial situation?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
amazes me how people can go to committee, hear an answer,
then come to the House of Commons and completely give a
distortion like the hon. member has.
I said that the government has given authority to me as
minister and my officials to explore the possibility of
purchasing secondhand submarines from the British navy.
Discussions have been ongoing. At a certain point in time, my
colleagues in the cabinet will have to decide whether or not they
wish the Government of Canada to purchase those submarines.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think that even then the minister said that it was up to the
government to decide and that some members of cabinet
supported this move.
At a time when the auditor general is denouncing
mismanagement at the Department of National Defence and the
waste of hundreds of millions of dollars every year, how can the
Minister
11810
of National Defence justify wasting another $2 billion or so on
secondhand submarines we do not need?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I might
remind the hon. member he was a member of the special joint
committee on defence which recommended to the government
that we explore the possibility of replacing the Oberon
submarines. That is what we have done.
I know members of his party had some disagreement with the
basic elements of the report but I do not remember his actually
dissociating himself from the part of the report that dealt with
submarines.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yesterday in response to a question from the leader of the
NDP he said that the new Canada social transfer strengthens the
federal ability to ensure the responsibility of the provinces to
live up to national principles. He went on to say it gives the
continuing ability to ensure that leverage is exercised; in other
words, blackmailing provincial governments.
On March 31 the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said
that the budget makes it clear that fewer strings will be attached
to the Canada social transfer and went on to say that social
transfer strings will be reduced and these requirements will be
set by mutual consent.
In the eyes of the government, does the Canada social transfer
strengthen or weaken the ability of the federal government to
apply federal standards in areas of provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian health
and social transfer is the best of all possible worlds.
It provides more flexibility for the provinces in programming.
At the same time it ensures fundamental principles and
standards under the act. That is a sign of very creative policy
making, which only this government is capable of doing and
which the Reform Party is totally incapable of understanding.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
best of all possible worlds is apparently the ability of the
government to talk out of both sides of its mouth.
[Translation]
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Is the
new Canada social transfer designed to strengthen the
government's ability to impose federal standards, as the
Liberals say in English, or to reinforce areas of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, as the Liberals say in French?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
we established five very important health care principles in
order to protect the health care network throughout Canada.
Of course, these principles will still be protected under the
new transfer program. At the same time, we will hold
negotiations with all the provinces to discuss the new principles
based on a consensus among all partners. The new federalism is
based on consensus, partnership and co-operation for the future.
* * *
(1440)
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In his 1994 report, the auditor general gives numerous
examples of mismanagement resulting, among other things,
from DND's inability to assess the cost of its operations. More
recently, we learned that the cost of the frigates was
underestimated by nearly $2 billion, with two of the twelve
frigates yet to be delivered.
How can the minister maintain that the projected savings
announced in the 1995 budget will be achieved, when the
Auditor General's figures show that the department keeps
miscalculating its expenditures?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker,
the department must realize all the savings as announced in the
1995 budget as with 1994, simply because we have only so much
money that floated by Parliament to the department. Therefore,
rest assured the budget cuts that were announced will be put in
place as they were in 1994.
I would like to dispute what my friend opposite said when he
talks about the problems with the Canadian frigate program. As
with all new technological developments, and the fact that a lot
of new integrated systems require pioneering developmental
work with the frigate, there are teething problems. There are
problems with getting accustomed to the new technologies.
However, what the hon. member has conveniently forgotten to
mention is that this project has come in about a billion dollars
under budget.
11811
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we
do know about the frigate program is that it will come in at $2
billion over budget, not $1 billion under, like the minister said.
Since senior officials of the Department of National Defence
recognize that the Canadian Forces can still buy all the
equipment they need in spite of budget cuts, will the minister
admit that his department's capital budget has been
overestimated, that more drastic cuts should have been made
and that no submarines should be purchased, as specified in the
Bloc Quebecois's dissenting report?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member seems to be advocating even greater cuts in the budget
of the Department of National Defence.
I would like to point out that while the members for the
official opposition advocated in the last election a 25 per cent
cut in federal expenditures in defence, when we have cut not
nearly by that amount but by a significant amount over the last
couple of years, the first to object to the application of those cuts
are the hon. members for the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, millions of
land mines are buried in countries around the world, inhibiting
post-war reconstruction and killing hundreds of men and
women every month.
The UN will be convening in September to discuss
strengthening its conventions regulating the trade and the use of
land mines.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether Canada, a world
leader in de-mining activities, will support a ban and a
moratorium on the use and international trade of land mines?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The hon. member should know
that a number of countries are presently respecting a
moratorium in this regard. Canada, I am told, has not exported
land mines since 1987.
We would like to work diligently with others in Vienna to
extend the convention on certain conventional weapons and to
ensure that land mines are covered and properly taken care of.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In the CRTC response to a draft the cabinet directly prepared
for direct to home broadcasting, it states that the proposed
government directive may be in violation of the Broadcasting
Act. The proposed DTH carriage rules and the revocation of the
exemption order may both be illegal according to the CRTC.
(1445)
Instead of attempting to benefit Power Corp. with cabinet
directives of questionable legal standing, why will the
government not refer the mess it has created to a House standing
committee where decisions will be made out in the open and
without the perception of family influence tainting the process?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, much of the content of the question has
already been answered this afternoon.
The government will table a document later on which contains
the thrust of government policy. I understand that our colleague
would like to explore many issues before the document is tabled.
She will have time tomorrow and in the ensuing days and weeks
to raise all the questions she would like once the policy has been
laid down.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to these questions, it has always been looking at the
issue of openness, accountability and transparency.
The government has been fast tracking the cabinet directive to
try to cover up the huge regulatory mess it has created. It is a
mess because it does not know if it wants open competition or
not. It is a mess because industry is opening our borders while
heritage is closing them. The DTH fiasco demonstrates that the
CRTC as well has outlived its purpose.
Rather than helping a favoured few, why not implement the
recommendations of the competition bureau to allow
telecommunications and broadcasting free market driven
competition?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague is addressing openness and
transparency. She has probably read the report of the panel on
DTH. That panel suggests the matter be put before the House
under section 7 of the Broadcasting Act. This is a very open
process, a very transparent process.
11812
Furthermore, the panel recommends the authority for DTH
be granted through a licensing process administered by the
CRTC. Here again, this is a very open and transparent process.
The member will see in a few minutes what the government
intends to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Immigration officials' decision not to deliver a
visitor's visa to Algerian filmmaker Hafsa Zinaï Koudil
continues to shock people. Indeed, it is most surprising that
Canada would refuse to welcome a filmmaker who received a
death sentence from Algerian fundamentalists for having
denounced, in her film, the oppression to which Algerian
women are subjected.
Did the Minister of Immigration reconsider the issue and will
he take action to allow Ms. Koudil to present her film at the
Festival Vues d'Afrique?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the hon.
member in this House that our officials rejected the application
after interviewing the applicant.
I also told the hon. member that if he had new information or
details, he or the applicant should contact departmental
officials.
There is a problem with visitors' visas. A person wishing to
come to Canada can apply for a visitor's visa. However, if there
are real problems relating to refugee status, then that person
must make an application after claiming refugee status and not
when applying for a visitor's visa. This is the kind of
clarification we seek from applicants.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister wants all the necessary information, he
should watch the evening news report. Last night, every
television network provided all that information. Everyone in
Canada probably knows about the issue, except the minister.
(1450)
How can the minister keep refusing to grant a visitor's visa to
this Algerian woman, while at the same time refusing to
immediately expel Mr. Rahmani, who is accused of being a
religious extremist as well as an active member of the Islamic
Salvation Front, the group behind the death threat to this
filmmaker?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member ought to
consult the immigration critic in terms of how visitor visa
applications are assessed. They are assessed on a case by case
basis. Of the nearly one million applications made worldwide,
86 per cent are approved.
What I said is there was something said during the interview
that caused concern. The person making the application has
every opportunity to provide clarification, to provide new
information. The member says just because it was in the news it
is what, a guarantee to do what?
I am open to looking into this case but there has to be the new
information, the special circumstances or the clarification
furnished by this applicant. Otherwise people in Quebec will
also see that somehow we treat visitor visa applications on
whether they are artists or not. That situation cannot be allowed.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of revenue. Access to information
documents revealed the Department of National Revenue spent
$250,000 in order to fly bureaucrats to Victoria during the
Commonwealth Games last August. In a written response to me
on September 28 the minister advised me that a total of only
$76,000 had been spent, a far cry from $250,000.
Could the minister explain the discrepancy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not have the letter the hon. member
refers to but if I may speculate the figure given in the newspaper
apparently refers to all the customs officers reassigned to
Victoria and Vancouver to take care of the number of people who
came specifically for the games, be they athletes, officials or
tourists who were there in the regular course of events.
There were a total of 60 people reassigned and of these there
were some who were from my staff and from the public affairs
office in Ottawa. If I may again toss my mind back to September
when I wrote him that letter, the paper is not talking about the
same group of people the letter referred to.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
in my hand the letter from the minister. It states very
specifically $76,000. I suggest the discrepancy between
$250,000 and $76,000 is an awfully wide gulf for anyone to
accept.
Can the minister explain more clearly to the House and to the
long suffering Canadian taxpayer why even $250,000 would
have been spent on this flying back and forth?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very simple to explain why we spent the
money, to take the extra customs officers from British Colum-
11813
bia, one from Yukon, three from Alberta, to put them where we
had this sudden rush of people crossing the border.
It must be recognized by the hon. member that Canada
Customs is the country's first line of defence against the
importation of drugs, weapons or terrorism from other
countries.
Therefore it is important for us when we are faced with a
situation such as we had to make sure we have the people in
place who are able to handle it. This type of flexibility is
perfectly normal. It took place for the Calgary 1988 winter
Olympics. It took place in the Nordic Games in northern Ontario
a few months ago and it will take place again if we are successful
with other bids for other games in the future.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week, I had the opportunity to visit employment centres
in my riding, and I noted a marked improvement in the services
provided. At the same time, however, we know that the
programs falling under the Department of Human Resources
Development will inevitably be hit by the budget cuts.
[English]
Can the minister please tell the House how his department is
improving services to assist the unemployed in finding jobs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to read
the article in Le Soleil which described the new system of
delivery that we are now introducing which will allow us to
substantially decentralize these services to the local level. Our
employment centres are able to work now in very close
partnership with provincial and municipal organizations, with
business and labour, and they will be able to share the
responsibility of getting people back to work.
The 11 projects in Quebec are part of a much larger
nationwide program which involves 70 Canada employment
centres. They are really the forerunner of a brand new design by
which the federal government is able to deliver these programs
much more efficiently and effectively, and in the meantime
ensure that far more Canadians get the chance to return to a job.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Twenty-six years after its passage, the Official Languages
Act is still not being evenly applied, in particular in the Ottawa
region. According to the Official Languages Commissioner,
French does not have equal status as a working language in the
National Capital Region's federal government offices.
How can the President of the Treasury Board not qualify the
fact that 62 per cent of all francophone federal employees in
Ottawa are hired to work exclusively in English as a complete
and total failure of institutionalized bilingualism?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been a number of improvements made over
the years. The government is dedicated to accelerating the rate
of improvement in terms of Canadians being able to get service
from federal institutions in the official language of their choice,
quality services.
We are asking all of our departments to submit action plans by
September which will outline what programs they will
undertake to improve levels of service. We will monitor them
further. In March of next year we will expect a progress report.
We will expect progress reports every six months thereafter. In
short, we are determined to live up to our obligations under the
Official Languages Act and its regulations.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
It has come to my attention the mileage allowance veterans
receive for going to doctor appointments is being decreased
significantly from 23 cents to 10 cents per kilometre. Could it be
these reductions were imposed on our sick and frail veterans to
pay for the luxurious 11.5 per cent increase the government has
made to the mileage allowance MPs and government employees
enjoy?
Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs assure the House he
will urge the government to rescind this decision?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
number of adjustments have been made with respect to the
11814
veterans affairs budget which reflect the cost of living. A
number of adjustments have been made for economic reasons.
I will take the hon. member's question and discuss it with
officials, who are busy with the Canada remembers ceremonies,
and I will get back to him with an answer.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
With the budget announcing the elimination of the Crow
benefit under the WGTA effective August 1, abandonment of
branchline protection effective January 1 and full grain rate
deregulation by the year 2000, the government has inflicted
great damage on the global competitive position of our prairie
farmers.
Assuming the government would like to see agricultural
activity continue on the prairies and given this land locked,
underpopulated but highly productive region will likely
continue to export the vast surpluses from production for years
to come, why has the government not considered turning control
of CNR, which it wants to privatize anyway, over to farmers so
they can control at least part of the system from farm to port?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the changes the hon. member has
referred to are very important ones. One that we think has to be
taken into account is the future ownership of the CNR.
A project to commercialize CN will be made public by
legislation presented to the House of Commons we hope
relatively soon. Certainly there will be nothing in that
legislation that would preclude the result the hon. member
seeks. That is, western farmers will be invited and encouraged to
participate in the largest single share issue in the history of this
country.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Public Works and government
services.
Since the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter program, the
minister has made a financial agreement and settlement with the
main contractor, called Unisys. Many of the suppliers and
subcontractors are small Canadian companies that require their
share of the settlement if they are to survive. What assurances
can the minister give these suppliers that they will indeed be
able to secure a fair portion of the $166 million settlement?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Oakville-Milton for her question and commend her for the
concerns she has for those small subcontractors in the EH-101
helicopter deal.
As members know, we kept our promise in the red book and
cancelled this deal in 1993. In March 1995 a final settlement was
reached with Unisys Canada for a total of $166 million, $98
million of which was for work that had been completed upon the
cancellation and $68 million for work that was in progress upon
termination.
The settlement agreement between Unisys and the crown
includes a provision that a portion of the settlement will not be
paid to Unisys until this company reaches its agreements with
the primary subcontractors of the deal.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Mrs.
Pimpa Chanprasong, Minister in the Office of the Prime
Minister of Thailand.
[Translation]
I would also like to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of Mr. Valdis Birkava, Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
very briefly want to mention that I made an error on page 11771
in
Hansard in debate when the member for
Broadview-Greenwood was up speaking and the member for
Saint-Léonard came in. I did not hear that he was calling time
allocation on Bill
11815
C-76. I said ``on this piece of legislation'', and we were actually
debating Bill C-70. I just wanted to straighten out the difference
between Bill C-70 and Bill C-76, although it is just as
disgusting to bring in time allocation on anything.
_____________________________________________
11815
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to
respond on behalf of the government, in both official languages,
to the recommendation in the sixth report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts, tabled on November 30, 1994.
* * *
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, two proposed
orders issuing directions to the CRTC respecting the
government's proposed policy on direct to home satellite
distribution.
The government is confident this process will provide the
CRTC with a DTH policy that reflects the interests of Canadians
and the integrity of the Canadian broadcasting system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
17 petitions.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to
the house, in both official languages, the fifth report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the
North Atlantic Assembly Subcommittee on Defence and
Security Cooperation between Europe and North America held
in New York and Washington, D.C., from January 29 to February
3, 1995.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-84, an act to provide for the review, registration, publication
and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents
and to make consequential and related amendments to other
acts.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House of my
intention to propose that this bill be referred to committee
before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act respecting the Office of the
Auditor General for the family.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
present a bill entitled ``An act respecting the Office of the
Auditor General for the family''.
This act would establish an office similar to but much smaller
than that of our respected financial auditor general, charged
with finding ways to encourage, support, and protect the nuclear
family.
No one can doubt that the family is one of the foundations of
our society, and Canada would do well to support that
foundation. This bill would provide some of that support in a
small but very tangible way.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
11816
(1510 )
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.) moved that Bill S-7, an act
to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles, be
read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think you will find consent for the following motion. I
should say that on April 6 this House granted the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans authority to travel and the
dates have been changed and that is the reason for this motion. It
is not an additional trip.
I move:
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be
authorized to travel to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo and Campbell River,
British Columbia, from May 7 to 12, 1995, to discuss Pacific salmon issues.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask
for unanimous consent to withdraw Bill C-312, a private
member's bill, because my colleague for Verdun-Saint-Paul
will shortly be presenting Bill C-313, which is essentially the
same as mine.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill withdrawn).
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present to the
House here assembled a petition from many citizens who
request that this Parliament not amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase ``sexual
orientation''.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have several petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from
many people from the lower mainland of British Columbia and
some from Alberta saying that they are concerned about the fact
that Canadians are overburdened with taxation. The petitioners
are asking the federal Parliament to not consider tax increases
and in fact implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal
spending.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Second, Madam
Speaker, there are many constituents from Beaver River, from
Radway and Smoky Lake who are asking, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, that the government not implement Bill C-41 and
specifically section 718(2), which would give special provision
based on sexual orientation. The petitioners say that the
behaviour people engage in does not warrant special
consideration in Canadian law.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Finally, Madam
Speaker, also pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have another
petition signed by many people in the constituency of Beaver
River, Bonnyville, Plamondon, Mallaig, and various towns, who
are asking also that physician assisted suicide or legalizing
euthanasia not be considered in the Canadian Parliament.
The petitioners are also praying that Parliament continue to
reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and that the
present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, which forbid counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting
that person to commit suicide, be enforced vigorously, and
finally that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that
would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to submit a
petition signed by people on the west island of Montreal,
including people from my riding of Pierrefonds-Dollard, with
respect to their approval of the proposed amendments to the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(1515)
They ask that Parliament amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act to include the undefined term ``sexual orientation'' in the
list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
11817
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by 514
constituents. The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other
federal legislation which provides for the inclusion of the phrase
``sexual orientation'' or any other approval of homosexuality.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three
petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is signed by people from the lower
mainland. The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament will not
repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way
and will uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of
September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are
calling upon 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''.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners call
upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
The first petition is signed by 485 Canadians primarily from
the Trenton, Ontario area but also from various other locations.
It calls upon Parliament to act immediately to extend protection
to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have another petition bearing the signatures of almost
800 Canadians primarily from my riding and surrounding
ridings in the Scarborough area. They are asking Parliament not
to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights
and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, finally I have a petition signed by approximately 900
Canadians on the issue of euthanasia.
They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions
of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
a petition bearing approximately 140 signatures signed by
constituents of my riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners believe that all Canadians are equal in the eyes
of the law and that section 718(2) of Bill C-41 excludes some
groups by naming some. As a result, the petitioners pray and
request that Parliament delete section 718(2) from Bill C-41.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition on behalf of six of my constituents and a number of
other citizens calling on Parliament to amend federal legislation
to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise with another petition in the Leonard Peltier case. This
petition is from 150 people in the Peterborough area and other
parts of Ontario.
The petitioners say that the paperwork surrounding Mr.
Leonard Peltier's extradition from Canada to the United States
was falsified by the U.S. authorities. Key witness Myrtle Poor
Bear who signed the falsified affidavits now publicly admits
that she lied on the paperwork as well as at the trial. The U.S.
courts refuse to put her on the stand, labelling her as mentally
incompetent.
The petitioners point out that since that time various
information has surfaced which indicates that Leonard Peltier is
innocent but still remains in prison after 18 years.
(1520 )
Under the U.S. freedom of information laws it was found that
the FBI had withheld certain evidence that would have been
helpful in Mr. Peltier's case.
11818
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament lobby and
advocate on behalf of Mr. Leonard Peltier to obtain a prison
transfer to Canada.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to table two petitions on behalf of residents of my
riding of Bruce-Grey.
The first petition calls upon 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''.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the other petition requests that Parliament ensure that present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding and
abetting of suicide, active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present six petitions from the
province of British Columbia.
The first petition deals with the issue of Canada's social
programs. The petitioners say that along with other Canadians
they have certain basic rights and that deep cuts to social
programs will hurt all Canadians and will have a profoundly
negative impact on the four million adults and children living
below the poverty line.
The petitioners therefore request that Parliament maintain
and enhance Canada's social programs.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition signed by 308 individuals deals
with euthanasia. They say the majority of Canadians respect the
sanctity of human life. They request that Parliament ensure that
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the final petition deals with the issue of sexual
orientation. The petitioners say that more than 80 per cent of
Canadians believe that gays, lesbians and bisexuals are
subjected to discrimination. They call upon Parliament to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals
from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by 54
Canadians including three resident in my riding.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to maintain the
single desk selling monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board.
They further request steps be taken to expand the powers of the
wheat board so that more grains and oilseeds can be placed
under monopoly control.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that
has been circulated across Canada. This particular petition has
been signed by a number of petitioners from the Surrey and
Delta regions of British Columbia.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing a family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have before me three petitions signed by members of the Peace
River riding.
The first petition is signed by 127 people who call upon the
Parliament of Canada to oppose any amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase ``sexual
orientation''.
I agree with that petition.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the second and third petitions deal with the issue of gun control.
The petitioners call upon Parliament not to enact any further
firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council.
They are also opposed to any laws that put more restrictions or a
prohibition on legal firearms ownership.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present this
petition signed by 25 petitioners. They are calling upon
Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination
against families who decide to provide care in the home for
preschool children as well as for the disabled, the chronically ill
and the aged.
11819
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present six petitions containing
1,848 signatures. It calls upon Parliament to reconsider the
passing of legislation on the new gun control measures as tabled
in the House. They are hopefully requesting amendments.
(1525)
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today.
The first petition is signed by 45 people who express great
concern with respect to the aiding or abetting of suicide and
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the second
petition which is signed by 42 people of my riding expresses
their concern with abortion. The petitioners call upon
Parliament to exercise its authority to enact legislation to halt
abortion.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the last
petition which I have to present is signed by 215 citizens. They
request that Parliament support laws which will severely punish
all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a
crime and that Parliament support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to present five petitions bearing hundreds of signatures of
Yellowhead constituents.
These petitions are due largely to the efforts of Edson
Reynolds of Evansburg. The petitioners ask Parliament to
introduce legislation by which the criminal misuse of firearms
would be severely punished and the right of law-abiding
citizens to own and use firearms would be protected.
I concur with the petitioners.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I suggest that the notice of motion for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
11819
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-76, An Act to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, not more than one further
sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of second reading stage of the
Bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government
Business on the allotted day of the second reading consideration of the said Bill,
any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the
purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of
the second reading stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively,
without further debate or amendment.
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
11820
(Division No. 200)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robillard
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-138
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-90
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Dubé
Gaffney
Harper (Churchill)
Langlois
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(1610 )
The House resumed from April 6 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.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am rising to participate in the debate today, in part
11821
because of the importance of the bill. I want to put some views in
respect of the bill on the record.
Also I want to anticipate what I know members opposite are
going to say in the course of their remarks. I expect that you,
Madam Speaker, and members of the House will be treated to a
lot of bleating and whining and shrieking this afternoon about
the evils of time allocation.
I want to speak briefly about the virtues of time allocation, at
least in respect to the bill today. I certainly have had cause to
criticize its use in the past. I want to point out today some
relevant facts about the use of time allocation in the debate on
this bill.
[Translation]
We have been debating this bill for four days. We debated it on
March 30, March 31, April 3 and April 6. And there had been
almost 16 hours of debate until today.
[English]
I turn to the experience we endured in respect of Bill C-93
during the debates in 1992 and 1993. That was another budget
implementation bill. It implemented a budget much worse than
the one to which Canadians have been subjected by the Minister
of Finance. He has had to take very difficult steps in the budget,
in part because of the dreadful budgets we endured during the
Tory years. Members on this side of the House will remember.
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Milliken: I do not think anyone except the hon. member
for Beaver River from the other side and some of the New
Democrats will remember that.
Mr. Boudria: The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Milliken: Oh, yes, the Leader of the Opposition. He
helped to bring in these budgets. I forgot about that. I am glad
the chief government whip reminded me of it.
In any event, in 1992 and 1993 when we were debating Bill
C-93, time allocation was used after eight hours and nineteen
minutes of debate. We have already had almost double the
debate before time allocation was used on this bill.
I know the hon. member for Beaver River was here and I
suspect she may have even spoken. Let me just check the list.
No, I do not see her name. She did not get to speak on that
occasion. I am sorry she did not because I am sure she would
have denounced the Conservative budget too.
She should be praising this one because it is doing all the
things she used to say the Tories did wrong. We have corrected
the Tory errors. We are trying to make up for their blunders. She
used to denounce them for failing to do things that we are now
doing. I am sure that in her heart of hearts she supports this
budget and would like to be able to vote for it today.
An hon. member: She does. She does.
Mr. Milliken: Except that her leader has told her she cannot,
so she is stuck.
An hon. member: No free vote.
Mr. Milliken: I will leave her out of it for the time being.
I want to point out that we have moved time allocation in
respect of the bill because we have had 15 hours and 40 minutes
of debate before today. We will have the rest of today on the bill,
all of the time allotted for Government Orders.
I am sorry we could not get any arrangement to extend the
time beyond that. Had we been able to get agreement pursuant to
the rules to limit debate to a certain time, the government House
leader in his beneficence would have given the time. We were
prepared to do that. However there was no willingness on the
part of the opposition to indicate when they would terminate
debate so the government has taken the step of bringing in time
allocation.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Milliken: It is a reasonable and fair use of the rule. The
hon. member from the New Democratic Party is yelling shame,
but he is smiling at the same time. In fact he knows we are letting
the opposition off the hook by using this because they were
running out of people who could make any intelligent remarks
on this bill. Virtually everyone had spoken. The well was
running dry. By using time allocation today we are in fact
helping the opposition.
(1615)
Let us turn to their criticisms of the budget. We are getting it
on both sides. It is worth the opposition parties hearing this. We
have the Bloc Quebecois on the one hand saying our cuts are too
draconian, and we have the Reform Party on the other hand
saying the cuts do not go far enough.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): We are right and they are
wrong.
Mr. Milliken: There we have it. We hear it from the hon.
member for Simcoe Centre. He says that they are right and the
Bloc is wrong. The thing is they are both wrong. It is the
government that has it right.
Mr. McCormick: It shows in the polls.
Mr. Milliken: It shows in the polls, as my friend from
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has indicated. It
shows in the polls and it shows in the hearts of Canadians. They
realize the government had to take tough measures. The govern-
11822
ment took tough measures and Canadians support their
government in the tough measures.
The hon. member for Simcoe Centre wags his head and says
that somehow they are not tough enough. The hon. member for
Bellechasse wags his head and says that they are too strong. I
will not choose between the two extremes. We have chosen a
reasonable path, a tough path but a fair path. That is what the
Minister of Finance did in his budget.
It is important, in looking at what he did, to bear in mind the
fact that he was trying to achieve equity, fairness and a balanced
budget. That was important.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): And he failed.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says that he failed. I point
out some facts that indicate it did not fail. It was a very
significant budget. It will be a great success.
It takes action to reduce government spending and refocus
activities of government on priorities and needs. The goal of the
strategy is clear, concrete and compelling. It is to restore
national fiscal health to Canada. In so doing it will reshape the
role of government to build a stronger and more dynamic
Canadian economy.
The budget will provide sustained growth for Canada and
confidence in Canada's future. New jobs will be created as a
result of the budget in spite of the ones that are lost, which we all
regret. It will also allow the Canadian government to preserve
its ability to help those in need. Major cuts in the social
programs of the country are not contained in the budget.
To meet the goal, the budget delivers on the commitment to
cut the deficit to 3 per cent of the economy in two years. That
was a red book commitment. Hon. members opposite do not like
to hear about the red book because it upsets them. It was a
success. It worked and it is still working.
An hon. member: We will probably exceed it.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says: ``We will probably
exceed it''. I agree with him. I intend to refer to that later in my
remarks. If the economic performance is stronger than the very
prudent forecast of the minister in his budget, the deficit should
fall even more.
The fiscal actions taken in the budget will total $29 billion
over the next three years, more than any budget since World War
II. In two years program spending will be $10.4 billion lower
than it is today.
Just as important, the budget also changes the structure of
how the government operates. The changes will ensure that
spending will be restrained beyond the two-year target period so
that the deficit will continue to fall, much to the dismay of
Reformers, and will reflect the government's commitment to
eliminate the deficit entirely.
To achieve these results the budget takes fundamental action
across government programs and operations. It implements the
results of program review, a comprehensive examination of
departmental spending. The government will focus on what is
essential and the government will do it better. The budgets of
some government departments, as hon. members know, have
been cut in half.
The budget also acts on the new vision of the federal
government's role in the economy, one that includes substantial
reductions in business subsidies. These will drop from $3.8
billion this year to $1.5 billion by 1997-98. They are very
substantial cuts.
The budget reforms major transfers to the provinces,
modernizing the federal-provincial fiscal regime and making it
more effective, flexible and affordable. These wide ranging
reforms will mean a smaller public service. Some 45,000 jobs
will be eliminated as we have heard in the budget speech, but we
will manage this difficult process with as much fairness as we
can manage including the use of early departure and retirement
incentives, some of which have already been announced by the
involved ministers of the crown.
It is also essential to be fair to the taxpayer, and the budget is
fair to Canadian taxpayers. The tax changes are modest. They
affect only the most wealthy. The cuts are $7 to every $1 of
increase in tax. It is a fair budget; it is a good budget. The hon.
members opposite should be voting for the bill.
(1620)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I remind hon. members
that debate is now 10 minutes maximum with no questions and
comments.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands did a desperate job
of defending the restrictions on debate this afternoon, but there
really is no excuse for restricting debate on such an important
topic. It is not because the media do not think it is a hot topic any
more but because people out there are aware of the budget and
the problems it could produce.
At the various public meetings I am attending people keep
asking me: ``What did you think of that budget?'' It is almost as
if there is this background awareness that the budget, which was
a major anticlimax, might just come back to haunt us.
Several weeks ago when the finance minister had his short
meeting with Moody's bond rating service it was clear that
Moody's went away dissatisfied with the explanation from the
finance minister. The Financial Post predicted the same day that
Canada's debt rating would be downgraded within a few days.
As we see that is exactly what happened.
11823
Even when Moody's announced the downgrade the markets
had already anticipated the news and there was very little
reaction out there. As the lack of substance in the budget
becomes more and more apparent, it is quite likely we will
continue to incur ever higher interest rates to finance our
borrowings.
We have been lulled into a false sense of security lately by a
dollar that seems to have risen a little in value. I even heard the
business reporter on CTV this morning saying that our dollar
was holding up very well. However, when we look at our
currency against a basket of major world currencies instead of
simply comparing it with the U.S. dollar, we find that our
currency has continued to drop against the basket of major
currencies.
In an international sense we are actually losing ground quite
rapidly. This means that price inflation is just around the corner.
Significant price jumps have started to occur already in some
consumer products. In my office we recently purchased a second
laser printer. The price had jumped more than 8 per cent in six
months. Can anyone remember when the price of electronic
goods actually went up? Prices have been dropping for years
now, and all of a sudden we have price increases on things like
cameras, VCRs, vegetables, garden tools, paint and cars, almost
everything. It is starting to look like standard Liberal economic
policy: allow the dollar to drop and inflation comes roaring back
in.
The dollar dropped in the late seventies and early eighties
from $1 to 85 cents. Inflation rose. The export sector boomed. It
all looked very rosy. We had the appearance of prosperity while
our deficit and debt were ballooning dramatically.
Unfortunately the strategy is not going to work this time. We are
a little too close to the debt wall for it to be effective.
Because of my business background I have quite a number of
friends who are small business people. I have taken the time to
ask them in the last few weeks about their sales and price levels
over the past six months. In a group that includes one of the most
productive realtors in the country, a hardware and garden tools
importer, a car dealer and a furniture sales company, all have
experienced dramatic drops in sales over the past two months at
the same time as they have experienced huge price increases
from suppliers because of the low dollar.
Stacey's, a large furniture manufacturer in Vancouver,
revealed on a radio talk show last week that bankruptcies in the
furniture industry were imminent because sales had suddenly
dropped to levels lower than they were in the last recession. On
the same radio talk show, bankruptcies of car dealers were being
predicted as well.
The hardware importer I know has had two price increases
exceeding 15 per cent, in some cases since January, and reports
that some retail clients have declared bankruptcy in the past
month. Sales in this sector have dropped sharply at the same
time as the price increases that they are trying to pass on because
of low profit margins.
Except for the export sector, the good news is not being passed
on to other parts of the business sector. In the meantime there are
those sneaky budget tax increases in place taking a bite out of
everyone's spending power.
(1625)
The Liberals and the NDP must be the only people in the
country who think that the penalty tax on banks announced in the
budget will not lead to higher bank service charges or loan
charges for the average Canadian.
Liberals and the NDP must be the only people in the country
who think that a 1 per cent increase in corporate taxes and a
change that forces corporations to report their income at the end
of a calendar year will not lead to an increase in the price of
goods.
Liberals and the NDP must be the only people in the country
who think that a 1.5 cent increase per litre on gasoline will not
lead to an increase in the price of gasoline. Actually the new gas
tax also increases the GST because GST is added on after the
other taxes on the price of gasoline.
Incidentally the Deputy Prime Minister said during the
election campaign that if the GST had not gone within a year of
the election she would resign. She has not done that yet.
As I have said before, despite the tax increases and the token
spending cuts, the ship of state is still going down a little bit
slower with a smaller crew on board. That is all. In three years
the increase in interest payments on our growing debt will
consume every cent of savings the minister made in his budget.
He did not go nearly far enough and he is not going fast enough.
I mention New Zealand all the time in my speeches. It has
shown us the way by making some pretty massive cuts in
government spending at the same time as it lowered taxes. New
Zealand is now expecting a budget surplus in excess of $3
billion. It forecast $2 billion and is getting in excess of a $3
billion surplus. It has increased spending on social programs. Its
unemployment rate is down to 5.6 per cent.
I cannot use props in the House but I have a full page
advertisement from a New Zealand newspaper wherein Roger
Douglas, the architect of a lot of New Zealand's restructuring,
has now proposed that by the year 2000 New Zealand could have
zero income tax.
I am not suggesting we could follow the procedure here
because New Zealand is going to run on a 15 per cent GST. That
is easy to do with a consumption tax when there are no bordering
countries. Perhaps by the year 2000 New Zealand could be
income tax free and running on just a consumption tax. Imagine
zero per cent income taxes. That is pretty good.
11824
I repeat what I have said before. The best way to put more
money in the hands of the poor, of families, of business, of
everyone, is to cut spending and to cut taxes. Tax cuts and
spending cuts make it easier for people to buy homes and
improve their standard of living. Things work better when
people make their own spending decisions instead of having big
brother government make the decisions for them.
High taxes punish those who are the most productive in our
society. High taxes are a symptom of a government's failure,
incompetence and inability to see the damage taxes are doing to
society.
The finance minister gave it his best shot and was overruled
by what might be a socialist cabinet. I congratulate him for
trying but I castigate him for not doing what he knew had to be
done. He stands responsible for the massive loss of net worth
that is now occurring for Canadians across the country who do
not have offshore shipping companies and a multimillion dollar
worth.
Shame on the government. Shame on the MPs who failed their
constituents by avoiding the truth that we cannot buy our way
out of poverty. We have not even begun to address other very
real problems with government programs that lead to waste and
cheating.
For example, I have a copy of an advertisement that appeared
in the Vancouver Sun on March 4, 1995. It was sent to me by a
constituent, Mr. George Brooks. The advertisement reads:
UIC top-up positions: two festival production jobs available mid-April with
performing arts association. Outgoing individuals with festive or event
experience sought. Must have minimum of 21 weeks UI benefits.
My constituent asks since when has UIC been a prerequisite
for employment in Canada. Here we have blatant abuse of a
program that is supposed to help people get retrained. Mr.
Brooks has asked quite a good question.
(1630 )
Special interest groups know how to milk our system. Nothing
was done about it in the budget.
Look at Bombardier. The hon. member mentioned
government grants to business. Bombardier, a tremendously
profitable corporation, is receiving grants from the federal
government. These grants go directly to the bottom line because
it is a profitable company. We have no business giving grants to
a company like Bombardier.
I urge members to vote against the implementation of the
1995 budget on the basis that it has failed to address government
spending and brings us one step closer to a debt and currency
crisis.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have to wonder what the hon. member who
has just spoken has been reading, where he gets his information
and why he is referring to what he believes to be a currency
crisis or something like that. It is that kind of irresponsible talk
on the part of hon. members which could do damage to the
economy of this country.
Luckily for all of us, and I will put it as kindly as I can, very
few people, if any, would believe what the hon. member has just
said. That is why it likely will not do any damage. I could put it a
bit less kindly but I will not.
[Translation]
The budget tabled in this House on February 27 by the hon.
Minister of Finance provides for the most stringent measures
ever adopted by any government in the last 50 years. During the
last election campaign, we promised the Canadian people in the
red book that we would reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by
1996-97. That is what we are going to do. Not only that, but we
will probably do more: we will reduce the deficit even more
vigorously than we announced.
Second, as you know, the deficit will be down to 1.7 per cent
of GDP the following year and, who knows, Canada may even
have a balanced budget one or two years later.
We in the Liberal Party have managed to do in a few years
what the Tory government was never able to do during its nine
years in office. During those nine years, Tory ministers made
annual fiscal projections about Canada's deficit. Not once did
the Tory government ever meet its objectives.
We have brought down two budgets. After the first budget, we
not only met our objective, we exceeded it. Of course, the
second budget was tabled only a few weeks ago, on February 27
to be exact, and we are still putting in place the measures needed
to meet requirements.
Total savings over the next three years will be $29 billion: $5
billion in 1995-96, $10.6 billion in 1996-97 and $13.3 billion in
1997-98. Reform members just told us that no money would be
saved. That could not be further from the truth.
Take a good look at some of the cuts that were made. We will
have reductions, in departmental budgets for example, totalling
$3.9 billion in 1995-96, $5.9 billion in 1996-97 and $7.2 billion
in 1997-98. The public service will be reduced by some 45,000
positions. Of course, as a member of the party elected in the
National Capital Region, I am not thrilled to see some of my
constituents lose their jobs. But if we had not taken these harsh
measures, that will work and have indeed worked so far, we
would be much worse off in the future.
Subsidies to business will be reduced by some 60 per cent.
That is a major reduction.
11825
(1635)
Only major banks are hit with tax hikes. Other businesses
were almost all spared, except, of course, for the fuel tax, which
increased by 1.5 cents per litre. That is the only new tax that will
affect most of my constituents, generally speaking.
[English]
Some Bloc Quebecois members say that this budget is way too
severe or something to that effect. Members of the Reform Party
say it is not severe enough. Could it be that these two groups are
at one extreme and the other? Could it be that the middle ground
is what is reasonable? Could it be that the middle ground is the
belief of Canadians and also the program on which we were
elected? I say it is so and it is not just me. Let me read what some
other Canadians have said.
Here is what Jayson Myers of the Canadian Manufacturers'
Association said: ``I am impressed. I applaud the minister for
what he has done''. That is a quote from this business leader.
Reform Party members pretend they know what is good for
business. Let us listen to another one.
[Translation]
``This is a good budget'', said Ghislain Dufour, president of
the Conseil du patronat du Québec. Again, this is from someone
who ought to know what he is talking about.
[English]
This statement is by Fred Ketchen, chairman of the board of
the Toronto Stock Exchange, probably not a bleeding heart
socialist. He says: ``A responsible, a fair, a realistic and even a
humane budget''.
Mr. Pension: Any grants?
Mr. Boudria: I say to members across the way that grants to
businesses have been cut by 60 per cent. Of course they probably
were not listening, they never do.
Here is another quote: ``It is a good budget on several fronts''.
This was stated by Peter Wolford of the Retail Council of
Canada. The Retail Council of Canada sure does not get any
grants. Let us listen to another one.
[Translation]
Michel Audet, president of the Province of Quebec Chamber
of Commerce said: ``This is a real budget based on concrete
measures''. Now listen to this: an economist with Nesbitt
Burns-since the members opposite want to hear from the
financial sector-said: ``This is a great budget and not just a
smoke screen''. That person added that this was a realistic
budget.
[English]
This is what Lloyd Atkinson of MT Associates said: ``This is
one of the few budgets I have seen in a very long time where the
promise was matched by the reality''. That is us. We made
commitments to the people of Canada in the red book and we are
going to live up to those commitments. Whether those
commitments are for gun control, for restoring the financial
integrity of this country, or for good government and sound and
frugal management, all of those things will be delivered because
that is what we said we would do. In fact, that is what we are
delivering to the people of Canada.
Mr. Penson: What about the GST?
Mr. Boudria: Some members are asking us about the GST.
We are well on our way to correcting all of the things we want to.
We were only elected 18 months ago. Our program is for a five
year mandate and we will deliver. In our second mandate we will
have another red book and we will deliver again. In our third
mandate we will do the same thing, and so on. We intend to
provide good government in the short, medium and long term
for the people of Canada. The people of Canada know this and
will recognize this in the next election campaign in 1998 or
whenever it occurs.
While we are talking about election campaigns, Bobby Rae in
our own province of Ontario is probably going to call an election
within a few days. His mandate has completely expired. He tried
to launch an attack against the budget until he realized that most,
if not all, Canadians agreed with the budget except for him. Of
course, he was unable to use the budget to launch his campaign.
His left wing agenda is not going anywhere because that is not
what the people want.
(1640)
Neither will the common nonsense revolution of Mike Harris
in Ontario. I am sorry, the common sense revolution as he calls it
is not going to fly anywhere because again there are the two
extremes like we see across the way.
The people of Ontario will also do the right thing. They will
elect Lyn McLeod and a very good government for the province
of Ontario, such as we are delivering to the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois decided to fight Bill C-76 tooth and nail.
Basic reasons motivate us to keep this promise, for example,
fairness. All too often, the budget hits the middle class and the
needy instead of addressing inequities within the tax system.
The government has refused to review the tax system, despite
the Bloc Quebecois' repeated requests over the past year and a
half. In addition, the current budget cuts do not target
unnecessary or extravagant spending, such as the purchase of
furniture for the fisheries minister's office. No, they hit the
neediest.
11826
Another example is the army. The Bloc Quebecois
recommended cutting the Minister of National Defence's
budget, but only targeted unnecessary spending or spending in
non-essential areas. For example, Operation William Tell, $7
million; the lavish fishing trips to the tune of $1.2 million; the
number of generals, their assistants and retinues of support
staff; mansions for high-ranking officers; the Reserves, which
cost us some $532 million but have no specific mission,
according to several generals.
Instead, with Bill C-76, the government hits the neediest,
widows, orphans, and veterans, whose average age is 73 years.
Bill C-76 hits three acts which are administered by Veterans
Affairs. The seven clauses of the bill which affect these three
acts all cut benefits and allowances.
Clause 42 will have the effect of gradually phasing out
education assistance benefits for the children of deceased
veterans. In fact, clause 42 amends the Children of Deceased
Veterans Education Assistance Act. This amendment initiates
the gradual phasing out of a veterans benefit that provides the
children of deceased veterans with the assistance they need to
continue their education. With a few exceptions, the 85 students
now receiving these benefits are the children of deceased
military personnel who participated in Canadian peacekeeping
missions. Students who were receiving the benefit on the day the
budget was tabled will continue to receive it under this
legislation but the department will not accept new applications.
Clauses 68 to 72, inclusive, amend the War Veterans
Allowance Act by terminating the payment of allowances to
allied veterans of resistance groups. As of September 1, 1995 or
within two months after Bill C-76 receives royal assent,
whichever comes later. The same provision will also initiate the
gradual phasing out of allowances payable to allied veterans in
uniform who immigrated to Canada at the end of their service
and resided in Canada for at least 10 years before applying for
veterans allowance.
Bill C-76 will terminate payment of allowances to about
3,000 veterans. Payments will also be terminated in the case of
1,000 veterans of resistance groups whose old age security and
Canada Pension Plan benefits raise their incomes just above the
threshold below which they would be entitled to certain health
care benefits. The provinces will inherit this new set of clients,
two thirds of whom are Quebecers.
Clause 73(a) would terminate compensation for loss of
income in the case of veterans who are required to appear before
a review board.
(1645)
Clause 73(b) would also do away with compensation for
income loss and includes other restrictions on travel and living
expenses occasioned by a medical examination required by the
minister. We oppose this loss of benefits for veterans. Society's
disadvantaged-seniors, widows and children-are being
attacked.
Let us look at a specific example: a woman in Montreal, a
widow, who has just received a notice in the mail. The director
general of veterans' benefits at Veterans Affairs Canada, Doris
Boulet, is advising her that she will lose all the assistance she
has been receiving for a number of years. Under the provisions
proposed in Bill C-76, this woman will lose on a number of
counts. First, she will lose her allowance. Second, she will no
longer enjoy the related benefits she received from Veterans
Affairs Canada, including her Blue Cross identity card. Third,
she will no longer have access to veterans' independence
programs, nor, fourth, to Veterans Affairs Canada contributions
to long term health care. In short, she is being abandoned.
The letter tells her to act quickly to find other sources of
financial and health care assistance. It reminds her of existing
programs: federal government programs, such as old age
security and the guaranteed income supplement, and provincial
government programs, such as social assistance and health care
plans. She is advised that these are her options to help her
replace the financial assistance and the other benefits she will no
longer enjoy following adoption of Bill C-76.
In fact, the need of that woman is recognized, but she is
simply referred to other federal and provincial public services.
This is a good example of duplication. That woman is told that
she can get help from both the federal and provincial levels. Yet,
as I recall, veterans affairs come under federal jurisdiction.
Here is another example. The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot learned from Branch No. 2 of the
Royal Canadian Legion that the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue
hospital is increasing the monthly rate for its rooms from $547
to $704. This increase of 28 per cent brings to 198 per cent the
total increase for these veterans since 1990. Veterans are
offended, hurt and humiliated by such off-hand treatment on the
part of a country they paid to protect. Why penalize these
veterans by offloading onto them the financial burden related to
the treatment of injuries which they suffered while defending
our country? There are many other places cuts could have been
made.
If I had suggested that the responsibility of the Department of
Veterans Affairs should be decentralized and delegated to the
provinces to ensure greater efficiency, federalists would
immediately have objected, on the grounds that this is an
exclusive federal jurisdiction. Bill C-76 leads us to one
conclusion: the federal is no longer able to meet its
responsibilities. Why not decentralize by delegating to the
provinces responsibilities as well as tax points?
The federal system is obsolete. We need autonomous
provinces which would give to the federal government, or to
another economic and political union, a mandate and a budget to
manage certain joint responsibilities. In short, the Bloc is
opposed to the
11827
loss of these benefits for veterans. The poor, the elderly, widows
and children are too often the ones who are targeted.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Ottawa West-Public service of Canada.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to bring some reality to the fact
that the Canadian public is in tune with and in favour of the
recent budget.
At a recent meeting in Haliburton I had the pleasure of
speaking to a group from the chambers of commerce from
Haliburton to the Quebec border. Most of them are managers,
some operate chambers of commerce, are CEOs and so forth.
They agreed that for the first time since the 1940s there was
actually a budget cut, that it was not just a freeze, it was not
something that would be taken off at the next election, it was not
something that was going to change. It was actually an alternate
course the government has decided to embark on. They
applauded that.
(1650)
In researching the budget in order to speak to the chamber of
commerce and find something to talk about that I thought would
be of interest to them, I did look at the reduction of business
subsidies. These are dear to most of our hearts. We all believe
that businesses should not be financed by federal governments.
We have talked about that many times.
A key principle of the 1995 budget, as the Minister of Finance
said, was to redesign the role of government in the economy to
fit the size of the pocketbook and the priorities of our people.
The decision dramatically reduces subsidies to businesses and
shows how that principle is at work.
The simple fact is that subsidies often did more harm to
businesses than help. It is a problem business leaders
themselves have often pointed to. This was confirmed in the
1994 OECD job studies, which said that subsidies tend to
operate in exactly the opposite way from what is needed: they
slow rather than stimulate adjustment, they discourage rather
than encourage innovation, and they tend to become permanent.
That is why the budget cuts business subsidies by 60 per cent,
from $3.8 billion last year to $1.5 billion by 1997-98. Areas
where subsidies will drop sharply include agriculture and
transportation. Again, we can no longer afford subsidies that
were designed decades ago and that today are actually
undercutting adaptation, diversification, and competitiveness.
Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies are being
eliminated, for a savings of $2.6 billion over five years. But
because of the scope of this change there will be transition
measures. For example, we will make a one-time payment of
$1.6 billion to prairie farmer landowners and invest a further
$300 million to help establish a more efficient grain handling
and transportation system.
As well, in line with the recent decision of federal and
provincial agriculture ministers, we will develop a core national
whole farm package. This shared cost program will replace
current programs based on individual commodities. This will
encourage innovation and diversification while producing a 30
per cent reduction in federal contributions to agricultural safety
nets.
The Atlantic freight subsidies will also be eliminated, for
five-year savings of $500 million. This again will be balanced
by a five-year transition program, including helping to
modernize the highway system in Atlantic Canada and eastern
Quebec.
Of course our cuts to subsidies extend far beyond agriculture
and transportation. At Industry Canada subsidies will fall by
half, from $525 million in 1994-95 to $264 million in three
years. Remaining spending will focus on initiatives in high
growth sectors and in partnerships with the private sector.
A new role for the regional development agencies will see
them focusing on small and medium sized enterprises. This
assistance will rely on loans and repayable contributions rather
than direct subsidies. As a result, subsidies from these agencies,
the western diversification, the Federal Office of Regional
Development for Quebec, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency, will drop from $700 million to $234 million.
Subsidies to cultural industries are also being reduced. This
includes an eight per cent reduction in the postal subsidy, which
reduces mailing costs for certain books and magazines.
As well, we are eliminating the Public Utilities Income Tax
Transfer Act, which returns to provinces the taxes paid by
privately owned utilities. As a result, major energy subsidies
will virtually disappear, dropping from $410 million now to $8
million.
These subsidy cuts are vital components in restoring Canada's
fiscal health. We also recognize that there are times and places
where governments can and should assist the private sector in
today's fast changing global environment. For example, the
government will continue to play an appropriate role in
supporting exports for companies in sectors facing intense
international competition.
11828
(1655 )
The government will be working with Canada's banks
between now and the fall to elaborate meaningful benchmarks
regarding small business lending.
A survey in my riding provided overwhelming support for the
budget. In fact most would have gone further. Eighty per cent
approved the cuts made and are looking for Canada to live
within the fiscal constraints of the reality of our income.
The results of my survey include to this date 1,167 people as
of yesterday. One of the questions was: Do you agree with the
government department spending cuts announced in the 1995
budget? That was a very simple question. The response was no,
18 per cent; yes, 73.6 per cent.
Do you believe the government spending cuts went too far?
Yes, 8.7 per cent; no, 83.9 per cent. Do you believe that the
government's spending cuts did not go far enough? Yes, 70 per
cent; no, 19.6 per cent. Do you support the proposed changes to
MPs' pensions? The survey indicated what those changes were.
Yes, 90.9 per cent.
An hon. member: Is that not interesting?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): I wonder about that.
Mr. O'Reilly: Is that not interesting? They support them. No,
6.8 per cent.
The other one I really liked: Do you believe that your member
of Parliament should opt out of the pension program provided
for members of Parliament? Yes, 28 per cent; no, 82 per cent.
What are the people of Canada saying about the budget? They
are saying that they support it. What are they saying about
members' pension plans? They are saying that they support
those cuts.
So the doom and gloom from across the way is just that, doom
and gloom. I am not sorry we have taken the Reform agenda
away from them. It does not bother me at all.
There are 205 rookies in Parliament who came here to make a
difference. This budget made a difference. The Liberal Party
made a difference, and we will continue to provide good
government for Canadian people, which is what they asked for
and what they elected us for and what we are doing.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to rise today to speak against Bill C-76, the
budget implementation act.
I would like to make a couple of comments before I get into
my presentation. I just cannot help but do this.
I was interested when the government whip in his presentation
was making all those quotes about what people said about this
magnificent government budget. One quote that he apparently
forgot was the very important quote from Moody's. The quote
from Moody's of course was: "This budget is too little, too late,
and unrealistic." It is going to cost all Canadian taxpayers
millions if not billions of dollars because Moody's did give that
verdict on the budget.
I was also interested in the survey results just quoted by the
member for Victoria-Haliburton, where his constituents said
that they supported the budget, that they supported the cuts.
They want cuts. The very next question was that the cuts did not
go far enough. That is what his people responded to, and that is
what the Canadian people are saying in responding to the
budget. It made some cuts. They were not deep enough. They did
not go far enough.
I guess it is appropriate to be talking about the budget today
because today marks a milestone. The debt passed $550 billion
today, not a milestone we can be very proud of. In fact we should
all be ashamed of it.
The word guts is not a word I use, but it was used by the Prime
Minister the other day in responding to a question in this House.
I am going to use it today in suggesting that this budget lacked
guts. It did not do the things that have to be done. The courage
was not there to do it. What is more, the budget lacked vision.
We have wasted a year and a half. We had our first budget and
now we have come up with the second stage of a two-part budget
that does nothing to address the most serious problem we have in
this country. In that wasted year and a half, what has happened to
the debt? The debt has gone from $490 billion to just over $550
billion. Is that an accomplishment? I do not think so.
The message a year ago in the budget was don't worry, be
happy. Because of that, we are $60 billion deeper in debt. Think
about that first budget. It did not help the situation; it aggravated
it. It brought out the much heralded infrastructure program: $6
billion to buy your way to prosperity. It is the old shell game.
Two for one. What a deal. ``We will give you one, and you get
two for one''. The same taxpayer is being bribed with his own
money.
(1700)
Mr. Calder: Why did the member say it was a good program?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): The government realized the
infrastructure program was not good. It has now been extended
supposedly because the municipalities have been asking for it,
but that was not stated in the budget.
11829
Unbelievably we reduced tobacco taxes that first year. Here
we are with our backs to the wall, in debt up to our eyeballs
and we gave away what was admitted at the time to be about
$300 million. The government did not understand the
seriousness of the problem. We gave away $300 million. That
does not even begin to touch the health costs implicit in
encouraging people to start smoking again by reducing the
taxes.
However it was not $300 million. It cost the Canadian
taxpayers $850 million in an attempt to drive the bad guys away.
``We are only going to do this until the bad guys disappear, then
we are going to put the tax back''. The Liberals were dreaming
in technicolour at a time when they should not have been
dreaming, they should have been facing reality.
The last thing we were involved in thanks to this government
was the Pearson mess. We are still debating whether it is a
Liberal scandal or a Tory scandal. While we are doing that the
airport is deteriorating. The jobs that could have been created
there have not been created. In the long term it will cost jobs
across Canada. That is all because of the government failing to
face reality and take action.
The other comment I wanted to address at the beginning was:
``We did not do this; we just took over. It was the Conservatives
that started all this. They did not address the deficit''. The
present government was in opposition. I cannot recall a great
deal of emphasis from them in those years to cut spending. As a
matter of fact, I detected the exact opposite. Whenever the
Conservative government, realizing the magnitude of the
problem, tried to do something about it like revising the UI
program, the howls of indignation from the Liberals were
unbelievable.
It is a little hypocritical to sit over there and say: "It is not us.
We did not cause the deficit." They sure did not help by
supporting the cuts the Tories were trying to make. Not to
mention the government was in place when we started this slide
down the debt hole. When the Liberals were defeated in 1984 the
debt at that point was just under $200 billion and all
Conservative efforts to reduce it failed miserably because they
were not getting the support they needed from the opposition.
Now we come to the budget. A year ago it was: ``Don't worry,
be happy''. Now Canadians are being told: ``It is a serious
situation. It is life threatening. We have to do something about
it. We have to cut spending''. They blew it big time. The one
thing the Liberals had to do was show leadership by example.
They had to address our gold plated MP pension plan and they
did not do it. They blew big time any credibility they had with
the Canadian people in that budget.
It is interesting the MP pension cuts were not in the budget. I
am sure the finance minister looked at that program and said:
``Forget it. It would be a disaster in my budget''.
Mr. Penson: You have got to pay the price.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): You have to pay the price. You
have to show leadership by example. It was not there, so the
budget started off on a very bad note. They just blew all
credibility.
Let us talk about the budget. In 1997 the debt will be $650
billion. That is the bottom line. That is an accomplishment?
That is reality. That is a fact. Interest rates on it amount to $55
billion to $60 billion. That is reality. That is a fact. We will still
be overspending by $25 billion. That is reality. That is an
accomplishment? It is a disaster we are going to have to face and
deal with.
The IMF brought out a study this week on growth and the
world economy. It showed Canada's growth at 4.3 per cent in
1995 and 2.6 per cent in 1996. Bad news is coming. Are we
prepared for it? I suggest not. Just below the growth in the world
economy is how Canada's debt stacks up. It is compared to our
other trading partners. Canada is the absolute worst and
worsening.
(1705 )
Canada has the distinction of being the world's largest
offshore debtor. That debt has increased. During the last year the
offshore debt has gone from $319 billion to $341 billion.
Twenty-eight billion dollars in interest payments flow out of
Canada to those countries that have been supporting our lavish
lifestyle. It does not do a thing for the economy. We are not in
control of our own destiny. That control is in the hands of the
people who have been supporting that lavish lifestyle we have
been enjoying while we lived beyond our means.
What will be the future costs of the Moody's downgrade? As I
suggested at the beginning, it is going to be in the area of
millions if not billions of dollars. We cannot say we were not
warned. We got a warning shot before the budget. Moody's said:
``Your 3 per cent target is far too low and we want you to give us
a date when you are going to get to zero''. Rolling two-year
targets are laughable.
I can see myself going to my bank manager and saying: ``I
know I am in debt, but will you keep lending me money if I give
you a rolling two-year target?'' He would throw me out of his
office after he had a fit of hysterics.
Several clouds are on the horizon that are not faced in the
budget and of course there is what can happen in the United
States.
I will close by saying that the situation prompts me to recall
buying my first home. The neighbour next door had all the
trappings, lovely furnishings. I thought he must be making a lot
of money. Reality was the creditors moving in and closing him
down because he was doing it with his credit card. That is what
we are doing and it could hurt our future generations.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I remind the next
member that we have only eight minutes left.
11830
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-76.
I just read something in Quorum: ``A new fever for frugality''.
That is what we are talking about today. Among other things I
have learned in my last 18 months as a politician are three
words: imbalance, fluctuation and disturbance. These are three
words that politicians hate to hear. They are also the basis for
innovative and creative thinking. That is what the budget is
showing right now.
The 1994-95 estimates show the first reduction in budgetary
requirements in 20 years. In the next fiscal year spending here
will drop by 6 per cent, and 3 per cent each year after. Senior
employees on the House staff have been cut by 15 per cent. MPs
remuneration, salaries, as an example, have been frozen and will
remain frozen.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Tell us about the pension plan.
Mr. Calder: The pension plan has been cut back also. I get a
kick out of how cynical the member for Simcoe Centre can be at
times. The member and I had the opportunity a couple of weeks
ago to tour base Borden. This will give members a rough idea of
the innovation I am talking about.
With the cuts that have been made to the Department of
National Defence, base Borden at the present time is working in
conjunction with Georgian College. The member knows this
because we saw it. Base Borden is conducting welding classes as
a way of utilizing the facilities. It is holding catering courses
and courses for firefighting and for paramedical training. The
member knows this.
This is all part of budget cuts and innovative thinking. This is
what I am talking about if the member would just listen. We
wanted to make sure the budget was fair to the taxpayer.
Mr. Penson: Did you run your farm like that?
Mr. Calder: I went through this with my farm.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I would ask
members to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Calder: Madam Speaker, I apologize. The member asked
if that was the way I ran my farm. In 1984 I was a pig farmer. The
draconian cuts he and his party are talking about would be the
same as me saying that I am not going to pay the taxes on my
farm, or my hydro bill or buy any clothes this year.
(1710 )
What they are talking about are targets that cannot be made.
One of the things laid out in the budget is the fact that we are
keeping our targets. In fact, we have set targets that are based on
very pessimistic growth. Even the business community said that
we were being pessimistic. Our targets are capped.
If the target is too low, by the time we get to 3 per cent of the
GDP by 1996-97, which is what we promised in the red book and
from our own pessimistic outlook, then if we go by what is
happening in the business community and what they have been
projecting, we will exceed 3 per cent. Is that not what it is all
about, having a government that the voters know is a credible
government if it comes forward with a budget, sets targets and
achieves those targets?
For the last nine years voters have watched governments
making promises in different budgets. Those promises were not
kept. We were at the point where they were becoming cynical
and saying that this was just another promise which was not
credible.
That is not what this government is all about. We are where we
are in the polls today because we are credible. We are making
promises that we can keep.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): What about the GST?
Mr. Calder: The GST will be worked out later this year. It is
in process right now. The member can laugh. I love the way the
member for Simcoe Centre tries to work this around. He stood
up and chastised the infrastructure program. In fact, a few
months ago he made a statement in the House questioning the
minister responsible. However, at the same time, I found some
correspondence he had written the mayor of Barrie praising the
program. It is cynicism like that which gives politicians a bad
name.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Tell the whole story, do not
just give little quotes.
Mr. Calder: I am ashamed of the member.
The budget has a number of advantages. We have pledged that
in 1995-96 the debt will not exceed $32.7 billion. We want that
reduced to 3 per cent of the GDP or $24.3 billion for 1996-97.
This is something that was laid down in the Maastricht treaty.
We recognize that a large percentage of our money is borrowed
from the international market and it is our responsibility to
make that figure.
That is one of the reasons why the Canadian dollar today is
strong, interest rates within the country are stable and why we
are the leader in the G-7 nations in exporting. We are an
exporting nation. If we are going to keep our standard of living
we have to export. Thirty million people within this country
without exports just does not cut it. Therefore, we have to be an
efficient exporting nation. We have to be ISO 9000 effective. We
have to take every advantage. We have to be innovative and
creative which is exactly what the budget is.
I hope that the member across the way will see the light and
vote for Bill C-76.
11831
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to an order made earlier today, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 201)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robillard
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-132
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-88
11832
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Dubé
Gaffney
Harper (Churchill)
Langlois
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
Mrs. Payne: Madam Speaker, I was not in my seat at the time
the vote was taken but I would like the record to show that had I
been I would have voted with the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.43 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11832
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take the measures
necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
(1745)
He said: Madam Speaker, it must be realized that major social
changes require some disruption.
I thank you for calling the House to order and I want to stress
how important this motion is to me and how I fully appreciate
the opportunity we have in this Parliament to raise an issue
which, in many countries, is the object of repression.
First of all, I would like to point out that the motion I am
tabling today calls on us as members of Parliament to recognize
same sex spouses. What this means is that we as members of
Parliament recognize and urge the government to take the
measures necessary to recognize that same sex individuals,
whether two men or two women, can have a satisfactory loving
and sexual relationship. On such a basis, nothing could justify
legislators condoning discriminatory practices.
First of all, I wish to point out that what is to be debated in the
next few minutes and hours is not the concept of family or the
issue of adoption but the question of free choice for two same
sex individuals who want to enjoy a relationship.
I would like to draw a comparison between feelings of love
and religious feelings. I had an old theology professor who used
to say about religious belief that a religious person is one who
believes that mysteries exist and that we cannot apprehend the
world around us in its totality for we are hindered by our
conventional senses, while one who sees problems where he or
she should see mysteries is not a religious but a superstitious
person. I suggest that religious belief is universal and transcends
denominational boundaries. Whether Catholic, Protestant,
Quaker or what not, we have religious beliefs and values and this
is a matter of feeling.
Love is the same kind of feeling. Whether or not this love is
between two men or two women, the fact remains that what is
experienced in terms of relationship is the same.
I would say that, today, we are picking up where Pierre Elliott
Trudeau and John Turner left off and, with a majority vote on
this motion in Parliament, we would basically be taking another
step forward.
You will recall that it was John Turner and not Pierre Elliott
Trudeau who, as Minister of Justice, decriminalized
homosexuality through the passage of Bill C-150 in December
1968. Of course, as we recall, this was an omnibus bill which
included a number of amendments relating to lotteries and
abortion.
But the main thing is that, in 1968, it was recognized in a
mature way, in a generous society which is no doubt even more
so today, that two consenting adults, or as paragraph 149(a) of
the Criminal Code put it, two persons who are both over the age
of 21 can engage freely in sexual activity- provided, naturally,
that they have reached the legal age, which was 21 in those
days-and that they consensually agree to be in a relationship.
I think that, as a society, we are now going a further step in
saying that, as a society, we will not tolerate that individuals
who knowingly and willingly get into a same sex relationship
should suffer economic, social or fiscal discrimination.
That is what this motion is about. I have heard all kinds of
remarks and comparisons which, if I may say so, were quite
misguided.
(1750)
Before getting down to the specifics, I want to say that the gay
community, to which I belong, is a fine community. Our fellow
citizens, as well as the gay community, must realize that a
person can be gay and still be a taxpayer, a worker and a happy
human being. The best way for society to integrate its various
groups and make them feel comfortable is to accept their
differences. It will be very interesting to see how, as we prepare
for the 21st century, Canada and Quebec will be prepared to
accept these differences.
11833
Ultimately, no one can contend, from a psychological or
anthropological point of view, that homosexuality is something
abnormal. In psychology, the term abnormal refers to
something which is unhealthy from a psychological or
physiological point of view. A person can be a homosexual or
a lesbian and still be a member of the workforce, a happy human
being, a conscientious worker, as well as an active member of
his or her community. In fact, this is the case of most people
I know.
Yet, even though several administrative tribunals, employers
and provincial governments-including Ontario-have
recognized same sex spouses, the fact is that, in 1995, there is
still a great deal of discrimination.
In recognizing same sex spouses, we have to take a look at the
scope of the current notion of spouses, which is defined strictly
in heterosexist terms.
With the diligent and much appreciated help of the Library
researchers, I sought to find out how many acts in Canada
contain a definition of ``spouse'' in heterosexist terms, that is a
definition referring to spouses of two different sexes. Madam
Speaker, you will surely be surprised to learn that, for all intents
and purposes, there are about 60 such acts. You have no idea of
all the lines of activity concerned. I have a list here which
includes the Bankruptcy Act, the Evidence Act, the Carriage by
Air Act and the Excise Tax Act. Therefore, this issue does not
just involve social and fringe benefits, as well as pensions. It
also concerns all sorts of other rights in a vast array of sectors in
our society.
We are not starting from scratch. Some progress has been
made and it would be extremely dishonest on my part to claim
that nothing has been done since 1968. I think the best example I
could give you is the fact that 11 major Canadian
cities-Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, Waterloo,
Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and that
wonderful city where I am sure you would all love to spend your
vacation, Vancouver-have also recognized same sex spouses.
I asked our researchers to join me and the human resources
managers in each one of these municipalities in evaluating the
fiscal impact on municipalities. Of course we should realize that
a municipality is not a central government, and I know that is
something we have to consider. It is also a fact that each of these
cities signed a contract with a private insurance company for
health insurance. They let an insurance company offer coverage.
It is also a fact, and I think one could not expect it to be
otherwise, that when these cities and municipalities recognized
same sex spouses, there were no additional costs because after
all, would anyone rise in this House and claim that two 30-year
old lesbians have more dental appointments that a heterosexual
couple? That two gays in their forties need hospital care more
often than their heterosexual counterparts?
(1755)
So it is clear that recognition of same sex spouses is not a
money issue, at least based on what one could reasonably expect
to be the case in these municipalities, since the homosexual
community, the members of that community do not differ
physically from heterosexuals. I know some people said that
there might be neurological or glandular or hormonal
differences, but upon closer analysis, these theories did not hold
water.
I hope that this debate, which is an extremely important one,
will reflect what this 35th Parliament is prepared to do to
enhance the equality of all Canadians and Quebecers. Once
again, this is not supposed to be a debate on adoption and
redefining the family, matters that Parliament would have no
mandate to discuss in any case.
As a person who is a committed and militant gay, I have no
hesitation in saying that two men or two women do not
constitute a family. For a family, you need children. I am not
saying that two men or two women would be unable to provide
an environment comparable to what a heterosexual couple could
offer, but that is not the point of this debate.
So this is an appeal for generosity and openness, since for the
legislator, there can be no grounds for discrimination. Since
homosexual couples are made up of taxpayers-a number of
them are taxpayers-, they are part of the labour market and are
involved in the community, there is no objective reason for
allowing the discrimination to rage on.
Before concluding, I would like to provide a number of
examples to illustrate how insidious it can be. Even though I am
an idealist, opposed to pragmatists, discrimination is tangible
and a day to day experience in the lives of the people in this
community.
I have chosen this example, which concerns a number of areas
of activity: unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance
is no charity. As you know, after the Conservatives opted out,
unfortunately, with the Liberals following suit, unemployment
insurance was no longer an assistance plan. It became an
insurance plan, with workers paying for unemployment
insurance, along with employers, of course.
I will give you an example. A claimant can, in certain
instances, voluntarily leave his job if his or her spouse is
transferred to another city. It is clear that a gay or lesbian couple
appearing before an unemployment insurance officer because
one partner must move to another city for job-related reasons
will not enjoy the same benefits a heterosexual couple might.
Obviously, discrimination is a major concern. Such an issue
concerning the Income Tax Act was of real concern to the
community. In the past 10 to 15 years, social laws have tended to
acknowledge common law spouses. Under most Canadian laws,
you must meet the following two conditions to have your
relationship recognized and to acquire the same rights as a
11834
married couple. You must share accommodation with the same
person for at least one year and you must identify yourselves
publicly as a couple.
Regarding income tax, and the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot follows all developments in this area
very closely, as he is the finance critic, since 1987, the definition
of the term ``spouse'' in the Income Tax Act has been the
following: a person of the opposite sex living in a situation
similar to that of marital union. What rights would same sex
couples acquire, what would be the significance of recognizing
them from an income tax point of view? It would give them the
right to claim credits for dependents.
(1800)
They would also gain access to spousal RRSPs, and we all
know how important RRSPs are for preparing, obviously, for
retirement and old age, since governments are withdrawing
from this area. I would like to take this opportunity to say first
off that the gay community is a beautiful community, within
which it is not unusual to see couples who have been together for
20, 25 or 30 years. I know that many people tend to think that
same sex relationships, gay relationships, are short-lived,
futile, superficial, but I personally can vouch for the fact, as can
others, that it is not unusual to see same sex relationships last
20, 25 or 30 years.
We can safely say that the same is not always true of the
heterosexual community. Of course, there are also couples that
last 20, 25 or 30 years, but one must also acknowledge, in all
fairness, that the same exists in the gay community. Therefore,
if I may use a specific example, recognizing same sex spouses
for income tax purposes would also mean they could use RRSP
limits to their mutual advantage, claim a parent of their spouse
as a dependent, transfer to the other spouse some unused tax
credits for pension purposes, tuition fees or disability credits.
We could also talk about the Canada Pension Plan. Since
1986, it has recognized a spouse of the opposite sex that has
been living with the contributor for one year or more. It means
that, in the case of heterosexual couples in Canada, when one
spouse has contributed to the Canada Pension Plan, at the time
of death, undoubtedly a tragic event, the other is entitled to part
of the pension. This is also a form of discrimination against
homosexual and gay couples.
Another very obvious example is a case concerning the Old
Age Security Act that is now before the Supreme Court, which is
expected to hand down its decision in May, and it will be
interesting to see what this decision will be. You know that,
under this act, when two people live together and their total
income is under a certain level, one of them can receive a
guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, two
homosexuals or two lesbians who have been living together for
10, 15 or 20 years in some cases, cannot get the guaranteed
income supplement when their income is under that threshold.
We could also talk about pensions in the Canadian public
service. The issue, as far as public service pensions are
concerned, is that, when a heterosexual partner dies, the
surviving partner is entitled to a portion of the pension. There
are very concrete, commonplace examples to show clearly that
same sex partners living as a couple, who freely got into this
relationship, honourable citizens who are participants in the the
workforce and, in most cases, want to contribute to society, are
discriminated against.
This is a test for Parliament. We could choose to act as if this
reality did not exist, but it does. I think that we must be driven by
a feeling of generosity which should lead us ultimately to accept
our differences. This motion provides us with an opportunity to
discuss one difference which has been of concern to all
societies. Allow me, in closing, to be optimistic about its
chances of being adopted.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member moved that the government
should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of
same sex spouses.
By legal recognition of same sex spouses I am unclear as to
whether the hon. member means same sex partners should be
able to register, as I understand they can in Denmark, or that
benefits currently given to married and common law spouses
should be extended to same sex partners.
(1805 )
Neither option is viable, given the current state of the law.
Perhaps it would be a better motion had it been made in a
provincial legislature rather than in the House of Commons.
The federal government has very limited jurisdiction in this
area of the legal recognition of personal relationships. The
Constitution divides jurisdiction in the area of family law
between the provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament.
The jurisdiction for marriage is divided with the provinces being
responsible for the solemnization of marriage, including
licensing requirements, and the federal government being
responsible for the legal capacity to marry. However, as the
definition of marriage clearly makes it an opposite sex concept,
this constitutional power is irrelevant for the current discussion.
The Constitution also gives Parliament the power over
divorce, although the province retains the power to administer
the application of the Divorce Act, including division of
property and support obligations. However, as marriage is
irrelevant here, I am assuming the divorce power is as well, as
divorce cannot apply without marriage, although I understand
that
11835
Denmark requires same sex couples who have registered to go
through the divorce legislation to deregister.
Perhaps the only relevant example I can think of is the
treatment of common law spouses under provincial family law.
This is a personal relationship widely recognized by law, even
though it is not specifically mentioned by the Constitution,
unlike marriage.
Until fairly recently historically common law spouses were
not recognized by our law. The term is a misnomer in any event,
as common law spouses do not actually exist in the common law
or judge made law. They actually are created by statute law, not
by one statute but by a very large number of statutes at both the
federal and provincial levels.
In other words, unless a particular statute specifically
provides that a reference to spouse will include common law
relationships, they are not included for the purpose of the
benefit in issue. The major statute law that recognizes common
law spouses is the provincial family law statutes.
These statutes create the major legal obligations imposed on
common law spouses should the relationship break down. They
deal with division of property, support obligations between the
former spouses and for any children. Even here the provincial
law is not consistent across the country. Common law spouses
are subject to different legal obligations under different
provincial family law statutes across the provinces. They are not
even recognized in two provinces including Quebec, the
province of residence of the hon. member proposing this
measure.
Common law marriage is a different concept from that of
common law spouses. Common law marriage existed only in the
early settlement days of Canada where a minister or a priest was
often difficult to find. Although there is some speculation that
the concept may still exist in the common law in Canada it
would only apply in an opposite sex context.
Therefore, if provincial family law is the main source of legal
obligations between spouses, it would seem more appropriate
that any legal recognition of same sex partners would come first
under provincial family law. As I understand it, this was
primarily the way which common law relationships first gained
legal recognition.
As a result of several high profile cases before the Supreme
Court of Canada the courts recognized through the doctrines of
unjust enrichment and constructive trust the contribution of a
woman who had lived for a long period of time with a man as
married, even though they had not married.
Legislative changes followed shortly thereafter, starting
primarily with provincial family law and then slowly moving
into the benefits field.
(1810)
This legal recognition is recent in Canadian law. The changes
to the Income Tax Act to recognize common law spouses have
come about in the last year or two after the majority of
provincial family law statutes recognized the status. The
question of whether common law spouses must be treated in the
same way as married spouses in some or all circumstances is
still before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Miron case was
argued last fall and a decision is pending.
The only references in federal law to personal relationships
either follow blood or marriage relationships, which are
relatively easy to prove, or copy provincial family law
definitions of common law relationships. At the federal level
spouses are mostly included in legislation for the purposes of
employment benefits, the government pension plans and income
tax.
The concern is that if we were to extend these benefits to same
sex partners at the federal level first before provincial family
law extends any legal obligations it could create a situation of
unfairness. Spouses, both married and common law, are
currently subject to a package of legal rights and responsibilities
created by a combination of federal and provincial laws.
It is because spouses are subject to legal obligations such as
support obligations upon the breakdown of the relationship that
they are also eligible for benefits such as survivor benefits under
pension plans. It is for the provinces to extend first the
obligations before we should extend benefits under federal
jurisdiction.
How would we accomplish what the hon. member is asking?
How would we take the measures necessary for the legal
recognition of same sex spouses, even were we to agree this
should be done? It is clear from the history of the recognition of
common law relationships that this was not accomplished by
passing a statute called the common law spouses act. Nor was
this legal recognition even accomplished by the government at
any level.
The fact of social change was first acknowledged by the
courts in looking at unfairness and unjust enrichment between
two partners who had not married. The courts felt strongly that
individuals who were living together as if married and so were
getting all of the advantages of being married, such as working
together to afford a better lifestyle than either would have been
able to live alone, should not be able to avoid taking on the
obligations of married persons simply by choosing not to marry.
Particularly in a situation such as that represented in the first
few high profile cases, the common life wife needed the
protection of the law.
However, this is a controversial enough subject with regard to
opposite sex common law couples. Many common law couples
continue to disagree and feel frustrated the law deems their
relationship to be akin to marriage after a certain time has
11836
passed. Many still feel their choice not to marry should be
respected by the law.
How much more of a problem will this be with same sex
couples who may not be public about their relationships?
Conversely, is it fair to recognize only those same sex couples
who do wish to be open about their relationships? For a number
of reasons this motion is premature and not feasible for the
federal government to adopt without the full co-operation of the
provincial legislatures.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 264, a
private member's motion forwarded by the member by
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the measures
necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
As chair of the Reform Party's family task force I will speak
definitely in opposition to this motion for the reasons I will
outline.
First let me comment on the make-up of the Canadian family.
In its 1994 report on families in Canada, Statistics Canada
reported that in 1991 the traditional model of the Canadian
family, a husband and wife, made up 87 per cent of all families.
Members may wish to note that in 1941, 88 per cent of
families consisted of a traditional husband and wife family.
Therefore, it would seem there has been relatively no change in
the make-up of the traditional Canadian family unit, in spite of
the tremendous economic, fiscal, social, and cultural pressures
it has faced over the last 50 years. This is a testimony to the
resilience of the family as a social institution.
(1815)
In recent years there have been numerous efforts and
suggestions to change what is commonly understood as the
traditional family unit. The assumptions about the traditional
family unit are being challenged by courts, interest groups,
non-governmental organizations, and government agencies.
Often the judicial system has been used by interest groups and
individuals to pursue issues that do not have broad based support
with Canadians, and this is such a case in point. Presently the
Supreme Court is considering a case, Egan and Nesbit v. The
Queen, which would redefine the term spouse and therefore the
related concepts of family and marriage. Another case is in
Ontario, Leshner v. Ontario, where the court actually ordered
the Ontario government to give same sex couples pension
benefits, even though the federal Income Tax Act does not
permit registered pension plans to provide for same sex spouses.
Another example of this trend outside of law is the Canadian
Human Rights Commission. In its recent annual report, as it has
recommended every year since 1979, it has proposed the
inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights
Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination. If enacted this
would provide a legal basis for challenges to redefine spouse,
marriage, and family.
The Minister of Justice, ignoring what I feel is the voice of
real Canadians, has listened to these other voices and has
committed himself to this goal.
I could go on to mention the ultra-feminist and lesbian
representation sent as the Canadian delegation to the
preparatory conference for the upcoming Beijing conference
and their proposal supporting the removal of alleged barriers
due to sexual orientation.
In contrast to this, the Reform Party has long recognized the
importance of family to the stability and prosperity of our
society. Principle six of our party states: ``We affirm the value
and dignity of the individual person and the importance of
strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the
well-being of individuals and society''.
To date the Reform Party is the only political party to have
defined family. Our family task force, which I chair, has
researched and developed a policy on the definition of family.
We define family in the following way: ``Those individuals
related by the ties of blood, marriage, or adoption. Marriage is a
union between a man and a woman as recognized by the state''.
This is the traditional family unit, which is the fundamental
building block of our society. I believe it is the best social
institution for the cultivation and protection of values and
culture in our society, for the raising of our children and the
nurturing and provision of the care of all family members.
This having been said, the Reform Party reaffirms the
traditional definition of the family and opposes any efforts to
redefine it.
These efforts and challenges have been made in spite of the
well entrenched views of grassroots Canadians. In June 1994 a
Maclean's-CTV-Angus Reid poll found that 68 per cent of
Canadians believed that the best type of family in which to raise
children has two heterosexual parents.
Over 600 petitions have been tabled in this House, with over
70,000 signatures from grassroots Canadians stating their
opposition to the extension of benefits to same sex couples and
the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
Contrary to the expressed will of so many Canadians, this
motion is another example of the efforts under way to redefine
11837
the Canadian family. The motion calls upon the House of
Commons and the federal government to take measures
necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
What is legal recognition? It is undefined in the motion. What
would it mean and what issues would it raise? Would legal
recognition automatically result in benefits to same sex
partners? Would legal recognition mean that same sex partners
could be married? Would it mean that homosexual couples could
adopt children? What and how many federal and provincial
statutes would have to be amended?
The legal recognition of same sex spouses would ultimately
entail the revision of many federal and provincial statutes,
particularly those that relate to the tax law that defines spouse,
marriage, and family. Our research has indicated that up to 40
federal statutes would have to be amended if this recognition
were to occur.
(1820 )
Provincially, in Ontario the word spouse is contained in over
80 provincial laws and statutes. Presently, marriage between
individuals of the same sex is not permitted in Canada.
Adoption of children, although a provincial matter, is a
question our society will have to deal with. Last year, Bill 167 in
Ontario, which would have allowed for adoption by same sex
couples, was defeated, largely in response to a huge public
outcry. In June 1994, a Maclean's-CTV-Angus Reid poll found
that 67 per cent of Canadians oppose giving homosexual couples
the same legal status as mothers and fathers.
There is another question. Would this motion strengthen
arguments in favour of the inclusion of sexual orientation in the
Canadian Human Rights Act? Clearly it would.
Again, a majority of grassroots Canadians do not support the
proposed amendment to the act by the justice minister. The
minister's proposed amendment is in so much trouble that he has
publicly asked the homosexual community to support his efforts
``to keep a prod on the government to move forward on these
matters'', in spite of opposition from Canadians, opposition in
this House, and opposition in his own caucus.
I would like to conclude. This motion, if passed, like all other
approved private members' motions, would express an opinion
of this House. This motion is a votable motion and thus would be
a clear and distinct expression of the opinion of this House. The
expression of this opinion would send a moral signal and
provide a moral direction for our society on this particular issue,
which flies in the face of the expressed will of Canadians.
This House faces a choice. Which path will we choose for the
future of our society, our families and our children? I say that
this House should choose a path that has guided this country and
many others and has provided stability to our society.
Therefore, I oppose this motion and call upon my colleagues
on all sides of the House to vote in favour rather of the
traditional Canadian family and against this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased today to make a few comments on the motion put
forward by my colleague, the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who is committed to a very big
issue: the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
[English]
This issue certainly has a number of moral and historical
implications. This is not the first time this House has treated this
issue. Yet it is an issue that from time to time will come back. I
am sure the pending Bill C-41 and other bills being proposed by
the Minister of Justice-or suggested in terms of changes to the
Canadian Human Rights Act-will certainly have an impact on
the future of this particular issue.
We also know the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner has
been a strong advocate and has on many occasions shown to the
government and Parliament that it must act in this area.
My interest today is to talk about the real implications of the
hon. member's motion. We know that in Canada there is a very
strong sense of the traditional family, with opposite sexes.
Family status in law involves a couple comprised of a husband
and a wife, and possibly children. Lately that definition has
changed to also include non-married families or common law
couples.
My concern with this particular motion is its implications in
Canada. One of the most critical things that has not been touched
by my honourable colleague and other members in this House is
the direct cost impact that such an undertaking would have in
terms of the federal treasury. These are very difficult times, and
we are asking the taxpayers to fund the benefits accruing from
the same sex relationships.
Probably a more important side to this is how one defines the
question of same sex benefits or spousal benefits. We are not
necessarily talking about people of similar sex. We are really
talking about the possibility-as is the case in many ridings,
including I am sure the riding of the hon. member-that a
grandfather and a grandson who are of the same sex and live in
the same household would be effectively left out because we
have not really defined what we mean by same sex benefits.
Presumably, I know the intention. It is very clear what the hon.
member is seeking. However, it does not include the important
case of people who are not together for sexual reasons.
11838
(1825 )
As we know, the federal court has already dealt with the issue
of same sex benefits. In 1991 it ruled that the federal approach
has not been established and has not demonstrated
discrimination per se. That ruling was again upheld in 1993 by a
two to one vote. It was found at the time that the law does not
discriminate against gay men or lesbians because there are many
other couples who live together who are ineligible for the same
benefits.
My concern is that we have to be very careful about what this
legislation really means. As a member of Parliament from
Ontario, I am only too familiar with what happens when a
government, through a motion presented by a member of
Parliament, or Parliament considers a motion that has not been
thoroughly discussed or debated by the vast majority of
Canadians.
We are asking Canadians to undertake a major financial hit
here. It is incumbent upon this Parliament to also examine the
cost attached to such an initiative.
This no doubt raises a number of moral and political
implications for all members of Parliament. The traditional role
of a member of Parliament is to be advised, to consult and to
hear from constituents, and not act as a court in a situation.
We know this issue is before the Supreme Court of Canada
under the Egan and Nesbit case, the same individuals who had
appeared before the federal court. Many of us are familiar with
the proceedings, and some of us might cynically suggest that the
crown in this case put forth a rather weak argument in defence of
the status quo. I find that very interesting. However, I am
speaking with liberty in the House of Commons on that issue.
I think we want to make sure that we do not confuse legal
rights to protect against discrimination. We do not want to be
seen as invalidating equal rights. We want to be seen as not
promoting a certain lifestyle that is conducted in a way whereby
people have to spend more money to approve of somebody's
activity.
The comments made by the hon. member when he alluded to
John Turner in 1969 and to the Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau in
reference to the state not having any business in the bedrooms of
the nation is one issue. We as Liberals recognize that what
people do in their own private affairs is fine, but there is a
difference between tolerance and equality and promoting that on
the streets. I think there is a quantum leap in terms of the
philosophy of government.
Of course this is not the first time Parliament has been seized
of this issue. It is a very complicated issue, and if as members of
Parliament we are going to debate the various relative impacts
of what my honourable colleague is suggesting, we must first
and foremost ensure that Canadian people are adequately and
thoroughly canvassed on the issue. We cannot have legislation,
motions, or private members' bills introduced by stealth. This
is a very important matter of fundamental public policy.
As my honourable colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
has suggested, this is a matter that has gone on for a considerable
amount of time. It is a matter that Parliament has not addressed
up until this time. Perhaps one reason it has not addressed the
issue in the past is because it did not consult with the very people
it is supposed to represent.
My concern also is with the whole notion of whether or not, as
a society, we are effectively capable of defining what a spouse
is. The spouse issue is very important, because of course it
relates to the possibility of different interpretations. We do not
know exactly what the term spouse is really trying to achieve in
this bill.
My view of a spouse is very simple. A spouse happens to be a
male and female who happen to come together for whatever
reasons, as the hon. member suggested, for amorous reasons,
and whose fruit, the product of that love, may ultimately
produce a family.
We should not be playing with words here. We should try to
find some kind of definition or interpretation that really relates
to common usage and what the common person on the street
would accept as the term spouse.
(1830 )
If two people who happen to be homosexual wish to live
together, that is fine. I do not think anyone in this House objects
to that. It really is up to them. The concern we have is where the
society or state moves from saying that is great and fine, they are
free to do what they want, section 15 of the charter of rights and
freedoms covers them sufficiently, to saying that now we should
in some way promote, benefit or provide some kind of support
for that activity.
Many members from the homosexual community will make
the argument that it is a question of cost, that they are paying for
someone else's benefits. I am wondering if those who have
spoken on this matter as homosexuals have consulted and
canvassed their own constituency which would suggest that
some of their members are not prepared to accept the benefits.
Some people would be uncomfortable with accepting those
benefits.
We have a situation that is not addressed well in this motion,
although it is understandable. Benjamin Disraeli put it very well
that when estimating the accuracy of a political opinion one
should first of all take into account the standing of the
opinionist. My hon. colleague has very good standing not only
in this House but also in the community on the issue which the
member is advocating.
We must also make sure that Canadians as a whole are
involved in this and that the traditional family or the term family
is not itself compromised.
11839
I am the member of Parliament for one of the most populous
ridings in this country. I have seen an Ontario colleague at the
provincial level debate this issue without popular consent. It
seems to me we may be trying to do in this House or through
weak arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada that
which we cannot do enough to convince the Canadian people
that this is an issue that is well worthwhile.
Everyone is equal before and under the law and has equal
treatment and equal protection and derives benefits from that
protection. I do not believe this House should be in a position of
making a moral decision as to what is right and what is wrong. I
do however believe that when it comes to the term family there
is very little room for compromise.
We must look at the cost. We must look at the implications.
We must make sure that above all we are making legislation
which reflects accurately the opinion, judgment and sentiments
of those people we represent.
While I compliment the member of Parliament for his courage
in bringing this forward, I will not support this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put forward
in the House by my colleague, the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, seeking the legal recognition of
same sex spouses.
I want first of all to stress that this motion does not seek at all,
as some would believe or might want to make us believe, to
promote same sex relationships as the ideal way of life that
every Canadian man and woman should adopt. This motion only
seeks to recognize something that already exists in our society.
Quite obviously, there are homosexuals in our society.
Homosexuals lead the same kind of life we do. Just like other
Canadians, they have a job and sometimes live with a spouse.
Just like other workers, they get fringe benefits to which their
spouse could be entitled.
This motion recommends that homosexuals get the same
rights as heterosexuals. I think it is about time Canada moved
with the times and stopped discriminating against homosexuals.
Both at the provincial level and in collective agreements of
federal public servants, precedents are building up to the effect
that fringe benefits should be granted to same sex spouses. All
existing federal statutes that are discriminatory in nature will
eventually be challenged in court with a very good chance of
success. Over the past few years, an increasing number of
organizations, private companies and government
administrations have come to offer the same benefits to same
sex couples and opposite sex couples, in order to respect the
principles of equity and non-discrimination.
This acknowledgement should not be seen as a threat. What
we give to others will not lessen our entitlements. And this will
not prevent anyone from choosing a more conventional,
traditional lifestyle or from being heterosexual.
(1835)
Furthermore, I must say that same sex couples should be
entitled to benefits. It is not a privilege but a right, a right for
which they have already paid. In the current state of things,
employees who have contributed for years to health, sickness
and life insurance plans or to pension plans cannot transfer their
entitlements to their same sex spouses.
This could lead to situations where, for example, a
homosexual employee living with the same person for 20 years
could not share his benefits with this person, whereas one of his
coworkers, a heterosexual, could share his benefits with
someone he had been with only since the day before.
I repeat, this is not a matter of granting special rights but of
not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. People
who are more or less well intentioned will want to hide their
intolerance behind financial objections. These people will claim
that measures providing the same benefits for same sex partners
will cost too much, just as they did when it involved obtaining
the same benefits for working women.
I want to talk about the low cost of these measures. Several
private businesses, organizations and governments asked
actuary firms to estimate the cost of measures they intended to
take respecting same sex couples.
For example, at The Globe and Mail, out of 700 employees,
only a dozen took advantage of the program, while at the
Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, less than 1 per cent of the
employees took advantage of the program and at Northern
Telecom, which has more than 20 000 employees in Canada, the
company said: ``We do not expect this to represent a lot of
money''. William Mercer, an actuary firm, said: ``The changes
requested will probably represent less than 0.5 per cent of the
total payroll of the company''.
Another interesting example is that of the City of Montreal,
which, since 1989, has treated all its employees on the same
basis, whatever their sexual orientation or the sex of their
spouse. Only 10 of the 8,000 City of Montreal employees have
registered spouses of the same sex. Because of the actuarial
nature of its benefit plans, the City of Montreal would incur no
immediately identifiable costs by introducing this policy.
Given the small percentage of homosexual people in
Canadian society, the smaller percentage of gay people living in
a common-law relationship and the even smaller percentage of
11840
gay people living in a common law relationship who would
claim spousal benefits, the experts surveyed agree that costs
would only go up by 0.5 to 1.5 per cent, depending on the
various benefits being considered.
According to two recent surveys conducted by SOM in
Quebec and Angus-Reid across Canada, 73 per cent of
Quebecers feel that homosexual couples should be entitled to
the same benefits as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. In
Canada, the percentage is lower but still represents a majority.
Indeed, 54 per cent of Canadians feel that, except for the right to
adopt children, same sex couples should enjoy the same rights as
heterosexual couples.
According to another poll, 70 per cent of Canadians would
support legislation prohibiting any form of discrimination based
on sexual orientation. These figures confirm that Canadians are
increasingly aware that we should all enjoy the same rights. I do
hope that this House will not be more conservative than the
population which it serves.
I will conclude by pointing out that, on March 18, 1994, the
Minister of Justice provided the following answer to my
colleague and friend, the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve: ``Mr. Speaker, in its campaign for
office, in its throne speech and in statements made subsequently
in the House, the government has committed itself to
amendments to the Human Rights Act which will add sexual
orientation as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited.
We intend to follow through on that commitment''.
(1840)
I ask only one thing, that the Minister of Justice make good on
his promise to end discrimination against homosexuals and start
by supporting, with me, the motion tabled by the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to enter into the debate on the motion that the government
should take the necessary measures for the legal recognition of
same sex spouses.
It is the role of Parliament to give leadership in providing the
rules and laws that reflect the needs, wishes and aspirations of
Canadians. In a democracy it is important for us to represent the
views of the majority. If we did that carefully we would most
likely end up with the best proportion of good laws for the
benefit of all the people in this magnificent country.
I was elected to represent the will of the people who elected
me in Elk Island. One could perhaps argue there is such a thing
as the tyranny of the majority. However, in a well educated, well
informed society such as ours if there is a really good idea, one
that bears recognition, there should be absolutely no difficulty
in gaining the majority consent for that.
I think of many different examples. We have rules of taxation.
There was a big hue and cry when the GST was introduced and
the majority of Canadians objected to it.
The Liberal Party ran on the platform of eliminating the GST
because subsequently it found the majority of the people were
against this and it was not a good tax. We are still waiting for
that to happen.
In the context of this bill I find an overwhelming degree of
support for the maintenance and development of the traditional
family. I share what probably most MPs share in the receipt of
letters and petitions given to us that by far the majority, an
overwhelming number, indicate they would prefer not to
recognize same sex relationships. They do not want to include
homosexuality as part of the fabric of our society.
This could be viewed as the tyranny of the majority but we
should look at it as a very clear and strong understanding of what
is best. I say this with all due regard to those who think the other
way.
With all due regard to my hon. colleague moving the motion
today, I understand what he is saying but I want to very clearly
communicate that we do not in any way wish him or other people
who have the sexual orientation which he has admitted to any ill.
We really do not.
We need to ask seriously the question whether this is best.
(1845 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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.
_____________________________________________
11840
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, four minutes is not long to follow up on my question of
December 2 to the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal. Therefore I will only touch on a few highlights. In
these few minutes I hope to provide some inspiration for the
minister to get on with the business of renewal of the public
service.
We have been known for a long time as having one of the best
public service organizations in the world, to the extent that
people who work in or have worked in the public service are in
demand in countries around the world to show other
governments how to set up democratic institutions and how to
set up efficient and effective public sector organizations.
11841
Our ability to do as the minister said shortly after he was
appointed to restore good relations between politicians and
public servants has been severely strained. Because of the
economic climate we have found ourselves in, we have
extended the wage freeze and deepened it by including
increments. We have introduced a budget which stated that we
were to reduce the size of the federal public sector by over
45,000 jobs.
It is a little difficult in that climate to talk about renewal.
Renewal suggests improvement, restored hope and a better
future. There are not too many public servants who feel that way
right now.
When the minister spoke a year ago this month to the
professional executives of the Public Service of Canada he said
that our success would be judged not only by what we do but also
by how we do it.
I refer to a couple of other comments the minister made in the
speech a year ago when he spoke about what was required for
public service renewal and give him some of my thoughts on
how important it is to move ahead with that initiative.
This is the largest organization in the country. If we cannot go
through a period of transition and come out the other side with
an organization that has a clear understanding of its mission and
a clear commitment to service to Canadians, I do not know what
other organization or business in the country can do it.
Let me talk about some of the elements the minister spoke
about. He talked about the importance of the people side, the
importance of giving more prominence to human resource
management issues and to training. Yet we have not seen the
kinds of initiatives, the overall sense of a new vision and the
leadership required to make people feel that their organization is
moving into a better and clearer state where it has a clear sense
of mission and of serving the country again.
The minister talked about perhaps separating the policy
function from the service function and at the same time
improving services to Canadians. I frankly urge him not to do
that. If the frontline service becomes disconnected from policy,
we no longer have the feedback to ensure that we have the kinds
of policies and programs that provide good services to
Canadians.
The minister talked about organization. I encourage him not
to think in terms of structures but to think of organic working
relationships that can change easily. The organization has had
far too much reorganization.
Above all, I urge the minister to get through this period of
what I called a demolition derby in my question and get on with
the business of public renewal. He should get the leadership
going at the administrative and political levels so that people
can again feel they have a mission of serving their country,
serving their fellow citizens and doing the best darned job they
can, not because excellence is a jargon word but because that is
what they want to do.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member for Ottawa West has long been recognized as one of the
most creative and inspired thinkers in the area of public service
renewal. That spirit animated the question we have heard
tonight.
I should like to respond to some of the comments made by the
hon. member for Ottawa West. It is true we are downsizing the
public service, but the government has given a pledge that
during the downsizing it will keep involuntary layoffs to an
absolute minimum. I assure the hon. member that the
government will keep that pledge.
Let me reiterate the government's commitment to deal with
employees in the fairest and most sensitive way possible, as has
been suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa West. It is
particularly important to express our determination to continue
to work with the unions and with local governments to ease the
transition.
Finally let me say that we hope to keep layoffs and the number
of employees on unpaid surplus status to an absolute minimum.
Some individuals will be accommodated through normal
attrition. Others may take advantage of the early departure and
early retirement incentives announced by the President of the
Treasury Board. The hon. member is aware of the $2.25 million
program for displaced public servants in the national capital
region who are seeking employment.
The government will continue its program review because it
believes that with all other problems still to be solved it is the
only way to allocate resources properly. However I strongly
reiterate that the government also believes, as does the hon.
member, in public service renewal.
With the new government policies we hope for a role for the
public service that is much more satisfying, much more
fulfilling and much more challenging than it ever has been.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)