CONTENTS
Monday, June 5, 1995
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 20, 21, 22, 75, 76, 77 and 78
13216
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 105; Nays, 52. 13216
(Motion agreed to.) 13217
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13217
Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 78 negatived on division 13219
Motion No. 75 negatived on division 13220
Motions Nos. 23 to 27 inclusive 13220
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13220
Motions Nos. 29 and 30 13220
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13220
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13220
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13220
Motions Nos. 36 to 39 inclusive 13220
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13220
Motions Nos. 41 to 45 inclusive 13221
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13228
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 13228
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 13228
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13229
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13230
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 13230
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13230
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13231
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13231
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13231
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13232
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13232
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13232
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13232
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13233
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13233
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13233
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13234
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13234
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13234
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13234
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13234
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13235
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13235
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13235
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13235
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13237
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13237
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13239
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 13239
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13240
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 13241
Bill C-76. Report stage (with amendments) 13241
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13254
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13255
Division on Motion No. 23 deferred 13261
Motions Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 13262
Motions Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63. 13262
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 13264
Division on Motion No. 47 deferred 13266
Division on Motion No. 64 deferred 13266
Motions Nos. 68 to 73 13267
Division on Motion No. 68 deferred 13267
Motion No. 3 negatived on division: Yeas, 65;Nays, 116 13267
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 39;Nays, 142 13268
Motion No. 5 negatived on division: Yeas, 31;Nays, 150 13269
Motion No. 17 negatived on division: Yeas, 26;Nays, 155 13270
Motion No. 12 agreed to on division: Yeas, 116;Nays, 65 13271
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 116; Nays, 65. 13271
Motion No. 23 negatived on division: Yeas, 32;Nays, 149. 13273
Motion No. 28 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays, 147 13274
Motion No. 31 negatived on division: Yeas, 60;Nays, 121 13275
Motion No. 40 agreed to on division: Yeas, 150;Nays, 31 13276
Motion No. 47 negatived on division: Yeas, 32;Nays, 149 13277
Motion No. 46 negatived on division: Yeas, 61;Nays, 121 13278
Motion No. 49 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays, 148 13279
Motion No. 68 negatived on division: Yeas, 27;Nays, 155 13280
Motion for concurrence 13281
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13281
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 115; Nays, 67 13281
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 13282
13207
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 5, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider implementing
a new program of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and
development in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce in this House
today a motion calling on the government to consider a program of
mining incentives which would encourage exploration and
development in Canada. First of all, allow me to commend the hon.
Minister of Natural Resources for officially declaring a national
mining week last month.
This shows that the government recognizes the mining sector's
important contribution to the Canadian economy and partly fulfils
our commitment to promote at the international level Canadian
interests in this area.
[English]
I believe that the industry has also done a tremendous job in
promoting mining through its Keep Mining in Canada campaign. I
want to congratulate it on this important initiative.
I would also like to thank the Minister of Finance for
implementing in his 1994 budget measures to allow the
deductibility of reclamation funds. I recognize there has been a
substantial increase in exploration throughout Canada in 1994 and
there is a prediction of a further increase in 1995 to a level of
approximately $650 million. Despite this, major problems and
impediments still exist to a sound and sustainable mining sector in
the country.
(1105)
Some of the impediments that were identified both in the natural
resources committee report, the Whitehorse mining initiative
report and by the industry are as follows: insecurity of land tenure
either because of the creation of new parks or because of native
land claims; flight of exploration capital to third world countries,
especially South America; complexity, duplication and delays in
issuing permits and environmental assessments; and to a lesser
degree, the effect of profit and non-profit based taxes and levies.
Canada needs a minimum of $900 million to $1 billion worth of
exploration capital annually to rebuild our ore reserves which have
been depleted to a dangerous level.
I would like to state a number of statistics which will clearly
demonstrate the importance of mining to the Canadian economy.
These facts are based on information from Statistics Canada and
Natural Resources Canada.
The mining and mineral related industries employ 335,000
Canadians. Of these, roughly 57,000 were employed in mining,
including coal mining, 57,000 in smelting and refining, 85,000 in
metal semi-fabrication and 129,000 in metal fabrication.
Mining is the mainstay of employment for over 150
communities. Canada is the world's largest mineral exporter.
Mining provides 14.6 per cent of total exports and contributes
$11.7 billion to the trade balance. Canada produces some 60
commodities, leading the world in the production of uranium, 28
per cent; zinc, 15 per cent and potash, 34 per cent.
Canada is the world's second largest producer of nickel at 22 per
cent; cadmium, 11 per cent; asbestos, 17 per cent; elemental
sulphur, 22 per cent; and ranks among the top five producers of
platinum, group metals, gypsum, aluminium, copper, lead, cobalt,
titanium, molybdenum and gold.
Mining, and resource industries generally, lead all other
industrial sectors in productivity. During the last decade labour
productivity increased by 103 per cent in mining and
concentration, by 87 per cent in smelting and refining and by 32 per
cent in metal semi-fabrication. In 1993 mining added $20 billion to
the Canadian economy, equaling 4.2 per cent of the gross domestic
product.
Canada is the third largest mining nation in the world. For every
10 jobs created in the mining industry, eight more spinoff jobs are
13208
created. Almost 80 per cent of Canada's mineral production is
exported. Mining provides 14.8 per cent of Canada's total exports,
contributing $9.9 billion to the mineral trade balance.
Minerals and metals account for 60 per cent of the material
transported in Canada by rail and through our ports. Ontario at 30
per cent; Quebec, 17 per cent and B.C., 16 per cent, account for
more than 60 per cent of Canadian mineral production.
Mining stocks make up 55 to 60 per cent of trading on the
Vancouver Stock Exchange; 20 to 30 per cent of trading on the
Toronto Stock Exchange and 20 per cent of trading on the Montreal
Stock Exchange.
The amount of land used for mining in Canada is less than half
the size of P.E.I.
Let me now inform the House of the worrisome trends in the
mining sector that forebodes a very uncertain future. Since 1991
Canada dropped from first place to fourth place in its ability to
attract international investment in new mines according to the
Metals Economics Group in Halifax.
(1110 )
Between 1990 and 1993 Canada saw 44 mines close and only 24
mines open. Canada lost 19,579 mining jobs between 1990 and
1993. In 1970 mining contributed 6.4 per cent of the GDP and in
1993 4.2 per cent. In 1992 exploration expenditures were the
lowest since 1967. Mine site investment reached $6.7 billion in
1991 and by 1992 that number was cut in half.
In 1988 the amount of exploration and development money spent
in Canada was about $800 million, compared to less than $400
million in Chile. These numbers were reversed in 1992. In 1993
Canadian companies spent almost as much if not more in Latin
American as did the local companies.
In 1993 employment in the mineral industry was 335,000, about
2.5 per cent of the total national employment. This is a 3.5 per cent
drop from the 1992 figure of 347,000. In 1992 mine investment in
Canada was about $3.1 billion, down from 1991 figures by 18 per
cent. In 1993 Canada's mineral production totalled $14.9 billion, a
decline of 10.8 per cent from the 1992 amount of $16.7 billion.
Canadian companies with budgets of more than $1 million spent
close to $260 million on exploration outside Canada in 1993,
almost half of their total budgets. This is an increase over 1992
when they spent 40 per cent on their exploration budgets abroad.
Since World War II the cost of fine based metal deposits in
Canada rose from $6 million to about $150 million, a 25 per cent
increase as corrected for inflation in 1989 dollars.
My motion calls on the government to implement a new program
of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and
development in Canada. What do we mean by mining incentives?
Most people would automatically equate incentives with grants or
tax based measures but there are incentives that are much more
important than that.
The mining industry does not want grants. It wants a level
playing field and a tax system which is truly competitive with the
rest of the world. It wants security of land tenure and a certainty of
continuity in the rules of the game in terms of issuing permits and
doing environmental assessments.
How can the mining industry interest investors when the goal
posts keep moving all the time? How can it convince investors to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars only to have the property
declared a park, as it was done recently in British Columbia with
the Windy Craggy property?
Although I recognize that most of these rules fall under
provincial jurisdiction, I believe the federal government must play
a leading role in bringing all parties involved together. If we want
to create more parks in the country, let us do it now and declare
them off limits. However, let us also ensure the industry that the
rest of the country is open for business and that if it spends
exploration dollars it will be permitted to develop its discovery and
reap the benefits.
The Standing Committee on Natural Resources conducted
extensive hearings with all the stakeholders. The result was nine
key recommendations on mining incentives which were almost
entirely present in the Whitehorse mining initiative report.
I would like at the present time to present the House with those
recommendations:
Recommendation 1: That the federal government, in conjunction with its
provincial counterparts, work to remove the structural impediments to mineral
investment outlined in the Whitehorse mining initiative final report by the year 2000.
Recommendation 2: That, on recognition of the uncertain long term prospects of
the mining sector, the need for a more attractive exploration investment regime for
junior companies and the positive impact of mineral exploration activity on regional
development and job creation, the federal government implement tax measures in its
February 1995 budget to encourage Canadian mineral exploration.
Recommendation 3: That, subsequent to recommendation 2, the federal
government introduce a mineral exploration incentive by modifying the Income Tax
Act to incorporate a change in the adjusted cost base of flow-through shares from a
value of zero to the actual cost of the shares-
Recommendation 4: That in order to enhance the effectiveness of exploration
work financed by means of flow-through shares, the federal government enable the
exploration activity funded through such shares to be carried out over a period of
one full year after financing.
Recommendation 5: That, to assist junior andor single mine companies, the
federal government exempt mineral exploration and development companies without
revenue from mineral production, from application of the Large Corporations Tax.
13209
Recommendation 6: That in order to enhance the effectiveness of mineral
exploration, core geoscientific funding under existing federal-provincial mineral
development agreements, MDA, be preserved under alternative programming.
Recommendation 7: That once initial steps have been taken to improve the
investment climate in Canadian mining, the federal government, its provincial and
territorial counterparts and the domestic mining industry develop, through
consultation, an integrated approach to communicate the positive features of the
Canadian mining sector to potential investors.
Recommendation 8: That Natural Resources Canada, together with its partners in
the provinces and the industry, establish a national database on active and orphaned
mining sites and reclamation work that must be undertaken on those sites.
Recommendation 9: That the Minister of Finance amend the Income Tax Act so as
to defer taxation of income generated within mine reclamation trusts until the funds
within these trusts are finally allocated for reclamation purposes and that the minister
make an announcement to that effect in the next federal budget.
(1115)
The main thrust of the last federal budget was deficit reduction.
It was about putting our financial house in order. It was about
getting the fundamentals right so that all sectors of the economy
including mining could regain confidence in Canada. I agree 100
per cent with the Minister of Finance.
It would have been very difficult to justify tax breaks or
expenditures in one sector of the economy while cutting all other
sectors dramatically. However, we must look at the next budget and
beyond. While I realise it would be next to impossible to
implement all the measures recommended in the natural resources
committee report in the short term, there is much we can do
without breaking the bank.
Some of these measures are included in the keep mining in
Canada 10 point program: establish a process for land use planning
that respects mineral tenure to ensure both the protection of
Canada's natural heritage and access for mineral resource
development; streamline federal-provincial environmental
regulations to avoid costly duplication and delays; implement an
appropriate incentive to stimulate grassroots mineral exploration;
change tax laws on mine reclamation funding to encourage
investment in new mines; launch a national initiative to build
necessary infrastructure for northern Canada's economic
self-reliance.
[Translation]
In conclusion, there are still many Hemlos and Boisla Bays in
this country. It is up to us as a government, to the mining industry,
to the First Nations, and to environmentalists to join forces in a
spirit of co-operation and compromise so that mining can become
once again the cornerstone of the Canadian economy.
(1120)
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for
Timiskaming-French River, on presenting Motion M-292, which
reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider implementing
a new program of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and
development in Canada.
After sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
with my hon. colleague for nearly four months to review the
Canadian mining industry, I would say that the government is well
aware of the situation of this industry, which is confronted with one
of the greatest challenges it has had to face in years.
The fact is that base metal reserves have been dwindling since
the 1980s, and these are unlikely to be replenished quickly in the
near future, as mineral exploration has declined in Canada in recent
years.
The mining industry has repeatedly expressed its concerns to the
Government of Canada, which, instead of making the adjustment
process easier, is in fact making matters worse by letting the
investment climate deteriorate in the mining industry in Canada, as
compared with rival countries.
More specifically, the mining industry claims that recent trends
in mining taxation have caused a decline in exploration and other
investment activities in the Canadian mining industry.
A mining exploration incentive program similar to the one put in
place in the 1980s should be implemented, but with stricter
controls. In spite of the depletion of base metal reserves, Canada's
geological potential is still enormous.
Just to show how great this potential is and how much interest it
generates, suffice it to say that, on April 25, more than 700 people,
VIPs, guests and employees, attended the official opening
ceremony of the Louvicourt mine, near Val d'Or, 2,000 feet
beneath the surface of the earth.
This mine, which was started up with $300 million in
investments and will provide more than 350 direct jobs for a
minimum of 15 years, is the result of a joint federal-provincial
initiative, the province being in this case Quebec, to conduct
exploration around old mining sites that had already been mined
out and were therefore not considered as likely to offer sufficient
prospects.
New technologies and adequate financing made it possible to
open this mine containing copper, zinc, gold and silver, with an
estimated capacity of approximately 4,000 tonnes of ore per day
for the next 15 years. Recent finds in adjacent zones could extend
the life of the mine to 25 years; it is the largest underground copper
mine in Quebec at this time.
13210
In addition, three other major mines will open in the next two
years as a result of flow-through incentives from the 1980s that
promoted a surge of mine exploration.
This is proof that federal tax incentives must be enhanced by
adapting them to those of the provinces, so as to encourage
preliminary mining exploration and replace the base metal
reserves, in Quebec and in Canada, being depleted.
Such a measure would also limit the impact of the developing
countries which, through aggressive promotion campaigns,
managed to convince many Canadian companies to concentrate
their efforts on mining opportunities at the international level.
Because of this, the Canadian mining sector is getting smaller.
This, in turn, has a major impact on the Canadian economy as a
whole, as well as on many regional economies which rely heavily
on the mining sector.
Mining incentives provided in Canada are not less attractive than
those existing in most other competing countries. Yet, these
incentives do not generate enough preliminary mining exploration
activities to replace the reserves of base metals being depleted.
In the meantime, some developing countries have many high
quality mining projects on the go, either on the surface or just
under it, and they currently do not need incentives to promote their
preliminary mining activities.
It is therefore necessary to intensify preliminary mining
exploration in Quebec and in Canada. The solution could be to
improve the overall international competitiveness of mining
investments in Canada.
(1125)
To that end, it is essential that all levels of government strive to
create a favourable investment climate. This includes the following
measures: first, improving environmental regulations and the time
required to deliver mining licences; second, improving land access
and land use, as well as the tax provisions which relate to income
and which are not based on profits; third, having a positive impact
on the other costs relating to the operation of a company.
The time has come to take into account the economic impact of
the restrictions and prohibitions which were imposed in the
eighties regarding land use, and which adversely affect Canada's
image as a place to invest. We must look at the economic benefits
related to our mineral resources, and we must make major
improvements to the process for designating protected areas, as
well as to the industry's ability to have a significant impact on that
process.
As early as September 1992, in its report on the mineral industry,
the intergovernmental working group on the mineral industry
identified five urgent issues necessitating government
intervention. They were the following: first, stopping the erosion of
Canadian producers' competitiveness in certain key sectors of
mineral production, including copper and nickel; second,
increasing reserves of base metals in Canada; third, finding new
ideas and developing technology, policies and programs to make
grassroots prospecting more efficient, so that new high calibre
mineral deposits can be discovered, like the one at Louvicourt,
close to Val d'Or; fourth, reversing the obvious trend among
mining investors, including Canadian mining multinationals, of
passing Canada over in favour of developing countries in Latin
America, Asia, or the Pacific with rich resources; fifth, in general,
implementing a policy and regulatory framework that is more
conducive to maintaining the viability of the industry and
stimulating investment in the exploration and development of
minerals in Canada.
Regarding the production costs associated with the main metals,
Canada is very competitive on the metal market because of the low
cost of operating its mines, which is mostly the result of high
productivity levels in the industry.
In fact, the Canadian mineral industry was able to considerably
increase its productivity because of the rationalization caused by
the recession in the 1980s. The productivity of all sectors of the
industry markedly increased as a result of new technologies and
new mining methods, which were developed in Canada for the
most part.
We must consider future generations. We must prevent the
decline of base metal reserves by planning now for the exploration
and mining of new deposits to replace those that will eventually be
depleted.
I would like to point out that financial incentives, sometimes
offered by provincial governments and sometimes by the federal
government, exist or should exist, but they should be properly
co-ordinated. For instance, assistance for the purchase of mining
equipment. In this case, the company should be given a tax holiday
of two or three years-the time it takes to build a mine. Quebec
does this in the case of new mines but the federal government does
not.
There are also regional investment funds. In fact, it costs at least
$10 million to do the exploration work on a site that may yield
$100 million. However, if there is no money to dig, this does not
create jobs. We need regional investment funds to develop local
sites.
We also need a consortium. The Fonds de solidarité des
travailleurs du Québec wants to invest money in mining
development. We are glad this is happening in Quebec, but it could
be done in other provinces as well. Mr. Speaker, since you say I
have only a few minutes left, I will drop the list of suggestions. I
can take them to the natural resources committee.
13211
In concluding, I want to mention very briefly the main points
we discussed on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources,
namely that the mining industry merits immediate tax relief to
help offset the existing structural impediments, to restore some
of the fiscal advantages taken away during previous rounds of tax
reform, and to boost sagging levels of domestic exploration.
Finally, to enhance investor attraction to flow through shares,
historically an important source of investment capital for junior
mining firms, it was proposed that the adjusted cost base of such
shares should be changed from zero to the actual cost of the shares.
(1130)
This incentive should be available for five years, allowing time
for structural reform to be completed.
Finally, these tax changes, together with the measures I
mentioned earlier, would help create a climate more conducive to
investment in the mining sector in Quebec and Canada and would
help to create jobs.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I
approached the debate this morning with some trepidation because
I saw the words mining incentives in the motion of the hon.
member for Timiskaming-French River.
My immediate thought was he wants some lollipops for the
mining industry. However, having heard the hon. member speak
and explain that what he is really seeking is a more sensible and
sane regime of mining taxation, a more reasonable regulatory
regime both federally and provincially, I support the hon.
member's motion and I am pleased to do so.
I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the
natural resources committee held extensive hearings last fall on
this very question and came up with nine recommendations that
were endorsed by all parties in the committee. Of course the
government chose to ignore all the work that was done and all the
witnesses we heard in that committee. Perhaps we have learned to
accept that. That is the way Parliament works.
Maybe we can revisit some of these things. On the federal side, I
would particularly like to see a revisitation of recommendations 4,
5, and 9, all of which deal with taxation and which would not cost
the government a great deal of money in terms of revenue forgone
but would send a message to the mining industry to indicate that we
are in business here to do mining and the mining companies are
welcome.
On recommendation 4, which deals with the way flow-through
funds are spent, under existing regulations if one raises money
through a flow-through issue the schedule of spending is tied to the
taxation year. The result of that is that if a company gets its
underwriting complete and gets its money right near the end of the
taxation year, they then have to rush out and spend it madly before
the taxation year has ended. This causes all sorts of grief for the
people in the field and it causes huge amounts of money to be
wasted.
I have had personal experience with this on several occasions.
We must get away from that and allow companies, as was
recommended by the committee, the possibility of having a full
year to spend the funds once they are raised. This is extremely
important, and it would cost the government nothing. It only means
a small change in the way the regulations are enforced.
I would urge that we look again at the current taxation system of
applying the large corporations tax to mining companies that have
no income. There are quite a few of them out there, and if they are
doing exploration work and have no income they are obviously
either raising more money in the capital market or they are going
into debt. This is not recognized when you make them pay a tax on
their assets. This does not make sense. It is not good for the
companies and it is not good for the country.
The final one that I would like to see brought in, and I hope it
will be brought in next year, is our recommendation for changes to
the Income Tax Act with regard to the deferring of taxation on
income generated in mine reclamation trusts.
If a company is obliged to put money into a trust in order to
satisfy future obligations for mine reclamation, surely to heavens
they should not be taxed for the income on the money that they do
not have, which is what we have now. Let those things be treated
like an RRSP, which is what the committee recommended. Again,
it would cost the government very little, but it could get us a few
new mines and it certainly would encourage the mining industry.
(1135)
Getting on to some more general matters, away from taxation,
we all know that we are witnessing and have been witnessing a
progressive decline in investment, employment, and mining
exploration over the last five years. On an average, we are losing
6,000 employees per year in the industry and have been for the past
five years. Part of it is due to taxation, but most of it unfortunately
is due to land use policies, regulatory policies, and the lack of
security of tenure. I would put a great big exclamation mark beside
that lack of security of tenure.
It is no fun to go out and spend many millions of dollars
developing a mining property and then find that because the rules
have changed you are not going to be allowed to develop it. The
classic example, of course, was the Tatsenshini case in northern
13212
British Columbia, the Windy Craggy deposit, where it was almost
absent-mindedly decided by the Government of British Columbia
to abandon the traditional Canadian principle of multiple land use
and to tell a company that had spent huge amounts of money
developing what would have been a mine that would have
contributed billions of dollars of economic activity to Canada:
``No, you cannot put that into production. It is gone. It is going to
be inside of a vast park. We are going to forgo all this potential
economic activity and take away your property rights to provide a
playground for a few well-heeled tourists''. This is economic
madness.
Of course the federal government also is not without guilt in
regulatory nonsense. When the Kluane Park in the Yukon was set
up some 20 years ago, they were advised by their own Geological
Survey of Canada that the area had considerable mineral potential
and that some of it should be left out for future development. And
the government said no, we are going to have it all reserve. First it
was turned into a land reserve and it has since been turned into a
park. There are potential mineral deposits there, and they are
locked away from beneficial use for Canada for untold years to
come.
Federal regulations also impinge on a minor scale, which can
been very irritating. I can cite a personal experience I had a few
years ago in northwestern Ontario. I had to build a bridge across a
creek in order to move a drill rig onto a property. I got all the
necessary permits from the forestry department and the
environmental people. I was ready to go when someone said, ``Oh,
by the way, you have to have a permit from the coast guard''. I
thought they were joking, but they were not. This was a little creek
about 50 feet wide and about 12 inches deep and I was told that the
coast guard had jurisdiction because this was navigable water. I
said they were mad. Yes, it is navigable. You can paddle a canoe up
that creek; therefore it is navigable water so you need a permit from
the coast guard to build your bridge. Surely we can have some
changes to that type of regulation to make this a more attractive
country to work in.
I could on with this sort of anecdotal material probably for the
next couple of hours, but I think members are getting my general
message. I do support the hon. member for Timiskaming-French
River in his initiative and I do hope the House will ultimately give
approval to his motion.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a
pleasure for me to participate in the debate on the motion of the
member for Timiskaming-French River. I am very, very pleased
to support the motion.
The motion calls upon the government to look at the mining
industry and what it can do to support it. This motion calls on all
sectors of our economy that deal with mining to work together to
keep mining in Canada, as the slogan of the Mining Association of
Canada reminds us.
(1140 )
On a personal note, I would like to mention that mining is part of
my family and part of my personal history. My father was a part
time prospector and mine developer. I have fond memories of days
up near Shining Tree on his small gold claim. You would probably
be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that the very first mine in
Canada was in Bruce Mines, Ontario, in my riding, on the north
shore of Lake Huron. It was a copper mine, which was established
in 1850. It may not be a fact that everybody knows, but everybody
should know this. I thank my colleague for that piece of history.
I also want to say that my home is in Elliot Lake, Ontario, which
once was the uranium capital of the world. There is now just one
uranium mine left, but it is still very much an active part of the
mining community. Even though this mine may possibly close next
June, the fact is that mine rehabilitation, which I will cover a bit
later in my comments, will keep Elliot Lake in the mining industry
for many years to come.
One of the most important things this debate allows us to do,
apart from calling on the government to work with industry to
make sure that mining remains a strong part of our economy, is to
make sure Canadians understand how important mining is to our
economy and to our communities.
There are a number of myths about mining. I appreciate the
attempts by the Mining Association of Canada to deal with the
myths and I would like to help them in that regard. There is a myth
that mining has an impact only on remote areas of our country. The
fact is that yes, mines tend to be opened up where there are not very
many people around, but there are 300,000-plus jobs that are
directly related to mining and another 300,000-plus jobs that are
indirectly relating to mining. A significant percentage of those
jobs, possibly even a majority, are in our cities. Our economy is
significantly impacted by mining. We just need to look at the
papers every day and see how active the trade is in metals and
minerals.
Another myth I would like to dispense is that mining will always
be here and will always be part of our economy. However, that is
only true if we continue to look for new reserves of metals and
minerals. It is not the kind of thing we can just ignore and pretend
that sometime in the future we need not worry about our reserves of
these natural resources. We must always work diligently to
maintain our inventories.
There is the mythology that mining is environmentally
damaging and that the industry is irresponsible. This is also not
true. Tremendous strides have been made in the mining sector and
in mining communities to deal with the sometimes temporary
damage that must necessarily take place in the landscape. The
Canadian mining sector and miners have made a commitment to
preserve the environment and to make sure that when a mine is
closed down reclamation is put in place to return the land to a near
natural state. Those initiatives have been tremendous in Canada.
Canadian
13213
mining companies and miners, who are among the best in the world
in their business and work, have done a great service to our country
and to the world in terms of leading in environmental protection.
Another myth I would like to deal with is that mining is a
low-tech industry. Well in fact mining is very high tech. I
mentioned a moment ago that Canadian miners are among the best
in the world. They are among the best in the world because the
mining sector is very high tech. In fact, innovation is taking place
all the time.
Members might be interested to know that for the output of a
million dollars of product it takes half the manpower resources in
the mining sector compared to the manufacturing sector at large.
This is an indication that in order to compete in the world and to
produce metals and minerals at prices that are competitive we have
to utilize and invest in high technology. We have done that in this
country.
I would like to come to what the federal government is trying to
do in its efforts to support the mining sector. There are many
programs. I know we are being called upon at various times to put
more money into the sector through tax incentives. This motion
today does not call for those specific measures. We do hear from
time to time that there should be more tax measures in support of
the industry.
(1145)
In fact much leadership is now provided by the federal
government in terms of support for the mining sector. That
leadership has led to partnerships which set an example for the
entire world. In my own community of Elliot Lake the CANMET
laboratory is doing some leading edge research on mine
rehabilitation.
Under CANMET and in partnership with stakeholders in the
mining community we have MEND, the mine environmental
neutral drainage program. This is a major partnership to ensure that
the acid produced from mine tailings is minimized and that there is
no damage to the environment. This kind of research can help the
world. There is mining development around the world and Canada
is a leader in terms of protecting the environment. We must show to
the rest of the world that there is a way to mine properly and to
preserve the earth.
The federal government is also involved in the aquatic effects
technology evaluation program. This program determines through
our satellite technology what kind of impact mining is having on
the environment. It helps industry in terms of preparing
environmental assessments and resolving problems.
The leadership we are seeing in the mining sector in
co-operation with the federal and provincial governments is quite
amazing. I was at the Sudbury 95 Mining and the Environment
conference just last week. I was impressed. The conference was
sold out. People came from all over Canada and around the world.
Every continent was represented. The interest in responsible and
sustainable mining truly impressed me.
This leads me to the one single point I would like to make in all
of this. The Mining Association of Canada in its outline of what
kinds of things the federal government can do to assist says that an
important first step is a sound mine reclamation policy. It is
interesting that the first thing it says is mine reclamation. It is not
saying the finding of more minerals and metals or tax incentives to
assist in the milling and processing of metals and minerals. No, it is
saying the most important thing is mine reclamation and I have to
agree. Mine reclamation and mine rehabilitation is the way to go.
My colleague, the member for Timiskaming-French River,
mentioned that we have been asked to consider the tax status of
interest earned on the mine reclamation funds. I know this is a
touchy issue. While the Minister of Finance has not committed
himself or the government to make moves now on this or any other
tax measure, his mind and ears are open. He is listening. We have
an ongoing dialogue with him and the Minister of Natural
Resources to ensure that the tax regime that impacts the mining
sector is proper, appropriate and productive.
I want to commend the Mining Association of Canada for
putting reclamation first. This government did respond, as I would
like to remind the House, in the 1994 budget by providing that
funds put into a mine reclamation fund would create a tax deferred
situation so that taxes would not be paid right now on funds
invested in mine reclamation. How we treat the interest in those
funds is a debate that we would want to continue with the industry.
I would point out that the interest saved by the industry because of
the tax deferral is something that is a benefit in its hands.
What is the future of mining in this country? Fundamentally it is
based on the prices out there for metals and minerals. My colleague
beside me knows about farming and perhaps a little bit about
mining too. He knows in farming that it is the prices which really
count the most at the end of the day and at the end of the season. It
is the same thing in mining.
We have seen a tremendous increase in mining investment over
the last few years. In 1993 it was some $500 million of investment.
We expect this year to be up into the mid or high $600 million of
investment. We are not as high yet as we were in the early 1980s
but the trend line is right.
(1150)
We can compete with the rest of the world. We can compete
because we have the best miners in the world. We have the best
mining companies in the world. We have an attitude toward mining
and the environment which is a kind of leadership that makes me
proud to be a Canadian, to have a little connection to the mining
13214
industry through my community, my father and my own few
summers at Inco in Sudbury.
In conclusion, I too call on my colleagues in this government to
pay attention to the mining industry, to continue partnerships, to
continue finding ways that will ensure that mining is an integral
part of our national economy for generations to come and, I would
suggest, indefinitely. We need those jobs. We need the economic
benefits for the communities involved. I am very pleased to be able
to say a few words and encourage my colleagues in this House and
all Canadians to be supportive of the mining industry in this
country.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to add my support to the motion put before this House by
the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River.
The major topic we are addressing today is the importance of the
mine manufacturing industry in our nation. Like my other
colleagues, I feel it is necessary to point out the importance of the
mining industry to the Canadian economy.
I suspect that a number of hon. members in the House,
particularly those from urban areas, do not realize the impact that
the mining industry has on our economy. The facts clearly show
that the industry is a key component of the national economy.
In 1993 mining products represented 15 per cent of Canada's
total exports which resulted in a $10 million trade surplus. This
industry contributes approximately 4 per cent to the gross domestic
product of the nation. In addition it may surprise many members of
the House that 60 per cent of all Canada's rail and sea freight is
directly related to the mining industry. While these economic
statistics are very impressive, it is also important to look at the
central role this industry plays in the lives of individual Canadians.
The industry directly supports approximately 100,000 high
paying skilled jobs in mines across Canada. The future of about
150 Canadian communities is dependent on the success of their
local mines. These single industry cities and towns are reliant on
the continued development of the mining industry to ensure their
very existence. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians live in these
communities. They are keenly aware of the importance of
preserving our mining industry.
Having stated the importance of mining to so many communities
in the country, it may interest those present today that there are no
mines operating in my riding of Nipissing. Northern Ontario is rich
in mineral deposits. However my riding does rely on an abundance
of subsidiary industries. There are no ore deposits and that is why I
am speaking in favour of the motion designed to assist the
expansion of the mining industry.
The answer is that the manufacturing spinoffs from other mines
in the region are a driving force to the riding of Nipissing. Those
familiar with the industry may recognize some of the major
manufacturing exploration companies in my riding, such as Boart
Longyear, Warren Equipment Ltd., JKS Boyles Ltd., and J. S.
Redpath Ltd. These companies are all located within the city of
North Bay and employ a large portion of the local workforce.
However the importance of the continued success of the mining
industry extends beyond these big players.
The database of the Mining Association of Canada lists no less
than 25 companies within the city of North Bay that manufacture or
supply products related to mining. These products range from
diesel electric locomotives to specialized spare parts, to core
drilling and drill bit supplies.
The point I am trying to make is that there does not need to be a
mine in one's community to benefit from the mining industry. I
suspect that virtually every member of this House has a company
within their constituency that directly or indirectly has business
within this industry. In Ontario specifically, the 1994 study of Ernst
& Young found that about 72,500 people are employed by direct or
spinoff jobs resulting from mining.
(1155)
I believe the facts which I have presented illustrate the
importance of the mining industry to Canada. It has become
necessary to act to protect this crucial industry.
As others have stated, the mining industry has suffered serious
setbacks in recent years. Low mineral prices and a worldwide
recession caused job loss and restructuring within the industry. To
stay productive, many engineering manufacturers and exploration
companies expanded their operations to foreign markets. The
initial pain which resulted from the changes has been offset by the
benefits of exporting to new markets. Nonetheless, these
companies cannot survive on exports alone.
The key market for most of these companies is and will continue
to be the domestic market. Canadian mines are the primary buyer
of Canadian mine manufacturing products. This is due to the
natural advantage of proximity and the fact that many of these
Canadian products are technically superior.
This design and engineering superiority is the result of years of
research and development which occurred during more prosperous
times. In order to maintain the advantage especially in cutting edge
technology, we must ensure the future viability of the Canadian ore
reserves.
The motion and the recommendation suggested here today by the
hon. member for Timiskaming-French River addresses many of
the issues needed to revitalize the Canadian mining industry.
Foreign mines are not necessarily prospering because they have
larger or better ore reserves. They are prospering because the
13215
investment climate in those countries is such that the mines can be
developed and exploited with a higher expectation of profit.
Many foreign governments have acted to attract investment
dollars through tax breaks and incentives. In Canada one of the
chief disincentives to investing in mining is the high non-profit
taxes and other charges which artificially increase the cost of doing
business here. This has hindered our ability to attract new investors
while at the same time companies operating here have had to make
cuts to other areas in order to ensure their profitability.
One of the key areas that has suffered is exploration. This is a
grave tragedy because without exploration there will be fewer
discoveries of ore deposits and therefore fewer new mines. If this
continues, the mining industry in Canada will die a slow and
painful death along with most of the associated manufacturing
industries.
The motion before the House today asks us to consider making
changes to the investment climate as it relates to the mining
industry, particularly in the area of mine exploration. What is
proposed is not radical. It calls for the implementation of the
majority of the recommendations put forward by the natural
resources committee of the House.
In truth, by encouraging the exploration for and the development
of mines the government will be creating jobs and stimulating the
economy which can only serve to increase revenues. Most
important, by encouraging exploration we will be increasing the
probability of finding new ore deposits. These undiscovered
resources represent the future of the Canadian mining industry.
They will be the mines of the next century.
If we do not prepare the way for its future then I fear our mining
industry will falter. If the mines fail then I expect the small and
medium size companies manufacturing and supplying mining
materials will not survive. These are the companies which support
the local economy in my riding of Nipissing and it is for this reason
that I speak in favour of the motion today.
We as parliamentarians must act to ensure the future viability of
the mining industry in Canada. Motion No. 292 represents an effort
to address the fundamental problems facing the industry today. If
we make it more attractive for investors to bring their money here
or to keep it here, then we will be assured that the process of the
exploration and development of mineral resources will become
healthy once again.
Canada is a world leader in mining and mining technology, but
this position has been challenged in the last decade. I am
supporting the motion today because I believe it represents one of
the steps we need to take to recapture a position we have rightfully
earned.
(1200 )
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chairman of the northern Ontario caucus I am very
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Motion No. 292 put
forward by my colleague from Timiskaming-French River.
Mining in northern Ontario is of historical significance. It has
provided significant economic growth in northern Ontario and is
the source of a significant number of jobs. It is a very important
industry in northern Ontario. The motion talks to the need and the
logic of government continuing to support the industry.
Canada's mining industry is the third largest in the world. It
employs over 330,000 people and adds over $20 billion to the
Canadian economy. The Canadian shield which covers northern
Ontario is one of the richest ore bodies in the world. We produce
over 60 different commodities. We have almost 500 mines and
quarries. Unlike many other industries, when jobs are created in the
mining industry there is a spinoff effect of almost 6:1 as compared
to several others where it is 2:1 or 3:1.
However, mining is different from many of our resource based
industries. It is not a renewable resource. One thing that is known
when a mine is open is that eventually it will close. That is why it is
absolutely essential that we search out, seek and explore for new
supplies.
Canada is fortunate to have the reserves. We can continue to
mine far into the future but we need to take action. We need to
provide the incentives that will enable our companies to go out
there to search out these areas of new supplies. Government should
and will create a climate in which the private sector will be able to
do so. Government needs to invest in exploration and in
development.
There are three broad areas in which we should be doing this.
First, I mention creating an environment that allows the industry to
prosper; second, creating a tax regime that is conducive to
exploration; and, third, providing technological and other
assistance to the industry.
In respect of the environment, creating the budgetary climate in
which business and industry as a whole can prosper is important.
Our budget of last February brought in government expenditure
controls and brought in a firm plan to reduce the deficit. It will help
not only the mining industry but all industries in Canada.
Trade must be encouraged and international barriers must be
decreased and relaxed. The Ministry of Natural Resources program
to encourage trade by going to Europe and Asia and explaining to
the world what is available in Canada is an important initiative. We
have to go out there to create an environment by co-ordinating
environmental assessments between the federal government and
the provinces and to provide certainty to companies so that they
13216
know how long and exactly what is going to be necessary to
develop a particular find.
We need to create a tax regime in the country that is competitive
with the world so that when a company is deciding to invest in
exploration it will choose Canada because it receives treatment that
is equivalent or similar to that in the rest of the world. I am
referring to things like accelerated depreciation, research and
development tax credits on technical research, and moderate source
deductions. We need to do something about source deductions such
as our reduction in the UI premium. We need a competitive tax
regime on profits. As was mentioned earlier by one of my
colleagues, contributions to mine reclamation were made tax
deductible in 1994. We need to look at the income earned within
those funds being tax deductible.
We need to help the industry in terms of technology and other
areas. Seeing as we are coming to a close of private members' hour,
let me conclude by saying that we need to support the mining
industry. It is a large employer and important source of
international trade. For many areas of rural Canada, including
northern Ontario, it is the backbone of our economies.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
(1205 )
Orders of the day.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I move-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. In terms of
process I am calling for orders of the day. The table officer will
indicate what those orders are and then I will deal with the matter
of recognizing the government House leader.
_____________________________________________
13216
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-76, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 27, 1995, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22, 75, 76, 77 and
78.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. 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 the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be
allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and 15 minutes before the expiry of the
time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the
report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage 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 stage of the bill then
under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 228)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
13217
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood-105
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
(1245)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the problem, with Bill C-76, is in the section dealing with
transfer payments-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would like to check
something with the officers at the Table, and I will get back to the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
The debate is on Motion No. 3 at the moment. I understand that
the hon. member has already participated in the debate on this
motion. He cannot therefore speak again on Motion No. 3.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-76 and on the motions in
group No. 3.
One of the biggest threats we have to all aspects of society is the
budget brought down last February. Nothing else will have a
greater effect on social programs, health care, education, RCMP
and in the House than the budget. Decades of irresponsible
overspending by Liberals and Conservatives alike have put the
things we cherish in grave danger.
Briefly summarizing the situation, we now find ourselves
federally with a debt of $570 billion and provincially with a debt of
some $240 billion.
We proposed a long time ago, before the budget came down, that
we would have a balanced budget and we shared with the
government our views on how to do that. Unfortunately the
government did not heed us. What we will see in three years' time
with the budget proposed by the government is a debt which will be
$100 billion greater than what it is now and an interest payment
which will go from $40 billion to $50 billion per year.
The money we have to spend on the programs I mentioned will
decrease from $120 billion to $102 billion. How will the
government fulfil its responsibilities to the Canadian public? Those
are responsibilities on which Canadians rely. The reality is that the
government simply cannot do it.
We must prioritise our spending. We must define that which is
most valuable to the Canadian people by listening to them to
discover what they value the most. We must have the courage to cut
where cuts are required. The cuts must be fair and be sensitive.
They must ensure the people who cannot take care of themselves
will be taken care of. The programs which are to be preserved,
those meant to take care of individuals in need, will be compro-
13218
mised. Those individuals who are least able to take care of
themselves will bear the brunt of the budget.
We introduced a plan which would reduce our deficit to zero in
three years. Our plan would also attack the real ogre in the
equation, our debt.
Two areas I will focus on are health care and aboriginal affairs.
The government claimed it was actually cutting spending but the
reality is it took $6 billion out of its $11 billion in cuts from
transfer payments to the provinces. That will compromise two
areas integral to our society, health care and education.
The government is saying it will take money away from the
provinces but that they must provide the same services which they
did before and in a timely fashion. The government also said to the
provinces that because of the Canada Health Act they could not
raise the funds themselves. It would hamstring them. Therefore,
the provinces are now forced and have been forced for some time to
ration health care.
(1255)
Tragically what we saw this past weekend was the manifestation
of rationing in health care. At the Ottawa Heart Institute 25 people
died while awaiting surgery. These were 25 deaths that need not
have happened if there had been enough money to pay for them.
That is what is happening. Ironic in this is that the head of the heart
institute is Senator Keon. He substantiated this claim by saying part
of the problem is there is not enough money to pay for what we ask
for in health care.
We must understand this is one example of many. In British
Columbia one can wait 13 months even if in severe pain to get a
new hip. I ask members to put themselves in the shoes of an elderly
person in severe pain needing to get a hip replacement but could
not. What a tragedy to endure those months of pain.
Prince George wanted to ensure a safe and effective blood
transfusion system and so patients were given the option of getting
their own blood by withdrawing it before surgery and then having it
put back in during surgery. It would cost $150 per unit. The
government refused to pay for it, which was fine because the
patients were prepared to pay for it. It was a much safer way of
providing blood transfusions. Within one month the provincial
government said no to this because it goes against the Canada
Health Act. The government will forbid Canadians from receiving
their own blood, blood that would be free of HIV, hepatitis B and
other disorders. The hospital now has to pay $500 a unit in order to
get blood for transfusions. What a waste.
We need to amend the Canada Health Act. Let us get a new
Canada Health Act, one made in Canada, one unlike that in the
United States and unlike that in the United Kingdom. We must
define essential services and ensure those services are covered for
every Canadian regardless of income. The rest can be done through
private insurance and such.
We should allow the provinces to raise their own money and
allow private clinics to occur, assuming essential services will be
covered. This is not a threat to public health care at all because it
would enable individuals to pay for health care where they need it.
Some individuals would go off the public system into the private
system which would provide more money on a per capita basis for
people in the public. This would enable them to get health access
particularly for essential services in a timely fashion. What is
happening now is the Canadian public is not getting it done in a
timely fashion.
The next thing I will look at is the Department of Indian affairs
and the sad state of affairs among some of the aboriginal peoples. I
need not talk about the litany of problems they are having right
now. I ask each member to visit a few reserves and see for
themselves the tragedy many aboriginal people are facing today
within their society. Even though we are cutting money from many
segments of our budget, one area that is increasing and will
increase by 12 per cent over the next three years, about $600
million, is the department of Indian affairs.
Despite a decrease in the civil service we found the Indian
industry of lawyers, negotiators and advisers is actually increasing.
This increase in growth rate is the largest Ottawa dependent
industry we have right now. Is this valid?
We are trying to redress the tragedy we see in many social circles
on native reserves; substance abuse, unemployment, general
malaise and sexual abuse are rampant. This needs to be rectified
immediately. However, it will not be solved by pouring money into
the system as we have done before and continue to do. This does a
terrible disservice.
The aboriginal leadership cries for more land. However, will this
really help the aboriginal people? I think not. Claims have been put
forward, such as Nishga claim, in the amount of over $400 million.
The government has to pay for this and it amounts to $97,000 per
person. Is this really going to help native people on reserves who
will not receive any help? I think not.
(1300)
We are trying to help the native people to help themselves. I
maintain that our current programs will not do this. We must,
therefore, go back to first principles, the basics of human need, the
basics of human condition.
Natives and non-natives alike need to have a sense of purpose, a
sense of destiny and of control. With our current policies we have
created an institutionalized welfare state of internalized
dependency. People ask not what they can do for themselves but
what we can
13219
do for them. There is a terrible malaise of the soul which current
spending practices will not rectify.
I propose taking a new look at the situation. In order to do this,
people must have a sense of self-respect and destiny. People have
to be provided with the skills to take care of themselves, provided
with employment. This is the only way they will be able to take
care of themselves in the future.
External assistance is not a substitute for the fundamental need
for people to provide for themselves and make valuable
contributions to society.
In closing, I would strongly urge the government to invest in
policies that will enable native people to take care of themselves in
a sustainable way in the future. Land claims are not the answer.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most members have have had an
opportunity to speak to the motions in group No. 3.
I would like to refer to the motions presented by the opposition
members and to put on record the government's response to them
and why we are not voting in support of them.
Motions Nos. 20, 21, and 22, as proposed by the member for
Kamloops and I believe supported by the NDP, propose that the
WGTA would remain in force. The government is committed to
changing the WGTA because it feels that after years of discussions
on the prairies, the time has come to transform the grain handling
system in western Canada. Liberals are very confident that the way
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of
Transport and the Minister of Finance have developed this
legislation is correct, that the proper consultations have taken place
and now the country is ready to proceed.
Motions Nos. 75 and 76 are proposed by the member for
Lethbridge. Motion No. 75 would reverse the government
amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance on
May 18 of this year. The purpose of the government's amendment
is to ensure that an equitable arrangement with respect to the
transition payment is made by a landowner and his tenant. Many
farm groups have specifically requested that the government make
the amendment to the WGTA in the legislation known as Bill C-76.
Motion No. 76, also proposed by the member for Lethbridge,
would reverse the government's amendment adopted by the
Standing Committee on Finance on May 18 of this year. The
purpose of the government amendment is to ensure that an
equitable arrangement with respect to the transition payment is
made by a landowner and his tenant as requested by many farm
groups. The government's amendment to subsection 4(4)(c) is to
provide for the tax treatment to be given to that portion of a
transition payment made by an owner to his tenant.
The government in amending the WGTA to provide that an
equitable arrangement is reached between an owner and his tenant
is being responsive to the concerns expressed by many producers.
Motion No. 77, also proposed by the member for Lethbridge on
behalf of his party, proposes that subsection 6(c) be deleted. That
section allows the minister of agriculture to make regulations
prescribing conditions that must be met by an applicant in order for
him to receive a transition payment, including the condition that an
equitable arrangement be reached between the applicant and
tenant. This would reverse the government amendment adopted by
the Standing Committee on Finance on May 18. The purpose of the
amendment is to ensure an equitable arrangement with respect to
the transition payment is made by a landowner and his tenant as
requested by many farm groups.
(1305)
Finally, in this group of motions, the finance critic for the
official opposition has not proposed that clause 26 of Bill C-76 be
deleted. The effect of this motion would be to repeal the Western
Grain Transportation Act but no compensation would be payable to
owners of the prairie farmland.
This motion would preclude the government from making any
payments to owners of land in recognition of loss in land value that
may result from the termination of transportation subsidies. A
cornerstone of this legislation is to provide compensation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On division?
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived on division. Therefore Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 78
negatived on division.
13220
The vote just taken negatived on division Motion No. 20. The
question must now be put on Motion No. 75. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 75
negatived on division.
(1310 )
We will now proceed to debating group No. 4, Motions Nos. 23
to 45.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if there
would be unanimous consent that Motions Nos. 23 to 45 inclusive
be deemed to have been read, so that Mr. Speaker will not have to
read or ask for us to dispense on every single one.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
recommendation of the chief government whip. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-76, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32, on page
18, with the following:
``must exist before any part of a cash contribution may be withheld.''
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-76, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 24, on page 19,
with the following:
``the government of the province shall, at the times and in the manner prescribed
by the regulations, provide the Minister with such information, of a type
prescribed by the regulations, as the Minister may reasonably require for the
purposes of this Act.''
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-76, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 36, on page 19,
with the following:
``direct that any cash contribution under the Canada Health and Social Transfer to
that province for a fiscal year be reduced, in respect of each default, by an amount
determined by the Federal Court to be appropriate having regard to the gravity of the
default pursuant to an application by the Minister, where the Federal Court
determines that a default has occurred.''
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-76, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 10, on page 20,
with the following:
``for each suceeding fiscal year where the Federal Court determines that the default
is continuing.''
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved:
13221
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-76, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page 21
with the following:
``43. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act is amended
by adding the following''.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the budget of February 27 the Minister
of Finance proposed cutting over the next two years $7 billion from
programs which transferred money to the provinces for health care,
post-secondary education and social programs. With respect to
social programs it would cut money for both for social services and
social assistance. Bill C-76 is the bill which implements those and
other budget measures.
My amendments in group No. 4 and those in group No. 5 attempt
to stop, attempt to kill, those cuts by deleting all those sections
which would implement them. As I said in the earlier budget debate
this is no fun for me. It is with no joy that I have to do this, but I
feel I have no alternative.
In my view these proposals in the budget are completely
contrary to what we said in the red book during the election
campaign. They are completely contrary to what we said during
nine years in opposition. They are completely contrary to what we
did when we were in government under Prime Minister Trudeau
and Prime Minister Pearson.
My group four amendments would do three things. First, they
would delete clauses 30, 31 and 32 of Bill C-76, which clauses
would cut payments under the Canada assistance plan as of April 1,
1996. These payments would terminate the Canada assistance plan
by the year 2000.
The Canada assistance plan is that federal law by which social
services and social assistance are financed in the provinces. By that
law shelters for abused women and children, day care centres,
foster homes, care for the aged and different types of social
assistance are financed.
(1315 )
Secondly, my amendments in this group would delete clauses 33
to 41 inclusive of Bill C-76. These clauses would set up a new
delivery system for reduced health care payments under the Canada
Health Act.
Thirdly, my amendments in this group would delete clauses 44 to
47 inclusive, which would set up a new system for reduced
payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and health
care.
In effect, my amendments if carried would stop the cuts and stop
the new delivery system for reduced payments and reduced
national standards for social services.
Why am I doing this? I am doing it first of all because social
programs in this country are not the cause of the deficit. In a
question put to the Minister of Finance approximately two weeks
before the budget in February, a member of this House asked him
whether social programs were the cause of the deficit. The Minister
of Finance said no. As a matter of fact he said that social programs
were the same percentage of gross domestic product today that they
were 20 years ago in 1975. Therefore, if social programs are not the
cause of the deficit, why are they being attacked in the bill, whose
goal it is to reduce the deficit?
Second, I am opposed to those provisions in the budget and in
the budget bill because they would cause severe harm to those in
need. They would widen the gap between rich and poor in this
country and in my view lead to social unrest and increased crime.
Let me refer to a few recent articles. If members look at the
business section of Saturday's Ottawa Citizen, June 3, they will see
an article entitled ``The Widening Gap'' in which the former head
of the Economic Council of Canada, Judith Maxwell, is warning
that even if there is an improvement in the standard of living over
the next few years, not everyone will share in it. She went on to say
that we can expect increasing polarization in our society.
We can also look at a recent article in the Citizen dated April 6,
1995, in which the headline is ``500,000 fall into poverty''. This is
an article on the annual report of the National Council on Welfare,
entitled ``Poverty Profile'', in which they say that nearly half a
million more Canadians became poor in 1993, even though the
economy was pulling out of the recession.
Then we have the committee of the United Nations, which for
the second time in three years is criticizing the Canadian
government because the Canadian government is failing to meet its
obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. In particular, they refer to Bill C-76.
Finally, I would like to refer members of this House to an
excellent book that has appeared recently. It is a book by Linda
13222
McQuaig called Shooting the Hippo, in which she deals at great
length with many of the issues I am discussing today.
I am also opposed to those provisions in the budget because they
are contrary to what we promised during the election campaign. I
want to read once again what we said in our red book at page 74:
Since 1984, the Tories have systematically weakened the social support network
that took generations to build. Not only have they taken billions of dollars from
health care and from programs that support children, seniors, and people who have
lost their jobs, but they have set us on the path to becoming a polarized society
divided into rich and poor, educated and uneducated, with a shrinking middle class.
This is not the kind of country most Canadians want to live in. In a polarized society,
crime, violence, intolerance, and group hatred flourish.
That is what we said during the election campaign when we said
that we would attack the deficit. I agreed with that, that we would
reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product within
three years of taking office. However, we said that we would not do
it by reducing social programs. We said we would do it by cutting
out waste in government, by getting rid of non-productive
expenditure, by closing the gaps and holes in the tax system, and by
providing for economic growth by providing for jobs so that people
would be paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment
insurance and social welfare, so that businesses would earn profits
and pay taxes instead of going bankrupt. That is what we said
during the election campaign.
(1320)
I am wondering what happened in this country to the doctrine of
the living wage. When I was at St. Francis Xavier University in
Antigonish during the fifties we studied two great encyclicals of
the Catholic Church, Rerum Novarum, which was from the late
19th century, and Quadrogesimo Anno, which came out during the
1930s, which taught the doctrine of a living wage. That doctrine
was that everybody who works has the right to a wage to support
themselves and their families with basic necessities. With the type
of direction in which we are going today, with people working
part-time, for minimum wages, with no unions and no support
services, we are going completely contrary to that doctrine, which I
thought was an excellent doctrine. I have supported it over the
years. By the way, it was the philosophy by which I approached
these sorts of problems in Parliament. That doctrine seems to have
disappeared from the landscape of Canada.
I would like to say a word about affordability. Some people say
that we cannot afford these programs today. However, we have an
expanding number of consumer goods and services. Does it seem
right that we can afford an expanding number of consumer goods
and services but we cannot afford post-secondary education, health
care, and social services at the level we set them at from the middle
1960s on? Is not the business community caught in a
contradiction? They are saying on the one hand that we cannot
afford these very important services at the usual level. On the other
hand, through advertising they are urging us to buy more and more
consumer goods and services. They are urging us to take out loans
so we can buy more and more. They are urging us to use our credit
cards to the hilt. What can we afford?
Mr. Speaker, I note that you are indicating my time is coming to
a close. I simply want to say in conclusion that I regret I have to
make these sorts of interventions in the House. However, I cannot
contribute to tearing down a system that for my 29 years in the
House I helped build up with the Liberal Party, first under Mr.
Pearson when he was Prime Minister, then Mr. Trudeau, and when
we followed the same philosophy for nine years in opposition. I
just cannot do it.
I ask my colleagues to look very carefully at the things we said in
opposition and in the red book. I ask that we be honest and fair and
follow through on those things.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think this time it is really my turn and I am much obliged
to you for allowing me to speak on the fourth group of motions on
Bill C-76.
Bill C-76, as it relates to the Canada social transfer, poses a
major problem to Quebec. As the Leader of the Opposition
mentioned again at second reading in particular, the problem is
enormous. We said so during the finance committee clause by
clause study of this bill. We, in Quebec, have a major problem with
this bill on social transfers, because the federal government is
cutting shamelessly in transfers to the provinces in the areas of
social assistance, post-secondary education and health.
It is a disgrace to reduce these transfers on the backs of health
care users, the underprivileged who have to rely on welfare or
students, who are already among the most vulnerable groups in our
society these days; just look at the number of students covered with
degrees who are searching for jobs.
Quebec also has a major problem with this bill as it seems to
reflect the intention to ultimately impose standards or general
guidelines throughout Canada, including Quebec, in the areas of
social assistance, health and post-secondary education.
(1325)
During the debate at second reading, we were a little surprised
when the Minister of Finance announced, out of the blue, the
amendments which he was going to table to satisfy Quebec and
make sure that it does not have the impression of being again the
victim of strong arm tactics, like in 1981, because that is what it is.
But this is yet another attempt to isolate Quebec. Indeed, Quebec
will never fit into the mould imposed by Canada-wide standards,
13223
particularly in the education sector, which is the cornerstone of
Quebecers' identity. Education is the cornerstone of the Quebec
culture; it is the instrument which ensures its continuity.
Consequently, Quebec will never accept to toe the line, to follow
general guiding principles and even promote them, as asked by the
other nine provinces and the federal government, in a sector as vital
as education.
Let me go back to the Minister of Finance. He said that he was
tabling amendments designed to make Bill C-76 acceptable to
Quebec, as regards the implementation of Canada-wide standards.
This is the last version of the bill, as tabled by the minister. It reads:
``The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite
representatives of all the provinces to consult and work together to
develop, through mutual consent,''-the expression ``mutual
consent'' is never defined-``a set of shared principles and
objectives for the other social programs''-these other social
programs are post-secondary education and social
assistance-``referred to in paragraph (1)(d) that could underlie the
Canada Health and Social Transfer''.
The first question that comes to mind, as I said while reading the
clause, is what do we mean by mutual consent? Does it mean an
amendment tabled by the Minister of Finance? If we look back at
the recent past, the last 10 to 12 years of relations between Quebec,
Canadian provinces and the federal government, we see that things
were normally done by mutual consent, and that mutual consent
could be, for example, the agreement of the federal government
and seven provinces constituting 50 per cent of the population.
That is what mutual consent could be, and it could be used to
establish national education standards and to force Quebec to make
the decision to either get in line and follow the guiding principles
or national standards or to have the federal government cut off all
funding. This is what it could come down to.
If that is what mutual consent means, to establish a national
consensus, this bill settles nothing. On the contrary, the version
revised by the Minister of Finance is even worse than the initial
version, which said: ``maintaining national standards, where
appropriate''. Now, appropriateness is not even in the picture. They
will take the agreements signed by the provinces and the federal
government and will impose them across Canada, without even
giving Quebec a chance to say its two bits.
I must say that this is quite a sensitive issue for Quebecers, as
Quebec has been strong-armed many times before, in particular in
1981, by the Prime Minister of the time who was a main player if
not the band leader in the patriation of the constitution against
Quebec's will, the person responsible for Quebec's isolation.
The national standards contained in Bill C-76, in the part on the
Canada social transfer and research, are another example of the
Prime Minister of the day strong-arming Quebec. In the history of
relations between Quebec and Canada, the Prime Minister has
always specialized in strong-arm tactics against Quebec. It is not
surprising to see a bill like this one introduced by a Minister of
Finance whose boss is the present Prime Minister and a former
lieutenant of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
And it comes as no surprise to see another instance of strong arm
tactics as the government tries to shove national standards down
Quebec's throat, in a sector as crucial as education, when we know
that the present Prime Minister led the second attempt to strong
arm Quebec which led to the demise of Meech Lake in 1990. He
was there with his cellular phone in the hallways on Parliament
Hill, conferring with the leader of the opposition in Manitoba, Mrs.
Carstairs. He was giving her his instructions on the Meech Lake
Accord.
He instructed her to isolate Quebec, to make Quebecers feel they
were left out. This comes as no surprise.
(1330)
We are not surprised but we are amazed that this government is
so blatant in its approach. It makes no bones about it. They seem to
think there is nothing wrong with calling this flexible federalism:
giving the provinces full jurisdiction over areas which belong
under their jurisdiction in any case. We are not surprised to see this
third instance of strong arming in ten years, but we are surprised to
see the government drop any pretence at diplomacy and do this
openly, putting everything on the table and saying that if Quebec
does not like it, its funding will be cut. That means up to $7 billion
could be cut annually, the equivalent of federal transfer payments
for the three items I mentioned before.
Whether the government likes it or not, during clause by clause
consideration of the bill in the Standing Committee on Finance,
there were various representations. I would say that 90 per cent of
those from the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, asked for
national standards. However, all representations from Quebec,
without exception, objected to setting national standards,
especially in the ultra sensitive education sector.
Whether people like it or not, whether it was rejected or not in
1990, there is a distinct society in Quebec, and a distinct nation.
And this people will never allow English Canada to decide what
should constitute the objectives of a pillar of Quebec's cultural
future. Never will Quebec permit this sort of policy to be imposed
on the province on the pretext of establishing a coast to coast
standard in Canada.
Never will we allow Bill C-76 to make Quebec toe the line, as
the present Prime Minister has tried to do since 1980, by promising
us all sorts of reforms following a ``no'' vote on Quebec
sovereignty, but by doing the opposite. That is, he has worked to
Quebec's
13224
disadvantage over the 15 years that followed. We will never agree
to Bill C-76 in its present form.
We will never allow the Canada social transfer, which the federal
government has already cut by $2.5 billion, to be applied uniformly
and despite Quebec's refusal to such sensitive sectors as education.
We will never permit the present Prime Minister to continue his
dirty deeds against Quebec, which began following the referendum
in 1980, continued in 1981 with the patriation of the Canadian
constitution, despite the wishes of the National Assembly, and
carried on in 1990 in his work against the Meech Lake accord,
which did not recognize Quebecers as a distinct people, but simply
allowed us the strict minimum, a minor distinction as regards the
distinct society.
We will fight the provisions of Bill C-76 with our last ounce of
energy, as the purpose of this bill is to isolate Quebec as the Prime
Minister has done since his arrival in politics.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the hon. government member who spoke
before the last member. I would like to commend this gentleman
for his honesty in addressing squarely the fact that these new
provisions under Bill C-76 for transfer of money from the federal
government to the provinces to help pay for and support social
programs are in total contradiction to the position taken and the
promises made in the Liberal red book during the election. The
member is to be commended for urging the government to show
some integrity in the way it carries out the promises it made to
Canadians.
The government knew or ought to have known that this country
was in some financial difficulty. It should have been honest with
the Canadian people during the election, as other parties were, and
forthrightly suggested to them that changes would be made.
However, it did not. In spite of that, changes were made by the
government to funding for social programs, among them under Bill
C-76.
(1335)
The unfortunate thing is that these changes were not made in a
planned and managed way. They were not made in a way that
would allow the provinces to properly and sensibly deal with the
changes, the funding drops and the different rules the federal
government unilaterally decided to play by and imposed on the
provinces in Bill C-76.
This is causing a great deal of difficulty for the provinces, which
are responsible for delivering these services to Canadians, and
thereby to Canadians themselves. The difficulties of poor
government leadership and planning really go right down to the
bottom line which is where people are or are not being served.
With respect to the funding for the Canada assistance plan or
welfare, the money for CAP is presently based on a per capita
formula. The money which the federal government provides to the
provinces for welfare payments is based upon the welfare rates and
population of each province. The more money the province spends
on welfare because of its rates or caseload, the more money is
transferred.
What Bill C-76 does is to provide a new formula. There are at
least two things wrong with the formula, maybe more. The first is
that it was imposed without any consultation with the provinces.
This is rather shocking when we think about the fact that people's
lives are involved in this about which Liberal members always say
they are so concerned. They are so concerned about compassion,
fairness, equity and all of those good things yet without the
slightest consultation with the people who are going to be affected,
these kinds of changes are made. The provinces are rightly upset
and unhappy that they were not consulted and had very little chance
to prepare or have a say in what was going to happen to them.
The second problem with these changes is that the formula
imposed provides a formula for transferring money only up until
the 1996-97 fiscal year. After that there is no formula and no plan at
all. That is a real difficulty. How are the provinces and the people
dependent upon services supposed to plan for the future or have
any sensible long term goals and strategies when the funding which
is always the underpinning of a program has been so cavalierly
dealt with?
On asking the department, as I did, what its long term
projections were, its five-year or 10-year projections for the
programs based on the changes it has made in Bill C-76 that we are
debating here today, the department said it did not have any. This is
an absolutely shocking admission from a department which is
supposed to be running some of the most important programs in
our country. There are people who genuinely need these services.
The provinces are struggling with their own debt, their own
fiscal situation and with the bigger picture of the economy, which
was caused by the debt and deficit situation of our federal
government. Some people think Reformers tirelessly mention that
but it is so critical. How are these entities supposed to deal with the
responsibilities they have given this situation when there are these
sudden unexpected and unexplained moves made on the provinces
without consultation?
We have some real difficulty. Some of the most troubling things
to the provinces and to Canadians are provisions in Bill C-76 which
allow the federal government to make a unilateral imposition of
standards and rules for the use of these funds. The words in the
section are that there will be a mutual agreement about how the
standards are imposed. Again, according to the department when
questioned it had to admit that mutual agreement is not defined.
Does it mean the federal government in one province? Does it
mean the federal government in two provinces? Does it mean the
13225
federal government in seven of the 10 provinces with 50 per cent of
the population? We do not know. It is not defined at all.
(1340)
The federal government is diminishing its support for these
programs but has the gall to say it is going to say how the money
will be spent. It is going to call the shots. It is going to call the tune
even though it is not paying the piper. This is a recipe for disaster.
The provincial governments very rightly one of these days and
probably sooner than later are going to tell the federal government
to go take a hike, as they are already doing on health care. How can
the federal government impose its own will on the provinces,
especially when it very obviously is so poorly thought out and
poorly managed when it is diminishing greatly the support it is
giving the provinces for these programs?
We have a federal government that wants to decide everything
but other people are going to pay for it. Not only that, other people
are going to pay for it in an atmosphere under a regime that keeps
changing unilaterally. This simply is not workable for our social
programs and for the support that this country's needy, who truly
are needy and need the support under the welfare program, are
wanting to retain.
When we look at Bill C-76 and the changes in the payments
made under it, especially to the whole area of CAP funding we
need to look at the fact that there should be some real consultation
with the provinces, some mutual agreement. This is supposed to be
a co-operative federalism. Instead, we have a very haughty, a very
arrogant, a very single minded national government changing the
rules in the middle of the game. It is changing them in the short
term without any long term plan. It even admits that and then
expects the provinces to continue to deliver services on standards
that the federal government insists upon and sets.
What happens if the provinces do not fall into line? Under this
bill, any payment the federal government might be making to the
provinces can be interfered with. This is simply financial
blackmail. There is no other word for it. There are many payments
the federal government makes to the provinces under a variety of
agreements. Yet the federal government says it can and will
abrogate any and all of those agreements if the provinces do not toe
the line the way the federal government thinks they should on a
number of service delivery issues such as CAP.
I would suggest to the Liberal government that this is no way to
run a country. It is certainly no way to run a country where many
levels of government, particularly the two main ones, are
responsible for the well-being of citizens and for providing
services and spending the citizens' money in a way that best
benefits everyone.
When a federal government is so arrogant it actually stands and
says that things must be done its way or any dollars it might have
promised are at risk, what kind of management style is that? How is
that going to get co-operation? How is that going to get interaction
among levels of government that really will benefit all the citizens?
We very strongly condemn the way this has been done. We
acknowledge and Canadians realize there have to be changes to the
structure of funding programs. However, this kind of change and
the way in which it has been done is totally unacceptable and
totally against the best interests of our country.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to second the motion of the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. It is true that the clauses in Bill C-76 which
the member is proposing we delete, and I am in agreement with
that, represent a fundamental restructuring of the social and health
system of Canada.
(1345 )
It certainly makes a mockery of the review done by the human
resources minister in which many people participated thinking that
they could have real input. It certainly makes a mockery of the
national health forum that was supposedly established to set out
more clearly a national system of health.
Most concerning about the clauses that are proposed to be
deleted is that they change Canada in a very profound way. While
social and health programs are of foremost importance to citizens
of the country in their daily lives, there are important economic
programs that provide a social infrastructure absolutely essential to
the competitiveness of the country.
It is shocking the Liberals have joined with the Bloc and Reform
parties to dismantle national programs. Rather than saying up front
that they are prepared to dismantle the programs, the Liberals are
prepared to do it as one article recently stated: ``by erosion through
stealth, by the death of a thousand cuts''.
Even today the government has brought in limited debating time
for an extremely serious issue. It suggests that not only are the
Liberals not keeping their promises in the red book but they do not
want it brought before Canadians who will look at it more carefully
and see the real implications. The shift has come without a full
public debate. That is why it is so important to have a full debate in
the House.
On other issues, whether the use of drugs in sports or medicare,
we had independent commissions. This is one proposal I have
made because of the long term impact of the clauses we are now
13226
asking to be deleted. They should be deleted until there has been
further in depth study of the long term social and economic
implications to the country.
The Liberal government is sending a clear message to Canadians
that it is willing to abandon its responsibility to promote economic
and social equality. Canadians should be reminded once again that
the Liberal Party won the last election on its promise to make job
creation the number one priority of the federal government. Instead
Bill C-76, a financial bill, kicks the legs out from under some of the
supports that have softened recessions in the past and would do so
in the future.
At a time when child poverty is at the highest rate we have had in
history, when the United Nations is criticizing us for our
lamentable record on poverty issues and when many young people
are giving up hope, the government has all but abandoned the
promises that brought it here.
Does the government have a national vision in terms of these
important programs. We can only judge by its actions. When
Canadians look at the clauses in Bill C-76, they will wonder about a
government whose only goal seems to be to complete the
downward spiral of social programs and encourage the lowering of
wages and benefits for Canadian workers everywhere.
The $7 billion cut to federal transfers for post-secondary
education, health care and social assistance will have a profound
effect in further creating the haves and have not provinces and
territories. The Canadian Hospital Association and the Canadian
Medical Association have expressed their concerns about specific
clauses of the bill. They are experts in the field who know what the
effect will be on health care should the clauses pass.
The bill is not about making a small change to social and health
programs. It is about dismantling them. The block funding
arrangement means that funding from the federal government will
not be tied to specific programs. It suggests that the government no
longer embodies a national vision of the programs. That is why I
say the motion must be supported. There must be much more study
and much more understanding by Canadians about very important
decisions on the future of health care and social programs.
(1350)
My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois says that national
standards are terrible. They have guaranteed, particularly under the
Canada Health Act, some equity from sea to sea to sea. There is no
guarantee it will continue. There is no guarantee at all. As the
funding is not just reduced but no longer available from the federal
government, the federal government will no longer have a say in
implementation in the provinces and territories.
Under Bill C-76 the cash transfers to the provinces and
territories will run out within the next decade. Without the power of
enforcement the federal government will not be able to maintain
medicare as a public not for profit system.
Even Liberal members of the finance committee who studied the
bill opposed the plan, because it is a betrayal of everything the
country has stood for. We are in a mad rush to the bottom. I am
afraid we have not seen the end of it from the government.
The Prime Minister is on record as saying that we need to get our
health care spending down and that maybe the Canada social
transfer is one of the ways he will do it.
Let us look at the facts. We are spending about 10 per cent of
GDP on health care. The Prime Minister says that is too much. The
major increases in health care costs continue to come from
increasing drug costs and private health insurance for extended
health coverage. We spend only about 6.8 per cent of GDP on
public insurance.
The Liberal government can do something to reduce health
expenditures. It can rescind and repeal Bill C-91 that provided
patent protection for multinational drug companies and
dramatically increased drug costs and the costs to every health plan
in every province and every territory.
The United States spends far more on health care than we do. It
is precisely because it has a private system that is out of control. If
one charts the statistics one can see that until the late 1960s when
Canada introduced its public system health care costs were rising at
about the same rate in the United States and in Canada. We spent
about the same proportion of GDP on health. However when our
public system was introduced we began to save money. The growth
rate in the United States has continued to skyrocket where ours has
levelled off. Now the United States looks to us for solutions.
The government promised that it would not withdraw from or
abandon the health care field but the bill breaks the promise. The
government is abandoning every Canadian who trusted the
government. It is abandoning poor Canadians and the unemployed.
It is abandoning the ill.
I despair for the country when the government has turned its
back on the people. I strongly oppose Bill C-76. I strongly support
the motion of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I urge
and indeed plead with the government to delete the clauses so there
may be further discussion, public debate and open debate on the
serious and fundamental restructuring of the social and health care
plans.
Should the government choose to do so, it would have praise
from many parts of the country. This is the opportunity for
government members to vote for the motion to delete the clauses
13227
and allow time for Canadians, not just the Liberal Party, to have a
say about the future of health care and social programs.
I urge all colleagues in the House of Commons to support the
motion to delete the clauses.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa has two or three
minutes before we go to members' statements.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-76, an Act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 27, 1995.
(1355)
I oppose this bill, which maintains national standards in the
health field and provides for the introduction of new national
standards with respect to social assistance and post-secondary
education. These measures fly in the face of the provinces'
autonomy and jurisdiction. If the provinces did not comply with
these national standards, the federal government would impose
sanctions by cutting transfer payments, having already cut benefits
to the unemployed and those receiving social assistance and
planning to target seniors next.
This bill will affect the education sector, a sector of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction and one that is vital to Quebec's cultural
identity. These Canada-wide standards will reflect the interests of
the majority of English speaking provinces, not the reality of the
special situation in Quebec, which is a distinct society.
In my opinion, this bill has two fundamental objectives: first, to
steam roller over the legitimate claims of the government of
Quebec in its own areas of jurisdiction; and second, to introduce
unprecedented cuts in provincial transfer payments and,
consequently, in social programs.
The first federal budget in 1994 began by offloading $5.5 billion
in cuts onto the backs of the unemployed and $2 billion in cuts onto
the backs of welfare recipients and the education system for the
period from 1994 to 1997. The February 1995 budget announced
additional cuts of $7 billion in transfer payments for social
assistance, education and health, and another $700 million in cuts
to unemployment insurance. Is this is the much touted flexible
federalism of the Liberals?
In addition, the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget
that the government will review the old age pension plan. Seniors,
including the 15 per cent of the population in my riding of Bourassa
who are aged 65 or over, can now expect to see their cheques
further eroded. I hope that seniors will again rise up and protest, as
they did under the Mulroney government, against the deterioration
in their living conditions, particularly with respect to pensions.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, as it is almost 2 p.m., you will
complete your remarks after Question Period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will
now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
13227
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the occasion of Environment Week 1995, I extend an invitation to
hon. members and to all Canadians to do more and to find more
ways to protect and preserve our country's environment.
As a result of numerous activities and exhibitions being held
nationwide, Canadians will have an opportunity to familiarize
themselves with healthy environmental practices. I encourage all
Canadians to take part in the activities.
We can do a great deal. We could build a composter, join an
environmental organization, install water saving devices at home,
car pool or use public transport.
[Translation]
In the spirit of Environment Week, let us keep in mind that
preservation of the environment is an ongoing commitment. The
initiatives taken are important not only this week but throughout
the year.
* * *
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, francophone
minorities outside Quebec still face multiple frustrations ranging
from the violation of their education rights to the lack of adequate
government services in French at both the provincial and federal
levels. Yet, instead of helping Acadian and other francophone
communities, the Liberals prefer to lend a hand to their
gravediggers.
This weekend, the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario
confirmed her opposition to any plan to establish a French
language university in Ontario. Mrs. McLeod did not hesitate to
violate the constitutional rights of francophones in her province by
delaying the creation of a French school board. At the same time,
the Government of the Northwest Territories is following in the
footsteps of the Ontario Liberals by refusing to recognize the
education rights of the French speaking minority in its new
education law. In the meantime, the federal Liberals are greeting
this infringement of francophones' rights with silence.
13228
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Liberals were in opposition they roundly
castigated the Conservative government for not speaking out
against human rights abuses in China. In their red book of broken
promises they said: ``We will continue to support democracy and
respect for human rights worldwide''. Yet in government the
Liberals have done an about face.
The sixth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre passed
yesterday without a whimper from this government. Yet the people
of China are still under the boot of a repressive regime. Human
rights abuses abound and democratic principles are squashed.
In the face of this the government has said: ``Give us your money
and we will turn a blind eye'', saying that trade should take
precedence regardless of a country's poor human rights record. In
the same vein, Canada is one of the world's leading suppliers of
arms to the third world.
In the red book it said: ``Canada will help develop greater
international and intercultural collaboration in the interests of
peace, justice and humankind''. Sadly, the red book promise has
shown once again that it is a book of hypocrisy.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
appropriate that the inauguration of this year's National
Transportation Week took place in St. John's, Newfoundland, the
first time the kick-off has ever been held in our province. It gave us
the opportunity to focus on our important local and provincial
transportation issues.
The organization committee provided the delegates with a taste
of Newfoundland life that included a harbour tour and a seminar at
the Marine Institute, St. John's world class marine science research
facility.
As islanders, Newfoundlanders understand the value of
transportation. We rely on marine transport to take our products to
market and bring back to us the goods we need.
The theme of this year's National Transportation Week is
``Careers in Transportation: Opportunities, Training, Skills''. It is a
reminder that the modern national transportation system requires
highly skilled and dedicated people. We all have a stake in seeing
that the transportation sector continues to attract the best
candidates possible. A successful transportation sector will keep
the country moving into the next century.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to rise today to recognize the outstandingly heroic initiative
of Glenn Gillespie of Burlington, Ontario.
On June 2 Glenn began his River of Hope kayak marathon for
cancer research. Glenn's journey will take him from Fredericton,
along the Gulf of St. Lawrence in New Brunswick, through the St.
Lawrence River in Quebec and Ontario, until he reaches Burlington
in August.
Years ago Glenn met Terry Fox jogging along the side of the road
through New Brunswick during his Marathon of Hope. Glenn ran
with Terry Fox and was inspired to take up Terry's challenge to
raise funds for cancer research. This chance encounter with a truly
remarkable young Canadian inspired Glenn to take up this
adventure.
Mr. Speaker, fellow members of Parliament, please join me in
saluting Glenn Gillespie of Burlington as he begins travelling along
his River of Hope and wish him the best of luck.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
Canadian company that recently brought jobs and investment to
Oakville is also bringing sensible cost savings to Canadian
hospitals without harming patient care.
In May, Livingston Healthcare Services Inc., an Ontario based
health products distributor, opened a new logistics facility in
Oakville. This company has introduced to Canadian hospitals a
cost saving innovation: just in time delivery. The result is that
hospitals no longer need to keep large, expensive inventories.
Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto has saved over $200,000 in its
first year using this system. While the Toronto hospital anticipates
savings of over $1 million annually, these savings have no negative
impact on patient care and in fact can allow money to be
reallocated to improve it. The latest investment and expansion has
the potential to benefit all Canadians.
Clearly this is welcome news for Canada's health care system.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to make CN more attractive to potential buyers, the
13229
Minister of Transport is about to spend between $600 million and
$1 billion in public funds to reduce this corporation's debt.
This squandering of public funds for the benefit of CN's future
buyers is unacceptable, especially since the minister has refused to
make a commitment to ensure the survival of AMF
Technotransport. The minister himself admits that this CN
subsidiary, which employs 1,300 people in Pointe-Saint-Charles, a
Montreal neighbourhood which is one of the poorest in Canada,
faces an uncertain future. The closing of this company would have
serious consequences for Montreal and a disastrous impact on the
Pointe-Saint-Charles area.
Instead of sweetening the deal for the eventual buyers, the
minister should try to help AMF workers, who live in an area
already afflicted by poverty.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Ontario polls show a clear preference for Mike Harris and his
common sense revolution. Voters give every indication they will
reject the Ontario Liberals' daughter of red book on Thursday.
This election is not about right versus left, it is about right versus
wrong. Ontarians are saying that employment equity is wrong, that
MPP pensions are wrong, and ever increasing taxes are wrong.
Ontario is saying that hiring on merit alone is right, workfare is
right, and balancing the budget by a fixed date is right. Like
Alberta, Ontario is saying that the Reform agenda is right.
It proves clearly that popularity polls are meaningless until the
rubber hits the road. Once the Ontario election was called, the
common sense revolution destroyed the Liberal mirage.
This Thursday, what is wrong in Ontario will be rejected and
replaced with the only party with the Reform message, which
knows what is right, Mike Harris-
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 11th anniversary of Operation
Blue Star, in which the Indian army stormed the Golden Temple in
Amritsar.
The sanctity of the most holy place of the Sikh religion, the
Golden Temple, was dishonoured. Many innocent men, women and
children who were there to mark a holy day were killed in the
ensuing battle for the Golden Temple. Religious freedom, which is
protected here in Canada and in many other democratic countries
around the world, was violated.
The Sikh community continues to tell its sad story of sacrifice to
the world. Today, I ask you to honour the sacrifice of many
innocent people who died in this senseless, ruthless tragedy.
We must remember the victims of Operation Blue Star and
ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first week of June marks remembrance for two of the
darkest incidents in recent times. I am speaking of course of
Operation Blue Star, the attack on the Golden Temple, one of the
Sikhs' holiest shrines, and the Tiananmen Square massacre.
On June 3, 1984, the Indian army stormed the Golden Temple,
injuring and killing hundreds and perhaps thousands in the process.
The invasion of the Golden Temple was more than an assault on the
shrine itself; it was an assault on the human rights of Indian people.
On June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square was the site of a brutal
attack on students by the Chinese army. Television cameras around
the world recorded the horror of students being shot and run down
by tanks.
In China as in India, the attack on the students was not only a
savage murder of innocent people but also a vicious attack on
human rights and democracy.
As parliamentarians, I believe it is incumbent on us to raise the
awareness of human rights abuses and to speak out forcefully
against them wherever they may occur.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a new propaganda tool has recently been added to the
list of separatist gadgets. Last Thursday, the PQ government in
Quebec activated a new toll-free line to answer questions from the
public on the future of an independent Quebec.
Listening to the answers provided to any question dealing with a
sovereign Quebec, the caller soon starts to wonder if he or she did
not make a mistake and dial the number for Cheerful Anonymous
instead.
This latest gimmick, which will cost Quebec taxpayers the
modest sum of $200,000 for a single month of use, gives a historic
advantage to the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois.
(1410)
This way, they can claim that every ``Yes, hello'' is another vote
in support of their plans for separation.
13230
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
opposition the Liberals howled at Brian Mulroney with righteous
indignation over his government's use of time allocation to ram
through legislation. With such sincere compassion for democracy,
one would expect this Liberal government's record in the use of
time allocation to be squeaky clean compared to Mulroney. Let us
compare.
Mulroney used time allocation 35 times to pass 200 bills. That is
17 per cent of his bills. Shame on him. Counting today's time
allocation motion, the little guy from Shawinigan has used time
allocation an unprecedented 11 times in only 59 bills. That is 19 per
cent of his bills passed using time allocation, 2 per cent more than
Mulroney.
Congratulations, Liberals. A parliamentary record. Does this
mean that this Prime Minister is less democratic and even more
arrogant than Brian Mulroney? Is that possible?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday afternoon, as nearly 20,000 Quebecers
applauded, the march against poverty ended in a rally in front of the
Quebec National Assembly building. Many things were achieved
through this march. Not only did the Quebec government respond
to most of the women's demands, but the march stirred solidarity
and social involvement.
These women from all regions of Quebec won over their fellow
Quebecers and put to shame those who had predicted a resounding
flop. Women's poverty impoverishes the whole community; it must
be fought with all available means.
That is the message conveyed by these women to the Quebec
government and the challenge the Bloc Quebecois is putting out to
the federal government, which for the past 18 months has been
washing its hands of social matters and attacking the most
vulnerable in our society.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, George
Orwell once said that most revolutionaries are potential Tories
because they imagine that everything can be put to rights by
altering the shape of society.
It seems that Mike Harris and his Tories are making every effort
to alter our health care system with the doublespeak of their
so-called common sense revolution. Tory economic policies will
never work without dire consequences to the province's health care
system. The common sense revolution is really the nonsense
revolution.
The Ontario Tories are promising something they cannot deliver.
If they are prepared to impose a $400 million health care tax hike to
cover just one of their tax promises, imagine what will remain of
our health care system when the revolution is complete.
This government and the Ontario Liberal Party are committed to
preserving an accessible, universal, and affordable health care
system, one that does not require tax grabs or taking us into
uncharted waters. We do not want and will never accept a Canada
and an Ontario where there is one health care system for the rich
and one for the poor.
Mike Harris' revolution is-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brant.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the final days
of the Ontario campaign voters are starting to ask very tough
questions of the simple answers that are being proffered by the
Conservatives.
The Conservatives say work for welfare. Ontarians are asking:
``How will this work? What about single mothers? What about
their children?'' The simple Mike Harris answer: ``Send them to
the foster homes''.
The Conservatives have said that they can cut taxes by 30 per
cent, balance the budget, and indeed not touch health care.
Ontarians ask: ``How can this possibly be?'' Mike Harris says:
``With our new individual health care tax, of course''.
The Conservatives say their plan is common sense for all, but
Ontarians ask: ``Who will benefit most from these tax cuts?'' The
simple Mike Harris answer: ``Those making over $250,000''.
I am glad to see that the people of Ontario are finally asking
these tough questions. On June 8 the decision we make will
determine our future as a province, and now is no time to give up
on our Ontarian values of equity, fairness, and compassion.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
results are in from the inquest into the death of Patricia Williams,
the young lady who was murdered at Kent Institution by a killer
who had her there on a conjugal visit.
13231
Among the 14 recommendations were that private family visits
should not be a right but an earned privilege, and offenders in
maximum security institutions who have committed acts of
murder due to sexually related crimes shall not be eligible for
private family visits.
(1415 )
Perhaps the Liberals could tell us dumbfounded Canadians why
in the same prison Terry Burlingham, a killer of two young women
who were found murdered, raped and shot twice in the head, is
privileged to have a pen pal girlfriend from another country on
conjugal visits.
This is the poorest excuse for a government I have seen in
decades. When will we start considering the safety of law-abiding
citizens ahead of the rights of convicted criminals?
_____________________________________________
13231
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in Quebec City, nearly 20,000 people were there
to welcome working women who took part in the bread and roses
march. These women marched to demonstrate against poverty. For
the past few weeks I was visiting various regions in Quebec, and I
must say that wherever you go now, poverty is very much a fact of
life. According to the official statistics, more than 800,000
Quebecers live on welfare.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. After seeing
thousands of people who joined yesterday in a demonstration
against poverty in Quebec, and now that 23 per cent of the labour
force in Quebec is out of work, would the Prime Minister agree that
his government's job creation policy has been an abysmal failure
and is a clear example of inaction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Canadian economy creates 430,000 jobs over a
period of 17 months, one can hardly call this a monumental failure.
We brought unemployment down from 11.5 per cent to 9.4 per
cent. That does not mean we are satisfied. We have to keep trying
to create more and more jobs. I think the budget we brought down
in February showed that we intend to put public finances on a
sound footing and make it very attractive to invest in Canada.
That is also why the Minister of Human Resources Development
is preparing an income security reform proposals, so that we can
combine our job creation programs and the way we operate our
social services so the poor in Quebec and elsewhere will again have
the dignity of a job, as soon as possible.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, these artificial figures cannot hide the fact that for the past
five months there has been no net job creation in Canada. And that
is the truth.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: I may remind the Prime Minister that the worst
city in Canada in terms of poverty and dependence on government
funds is Shawinigan, in his riding, and the fourth is Grand-Mère, in
his riding as well.
Jobs are becoming harder and harder to find, and because of
repeated cuts in unemployment insurance, fewer than 50 per cent of
the unemployed today are entitled to unemployment insurance
benefits, compared with nearly 80 per cent five years ago.
That being the case, could the leader of the government tell us
whether his government intends to suspend the new cuts in
unemployment insurance, especially those announced by his
Minister of Finance in the last budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I just said, the Minister of Human Resources
Development is working on draft proposals to ensure that resources
earmarked for unemployment insurance and welfare payments can
be used to create jobs or subsidize certain jobs that could not be
created without government intervention.
That is precisely the focus of the government's activities at this
time. We will bring legislation before Parliament this fall, and we
hope the opposition will help us pass it as soon as possible.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if it is progressive legislation to take care of the needy in
our society, we will support it, but if it is more of the same, we will
vote against it, even if we are alone in our defence of the needy in
this Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Since the unemployment rate in Quebec still
varies very little, between 11.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent, and the
employment rate has not moved for five months, and considering
that 50,000 more people in Quebec are living on welfare and
thousands of unemployed workers have now been excluded from
unemployment insurance, does the leader of the government, does
the Prime Minister realize that his government's record on
unemployment during the first 18 months has been dismal?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since October 1993, 173,000 new jobs were created for
women in Quebec, and the unemployment rate for women in
Quebec has gone down from 12.1 per cent to 10.8 per cent. That is a
substantial improvement.
13232
I must say I am delighted to see the opposition take an interest
in the real problems of this country, instead of talking about
separation, cunning decisions, and sharp shifts and mirages. We
want to work with everyone, with the governments of the
provinces, including the Government of Quebec, to improve the
social and economic situation of this country. The best way would
be to stop talking about the constitution and separation and talk
about employment every day, the way we are doing today.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow me
to remind the Prime Minister that, over the past nine years, the
Canada that produced so many unemployed and welfare recipients
was managed by federalists, as was the province of Quebec. This is
the result of their policies. They should not try to muddle the issue:
this is their legacy, and Quebecers are increasingly aware of that.
Currently, more than half of Canada's unemployed are not even
eligible to UI benefits any more. No question about it: this is the
result of this government's actions. This situation shows how the
government targeted the unemployed, rather than unemployment.
Last year alone, the UI fund generated a $4 billion surplus, yet
the government still intends to cut another $700 million. Given that
surplus, and the fact that over half of the unemployed are no longer
eligible to the UI program, will the government agree to not go
ahead with this unacceptable cut of $700 million?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have to take into account the fact that, before us, there
was another government, in which the Leader of the Opposition
was a very prominent minister. That government left us with a $6
billion deficit in the UI fund, and we have to pay it off.
Indeed, if the Conservative Party, which included a very
prominent minister and lieutenant for Quebec, generated such a
deficit in the UI fund, we, as a responsible government, must pay
that deficit, as we are doing, and re-establish a UI fund which will
truly serve in difficult situations. That would be an easy thing to do
now if the Conservatives, including the Leader of the Opposition,
had not been in office for so long.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when there
is a reference to the plight of poor people, it is the separatists' fault,
and when there is a reference to the government's UI cuts over a
three year period, it is the Conservatives' fault. Enough is enough.
Will the Prime Minister agree to stop being irresponsible, as he
has been since the beginning, and will he recognize, as does the
Quebec minister for income security, that 43 per cent, a percentage
which reflects a tragic situation, of the new households joining the
welfare rolls in Quebec have been excluded from the UI program
because of the cuts made by this government? Will the Prime
Minister finally admit that?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained a minute ago that we are working on it. Since
we formed the government the economy has created more than
430,000 new jobs in Canada. We would like to see the situation
improve more. The problem was put in our lap when we came here;
11.5 per cent were not working and were on unemployment
insurance. At the moment we are trying to solve it.
I am delighted to see the Bloc Quebecois talking about jobs
today. At long last it is not talking about separation, the tournage
and the virage and tricky questions. It is talking about real
problems. I am delighted to see the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is
today having another virage; he is getting preoccupied with job
creation. I am happy today.
* * *
(1425)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, both the
justice minister and the revenue minister continue to trot out words
like competence and merit with respect to the government's latest
patronage appointments in the B.C. justice system.
There is no possible justification for turning aside a firm with 20
years experience in narcotics prosecution in favour of
inexperienced political friends.
Can the justice minister explain to the House specifically how
the new firms in the revenue minister's Victoria riding have more
competence and merit than the firm the government terminated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note with satisfaction nothing in
the hon. member's question suggests the new agent is not
competent. The new agent is competent.
The premise of the hon. member's question is the appointments
were somehow motivated by patronage. Of the new agents
supported by the government, 38 per cent had acted as agents under
the previous government. In British Columbia of the 38 agents
whose mandate has been confirmed, 47 per cent had acted as agents
for the previous government. We appoint agents on the basis of
competence.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
really interesting. According to the news reports we are getting
there is serious concern on the part of law enforcement people. One
report from Victoria says a judge last week examined a charge and
13233
commented he hoped the new drug prosecutor learned how to spell
marijuana correctly.
Was the justice minister made aware of the very close political
ties between the revenue minister and the Victoria law firms before
the appointments were made?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were to determine who was to
continue as an agent for the government based on the stripe of the
party that appointed them, it seems to me that 20 years ago the
government in office was a Liberal government. Surely the premise
of the hon. member's question is faulty.
As we find agents to represent the federal interest in court we
look for people competent for the task. That is the approach we
have taken in British Columbia and across the country.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
speaking specifically about the situation in Victoria and the three
firms there with absolute ties to the revenue minister.
Will the minister now do the right thing and rescind these
obvious patronage, political appointments and award the contracts
on the basis of merit alone?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these agents were appointed
because they are competent to do the work they have been asked to
do.
The hon. member should also observe as he looks at the
government's record of appointing legal agents the changes we
have made with respect to training new agents, the clarity in the
terms and conditions governing their appointment, and that we are
addressing the issue of conflicts which has never before been
regulated by government. We are ensuring the people who
represent the government in court abide by those standards in
respect of not only competence but also conflict of interest. That is
a stride forward.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
One of the nine demands made by the Quebec women who
marched against poverty was the creation of an accessible
manpower training network. As all stakeholders in the labour
market in Quebec know, Quebec's labour sector has unanimously
demanded exclusive control over job training for the past six years.
(1430)
Does the minister realize that this extraordinary march against
poverty organized by Quebec women clearly and dramatically
demonstrates the effects of the federal government's repeated
refusal to give Quebec exclusive power over manpower training?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member draws a
somewhat curious conclusion. The fact is that in the past year
alone, over 50,000 women in the province of Quebec have
benefited directly from federal employment training programs. It is
the largest training program being offered to women throughout the
country. We are making a very serious effort to respond to the real
needs of women not just in Quebec but across Canada.
In this effort it would be much more important if we could find
the ways to work together. I am sure the women who were in the
march this weekend would want governments to work together to
co-operate and collaborate, not to work in terms of setting up
separate jurisdictions, separate kinds of identity but to co-operate.
That really is the spirit by which we can conquer poverty in this
country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I repeat,
Quebec has unanimously demanded power over manpower
training. And women, some of them single parents, some of them
stuck in low paying jobs, some of them re-entering the workforce
after having raised their families, made the statement yesterday
that they need a co-ordinated job training policy and they are
asking Quebec to provide it.
Will the minister acknowledge that until Quebec receives
exclusive power over manpower training, women will continue to
be cruelly disadvantaged?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the hon. member
twists the really deep and sincere interest and emotion of the
women to try to turn it into an argument for separatism.
What we offered a year ago is exactly what the member said. We
offered to the province of Quebec, as we did to all provinces, a
fully co-ordinated labour market program. We would do the
planning together. We would have the guichets uniques together.
We would work out the programs together. The province of Quebec
has yet to respond.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last Parliament a Tory minister diverted money from a
federal-provincial program to a road in his riding. I would like to
quote from
Hansard: ``The $20 million gift of federal taxpayers'
money spent on a project not even related to the purposes of the
13234
fund in the riding of the minister responsible for the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency is appalling''.
Since these words were spoken by the current public works
minister six years ago, I would like to ask the minister to stand and
explain what has changed. Why is Liberal pork barrelling
acceptable to him on highway 104 but appalling when the Tories
did it?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of
Transport have answered this question time and time again.
Highways are under provincial jurisdiction. It is up to the
provincial minister of transport to determine the priorities of where
he wants to put those highway funds. This government obliges
what the province asks for and that is what we have essentially
done.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess we are not going to get that fellow up here to talk about this.
Let me quote the public works minister once again. This is a recent
quote: ``Drivers had better get used to the idea of toll booths on the
Trans-Canada if they expect major highway projects to proceed''.
My question is for the Prime Minister if he would like to get up.
In addition to the recent tax increases on gas, are we to expect these
tolls on the Trans-Canada because his ministers are using the
highway improvement money to buy votes in their own ridings?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again to educate the Reform
Party, highways are under provincial jurisdiction. To toll a highway
is the responsibility of the provincial government. Not to toll a
highway is the responsibility of the provincial government. Surely
the Reform Party, which calls for more autonomy for the provinces,
would not want this federal government to intrude on provincial
jurisdiction.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In 1993, Canada's child poverty rate was the second highest
among industrialized countries. Last year, more than one in five
Canadian children were poor. And all that the federal government
has on its social program reform agenda are cuts, cuts, cuts.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the problem of child poverty
is caused by their parents' poverty and that the measures taken by
the government since it was elected only push families closer to the
brink of poverty, in particular by making many of them ineligible
for unemployment insurance?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said right from the
beginning that one of the real purposes for undertaking a major
modernization of our social programs is to tackle the whole
problem of poverty faced by women and children. The beginning of
that was to create the proper economic climate.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that in the past year
alone there has been an increase in employment in the province of
Quebec. Over 42,000 new jobs have been created for women in
Quebec. That is one important way to provide economic security.
At the same time, as the hon. member well knows, we have put
forward an offer and a willingness to engage in the cost sharing of a
new child care program to enable women to more easily get back
into the workforce.
We are certainly open and willing to have discussions with the
provinces. We have already set in motion a program with the
aboriginal First Nations of this country to start a child care
program. We would certainly like to continue that work in
discussions with the provinces. We are making an effort.
The most important way the hon. member can help in the
question of getting a combined collaborative effort on the issue of
poverty for both women and children is to work to make sure that
the social reform goes ahead in the quickest, most effective way
possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Quebec, 245,000 children currently live in families drawing social
assistance benefits. Will the Prime Minister admit that his $7
billion in cuts to transfer payments and the relentless cuts to the
unemployment insurance system, which push more and more
families on to social assistance, exacerbate the already glaring
problem we have with poverty?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the same question. As
the hon. member will probably know, in the House of Commons
report which was tabled in the House just last fall, it was indicated
that one way of tackling that problem was to give the provinces
more flexibility.
13235
They could then establish a broader range of incentives and
support particularly for single mothers who want to get back into
the workforce.
I can indicate to the hon. member that we have been discussing
with Quebec government officials the undertaking of strategic
initiatives by which we could help with the APPORT program, a
very successful program in Quebec, to aid and abet in those areas.
We are simply waiting for a reply, again on our willingness to
co-operate in those areas.
We are making efforts. Fundamentally, we have to recognize that
to bring about a real attack against the question of poverty is going
to require the efforts of all levels of government, business, labour,
social groups and women's groups. No one single jurisdiction can
do it alone. We must work together, as an ensemble.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Since he was appointed to the cabinet, the minister has attended
a number of fundraising dinners organized by Richard Gervais, a
lobbyist and Liberal bagman. As payback for his fundraising
efforts, the minister has rewarded Gervais with departmental
contracts.
Having helped pay off the minister's election debts, how many
untendered contracts has Gervais or his company received as a
reward and at what cost to Canadian taxpayers?
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether this question concerns the
responsibilities of my portfolio. Of course, in recent years, I have
participated in many fundraising events, as we all do, and I will
continue to do so.
However, I can assure you that the rest is allegation. I would be
happy to respond and provide our colleague with all the details, if
she wants information on Mr. Gervais's contracts.
(1440 )
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Gervais has received no less than two contracts from the minister.
As a lobbyist, Gervais has at least one client who receives grants
from the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is a blatant conflict
of interest for the minister to be issuing contracts to his bagman
and grants to the clients of his bagman.
Why is the government shamelessly allowing its ministers to
hand out untendered contracts to Liberal fundraisers?
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our colleague knows very well that Elections Canada
has a system set up to provide this type of information and establish
the rules of the game. These rules have consistently been followed
to the letter.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Over the weekend, NATO decided to establish a rapid reaction
force under UN command, which, for now, could include up to
10,000 men. France and Great Britain, among others, have already
offered to participate. In Bosnia, the Serbs continue to hold more
than 250 peacekeepers hostage, including 12 Canadians.
Would the Prime Minister bring us up to date on the situation of
the Canadian peacekeepers held hostage and on the status of the
negotiations toward their release?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we were delighted to learn over the weekend of the release
of many of the hostages. A number of hostages remain, including
one being held outside Pale. The others are near Visoko, and we are
in contact with them. We are talking with local Serb and Bosnian
Serb authorities in the hopes that these hostages will be freed as
quickly as possible, like the others. However, I have nothing else to
report on this at the moment.
As regards the decision by the defence ministers of the countries
involved, the ministers met in Paris, and Canada's Minister of
National Defence and Chief of the Defence Staff, John de
Chastelain, were present. The proposal was made. However, the
Government of Canada has not yet decided to take part. We will see
whether our participation would be beneficial or required, in the
coming days and weeks.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned this morning that Canada is preparing an operation for the
withdrawal of 800 Canadian peacekeepers from Bosnia.
Are we to understand that Canada does not intend to participate
in the rapid reaction force, preferring to withdraw its peacekeepers
from Bosnia unilaterally under operation Cobra?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has joined with the other
governments that have troops in Bosnia, Croatia or elsewhere in the
former Yugoslavia, to draw up plans for the troops to be withdrawn
safely, should their withdrawal be required at some point.
This weekend, the President of the United States sought the
support of Congress and the American people for the possible
13236
intervention of American troops to help the peacekeeping forces in
Yugoslavia in the event of a withdrawal operation.
There is no question of withdrawing at the moment. We must,
however, always be prepared, should we have to withdraw, and this
is what we are doing at the moment. There are no plans for a
unilateral withdrawal from Bosnia at the moment. Our troops are in
Bosnia because we were given a mandate by the United Nations. As
I have said in this House, we complete our United Nations
mandates. In this instance, we are beginning a six-month mandate.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The minister has announced changes in the way term employees
in the public service will be treated by the government in the
downsizing period. This appears to be unfair to term employees
who have close to five years of service and would otherwise be
eligible to become permanent public servants.
Can the minister tell us how the government will ensure that
term employees are protected?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government wants to ensure there is a level playing field between
determinate and indeterminate employees. It wants to be fair and
up front.
For the first time there will be a formal written notice given in
cases of layoff or end of employment. Also for the first time there
will be access to transition services for employees with two years
of service or more. That will help them in relocating and finding
other employment.
(1445)
When a term employee nears five years of service there will be
less probability of losing employment because of it. That is all in
the spirit of fairness and ensuring a level playing field for
everyone.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the illegal Indian blockade of the Douglas Lake ranch
continues today despite the fact that the RCMP has had an
injunction enforcement order for several days now.
It appears the only significant thing, as we have read, the RCMP
has done has been to offer the band's chief as of yesterday an eagle
feather and some tobacco.
While non-natives continue to be held hostage by the illegal
blockade, maybe the Solicitor General could tell the House exactly
who has directed the RCMP not to enforce the injunction order and
remove the illegal blockade?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in this matter the RCMP is acting as the provincial police service
pursuant to an agreement between the federal government and the
Government of British Columbia whereby the RCMP acts as the
provincial police. This is a matter for the attorney general of
British Columbia.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the attorney general of British Columbia has told the
people that he will not interfere with the job the RCMP has to do.
If the attorney general of B.C. is not giving direction to the
RCMP, someone is and is telling it not to enforce the injunction to
remove the illegal blockade. I am sure the people of Canada,
particularly the people of British Columbia and those who are
involved with having equipment behind the barricades and are
being kept from going into Douglas Lake ranch, would like to
know exactly why the RCMP is not enforcing its mandate. Who is
telling it not to?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in this matter the RCMP is not acting on behalf of the federal
government when it comes to enforcing an order of the courts in
British Columbia. The RCMP is acting as the provincial police
service pursuant to an agreement with the Government of British
Columbia.
Therefore I again suggest to my hon. friend that he direct his
question to the attorney general of British Columbia. I understand
my hon. friend's concern about the matter, but it is not one under
which the RCMP is acting under the direction of the federal
government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The federal government is abandoning the regions as it plans to
close several employment centres, withdraw from air and rail
transport infrastructure, cut regional development funds, and
increase the number of weeks of work required to qualify for
unemployment insurance in the regions with the highest
unemployment rates.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his government's actions
are hitting the regions hard and that thousands of people from
Shawinigan to Saint-Siméon are directly affected by Ottawa's
desertion?
13237
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member gets his information, but no decisions have been taken on
the reorganization of the department.
I assure the hon. member that when we complete the
reorganization there will be more points of service available to
more small communities in Canada than there are today.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I get my information not only from the people in the
region but also from employment centre staff, who are very
concerned about the situation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crête: Is the Prime Minister aware that, by restricting
access to unemployment insurance and reducing the duration of
benefits, his government launched a direct attack against workers
in resource regions who work on a seasonal basis in sectors such as
fishing, forestry and tourism?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that
in this government ministers make decisions, not people at the
local level, in terms of the basic reorganization of the department.
I will be glad to share any information with the hon. member, but
I do not think it is particularly prudent for him to be responding to
rumours or suggestions or recommendations. He should wait to
deal with the facts.
* * *
(1450 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on May 4 the Minister of National Revenue
challenged me to provide him with information that the Babbar
Khalsa was a terrorist organization.
On Wednesday, May 31, the RCMP named the late Talwinder
Singh Parmar and six colleagues as suspects in the Air-India
bombing.
Today I have provided the minister with a copy of a 1989
newspaper photo of Parmar holding a rocket launcher surrounded
by dozens of machine guns and rockets. At that time Parmar stated
that if anyone wanted to commit suicide he should board an
Air-India plane. He also stated that then Indian Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi would not be allowed to live beyond 1990.
I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Which of
the above items does he believe qualifies the Babbar Khalsa society
for charitable status?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending over a copy of
the document, which was on my desk when I arrived in the House.
Unfortunately I do not speak Punjabi and it has been a little
difficult for me to understand the true import of her question, but I
thank her for the effort.
It is the policy of the Government of Canada not to support
terrorist organizations of any type, whether on the Indian
subcontinent, in the former Yugoslavia, in Ireland or wherever. We
provide no support with respect to charitable status.
Where we have reason to believe a charitable organisation is not
living up to its charitable status, which requires it to be promoting
religion, education or certain social services, we launch an
investigation. Any organization could be looked at, depending on
the information we receive. Twenty organizations are now
appealing their denials of charitable status in the federal court. We
follow it up closely.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder just how much evidence the minister
will require before he realizes that the Babbar Khalsa is a terrorist
organisation and not a social club.
While I do not expect the minister to listen to members of the
opposition, could he explain what rationale his ministry used to
ignore a protest from CSIS made over a year ago that the Babbar
Khalsa should be denied charitable status?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the denial of charitable status is something which I
have suggested can be appealed in the courts. It is something we do
on the basis of proper investigation and information.
We are quite willing to accept the views of the hon. member that
a picture of a member with guns surrounding him is evidence, but I
suggest it is totally contradictory to the Reform Party's gun policy
that the mere presence of a photograph with weapons causes one to
be investigated and causes one to lose charitable status.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Recognizing that forest fires fall under provincial jurisdiction we
nevertheless find ourselves faced with one of the worst outbreaks
of fires in recent history. What are we doing federally to help
thousands of Canadians affected by this horrible situation, not to
13238
mention the preservation of the vast forest so important to rural
communities?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to update the House with respect to the
situation right now in the country.
While the forest fire season got off to a slow start, unfortunately
we are now seeing the destruction of many thousands of hectares of
Canada's forests in the western part of the country. For example, in
British Columbia 112 fires are burning; in Alberta, 24 fires; in
Saskatchewan, 54; and in Manitoba, 27.
Very briefly let me say again that what we are doing at the
federal level-
Some hon. members: Order.
Ms. McLellan: Perhaps they might be interested in listening to
the answer considering that it deals with the economy of provinces
like British Columbia and Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister to make her final
point.
Ms. McLellan: Let me simply say that we work in co-operation
with the provinces and in particular through the inter-agency forest
fire centre which ensures that the federal government and the
provinces make the best use of their resources to fight forest fires.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
amounts allocated to social housing by the federal government
have been falling at an alarming rate since 1992. Last March, the
Minister of Finance cut the CMHC's budget by $307 million,
effectively killing any hope of new social housing initiatives.
Yesterday, 20,000 people demonstrated in Quebec City to remind
the government that social housing was one of their nine key
demands.
Does the Minister of Public Works not agree that his cuts to
social housing subsidies are a direct attack against the essential
needs of the most vulnerable families in our society, despite
Liberal election promises that these people would enjoy an
acceptable standard of living-
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I agree that this is a long
preamble. The hon. member will please put his question.
Mr. Marchand: Does the minister not agree that his cuts to
social housing subsidies are a direct attack against the essential
needs of the most vulnerable families in our society, despite
Liberal election promises that these people would enjoy an
acceptable standard of living in conditions of dignity and respect?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member will know each department and each agency of the
Government of Canada has had to undergo an extensive review of
its programs. Canada Mortgage and Housing has been no
exception.
The hon. member will know the Government of Canada provides
on an annual basis $2 billion for approximately 140,000 units
across the country. Furthermore, the government was able to
provide $100 million under the auspices of RRAP. There have been
a number of other initiatives too long to mention.
Perhaps I could conclude with a final one. Under the auspices of
the private-public partnership centre of Canada Mortgage and
Housing and the private sector, 49 projects creating over 2,500
units in the country have been put in place.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
amendments to the Young Offenders Act the justice minister
included a provision to have 16 and 17 year olds tried in adult
court.
Provisions in the Criminal Code and carried on in Bill C-41
stipulate persons under 18 convicted of first degree murder are
eligible for parole after serving between 5 and 10 years. Adults
convicted of first degree are not eligible for parole until serving a
25-year sentence.
I have a question for the Minister of Justice. What is the purpose
of having 16 and 17 year olds in adult court if they are not going to
receive adult sentences?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as a
member of the justice committee which considered Bill C-37
including these specific provisions that the proposal is that for 16
and 17 year olds transferred to adult court and convicted of first
degree murder the period of parole ineligibility would be 10 years.
That was arrived at, as the evidence before the committee
demonstrated, because it was thought to be the appropriate balance
between recognizing the age of the young person convicted of the
offence and recognizing the need to protect society.
The provision in that bill which came out of committee has now
been passed by the House.
13239
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Today the Canadian Hospital Association will be opening its
annual meeting with a call to arms against the government's plan to
dismantle the national health care system.
(1500 )
The plan to group funding for health, social assistance and
education and to gradually deplete the cash portion of the transfer
has been roundly denounced by the Canadian Medical Association,
the Canadian Hospital Association, labour organizations, the
provinces and territories. Even the nine Liberal members on the
finance committee have said the cash portion must be retained.
Will the Prime Minister finally listen to Canadians and set out
plans to ensure that the cash transfer portions for social and health
programs will continue past the year 2000?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what we are trying to achieve in the bill. If
we do not pass the legislation, there would be no cash transfers for
health purposes within two or three years in some provinces.
That is why we changed the system, so there would always be
cash transfers and we can ensure that the five conditions the House
supports for medicare is respected. The only way to achieve it is by
making these changes.
If we were to follow the advice of the leader of the NDP, within a
couple of years provinces like Quebec, for example, would not
receive any cash payments and we would have absolutely no more
influence.
The Speaker: Colleagues, that brings question period to a
conclusion.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Dr. Tarmizi Taher,
Indonesian Minister for Religious Affairs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
13239
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the government's response to 22 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to present to the House a petition of 153 pages which was
put together by the Fernie Resource Centre for Women. It is an
interesting petition and I support it completely.
The final conclusion of the petition is that your petitioners pray
and request that Parliament amend section 271 of the Criminal
Code to include a minimum sentence of five years where a person
pleads guilty to or is found guilty of level one sexual assault.
I concur totally with the petition.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on behalf of 60 individuals from the riding of
Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation against
serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk
offenders, by permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders
and specifically by passing Bill C-240.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition from Susan Sudernman of Prince George.
The petitioners humbly pray that section 718.2 not be passed and
specifically that Bill C-41 not include the undefined phrase, sexual
orientation.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition from John Lombardi of Houston,
B.C. in my riding. The petitioners pray that Bill C-68, concerning
the registration of firearms by law-abiding firearms owners not be
passed by the House.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition from Northside Christian School in
Vanderhoof, B.C.
(1505 )
The petitioners pray for Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
13240
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction assisted suicide.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Prince George, B.C.
The petitioners call on Parliament to preserve Canadian unity,
parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights of all the people of
Canada by prevailing on the Speaker of the House to recognize the
Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the
remainder of the 35th Parliament.
I personally support all of these petitions.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have five petitions with 188 signatures in which the petitioners call
on the Parliament of Canada to act quickly to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the
full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to rise this afternoon under Standing
Order 36. I have 187 names concerning Bill C-41.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the charter of
human rights and freedoms in any way with regard to this bill.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to present a petition from 51 of my constituents who request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships
or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds for discrimination the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, under Standing Order 36 it is a privilege to present this
petition with 179 names plus that of Mr. Castet whose son was
murdered in Victoria.
The petition calls for changes to the Young Offenders Act and
calls for the government to enact legislation to reform the justice
system and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act according
to eight principles.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present under Standing Order
36. The first petition has 25 signatures and comes from the Elrose
area of my constituency.
The petitioners 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. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition with 43 signatures coming
primarily from the Lloydminster area of my constituency.
It states that whereas Canadians are already overburdened with
taxation due to a high spending government they pray and request
that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing
taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal
spending.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the third petition has 36 signatures.
It states that Canada has enacted legislation providing for two
official languages, English and French, in Canada and it calls on
Parliament to provide for a referendum of the people, binding on
Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and
French, for the government and people of Canada, the acceptance
or rejection of the proposed amendment to be determined by a
majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada,
together with a majority vote in the majority of provinces with the
territories being given the status of one province.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating across Canada. This particular portion of the
petition comes from the Sarnia, Ontario region.
(1510 )
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the 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 that make the choice to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners, therefore, pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
13241
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if question No. 135 could
be made an order for return, that return would be tabled
immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 135-Mrs. Ablonczy:
With respect to all communications-related initiatives within the Department of
Human Resources from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994 (a) how much
money will be spent through public and private agencies, (b) what is the description
of each project, (c) to whom were the contracts awarded and (d) what was the
amount of each contract?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
13241
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of motions 23 to 45.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa has seven
minutes remaining.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
conclude my remarks on Bill C-76. It should be noted that the
Liberal government has already reduced the net income of seniors
by approximately $500 million with the tax credit cuts imposed in
the 1994 budget.
The freezes and cuts imposed by the federal government since
1984 currently translate into a $9.7 billion shortfall in the funding
of social programs in Quebec. We have more than 808,000 people
on welfare in Quebec today; in Ontario, they are more than a
million.
In 1980, about half of the social programs in Quebec were
funded through federal contributions. By 1997, only 27 per cent of
these programs will receive federal funding, while Quebec sends
$29 billion in taxes to Ottawa every year. Since the Liberals took
office in 1993, the number of welfare recipients has increased by
53,000 mainly because of UI cuts.
That is the kind of compassion demonstrated by the Liberals for
the most disadvantaged segment of our society. These cuts fly in
the face of red book promises and everything the Liberals stood for
in the last election campaign.
The federal government only manages to increase the problem of
poverty, instead of alleviating it. The Chrétien government is the
largest producer of welfare recipients in Canada.
Close to 500 Quebec women took part in the march to denounce
poverty and the plight of children, and also to promote a better
world. The 200 kilometre march, which I enthusiastically
supported, started from Montreal, Longueuil and Rivière-du-Loup,
lasted 10 days, and ended yesterday in Quebec City with a
demonstration, in front of the National Assembly, in which 15,000
people participated.
There are still too many women affected by poverty because of
their family situation, their age, their training, or the fact that they
are unemployed or on welfare. Yet, federal cuts to social programs
only make the situation worse for these women.
I want to pay tribute to these marchers for their courage and for
their cause, which also concerns men and the population as a
whole. This march is a giant step in the fight against poverty in
Quebec and in Canada.
I want to point out that Mr. Parizeau's government reacted
positively to the claims of these women. For example, minimum
wage will increase by 45 cents on October 1st, going from $6 to
$6.45. At the federal level, minimum wage is only $4. It is a
disgrace.
(1515)
The federal government should know that the vast majority of
minimum wage workers in Canada are women. This march had
other positive results: housing for homeless women, training for
welfare recipients and the automatic collection of child support
payments.
In addition, the sponsorship period for immigrant women is
reduced from ten years to three. As a result, immigrant women will
be able to free themselves from abusive or violent husbands
without too much trouble, I hope. At the federal level, however,
this sponsorship period is still 10 years. This is a disgrace.
As far as the preventative withdrawal of pregnant women from
work and parental leave are concerned, Quebec is way ahead of the
federal government. The federal government must act quickly to
improve its social legislation in order to protect women instead of
cutting everywhere, except where necessary, especially in defence
spending. I just found out that the Liberal government has decided
to purchase 15 search and rescue helicopters and 32 helicopters for
the navy at the astronomical cost of $2.6 billion.
13242
It is outrageous that this government is spending billions on
military equipment at a time when it is cutting social programs,
UI benefits and social transfers. This decision is all the more
disturbing since upon taking office in 1993 the Liberal Prime
Minister cancelled the contract to purchase 50 helicopters that had
been signed by the old Tory government. I am accusing this
government of not keeping its word in this matter.
I am asking the federal government to withdraw Bill C-76 and
enter into negotiations with the Quebec government. The federal
government must withdraw completely from social programs,
education and other areas under Quebec jurisdiction. In return, it
should give Quebec full fiscal compensation by transferring tax
points.
The time has come to end federal interference in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has the right to give itself job
creation, manpower training, education, health and welfare policies
in line with its own needs and priorities.
For all these reasons, I am against Bill C-76.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to discuss the Bill C-76 motions that deal with
provincial transfer payments and more specifically the Canada
health and social transfer.
A number of Reform motions are designed to remove the
government's ability to unilaterally decide what constitutes the
violation of national standards, for instance in the Canada Health
Act, and to unilaterally decide what the financial penalty should be.
The Reform Party has proposed amendments that would force
the federal government to take provincial governments to court for
alleged violations of national program standards and would
subsequently allow the courts, not cabinet, to determine any
penalties.
Our second goal is to prevent the federal government from
imposing additional unilateral national standards like
cross-country welfare rates without the consent of all the
provinces. Clause 48, for example, uses the phrase ``by mutual
consent'' in the context of additional national standards and criteria
for services. This would in effect permit the Minister of Human
Resources Development to proclaim new standards in welfare
without the consent of the province of Alberta or Quebec, for
instance.
In committee both Reform and Bloc members questioned
government witnesses as to the intent of the mutual consent clause
and how it would work. Would the government, for example, seek
unanimous consent from the provinces when it changed national
standards, or would it use the seven out of ten provinces rule
representing over 50 per cent?
(1520 )
What does this mutual consent clause really mean? Mr. Speaker,
with the bank of lawyers we have working for the government you
would think this clause would be made more clear. I guess that is
why we have a justice lawyer suing the government for boredom
for lack of work.
The bottom line is that Reform's amendments ensure Canadians
that clause 48 will not be brought in as an excuse by any cabinet
minister to set out national standards unilaterally without the
consent and co-operation of the provinces.
Another concern of ours is that the motive underlying many of
these changes and the creation of the Canada health and social
transfer is to provide the federal government with a bigger stick to
whip dissident provinces into line. For example, in Motion No. 57
we propose to delete a section of clause 51 that would allow the
federal government to withhold equalization payments and other
provincial transfers for violations of the Canada health and social
transfer conditions. In other words, this clause would allow the
federal government to withhold cash from other programs even
after the cash component of the Canada health and social transfer
has been exhausted.
Reform wants to move in the other direction, toward
unconditional provincial transfers. Let us move control over our
social programs closest to the level that administers them. Let us
rethink the way the federal government provides services to
Canadians.
This Liberal government promised to provide a new blueprint
for social reform. That promise, like so many, was broken when the
Minister of Human Resources Development failed to deliver on his
green paper. There was a promise not to increase the tax load on the
long-suffering, overtaxed Canadian taxpayer. It was broken to the
tune of $500 million a year with the imposition of a 1.5 cent per
litre tax on gasoline and the elimination of PUITTA, the public
utilities income tax transfer, also in Bill C-76.
There was a promise of a more open Parliament where MPs
would be free from party discipline. This was broken when Liberal
MPs who voted against the government's gun control bill were
stripped of their committee positions.
Now we are debating a bill that continues the trend of breaking
promises that have been made to Canadians. In 1960 Prime
Minister Pearson promised the provinces the federal government
would pay 50 per cent of the costs of national health care. This was
the condition insisted on by the provinces and promised by the
federal government. Without this promise the provinces would not
have agreed to national medicare. For example, the 1966 medical
13243
care act clearly states that ``the amount of the contribution payable
by Canada to a province in respect to a medical care insurance plan
is an amount equal to 50 per cent''. That is still in the act.
What is the state of that sacred promise today? Today the federal
government's contribution to health care funding is not 50 per cent,
as promised; it is now less than 23 per cent and falling. Because it
is breaking its fundamental financial promise, the federal
government is slowly undermining the other principles of
medicare: it undermines accessibility as waiting lists get longer
and longer; it undermines comprehensiveness as more and more
health services are delisted from provincial insurance plans; it
undermines universality as the system evolves into a multi-tier
system with access to the various tiers being tied increasingly to
ability to pay.
The fact is that Canada already has a multi-tiered health care
system, which the Minister of Health chooses to ignore, access to
which has been made more restricted by rising health care costs
and declining federal support. The challenge is to reform medicare
so that one of those tiers can contain all the essential health
services required by Canadians, financed by sufficient federal and
provincial funding so that no Canadian is denied access because of
inability to pay.
Canadians are asking and will continue to ask when real health
care and social reform are going to come, and from where? This is
not going to come from this federal government under the current
Prime Minister, Minister of Health, or Minister of Human
Resources Development. They resist every proposal for change.
They charge anyone who advocates change with being an enemy of
medicare or in favour of social programs that favour the rich.
The Liberals were only dragged into the discussion of health and
social reforms because their officials kept telling them that if they
did not do something the system was going to collapse and they
would carry the blame.
Like all previous governments, all they have done is study the
issue. That fiasco held by the social reform people of the human
resources development commission who went across the country
loaded with paid people to show up and private interest groups
presenting their points of view was a complete scam and sham.
Nothing fruitful has come from that.
(1525)
As well, the 1995 federal budget is a perfect example of the fact
that the government has no real vision for our social programs and
therefore picks the simplest route. It cuts funding to the provinces
while at the same time failing to give them more flexibility in
administering the lesser amounts it is granting to the provinces.
What a simple solution: give less, say less, let the provinces handle
the problem. That is not the kind of leadership the Reform Party
feels Canadians want, nor is it the kind of leadership the Reform
Party will provide when it becomes the government.
Quite simply, the Liberals want to have their cake and eat it too.
The provinces are no longer buying this. In fact, I believe that if in
1960 the provinces and Canadians could have foreseen the
monopoly Ottawa has today on setting the terms and conditions of
health care services and financing, then the present medicare
system would not have come into being in the first place.
The provinces need to be given more control over their affairs. If
they do not then our social system will continue in a downward
spiral to a point where fundamental programs like universal health
care can no longer be afforded by or provided to Canadians by any
government.
My concerns are very simple. When this bill was in the standing
committee on finance being reviewed, the officials and the minister
appeared at that committee. We were discussing this very clause,
clause 48. We asked the minister what his officials determined was
meant by mutual consent. The Canada Health Act is in place. The
five principles are there and they are a sacred trust. Everybody in
Canada believes in those five principles. We are not going to
quibble about those five principles. However, by denying the
provinces the flexibility to determine how to pay for some of these,
as I pointed out in my speech, the government is hurting them, not
helping them. By insisting that we still need universality and by
insisting that the provinces have to follow these rules and Alberta
has to close some clinics that people pay for, it certainly means to
me that the Liberals do not want solutions, they just want control,
for no reason.
Now we have something called the Canada health and social
transfer, which means downloading the problems to the provinces
and giving them less money. The government can now cut its
budget, solve its problems and look good. In the meantime, the
provinces will struggle.
In the standing committee we pointed out that there will have to
be new social programs in order to address our spending on welfare
and unemployment because the needs of the Canadian people are
important. When we do discuss those and the provinces then look
at the money and funds they have available, what are they to do?
Are they to then decide what they want to do, with one province
doing this and another doing that, and then the federal government
tells them it will not give them the money because it calls the shots
and it decides what the principles are they have to follow?
If the government does not like the principles it does not have to
give to the provinces. If the provinces breach any of the rules in the
program, for instance in health care, it is not only not going to give
that amount of money for health care but it will cut the provinces
off on other programs. That is way too much power. It is ridiculous
and unnecessary.
What the Liberals said in committee was that their intent of
mutual consent was that the provinces agree. They will not force
anything onto the provinces that the provinces do not agree to. Is
that really what the federal government means and what it wants
done? I asked this in the standing committee and the government
13244
turned it down. Therefore, I question if that is really what this
government wants.
This is what the government turned down. If verbally the
government is promising to Canadians in a standing committee that
nobody knows or hears about that mutual consent means that the
provinces have to agree, then why not change the one word mutual
to unanimous? If the government intends for all the provinces to
agree, change the word mutual to unanimous.
With unanimous consent, now the government has the written
agreement that goes along with the verbal agreement of this
government and a solution to the problem. In this way, Quebec is
happy, Alberta is happy, Ontario is happy, all the provinces are
happy. But this government does not want to do that. This just
points out to me that it will say something verbally, and a verbal
promise is as strong as a written promise. It is on the record.
(1530)
We voiced our concerns about that clause, that amendment. We
will use the quotation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance in which he promised mutual consent means
the provinces must agree. In the future if the provinces do not agree
and the government forces them, it will once again have broken
another promise.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my duty
today to denounce one of the worst incursions in the history of
federalism into provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-76, an act to
implement certain provisions of the last federal budget, opens the
door to all kinds of federal interventionism in jurisdictions
belonging to Quebec and the other provinces, and also widens the
scope of its incursions.
As far as deficit-fighting measures go, we have seen better. All
that the federal government could dream up was a merger of all of
its transfer payments for health, social services and post-secondary
eduction into one payment: the Canada social transfer. They hope
to take on the deficit by offloading to the provinces.
For 1995-96, the transfer to the provinces will effectively be
reduced by $2.5 billion; for 1997-98, it will be cut by $4.5 billion.
If this transpires, Quebec's shortfall could be in the neighbourhood
of $1.9 billion, if the distribution of the Canada social transfer is
determined by the criterion of population. That, at least, is the
criterion which would be most favourable to the government, as it
would result in Quebec having to shoulder close to 42 per cent of
the cuts in transfer payments for 1997-98. If the federal
government were to continue using the current distribution
method, Quebec's shortfall would still be approximately $1.2
billion.
The federal government would use these centralizing measures
to relegate Quebec and the other provinces to a purely consultative
role. At first glance it seemed as though the Canada social transfer
would give the provinces the transfer money they needed to carry
out their responsibilities, since the federal government would be
withdrawing from areas of provincial jurisdiction, or so the
government wanted us to believe.
In reality, the bill maintains the national health standards and
provides for the addition of new standards in the areas of social
welfare and post-secondary education. What happens if the
provinces do not meet these standards? The government hits where
it hurts, in the wallet. It will cut off their rations, like it did for our
society's most disadvantaged: the unemployed and welfare
recipients.
This is the point we have reached in this country. The
government wants to impose national standards unilaterally in
areas of provincial jurisdiction. The provinces-imagine
that-will be consulted. Nothing in this bill requires provincial
approval for the implementation of standards imposed by the
federal government. This means that, in areas as sensitive as health
and education, the federal government will be entitled to say to the
provinces: ``Your program does not meet national standards. If you
do not arrange it the way we want, we will cut off funding''. Not
only is this government making unprecedented cuts to social
programs, but it is imposing national standards in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. I wonder whether Pierre Elliott Trudeau
ever went so far? And this is no compliment to the current
government.
Bill C-76 will enable the federal government to tell Quebec and
the other provinces, at the end of unsuccessful negotiations, for
example, that it is cutting them off if they do not accept its
standards. It is just that subtle. In Quebec, the message will be
understood as: ``Toe the line or you are dead''. Quebecers will
choose this fall to suffer such humiliation or to form a country.
Elsewhere in the country, people are not thrilled about the bill
either.
Take for instance the Canadian Council which criticized Bill
C-76 in these terms when it appeared before the finance committee:
``If the federal government tries to impose national standards
without giving the money that goes with it, it will simply get
negative responses from the provinces''.
This bill will have numerous deplorable effects. Let us take
manpower development in Quebec for example. Bill C-76 will
allow the Minister of Human Resources Development to go
forward with his intention to grab the savings coming from his
unemployment insurance reform in order to create a human
resources investment fund.
13245
(1535)
And this fund will be used, among other things, for manpower
training programs, a jurisdiction that Quebec has been claiming for
many years under governments from all political allegiances.
Students also will be hit. Since their grants will be reduced,
universities will have no other choice but to increase tuition fees,
which will force students to borrow even more.
I suggest that this government is a past master in the art of
getting into debt. Yet, as far as I know, the federal government can
no longer afford to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. Following
the last budget, the government has made it clear that it intends to
reduce its participation in the funding of Quebec social programs to
about 28 per cent.
While footing only 28 per cent of the bill, the government still
wants to assume the right to interfere in our business by imposing
its national standards. Fortunately, by 1998, Quebec will have
taken its own destiny into its hands. The Bloc Quebecois knows
exactly what the Minister of Finance and this government are up to.
The bill has two objectives: first, to obliterate Quebec's claims
in its own jurisdictions and, second, to hide from the people the
truth about transfer cuts to the provinces and the effects that these
cuts will have, especially two years from now.
Federal transfers to Quebec, and I want to specify here that this
is Quebecers' money, taken from the $30 billion in taxes they sent
to Ottawa, will be reduced by 32 per cent between 1994-95 and
1997-98.
The bill is a perfect example of what motivates us to want to
become sovereign; this is plain interference, except that this time
the government is going further than any other centralizing
government has ever gone. We denounce that and the people will
hear us.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank the Reform Party member who allowed me to take the floor
now, since I have to leave in a few minutes.
I am happy to address the House today on Bill C-76 at report
stage. Since our arrival here in Parliament, we have seen this bill
take shape. It reflects the whole approach of the government to
transfer payments to provinces.
The government introduced over time a series of measures
which affected and reshaped its approach. It started with a cap on
equalization last year, which affects mainly Quebec. The amount
has been estimated at $1.5 billion over the next five years.
Last year's budget contained cuts to unemployment insurance
and also to what we call shared costs programs, that is
post-secondary education and health. Cuts estimated at $2 billion
had already been announced in last years's budget, and this years's
budget brings further reductions totalling $7 billion, which will
come into effect in the next two years, that is $2.5 billion next year
and $4.5 billion the following year.
This year's reductions come on top of last year's cuts. The whole
area of transfer or transfer payments to provinces has therefore
been hit with massive cuts.
The government also tried to conceal the whole thing in the
budget by presenting transfers to provinces, tax points and
equalization payments all together. It mixed them all up in such a
way as to give only global amounts and summarized data. From
now on, the federal government will administer a new Canada
social transfer that will combine all the amounts it contributed to
CAP and the Established Programs Financing for post-secondary
education and health. By these cuts, or the merging of these three
fields in order to make one global cut, the government is hiding its
true intentions.
(1540)
The Minister of Human Resources Development had given some
hints with his consultations and the rainbow series of papers he
distributed. At that time, it was supposed to affect post-secondary
education, among others. There was also mention of other sectors
such as health, but that was still to come, since there were also
consultations on that issue.
Now, in order to avoid debates such as this and not wanting to be
seen as the culprit for having made all these cuts, the federal
government says: ``Let us add everything up and cut the envelope''.
This way, we can shift the blame to the provinces''. We have a fine
example of this in Quebec with the whole debate we are having
about health care reform, which is aimed of course at improving
delivery but is also motivated by cuts imposed by the federal
government.
Because of these cuts, the provinces are forced to choose. The
federal government did leave them some leeway. That is what they
call decentralized federalism: ``You must cut, but you get to choose
where these cuts will be made''. This is easier said than done,
because at the same time the government is telling us: ``You will
required to comply with a number of principles arising from the
Canada Health Act and, regarding social assistance, residency
requirements will be excluded as grounds for denying assistance to
an applicant''. Basically, we are told that these are the only two
conditions that will be maintained, the only two national standards
that will apply to the Canada social transfer.
At the same time, the provinces are expected to develop other
standards together. Upon further analysis, one realizes what the
government means, and reads in the committee's report that it
13246
recognizes the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources
Development to develop standards ``through mutual consent''.
Also stated in the same report is the need to maintain an element of
cash payment in transfer payments as part of the Canada social
transfer because, in time, these could be reduced to nil. It says that
a portion of the federal transfer payments must remain in the form
of cash payments, so that it remains possible to tell the provinces
how to apply these standards.
So, they have just confirmed what we suspected all along: there
is indeed a strong desire to maintain national standards through this
new Canada social transfer. The bottom line is that the federal
government will reduce transfer payments and that there may be
more federal standards than before, since the federal government
may now impose post-secondary education standards.
We know very well what happens during these discussions, when
10 or 11 people sit around a table to try to define national criteria.
There is often a lot of energy spent with few results and, at the end
of the day, the federal government prevails through financial
blackmail. Other decisions will have to be made by the federal
government in coming years.
We are still waiting for the reform of the goods and services tax,
the notorious GST. The federal government still leaves itself a way
out and room to manoeuvre so that it can impose its vision in future
talks with the provinces. I remember being a guest on a radio show
the day after the budget. Since the Minister of Human Resources
Development was interviewed just before me, I was able to hear
what he said. He candidly told the host-who was asking him if he
was sorry that the federal government would no longer exercise
control and impose standards in sectors affected by transfer
payments-that, on the contrary, they would have more control
than ever. This shows that what Liberals say here in this House and
what they tell other people are two different things. I tend to
believe what the minister said on the radio, that he did want more
control and that the federal government would have more control in
the long run.
I want to link this to a number of things, to a speech by the Prime
Minister that has been somewhat forgotten. I remember when the
Liberal Party held its convention in Trois-Rivières, in eastern
Quebec. At that time, the Prime Minister accused the Quebec
government of not caring about poverty, once again using his old
theme about how that government was only concerned about
separation. The fact is that we care a great deal about poverty and
we ask: Who will be affected by these cuts? Think about it for a
moment. Who will be affected by these cuts to social assistance, to
post-secondary education and to health care, which come on top of
cuts affecting the UI program? We have to take a close look at this
issue.
The government waxes eloquently about job creation, but it
takes measures which will adversely affect people.
(1545)
These measures will hit Quebecers even harder, because of a
series of decisions made over the years by the federal government
regarding spending in a number of sectors, including research and
development. As we often said in this House, we feel that, because
Quebec did not get its fair share in these sectors, it was forced to
become more dependent on welfare assistance and unemployment
insurance.
I am not proud to say that Quebec has the largest number of
welfare recipients or unemployed. We are not proud of that, and
this is not the kind of financial assistance which we seek from the
federal government. If another approach had been used in the past,
the situation might be different now.
But this is not the case, since we were adversely affected by a
series of decisions on structuring expenditures. In the past, at least
the federal government would say: ``We know what we did to you,
but we will compensate you for that''. Now, this government says:
``In addition to that, we will cut the compensation which you used
to receive''. This is not the kind of money which we want, without
increasing the rest and without giving us the means to do
something about it. Just think of manpower training and the fact, as
was mentioned earlier today, that the federal government will
simply not let Quebec assume control of that sector.
This is a strange approach. There are also other financial cuts
which will have an impact. For example, in the first year, that is
next year, transfers through the Canada social transfer will be
reduced by $2.5 billion, which means that Quebec will be deprived
of some $650 million. In the House, ministers and the Prime
Minister himself said it would probably be $300 million or $325
million. Officials who came before the committee said it would be
$625 million, which is much closer to the $650 million that has
been mentioned since the beginning.
If that is another illustration of this government's mathematics,
it is easy to understand why people are often suspicious of its
management and decision-making processes. They have their own
way of calculatiing things, as ministers and the Prime Minister
showed when they talked about $325 million for Quebec, while
everybody knew that it was really $625 million for the first year.
As regards the $4.5 billion in the following year, the criteria for
the breakdown of these cuts are still to be negotiated. Otherwise,
Quebec would have to contribute $1.2 billion. But we will
renegotiate, and one approach that is strongly favoured is a
breakdown according to population. Under this approach, Quebec's
share would be $1.9 billion.
So, the criteria change will most probably penalize Quebec. It
will certainly not favour it, given that the provinces requesting this
change are complaining that Quebec is overcompensated in
comparison to them, Ontario in particular, which will come to the
13247
table, according to what is reported these days, with a Conservative
government, whether liberal members like it or not, which could
seriously complicate the picture. So, that is how things stand right
now.
In short, I will resume my speech by saying that we will end up
with less money, provinces will get less money, standards will be
forced on them, some pretty high standards that they will have to
observe under difficult economic conditions. No doubt about it,
this is shifting the financial burden to the provinces.
When the taxpayer takes a look at the federal government's
books, he will find at first sight that there is a slight improvement,
but he will feel a deterioration elsewhere. Either he will have to pay
more for some services, or he will be hit by the cuts made by
provincial governments. The situation will be a real headache for
the provinces because they will always be caught with this whole
intractable approach imposed on them, the compliance with
national standards.
That being said, I understand there is some concern in Canada
because of the rise of the right in the area of social policy. We see it
in Alberta, and even here in Ontario now. In Quebec, we do not
have that problem, so people there are not afraid, and are not asking
the federal government for national standards.
It this system were flexible enough, we would have an
asymmetrical solution that would be different for Quebec than for
the rest of Canada, but here we have a Canadian vision which does
not give much recognition to the specificity of Quebec on that
issue.
The time to decide will soon be here. Quebecers will be able to
choose other models and other approaches in a public debate, even
though our mind is already made up in that regard. The Prime
Minister says he is concerned with the neediest, but if he wants to
keep some credibility when his government tables its record, he
will have to explain why he attacked mostly the unemployed, the
welfare recipients and the students since he took office.
(1550)
I can hardly believe he really feels any compassion. We have his
words, and then we have the facts. Here, we are faced with facts;
that is what we are looking at, and we are very disappointed.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the accommodation in switching the speaking order.
The motions I am addressing today relate to the Canadian health
and social transfer. This transfer was one of the more controversial
aspects of the latest budget as it transformed the whole system of
federal transfers to the provinces.
The transfers were represented by the finance minister as being
more flexible in approach. In his budget speech the finance
minister stated: ``Provinces will now be able to design more
innovative social programs, programs that respond to the needs of
the people today rather than inflexible rules''.
When that statement is considered on its own, it almost seems as
if anyone can identify that as being something positive,
constructive, et cetera. The provinces will be allowed to be more
innovative and will indeed have fewer rules, therefore becoming
more flexible.
I wonder what definitions are meant by innovation and flexible
and how they are actually applied. Does it suggest it will allow the
provinces to have more control over management of the programs
and be able to adapt programs to meet the specific needs of
residents in their area? Of course, innovative would be to create the
programs.
The minister goes on to state: ``However, flexibility does not
mean a free for all. There are national goals and principles we
believe must still apply and which the vast majority of Canadians
support. Our goal must be to combine greater flexibility with
continued fidelity to those principles''.
This suggests that the government will still be making and
interpreting the rules and that the provinces will abide by the
decisions and interpretations. Therefore, they will have to be
flexible to adapt to less money because this is very suggestive that
there will still be federal control over it. Yes, they will become
flexible in that they will have to adapt to providing innovative
programs on less money.
We cannot have it both ways, especially based on this approach.
On the one hand the federal government says it will allow greater
flexibility, but on the other hand it is going to enforce the national
standards.
The finance minister continued his speech with a commitment to
maintain the five conditions of the Canada Health Act: universality,
comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public
administration. Then the minister proceeded to outline the cuts in
the transfers to the provinces under the new Canada health and
social transfer. This is an excellent illustration of how the federal
government is failing to address the fundamental problem now
facing health care in Canada: declining federal financing combined
with a lack of provincial manoeuvrability.
Also in the red book there is the statement: ``The Liberal
government will not withdraw from or abandon the health care
field''. We are talking about semantics or the meanings of words.
We talk about flexibility. Flexibility how? We talk about being
innovative. How? Here we talk about withdrawal as well.
Withdrawing or reducing finances can be interpreted as
withdrawing
13248
from the program as we knew it in 1993. Therefore, we have
another broken promise if we interpret the word withdraw that way.
At this time I would like to provide a little background on the
subject. Under the Canada health and social transfer, the funding to
the provinces will be reduced from what it otherwise would have
been in 1996-97 by $2.5 billion. It will go down to $26.9 billion.
That tends to suggest to me a withdrawal of funds from health care.
Of course, it is going to make the provinces innovative and flexible
in trying to find programs which will meet the needs of the
provinces based on less money. It is going to be further reduced
from what it otherwise would have been in 1997-98 by $4.5 billion,
bringing it down to $25.1 billion.
(1555)
That is not a complete representation of the total effects of the
cuts in the last budget. When discussing the value of the transfers
to the provinces under CAP and EPF, the government decided to
include the value of the tax points which were transferred in 1977.
This component of the transfer is not and never has been a
budgetary item. The value of the tax point transfer is not included
in the budgetary expenditures, nor is the forgone tax revenue
deducted from the budgetary revenues. We begin to wonder
whether the tax point transfer was included in this whole process
just to mask the depth and the significance the reductions which are
proposed in this transfer to the provinces will actually be.
The cash transfers to the provinces are scheduled to fall from
their 1994-95 level of $25.2 billion to a 1997-98 level of $19.9
billion. Included in the cash transfers are two components: the
equalization component and the CHST component. Over three
years the equalization payment will continue to grow. It will
actually grow from approximately $8.3 billion in 1994-95 to $9.6
billion in 1997-98. On the other hand, funding for Canada health
and social transfers will be reduced by $6.6 billion, from $16.9
billion in 1994-95 to $10.3 billion in 1997-98.
When we get through all the jargon and the process of what is
actually happening and try to figure out what the bottom line is, and
when we consider the components of cash transfers, tax points, the
CHST component, the equalization component, the CAP
component and the EPF component, what is actually going to
happen? I sat down and tried to pull this all together. It looks like
this will represent a 39 per cent cut over this period of time to 1998
in federal cash transfers for health, advanced education and social
assistance as they are now being lumped into a block program.
When we start to think of the diminishing cash contributions, the
key question which comes to mind is: How does the federal
government hope to enforce the national standards in health care if
the cash contributions are diminishing every year and what will
happen when they get down to zero? That is where clause 51 comes
into play. It allows the government to withhold any transfers, such
as those going to advanced education or social services, based on
its interpretation of the province's behaviour in relation to health
care, or whatever it is. That is a threat to the provinces.
In any given year, based on a judgment of the government,
transfers can be withheld from the provinces. Again, it must be
flexible because now it will affect the other two components as
well. Of course, there will be more people upset, which will also
apply pressure.
The whole process is totally unacceptable because the control is
being kept by the federal government instead of being
decentralized to the provinces and closer to the people who are
actually receiving the care. That is why my hon. colleague from
Lethbridge has introduced the amendments which would prevent
these kinds of contradictions and I fully support them.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I usually start my
speeches by saying that I am very happy to get up to participate in
the debate, but I would like to begin my speech today by saying that
I am downright annoyed. This is the worst time we could have in
Parliament; we are given a limitation of time to speak about the
things that are the most important to Canadians.
(1600)
I was asked not long ago what is wrong with Quebec. I said
nothing. I was asked if we have a problem with Quebec, whether it
wants to leave. We really do not have a Quebec problem; we have
an Ottawa problem. That is the essence of the whole debate today.
The federal government is intruding on these areas of provincial
jurisdiction by our Constitution and by its use of the spending
power intruding on our freedoms right across the country in all
provinces.
I even admire Quebec for bringing the issue to a head to this
degree by saying Ottawa should wake up and listen to the people of
Canada. We are being asked today to give formal assent to a budget
which perpetuates the problems Ottawa has been imposing on
Canadian citizens, taxpayers, for several decades now. It is time for
this to be corrected.
Does not the Constitution clearly say health care is a provincial
jurisdiction? I believe so. The history of health care shows that
originally, undoubtedly with good motives, the federal government
felt it should tax all Canadians and then give the money back to the
provinces based on their populations. There was a new plan put out.
In the same year I was married Saskatchewan started a
provincially funded health care system. At that time doctors in
Saskatchewan were striking because they did not want to have
government intrusion into the health care system. It started in
Saskatchewan. On our marriage my wife and I moved to Alberta.
At that time Alberta had its own private insurance which was
inexpensive and
13249
very thorough. We had moderate medical costs covered by medical
services incorporated. We were very happy.
However, this virus of thinking that only the government can do
things well continued to spread across the country until finally
Canadians have now come to accept that we want to have
government funded health care. Somehow there is a transition.
When governments cause something to become legal and required
by law, it then gains a certain degree of public acceptance.
Now we have accepted that all of us will pay through taxes, and
in places like Alberta through health care premiums, for our health
care coverage. We also expect that if we need health care it will be
available for us, just like in the old days before the government was
involved. Is that happening? No.
More and more we are hearing from our constituents about long
waiting lists, certain procedures that are deinsured. The elderly,
who certainly have paid taxes and participated in our country all of
their lives, surely as contributors to that degree are now entitled to
their share of what they have provided for others. They are now
being denied even to the point at which there are some people
suggesting older people ought to be put away because they are to
much of a drain on the health care system. What a shame.
In this bill we find an intrusion by the federal government,
thinking it can tax all of us and then limit not only what it is
providing for us but also our ability as individuals in our provinces
to do what we can with the diminishing resources.
(1605)
Both those premises are wrong. Both fail the test of common
sense. Both fail what Canadians want, an efficient health care
system funded publicly but under the control of provinces. They
would have better control.
I always say to people in Elk Island and generally in Alberta that
whenever they want to favour government funding to think about
the fact that probably-I do not have the exact numbers here-for
many of these programs we are fortunate if we get back 10 or 20
cents on the dollar of what we send to Ottawa. We would be a lot
better off without Ottawa intrusion. We would be a lot better off if
Ottawa buts out of this problem. It is not solving the problem, it is
the problem.
I strongly endorse the amendments my hon. colleague has
promoted in order to fix the flaws in this bill. I am very concerned
that in our society we need to meet the needs of those who cannot
look after themselves. To a great extent that includes people who
are ill. When people are ill or when they become aged usually they
are unable to continue working. Many do not have a portfolio of
investments to provide income.
I agree with the consensus of Canadians that we are a
compassionate society and we will help to meet needs, whether
social welfare needs or health care needs.
Certainly we can pull together in meeting the needs of those who
are needy. It is an absolutely false assumption that the best way of
doing that is to set up two, three and in some cases four levels of
bureaucracy in government that eat into our tax dollars and deliver
but a portion of that in benefits to citizens needing it.
We need to do this job much better. We need to become efficient.
We need to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and control from the
federal government. I am not convinced at all that as we
decentralize things will get worse, as the Liberals claim. Things
will get better because there will be a smaller financial drain on us
in total, there will be closer control with more local politicians and
more local bureaucrats basically forced to listen to the people. In
total we will have a much more efficient system and the needs of
people will be met better at less cost. That will also have a positive
spin on our total economy.
I could continue to wax eloquent on this for some time because it
is an issue that concerns me greatly, one that needs real changes by
the government. I will not hold my breath waiting because I know
if I hold it too long health care may not be there to help me.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the bill on the Canada social transfer calls up the image of
an old spent horse on its last show. It has been very useful and
appreciated in the circus, but it is on its last legs. Yet, the owner
wants to keep it going a little longer with some garish costume.
Throughout the sixties and the seventies, the whole issue of
interregional equity was at the center of the public debate. I think a
very big mistake was made from the start, with the confusion
between the provision of a safety net for all Canadians and the real
need underlying the goal we should have had, which is to provide
an adequate economic and social development so that all
Canadians can have a decent life in their own regions.
(1610)
Unfortunately, with the decisions we have made and the fact that
we have been living beyond our means, we reached a point where
the Canadian government had only two alternatives in a federal
context. The first one, which was chosen, was to announce cuts and
offload them to the provinces, while saying: ``Let them handle the
problem. They are on the front line. We are going to save our
political hide''.
Second, the Liberals have been unable to carry their argument to
the limit and to say: ``If we cut provincial transfers, we cannot set
national standards, because we cannot reduce our financial
assistance and still impose national standards''. But the current
government has not been able to come to that conclusion, because
it is actually made up of many, many members who greatly miss
13250
Trudeau and the years when the Liberal government believed that,
by borrowing money right and left, it could solve problems
throughout the country. We now realize that foreign lenders can no
longer wait and they urge the government to take a stand.
So, in order to satisfy foreign lenders, the government is cutting
its spending, even though it still argues, on a philosophical and
political level, that national standards are needed. This would
perpetuate one of the most significant costs of federalism, linked to
all the quarrels and the bickering between the two levels of
government. Some people say that the province of Quebec is
always complaining about this situation, but look at what is
happening in Alberta. Over there, the provincial government is
making choices, even though its direction is controversial, and at
this end, we have the federal government telling Alberta: ``No, you
cannot make these kinds of decisions; they go against the national
standards''.
The province of Alberta has a valid argument. It maintains that,
since the federal government is investing less and less money, it
does not have such a strong say in the matter any more. The federal
government should realize this and change its attitude. The people
who are watching and also the members of the government and of
the other opposition party should carefully consider what the
position of the Bloc Quebecois is.
The Bloc Quebecois suggests that the federal government
withdraw from areas of jurisdiction in which it systematically
intervened for many years by injecting large amounts of money and
by creating false expectations. The federal government should
withdraw, but, at the same time, it should fully compensate the
provinces by means of a tax point transfer. This would be a positive
incentive for each province to make the most of the little it
receives, and keep some for other activities, thereby ensuring better
regional development.
Of course, this suggestion is made with a federalist vision of
Canada's future. If we wished to maintain this old federation, for a
few more years at least, this is the type of solution we should adopt.
I believe we should at least try to save something from the
wreckage. In Quebec, unfortunately for the Canadian federal
system, we have had it with these partial solutions and we believe
that the real solution is for Quebecers to have full control over their
tax money, which now goes to Ottawa but which, in the context of
sovereignty, would go to one place only, Quebec City. With full
control, the Government of Quebec would be able to develop much
more structured programs better able to reach their objectives.
We are often asked this about the bills on which we vote: ``You
make beautiful speeches on policy issues but how are we affected
by this?'' I would like to take the opportunity-I feel compelled to
because of the time allocation forced on us by the government-to
draw the hon. members' attention to a rather treacherous aspect of
Bill C-76, which is an omnibus bill. With clause 69, 3,000
resistance veterans will lose their eligibility to some pension
benefits.
(1615)
What is even more devious is that there will no longer be
compensation for those who want to be heard by a review panel.
Just imagine in what situation veterans will find themselves.
Today, most of them are getting on in years and their physical and
mental health has been seriously affected by their years in service.
Their country wanted to give proper recognition to their
contribution by trying to compensate them for what they did for the
nation. But today, surreptitiously, the government is going after
these people through an omnibus bill. Temember, they are not
millionaires.
For example, I met elderly couples in La Pocatière or in
Pohénégamook, in my riding. These people do not necessarily have
access to a physician close to their home and often have to travel
considerable distances when required to undergo a physical. The
cost of a medical examination used to be covered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs. But, when Bill C-76 is
implemented, we will have a situation where these people will no
longer be entitled to the partial reimbursement of some of these
costs. It will become strictly a regulatory matter. Once again,
Canadians who are in a somewhat difficult situation will have to
pay for the financial pressures that the government is under.
I think that the government could have been more open-minded
and could have realized that, on top of what they did for their
country, veterans are in the last stage of their life. I find it very
petty to put such a burden on these people who are not necessarily
used to finding their way through the bureaucracy in which we
work. It shows a total lack of respect for human dignity.
I wanted to use this example so that members would realize that
Bill C-76 will have repercussions on the daily life of Canadians.
And I am talking about ordinary people. I used veterans as an
example, but the cuts that will be made with regard to the Canada
health and social transfer-some $560 million next year in Quebec
alone-will have an impact on all kinds of people. There will be
repercussions of this kind on students, seniors, and social
assistance recipients, because these programs were partially funded
by the federal government in the past, and if the federal
government cuts its contributions, the provinces will be forced to
take a much more restrictive stance.
It is important for Canadians to know that the decisions that the
provinces may have to make will only be the fruit of the
mismanagement by the federal government, which opened up the
floodgate for years, using borrowed funds, and imposed duplicate
programs on provinces. The result of this today is that we must face
a new, very simple reality, which is that Canada no longer has the
means to support all of the social programs it used to offer, not
necessarily
13251
because the programs were inherently irrelevant, but because they
were superimposed on programs that the provinces were already
offering. Many useless expenditures on overlaps could have been
eliminated had the federal government only reached an agreement
with the provinces, ensuring that the changes were made in
co-operation with them.
In conclusion, I would like to cite the example of the summit on
health. This would have been a good opportunity for the federal
government to ensure that the provinces would participate in the
debates on health care, instead of imposing cuts and leaving each
province ultimately to fend for itself. This is also an example of the
current system's downfall. People are unable to pinpoint where
their tax money is actually going. This is one of the reasons that I
think that, after judging Bill C-76, Quebecers will see very clearly
that their only solution is to opt out of the Canadian system.
(1620)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada social transfer is the very expression of a budget that shows
two faces: what it says and what it does. The government boasted
that it had kept its spending under control. There was some
applause, and some people said the government ``showed
courage''.
In fact, the government merely made a couple of transfers-not
money but budget cuts-and above all, it transferred its problems
to the people. It has to be said. It has to be said that after all the
speeches and boasting, what it comes down to is that there are
people who will suffer as a result of these cuts.
So was the debate about finding out whether these were the right
places to cut? No. The federal government looks after its own
budget and leaves the provinces to look after theirs, with the results
depending on whether they are rich or poor. This year, Quebec had
the doubtful privilege of having the highest poverty rate, and it can
look forward to being severely hit by the cuts in the Canada social
transfer.
In what way? It will suffer the effects of more than $50 million
in cutbacks for the coming year and the year after, perhaps at least
$1.9 billion. Who will be affected in the long run? People will be
affected because they are sick or have fewer social services.
Because fewer services will be available, some people's education
will suffer because it will cost more. People on welfare will be
affected as well. And if a province does not want to transfer these
cuts to its citizens because it feels they are too substantial, it may
have to ask its people to pay more. That will be up to the provinces.
The Canada social transfer is typical of this budget because the
central government can say it has done its share to bring down the
deficit, while the provinces are stuck with the real cuts and their
people are stuck with the problems. Meanwhile, the central
government is making sure that the UI fund is running a surplus.
The government expects a surplus of $5 billion, $5 billion more in
premiums than benefits.
With its Canada social transfer, the central government, after
cutting funding to the provinces to the bone, creates problems to
the extent that individuals and the provinces will have no choice
but to try and deal with the situation and then the UI fund can be
used as a powerful tool by the federal government to intrude in
provincial jurisdictions, because the provinces will be pushed to
the limit.
(1625)
This is why I say the budget is two-faced. The government says
it is giving provinces flexibility. What flexibility exactly? I would
like to know what sort of flexibility it is, when the provinces are
forced essentially to slash all programs.
And I have yet to discuss national standards. I will conclude on
this point. Not only is the central government cutting, plunging the
most disadvantaged provinces into an utterly impossible situation,
not only is it positioning itself to anticipate the next recession and
force the provinces to come and eat out of its hand, it is quite
simply announcing that it will continue to impose common goals
and principles and that it will use these transfers to impose, to
promote-and that is the word it uses-its common goals and
principles.
When the government talks of promoting goals and principles
under the Canada social transfer in federal legislation, legislation
that will in all likelihood never come before the courts because it is
short term, we can assume it has powerful ways of imposing
standards.
What is more distressing is that, up to now, no conditions of any
sort were ever attached to post-secondary education. It was so
clearly a matter of provincial jurisdiction close the heart of Quebec
that there had been nothing like federal standards, which seemed
unthinkable, out of the question, impossible. Yet, this so-called
flexible bill provides that the federal government will encourage
the provinces to establish common goals and principles in health
care, post-secondary education, welfare and social services.
What is not said is that, for these goals and principles to receive
federal approval, they must be reached unanimously. The
government has refused to say that unanimity was required, and we
did ask repeatedly.
We find ourselves with a government which tells us that it will
ask one of its ministers to bring together the provincial ministers to
13252
try to agree on common principles and objectives and to use the
transfers to promote these common principles and objectives.
When we say that, the government gets very emotional and
argues that we are mistaken, that it simply wants to be flexible.
Nobody can believe that it is flexibility that the government has in
mind. Nobody believes it because each time the government has
been blasted by the rest of Canada which wants national standards,
its answer has always been: ``Yes, we have asked Mr. Axworthy to
meet with the provinces and we want national standards''.
To conclude, I will say that this is a two-faced budget, that the
government has two objectives: to smother the provinces and to dip
deeper into the unemployment fund, which comes from the pockets
of workers and businesses. The government claims that it wants to
promote flexibility for Quebec in order to soften us Quebecers
before the referendum, while in fact it is getting ready to use the
Canada social transfer to promote its own principles and
objectives.
(1630)
In so doing, the government will reach both of its goals, which
are certainly not aimed at decentralization but rather at the
development of a new Canada, made in Ottawa and without any
consultation. Step by step, bit by bit and bill by bill, even though it
denies any intention of changing the constitution-it killed the
Meech Lake agreement after all-the government is preparing a
new Canada nonetheless. And, judging by what is happening in
Quebec, where the Quebec government must make painful cuts in
health care services, education, social services and welfare, in this
new Canada, the central government will receive loads of money
coming from unemployment insurance premiums, from the
citizens in fact, and it will use this money against the citizens of
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. We will speak for approximately 10
minutes each.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member, being a
grandfather-to-be, may not realize that there is no sharing of time.
They are 10-minute speeches. There is an agreement between the
two parties to have two speakers from each party.
Mr. Harris: I stand corrected. I am pleased to rise today to
speak to Bill C-76 regarding the implementation of certain
provisions of the budget tabled last February. The areas I want to
speak to primarily deal with the motions we put forward
concerning provincial transfer payments, the health act, social
transfers and transfers in support of post-secondary education.
They are contained in Motions Nos. 28, 31, 33, 35, 46, 49 to 55 and
57.
The motions are broken down into basically three categories. It
is fair to begin by talking about the government's ability to
continue to fund programs in the way it has in the past.
Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, Reformers realize that the
government is having some severe cash problems. We are not
asking the government to start borrowing a whole bunch more
money to continue the funding of the programs at the levels we
were accustomed to in the past.
We owe about $500 billion and our interest payments are far
more than all the programs put together, but the government is
cutting back its transfer payments in support of the programs.
There is no doubt about it. Transfer payments in support of health
care to the provinces have been declining. There is no reason to
believe that sooner or later it will come to the point where there
will be no federal money going to the provinces.
I suppose this would be all right if the provinces were allowed,
as the funds were withdrawn or diminished, to have a say in how
the health care systems within their provinces were to be run. That
would include the provinces having some flexibility to come up
with creative funding plans to make up for the moneys they will not
be receiving from the federal government.
(1635)
In some provinces, particularly Alberta, private enterprises have
gone into the health care business. The most well known is the
Gimble eye clinic in Alberta, a much needed service. It is a very
busy place. People are going to the clinic because they cannot get
the same kind of treatment on a timely basis through the public
health care system.
Now the federal government looks at the private enterprise, this
much needed and much used service, and says that it is against the
Canada Health Act, that it cannot operate any more, and that if it
does the government will cut back on funding.
In B.C. there are a few people making movements to provide
portions of private health care in different areas. The federal
government is pulling back the transfer payments and funding. I
know it has to do it because it does not have any money. It disturbs
me that at the same time, notwithstanding that it will not be giving
the money, they cannot do anything about it to replace the services
they will not have any more. This is grossly unfair to the provinces.
Another part of the bill that really disturbs me is that the
government has decided to put itself above what we would consider
a judicious procedure in determining whether a province has
violated a portion of the Canada Health Act. In other words it is
giving itself unilateral powers in the bill to determine whether a
province is allowing something to go on that violates stipulations
in the Canada Health Act.
13253
It has given itself the unilateral power to decide what the
financial penalty shall be. This is placing itself above what we
normally would expect would take place in all fairness in a court
of law.
Our amendments would force the government, if it believes a
violation has taken place, to put the case before a court of law to let
a judge decide whether or not there was a violation and if there was
exactly what penalty would be payable.
I get concerned when I see such words in government bills,
orders in council, governors in council and orders in cabinet. The
Liberal government, as did the Tory government, introduced
legislation that made it boss. Notwithstanding the arguments that
could be put forward by the opposition parties representing their
constituents and protecting the interests of the people of Canada
against unfair legislation, and notwithstanding that this is supposed
to be a House of debate, the government is constantly slipping in
provisions in the bill that would allow it to unilaterally make
decisions affecting all citizens of Canada.
Where there is no provision for the people of Canada to be
protected against bad legislation or bad judgment on behalf of the
government of the day, it is treading on democracy. We really
object to the fact the government can make not only unilateral
decisions but arbitrary decisions that in many cases may not be
sound. The decisions may have a profound effect on Canadian
people so we have put forth some amendments to deal with it.
(1640)
We also have a problem with clause 48 that uses the phrase by
mutual consent in the context of additional national standards and
criteria. The bill would permit the government through discussions
with some or all of the provinces to come to a mutual consent with
some of them. It would allow them to create a national standard
which could be imposed on provinces that did not provide mutual
consent to the national standard.
We have introduced some amendments to prevent the federal
government from imposing national standards, for example in the
case of welfare, without the consent of all provinces. It is simply
not fair that a government can arrive at an agreement with some
provinces and impose the agreement on all provinces.
My last point deals with the creation of the Canada health and
social transfer. The government has put all health funding, welfare
funding, Canada assistance plan funding and post-secondary
education funding in one basket. It is saying that it will be
considered as a lump sum. It has done this for a particular reason. It
knows the problems it is running into with the Canada Health Act.
It knows the Canada Health Act is redundant at this point. It is
simply not working because there is not enough money to fund the
plan we have come to know and love and now cannot afford.
As funding for health care in Canada is diminished, I believe to a
point of zero in the future, the government will have no stick left to
impose a demand on the provinces that they stick to the Canada
Health Act. Provinces like Alberta, B.C. and Quebec or any other
province might want to be creative in raising funding to raise the
quality of health care in their provinces to a level people want.
With no funds left in the Canada health transfer payments the
government cannot impose any penalties because they are not
paying it any money.
It has taken the Canada health payments, the Canada assistance
plan payments, the welfare payments, and the post-secondary
education payments and put them all into one big basket. If a
province wants to get a little creative and flexible in providing
health care and in the eyes of the government violates the Canada
Health Act in some way, the government makes a unilateral
decision that the province is in violation of the sacred Canada
Health Act which does not work any more in any event.
The government will have the power to withhold funds from the
Canada health and social transfer that now includes post-secondary
education, social welfare and the Canada assistance plan. In other
words if the province violates a provision of the Canada Health Act
in the eyes of the government, the government can hold back
money for education and welfare.
We may wonder whether the government has any sense of
fairness. We are hearing the same old story: the group wants to
keep control in Ottawa and anyone outside Ottawa is considered an
additional player and made to toe the line.
(1645 )
We really oppose the fact that the government has purposely put
in these clauses in order to get a bigger stick to keep the provinces
in line under the Canada Health Act.
We propose to delete a section of clause 51 that would allow the
federal government to withhold equalization payments and other
provincial transfers for violations under the Canada health and
social transfer programs. In other words, the amendments we are
proposing to the clause would take away this big stick that the
government is so conveniently putting together.
I have spoken about the three areas of my concern on some of
these amendments I am putting through. The thing I want to close
on is the fact that our social safety net is in deep trouble in this
country. The Liberal government under Prime Minister Trudeau
introduced a social safety net that was the Cadillac of all plans. We
started out driving a Cadillac in our social safety-
13254
The Deputy Speaker: The fault is that of the Speaker. I did
not realize the time had expired. I am thankful that members
reminded me that his time had expired.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on group four of the motions on
Bill C-76, the report stage. A lot of this has to do primarily with
provincial transfer payments for health care and education.
I would like to point out to the House something that is perhaps
not recognized: we do have a serious problem in health care in
Canada today. Recently in the news it was stated that medicare is
essential to the identity of the government. That is good, because it
is essential to the identity of all Canadians. Unfortunately, this
government does not recognize that in this country health care is in
dire straits.
Recently we have seen some tragic statistics of people dying
while on waiting lists, waiting for essential health care services that
this government and governments across this country should be
providing to the Canadian public. Just this last weekend we heard
about 25 individuals who died while on waiting lists awaiting
surgery at the Ottawa Heart Institute.
In my province of British Columbia, if you have prostrate cancer
you can wait over a year to get ultrasound therapy. As a result of
this, patients in British Columbia go to the United States in order to
get this essential service. In fact, what we see in the United States is
a whole industry built up around Canadian people who cannot have
their essential health care services met and therefore are forced to
go to the United States. It is in fact the Canadian taxpayer, through
the medical services plan of British Columbia, who pays for that.
This is completely unnecessary, as we have the skilled
individuals in this country who can do this. It is just a question of
changing our priorities.
One of the sad things that happened as a result of the last budget
was that over $6 billion was ripped out of the heart of education
and health care by the federal government. As a result of that, the
provinces are now somehow going to have to make up the shortfall.
The result is an impossible quandary. You simply cannot pay for
what the taxpayers are asking for and the demands of health care in
this country through the moneys that are now provided.
What we are going to see in the future are many more tragic
cases of Canadians who are dying while on waiting lists, waiting
for essential health care services to occur.
We in the Reform Party propose a number of motions relating to
Bill C-76. First is that we remove the government's ability to
unilaterally decide what constitutes a violation of national
standards and to unilaterally decide what the financial penalty
should be. To remedy this we have proposed amendments that
would force the federal government to take provincial
governments to court in order to determine what the violations are
and whether there should be any penalties. Second, we have put
forth motions to prevent the federal government from imposing
additional national standards without the consent of the provinces.
Last, we are trying to move towards a situation where we have
unconditional transfers of health care and education dollars.
(1650)
I reiterate that it is impossible for Parliament to unconditionally
remove money from the provinces and expect them to meet the
demands of their citizens. It simply cannot be done. Tragically, the
Canadian people do not realize this. Unfortunately, in the next
federal election this will haunt all of us, because people who are on
waiting lists are going to die.
We propose a different solution, which will meet the needs and
the objectives of having a medicare system for all Canadians and
put it on firm financial ground.
We do not want to destroy health care in the country. We do not
want to destroy medicare. We want a new Canada Health Act,
unlike what they have in the States, unlike what is in the United
Kingdom-one made in Canada. It would entail defining essential
health care services and ensuring that all Canadians across the
country will have their health care services covered, regardless of
income.
Second, we must amend the Canada Health Act and allow the
provinces to get their health care dollars under control. It is very
simple. If we allow private clinics it creates a two-tiered system.
But what happens if as a patient you want to pay for an MRI on
your knee or your neck? You go to a private clinic and private
dollars are exchanged into private hands. Not a cent of taxpayers'
dollars goes into this. Sure people will get services perhaps faster
than in the public system, but that would enable you to get off the
public system into the private system. So those people in the public
system would receive health care faster and more efficiently
because they would move up the waiting list. There would also be
more money in the system on a per capita basis.
This is not a threat to medicare. Rather, this an adjunct to
medicare, which will help it. Would it be a two-tiered system? Yes.
But is it not better to have an unequal system that provides better
and more timely access for all Canadians than a relatively equal
system that provides poor access to essential health care services?
The choice is very easy.
Another aspect I would like to address is to ask the federal
government to take a leadership role in health care in analysing the
determinants of health care in Canada. We often put forward
grandiose plans of studies on many things, but nobody actually
takes the bull by the horns and tells us what makes up health care in
the country.
13255
I will give some solutions. One thing that is in greatest neglect
is the fact that in early childhood education, children aged from
two to five years, the pillars of a normal psyche are developed.
The pillars of good health are also developed. We do not put
enough emphasis on that area. The emphasis we can put on that
area will actually pay off in spades later on in the health and
welfare of the adults.
I would argue that we should put more emphasis on teaching
children, at that age, not only their ABC's, but also teaching them
about self-respect, pride, respect for other people, and appropriate
conflict resolution. These things can be done. Although we take it
for granted that many people know this, we would perhaps be very
surprised to find out that in some dysfunctional families and in the
lower echelons of the socio-economic groups, these things are
actually unknown. Some children have not grown up with this, and
some have grown up in very tragic situations indeed, where the
givens of a normal psyche are not there. Many children and parents
do not know this.
I would ask the government to look at an interesting experiment
that was done at Columbia University. It took over an inner-city
school board that was wracked by violence, sexual abuse, drug
abuse, teen drop-out rates. It focused on the aspects of teaching
self-respect, et cetera, in the early years and found out that it paid
off in spades when the children grew up.
(1655 )
The other aspect I would like to focus on is something on
aboriginal health care. I would seek to support some of the ideas I
have had on aboriginal health.
We have created an institutionalized welfare state in many
aboriginal reserves. By continually pouring money into the
aboriginal reserves we have not succeeded in addressing some of
the underlying problems that are actually behind the sexual abuse,
violence, and the general malaise of the soul that we see on many
reserves.
I would say let us focus on enabling the aboriginal people to take
care of themselves. Let us put the responsibility for their destiny
back on their shoulders. Let us help them to do that. Let us help
them to call their own shots. Let us put an end to the
institutionalized welfare state that we have set up.
More money is not the answer. Giving people the tools to help
themselves is. I would strongly urge this government to do this in
the name of health care for all aboriginal people.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of the adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Frontenac- bovine somatotropin.
Debate resumes with the hon. member for Quebec.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
present federal government is obviously trying to lead people
astray. To illustrate this, I will, if I may, quote from a statement
made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, on March 31,
during Question Period.
Answering a question by my colleague, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, on the Canada social transfer, the
minister said this:
The Bloc Quebecois just keeps stating a position contradicted by facts, by the
budget and by reality.
I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely that the budget is clear, that the
requirements for social assistance have been reduced, that, if any standards are
established, they will be established by mutual consent. It is very unfortunate that the
opposition informs the people of Quebec soo poorly on such major issues.
Several aspects of this statement deserve that we go back to
them. The first one is that the minister, the member for
Hull-Aylmer, blamed the Bloc Quebecois for misinforming the
people. Let us keep this in mind, as I will mention it again in my
conclusion.
The second aspect is that requirements for social assistance have
been reduced. The third one is that, if standards are established,
they will be by mutual consent. Let us analyze these two points
before we deal with the Canada social transfer.
As far as requirements for social assistance are concerned, the
minister said that they would be reduced. Let us see what is
happening under Bill C-76. Clause 48 is key to the bill as it creates
the Canada Health and Social Transfer. It provides for the terms of
application of the transfer. Under subclause (1), it states the three
objectives of the Canada social transfer, namely: financing social
programs, maintaining national conditions relating to health care,
and maintaining national standards relating to other social
programs.
It should be pointed out at this point that clause 53, which
applies to clause 48 I just mentioned, states that social programs
include programs in respect of health, post-secondary education,
social assistance and social services.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had the nerve to say
in this House that requirements for social services would be
reduced. This is what I call deceiving people. Far from being
reduced, their number is increased. There are new constraints, new
national standards being imposed, to be developed in accordance
with clause 48, paragraph 3.
This provision clearly states, and I quote:
The minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of all
the provinces to consult and work together to develop, through mutual consent, a set of
13256
shared principles and objectives for the other social programs referred to in
paragraph (1)(d) that could underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer.
It could not be put any plainer than that. There will be national
standards and these national standards will concern post-secondary
education, social assistance and social services.
(1700)
We already had national health standards; now, standards will be
introduced in the other areas I just mentioned. This is what the
minister calls a relaxation of rules or requirements. This is not an
interpretation given by the Bloc Quebecois. The words were taken
straight out of the legislation before this House, and there is a
blatant contradiction between these and what the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said. The Bloc Quebecois is not
misinforming the public; the government is.
Let us look at the third question covered in the hon. minister's
statement, namely the development of principles through mutual
consent. I read you the third paragraph of clause 48, which provides
for what was referred to as dialogue. That is certainly the finest
euphemism I have heard in a long time. I repeat, the bill itself
provides for a dialogue to be established between the provinces to
develop objectives and principles through mutual consent.
Very few Quebecers will not shudder at this prospect. Quebec's
history has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt the pitfalls
associated with interprovincial dialogue, especially when the
federal government demands such co-operation and has the power
to punish any province refusing to get along nicely with the others.
History is repeating itself. In terms of manpower training, social
programs and education, Quebec wants full control over its
programs. Yet the federal government is about to systematically
invade these areas of provincial jurisdiction.
How can anyone reasonably expect Quebec to agree with this
approach? How can anyone expect Quebec, which is calling on the
federal government to simply withdraw from all sectors under
provincial jurisdiction, to come to an agreement with the other
provinces? Everyone knows that this is impossible.
History is repeating itself. Because of their majority, the English
speaking provinces will decide what standards they want for all of
Canada. These standards will then be imposed on Quebec, which
will be forced to respect them because otherwise its share of federal
funds will be reduced.
This is what they refer to as mutual consent? This is the kind of
flexible federalism they are offering us? No thanks. In this case, it
is not the Bloc Quebecois but the government that is trying to
misinform the public.
My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is proposing that all
clauses dealing with the Canada social transfer be deleted, and he
has my full support. Instead of passing the bill before us, the
federal government would do much better to withdraw completely
from areas of provincial jurisdiction such as health, education, job
training and social services.
It would be much better for the federal government to withdraw
from this costly duplication and encroachment and transfer related
tax points to the provinces, as the Quebec government demanded
again very recently. A cleanup is in order.
Government officials must stop misleading the public on our
intentions, which are always so transparent in the end. The Bloc
Quebecois is saying no to the Canada social transfer as proposed by
the federal government.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-76 is a direct attack on the poor. We already know that, and we
said it several times in this House, but we must repeat it again: it is
a direct attack on the most vulnerable members of our society.
The government wants to cut $7 billion, next year and the
following year, in social programs. We are talking about a $7
billion cut in programs designed to help sick people, welfare
recipients and students. This is in addition to all the other cuts
made since the government took office. Over the last two years,
these cuts have totalled $10 billion in Quebec alone. They affect
the unemployed, as well as sick people, students and welfare
recipients. The government even cut seniors' benefits.
This legislation targets the poor. The government does not take
the issue of poverty seriously. On the contrary, the situation has
worsened since the Liberals took office. Not only does the
government target the poor, it also seeks, through this bill, to
protect rich people, large corporations, etc.
(1705)
If the federal government really wanted to save money, it could
take some very simple measures. First, it could withdraw
completely from social programs and transfer its responsibilities,
along with the tax points, to the provinces. This would only make
sense, considering that health, education and social programs fall
under provincial jurisdiction. By insisting on remaining involved
in these areas, the federal government violates its own constitution.
If the federal government were serious and really wanted to
respect provincial jurisdiction, it would withdraw from health,
education and welfare programs. Not only would it then abide by
the constitution, it would also make astronomical savings. If the
federal government really wanted to save money, it would simply
withdraw from these programs, where there is duplication and
overlap, at present.
13257
Think about it. Operating costs at the federal Department of
Health reach about $1 billion every year. By eliminating this
department, we would save $1 billion a year. The same thing goes
for the Department of Human Resources Development, where
operating costs probably reach up to $2 billion a year. There are
savings to be made in every duplicated program. The federal
government would save a lot of money if it withdrew from such
programs as health, social services and education. But also it
would not interfere and prevent provinces from working properly.
For example, we know that the Quebec government has been
asking for exclusive jurisdiction over training, but the federal
government will not yield. Because of this conflict between Ottawa
and the provincial government, training is not adequate, and losses
could be as high as $250 million.
If the federal government were to withdraw from social
programs, from provincial areas of jurisdiction, it would save a lot
of money. If it really wanted to reduce the deficit, this solution
would be the most logical one to opt for, particularly as it is
constitutionally correct and takes into account the diversity of
Canadian society. For example, imposing national standards across
the country not only for social programs, but also for services,
education and health, reduces flexibility and the capacity to adapt
and to innovate in these sectors. If the provinces were given control
of these areas, they may be able to find solutions to these critical
and serious problems.
The very serious problems Quebec is currently experiencing in
the health care sector are a cause of concern for many people. We
are in the process of closing a certain number of hospitals in
Quebec. In my riding, Québec-Est, people are particularly
concerned. Last week, 10,000 people protested about what is
happening at the Christ-Roi hospital.
These concerns and cuts are due to the fact that the federal
government is reducing its transfer payments-to Quebec and to
the other provinces as well-while trying to maintain national
standards which no longer meet our needs.
(1710)
The federal government is increasingly heading toward a form of
bankruptcy. We already expect that, before the turn of the century,
it will not have any money left to support social programs. It is
already trying to maintain national standards, criteria that it
imposes upon the provinces not because it worries about savings,
obviously, but mostly because it wants to take over these areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
It is unfortunate that the federal government did not care more
about the poor because, clearly, the situation is deteriorating in
Canada and in Quebec. Indeed, the federal government is playing
politics on the back of the poor.
In Quebec, we would like to repatriate powers concerning social
programs, because the provincial government is basically in a
better position to deal with problems in health and education. The
provincial government is in a better position to meet these needs.
So far, the federal government has not properly met the needs of the
people of Quebec; this is one of the reasons why we want to
achieve sovereignty, because we fundamentally need those powers
to create full employment policies and family policies, as well.
We need those powers to integrate all the elements of training,
education, job creation and family policy, and to create a full
employment policy in Quebec. Quebec fundamentally needs those
powers. In fact, it is one of the reasons why Quebec wants to
achieve sovereignty. Not only because it would save money but
because we want to give young people and the not so young some
hope of getting a job.
We also know that in Quebec we have the expertise. We have the
know-how. We have certain projects we can develop that will help
us do a better job than is now the case. In fact, we could hardly do
worse, because as long as Quebec remains part of Canada, the
situation is likely to deteriorate and surely will, because basically,
the federal government has less and less money to contribute to
social programs, while it tries to maintain national standards.
This patently absurd situation will make things increasingly
difficult for Quebecers, and that is why Bill C-76 is a genuine
attack against the vulnerable in our society and shows no real
interest in saving money, on the contrary. The government wants to
reduce its deficit but, in the process, it mercilessly attacks the poor,
the unemployed, the sick, people on welfare, students and senior
citizens, while it could save a lot of money by simply withdrawing
from all social programs and giving these powers to the provinces,
in compensation for tax points.
(1715)
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, some time ago a group of young children were standing in
a small ball field. They were not yet playing; they were awaiting
the arrival of little Lloyd and little Diane. These were the two kids,
a brother and a sister, brats though they were, who had the bat and
ball so the game could not start until they got there. The father of
little Lloyd and little Diane was quite wealthy. In fact, he had got
most of his wealth from the parents of the other children who were
waiting to play ball. He took so much money from them that they
could not afford to buy their own bat and ball.
Finally little Lloyd and little Diane showed up at the field and
the kids were ready to play. Knowing all the positions and all the
rules they were ready to start but little Lloyd and little Diane said:
``No, just hold it a minute. We cannot play until we explain the
13258
rules of the game to you''. The kids said: ``But we already know the
rules of the game and we know how to play'', to which they replied:
``Yes, but it is our bat and ball, so you are going to play by our
rules''.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution lay out the federal and
provincial responsibilities. In the Constitution it is the provincial
responsibility, not federal, to provide health care. It is the
provincial responsibility, not the federal responsibility to provide
welfare. This applies to many of the other areas as well that the
federal government seems so anxious to interfere with. It is the old
story of it is my bat and my ball and I make the rules once again.
The federal government recognizes it has absolutely no authority
to interfere in the actual operation of the health care system for
example. It has its own brand of rules it wants to place on the
various provinces, so it says: ``It is our money. If you want it, you
will play by our rules''. In essence it is perverting the very acts
contained in the Constitution of Canada creating many problems in
our social services.
Saskatchewan solutions are not necessarily the solutions for
New Brunswick. Ontario solutions are not necessarily the solutions
for British Columbia.
I would say to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, some of
whom I have talked to at length: Stop talking of and working
toward separation. We have to make some changes but instead of
changing the boundaries of Canada we should be changing the
government itself. We should get rid of the last bastion of the old
traditional political parties of the past that have neither served them
nor any other province well in these areas.
For some strange reason members of the federal government
seem to think they have this divine power, this extreme knowledge
that in coming to Ottawa, they know better than the people in the
provinces, that know better than the Canadian citizens. They think
that Canadian citizens are not smart enough within their own
provinces to tell their provincial governments what they want, what
solution is going to work in their province.
We have the same old problem coming to the provinces. It is in
the form of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Minister of Health who say the same thing as those two spoiled
brats with the rich father: ``It is my bat and ball, so I am going to
make the rules''. Those rules do not work.
We agree with the concept that we have to have a devolution of
many of the authorities from the federal government simply
because we are not getting the solutions that work. We are
duplicating the services. We are getting many problems that could
be resolved better at the local level.
Last summer I attended the official opening in my riding of a
new water treatment plant. As I stepped up to the microphone to
say a few words of greeting to the people gathered, the mayor of the
town was sitting beside me. As I went to speak he whispered to me:
``Give us money, give us money, give us money''. I said a few
words and then said: ``Your mayor is sitting beside me saying
money, money, money. He sounds like Liza Minelli in an old
movie''.
One thing the mayor did not realize, and maybe some others at
this point still do not, was that I do not see my mandate as going to
Ottawa to try to get federal money for the riding. I see it as trying to
get the federal government to stop giving so much money to other
ridings and ultimately to stop taking so much of our money in the
first place.
(1720 )
There is something inherently wrong with a system that takes
away all one's money at the beginning of the year in taxes and then
has one begging and pleading to get some of that money back. That
is the way social transfers are working. It is not the federal
government's money. It is our money. It is the Canadian taxpayers'
money. The federal government takes it out of the pockets of
taxpayers. It takes it away from the jurisdiction of the provinces
which have the constitutional responsibility for most of these
programs and then says the same old adage of it is my bat and my
ball: ``You still must play by our rules or we will not give you your
own money back''.
That is unacceptable. It does not work. It is leading to debt. It is
leading to the erosion of the very programs the Liberal government
would have us believe it is trying to save. It is not saving the health
care system by overtaxing, making rules that do not work in
various regions of the country. It is creating the very problem it
claims to be trying to resolve. The sooner the government stops
doing that, the sooner it gets away from the rules and regulations it
is trying to entrench with Bill C-76, the better off all Canadians will
be.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as this part of the debate draws to a
close, I would like to review some of the amendments supported by
the Bloc and later supported by the Reform Party.
Dealing first with the motions of the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, these proposed amendments would remove
all references to the Canada health and social transfer in the bill, in
effect killing the Canada health and social transfer. The
amendments would also keep in place the intrusive cost sharing
rules of the Canada assistance plan that have limited the provinces'
ability to innovate and improve their social programs to better meet
the needs of Canadians.
13259
The Canada health and social transfer replaces the Canada
assistance plan, which currently contributes to provincial social
assistance and social services, as well as the established programs
financing, which currently contributes to health and
post-secondary education. The CHST combines existing federal
transfers into a single block fund. It provides the provinces with
the ability to better explore the linkages and synergies between
health, post-secondary education and social assistance. This
completes the gradual evolution away from cost sharing to block
funding of programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The Canada health and social transfer provides the provinces
with the flexibility they need to experiment and improve social
programs. There are many concrete examples of what this greater
flexibility could entail in practice.
These amendments would delete such clauses as clause 32 which
repeals the Canada assistance plan. The effect of this amendment
would be to leave in place the cumbersome and intrusive system of
cost sharing social assistance and social services which has
stymied provincial efforts to innovate and improve social
programs. Moreover this amendment would perpetuate the
administrative burden associated with cost sharing.
Another clause that would be deleted would be clause 48. This
clause puts in place many of the building blocks of the Canada
health and social transfer. It includes the process in which the
Minister of Human Resources Development will invite all
provincial governments to work together in developing through
mutual consent a set of shared principles and objectives that could
underline the Canada health and social transfer and thus allow all
governments to reaffirm their commitment to the social well-being
of Canadians.
The amendment would also derail the government's fiscal plan
to reduce the burden of debt and put social programs on a more
sustainable basis, a fiscal plan that has been designed to ensure the
survival of social programs in the future. In this regard the
proposed amendments would cost the government $7 billion over
the next two years.
Turning now to the motions of the member for Lethbridge from
the Reform Party, these amendments would have the effect of
reducing the power of the government and this House to protect the
access of Canadians to health care and the basic protection of social
assistance. To this end, they must be defeated.
(1725)
The main thrust of these amendments is to change the
enforcement mechanisms that can be used to protect the criteria
and conditions in the legislation, namely the five criteria and two
conditions of the Canada Health Act and the condition that there be
no residency requirement for provincial social assistance. The
enforcement mechanism put forward in the bill is modelled on the
Canada Health Act which has worked very well for Canadians over
the past 11 years.
This enforcement mechanism requires the relevant minister, the
Minister of Health in the case of the Canada Health Act, and the
Minister of Human Resources Development in the case of social
assistance, to determine whether a violation has occurred and to
act. The legislation sets out exactly how these ministers should
proceed in terms of notifying the province, making a report to the
province within 90 days and if they are not satisfied that the
violation has stopped that they refer the matter of penalties to the
governor in council.
What the amendments put forward by the hon. member propose
is to take the ministers and the cabinet out of the process and to
give the power to the federal court. In spite of our respect for the
federal court and its role, it is not the appropriate place for the
enforcement of the criteria and conditions governing the Canada
health and social transfer.
It is essential that these ministers, as elected members of this
House and as members of the cabinet with particular
responsibilities for the health care system and the social security
system, have the discretion to determine whether the provinces are
in compliance with the Canada health and social transfer.
One of the main purposes of the Canada health and social
transfer is to encourage innovation and experimentation by the
provinces in the delivery of their programs, for example to find
more efficient and effective methods of helping people to find and
keep jobs and to become more self-reliant. The determination of
whether these new approaches respect the standards set in the
legislation must be made by a minister with a broad perspective on
policy and the ability to use discretion and diplomacy in order to
protect the integrity of our health and social programs. The federal
court is simply not the best place to do this.
Equally, it is cabinet that should use its broad perspective to
determine the appropriate penalty in the case of a violation by the
withholding of cash transfers. This bill will give the governor in
council the ability to set the appropriate penalty having regard to
the gravity of the non-compliance. The amendment would give this
power to the federal court which would lack this broader
perspective.
Finally, I will deal with Motion No. 46. This motion would drop
the reference that one of the purposes of the Canada health and
social transfer is to promote the shared principles and objectives
that are to be developed by the Minister of Human Resources
Development in consultation with provincial governments and with
mutual consent. This is of central importance to the government's
social policy. Canadians expect their governments to reflect their
expectations for social programs, that they will protect the most
13260
vulnerable, that they will improve the situation of people by
helping them to help-
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary may not
realize it but we are not dealing with Motion No. 46 at the moment.
That will be part of the next grouping.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the debate on these groupings at
report stage debate of Bill C-76. I have listened very carefully
because I am quite concerned about the government's lack of
intention to continue to hear the debate in front of us today.
When I learned that the government was invoking time
allocation and that this closure motion by government was going to
shut down debate on a bill that essentially, for all intents and
purposes, is one of the most important-
(1730 )
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. There is great
sensitivity among Canadians to the word ``closure''. The
government is very proud of the fact that it has not used closure.
The hon. member slipped up by describing time allocation as
closure.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary will realize
that is a point of debate rather than a point of order.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I realize the parliamentary secretary is
engaging in debate. He knows that time allocation is a closure
motion no matter what it is called.
Members of Parliament from various parts of Canada will not be
allowed to say what they want if there is not enough time allocated
in which to say it.
I listened very carefully today because the speeches made on this
grouping of motions in particular and on the groupings that
occurred earlier in the debate last week when I was here, were very
thoughtful, researched presentations. The research and thoughtful
actions should have been undertaken by the government in its own
time before preparing this bill, which as I indicated earlier but did
not quite complete saying because of the interruption on this
fundamental and most important bill.
Members are aware that the grouping in front of us today deals
with health care. We have also dealt with issues relating to the
elimination of the Crow rate and we still have other matters before
us for debate. Because of time allocation and the closure motion,
some of the motions will not even make it to the floor for debate
before time runs out. Members who have given a great deal of
thought and a lot of effort to preparing amendments will not even
have the opportunity to present them for debate because we will run
out of time.
This is a complete outrage. We are debating a matter that
completely changes the way in which education and health care are
financed, completely changes the way in which the transport of
grain on the prairies is financed, completely changes the way in
which Canada operates from coast to coast to coast.
I cannot say it enough. I am completely outraged by this matter.
It really disturbs me that when I talk about the government not
wanting to listen-and they are sitting babbling over there,
obviously not prepared to listen, just giving credence to the point
that I am trying to make.
One of the members earlier in his comments talked about
Saskatchewan having been a founding part of medicare and our
health care system. I speak with some credibility when I say that
Canadians very much value their health care system. They do not
want to see it tampered with.
There is great evidence that the actions of the Liberals in other
parts of the country, particularly when it relates to the provincial
election held in Manitoba, the provincial election that is under way
here in Ontario, the provincial election that is under way in the
province of Saskatchewan, that people regard their health care
system as being very important. They are indicating first in the
electoral polls and second in the public opinion polls that they do
not trust the federal Liberal government in this regard. They are
translating that into their electoral votes at the provincial level.
Some weeks ago some of the designers of Canada's health care
system from Saskatchewan indicated to the government that it was
on the wrong path, that if implemented the aspects that we most
value in our health care system would be seriously eroded. The
government heard the words of those wise individuals who spoke
before the finance committee. Each of these wise people have
indicated that the present system will result in the erosion of the
health care system as we know it today.
Certainly the government should be listening to those wise
voices whether it be some of those who participated in the
designing of the system out in Saskatchewan or whether it be those
who are presently delivering the system, whether it be the Canadian
Medical Association or as quoted today in the Globe and Mail, the
Canadian Hospital Association.
(1735 )
If I can quote from the Globe and Mail of today, it indicates how
important this is, not only to the Canadian public but to those who
are involved directly in the system. The article reads:
When the Canadian Hospital Association opens its annual meeting in Calgary
today, it will issue a ``call to arms'' against the federal government's plans for health
care.
13261
Surely to goodness when an organization as credible and as
astute as the Canadian Hospital Association issues a call to arms
the government must be prepared to listen. It is incredible that
instead of listening not only to the fine speeches of members of
the House of Commons but to people across the country who want
to see their health care system protected that the government
should be moving to cut off the debate and not listen to what is
being said anywhere in Canada. To barrel ahead as the government
is on this matter is clearly incredible and outrageous.
In addition to the health care bill I earlier spoke on the Crow
legislation. The government has not demonstrated at committee
stage or in the House that it is prepared to understand the long term
implications of the bill, whether they apply to health care or
assistance in getting grain to port. The immediate loss of $400
million in grain transportation in the province of Saskatchewan
alone is quite significant. I am quite appalled and amazed that the
government has not taken the time to consider the long term
implications in that regard.
As the House leader of the New Democratic Party I am very
mindful of the words of the government and the actions which it
takes. I recall reading in the local Ottawa media last week when the
House was not sitting that the government House leader indicated
that 32 pieces of legislation would have to be passed before the
government adjourns the House for the summer recess on June 23.
I cannot help thinking that the government is wanting to get home
for the summer holidays-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry to inform the
hon. member that his time has expired.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 23. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The recorded vote shall apply to Motions Nos. 23 to 45.
I will now put group No. 5 to the House.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if you would seek it you
would find consent that Motions Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 be deemed to have been read.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I assume it is understood that Motion No.
47 would be moved by Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-76, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24, on page
26, with the following:
``(a) any order made by the Federal Court in respect of the province under''.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-76, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20, on page
27, with the following:
``province has not given an undertaking conforming to the provisions of this Act to
remedy the non-''.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-76, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 27, with
the following:
``the matter to the Federal Court.''
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-76, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page
27, with substituting the following:
``(2) Before referring a matter to the Federal Court under subsection (1) in
respect''.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-76, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 39 to 44, on page 27.
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-76, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 15, on page 28,
with the following:
13262
``under section 20, the Federal Court is of the opinion that the province does not or
has ceased to comply with section 19, the Court may, by order, direct that any cash
contribution under the Canada Health and Social Transfer to that province for a
fiscal year be reduced, in respect of each non-compliance, by an amount that the
Court considers to be appropriate, having regard to the gravity of the
non-compliance.''
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-76, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page 28,
with the following:
``year when the Federal Court determines that the''.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-76, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 26, on page 29,
with the following:
``51. Subsection 23.2(2) of the Act is repealed.''
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 54.
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 55.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
(1740)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I believe this includes all the motions in
this group. Is that correct?
Some hon. members: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I turn to the main contents of my remarks, I would
like to remind members of the House that in the last 24 hours the
debt of the Government of Canada rose by $100 million. It now has
reached a total of $556 billion. This is a very severe indictment of
the budget, of which Bill C-76 is merely a method for
implementing its contents.
We should periodically recall that Canada is in severe
difficulties. We have to do more to eliminate the deficit, especially
now that the economy seems to be slowing down and there are
some indications of inflation raising its ugly head. I had hoped and
wished that the government had cut spending more but obviously it
was not to be.
Bill C-76 implements the budget. I am here to discuss the
amendments which the Reform Party has proposed with respect to
the maintenance of national standards of social programs.
The Government of Canada has a severe problem because it has
switched from the traditional granting of cash to the provinces to a
system which ultimately will lead to the elimination of all cash
transfers. The reason is that along with the cash transfers used to
come the opportunity to impose national standards on welfare and
health and other programs which were financed. When this is
eliminated the government will have difficulties because it will not
have leverage over the provinces.
How has the government attempted to resolve the problem? The
problem has been resolved by having the opportunity, without
consent from the provinces, to impose standards. This is an
interpretation we have put on what is in the bill. The government is
acting without the consent of the provinces to impose standards.
The Reform Party believes this is a very serious matter.
It is a pulling of power toward the centre that is unprecedented in
Canada and we wish to oppose it. We have proposed some
amendments which would clarify the point. No minister, no agent
of the crown, can simply impose standards. They can be imposed
only with the mutual consent of all of the provinces.
The second method which is very disturbing to Reformers is the
decision whether certain standards have been violated by any
province can be decided by cabinet in a closed session. We believe
it is a similarly usurpation of power which is not suitable for the
federal state. Third, there is a clause which we find unfortunate in
that the power to withhold finances will not just be limited to the
program, the standards of which were alleged to have been
violated, but the ability to withhold money applies to other transfer
payments. That is also an unfortunate development.
All of these approaches to try to maintain standards from the
centre under the new Canada health and social transfers program
are fundamentally against the current trend in Canadian society.
What we have seen during the election campaign is the desire for
devolution of power, to have smaller government.
(1745 )
I find it ironic that the parliamentary secretary a minute ago was
praising that his government's program would lead to devolution.
13263
At the same time there is this attempt to grab it back by trying to
have clauses which restore and maintain the ability to set national
standards.
I find it interesting to consider how we got those national
standards. I remind the House that many years ago there was the
obligation of individuals to look after themselves and if they could
not do it families did.
We know when this is the case, cheating and excesses are not
possible the way they are today. The closer programs are in their
administration and design to the people they serve and who pay for
them in the end, the more efficient and better they are.
The family alone historically was not able to maintain those
services. When society became more complex churches, fraternal
associations and all kinds of decentralized but slightly collective
organizations took very good care of society.
How did it all happen? It happened in the post-war years when an
intellectual, political and media elite imposed itself on Canada. It
had a love affair with socialism, if not communism. The people
who opposed these things thought the socialist experiment that had
been undertaken in some of the industrial countries, especially the
Soviet union, were a great success and that we should emulate
them. This is how it came about. The initiation of those standards
had their roots in a fundamental distrust in the wisdom of the
people. They thought the people could not be trusted, that it took a
political media elite to establish the kind of standards it thought
were appropriate.
To me the most unbelievable thing was that this elite was able to
persuade the media and others of the merit of its program. It
introduced in a major public relations coup the idea that national
standards are needed for national identity.
In the finance committee we heard a concerted effort of the
political left discussing continuously on how a removal of these
national standards means a destruction of Canadian national
identity.
I am appalled by the ease with which this idea is still accepted.
There is not one person questioning it. Is anyone saying that before
we had national standards there was no Canada? Would anyone
wish to ask the Prime Ministers governing up to the 1950s if they
did not preside over Canada? That in my judgment is a lot of bunk.
It was not the kind of Canada which the socialist dreamers wanted
but it certainly had a national identity. I think that is absolutely
silly.
In Europe the arguments are going in the opposite direction.
Countries are attempting to integrate and unify their programs. For
a long time the argument was there cannot be a united Europe, a
European Union, because of different social programs. That is bunk
also.
When a person grows up in a country with low taxes and low
social programs, especially retirement benefits, they cannot when
they retire or get sick move from that country of low cost in terms
of taxes and the low quality benefits and say it is now their right as
a member of the European Union to go into a country in Europe in
which the taxes are high and the benefits are high.
(1750 )
I can understand how that would result in a breakdown of the
system. We pay the low insurance rate when we do not need it.
Then when we have the need to draw on the system, we go where
the rates are high. It is very easy to avoid this kind of thing both in
Europe and in Canada. We will be able to move from a province
with low benefits and costs to one with higher ones, except that the
benefits we get have to come from the province in which we have
made our payments when they were low. It is as simple as that.
The ideas that we need national standards for national identity
and that the system would break down because of different tastes,
different levels of benefits and costs in individual provinces are a
fabrication of people who were out there in the post-war years to
persuade Canadians by any means possible that it takes people in
Ottawa of obviously superior intellectual and moral standards to
say what is the right level of welfare benefits, of health care and of
unemployment insurance and various other goodies the state
provides.
The amendments the Reform Party has proposed try to deal with
this. We have done so with the conviction that it is in the interest of
Canada in the long run to continue the process of devolution. We
have gone through a very noble experiment of centralization, of
national standards, which has obviously failed. The programs are
all in financial difficulties and there are more people needing these
kinds of systems simply because they were not administered
properly.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before I give the floor to the hon.
member for Chicoutimi, I think that there is unanimous consent to
allow the member to speak, as long as it is about group No. 7. Is
that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the House for allowing me to discuss motions from
the last group: the six motions moved by my colleague from
Châteauguay. These motions are aimed at preventing the
government from slashing veterans' grants and allowances
programs.
Need I remind the federal government that veterans are under its
responsibility? Yet, I think that the government is abandoning some
of its obligations and commitments toward them, despite some
historical and solemn promises.
Support to poor people, widows and senior citizens is already
being cut. The government knows very well that these cuts merely
13264
shift these needs for assistance to other public services, both
federal and provincial. The only real savings that can result from
this operation will be in the envelope for Veterans Affairs Canada.
As usual, the government will have succeeded in passing the bill
on to other federal departments or to the provinces. We agree with
the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who had also moved
amendments in this regard.
(1755)
His amendments are totally in line with the Bloc Quebecois's
efforts to oppose this government's proposed attack against
veterans. We are therefore calling for the deletion of certain clauses
affecting veterans, including clause 42, which amends the Children
of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act.
This amendment starts the gradual elimination of the benefits
allowing the children of deceased veterans to pursue their studies.
There are not thousands of them. This does not affect 6 million
Canadians. Only 85 orphans currently receive these benefits. With
one or two exceptions, they are the children of deceased members
of the military who had the courage to participate in Canadian
peacekeeping missions.
The government is quick to act in this matter but very slow to do
anything about family trusts and big business, for example. The
government will now take away from these people, whose fathers
died while serving their country, what may be their only chance to
get an education.
Under Bill C-76, those students who were receiving these
benefits on budget day will continue to receive them, but the
department will no longer take applications although some students
might be eligible. In 1993-94, this program cost only $315,000. So
this is the finance minister's great initiative. Not only does he
attack the most vulnerable, but he now goes after the children of
those who lost their lives while serving their country. What for? To
save a drop in this ocean of expenditures. What is $315,000 in a
budget of an amount you know as well as I do.
Clauses 68 to 72 inclusively amend the War Veterans Allowance
Act to discontinue the payment of allowances to veterans who
served with the resistance. These provisions also provide for the
phasing out of allowances awarded to allied veterans who
immigrated to Canada after their service and resided in Canada for
a period of at least ten years before applying for government
assistance. This is another stupid initiative that will save very little
money, while making life impossible for them when applying for
allowances or even welfare.
Clauses 68 and 71 also repeal provisions so that allied veterans
who immigrate to Canada after their service will no longer be
eligible for these allowances. This amounts to a pure and simple
cut. Under clause 69, allowances will no longer be paid to at least
3,000 veterans. At the same time, this clause will have the effect of
taking allowances away from another 1,000 resistance veterans
whose old age security and CPP benefits place just above the
normal threshold for certain health benefits, just at the limit.
This will affect some 4,000 individuals, two thirds of whom live
in Quebec. Today, they are told as offhandedly as can be to go and
stand in line for other social programs from now on. The message
is that they are no longer recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada
and that barely making it back was not good enough.
(1800)
The government is showing them that it has no respect for the
sacrifice they made. Sure, you may argue that, since the Minister of
Finance is not a veteran, he cannot really understand what goes on
or what these people are going through. However, if he spent some
time in a theatre of operations, as a participant and not merely a
spectator, he might review his bill immediately upon his return
here.
This federal abdication of responsibilities toward our veterans is
yet another example of the arrogance displayed by this
government. It also shows why we have to get out of that system.
The government cannot keep to its word; it goes all out against the
poor, while looking after the interests of its friends. It will never
manage to eliminate its huge deficit with such a policy. Of the more
than 4,000 people affected by these measures, I ask the two thirds
who live in Quebec to think about this when the time comes to
choose between the status quo, represented by a centralist and
controlling federalism, and the sovereignty of a normal country, for
a normal people, which will recognize their rights.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the motion in relation to the Canada social
transfer because the Liberal government is simply not facing up to
the reality of the situation in Canada regarding health care. It is
trying to hide the reality by disguising it with a large lump sum
transfer to the provinces and leaving the provinces to deal with the
problems while at the same time continuing to apply, certainly at
the moral level, a very restricted Canada Health Act.
In the Globe and Mail today there was a quote I can read to
illustrate the problem very well. It is a quote from an adviser in the
Prime Minister's office of all places who said:
My view is we don't really have a problem per se. We have an incipient
potentially harmful issue. We are not freaked by it. We just have to keep a eye over
the horizon.
It is obvious that somebody is a bit worried at least. It really
bothers me that the government is acting as if we are back 20 years
13265
when it had control of the media and propaganda and could tell
people things and they actually believed it.
Today in the information age with freedom of information and
all the information available to people they see through the charade
of the government. Everyone in my riding knows that the health
care system is in trouble. All the bleating and discussion from the
other side of the House about the Canada Health Act being
maintained forever does not mean anything. The average person on
the street knows there are problems.
I cite a couple of examples in my riding to illustrate problems
exist that will only get worse unless the government admits there is
a problem and deals with it. For example, a lady in her early
seventies late last fall badly twisted her shoulder lifting something.
She tore the tendons away from the bone in her shoulder. She went
to the doctor who told her that because the tendons had been torn
away the only way to fix them was by reattaching them in surgery;
they will not heal. She was put on the waiting list and in the
meantime given some pain killers.
Five months later the woman was still taking more and more
pain killers. Because it is a muscle and tendons are joined to it, the
muscle had shrunk back and it became more of a major job to
reattach the tendons. Toward the end of February the woman's
husband said that they could not wait any longer. Still the doctors
could not give any date for the woman to go to hospital to have the
tendons reattached.
(1805)
Luckily Vancouver is very close to the border of the United
States. The gentleman arranged to take his wife to Seattle where
she had surgery within two days of arriving there. The surgeons
there said they could not understand what type of health care
system there could be in Canada that would allow a woman to go
for six months with that sort of condition. It was unbelievable and
unheard of that it would happen in a place like Washington state.
That is one example and I will give another example of a
gentleman back in 1989 who noticed a bit of a problem with some
blood. He went along to see his doctor who said it was a pretty bad
situation and sent him to a specialist for a second opinion. The
gentleman asked how long it would take me to get an appointment.
The doctor said that it would be approximately 10 weeks.
Anyone in the House who has ever been to a doctor and has
subsequently had to go to a specialist knows that what I say is true.
I certainly know in this case it was true. It takes anywhere from 10
weeks or more to see a specialist. I know it is true in this case
because the story is about me.
When I found out that I would have to wait 10 weeks to see a
specialist for what appeared to be a fairly serious problem, I said:
``No, thank you. Please make arrangements for me to go to the
United States. I do not care if it costs me money because we are
talking about a very serious problem''.
The doctor said: ``Listen, let me make a few phone calls and see
what I can do''. The doctor managed to get me in to see a specialist
the same day. Because I threatened to go to the United States, I was
queue jumped, which is wrong in itself. I admit that it is wrong. It
should not be that way.
Luckily for me I saw the specialist the same day and within a few
days by also threatening to go to the United States for tests I was
able to have a colonoscopy. I was diagnosed with colon cancer and
given approximately six months to live. This was back in 1989.
When they discovered the problem and there was a suggestion
that there would be a waiting list for surgery, I had to raise the point
that I was not prepared to wait, that I would go to the United States.
Again I was queue jumped. That was not the only operation I had.
After having part of my colon removed in 1989 I was put on
chemotherapy, which is a devastating experience. Luckily the
service was available in my riding.
About six months later I required a second operation and again I
was queue jumped. I was admitted through the emergency
department of the hospital because the doctors knew that I would
go to the United States.
They said to me: ``The surgeon is on duty on Saturday. Why
don't you come to the hospital, admit yourself through the
emergency department, and we will take care of you?'' That was
wrong but I believe I am here today because of the action I took to
go to the United States for some tests and to make sure I was queue
jumped for the rest.
There is something wrong with a system that allows that sort of
thing to happen. I had some of my tests done in the United States
because I needed MRI, magnetic resonance imaging. I would have
had to wait 10 weeks in Vancouver to go to St. Paul's Hospital
which had an MRI. However it was only doing five scans a day,
four of which were cranial, for brain tumours and things like that.
There was only one per day for the rest of the body.
The unit could easily do probably 20 scans a day but there was
no budget. People could take a pet dog or cat and have it scanned by
the MRI at St. Paul's Hospital because they could pay for it to have
an MRI. However we are not allowed to pay for our own MRI; it is
against the Canada Health Act.
I went to Seattle and paid $1,000 U.S. for an MRI. It only took
two days to get in. I went there and was treated like a client, not like
a number on a medical services plan. I had my MRI. Incidentally
nobody asked me how I was going to pay for it. They just admitted
me and did the tests. They said: ``Mr. White, why don't you have a
cup of coffee, come back in two hours and we will give you the
radiologist's report?'' Three hours later I was on my way back to
13266
Vancouver with the radiologist's report and all the X-rays to take to
my doctor.
(1810 )
Everyone in Canada who has been through the process asks when
the results will be ready after the test is done, only to be told that
the doctor will call in two weeks if there is a problem. That is
unacceptable. The quality of care is so much better in my
experience when people are accountable to the system that there is
no comparison. We have to start admitting there is something
wrong with the system the way it stands.
I use the New Zealand experience from time to time. I would like
to mention briefly an experience with my mother who is in her
eighties. She needed a cataract operation. She had to wait under the
old system in New Zealand for up to six years at 80 years of age. By
paying for herself she quickly got the service because in New
Zealand people are allowed to pay for themselves. In a two-year
period the waiting list was reduced from six years to six weeks
because people could pay in what the government would call a
two-tier system.
In the long run admitting there are problems and dealing with
them make it better for everybody. We should not be afraid of a
two-tier system that enables some wealthy people to pay and in the
end reduces waiting lists for everybody.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very happy to speak on Bill C-76, an act to implement various
provisions of the last budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. The
main purpose of this bill, as everyone knows, is to create the
Canada social transfer which will have many repercussions.
The new Canada social transfer will, first of all, lead to cuts in
the federal transfers to provinces in the upcoming years. As we
mentioned over and over again in order to show how serious the
situation is, we can expect during the next three years $3 billion in
cuts in all of Canada, including $2.5 billion in cuts in Quebec
alone.
Let me digress here. It is hard to talk about figures and statistics
when we know that behind these figures are the harsh realities of
life some people have to face. For example, in the province of
Quebec, some hospitals will have to be closed, even though an
increasingly significant portion of the Quebec population is having
some serious problems, especially in Montreal where there is talk
of a broken Quebec, and where life for some of our fellow
Quebecers will only get tougher.
I am both somewhat surprised and disappointed to have so little
time to address this issue, because I would have had a lot to say. I
would like to respond to a statement made last week by our
colleague from Edmonton Southwest who, in response to the
debate initiated by the Bloc Quebecois on the rationale for Bills
C-76, C-46, C-88 and C-91, referred to the Bloc members'
behaviour as tribalism. I find it most deplorable.
By acting this way, we are assuming our responsibilities as the
official opposition, and the Reform Party should, but does not, do
the same at least to protect Canadian provinces against this
unprecedented attack by the federal government which quietly
forges ahead, bit by bit, to build tomorrow's Canada.
We are talking about it not only because Quebec is affected, but
because if the answer to the referendum happens to be no, which
would be most unfortunate, all Quebecers would wake up the next
day as part of a new Canada that would have been built behind their
backs. It is the very notion of a distinct nation that is at stake, the
survival of the Quebec people, but it is tomorrow's Canada that is
being built here, piece by piece, by people like the whip who refuse
to admit what is really going on.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to have to interrupt the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières, but there is an order of the House.
It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order adopted earlier today, it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions
necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the
House.
The question is on Motion No. 47. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The division is deferred. Under the order
the recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 48, 56, 58,
59, 60, 61, 62 and 63.
The next question is on Group No. 6, Motion No. 64. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
13267
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Deputy Speaker: The division is deferred. The recorded
division will also apply to Motions Nos. 65, 66 and 67.
[Translation]
Apparently, Mr. Godin is not here. I give the floor to the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, on a point of order.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my hon. colleague
for Châteauguay, I ask the House to give unanimous consent for my
hon. colleague for Chicoutimi to propose the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
motion to be moved by someone else?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gilbert Filion (Chicoutimi, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 68. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1820 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 68
stands deferred. This also applies to Motions Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72
and 73.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The first question is on Motion No. 3. Call in the members.
(Division No. 229)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-65
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
13268
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood-116
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
(1845 )
[English]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent that those members who have voted
on the motion immediately preceding this one be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House and in the
following manner: the Liberal MPs will be voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Members of the Bloc Quebecois will also vote
nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members will vote yea
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats will vote yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 230)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-39
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
13269
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood-142
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on Motion No. 5
also applies to Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 74.
(1850)
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find
there is unanimous consent for members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, in the following manner: Liberal members will be
voting nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members vote no
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 231)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Plamondon
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-31
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
13270
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 defeated. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 74 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 17. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 17 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motions Nos. 12 and 14.
[Translation]
A negative vote on Motion No. 17 requires the question to be put
on Motions Nos. 12 and 14.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that members who have voted on
the motion immediately prior to this one be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal MPs
voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
support this motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote no, except
for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on this motion New Democrats vote
nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 232)
YEAS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
13271
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-26
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Wood-155
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you would seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that the vote on this motion be the
one that was voted on report stage Motion No. 3 but in reverse. In
other words, the vote on report stage Motion No. 3 will be applied
to the motion now before the House in reverse.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 233)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
13272
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-65
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion 14.
(1855 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the vote taken on Motion No. 12 be applied to the
motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 233.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. A vote on Motion No. 23
also applies to Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37,
38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.
[Translation]
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 obviates the necessity of
putting the question on Motions Nos. 28, 31, 33, 35 and 40.
[English]
A negative vote on Motion No. 23 necessitates the question
being put on Motions Nos. 28, 31, 33 and 40.
[Translation]
The vote taken on Motion No. 33 also applies to Motion No. 35.
13273
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one member will rise on
this, but I believe you would find unanimous consent that the vote
on report stage Motion No. 5 by the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot be applied to the motion now before the
House.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will be voting
for Motion No. 23 in this case.
(The House divided the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 234)
YEAS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Plamondon
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-32
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Wood-149
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
13274
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 23 defeated. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38,
39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 28.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find
there is unanimous consent for members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, as follows: Liberal members will vote nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc Quebecois members will also vote nay.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yea,
except for members who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 235)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-34
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood-147
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
13275
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
(1900 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 28 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 31.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be now recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House with Liberal MPs voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members will be voting yea on
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members will vote
yea, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party members
vote nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 236)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-60
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood-121
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
13276
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 31 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 33.
[Translation]
The vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 35.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find
unanimous consent that the vote taken on report stage Motion
No. 28 be applied to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 235.]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 33 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 40.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the vote taken on report stage Motion No. 5 to the
motion now before the House, except in reverse.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 237)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Wood-150
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Plamondon
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
13277
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-31
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 40 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 47. A vote on Motion No. 47
also applies to Motions Nos. 48, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63.
[Translation]
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 47 will obviate the question
being put on Motions Nos. 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57.
[English]
A negative vote on Motion No. 47 necessitates the question
being put on Motions Nos. 46 and 49.
[Translation]
The vote on Motion No. 49 applies to Motions Nos. 50, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55, and 57.
(1905 )
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought
we were voting on Motion No. 47.
The Speaker: We are voting on Motion No. 47. Because the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was not in the House, we
put it in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, I will be
voting in favour of Motion No. 47.
The Speaker: I believe we are going to have a recorded vote.
The question is on Motion No. 47.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 238)
YEAS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Plamondon
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-32
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
13278
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Wood-149
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
(1910 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 47 defeated. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 48, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 46.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent that the vote taken on report stage Motion No. 31 be
applied to the motion now before the House.
As well, Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would
find consent that the same vote be applied to report stage Motion
No. 64 as well as all other motions applying to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc will
support this motion, with the name of the member for Saint-Hubert
being added from this point on.
[English]
Mr. Silye: The Reform Party members support both Motion No.
46 and Motion No. 64, except for those members who wish to vote
otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we accept what the government House
leader has brought forward and we are voting nay on these two
motions.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 239)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-61
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
13279
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap -Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood-121
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 46 defeated and I declare
Motion No. 64 defeated.
[Editor's Note: For vote on Motion No. 64, see list under
Division No. 239.]
[Translation]
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 65, 66, and 67
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 49.
[Translation]
The vote on Motion No. 49 will also apply to Motions Nos. 50,
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask it, I think you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on report
stage Motion No. 28 to Motion No. 49.
[English]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 240)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-34
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
13280
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wappel
Wood-148
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 49 defeated. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 57 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 68. The vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on report
stage Motion No. 17 to the vote now before the House. I should add
it is with the addition of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert voting
on the yea side for that motion.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 241)
YEAS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-27
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
13281
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Wood-155
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 68 defeated.
[Translation]
(1920 )
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib,) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
that the vote taken on report stage Motion No. 3, the first vote taken
today, be applied in reverse to the motion now before the House,
adding the hon. member for Saint-Hubert on the nay side.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 242)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
13282
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood-115
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-67
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Copps
Daviault
Debien
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Graham
Guay
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Mercier
Ménard
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
13282
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, On
May 16, I asked a question to the Minister of Agriculture about an
article published in the Montreal daily
La Presse, in which it was
claimed that some dairy producers were illegally using
recombinant bovine somatotropin. The minister tried to be
reassuring by saying that his officials were investigating the
allegations, and that he would inform me of their findings.
That was over three weeks ago, and I have yet to hear from the
Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary. When the
minister is asked what he intends to do to solve the issue, he points
out that it is not the manufacturers of the product who do not
comply with the moratorium, but the producers who dismiss the
directive.
That answer clearly shows that the minister's primary concern is
neither the reputation of dairy producers, nor the safety of
consumers. The overriding consideration is big money.
It is very sad to see that no one will protect the producers and the
consumers in this most important debate.
13283
(1925)
The minister clearly told us that he did not care by repeating for
the umpteenth time that it is his colleague, the Minister of Health,
who will make the final decision. It is too easy to just pass the
buck. The Minister of Agriculture has a responsibility to dairy
producers, not to rich pharmaceutical companies.
Why does the government leave a doubt as to the quality of our
dairy products, considering that our producers must slow down
their production and that the quality of our milk is recognized
worldwide?
In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason for a Minister of
Agriculture to close his eyes to acts that tarnish the excellent
reputation the Quebec and Canadian dairy industry has built for
itself over the years. Why does the minister allow companies like
Monsanto and Ely Lilly to continue in the hope of making a fortune
and having us drink milk containing a synthetic hormone?
What is on one side of the scales is becoming increasingly clear.
Consumers do not want to drink milk containing recombinant
bovine somatotropin at the moment, producers see no need to use
the hormone and studies on the safety of the product are not
conclusive.
Why put off extending the moratorium, then? Our guess is that
there is no clear, explainable or public reason on the other side of
the scales. Try explaining to a parent that his or her children are
drinking milk that is more or less safe for purely economic reasons.
Statistics obtained in a study by Optima Research indicate very
clearly that a high percentage of consumers will stop buying milk if
it contains recombinant bovine somatotropin. Why in this case is
the minister not protecting the interests of producers by putting
pressure on his colleague in the health portfolio to put an end to the
hopes of the pharmaceutical companies? I know very well that this
whole matter is one of big bucks. Are there politicians or perhaps
senior public servants with hidden interests?
Past certifications by Health Canada provide no assurance. They
include breast implants, urea formaldehyde and thalidomide.
If it approves the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin for
dairy herds, will Health Canada agree to compensate dairy
producers for all consumer claims as the result of health problems
arising through the consumption of dairy products?
In closing, I would ask why this government does not follow the
example of the European Community and declare a moratorium
until independent studies can really examine this hormone in
depth? Should they ever come out in favour of its use, then and
only then, could we start using recombinant bovine somatotropin.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
provide the hon. member for Frontenac and the House with
information regarding the alleged importation and use of rBST or
recombinant bovine somatotropin, as well as an update on various
related issues.
It is important to stress that the high standards and integrity of
both the regulatory system and the Canadian dairy industry
continue to be maintained.
First and foremost, no decision has yet been made regarding the
approval and licensing of rBST for use in Canada. This decision, I
repeat again for the member, is the responsibility of Health Canada.
Its review is being administered under the Food and Drugs Act,
which sets out the standards for the safety of food and drugs used in
Canada.
A notice of compliance must be received in order to sell rBST in
Canada. This means that the sale of rBST is prohibited and
importation of this product is controlled at the border by Revenue
Canada. Therefore the sale, distribution, or importation of rBST in
Canada at this time is illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.
I would like to also take the opportunity to highlight some of the
key events that have occurred over the past year.
In response to recommendations of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-food, the government has negotiated a
one-year delay with the manufacturers, until July 1 of this year.
Also, the government commissioned a task force report, which
provides more information on costs and benefits to the Canadian
dairy industry, animal genetics, U.S. consumer reactions, and
human and animal health issues.
In addition, Health Canada has developed a document outlining
how veterinary drugs are licensed in Canada. Also, both
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Health Canada have
completed a document outlining consistent procedures for the
handling of biotechnology products. All documentation is publicly
available.
I hope this addresses the concerns on importation, as it provides
the most up-to-date information that is available on this issue.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
[Translation]
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m.)