CONTENTS
Friday, March 18, 1994
Bill C-14. Report stage 2471
Motion for concurrence 2471
Motion for third reading 2471
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2481
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2482
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2482
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2486
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2486
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2490
Bill C-18. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 2492
Motion for concurrence in twelfth report 2492
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2492
Bill C-14. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 2493
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2493
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 2499
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 2503
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 2503
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 2504
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2510
2471
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 18, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, an act
to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on
April 1, 1994, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Massé (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the bill
be read the third time and passed.
(1005 )
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on
third reading of Bill C-14, the borrowing authority bill.
The bill has been approved by the House finance committee
and it is vitally important that the House proceed with it as
quickly as possible. Without borrowing authority in the new
fiscal year severe constraints will be placed on the government's
financial program, constraints that could prove costly to the
government and to Canadian taxpayers. The federal government
would be restricted to short term funds. This would expose the
government to an additional rate risk and could disrupt the
capital market, potentially resulting in higher debt and servicing
charges.
We do not put forward this request for borrowing authority
lightly. We know there are real costs involved in adding to the
country's debt burden. The amount of borrowing authority
requested in the bill is directly connected to the financial
requirements set out in the 1994 budget. The budget takes
concrete responsible action to bring the nation's finances under
control.
Our ultimate goal is to eliminate the deficit. Our interim
target is to reduce it to 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97. The
budget puts us on a course to meet that target. We will reduce the
deficit to $39.7 billion in the coming fiscal year, to $32.7 billion
in 1995-96, and, with only a moderate growth, to $25 billion in
1996-97. Our financial requirements are lower: $30.2 billion in
1994-95 and $22.7 billion in 1995-96.
Let me be very clear. No future action is required for us to
meet our three-year deficit target. This will happen as a direct
result of the actions contained in the 1994 budget in and of
themselves.
To achieve this we have proposed the most substantial saving
reductions by a government in the last 10 years. Debt
expenditure cuts will total $17 billion over the next three years.
Over that period there are $5 in spending cuts for every $1 in
new revenue.
Some people have expressed disappointment that the deficit
for the first year is not lower. The government shares that
disappointment. However the reasons for this are quite
straightforward.
First, there is a lag time before the full effects of spending
cuts show up in the nation's books, for example with
unemployment insurance a change in legislation is required.
Second, we have carried through on all of our election
commitments including a major national infrastructure
program, and they are paid for up front.
There is a third reason the deficit is not lower for the first year.
We have scrapped many of the practices of the past. In previous
years, governments would set targets based on rosy economic
projections. Our budget is based on very prudent assumptions.
[Translation]
First, there is a lag time before the full effects of spending
cuts show up in the nation's books; for example, with
unemployment insurance where a change in legislation is
required.
Second, we have carried through on all of our election
commitments, including a major national infrastructure
program, and they are paid up front.
There is a third reason why the deficit is not lower for the first
year. We have scrapped many of the practices of the past. In
previous years, governments would set targets based on rosy
economic projections. Our budget is based on very prudent
assumptions.
2472
[English]
Moreover the budget provides full accounting for all new
program costs. Nothing is hidden. We have built in substantial
reserves so that we can respond to unforeseen contingencies
without altering our fiscal targets.
Finally, we have not offloaded the federal deficit on to
Canada's provinces. We firmly believe that the two levels of
government must approach their respective challenges through
co-operation.
Now let me return to Bill C-14. Like borrowing bills in
previous years the bill contains three basic elements. I would
like to touch briefly on each one of these elements.
First, the bill provides for $30.2 billion of authority to cover
anticipated borrowing requirements to meet the net financial
requirements set out in the budget.
Second, there is provision in the bill to cover $1.1 billion of
exchange fund account earnings. These earnings give rise to
additional borrowing requirements because these earnings,
although reported as budgetary revenues, are retained in the
exchange fund account. They are not available to finance
ongoing government expenditures.
(1010)
Third, there is a $3 billion borrowing reserve, the same
amount requested in borrowing bills in the last six years. This
reserve provides for unforeseen contingencies such as foreign
exchange transactions, seasonal swings and borrowing
requirements, and delays in passing the future year borrowing
authority legislation.
The bill also contains a provision for an additional borrowing
authority of $3 billion to provide for borrowing conducted in the
fiscal year under section 47 of the Financial Administration Act.
In summary borrowing authority is a normal part of
government operations and the bill contains no unusual
provisions. All the information needed to deal with it is before
the House in the budget, the main estimates and related
documents.
I therefore urge the House to proceed today with the
legislation so that the government's regular borrowing program
can proceed as the fiscal year begins and the risk of hard debt
servicing charges can be avoided.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker,
since the budget was brought down in this House, I have
witnessed a great deal of praise being heaped on members on the
other side of the House. First, the Prime Minister praised his
Minister of Finance as if he held the keys to eternal truth. The
other ministers also showered him with praise and thanked him
for slashing their own departmental budgets. And to top it all
off, the minister even congratulated himself. I have never seen
so much flattery before, all designed to mask a flood of useless,
futile words.
A number of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have
denounced this budget, and rightly so. I too would like to join
with them in saying that there is nothing in this budget to give
some hope back to the least fortunate members of our society.
This budget was devised by sons of darkness, whose father is
none other than the Prime Minister himself.
A son of darkness is someone who always thinks in terms of
his party and his career. Many of my colleagues here in this
House hail from rural areas. There are some young Turks on the
other side of the House who, outside the chamber, have said: You
are right, but we are only starting out in our career and we want
to move up. Sometimes, we have to keep quiet. Some other
members who have been around longer and who are more adept
at expressing themselves say this: Why not protect our career
and maybe some day get appointed to the Senate.
A son of darkness is someone who never admits his mistakes.
It was announced here in this House that the military college in
Saint-Jean, a francophone college, will be closed. Everyone
concedes that the government is making a monumental mistake,
but the government is not willing to admit it.
A son of darkness is someone who protects the wealthy,
family trusts and large corporations, someone who never gives
any real answers here in this House. The answer is always
maybe, or perhaps, but never anything specific.
(1015)
A son of darkness is someone who accepts a double standard.
The poor are asked to tighten their belts, while a minister can
take off and spend $160,000 on a trip.
A son of darkness is someone who exploits the poorest among
us and surrounds himself with wealthy friends during election
campaigns. He has no problem with spending $1,000 or $3,000
on meals with his friends. He is also someone who is prepared to
bleed our senior citizens dry, to tax their income above $24,000
or $25,0000. He is someone who does not put any value on
workers and who makes life hell for the unemployed.
I do not have any examples to give you, but I have toured my
riding several times and workers as well as the unemployed
understand what I am saying. A son of darkness is someone for
whom the end justifies the means.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs says one thing in the House,
and something quite different outside the chamber. A son of
darkness is someone who does not care about the people. We
have had some very sincere federalists in Quebec. There was
Jean Lesage who coined the expression ``masters in our own
2473
house''. He sat here in this very House. Did anyone listen to
him?
Immediately after him came Premier Daniel Johnson, Sr.,
who said ``equality or independence''. Did anyone listen to him,
Mr. Speaker? No. His son, now the Premier of Quebec, did not
listen. He is even worse than the others.
Then there was René Lévesque who spoke of sovereignty
association. At one point, he talked about the ``beau risque'', the
``fine risk''. Did anyone listen to him? No.
Mr. Speaker, you will have recognized the people behind the
latest budget. Furthermore, I have christened the Prime Minister
the father of darkness. Why have I done this? You will recall that
the Constitution was patriated unilaterally. Quebec was not
there in the London fog. You will recall Meech Lake. Well, the
Prime Minister was there in spirit. And finally, you will recall
Charlottetown. This episode will help him to write his
posthumous memoirs.
There is not a thing in this budget which would give some
hope back to the small communities in my riding grappling with
serious social and economic problems. If I were forced to live on
temporary and seasonal unemployment insurance like most of
my fellow citizens, I too would have a strong desire to rise up in
protest.
(1020)
Where are these secure jobs in rural areas and in our small
towns? If I had voted for the Liberal Party, I would feel betrayed.
What was said during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker? They
said, ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. Where are these jobs? Other than the
infrastructure program, where they will be put in place as soon
as possible. In Quebec, particularly if there is an election, we
will see bulldozers all over the place, to give the impression that
jobs are being created, the illusion that temporary jobs are being
created, only for that reason.
If I were the mayor of a small rural municipality, I would be
convinced that this government has simply let rural people down
once again. The nice promises this government made to
Canadian voters in the last election campaign on
underemployment, unemployment, and housing have all gone
up in smoke.
Not only is there nothing in this budget for the least fortunate,
but it picks the pockets of the poorest once again. It bleeds dry
the old people who built this country. These people have worked
hard to save a little money and now they will have to return part
of their savings, put together over 50 or 60 years. They will have
to give money back to the government, after doing everything to
build this country.
What I heard in this House on February 22 is what I fought
against during the last election campaign in my riding. It is
urgent that we in this country understand once and for all that we
will not solve the deficit problem by going after the poorest and
the elderly. It is a funny way to thank these people who worked
hard and put their health on the line to build Quebec and Canada.
This government must begin, and this is urgent, creating
long-term jobs, not temporary jobs, not pre-electoral jobs, not
sporadic jobs, not jobs that will make the party look good, but
jobs for people who want to work. The Minister says he is
counting on private enterprise to create jobs, and I agree with
him.
Development depends to a large extent on small and
medium-sized business-I am sure of that-which represent
about 99 per cent of all Canadian businesses, great! However,
small and medium-sized businesses are facing new problems
that prevent them from effectively playing the role of job
creators under the impulsion of the economic recovery.
Small and medium-sized businesses are having trouble
getting the money to fund their development from financial
institutions. Administrative requirements from the different
levels of government are unnecessary burdens that take up the
energy needed for production activities.
(1025)
Small and medium-sized businesses complain about their tax
burden and see the need for squandering and duplication to be
eliminated in governmental programs and services. Is this
government prepared to identify and reduce tax, administrative,
social, economic and other barriers to small business starting up
and remaining in operation? This is a clear, precise message
from over 75 per cent of business leaders in this country.
Unemployment insurance reform, to be initiated in the near
future, parliamentary committee on alternatives to the GST and
a task force on the economic situation, which will take a timid
look at what could be done to facilitate access to conventional
financing and explore new funding sources at the local and
community level. In other words, studies and more studies. But
studies do not create jobs, except perhaps for a few civil servants
and especially for some consultant friends of the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, you will argue, and rightly so, that man does not
live on bread alone. Maybe so, but man does need bread. In my
riding, the good courageous parents who cannot afford to buy
food could not care less for study committees. When a single
mother has no money to pay rent at the end of the month, she too
could not care less for committees. What does the other side
suggest? Let us strike committees to solve the problems. That is
not what people are asking for in my riding. There are urgent
needs that have to be met. When an unemployed individual, one
of the many in my riding, sends out 200 resumes and does not
get one single response, he too does not care for committees. I
am using polite language out of respect for this place, but that is
2474
not the language they use when talking to me. Cuss words are
flying these days.
When the great minds of our region, in Matapédia-Matane,
have to migrate to find work, they could not care less for study
committees. I met former constituents of mine in Vancouver
who told me: ``It is not that Vancouver is not friendly,
welcoming and all, on the contrary, but we did not move here
with a light heart. We did not have a choice. There are no jobs
back home''.
What measures does the Minister of Finance intend to put in
place to help businesses, the small and medium-sized
businesses, create jobs? Help is urgently needed. Is this minister
or any other prepared to help the Business Development Centre,
BDC for short, invest more in share capital and venture capital?
So far, most BDCs have been granting 80 per cent loans. They
are almost like the banks and credit unions. That is not what I am
asking from the minister. I am asking the ministers to take some
risks. That is what they are there for. Now we hear that BDCs
must become profitable. Of course, but not by ruining people in
the process. Some businesses do need support.
(1030)
Is this government prepared to invest more in the forestry
industry? You are probably aware of the major role played by
forestry in Canada's economy and trade. Listen to this! One job
out of every 17 created directly or indirectly in Canada is in
forestry. That is 729,000 jobs. But the minister never said a word
about natural resources, not a word, at least not so far. That is
really sad. In Quebec, forestry creates one job in 13. Still, not a
word from the minister.
Furthermore -and I find it somewhat insulting that this fact
has gone unnoticed- natural resources are the key element of
the trade balance, with $19 billion a year. Yet, they seem to be
relegated to the second, tenth or twentieth position. That is
incredible!
Figures from 39 joint management groups show the impact
the economic activity of small and medium-sized businesses in
that area has had on the economy in 1992-93. In source
deductions and taxes alone, these groups have paid back close to
half the funds received. Governments have recovered in part the
seed capital provided, all the while helping enhance capacity,
creating thousands of jobs and supporting a regional and
provincial economic activity.
Budget cuts in that area will not only result in job loss. The
companies that woodlot owners have struggled to set up over the
past 20 years, going as far as pooling resources and forming
co-operatives to create jobs by allowing individuals who did not
own lots to work them, are threatened. They have made huge
sacrifices. I could give you a list of examples a mile long.
To contribute to the management of their forests, these
owners have taken risks. They have taken risks for forests now
threatened with disappearance. Joint management groups are
seriously concerned. RESAM, which represents 39 groups,
struggles along from one year to the next, while all it would need
is a little boost. We do not even have the-generosity is not the
word- the heart to say that it is the government's job to create
jobs. Why not do it?
It would seem that natural resources are not valued in this
House. Forestry alone brings in $19 billion, more than
agriculture, fisheries, industry and energy. But here, in this
House, it apparently has no importance whatsoever.
I hope that my colleagues from rural areas will set party
politics aside for a moment and say: ``Let us do it for rural
Canada''.
(1035)
There are many ministers from big cities, but the rural areas
do not have a voice, and I would like to be that voice for the
voiceless, the spokesman for those who go unheard. Of course,
if I am alone, it is not a partisan issue, I can do very little.
I come back to these small forestry businesses, which as you
know, Mr. Speaker, are scattered all across Quebec and Canada.
They are real tools for regional development. Without them,
what would become of our resource regions? What would
become of the forest industry? What would become of this
country's positive trade balance?
This year, development corporations in my riding are asking
for more aid to operate. They are simply asking the Canadian
government to invest, because it is an investment; it is not a loan
or a grant but an investment that they request, and they very
often are turned down. I hope that this year your government
will not refuse. For the government, it is a long-term investment
that will pay off.
I ask this government to respond positively as soon as
possible, because the Société des Monts, which prepared a very
large brief-last year, the forestry workers and the employees of
that outfit, led by the company president, Mr. Malenfant, had
their salaries cut 10 per cent so that the company could survive
and create and maintain those jobs. If you earn $20,000 a year, a
10 per cent pay cut means taking bread and butter from your
children. When the school year begins, you cannot pay your
children's back-to-school expenses, and we know what that
costs, especially if you have three or four children.
The Société des Monts, the Société de la Vallée and the
Scierie Métis sawmill must plan their work as soon as possible. I
know hundreds of forestry workers who in early March-I do
not want to dramatize-are getting stomach ulcers because they
do not know if they will start to work. They do not know. We are
waiting while the whole cumbersome government bureaucracy
takes one or two or three months to answer. That is easy for
2475
someone who is not thinking of the people, the parents who
have nothing or almost nothing to feed their children.
Maybe you have not seen that but I have. I come from a poor
community, one of the poorest ridings in Canada. People talk
about the east end of Montreal; yes, it has tragic problems too.
Our cities also have tragic problems. But in my area, it is even
worse. I am not speaking on my behalf; I am speaking for those
who voted for me and those who voted against me. It makes no
difference to me; those people have a right to work and do not
have a job, and for some reasons that are hard to identify, they
are insecure every year.
The people of Matapédia-Matane are fed up with seeing
their wood leave with only basic processing. We used to be
called drawers of water. I say that today we are bearers or even
eaters, a more apt description, of sawdust.
(1040)
There is only sawdust left in our yards. That is all there is left.
Our wood is being taken away; trucks carry it everywhere, and
we cannot even process it at home.
Let me give you an example. Back home, there are many mills
that make wood laths. We wanted to build lobster crates, but I
was told that it was not possible because transportation costs
were too high. And we just learned this week that the CN might
no longer provide a service to our area, because there is not
enough freight to transport. It seems to me that the state should
help regions such as ours and give them a chance. If the train
keeps serving our area, it will not cost any more and it will
enable us to send out finished products.
People in my riding want to work; they want to give an added
value to the forest resources which would help develop their
region.
We need a little help, but not in three years. We need just a
little bit of help because our people are resourceful. That is all
they need. If you give them that little break, you will see a series
of new, dynamic and job-creating small businesses emerge.
But for that to take place, there must be a firm political will to
apply technology to natural resources. The Eastern Quebec
Development Plan must be maintained beyond 1995. It must be
improved and adjusted. We must invest even more. All those
involved agree on that.
In my region, the per capita income is 25 per cent lower than
the Quebec average. That is right: 25 per cent. At the same time,
the Minister of Finance is going after unemployment insurance
benefits and old age pensions. People in my riding would like
nothing more than to work. As I said earlier, the job market must
provide stable employment.
The only thing I am convinced of is that, in my region as well
as in all rural areas, this budget will only generate more hardship
and poverty. More people will have to rely on income security.
How can you expect people in my region to believe in profitable
federalism when this regime leads us to such a state of
dependency and poverty? Yet, the budget will perpetuate this
situation.
When ministers and government members opposite ask us:
You want sovereignty, but how are you going to manage? I have
a ready answer: Mr. Speaker, things can never be worse than
now.
Development corporations are in serious trouble. Moreover,
our population is aging and our young people are leaving. In my
riding, there is only one CEGEP and no university. It is not
federalism which supported our regions: It is our municipal
representatives, our small parishes and our mayors who worked
very hard. It is also our entrepreneurs who often risked
everything. And it is especially those men and women in the
field who worked relentlessly seven days a week. On Friday
afternoon, my neighbour in a small village had a heart attack and
was taken to the hospital, where the doctor told him he would be
all right. Monday morning, he went back to his chain saw-this
was a Mr. Morrissette-to work to support his family, because
he had to. I want to thank him and the many Mr. Morrissettes in
our region. There are hundreds and thousands, and of course I
cannot name them all, who are like that.
(1045)
I also want to thank all the mothers who were prepared to raise
their families in a rural community. l want to thank these unsung
heroines who are the salt of the earth. I especially want to thank
the young people and professionals who came back and accepted
a drop in salary, to try to help us. We can use more young people.
If this means making a sacrifice, make it, but you will be
rewarded by living in a community that has the strength to pull
together.
I want to thank the older people. Their grandparents ploughed
their fields with ox and horse teams. They worked very hard. Do
we have to get rid of all these rural communities? That seems to
be the trend. I always say that a village is worth as much as a
town. Is the government going to get rid of them? It has no rural
policy. It is cutting back on forestry and agriculture and
practically everything. Our small businesses are very
vulnerable. I know the Minister of Finance said that the
government would try to do something, but the infrastructures
project means that sewers will be built, plus a few temporary
projects, but after
2476
that, what happens? Temporary has been the name of the game
for 20 years in my region. The government has created
temporary jobs but that does not help. We need a much more
vigorous approach to these problems.
Actually, federalism has kept our regions poor, giving the
impression that they were only good for producing raw
materials to give this country a trade surplus. Just provide the
labour, and we will collect the money. Great!
What does this budget have to offer rural areas? There is
nothing for agriculture and forestry agreements have been cut.
And on top of that, the government increased the number of
insurable weeks for unemployment insurance and is not creating
jobs. If this government bothered to listen to the needs of rural
communities, it could create hundreds of jobs. If it only gave us
a chance to process our own raw materials, we could create
thousands of jobs. That is a niche in which the Minister of
Finance could have invested.
The Minister of Finance and most ministers here in the House
are absolutely ignorant of rural needs. Even if he was born in a
big city, and good for him, it seems to me he should try to
understand the most vulnerable and the poorest members of our
society. They are the people, the men and women, who built this
world, who built our regions, but at the international level, at the
level of this planet, people are prepared to let small
communities die. Just shut those six small communities down!
Do we have to organize to defend our rights? We had Operation
Dignity, and we took to the streets. There was Ralliement
populaire, and we took to the streets as well. And both times we
had something to show for it. When we took to the streets, we
got something. If we do not take to the streets, we get nothing.
Will we have to take to the streets again? It is hard work-in fact
it is exhausting-but we will if we have to.
(1050)
Even a minimal investment in our regions would yield major
dividends for the state. Rural communities are not asking for
charity. Do you know what they want? Their fair share! A dollar
invested in forestry operations yields the government $7. Is that
charity? One has to be completely cut off from the real world not
to realize this.
We do not need all kinds of benefits. We do need start up
money, and it is high time the government decided to invest in
durable jobs and sensible projects.
I have met a lot of people in my riding. They are very
disappointed in this budget. They are also very worried about
what will happen to their families. They talked to me about their
concerns. I met them not long ago, and their first question was:
Will we still have the right to live in this region of lakes and
mountains? Matapédia-Matane is one of the most beautiful
ridings we have-everybody says so-but you should come and
see for yourself.
Their second question was: Can we expect to live out our lives
in dignity in this peaceful and tranquil area? What kind of future
will our children have in this region? What kind of future can
they expect?
During the election campaign, the members opposite, those
sons of darkness, had more or less become, Mr. Speaker-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, order. I hesitated
for some time before interrupting the hon. member from
Matapédia-Matane during his speech, which he gave with
great eloquence and conviction, but I have some trouble with the
terms ``sons and father of darkness''. This is the third time those
expressions crop up.
Quite frankly, I hesitated because I was not sure I grasped the
significance of these terms, because if I understand correctly,
``sons of darkness'' means ``sons of hell''. I certainly do not
wish to impugn the eloquence and conviction of the hon.
member's speech, but I would ask him to consider whether he
wishes to use those terms, which I find rather extreme.
We are now over forty minutes. Perhaps the hon. member
could give the Chair some indication of when he will to finish
his speech, and the Chair could ask for unanimous consent to let
him continue, because four or five minutes from now, we will
have to start Question Period.
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, when I say ``sons of darkness'', I
mean ``sons in darkness'', which is to say who cannot see
clearly. That is what I meant.
(1055)
I hope that is in order, because obviously what was meant is a
lack of clarity, and I do not think that was insulting to my
colleagues.
Today, aside from the infrastructures project, there is nothing
for rural communities. The people in my riding and other
Quebec ridings no longer believe in federalism. Conservative
and Liberal governments are always hand in glove with the
multinationals. They will never go along with the principle of
individual political donations, so there is always a quid pro quo:
I contribute to the party's coffers and you invest in my company.
To hell with rural communities! To hell with planning
corporations! To hell, or almost, with the plan for Eastern
Quebec! To hell with the poor! Hurray for the rich! And above
all, do not touch family trusts. Do not touch the multinationals.
Many do not pay taxes. Many companies manage to avoid
paying taxes.
Friends are friends. The Minister of Finance has the nerve to
tell us to wait till 1996-97 to see any benefits as a result of his
budget. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this: people do not have time
to sit there waiting for the dreams of a Minister of Finance to
materialize.
2477
When in my riding and other ridings, farms are auctioned off,
and there are farms for sale practically every week, do you
know what happens afterwards? The forest starts taking over.
Rural communities die off gradually. Our farm workers are
earning less than they did ten years ago. I have a lot of people
in my riding, who are earning less than they did back then. The
middle class is becoming the under class, and the poor in my
riding are going to the local soup kitchen. All this is
heartbreaking.
There is no light at the end of the tunnel, no political will, no
social vision; there are no enlightened solutions. Rural
communities are worried, and they are concerned.
The Speaker: It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
2477
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
speak today about access to capital by small business.
From 1979 to 1989, small business created 87 per cent of the
new jobs in the country. Small business is the key to future job
creation. In order for existing small businesses to grow and new
businesses to develop, we need to ensure that they have adequate
access to capital.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry is
holding hearings to determine what government can do to
increase the flow of capital to small business. We will be
looking at what role the banks play in small business financing
as well as new sources of financing.
I salute all small business owners throughout the country.
There is a tremendous sense of goodwill by all parties on our
committee to find solutions. I encourage all Canadians who wish
to contribute to come forward and make their views known to
our committee. I am confident and encouraged by these
initiatives and I know that the needs of small business will be
met.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House today to mark the
75th anniversary of the Canadian Jewish Congress. This
organization is well-known among Quebecers and Canadians; it
is a pillar of our Jewish community.
Founded in Montreal after World War I, the Canadian Jewish
Congress has participated in all major political and social
debates in Quebec and Canada. Its fight for religious freedom
and against all forms of discrimination was then taken up by all
Quebecers and Canadians.
On the occasion of its 75th anniversary, I would like to thank
the Jewish Congress for its important contribution to our society
and to wish it a long life.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I am speaking today about the proposed takeover of
Maclean-Hunter by Rogers Communications Inc.
I am here to speak neither for nor against such a move because
in my party we encourage the entrepreneurial spirit which built
this great country.
When this matter goes before the CRTC for approval I submit
it is important that this commission take into consideration the
effect this deal may have on small town Canada.
In my riding of Mission-Coquitlam there is a labour dispute
at the local Rogers Cablevision outlet. This dispute has hurt
families that are involved in a lockout and inconvenienced many
who do not cross lawful picket lines. It is my belief that the
interests of small town and rural Canada must always be front
and centre when we consider the effects of corporate
manoeuvring.
A large percentage of Canadians have little choice concerning
the source of the news they receive. Let us be cautious when we
are put in a position of limiting these choices even further.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Last
Monday, I presented my bill requiring all members elected to
the House of Commons to swear allegiance to Canada and the
Constitution.
All Bloc Quebecois members refused the unanimous consent
needed to hold a vote.
What are Bloc Quebecois members afraid of? What are they
doing in the Parliament of Canada if they refuse to swear to look
after the interests of all, repeat all, Canadian citizens?
2478
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, the
government will soon determine the site for the headquarters of
the North American Commission for Environmental
Co-operation.
Winnipeg would be the most appropriate location as the city is
already home to the International Institute for Sustainable
Development and the Secretariat for the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment.
Aside from the certain benefits that will result from the
proximity of these offices with closely related functions,
Winnipeg provides easy access to transportation.
Winnipeg's rails run through the United States to Mexico and
it is linked directly to Mexico via the most heavily used trucking
route into that country.
As well, there are a number of direct and frequent air flights to
Ottawa, Washington, D.C., and Mexico, the three capitals of the
three signatories to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I urge the government to choose Winnipeg, which has long
stood at the forefront of promoting sustainable development, as
the natural site for the North American Commission for
Environmental Co-Operation.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to congratulate two coaches from the
Carleton North High School who are being honoured in my
Carleton-Charlotte constituency.
Mr. Iain Dunlop and Mr. Darrell Turnbull are being
recognized by the New Brunswick Interscholastic Athletic
Association for their superior contribution to basketball.
Both men had to meet six requirements including team
success as well as player-coach relationships to qualify for their
respective awards.
On March 27 Iain Dunlop will be presented with the Dave
MacPherson Award for outstanding contribution in the male
division and at the same time Darrell Turnbull will receive the
Peg McAleenan Award for his work in the female sector.
On behalf of this House of Commons I extend congratulations
to Iain Dunlop and Darrell Turnbull for their commitment to
athletics, the community and the youth of Carleton North High
School.
(1105)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, we saw last
night how the Prime Minister was welcomed to New Brunswick.
To thank the people of Beauséjour for re-electing him in
1990, the Prime Minister in effect gave them a nice poisoned
gift: a reform of the unemployment insurance program that cuts
deeply into the benefits of thousands of recipients in New
Brunswick, as everywhere else in Canada.
Quebecers and Canadians have no intention of bearing the
brunt of a strategy that tries to solve the deficit problem at the
expense of the unemployed and of low-income people.
The people of New Brunswick, through their hostile reaction,
are saying no to the proposed reform of social programs, just
like the people in Toronto who said the same thing to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
It is obvious that the government must thoroughly review how
it intends to reform social programs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has a proud tradition of honouring our war
veterans. There is a fast dwindling group of veterans, however,
who have been poorly treated by us. I speak of the merchant
navy vets who were held prisoners of war for as long as five
years. They had to contend with terrible conditions and
treatment at the hands of their captors. Yet we currently
compensate them for only 30 months of incarceration.
We have many programs that are less urgent than fair
treatment for those few vets whose numbers are dwindling
because of their age. This is not a request for the government to
spend more money but to get its priorities straight.
Some distinguished members of this House defend the current
cash for life MP pension plan. Instead, I call on those members
to support fair treatment of these vets by paying the debt we owe
them for up to the 50 months they suffered in defence of Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment
the Minister of Finance for his commendable efforts in
attempting to restore fiscal responsibility to the public finances
of Canada. I acknowledge that the solution to the fiscal
challenge
2479
confronting our country will not be without pain and that all
segments of our country have been asked to share the burden.
I would point out, however, that the announcement in the
budget of a two year legislated extension of the existing three
year salary freeze for the public service as well as a two year
suspension of pay increments within grade has adversely
impacted on our loyal, industrious, dedicated public sector
workforce.
I would ask the government to closely monitor the savings
secured by these initiatives with a view to shortening or lifting
these freezes as soon as possible.
Our commitment to collective bargaining must be honoured.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of the corporate and bankruptcy laws of
Canada is to stimulate initiative and investment in our economy
while avoiding the possibility of total personal financial ruin.
It is unfortunate when business ventures fail through no fault
of the individuals concerned, but it is outrageous when business
failures are used as a means of defrauding creditors, investors,
employees and governments.
I would, therefore, propose that Parliament amend the
corporate and bankruptcy laws of Canada so that any individual
who is convicted of an offence under those laws, or of fraud, or
who has had a decision of a civil court against him or her with
regard to any bankruptcy cannot be an incorporator, director,
officer, shareholder or creditor of any corporation for a period of
five years from the date of the final decision of the court.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker,
many women were honoured during International Women's
Week and many more will be celebrated during this the
International Year of the Family.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the
contribution of one woman who has brought national attention
to a very important issue in Canada. Priscilla de Villiers, a
woman of vision and courage in the aftermath of losing her
daughter in the most painful and unbearable circumstances,
found the inner strength to launch a movement aimed at
preventing the same pain being experienced by other Canadian
families.
She has clearly demonstrated how one person can make a
difference. To bring about changes in the justice system she
began a petition that has been signed by two and a half million
Canadians and founded CAVEAT which promotes the creation
of a just, peaceful and safe society.
By turning tragedy into a positive force for change, Priscilla
de Villiers can claim to have achieved a unique success which
has touched us all. I am pleased to add the name of Priscilla de
Villiers to the list of women we honour and whose contribution
continues to affect the lives of so many.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, in the
most recent annual report of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, its chief commissioner, Mr. Yalden, was quite
blunt. The government urgently needs to change the Canadian
Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act. It is
imperative that the Liberal government take some measures to
address the issues of poverty in aboriginal communities, wage
disparity between men and women and non-recognition of gay
couples.
The Commission has repeatedly called on previous
governments to act, and the time has now come for the Liberal
government to put its words into action.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, in 1978 Gregory Fischer was
convicted of premeditated murder of RCMP constable Brian
King. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility
of parole for 25 years.
He has appealed his sentence under section 745 of the
Criminal Code. If he is successful he will be eligible for parole
in spite of the restriction imposed by the trial judge.
On January 20 the judge hearing his appeal in Saskatoon
declared a mistrial because he felt that the presence in court of
the victim's family and a group of police officers created an
emotionally charged atmosphere for the jury.
When capital punishment was abolished in Canada the public
was led to believe that the minimum time served for first degree
murder would be 25 years. Twenty-two first degree murderers
who were successful in getting their reviews have been granted
parole or day parole. This has been a cruel deception on the
families of murder victims.
Section 745 must be removed from the Criminal Code.
2480
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to be the purveyor of good news for all
Canadians.
According to Statistics Canada the composite leading
indicators continue to show a healthy pace for the second
consecutive month in February. Nine of the ten indicators rose
and the other stayed on a flat line.
That augurs well for the continued growth pattern in our
economy. Certain things do turn up and are very important in the
broad based growth. A surge of 60,000 new jobs in February
gave an added impetus and we are looking more to that impetus
going on through March. New manufacturing orders for durable
goods showed a 2.7 per cent increase, the highest since 1988,
despite the widespread retooling of the auto plants. Several
industries reported growth rates in excess of 10 per cent.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, in 1985 my constituent, Johanne Decarie, became
infected with the HIV virus as a result of a blood transfusion
which she received while giving birth to her twin daughters.
Mrs. Decarie later infected her husband and a subsequent
daughter born to her now has full blown AIDS. My constituent
qualified for the federal assistance package and the provincial
one as well but her husband and child do not qualify because
they are indirect victims.
I call upon our Minister of Health to amend the federal
compensation package in order to permit these two victims of
the blood scandal to be compensated. At the very least the child
born with this disease should qualify and should receive these
benefits.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, this week
we had three events coincide on the blood supply issue.
With the Pittman decision the courts recognized the
responsibility to spouses and family members of individuals
who received contaminated blood products. The provincial
packages expired and all with the exception of Nova Scotia did
not recognize their responsibility to family members who
contracted HIV indirectly. Finally, the Krever commission
continues to raise more questions than it answers about who
knew what and when and what action was or was not taken.
I call today on the Minister of Health to reopen the federal
compensation package to include family members who
contracted HIV indirectly from those who received
contaminated blood.
_____________________________________________
2480
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In
answer to a question from the opposition, the Prime Minister
said that his government did not intend to extend the GST to
food, health care and medicine. Questioned as he left the House,
the Prime Minister pretended that he misunderstood the
question and went back on his statement by refusing to oppose a
new tax on health care, medicine and food.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us the government's real
position? Is it the categorical no in the House or the Prime
Minister's openness to new taxes when he met journalists on
leaving the House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
indicated very clearly that there would be no new GST, so the
question of extending the GST to food and medicine is pure
speculation, because we are committed to replacing the GST.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, we have the same problem as yesterday, because that
was precisely the question raised in the House yesterday. We
were told that there would be no new GST, but on leaving the
House, he told us that he misunderstood the question.
Now the question is very clear today: we are not talking about
the GST; we are talking about a new tax. The Prime Minister told
us yesterday that he misunderstood the question he was asked
about the GST, that he was not talking about other taxes. That is
why we are asking the question again today. I think it is very
clear.
I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to give us an answer,
because there will be no new GST, there will be no old GST, we
agree on that, we understand that. But are we to understand that
the government's preferred option is to tax more products,
including health care, medicine and food, in some other way,
perhaps a hidden tax?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, on the basis of our mandate
2481
of October 25, the government promised the full participation of
the House of Commons. The hon. member knows very well that
some of his colleagues are now working on how we can replace
the GST.
The Prime Minister said outright that this government's
policy is not to have a new GST. Now, as for what the committee
studying the question will produce, I think that he should talk
with his friends and colleagues who are on the committee so that
they can produce a unanimous report recommending a strategy
to replace the GST.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I have indeed spoken with my colleagues and with my
leader. On this side of the House, we are very clear. We want no
tax, not the old GST, not a new GST, not an XYZ tax, no hidden,
half-hidden or unhidden tax. We want no tax on medicine, food
and health care. The other side's position on that is not clear.
I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to be as open as this
side of the House and to speak out. I ask her if she does not admit
that the first victims of a new tax, hidden or not, on medicine,
health care and food would be low-income people, especially
single parent families and seniors?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, the
member knows this matter is before the committee.
The committee agreed to a motion several weeks ago to study
all aspects of the tax to make sure the tax is made more fair for
all Canadians. We have opened up the discussions so that all
members can question all witnesses. The committee is
beginning to travel to other provinces to talk to provincial
ministers about how they would like to see it integrated.
We are taking our time to make sure it is the best possible tax
for all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning, we learned that the
Minister of Finance has disclosed wide-ranging business
holdings and this raises a number of important questions. The
Minister of Finance, who is also responsible for regional
development in Quebec, cannot take part in cabinet discussions
relating to shipbuilding, shipping, whether by rail or by sea, the
St. Lawrence Seaway and rail and bus transportation systems.
(1120)
Considering that the Minister of Finance has primary
responsibility for economic policy, will the Deputy Prime
Minister not recognize that her colleague's diverse holdings
pose a major problem in so far as cabinet operations are
concerned, since he cannot become involved in a number of
major economic issues?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, even the Bloc Quebecois
should not be so presumptuous as to suggest that a person with
business holdings in Quebec has no right to be a member of the
federal cabinet. That would be ridiculous.
If the hon. member wants to discuss the ethical behaviour of
the Minister of Finance, he should note that in 1989, the minister
was the first person to disclose the full extent of his business
holdings to all Canadians. I think that there is a place in
Parliament for members like myself who do not have any
holdings, as well as for others who do have such holdings. This
makes for a sound democracy.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, I would like the
Deputy Prime Minister to understand that we are not attacking
the minister's credibility, integrity or honesty.
I am simply asking her if she is prepared to concede that the
Minister of Finance could be faced with a very delicate,
conflict-of-interest situation since one of the companies he
owns has three lawsuits pending against the federal government.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has put
the dealings of his companies into a trust which is not in any way
influenced by any of his actions.
To follow through on the hon. member's implication, which I
find extremely distasteful, the implication is that because the
finance minister has had past successful business dealings he
should not be sitting in the cabinet of the Government of
Canada.
It seems to me if one wants a balanced approach one needs to
have people in cabinet, in caucus and in government who have
some strong connections with the labour movement, with the
business community and with social activists. That is what
democracy is all about. For heaven's sake, I think Paul Martin is
an excellent addition to a cabinet team.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday you encouraged this House to be more
civil. The Reform Party has promised to bring civility to this
place. However, as early as three years ago a member opposite
was referring to our leader as the David Duke of the north.
Supporters of the Liberal Party were encouraged to refer to
Reformers as racists or bigots. Even when we had only one
2482
member in this House derogatory comments were made about
Reformers by members opposite when they were in opposition.
My question is direct and simple. Is the Deputy Prime
Minister prepared to stand in this place today and promise to
persuade her colleagues that the rat pack days are over?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, first of all the statements
attributed to me were never made.
The member should know the statement I made three years
ago was very specific about the nature of Reform Party policies
passed at its 1990 convention. I stated that those policies were
racist. In fact the party decided subsequently to withdraw those
policies.
Second, I may be wrong but I thought I saw the hon. member
or one of the hon. members who lays claim to the label of
redneck standing and bowing in the House yesterday, happy with
the fact that he personally calls himself a redneck.
If the member has a problem with the term redneck I suggest
he should address his difficulties to his own colleagues in his
own caucus. Obviously there are a number of them who are
proud to be called rednecks.
(1125 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is the
prevailing attitude that we are addressing.
We on this side of the House are here to do a job on behalf of
Canadians and contribute to the debates on the great issues of
the day.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if we can end this week with a
promise to all Canadians that the personal insults hurled from
the government benches will stop.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the wish of the
people of Canada that this place get down to serious business.
I read comments attributed to the hon. member's leader in the
newspaper this week where he suggests he feels compelled to
introduce a code of conduct on drinking and running around.
That is because he had personal knowledge that people in the
energy industry used this information to influence the political
positions of members of Parliament. I must say I find that
position rather reprehensible and abhorrent.
I hope everyone in this House realizes that the job of this
Parliament and this government is to get Canada working again
and not to spend time passing slurs on members of Parliament.
The Speaker: I might interject there is no one in this House
and there is no one in Canada who would be happier than your
Speaker if we could agree on if not a code at least an agreement
that we would not be going back and forth with insults of any
kind.
With that in mind I call on the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party is quite capable of looking after its own members. In no
way are we trying to impose that on members of the other side.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her comments. If we are
to end this week on a civil note, I would ask if the Deputy Prime
Minister will ask the minister of aboriginal affairs to offer an
apology to the member for Athabasca.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, all hon. members will agree
that the real business of this House is the problem of the literally
thousands of Canadians who are without work and who are
looking to us for some leadership.
It seems to me there has been a fairly vigorous exchange of
comments in this House. I have to tell the member that over my
years in Parliament I have been called many things. Frankly, I
am not going to spend the time of this House worrying about
what somebody said about me yesterday, the day before, last
week or last month.
I would tell the hon. member that the job of the House today is
to start giving some thought to the crucial issues, for example
the unemployment situation across this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In his annual report tabled yesterday, the Canadian Human
Rights Commissioner sternly denounced the treatment inflicted
upon native communities in Canada.
While taking a stand in favour of self-government, he warned
the government that this was not a miracle cure and urged it to
put an end to the segregation and paternalism fostered by the
Indian Act.
What strategy, including concrete actions, does the
government intend to put in place to implement the Human
Rights Commissioner's recommendations and bring an end to
the economic dependency created by the Indian Act, which is at
the origin of the severe social problems gripping several native
communities in Canada today?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite
right when he says that there are no miracle cure for native
communities' problems. There is not only one but several native
communities in Canada, just as there are several anglophone
communities.
2483
I think that the strategy adopted by the Department of Indian
Affairs, which even tried to have its name changed because this
paternalistic overtone did not reflect the place, the equal place
native communities must have in our society, takes that into
account. As the minister mentioned earlier, he is negotiating
native self-government agreements to ultimately put his
department out of business.
(1130)
I would say that these are the two pillars of a great policy to
advance the cause of equality for all natives peoples of this
country.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I think that the
government should be especially diligent seeing that the Indian
Act presently in effect was sponsored by the current Prime
Minister back in the early 1970s.
Does the government not realize that it can give a real positive
indication of its willingness to improve the status of native
people by ensuring, as promised, the prompt return to the
mainland of the Innu community in Davis Inlet?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is statements like that,
obviously based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts, that
lead people to get the wrong impression.
The member says that the Prime Minister is author of the
current policy on Indian Affairs. The Indian Act was around
approximately 75 years before the current Prime Minister came
to the House of Commons. To suggest that somehow he is
responsible for all the problems that face the aboriginal
communities is absolutely false.
The Prime Minister and the Minister for Indian and Northern
Affairs are working extremely hard to move toward
self-government. His personal commitment, the commitment of
the Prime Minister to abolish the department of Indian and
northern Affairs, is a real reflection of his understanding that we
do not need paternalism in government policy. What we need is
equality and that is what we are moving toward.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Liberal Government of Newfoundland
announced that it would balance its budget next year. In a budget
distinguished by the absence of any new taxes or job creation
programs, Finance Minister Winston Baker stated:
We must not make commitments today that will place an unmanageable
financial burden on the taxpayers of tomorrow. We can no longer mortgage our
children's future for short term political gain. That was the way of the past.
The economic challenges facing Newfoundland are certainly
as serious as those of the federal government. If Newfoundland
can commit to a balanced budget, why can the Government of
Canada not do the same?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, the question is very appropriate. I think
we should all congratulate the Newfoundland government on its
fine effort.
I point out to the hon. member that the principal reason the
budget is so close to being balanced, according to its finance
minister, is the generous treatment under equalization by the
federal government.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are saying that steps need to be taken now to quit
living on borrowed money. One of the signals many Canadians
are telling their elected representatives they want to see is a
reform of the gold plated pension plan of members of
Parliament.
When will the government respond to public outrage over a
plan which gives MPs a pension for life after only six years in
office?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because it is
Friday; pensions seem to be a Friday question.
The fact is that the government has committed itself to reform
of the pension plan. The Prime Minister has stated
unequivocally during the election, after the election, in the
House and outside the House that he feels the age for receiving
the pension should be reviewed. That is part of an overall review
which includes the issue of double dipping.
I know the member would want to reflect on the fact that
several members in her caucus are currently receiving pensions
from various departments of the Government of Canada at the
same time as receiving their salaries.
Obviously the pension issue is a complex issue. We will be
introducing some very specific changes, but to suggest that the
Government of Canada is going to solve its financial problems
by a review of the pension system for 295 MPs is not a fair
reflection of the fact that our financial problems are much more
significant. They require some structural changes to the
economy which we intend to carry out.
2484
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question, which is for the Deputy Prime Minister,
has to do with an everyday problem, since it concerns the tragic
situation of unemployment.
The Minister of Human Resources Development was strongly
criticized by a number of people representing social groups,
during a discussion on the reform of social programs, in
Toronto. Several participants accused the government of
wanting to fight our country's economic problems on the back of
the poor and the unemployed who need social programs. The
Prime Minister was also criticized in New Brunswick on this
issue.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, as one participant
put it to the Minister of Human Resources Development, ``the
problem is unemployment, not unemployment insurance and not
social security programs'', adding that ``the government tries to
solve economic problems through social programs''? Does the
Deputy Prime Minister share that view?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that changes in
Canada's industrial sector are triggering major disruptions. In
my riding, some workers are directly concerned because the
steel industry can now produce a lot more steel with far fewer
workers. Traditional jobs, which we were very proud of, are
disappearing, in the steel industry as well as in other industries.
These jobs must be replaced.
What the Minister of Human Resources Development is
trying to do, with the co-operation of every department and
province, is to set up a support system for those who will never
be able to work again. The minister also wants to give those who
are capable of working, and who are looking for work but cannot
find any, the necessary tools to adapt to the new industrial
reality.
Let us take the case of a 40 year old person who had always
worked in the steel industry before being laid off. This person
needs to be retrained to develop new skills and have access to
new opportunities. This is what we are trying to do by bringing
in changes which are very hard to make but also very necessary
to ensure our competitiveness in the 21st century.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, now that she is sitting on the other side, the Deputy
Prime Minister seems much less sensitive to the plight of the
unemployed.
Does she agree that, instead of targeting the poor by
reforming social programs, the government must implement a
real job creation program, in compliance with the consensus
reached during the G7 Summit on Employment?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that as a
member of the government I am any less sensitive to the people
in my riding who have lost their jobs than the member opposite.
I accept the fact that every member in the House hurts when a
person in their riding loses a job.
The fact is that we need to put in place specific strategies on
the one hand to make sure we are protecting the aged, the sick,
and those people who have no chance, no means or no need to
re-enter the workforce. They must have their income levels
protected. At the same time we have to ensure that those people
of my age who see the old jobs disappearing have the tools they
need to get back into the productive workforce.
It is a delicate balancing act. It is going to cause some pain,
but we will have to do it because without the pain of the change
in the workforce we will end up in the 21st century with no new
jobs for those people in my age group who need to get back into
the productive workforce.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As the Deputy Prime Minister is aware Mr. Alan Eagleson, a
former board member of Hockey Canada, is under indictment in
the United States and awaits an extradition hearing in Canada.
Meanwhile serious questions have been raised about the
financial dealings between Mr. Eagleson and Hockey Canada, a
federal non-profit organization created by the Government of
Canada and subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada to tune of
over $3 million.
(1140 )
Would the Deputy Prime Minister provide to the House full
financial disclosure of all aspects of Hockey Canada including
the air travel logs and detailed income and expenses for Hockey
Canada since Hockey Canada has been incorporated?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, as minister responsible for amateur sports I may be in a
better position than the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the
question.
It will be appreciated that the matter is the subject of court
action and therefore it is inappropriate to comment on it. Quite
apart from the court action, I would say that some money has
been provided under the Canadian Heritage program to Hockey
2485
Canada. There is no evidence that any of that money could have
been misallocated and therefore cause a source of concern.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
if the minister recognized parts of that question it is because it
was a question essentially put to the House 15 months ago by a
present cabinet minister of the government to the previous
government. The problem has been ongoing and the same
essential evasion of an answer has been ongoing for quite some
time.
Be that as it may, my supplementary question would be to the
Minister of Justice. Would the minister assure the House of the
government's full legal co-operation in pursuing the extradition
of Mr. Alan Eagleson to face trial in the United States?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the extradition proceedings
provided in the Extradition Act contemplate an application to
court which may or may not be made if extradition is sought and
ultimately a procedure by which I may be asked to pass upon the
application for extradition proper.
I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment, other than
to assure the hon. member that I have every confidence the
system will work as it should.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Deputy Prime Minister. In a report on the defence choices
that Canada must make in this post cold war period, a think tank
called the Canada 21 council made some thirty
recommendations on defence and security. It recommended
among other things, that Canada builds three support ships for
humanitarian aid and peacekeeping.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister commit herself today to
implement this recommendation of Canada 21 and give the MIL
Davie shipyards a mandate to develop the smart ship, a ship that
could effectively support the Canadian contribution to
peacekeeping?
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is a
good question.
The Canada 21 report the hon. member refers to was the result
of a blue ribbon panel that looked at the overall security of
Canada. I tell the hon. member the department has reviewed the
recommendations at first blush and is still looking at them in
detail. Some of the recommendations are not necessarily
conducive to the Department of National Defence because they
refer to security in the overall sense.
We are looking at all the recommendations. While I would not
want to comment on this one specifically, I would take this
opportunity to say that one of the strong recommendations with
respect to defence is that a defence policy review be conducted. I
am pleased to report to the House that it is well under way.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
the Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question regarding
the MIL Davie shipyards. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell
us who in the government will be in charge of putting the case
for the MIL Davie shipyards, one of the most important in
Quebec, since the Minister of Finance, also responsible for
regional development in Quebec, will not be in a position to
uphold the campaign commitments of the Liberal Party due to
his personal interests in marine transportation and to his
reluctance to even talk about it to his Cabinet colleagues?
(1145)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that marine
transportation policy is a responsibility of the Minister of
Transport. Indeed, he has answered questions on the matter, in
the House, on several occasions. The hon. member said, as did
his colleague, that the Minister of Finance did not have the right
to act in certain areas or to set policy because he was formerly in
business. This is a disgrace.
When you talk to Ghislain Dufour, he asks that more
businesspersons come to Parliament. This is the second time
that the hon. member tries in one way or another to suggest that
things are not right because the Minister of Finance was
previously in business. This is unfair.
Let me just add that the Minister of Transport already made
some commitments in this House regarding the smart ship.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture.
U.S. agriculture secretary Espy is quoted as saying he will
take unilateral action if an agreement cannot be reached the next
time he meets with his Canadian counterpart. Secretary Espy
wants a cap on wheat exports to the U.S. and zero tariffs on
poultry, dairy products and eggs.
What assurances do we have that the minister of agriculture
will stand up for the rights of Canadian farmers in dealing with
the United States?
2486
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his question. It is on subject matter about which I know he cares
very deeply.
I spoke by telephone this morning with the United States
Secretary of Agriculture, the Hon. Mike Espy. We explored in
that conversation whether we were close enough in our
respective positions on Canada-U.S. agriculture trade to make a
face-to-face meeting between us sometime next week a
productive undertaking. Obviously we are dealing with some
very difficult issues.
We may well have further communications later today and
there may be the possibility of a useful meeting between the
secretary and myself at some point next week.
The member asks what assurances can be offered of our intent
to stand up in defence of Canadian farmers. Such assurances
have already been offered in the House and elsewhere by me as
minister of agriculture, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, by
the Minister for International Trade and by the Prime Minister
and that will be very much the approach we take into any further
meetings with the United States.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Finance.
The budget calls for spending $163 billion in the upcoming
fiscal year, some $40 billion of which will have to be borrowed.
Spread out across the population of Canada this works out to
spending about $1,500 per family per month of money that is
collected in taxes and other revenue and spending an additional
$500 per family per month of borrowed money.
My question for the minister is this. In view of the fact that
there are thousands of families who do not even make $2,000 per
month and many more for whom that is away too much, will the
minister acknowledge that this level of spending is away higher
than we can sustain in the long run?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the
borrowing bill C-14 is in front of the House today and the
figures quoted in his question are substantially off. If he refers
to the debate that is taking place, and to his members who are
participating in the debate, he will get his figures correct.
The government is, as is every Canadian, very worried that
there is such a fiscal demand on the government. We have a very
clear plan over the next couple of years. The member will be
happy to see the plan succeed so our deficit will be under
control.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I was using the
number $39.7 billion as the deficit. I was aware that $35 billion
is the amount that is in the current request for borrowing.
Will the government undertake to formulate some achievable
goals for deficit and debt reduction and state them, and to
challenge the people to work together? In other words, I would
like to know whether we can expect, sometime in the
foreseeable future, that we can stop adding to the debt.
(1150)
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the
question because the government has answered it several times.
The budget documents state quite clearly what our plan is. We
are on target. The figures show that the deficit is under control.
We will continue to monitor the situation very carefully on
behalf of all Canadians and within the coming years we will see
the light at the end of the tunnel and have a balanced budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
is along the same line as the one asked by the hon. member who
spoke before me. I hope that she will not mind if I ask her a
question that would normally be for the Minister of Finance.
We are told this morning that the federal deficit for 1993-94
will reach a new record level. As a result of upward pressures on
the deficit at the end of the fiscal year, it could top $45.7 billion
at some point during the last two months of the current fiscal
year.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the federal
deficit could exceed the record level of $45.7 billion forecast in
the budget?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
[English]
I think that we are all encouraged by the recent figures Stats
Canada released showing that the deficit for the current fiscal
year seems to be somewhat improving as the year goes on.
However, we feel it is more appropriate to discuss the total
picture at the end of this year and not on a month-to-month
basis.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, my question has nothing to do with
month-to-month accounting, but I would still like the
government spokesman to tell me if he can make a commitment,
on behalf of his
2487
government, that specific expenditure reduction measures will
keep the deficit from exceeding the record level of $45.7 billion
forecast for the current fiscal year?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, every minister is very conscious of the
limits within his or her department. Every effort is being made
to monitor the situation not only on an annual basis but on a
month-to-month basis.
We are confident that the figures presented in the budget will
be followed and monitored throughout the current fiscal year
and that we will be on target next March.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
During the last three months my constituents sent me only
letters critical of the current rate of immigration, none
suggesting that the current rate is acceptable or that it should be
increased.
Could the minister please give a simple and short answer to
the following simple and short question? How many Canadians
have contacted him in his capacity as minister in recent months
with comments critical and supportive of the number of
immigrants he is planning to admit next year?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, if the member's experience
is anything like mine then each day and each passing week
brings a wide variety of representations by letter or by telephone
on issues that face us. Of course it is no way in which to fashion
public policy. What is important in fashioning public policy is
meaningful consultation.
In response to the hon. member's question, may I point out
that the 1 per cent of population immigration figure, which is
used for this year, arose from broad consultations which took
place by the last government during 1993 when eight public
meetings were held across the country involving hundreds of
Canadians from all segments of society.
May I point out as well that the 1 per cent reflects a platform
on which this party sought and won election last fall. May I
lastly point out that the minister is committed to a process which
he announced on February 2 for a review of the 10-year
framework for immigration policy in which all Canadians will
have an opportunity to participate, including those who may
have written and phoned the hon. member's office.
(1155 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I
gave three days' notice to get a numerical answer that I believe
and legal counsel told me is an appropriate question to ask of the
minister.
I would like to know how many people have contacted the
minister-
The Speaker: Order. I think the hon. member would be able
to get that information by putting a question on the Order Paper.
You will permit me to note that a direct answer cannot be given
for obvious reasons.
Perhaps if the question were put on the Order Paper, we could
get an answer for the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
In December 1993 a resident of the constituency of
Halton-Peel experienced an alarming accident when a cotton
housecoat she was wearing caught fire causing a powerful blue
flame.
During the investigation of this incident, a federal lab report
indicated that the flammability of cotton is significantly
increased with the use of household fabric softeners.
What measures have been taken to publicize and correct these
hazards?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am aware of the incident that the hon. member has brought up. A
woman wearing a terrycloth robe leaned across a lit candle and
there was a flash flame across the terrycloth. Fortunately there
was no injury although it was a frightening experience.
I am also aware of the report that says a fabric softener may
increase the flammability of certain types of material.
Unfortunately only one kind of material was tested in this report
so we cannot draw definite conclusions.
We are continuing our study of the matter. Let me reassure
Canadians through you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member as
well, that textile flammability regulations under the Hazardous
Products Act which were brought in in 1971 have been
extremely effective in preventing flammable textiles from
staying on the market.
We certainly intend to continue enforcing-
2488
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In his annual
report, the Commissioner of Human Rights reveals that the
federal government goes against several of its own legislative
provisions by allowing Revenue Canada to deny homosexual
couples access to various fringe benefits given to heterosexual
couples.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to propose amendments to
applicable Canadian legislation in order to put an end to this
type of discrimination against homosexual couples?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in its campaign for office, in
its throne speech and in statements made subsequently in the
House, the government has committed itself to amendments to
the Human Rights Act which will add sexual orientation as a
ground on which discrimination is prohibited.
We intend to follow through on that commitment.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of
many distinguished scientists that the Kemano completion
project has the ability to devastate wild salmon in the Fraser
River system.
Currently the effect of this project is being monitored and is
under review on the Nechako basin alone by the B.C. Utilities
Commission hearings. The Rivers Defence Coalition, a
coalition of groups opposed to the project, have expended their
resources and are being forced to withdraw from the hearings.
What steps will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take to
ensure that the public interest represented by the Rivers Defence
Coalition continues to be heard at the hearings?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, following a number of conversations I have had in the
last few days, including a conversation yesterday with the
member who has just put the question, I have been attempting to
ascertain all of the facts with respect to the continuance of the
hearings and the participation of all relevant groups.
(1200 )
I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with
interested colleagues, including my colleague and friend the
Minister of the Environment. Once we are in possession of all
the facts we have undertaken to see whether there are additional
appropriate measures which can be taken by the Government of
Canada to ensure that indeed the commitment of the Prime
Minister to open and transparent hearings is fulfilled.
We want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to
come forward in the days ahead.
_____________________________________________
2488
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
table a number of documents in both official languages in
relation to the
Irving Whale. They include the risk assessment of
the
Irving Whale salvage options, the final report, the
Irving
Whale salvage feasibility study, and the
Irving Whale survey.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with good news.
I wish to advise the House that the Government of Canada
intends to lift the sunken oil barge
Irving Whale in order to avoid
environmental disaster.
People living on Prince Edward Island will be happy that this
cloud hanging over their heads will finally be lifted.
[Translation]
The people of the Magdalen Islands will also be glad to know
they will no longer be threatened with pollution from the time
bomb that is the Irving Whale. As well, the tourism industry and
the lobster fishery will be threatened no longer.
My colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I have carefully
assessed all available information and we have decided to put
forward a proposal to raise and salvage the Irving Whale. This is
an excellent example of co-operation between our two
departments. Transport Canada and Environment Canada have
worked together in a prompt and efficient manner to solve an old
2489
problem. The Irving Whale has been lying on the bottom of the
sea for 8,593 days, threatening to spill its oil at any moment.
Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from a report of a former
Environment Minister, who is now Leader of the Opposition.
This report, tabled in September 1990, called for immediate
action to deal with the Irving Whale. The report was released by
the Minister of Environment of a previous Conservative
government, namely Lucien Bouchard. Since then, it is obvious
that nothing has been done to raise the barge. It took this
government only 135 days to find a solution.
[English]
The Irving Whale has been lying on the bottom of the ocean
for 8,593 days. Those 8,593 days did not pass without comment
and outrage from the people of Atlantic Canada and the
Magdalen Islands.
More recently, in 1989 the Leader of the Opposition while
Minister of the Environment with much pomp and circumstance
commissioned the Brander-Smith report. It reviewed tanker
safety and marine spills response capability.
(1205 )
In meetings throughout Atlantic Canada during his tenure in
1989 the commission was repeatedly warned about the threat the
Irving Whale posed. It was warned in Halifax. It was warned in
Saint John. It was warned in Charlottetown by Prince Edward
Island's Minister of the Environment. Unfortunately, the
minister of the day did not act.
[Translation]
The review report announced, as I mentioned earlier, by the
former Environment Minister, says, on page 127, and I quote:
``The barge Irving Whale sank in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No
attempt was made to salvage the barge or its cargo''. Despite the
condition of the barge, nothing was done.
[English]
In the same report recommendation 613 on page 131 states
that a decision must be made as to whether or not to remove the
oil or raise the barge. However nothing was done.
It took this government only 135 days to listen to the concerns
of residents of Atlantic Canada and the Magdalen Islands and to
make a decision to find a solution to this problem.
[Translation]
The Irving Whale sank in September 1970 and lies in 70
metres of water off North Point, P.E.I. It contains an estimated
3,100 tonnes of Bunker-C oil. We are taking this action today
because we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure.
Of course, the proposal to raise the Irving Whale will undergo
an environmental assessment and the public will have the
opportunity to comment before a final decision is made.
Public consultations will begin shortly and will include the
fishing and tourism industries, environmental groups,
municipal officials and the general public. Public meetings will
be held in Quebec, as well as on the Magdalen Islands.
[English]
Public hearings will also be held in Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. We will begin
immediately with the preparatory work including planning,
contracting and the environmental assessment review. If the
government's proposal is supported by the environmental
assessment and the public meetings, the lifting will take place
this summer if possible, but the summer of 1995 at the latest.
Raising the Whale could be completed in about 40 days, half
the time it would take to pump the barge. This option will
remove all possibility of future pollution. Once the Whale has
been raised it will then be moved to a suitable location to be
pumped and cleaned under controlled conditions.
This site has been regularly monitored by air and surface for
years and still is. Last September a combined operation by the
Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Navy successfully
capped leaking vents and reinforced the tank hatches.
As soon as the weather permits, divers will be going down to
verify the condition of the barge. This will ensure that the Irving
Whale will not leak until it is lifted.
The private sector has completed three reports on the removal
of oil from the Irving Whale. As promised in this House, I am
happy to table them today.
[Translation]
Based on the best technical and scientific information
available at this time, and taking into account the report's
findings, the Minister of Transport and I believe the best option
is to raise the barge and remove its cargo.
Analysis by the Canadian Coast Guard shows that raising the
barge is safe, technically easier and more cost-effective.
Raising it will cost about $10 million while the cost of pumping
the oil from the bottom would cost $27 million.
[English]
Lifting also presents the least risk to the environment and to
the safety of those involved in the operation. As well a lifting
operation uses known technology, leaves no residual oil and is
less prone to uncontrolled cost escalation and time overruns.
I want to publicly acknowledge the work of the Minister of
Transport on this important issue. I particularly want to
acknowledge the dedication of the public servants in both
depart-
2490
ments who worked very hard to pull this package together from
the perspectives of financing and the technical applications.
(1210 )
I would be remiss if I did not also publicly acknowledge the
leadership role played by the minister responsible for Prince
Edward Island, the Secretary of State for Veterans. As we speak
he is on the island viewing this presentation. Also there are the
members of Parliament from the respective regions, including
the hon. member for Egmont who worked very hard on this issue
and the hon. member for Malpeque who particularly brought a
new perspective to the issue.
[Translation]
And also the hon. member from Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who
worked very hard to resolve this issue.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member laughs. The member should not
laugh because this government can be darn proud of the fact that
in the short period of 135 days it has been able to solve a
problem that had been hanging around his government for
almost nine years.
I am quite proud of the fact that we got our act together. We
found the financial tools necessary and we are going to raise the
Irving Whale.
Based on the assessment of all available information, the
Canadian Coast Guard and Environment Canada are proposing
to raise the Irving Whale. This solution is the best suited to fully
resolve the problems. This solution also poses the least risk in
terms of the environment and human safety.
I want to emphasize that the government is committed to a
thorough and complete environmental review of the proposed
action. We will give serious consideration to all new
information brought forward during the environmental
assessment and consultation process.
Finally I want to thank my hon. friend, the Minister of
Transport, for his commitment and co-operation in helping
develop this solution. I also again want to thank my colleagues,
the hon. Secretary of State for Veterans and the hon. members
for Egmont, Malpeque and
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who have been working
so hard to find a solution to this potential disaster.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, as an
ecologist and a recognized environment specialist, I can only
welcome this announcement. As a matter of fact, I took an
interest in the Irving Whale, a potential ecological time-bomb,
as soon as I became the opposition's environment critic.
On January 21, I had the honour to ask my very first oral
question in the House. It concerned the Irving Whale. Since
then, both my constituency office and my Ottawa office have
been receiving phone call after phone call, and numerous faxes,
either from the Magdalen Islands or Prince Edward Island.
All these messages told me something very strange. People in
that part of the country are concerned about two things. First of
all, they want this carcass to be emptied of its content ASAP.
And second, they wonder who will pay for the clean-up
operation on this time-bomb. That is not even mentioned in the
minister's statement.
As far as my first question is concerned, we were told this
afternoon that the barge was going to be raised. This proposal
will go ahead provided it clears the public hearings process and
the environmental assessment review.
My understanding is that the three reports tabled here at noon
are aimed at finding the best solution to get rid of this danger.
How is it then that the environment factors were not taken into
account?
(1215)
There is a chance that the proposed solution, which is to raise
the barge, will not pass the environmental assessment review
process, in which case we will be back to square one.
Those three studies have already cost a significant amount of
money. It is fine and dandy to hold public hearings, but if they
lead to different conclusions from the ones in the report, does
that mean that the latter are skewed and that we must start all
over again?
We are running out of time. Therefore, I suppose that the
hearings in question will be more like briefings, especially since
the Easter-Gagnon committee already consulted people two
weeks ago. And then the minister comes in this afternoon and
announces that there will be further consultations. Well, if the
Easter-Gagnon consultations were so efficient, why do we need
more? To spend more money? To stage a show for the media? I
wonder.
I now wonder about the work carried out by the
Easter-Gagnon committee, which held two series of hearings at
the beginning of March 1994 with more than 25 groups,
associations, municipalities, political parties and individuals,
since the minister just announced with much pomp and
circumstance yet another series of public consultations. Is this
another way to postpone, I repeat, to postpone action? Setting up
committees and undertaking reviews is fine, but a government
that takes action is even better.
As for the second solution, not a word. Irving, which still
owns the barge, gets off scot-free once again. Twice in 24 years,
with the same party in power.
2491
I believe, like most residents of that region and like all
members of the Bloc Quebecois who are asking serious
questions, that taxpayers should not have to pay for this
cleanup. Bloc members will keep their eyes open to track the
real costs directly related to this wreck.
True, the Irving Whale has been lying off the islands for 8,593
days, but let us not forget that, of these 8,593 days, 3,450 were
spent under the Conservatives and 5,308 under the Liberals. To
these 5,308 Liberal days, we must add all the days to come until
the summer of 1995.
If the minister is proud of herself and her colleagues, I know
many people earning their living from the sea who want this
Irving Whale business to end as quickly as possible.
The problem is simple. For a quarter of a century, a barge
containing 3,100 tonnes of bunker C has been lying on the
bottom of the ocean 70 meters below the surface, off the
Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.
(1220)
Rust is doing its work slowly but surely.
The Irving family was compensated for the loss of its oil
tanker by its insurance company. Someone must be bright
enough to decide that this wreck cannot be left on the bottom of
the ocean for another quarter century, and someone must take
the initiative to raise it while there is still time.
As the Minister of the Environment said, we have decided to
raise the barge because we know that an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.
Indeed, every day that the minister spends on reviews and
consultations increases the risks. The Bloc Quebecois urges the
government to move quickly to make those responsible pay and
to act safely because we do not have the right to cause an
environmental disaster in that beautiful part of Quebec and
Prince Edward Island.
In closing, I would like to thank all the people of the
Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island who regularly
contacted my riding office or my office here in Ottawa to give
me information, but mostly to share with me their main concern.
I am aware today, Mr. Speaker, that if the government acted so
quickly after only 135 days, it is because there was on the
opposition benches someone who-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): And I will end on this, Mr.
Speaker, there was on the opposition benches a critic who cared
about the environment and about this issue, and even in the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development, I rose at every meeting just to be told, ``Wait,
wait, we are going to do something''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We can tell it is Friday!
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the minister on her announcement today. Irving
Whale has been a ticking environmental time bomb since it sank
in 1970 and another Liberal administration allowed it to remain
there.
Nevertheless, the minister should be congratulated for this
action. At the same time she should be condemned for her
inaction on another issue in the gulf area, namely, the proposed
pumping of waste water from Scott Maritimes Limited pulp and
paper plant two kilometres into Northumberland Strait.
Nearly 30 years ago area residents were told the treatment
system for effluent from the Scott Maritimes mill would result
in water suitable for swimming or even drinking. The results
today include a dead, stinky lagoon and area fishermen say a
mile long area of dead bottom near Powell's Point where no
plankton grow and no fish swim.
Nova Scotia's current proposal for remedying this situation
includes a $17 million upgrade of the effluent treatment system
which it operates, the bypassing of the existing stabilization
lagoon and extending the effluent pipeline two kilometres into
the Northumberland Strait.
In a letter to you, minister, dated November 8, 1993, to which
you have not replied, Mary J. Gorman and Percy Hayne Jr.
informed you that fishermen were fed up-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would just like to
remind members to not forget to pass their comments through
the Chair and not directly to one another.
Mr. Cummins: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Mary J. Gorman
and Percy Hayne Jr. informed the minister that fishermen were
fed up with the daily dumping of 87 million litres of effluent into
Northumberland Strait by Scott Maritimes Limited.
(1225 )
One, they asked the minister how the federal government can
justify agreeing with the Nova Scotia government's recent
proposal to pipe Scott's effluent to MacKenzie Head, long
considered by fishermen to be a vital spawning area.
Two, they asked whether the federal government can
guarantee that the chemicals which have not already flowed into
this strait over these past 30 years but which have been
accumulated in Boat Harbour settlement ponds will not now be
inadvertently piped to MacKenzie Head.
Three, they asked whether the federal government and all
parties involved in these negotiations consider it justifiable to
diffuse and disperse toxic, bioactive chemicals into our oceans
2492
which influence sexual maturity and reproduction in fish when
alternate technology exists.
Four, they asked whether the federal and all parties involved
in these negotiations will lobby Scott Maritimes whose
multi-million dollar profits have been subsidized by the
taxpayers of Nova Scotia for the past 30 years to consider an
alternate bleaching process and once and for all stop polluting
Boat Harbour and Northumberland Strait.
The Halifax Chronicle Herald called for a full scale public
review of the proposed upgrading of the effluent system. The
province's $17 million plan should be tested in the fire of
informed debate, they claim.
They go on to say that Atlantic Canada's offshore banks have
few enough rich spawning grounds left and the region cannot
risk sacrificing more on the altar of political expediency.
We congratulate the minister on the Irving Whale
announcement but suggest that she not be too self-satisfied
because there is another ecological disaster in the making and
she should do something about it.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of
the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member
for Windsor West, that the twelfth report of the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
tabled earlier today now be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion greed to.)
* * *
(1230)
[English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition from
Canadians across the country who are concerned about what is
happening in Latvia.
Along with the member of Parliament for Parkdale-High
Park, over 600 Canadians are asking Parliament to urge Russia
to withdraw its troops from Latvia. The people of Latvia have
repeatedly demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from a
radar station on their border. They are concerned about the
health impacts of radiation from this station.
The Canadians who signed this petition would like the federal
government to make future aid to Russia dependent on respect
for human rights of the people of Latvia.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition
from the residents of Moberly Lake, B.C.
They ask Parliament to enact legislation to change Canada
Post policy. People who have received mail at an existing post
office for many years are forced to collect their mail at another
site of Canada Post's choosing. If they do not change to the new
facility they must pay a fee to continue to receive mail at their
old location.
These residents do not believe this change-or-pay policy is
fair. All Canadians are allowed one free mode of delivery and
these residents believe they should at least have the choice of
collecting mail at the same site as they have for decades.
* * *
[
Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
question No. 12 will be answered today.
2493
[Text]
Question No. 12-Mr. Easter:
Who were the members of the Canadian government's GATT negotiating team
from June 1992 through to January 1994, what are their backgrounds and the
positions they held prior to becoming members of the team and the dates of their
appointments?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
The negotiating agenda of the Uruguay round of the GATT
encompassed a wide range of issues. Accordingly, government
officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, Department of Finance, Agriculture
Canada, Industry Canada (incorporating the former department
of consumer and corporate affairs and Investment Canada), as
well as Department of Canadian Heritage, Ministry of
Transport, Government Services and Justice, took part in the
negotiations.
Given the number of officials involved over the two year
period covered in the request, it is impractical to track down and
list each individual. As such, listed below are the names of our
chief negotiator and ambassador to the GATT and the assistant
deputy minister, multilateral trade negotiations, Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Ministers of the crown assume full responsibility for all
policy decisions taken by the government during the GATT
negotiations.
Ambassador G.E. Shannon, Canadian ambassador to the
GATT and chief negotiator, Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade; appointed 1990
Mr. Germain A. Denis, assistant deputy minister, multilateral
trade negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade; appointed 1988
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question mentioned
by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
25 minutes.
2493
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year
beginning on April 1, 1994, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising to speak on third reading of Bill C-14, the borrowing bill.
I will not waste the time of the House in saying that we are
opposed to this bill and opposed to the general budgetary and
borrowing policies of the government.
[Translation]
Bill C-14, an Act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal
year beginning on April 1, 1994, will make the national debt
increase again in the coming year, with the deficit reaching $40
billion and the borrowing authority $34.3 billion. This means
that the national debt will grow by nearly $100 billion over the
next three years. That is why we from the Reform Party continue
to oppose this bill.
[English]
The parliamentary secretary for finance said in his statement
earlier today that generally speaking, and I quote: ``this
borrowing is a normal part of government operations''. That is
correct. It certainly has become normal for the Government of
Canada to borrow sums of this kind. It is not just a normal part of
the Government of Canada, but it has become a normal part of
the operations of crown corporations. It has become a normal
part of the operations of provincial governments, a normal part
of the operations of municipal governments to borrow millions
and even billions of dollars.
(1235)
What is the consequence of this? The consequence is that at
the federal level we owe half a trillion dollars of debt that will
increase under the current budgetary policies by another $100
billion over the next three years. As a nation we owe publicly, all
levels of government, approximately the value of our entire
economic output in a single year. That is the consequence of the
normal activity of borrowing.
The Prime Minister said earlier this week we borrow from the
left, we borrow from the right. We borrow from Canadians. We
borrow from foreigners. We borrow for today. We borrow for
tomorrow. We borrow to pay interest on what we borrowed
yesterday. We certainly do borrow. That is the one thing that
governments do. That is the one thing the government does, and
2494
that Conservative governments have done. They borrow,
borrow, borrow.
Having said that, let us look at the amount of money involved
in this particular act of borrowing. The bill requests authority
for fiscal year 1994-1995 for $34.3 billion borrowing
representing a deficit estimated to be at this point, $39.7 billion.
The parliamentary secretary in his statement in question
period suggested that the hon. member for Elk Island was
incorrect in his analysis of this, that we are not borrowing any
more than $34.3 billion. That is not correct. We are asking for
borrowing authority to go into the marketplace to borrow $34.3
billion but as I will discuss later in my speech we are borrowing
on top of that. We are borrowing from a number of
non-budgetary accounts, particularly government
superannuation accounts, which themselves represent liabilities
of the government.
The member for Elk Island was entirely correct in his analysis
although the technical borrowing requirement in this bill is
somewhat lower than the borrowing stated in the deficit. I will
discuss that at some length.
As I said in my speech at second reading it is hard for ordinary
people to get a handle on exactly what these kinds of numbers
mean, but let me try to do that. I did that before but let me try to
do it again and be a little clearer.
When we talk about borrowing or a deficit of $40 billion we
are talking about the equivalent of enough money to eliminate
the goods and services tax entirely and pay it back twice. We are
talking about enough money to not only pay our current old age
security system but to pay it two more times to every single
recipient. Another way of putting it, with money like this we
could talk about increasing the budget of every single federal
program by over 30 per cent.
That is the consequence of the kind of borrowing and
borrowing policies that governments of all stripes and
governments at all levels have been pursuing for the past
generation.
What are we doing with the money? What is the alternative?
One of the reasons we are borrowing as much this year is we
have the famed infrastructure program that now is turning into a
program for just about anything any municipality wants to do.
The federal government is encouraging other levels of
government also to borrow additional money to fund new
infrastructure projects.
What does infrastructure include? There are traditional and
clear economic definitions of what an infrastucture program is.
Infrastructure is not simply investment or capital. Infrastructure
is those kinds of capital investments that have a use for a wide
range of future economic activities.
We began to see the broadening of this definition when we
saw convention centres funded under this program. In the city of
Calgary the current controversy is the possible funding of the
expansion of operations and seats within the Saddledome in
order to persuade people to keep the National Hockey League
franchise in Calgary. It is part of the bargaining between the
Saddledome Corporation, the Calgary Flames and others.
Many Canadians are hockey fans, including myself. Many of
the people calling my office to protest this are also hockey fans.
But is this really an infrastructure program? Is this the kind of
project we want our money to be spent on?
(1240)
I know it annoys other members who have served more than
six years but our party puts a lot of emphasis on the need to
reduce spending on things like MPs pensions and some of the
other perks and even some of the salaries. In particular, we talk
about the tax free expense allowances that are extremely
generous, non-receiptable, that are included in the pay of every
member of Parliament. Why do we talk about them? Not because
we believe the deficit could be eliminated by cutting them but
because of something I read on an airplane recently.
I cannot remember who said it, but it was an interesting
phrase. He said that what concerned him about fiscal policy is
that he wished fiscal policy was framed by people who had a
stake in its outcome. That is the whole point with the pensions of
members of Parliament and why it is a concern when we talk
about how we are using the money we are borrowing.
Very shortly, and we will have a debate on this, and it will not
be long before the value of the pensions of former members of
Parliament will exceed the total amount of money that Canadian
taxpayers are spending on current members of Parliament.
These are the people who made the decisions that put us where
we are today financially. They have made themselves permanent
wards of the state so that we borrow, borrow, borrow to support
this extravagant scam endlessly. That is why Canadians are
concerned about these kinds of expenditures and this level of
borrowing.
Let me turn to the red book. The government always insists
that we read the red book. Of course we always take those
suggestions to heart. Let me spend a little bit of time to talk
about what the red book said about borrowing.
I quote from pages 19 and 20 where the government talked
about balanced policies for jobs and growth. One quotation is
from track two of its economic strategy.
A Liberal government will reduce the deficit.
Under this budgetary policy and the borrowing bill the deficit
will be higher than was planned last year. It is supposed to come
down after we make accounting changes. It is supposed to come
2495
down but it is higher than it was projected to be during the time
we were debating the red book in the election. In fact it is $10
billion higher. We have not reduced the deficit.
It says:
We will implement new programs only if they can be funded within existing
expenditures.
I admit there has been some cutting and reallocation but
expenditures are increasing. In fact program expenditures are
increasing so not all new initiatives are being funded within
existing expenditures.
The red book said:
Nine years of Conservative government have seen Canada's debt almost triple,
from $168 billion in 1983-84 to $458 billion today. Despite repeated promises to
reduce the deficit, the government has turned in deficits in the $30 billion range
every year: the latest was $35.5 billion.
Of course that was all accurate. That was the best information
at the time the red book was written. But what is the policy
today? The policy today is to increase the deficit another $150
billion in the life of this Parliament. We are going in the same
direction the Conservatives had been going in the last 10 years.
Does the budget project a deficit below $30 billion? Not quite.
It says that in the third year we will finally go below $30 billion
but we do not publish the data for the third year or show the
columns where we can see the deficit going to $30 billion. We
are merely told to accept that as an act of faith and as an
extension of the boom times which we assume are coming.
On page 20 of the red book-the red ink book. I like the red
ink book expression.
After nine years of Conservative budgets, the federal government's deficit is
5.2 per cent of gross domestic product. This is too high.
What is the projection in the budget for this year? It is a deficit
GDP ratio higher than 5.2 per cent. Off hand I cannot remember
but I believe it is close to 6 per cent.
(1245)
The next statement concerns the 3 per cent target and as
advocated by the member states of the European Community
and the Maastricht treaty, that of course is not entirely accurate.
I discussed that in previous debates and I will discuss it today if I
have some time.
In any case this budget and these borrowing proposals are
very different than the promises outlined in the red book. I
would also note, as I have noted before, this is the highest
planned deficit and the highest planned borrowing in our
history. We have had higher deficits and we may in fact have a
higher one after the accounting changes. Last year's deficit may
still prove to be higher than this year's. This is the first time we
have ever started with a deficit and with borrowing requirements
this high.
The tendency has been in the past years for us to be
underestimating our requirements and to be exceeding those
requirements in the course of the year. Last year's borrowing
authority for fiscal 1993-94, Bill C-117, that was given royal
assent on May 6, 1993 had requested at the time borrowing
authority of $31.5 billion based on a $26.5 billion estimated
financial requirement. That was for last year. We see in fact that
under this bill the borrowing requirement has increased.
The government justifies these policies, this particular level
of borrowing, by saying that it really can justify it through two
objectives or two goals. One is that it will help us achieve a
lower deficit later and that it will help lead the government in its
plans toward economic growth and job creation. Let me just
express the scepticism as both a taxpayer and an economist that I
have about deficits today achieving lower deficits tomorrow and
in particular an interim target of 3 per cent of GDP.
I was a supporter at one time of the previous government
when it first came to office which used much the same kind of
rationale for not dealing with the problem quickly. What did we
see in the eighties and early nineties? We saw that as
governments refused to deal quickly with their debt and deficit
problems they accumulated deficit on top of deficit, debt on top
of debt and we have the situation today in which the biggest
factor behind the long term deficit and the growth of debt in
Canada is not in fact the recession. It is the accumulated debt
and the interest payments on that debt.
When we have that kind of a dynamic it makes it very difficult
for deficits today, which will add to debt and add to debt charge
burden, to lead to lower deficits in the future.
Some members of Parliament of the governing party are apt to
refer to the great early 20th century economist, Lord John
Maynard Keynes, in justifying this kind of economics. I wonder
how many of them have in fact read what Mr. Keynes wrote on
this subject and what kind of analysis he used and what kind of
circumstances under which he justified these kinds of budgetary
policies.
I know the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound has, as I
have in the past, read these things. We can certainly say that
these were not the policies advocated by a learned man such as
that. I do not agree with everything he wrote but he never
advocated permanent, ongoing structural deficits, not at all.
It is also important to say that he wrote at a time when
governments had very little permanent financial obligations of
their own. Governments were in fact a source of funds rather
than a drain of funds. It was a very different situation and one
that cannot be justified at this point.
(1250 )
The second point the government has made is that these
borrowing policies will lead to economic growth.
2496
Just as an alternative opinion-our party has a very different
economic philosophy-let me read what the job creators of this
country said about economic growth and job creation. We know
that with governments being as insolvent or increasingly
insolvent as they are jobs will come in the future from the
private sector. I think the Liberal Party generally acknowledges
that fact.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in a news released dated
February 14 said a million jobs can be created according to
preliminary results from entrepreneurs in a study the chamber
had conducted. It had 658 responses so far from employers
representing a range of sizes of firms, all the way from very
small firms to some of the very large firms. It indicated that with
the right kinds of economic policies there were capacities within
these firms for a total increase of employment of one million
Canadians.
The kinds of economic policies it said were necessary, if the
debt and deficit were reduced, if payroll taxes and corporate tax
rates were lowered, if the government regulatory burden were
eased and training and education of the labour force improved,
could create an average of 14 jobs per firm in the next three
years.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Ask it to give back the
grant it got to do that study.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): The member says ask it to give
back the grant that it received to do that study. I think it would
probably be willing to do that. In fact, our party has advocated,
with the support of the business organizations of this country, an
elimination of most, not all, the major business and industrial
subsidies. I know individual firms will fight that but we found
no resistance to that policy from business organizations. In fact,
it is one of the reasons why many of them have been supporting
the Reform Party and, I would add, in increasing numbers since
the budget came out.
Those were the policies. What I did not see in that list of
policies that the business community said were needed to
increase jobs was any mention of an infrastructure program. I
did not see any mention of increased spending. It was precisely
the opposite. It did not say it needed an extra $40 billion in
borrowing this year and $100 billion over the next three years.
There are a few things in here that are the same as the track the
government is on, but the things here are a very different policy
than what the job creators say need to be done to create the jobs
in this country.
Let us go back for a second to the budget which underlies this
particular borrowing bill because it is important to review that
and I know I have done this before. The budget is based on a
series of economic assumptions. In particular are the following
first year assumptions of growth at an annual rate of 3.0 per cent;
that interest rates will range in the neighbourhood of 4.5 per cent
for the short term benchmark to 6.4 per cent long term; that
inflation will remain low in the 1 per cent to 2 per cent range;
and that the ability of the tax system to generate income for the
government will recover as the economy recovers. It fell last
year from about 17.7 per cent down to 16.1 per cent.
These are all important assumptions and most of them are
defensible. However, what happens in the subsequent year
assumptions to justify these kinds of targets? Growth is
projected to increase permanently to about 3.8 per cent.
Inflation will continue to stay at record lows. The revenue GDP
ratio that the tax system establishes will rise. Unemployment
and job creation will increase. Interest rates will not only fall but
stay at record lows.
I would point out, as I did in my earlier comments, that these
assumptions are somewhat better than the Progressive
Conservative assumptions but very much reflective of the same
kind of thinking. After a very short time period we are
reasonably pessimistic in the first year but after that we can be
more optimistic. What we have is a pattern of record low interest
rates, record low inflation, a return to growth, not as high as the
Conservatives project, and job creation.
(1255 )
What is interesting and I emphasize it again is that overall the
government's estimates are more honest than the Conservatives,
although still along the same pattern. What is very interesting is
the job creation estimate. It is the most realistic estimate in the
budget, given the policies of this government.
It is estimated that the unemployment rate will fall from about
an 11.2 annual average to 11.1 per cent this year and to 10.8 per
cent next year; in other words, an extremely modest, almost no
change policy on the total state of the labour force in the
country. I say that is a very interesting projection for a
government that claims that job creation is its primary purpose.
What this government has done and I commend it for that,
although I wish it would be more frank in it, is admit that there is
a link between ongoing high deficits and high spending and high
levels of unemployment. It has admitted the link for the first
time.
Previous governments said that they could keep these high
deficits and could engage in gradual reduction strategies, keep
deficits very high but the unemployment rate would fall. This
government has admitted that as long as it keeps the deficit high,
the unemployment rate is going to stay high.
The reason for that is the simple economic fact that the funds
needed for job creation are created through private sector
investment. Those are the same kinds of funds that governments
hit when they go into the marketplace to borrow sums of money
in the range of $40 billion a year.
One problem in the government's projections not just for
future years but even for this year-it has come up in the House
and I want to raise it again-is the projection on interest rates. In
my initial speech on Bill C-14 I had indicated to the House that
2497
interest rate projections were already about half a point above,
on the long term, what they had been projected to be in the
budget.
I said that they were between 6.8 and 6.9 per cent. I apologize
to the House if I mislead the House on that. I had written that
speech a few days before and by the time I had written it, interest
rates were then over 7 per cent on 10 year government bonds.
It is interesting in that context to look at the pattern. There is a
very definite pattern that has occurred in the financial markets
since the budget was tabled and since we had our prebudget
debates when the government gave an indication of its direction.
On February 1 and 2 we hit basically a trough not seen in a
long time in interest rates in this country. Let me quote interest
rates on government securities. We had a bank rate of 3.87 per
cent. We had a rate on six month treasury bills of 3.76 per cent
and we had a rate on 10 year government long term bonds of 6.4
per cent.
The government projected in its budget that for this year,
1994, the long term rate, the rate on 10 year bonds, would fall to
6.4 per cent which is actually what it was at on February 2 and
that it would fall further in subsequent years to around 6.1 per
cent.
It projected that the short term rate, and it used as its
benchmark the rate on 90 day commercial paper, would actually
rise slightly this year to 5 per cent, which is indicated by the
term structure, and would stay there for the next several years.
Those numbers are actually identical to the projections that the
former government used in framing its last budgetary policies.
The rate on commercial paper continues to be below the rate
of the government's projection, that is true, but that rate has
been continually rising. It has not been rising as fast as the rate
on key government securities.
According to today's Globe and Mail from the period from
February 2 until today the bank rate has gone up from 3.87 per
cent to 4.22 per cent. That is an increase of 35 basis points. The
rate on six month treasury bills has increased from 3.76 per cent
to 4.58 per cent. That is a three-quarter of a full percentage point
increase in the time period every single week, most of it is since
the budget was tabled. On 10 year bonds there has been an
increase from 6.4 per cent to 7.38 per cent. It has been hovering
around 7.4 per cent for the last several days, or a full percentage
point above what the government had projected.
(1300)
The government has not published all of its interest rate
projections for this year, only two. The government continues to
insist it can live with numbers like this and come in at the same
target that was projected in the budget. I really question that.
What the government certainly cannot have is a continued
increase in the rates over the next several weeks. Even since the
bank rate was set last week we have had another quarter cent
drop in the value of the Canadian dollar.
That is occurring. We know it and we know why. We know it
as individual Canadians when talking to our friends and
neighbours. We know it as public policy analysts looking at
some of the financial newsletters in this country. People are
taking their capital out of this country. They are taking their
capital out of Canadian government bonds because they are
denominated in Canadian dollars. They are putting it elsewhere
because there is an increasing insecurity about the financial
state of this particular institution, the Government of Canada.
This lack of caution on interest rate projections is the most
serious error by this government in its financial planning. We
have a debt structure where a huge percentage of our debt is
loaded at the front end. The average term of government debt in
Canada is two and a half years. The average term excluding
treasury bills is four and a half years. These are very short
timeframes and very sensitive to unforeseen increases in
interest rates.
The government also provides information in the budget
which underestimates the sensitivity of its borrowing to changes
in interest rates. It is important to note the sensitivity analysis.
People ask me why if all interest rates went up 1 per cent the
government says its debt charge would only go up $1.7 billion.
Why not $5 billion? Why not 1 per cent of the debt load?
The reason of course is that the debt rolls over. It does not roll
over 100 per cent in a single year, but over a very short period of
two, three or four years most of it will roll over. The real
underestimation in that kind of sensitivity analysis is it does not
take into account the fact that the debt itself compounds, not just
the interest payments. The debt itself compounds when the level
of interest payments and the level of the deficit are
underestimated. That is a very serious issue. It is one of the
reasons we got ourselves into these kinds of problems.
I remind the government of the importance of real deficit
targets. An article in yesterday's Financial Post said that the
government does in fact have figures for the third and
subsequent years of its financial planning period and it is
prepared to table those in August. Why in August? Why do we
not see them now? I suspect we will get the same story in August
as we got in the budget: The situation is much more serious than
government thought and it needs to re-evaluate it. We have
heard that story before.
2498
Not only do we have to have a deficit target. Any country
in financial problems has to have a debt target. I go back to the
fact that the Maastricht treaty does not speak simply of a 3 per
cent deficit-GDP target. It speaks of a 60 per cent debt to GDP
target. If it is over 60 per cent debt to GDP the only way to
achieve that target would be to run zero deficits or even
surpluses.
Canada's debt to GDP ratio under this budget even under the
government's own assumptions is estimated to rise to a level of
75 per cent of GDP by the end of the planning period. Once again
that is only for the federal government and is on a net basis, not
on a gross basis which the Maastricht treaty talks about. It talks
about gross basis and about all levels of government in the
country. These are unsustainable levels.
With respect to the committee and report stages, we agreed to
bypass report stage because we are anxious to have meaningful
debate and we did not have amendments from committee.
Nevertheless I want to mention some things that could have been
mentioned in a report stage debate. I did not want to hold the bill
up for that, but it is important that we mention it.
(1305)
Once again there are problems in the process and in some
technical aspects. We agreed not to have a report stage debate.
However we thought that before we had the third reading debate
we would at least have the published minutes of the committee
hearings. This is another problem. I point out once again how
much the government views this entirely as a rubber stamp
process.
I do not have those in my hands and I doubt I will today. Just
before I spoke I received a transcript of our hearings on this bill.
However the public and we do not have published minutes of the
committee hearings and debate on the technical aspects of this
bill although we went through report stage and are now on third
reading.
That is inexcusable. We are not in so much of a rush here that
there is not the right of Parliament and the public to have final
published minutes and proceedings of the committee that are
relevant to the debate we are now having in the Chamber.
Because of that I am going to take a few minutes to outline
some of the technical aspects of the bill. I will indicate quickly
some of the discussion in committee and how it might be helpful
to the government in the future.
The budgetary deficit is projected to be $39.7 billion. Against
that the government is borrowing through internal accounts a
sum in the neighbourhood of $9.5 billion. That is the temporary
surplus we have on non-budgetary accounts, mainly
superannuation accounts.
The government must cover exchange fund earnings of $1.1
billion which are included in budgetary revenue but in fact are
not available for normal budgetary purposes and a reserve of
contingencies for $3 billion. This is one of the ways the
government gives itself some leeway. Although it commits to
keep the deficit within bounds it allows for considerable reserve
so that it can have access to more borrowing without going
directly to Parliament in this fiscal year. That is how we reached
the total borrowing authority of $34.3 billion, which the public
will note is different from the budgetary deficit.
This is not the greatest control system. The budgetary deficit
itself includes $2.4 billion reserves for as yet unplanned
expenditures. It is true that Parliament would have to authorize
additional expenditures if they were of a non-statutory nature.
However these various contingencies of $2.4 billion within the
budgetary deficit and $3 billion within the borrowing authority
itself provide the government with considerable flexibility to
err not only in its interest rate projections but also in various
other aspects of its financial planning.
There is nothing wrong with a little bit of leeway. However I
would think if we got into errors of that magnitude it would be
appropriate for the government to have a system whereby it
came back to Parliament. It would explain those errors and ask
Parliament for the appropriate authority and discuss why it had
erred.
One of the problems with the present reserve and contingency
requirements is that they are actually open to multiple
justification for their usage. We do not have simply a margin of
error on an interest rate or a margin of error on statutory
spending. Most of these things can be used in one way or
another. That is a serious deficiency of this particular process.
There is another important issue raised in committee which
the government should examine. That is the nature of its debt
management.
There were some technical questions concerning not only the
term structure of the debt but also the tendency of the
government to borrow almost exclusively in Canadian dollars. It
does so at a time when the value of the Canadian dollar is
increasingly unstable and there are risk premiums involved.
This will increase the cost of this borrowing to the public, to the
government and to the taxpayer.
(1310)
It also encourages the government in a somewhat less than
responsible attitude toward borrowing. By borrowing in
Canadian dollars there is a sense of greater flexibility should
there be a financial crisis. With the lower yields offered on other
currencies it should consider diversifying and of course
reducing that borrowing.
I will end very quickly by reminding everyone of the
budgetary situation. The government faces a $40 billion deficit.
It was higher than we had believed even during the election
campaign. The government's response has been the smallest of
expenditure cuts, even smaller tax measures and the adoption of
various programs that are something probably less than
effective in
2499
getting economic recovery. As well it will only add needlessly to
our burden.
I oppose the bill. I urge the government once again to
reconsider this borrowing and some of the expenditure plans
which underlie the borrowing. I promise we will continue to
fight this bill and these kinds of policies.
I urge the government to look at its counterpart, the
Democratic Party in the United States, which reconsidered in
particular the strategy of adding additional spending programs
on top of a deficit management situation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The first three speakers at
third reading of Bill C-14 had 40 minutes without questions and
comments. We will now go to the next stage of debate which is
20 minutes and 10 minutes of questions and comments.
In recognizing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry would he indicate to the Chair at the beginning of his
remarks whether he will be taking the full complement of 20
minutes or sharing his time.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time equally with
another member. I understand I cannot question the previous
speaker, but I will begin my remarks by making a comment.
I listened to the hon. member talk about all of the budget cuts
the Reform Party would wish for and the cuts in terms of grants
to business.
The hon. member even went so far as to suggest that the
Chamber of Commerce might be willing to return to the treasury
the $400,000 it received for doing its study on what business
recommends in terms of fiscal reform. First I want to say that I
in no way, shape or form have anything other than respect for the
work the chamber does, but I am not sure that it would return the
$400,000.
I wonder sometimes if the Reform Party realizes that the real
challenge for fiscal reform is in the tax act. When the time
comes to tackle that problem I wonder whether the Reform Party
will remain steadfast to its principle of a single tax system.
With the $40 billion or $50 billion worth of tax grants to
business, mostly foreign and multinationals, a lot of them in the
energy sector, I am wondering whether the Reform Party will
remain as committed to the cuts. When I asked this question of
the leader of the Reform Party he began to shy off on cutting
those tax expenditures. In due course we will really test the
Reform Party's commitment to comprehensive tax reform.
I listened to members opposite today talk one after the other
about gloom and doom and how there was not anything in the
budget that would inspire some hope for Canadians. I could not
help but think that a lot of the members had deserted their earlier
commitment to try to be constructive in this House. We have
only been here a couple of months and it amazes me that
members opposite could not acknowledge anything positive in
the budget.
(1315)
I would like to raise something I believe is most meaningful to
the small business sector. We heard from members opposite
today that we must support small and medium sized businesses.
We heard members opposite agree that our greatest hope for
putting people back to work rests with the small business
community. We all know, because we have all knocked on the
same doors and we have all heard from many small business
people across the country, that the greatest problem they face
today is access to capital.
On pages 4 and 5 of the budget the Minister of Finance
announced that for the first time ever we would have a
committee of Parliament take on a study of access to capital by
small business. This is not a study that includes only
government members. This is a study that includes members of
the Bloc Quebecois and members of the Reform Party.
Members opposite should have told Canadian people that the
government should be applauded for the way in which it has
acted so speedily in setting up this study in the industry
committee. We have been studying the matter for four weeks.
We have heard over a dozen intelligent business people from
many regions of the country confirm what all of us have heard
about the difficulties of small business. We are already
beginning to see signs that the bankers are responding to this
very difficult problem that exists in our country today.
It is important that we as members of Parliament not criticize
just for the sake of criticizing. By the way I accept constructive
criticism. There are some areas in the budget that are tough for
all of us. We have never had a perfect budget. It is tough. We
have a tough fiscal situation. At the same time we have to
acknowledge the fact that we are starting to see some movement
in access to capital for small business. All members of
Parliament should be delivering that message of hope to their
constituents.
We can be tough on the banks in the House of Commons, but at
the same time we should acknowledge when banks and bank
managers begin to respond. I am not saying the process is
complete. Last week the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
announced the appointment of an ombudsman for its bank.
Small and medium sized business people who are having
difficulty at the branch level could go to the ombudsman to seek
fairer treatment. Today the Toronto-Dominion Bank set up a
three-person ombudsman system. It is almost like a court of
appeal for people who are having difficulty.
2500
These are only beginnings but I believe they are important
beginnings. As members opposite have said repeatedly, small
business represents our greatest hope. We must support small
business. The biggest thing it has asked for is help in changing
the attitude of banks and financial institutions and help in
finding new sources of capital so entrepreneurial spirit can flow
again. We have begun the process.
(1320)
I must also say that the members of the Bloc and the Reform
parties on the committee are working hard and are working
co-operatively. By the end of June we will be able to bring solid,
constructive recommendations to Parliament and to the Minister
of Finance, recommendations for amendment in terms of
regulation and recommendations for banks to change their
process and attitude. I believe we will be able to bring in new
sources of capital through mutual funds, pension funds.
Even though the process is not complete today, I believe it is
incumbent upon all of us as members of Parliament to tell our
constituents that it is under way, that we have only been at it for
a month but in another two months they should see even more
dramatic results.
I do not believe that when we go back to our ridings we should
only bring bad news. I listened to a Bloc member this morning
refer to our party as a party of darkness, as if members of the
Bloc were the only ones who feel the pain of students, fathers or
mothers who do not have work. We feel that same pain. We are
trying just as hard and are just as concerned as members
opposite to get the country back to work.
When something in the budget is constructive and
hopeful-and I believe changing the attitudes of banks is a very
meaningful exercise for all of us in the Chamber-we should not
be shy in acknowledging it or in saying that in that particular
area the government is moving forward and the government is
on the right path.
It is not that we are looking for an accolade. That is not the
point. The point is that we have a responsibility in the House to
inspire and show some hope for the 1.3 million small business
men and women out there who are having a very difficult time
right now.
Other projects were announced in the budget on behalf of
small business. The officials in all departments are interacting
with small business in terms of the paper burden. They are all
but locked up in a room right now trying to simplify the forms
and consolidate the paper small business has to deal with when it
comes to interacting with government: all the various forms in
Revenue Canada and in Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There
is an intense effort by officials and people from business. They
are working together to try to reduce the paper burden. It is
important for our constituents to know we are working
vigorously on that. That is another result of the budget.
I also mention the fact that the finance committee working on
comprehensive tax reform is another hopeful signal or hopeful
sign for small business. It is very important to challenge the path
we are taking the country down at this moment. We accept their
challenge on any issue.
(1325)
It is Friday afternoon. Hon. members will be going back to
their ridings. I tell them not to be shy in telling their constituents
about some of the good things the government is doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to exchange comments with the
parliamentary secretary, but I think I ought to tell him, with
respect, that his speech contained two contradictions. I want to
point out that his impassioned defence of small business has
always been well received by my party. I know that some of my
colleagues here today are working very hard with him in
committee.
He is probably aware that Montreal is the poorest city in
Canada; the Montreal area has the largest number of poor
families and poor people in this country. In East Montreal, we
had a program called the PRIEM program, which was set up five
years ago. All parties involved in this program asked the
government to extend it. The program gave small businesses
access to capital to update their facilities, and it created about 30
per cent of the new jobs in East Montreal.
If the minister and his government had been serious about
using small business as part of their economic recovery strategy,
it seems to me Montreal would have received a favourable
answer to its request for an extension to this program. It did not,
however. We and other members had a meeting with the
Minister of Finance. We made certain representations, as did the
community of Montreal, but unfortunately, the program will not
be extended. That was the first contradiction I wanted to point
out, and I would appreciate it if the minister would comment.
I would also like to hear his comments on a second issue, the
technology question. On several occasions the minister has said
in the House, with considerable eloquence, that his party was
prepared to go all the way with technology and that this was a
major priority. Unfortunately this was not reflected in the
budget, and the scientific community got even less than it
expected. There is not much in the budget that would point to a
genuine national strategy on technology.
I wish he would offer some thoughts on the information
highway. All parties concerned agree that if we are to have a
national information highway some day, government funding
will be needed. It is not true that only private capital is needed.
2501
However, we can find no indication in this budget that the
government will help implement this information highway.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I say to
the member that I welcome his spirit in debate. I always have.
First, I cannot speak to the specific example the member has
given. I am not aware of it. The member can send me the details
on it and we can study it.
Second, I cannot make a commitment, which sounds strange
because of our commitment and our special sensitivity to the
city of Montreal.
The third point concerns the information highway. Two days
ago the Minister of Industry announced the new chairman of the
national advisory committee on the information highway would
be the former vice-chancellor of McGill in Montreal. The
member should know the whole process of studying the
information highway will be contrary to what we read in the
newspaper. It is going to be one that is very open. We will be
listening to experts from every region of the country. These
meetings will be in public. Naturally when we have committees
some of them have to be private but there will be an extensive
consultation process and this government and our Minister of
Industry have made the information highway a priority.
(1330)
As the Prime Minister said earlier this week in the House, our
commitment to this sector of the economy is most important in
terms of job creation and I think the member will see in time that
in no way, shape or form will we feel shy or cut short our
participation in that very important sector of the economy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The parliamentary
secretary had given an indication to the Chair that he was
sharing his time.
If not I would be in the hands of the House as to whether there
would be unanimous consent to allow an additional five minutes
for questions and comments to the parliamentary secretary. I
know a good number of members have been seeking the floor. Or
we could simply resume debate.
If there is no one from the government side who is going to be
sharing the time and if the House wants to consider unanimous
consent, is there consent to an additional five minutes of
questions and comments for the parliamentary secretary?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
every year after the happy holiday season the people of Canada
and Quebec enter a period of fear. In fact, at this time of year,
people fear two kinds of disasters: snow storms and the federal
budget.
In both instances, they are unable to forecast the extent of the
impending disaster and they feel they have no control over what
is going to happen. The only thing they know for certain is that
the two events, whether of natural or ministerial origin, can be
costly and have an impact on their quality of life.
To a certain extent, we can protect ourselves against the
meteorological vagaries of winter, and we can be philosophical
about them, knowing that everything will melt away in the
Spring anyhow. The storm raised by the federal budget is
another story. The fiscal and budgetary whims of Canadian
Finance Ministers are getting less and less predictable and more
and more painful.
This year, people were expecting a very severe winter and a
very hard budget. In both instances it is as if the sky had fallen.
We can get used to the snow and the cold, as we known it is going
to end eventually, but the budget has inflicted severe injuries to
the country's economy and the scars could be permanent.
The Minister of Finance and the government he represents
have demonstrated a total lack of imagination and creativity.
Once more the axe fell on the unemployed and the aged who are
submitted to dreadful cutbacks by this budget. The reason of this
is that the Minister of Finance did not want to tackle the real
economic problems of the country and cut into useless spending
by the government.
Yet, the Minister of Finance had only two responsible things
to do before preparing his budget. First, he should have used the
long cold evenings of January to read the report of the Auditor
General, and I doubt he did.
(1335)
Second, he only had to listen carefully to the concrete and
progressive proposals brought forward by the Official
Opposition. This would have prevented him from racking his
brain in search of a scheme that would allow him to attack once
again the poorest people in our society.
The Auditor General tabled his report to the House of
Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993. All 800
pages of it! Eight hundred pages of horrible findings on the
appalling management of public funds in Canada. Eight hundred
pages of concrete recommendations on ways to better manage
the Canadian government machinery. I will say it again, I doubt
that the Minister of Finance took the trouble to go through such a
valuable document as the report of the Auditor General, because
the provisions contained in the budget do not reflect in any way
the expectations expressed in the Auditor General's annual
report for 1993.
The auditor managed to summarize in one sentence the
expectations and aspirations of the Canadian people, and I think
it is important to quote it in this House so that the government
cannot plead ignorance when the time comes for it to find out the
2502
effects of such a pitiful budget on the economy. Here then is the
Canadian taxpayers' message that the Auditor General wanted
to convey to the government, and I quote: ``Today it is clearer
than ever, to both public servants and parliamentarians, that
Canadians expect them to demonstrate sound and prudent
management rather than finding new ways to spend borrowed
money''.
I must admit the Report of the Auditor General of Canada is
not an appealing document. I can see why the Minister of
Finance would try to keep away from it as much as he can since
the truths we find in there do not always make for pleasant
reading. Journalists call them the Auditor General's horror
stories and rightly so. Indeed, his report is full of pathetic
examples of mismanagement and particularly unwarranted
government expenditures which are all equally reprehensible. I
will mention only two such stories, two unfortunate situations
which show how careless the government can get when it comes
to spending public funds.
One of the great government extravagances noted by the
Auditor General concerns the use of Challenger planes by
ministers or other parties close to government. Flying these
airplanes costs almost $20,000 an hour. In 1993 alone, the total
bill for these travels came up to $54 million and the example
given by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in that
respect is certainly not comforting. Just imagine. For one day in
the United States, not six months in Japan, but one single day,
the travelling expenses of the Minister for Intergovernmental
Affairs were in excess of $170,000. Our ministers are travelling
in flying palaces while the government takes away a wheel from
the inexpensive scooters of the unemployed. Such a situation is
totally absurd!
Speaking of absurdities, how can they explain that the new
President of Investment Canada has refurbished her office for a
total of $132,000? That is the outrageous cost of the new
bathroom and new kitchen in the office of Madam President of
Investment Canada.
(1340)
Was there no one in the government who could have put a stop
to this foolish waste of money? While the government is busy
installing deluxe toilets in the offices of senior officials, it is
also literally taking the toilet paper away from senior citizens.
Do these two groups not have the same needs, Mr. Speaker?
In all, the Auditor General identified in excess of $5 billion
annually in overspending and shameful waste. It was really not
necessary for the Minister of Finance to raid the pockets of
ordinary taxpayers in order to recoup these billions of dollars.
But, that is what he did and the people feel betrayed by this
Liberal government which had nevertheless stated in its red
book, and I quote: ``We want a country whose governments are
efficient and innovative''.
When we see the results, it is not surprising that this
government has already lost all credibility in the eyes of the
public. In a mere six months' time, the Liberals have managed to
alienate Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, a feat which the
Conservative needed many years to accomplish. That is saying
something! Were the Liberals really expecting to maintain their
popularity rating by leaving family trusts alone, while at the
same time targeting the unemployed and seniors and doing
nothing to eliminate instances of administrative overlap?
I find it rather alarming that expressions such as ``overlapping
jurisdictions'', ``federal interference'' and ``administrative
duplication'' have become commonplace, even the norm in
Canadian political jargon. We have come to trivialize these
expressions because the federal government has, over the years,
used its famous discretionary powers to excess to interference in
areas of provincial jurisdiction. This has been going on since
Confederation and has slowly become the traditional way of
conducting federal-provincial relations.
This year's budget carries on this nice Canadian tradition. The
Minister of Finance strove to perpetuate the federal
government's great centralizing tendency, whereby this
government has the power and the duty to interfere more and
more in provincial jurisdiction or at any rate never to withdraw
from provincial jurisdiction, all in the name of maintaining
Canadian unity, of course.
This façade of national unity is starting to cost us dearly. A
study by Treasury Board in 1991 showed that 67 per cent of all
federal programs overlap provincial programs to some extent.
Besides the tens of billions of dollars spent unnecessarily every
year, we have a huge bureaucratic and administrative machine
that is so complex that these federal and provincial programs
become redundant and inefficient when they are not simply
incompatible.
The Canadian bureaucracy is like a big beached whale and the
federal government is doing nothing to save it. The most
striking proof of this lack of federal will is still the issue of
manpower training in Quebec. While the Conservatives at the
end of their term recognized the need to return all powers for
manpower training to Quebec, the Liberals have stopped the
process under way. For the Liberals, it is unthinkable to take any
action which would reduce the federal government's prestige,
even if it meant saving $250 million a year. I think that the
federal government's ego is as big and immovable as the
beached whale mentioned earlier. We well know that even a
dying whale is not easy to deflate.
(1345)
Yet, the Bloc Quebecois had asked the government to cut the
fat. Unfortunately, the government has once again opted for a
miracle diet which promises results without pain. Putting our
2503
financial house in order will require real austerity measures,
accompanied by painful cuts that are inevitable if we are to
achieve our economic aims.
The federal government continues to get into debt, and gets
away with it. One fourth of this debt is incurred in Quebec's
name. But beware, Quebec will not wait for liposuction to
become necessary before doing what it must to ensure its future
economic development. The only way for Quebecers to get rid
of all these horror stories is still sovereignty for Quebec.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois
on his reading the report of the Auditor General, particularly as
regards the ministers' expenses. I sat for five years on the
Committee of Public Accounts, and I know what he is talking
about. But I am not sure he does. I think he forgot to mention that
the Prime Minister and the Auditor General have undertaken a
study on travel by ministers.
The Bloc Quebecois member referred in jest to the
Challenger. Does the hon. member know where the Challengers
are made? Should we stop manufacturing Challengers? What
other means of transportation should the ministers use?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted
something to this effect: ``Some people-I do not know exactly
to whom he was referring-said that the Liberal government
betrayed them''. I found such a comment rather strange, coming
from the Bloc Quebecois, which, as a separatist party, is a traitor
to this country, in my opinion.
Mr. Plamondon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I heard correctly, the
hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester did refer specifically to
treason, and I believe that is unparliamentary. I would ask him to
please acknowledge the fact that the Chair has to see that our
debates are conducted in accordance with our Standing Orders
and that we respect the spirit not only of the Standing Orders,
but also of the House of Commons. I would ask him to withdraw
the expression he used. The hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, are you suggesting that the member of the Bloc
Quebecois has the right to say that the members of the Liberal
Party have betrayed Canadian society, but that I, on the other
hand, do not have the right to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying
that anyone who spies, for example-
(1350)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. To my knowledge
the last member who spoke, the hon. member for the Bloc
quebecois, did not make the remark to which the hon. member
from Carleton-Gloucester referred. I believe the hon. member
for Carleton-Gloucester was referring to a comment made
earlier in this House by another member.
Of course, I do not have before me the blues of all debates that
took place today in the House. I would therefore ask hon.
members to show some understanding for the problems facing
the Chair, under the circumstances. Of course, the Chair cannot
let members on either side call someone a traitor.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Finally, I will take time to
review the blues and, if necessary, I will get back to the House as
soon as possible.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. This is about the term the hon. member just used,
and it is not the first time the hon. member referred to betrayal or
mentioned the fact that we have no democratic mandate, or have
no right to sit in this House because we are members of the Bloc
Quebecois. He has said this both inside and outside the House.
The right to sit in Parliament is not a matter for debate. It is not a
matter for political debate, either inside or outside the House.
We are talking about the basic right of people to elect the
representatives they want to elect.
Voters elected certain members of Parliament, and it is not up
to the hon. member to question our right to sit in this House, as
he did last week or as he did today, when he used the word
traitor.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but this is
debate, not a point of order.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Chair's proposal to look
at this problem and get back to the House next week.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. I have no objection to the Chair
postponing any further discussion on the terms used earlier in
the day by a member of the Bloc Quebecois. We will check the
blues.
However, the Chair did hear what was said by the hon.
member for Carleton-Gloucester. He used the terms traitor and
betrayal, and the hon. member should withdraw immediately,
because what he said was quite clear. After that, we will see if
any members on our side used terms that were unacceptable. We
will have to look at them in context. If I say that you betray your
mandate, I am not saying that you are traitors to the nation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The hon. member
for Carleton-Gloucester.
2504
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, could the Chair perhaps take the dictionary and read
out the definition of betrayal, and then-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. To end this
discussion, I promise members on both sides of the House that
the Chair will make a full review of the blues and get back to the
House as soon as possible.
It being 1.55 p.m., the House will now proceed to
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2504
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation
limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and
restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On a point of order, the
member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I think the member recognizes having used the terms
traitor and betrayal. Earlier-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I want to say to the
hon. member that I have indicated that I will review the text and
check the words used and see if they were aimed at one member
or the other. In other words, I want to know the full context in
order to give this House the most accurate ruling possible under
the circumstances.
I would like the House to proceed now with private members'
business. The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to present this
motion to this House and to launch the debate on the following
motion: ``That, in the opinion of this House, the government
should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the
right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such
donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year''.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Frontenac for
seconding the motion, and thank also all members of the Bloc
Quebecois who asked to be heard in this debate.
I hope to get a favourable and co-operative hearing from the
Reform Party, as well as the Liberal Party and independent
members of this House, so we can move a step closer to better
democracy by dealing with the financing of political parties.
This motion is extremely important, because it goes to the
roots, to the foundations of democracy. It reminds us that the
real bosses are the voters and not the big backers.
Over the last few years, several public financing experiments
have been successful. The socio-political context has also
demonstrated the need for a real reform of the financing of
political parties. The Lortie Commission, set up by the previous
government, was supposed to look into the matter, but it barely
touched on the problem of financing, opting for the status quo
rather than real reform.
Less than 20 years ago, several political parties in Canada
were financed only by large corporations or unions. Today, the
share of companies in electoral financing is about half of all the
money collected by the various parties, according to 1991-92
data from Elections Canada.
Although the proportion has changed, the amount provided is
still significant and a potential source of conflict. Since the
reform of 1974 and the ensuing evolution of fundraising, small
contributions from private individuals account for a larger share
of the financing of political parties. Such democratization is
very much due to the institution of a federal tax credit on
political contributions, which was adopted in 1974.
Some may believe that present measures are sufficient to limit
undue influence and that it is in no way necessary to cap
donations. Yet, during the last ten years, charges of
influence-peddling made against Senate and House members
tend to prove the contrary.
I believe that party fundraising must be reorganized on the
basis financing by the public. Legislators and politicians can
only benefit from such a change.
(1400)
Why am I positive about this? Because of two basic and
fundamental principles which should influence all political
activity: transparency and democracy. Canadians and Quebecers
now demand absolute transparency from their elected
representatives. Greed is certainly a very human instinct, but it
is incompatible with the political ideal of serving the common
good. In this context, the role of governments is to deter
anything which could prompt someone to seek public office for
personal interests. The fact is that all federal political parties
felt the need to clarify their position on this issue, and made it
one of the main themes during the last election campaign.
Numerous examples come to mind. For instance, some
candidates and former members lost their party's official
support for them, and that was bitter medecine indeed. Political
organizers were publicly criticized. Some political decisions
were reversed, contrary to all expectations. Whether lobbying,
patron-
2505
age, or conflicts of interest were involved, we found out, mostly
through the media, whenever people had tried to influence those
entrusted with public funds, in order to get some personal
benefit for themselves or their agents. Money, of course, is
always the great motivator.
As long as a significant proportion of party revenues comes
from corporate or union sources, ordinary citizens will have to
ask themselves whose interests we are looking after. As elected
representatives, it is our duty to do everything we can to
improve our image. So many people have a negative opinion of
politics, which they view as a dubious, immoral and obscure
activity in which it is better to not get involved. Reorganization
of party fundraising would certainly solve part of the problem.
Such an initiative would create a new climate of transparency
which would restore some credibility for political parties and
politicians.
How can a worker in my riding who barely makes $15,000 or
$20,000 a year seriously believe that an engineering firm, a
major bank or a contractor is prepared to give $50,000 to a
political party without any hope of obtaining a return on that
investment? How can that worker seriously think that his
opinion carries as much weight as that of the engineer? To ask
the question is to answer it. One would really have to have one's
head buried in the sand to refuse to admit that there are interests
involved in those public-minded donations.
And now what about the big fundraisers? Smokes and mirrors
is often the answer. Good connections in the business
community lead to access to the inner sanctum, the Senate, or to
the possibility of demanding some sort of payback.
Restricting financing of political parties to the public would
send a clear message of transparency and be an unequivocal sign
that companies, unions, big fundraisers will no longer exert
undue influence over the political decision-making process.
Are we going to tolerate any longer the fact that Canadian
chartered banks, which are the most important sources of capital
for campaign funds, run political parties behind the scenes?
Financing by the public not only sends a message of
transparency but, if adopted, sends a message of democracy.
Since firms, associations and unions do not vote, there is no
reason for them to play a predominant role in our electoral and
political system by funding more than half of the activities of
the Canadian political parties. In fact, they have many forums
other than the political channels in which to articulate their
views and their needs.
Canadian citizens are the ones who must control our electoral
system. They constitute the foundation of our democracy.
However, democracy is more than the right to a free vote and a
secret ballot, it is more than holding elections every four or five
years.
(1405)
Democracy is many things and the financing of political
parties is an important part of the democratic process, as
important as the redrawing of electoral boundaries several years
ago to ensure a better distribution of seats according to popular
vote.
Obviously, it is easier for political party fund raisers to collect
a $5,000 contribution than 100 contributions of $50. However,
this fact, which could be indicative of some laziness on the part
of fund raisers, results in parties which are highly centralized
and where ordinary members have no place.
By giving in to this lazy attitude, political parties are agreeing
to make themselves available to corporate contributors, turning
their backs in the process on thousands upon thousands of
Canadians. It may be an easier way to raise money, but it is
surely less democratic.
Contrary to what some people claim, we are not breaking new
ground in Canada as far as regulating the financing of political
parties goes. At least seven provinces, in addition to the federal
government, have laws governing contributions to political
parties.
Four provinces, namely Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and
Alberta, already limit the size of contributions that can be made
to political parties and to candidates. Three other provinces,
namely Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, as well
as the federal government only require parties to disclose the
source and size of contributions made. Moreover, seven of these
eight jurisdictions allocate public funds to political parties that
meet specific criteria.
It is obvious, however, that Quebec's legislation is the most
progressive of all, not only with regard to political party
financing but also all aspects of the electoral system, including
provisions relating to political parties.
Quebec passed the Act to govern the financing of political
parties in 1977, but the first reforms date back to 1964, under
Jean Lesage.
Quebec completely redesigned voting rules, decriminalizing
the whole process and placing electoral activities under the
strict control of the chief electoral officer, whom they call
director general of elections.
It is particularly interesting to note that the Quebec Liberal
Party, which had relied heavily on corporate sponsors up until
then, adjusted very well and very smoothly to the new rules. Its
annual revenue in Quebec is in excess of $7 million. That is two
and a half times more than the Liberal Party in office in Ottawa.
Statutory requirements regarding the source and amount of
contributions have now become a standard of life in Quebec.
This experiment has demonstrated beyond any doubt that
financing by the people is feasible.
At the federal level, the Bloc Quebecois also proved
conclusively that it could be done. Since its inception, the Bloc
has never been funded by anybody other than the voters. No
dona-
2506
tions can be accepted from any corporation, union or
organization. Yet, we won 75 per cent of the seats in Quebec.
Ottawa already has a piece of legislation providing for the
disclosure of sources and amounts of donations received by
political parties. The same legislation also governs party
expenses. The purpose of this motion is to limit solely to voters
the right to donate to a party and to restrict such donations to a
maximum of $5,000 a year. This may be a difficult choice, but it
is necessary.
The foundation of a political party is its membership. It is on
this basis that parties succeed or fail.
A revamping of the financing process will put new life into
the parties. It will replace establishment-controlled parties with
truly popular, truly democratic parties.
I remind you in closing that the Quebec legislature
unanimously endorsed such a bill when it had to make a decision
on the funding of political parties by the people. It unanimously
embraced the basic goal of democratizing political institutions.
To take the same position here in this House would be a nice
gesture for unity, a clear message that would be very well
received by all citizens.
In closing, I would like to pay tribute to a member who spoke
up and fought a long battle on this issue, namely François Gérin,
the former member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead who,
within the Conservative Party, fought a six-year battle for the
funding of political parties by the people. He pursued his
campaign with the Bloc Quebecois as he was the one who
proposed, when the Bloc was founded, that political parties be
financed only by individuals with the right to vote.
(1410)
So this former member who sat for nine years in this House,
François Gérin, was a pioneer on this issue-the funding of
political parties by the people-in Canada. I am happy to thank
him for this and to carry on his fight by taking this issue not to
the parties themselves but directly to the House. I hope that the
Liberal and the Reform parties as well as the independent
members will give their unanimous support so that we can take
another step toward democracy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester on a point of order.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. I can see that some of my
colleagues believe that my words were unacceptable and, after
due consideration, I think that some hon. members may have
found what I said to be insulting. Therefore, I want to withdraw
the words ``traitor'', ``treason'' and ``betrayal'', and I do so
unequivocally.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank the hon.
member for his decision, which I respect. I know that, from time
to time, our debates can be very intense and will continue to be
so, but I hope that the people in the Chair will be able, with the
co-operation of all members, to keep our discussions at a
respectful level, because we have all been elected here to serve
Canadians in this 35th Parliament.
We will now revert to private members' business. The
parliamentary secretary of the Leader of the Government in the
House has the floor.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member for Richelieu and I am
pleased that he put this motion before the House, because it is
very important. I know that there are several such private
members' motions before the House, and I hope that we will be
able to hold many debates on these issues in the coming weeks.
[English]
I want to mention the hon. member's very careful review of
the situation in respect of election contributions that has
maintained itself in the province of Quebec now for some time.
While I recognize the validity of some of the arguments he has
put forward, there are more compelling arguments for perhaps
considering that while the situation may be a fair or reasonable
approach there are other fair and reasonable approaches. The
Canada Elections Act has taken that approach. Obviously it is
different from what the hon. member has proposed. That is why
he made the proposal he put before the House.
I note other people than myself have expressed views on this
question. It is important for the hon. member to recognize that
those views have been put forward by people who are fairly
experienced and competent in the field.
The Canada Elections Act, as the hon. member stated, does
not currently have a limit on the size of contributions. Nor does
it limit who may make those contributions aside from
non-Canadians. The language of the act in my view is a little
loose on that point.
The hon. member is aware that during the last Parliament the
special committee on electoral reform was struck to review the
recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral
Reform and Party Financing. I had the honour to be a member of
that committee. I know we spent a considerable amount of time
discussing the question of contributions to political parties. I
believe a report to the House on the subject was made by that
committee, which report was not acted upon by the previous
government.
I am optimistic that during this Parliament we will have an
opportunity to look over the provisions of the act once again and
possibly come up with some recommendations to change the
existing law. I have no doubt we will be looking at the proposal
2507
the hon. member has put forward. However looking at it and
accepting it are two different things.
In its deliberations the committee considered a limit because
some members of the committee were enthusiastic about the
prospect of a limit such as is suggested by the hon. member in
his motion. However, it was not one that found favour with the
majority of the members and accordingly was not in the report.
(1415)
Why was it not there? The place to look is the report of the
royal commission itself. The royal commission did an extensive
review of political donations in Canada. It went over not only
the volume, that is the total number and the number of people
who contributed, but it also looked at their source.
I would like to read a brief passage from volume I of the royal
commission report. The page number does not appear on my
photocopy, but it follows table 7.1. The report reads:
Large contributions from individuals are even less important as a share of total
party revenue. In 1988, contributions of $2,000 or more from individuals
accounted for 11.3 per cent of the total value of contributions to the Progressive
Conservative Party and 7.9 per cent of contributions to the Liberal Party; only 14
individuals contributed more than $10,000 to the three largest national parties
that year. The largest contribution from an individual-$103,000-was made to
the New Democratic Party by Irene Dyck, and the largest donations to the
Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties from individuals were $40,000
each.
The largest single contribution in 1988 was just over $1 million; it was made
to the New Democratic Party by the Canadian Labour Congress.
One suspects perhaps that they are not going to be so generous
in the future.
Contributions exceeding $10,000 from trade unions accounted for 11 per
cent of total contributions to the New Democratic Party in 1988.
In reviewing the situation, the commission recognized that
limiting contributions to individuals to $5,000 would have been
very damaging to what was then one of Canada's three larger
political parties. I would not call it one of the major parties, but
it was one of the larger ones. To change the law, to restrict it in
this way, would have serious repercussions.
I should note for the record what the recommendation of the
royal commission was. I will quote recommendation 1.7.10:
We recommend that the Canada Elections Act not impose limits on the size of
contributions to registered political parties, registered constituency
associations, candidates, nomination contestants and leadership contestants.
I think it is very fair to point this out. The vital thing about this
part of the commission's report is that they did say, and I will
quote from the page a little higher up:
We recommend that disclosure requirements be broadened to cover registered
constituency associations, as well as nomination and leadership campaigns. We
also propose that twice a year, registered parties and constituency associations
report on contributions, including the date each was received, and that their
reports be filed within three months of the end of the reporting period.
The commission was recommending far greater reporting as
an obligation on parties and constituency associations so that
the members of the public could see who was making
contributions to these organizations. The commission took the
view-and I submit it was a correct and good view-that
transparency in the process would make up for the lack of a limit
because the limits can be got around altogether too easily.
The hon. member for Richelieu was a member of the
Progressive Conservative Party before he fell by the wayside.
He knows very well that the members of his party on the election
reform committee, of which I had the honour to be a member,
reviewed the situation of the Quebec law and discussed it fully
in the committee. They were of the view that the $5,000 limit
was one that was easily avoided by either corporations or trade
unions, by those organizations making gifts of money to
members who could then pass the money along as political
donations to political parties.
In other words, a corporation that had $50,000 or $100,000 it
wanted to give to a party could do it either by giving it to 20
different constituency associations in lumps of $5,000 or-the
hon. member laughs. I regard that as a bit of coach and horses.
Through the intent of his motion he may think it is legitimate, I
am not so sure.
(1420 )
The other possibility is to hand the money out to directors or
officers or members of the corporation and have them make the
donations to the political parties involved. The money can be got
there if a labour union or a corporation is intent on doing it.
It is quite unreasonable to put this restriction on these bodies
so long as they have to disclose the amount of their contributions
and that is exactly what the royal commission proposed.
It is exactly what our party proposed in the discussions in the
committee. It is what we would have preferred to have and had
we not run into so much obstruction from the now-gone Tories
we would have achieved a law that would have done exactly that
and brought about the disclosure.
I hope the hon. member will accept these comments in the
spirit they are intended, will look at his motion in a new light
and maybe withdraw it.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments the hon. member just made. It
indicates a debate and perhaps a bit of a difference of opinion on
this matter.
2508
I am pleased to add my comments to the debate. It represents
an opportunity for the government to begin to help restore the
faith of Canadians in the electoral process.
In the past we have seen Parliament held hostage to a variety
of special interest groups by their contributions. They have
found support in some or all of the recognized political parties
of the past. My comments are really intended on a non-partisan
basis.
Special interest groups have found support in some or all of
the recognized political parties. The interests of Canadians have
been neglected by politicians appeasing the demands of large
financial contributors. A wide spectrum of demands from
business, unions and even federally funded special interest
groups are regularly brought to members and to the government
itself.
In politics one soon learns that nothing is free. Whatever is
accepted will have an invoice following along sooner or later.
The larger the gift the larger the price tag on it.
The premise of this motion is not new. As the hon. member for
Richelieu has already pointed out, the province of Quebec has
had similar legislation in place for over 15 years. There is a
difference. Quebec's contribution limit is $3,000. Even with this
$3,000 limit Quebec's provincial Liberal Party was able to raise
$6.5 million during the 1986-87 campaign.
Shortage of campaign funds has not been a problem. Instead
Quebec has been able to add real credibility to its legislature in
these reforms.
John Parisella, director general of the Quebec Liberal Party at
the time supported this contribution limit by claiming: ``There
is no way a government is going to sell its soul for $3,000. No
individual company has a hold on us. Nobody owns this
government''.
One has to look no further than the current New Democratic
Party government in British Columbia to understand the danger
of political manipulation. Unions have been major supporters of
NDP campaigns. Since the last provincial election the unions
have really hit pay dirt. Only unionized companies are permitted
to bid for most government contracts. Also businesses that have
solid records of treating their employees fairly are now being
forced to accept union intervention without their employees
even having a vote. We cannot permit special interests to
dominate the political agenda simply because they give money
to a political party.
François Gérin, who the member has already mentioned, a
Quebec Conservative during the last two terms of government
was the main advocate for federal reform of political
contributions. He argued that a party's acceptance of large
contributions was a conflict of interest that brought the whole
political process into question. He understood the perception of
his constituents as he said: ``Someone who works all year to earn
$15,000 and has a family of three cannot understand that
somebody will give $25,000 and ask nothing for it''. The
average family income in his riding at that time was only
$15,000.
(1425)
François Gérin demonstrated in his own riding the capability
to run a campaign without huge contributions during a
non-election period. With only 23 per cent party support on the
national opinion polls, his constituency association was able to
raise three times as much money as he needed to fund an
election. In his case he used a strict limit of $1,000 maximum
contribution.
Despite his many attempts, Mr. Gérin was never able to
convince the Conservative government to change the Canada
Elections Act. He did convince the Quebec caucus of the
Conservative Party to adopt this policy. In the 1988 general
election every member of the Quebec caucus took a vow to
accept only personal contributions.
The results were quite surprising: Conservative candidates
won 62 of the 75 seats, a greater success than even the Bloc
Quebecois received in the last federal election. While the
Conservatives received only 43 per cent of the popular support
in 1988 across Canada, in Quebec that percentage was 51 per
cent. In his own riding Gérin received a decisive 60 per cent of
voter support. A significant amount of this additional voter
support resulted from the increased interaction he had with his
constituents.
Limiting the size of contributions means depending on
broader support; depending on a broader support base requires
more interaction with the voters. With that, financial support
becomes a more significant demonstration of an electoral
mandate.
As matters now stand, voting at the polls can often be a last
minute decision resulting in a luck of the draw election win. In
such instances those voting may give little real consideration to
the value of their vote.
The opposite can be true by candidates and their parties
reaching out to include even those who can make only the
smallest contributions. Those considering supporting a
campaign with their money will take the time to develop an
understanding of the issues, the local candidates and the
political parties they represent.
Corporate and personal tax considerations may vary greatly.
Regardless of who makes the contribution, the same tax credit is
realized. But this tax credit is of limited value to an individual,
whereas after claiming a tax credit a corporation can, and
corporations have, written off larger amounts as advertising or
promotion expenses.
This has resulted in leaders of business, unions, special
interest groups and lobbyists using their influence and other
people's money to contribute to political campaigns instead of
using their own personal money.
2509
The intention of this motion is to prevent this abuse. A few
powerful individuals are often in positions to make decisions
that are paid for by using other people's money without their
consent.
Trade unions have freely spent money raised through
membership dues to support particular parties. In the case of
publicly held corporations, what could have been shareholders'
profits have been used to support a particular political party.
Money donated to special interest groups for special purposes is
sometimes re-routed to fund political campaigns.
This motion would allow only individual constituents the
opportunity to make a political contribution to any legitimate
party or nominated candidate to a limit of $5,000.
Elections are intended to democratically elect governments
that best represent the desires of the people. We must not permit
powerful individuals using other people's money to dominate
the political agenda or the democratic process.
Limiting the amount any individual can contribute will give a
truer representation of a political party's popular support.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I am having a hard time believing what I just heard
from the hon. member from the Reform Party.
The hon. member tells us that political party candidates
should be restricted in the amounts they receive. However only
days ago his leader advocated that non-political parties should
have the right to campaign, to contest and to challenge MPs and
others with no restrictions at all.
(1430 )
There is something wrong when that kind of mindset sets in.
There are rules for MPs and there is no rule for the National
Citizens Coalition to campaign against him and yet he has to be
subject to rules far more strict than the ones we have already.
I have another difficulty with the propositions advanced by
the member. He said in his opening remarks the larger the gift,
the larger the price tag. That is an insult to every Canadian who
contributes to the electoral process. No one is going to tell me
that my constituents who are making $20,000 or $25,000 a year,
who come to my annual fund raiser and give me $100 are doing it
to get something in return. I do not think my constituents
deserve to be insulted by the likes of that. Neither do the
member's.
Mr. Plamondon: Nobody said that.
Mr. Boudria: I was quoting the original remarks of the
member from the Reform Party who just spoke-the larger the
gift, the larger the price tag-referring to Canadians who gave
their hard earned money to make sure that they have quality
Canadians running for public office. No Canadians need to be
insulted that way.
Mr. Plamondon: Qui te paie pour parler comme ça?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a couple of
minutes to tell this House how I raised money during my
election campaign or otherwise. There is an annual fund raiser in
my constituency at which people contribute $100. Last year 400
people attended the event. Granted, it was an election year.
Normally approximately 300 or 325 people show up for this
event. Many Liberal MPs attend the function in question as well.
I know people who have attended the event who make $15,000 a
year. I also have three other events a year to which people come
and pay $5 for a spaghetti dinner.
Then I hear the member from the Reform Party who just spoke
making these kinds of broad accusations that everyone who
contributed toward the political process is some sort of a
sleazebag.
Mr. Milliken: Shame.
Mr. Boudria: Those comments on the part of the member
should be withdrawn. People contribute toward the process
because they want good government. People who contributed to
the member's campaign felt that he would do a good job and I do
not believe that his constituents had a self-interest in
contributing or helping him to get elected. They wanted good
government just like the people who contributed to getting me or
you elected, Mr. Speaker. The same thing applies. They do not
deserve to be insulted because they took their holidays to work
on an election campaign or took a couple of days from their pay
cheques to contribute or because they took 15 minutes of what
they would have spent on their coffee breaks to contribute.
I go back to the rest of the issue at hand, the motion by the
member for Richelieu.
[Translation]
The hon. member knows that the Lortie commission did in
fact recommend that no restriction be put on contributions. Of
course, there should always be restrictions on contributions
from foreign sources, to ensure that the Canadian system
remains accountable to Canadians. I agree with that.
Mr. Milliken: The Conservatives did not agree with the
proposition.
Mr. Boudria: We know that others did not agree with the
proposition, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
just mentioned so appropriately and eloquently.
[English]
There is also the whole issue of the application of the charter
to this kind of limitation.
Finally, I want to draw to the attention of this House how the
application of such a rule as the member for Richelieu is
advocating would be implemented.
2510
[Translation]
We are aware that similar rules exist in some jurisdictions, for
example at the provincial level in Ontario, where I used to be an
MPP, as most of you know. That legislature puts a cap on
contributions. However, if an individual wants to give more than
the limit which, I believe, is set at $1,150 per year in Ontario,
that person simply gives the extra money to his or her spouse or
son, so as to circumvent the rule-
(1435)
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Richelieu on a point of order.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just
suggested that people from Ontario are dishonest. People from
Ontario are not dishonest. They are not cheats.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is not a point of
order, but this is leading to debate.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as you have said it yourself, this is
not a point of order. This is not even a good point, as the hon.
member should know.
The point I want to make is that rules like this one, which can
be so easily violated that it becomes absurd in a way, should
never come into force.
I believe that it is more up to members of this House to stop
saying that all those who contribute to a political system expect
something in return, as was pointed out by the member from the
Reform Party. However, I commend the member for Richelieu
for putting the issue to the House. I know his intentions are
honourable. He moved this motion because he too wants public
standards of behaviour to be high.
Our party and our government made a commitment in this
regard and, in the last few months, we noticed that Canadians
realize that the government is there to serve them and not to
serve its own interests.
Mr. Milliken: True.
Mr. Boudria: I would say the same about my colleagues
opposite and I will say that the old ways of doing things are
gone. Canadians got rid of all but two of those responsible for
the situation we were in.
I would like to conclude by saying that I do not intend to
support this motion. However, I congratulate the hon. member
for Richelieu because I know that he meant well. But I want to
warn all members of the House against making absurd
accusations against people who want to contribute to the
democratic process.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I support wholeheartedly this motion
regarding the funding of political parties through individual
contributions brought in this afternoon by my friend and
colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu.
I want to point out to the House that this is an historic moment
since it is the first time that such a motion calling for federal
political parties in Canada to be funded only through individual
contributions is introduced in the House of Commons.
The concern of my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu,
for this issue is nothing new. He has been working on this
initiative since 1988 and it is very important to him since 1988.
He is convinced that attitudes have evolved and that Canadians
are ready for a major change in the area of political party
financing.
Canada, like other modern countries, must keep up with the
times. It must follow the example set by the province of Quebec,
which was not afraid to do away with questionable and
anti-democratic electoral practices. It is obvious that the
Constitutional Act, 1791, gave us not only a parliamentary
system of government, but certain electoral practices as well.
(1440)
History shows that individuals and organizations have always
made self-serving contributions, giving a lot to control a lot.
Even in its early days at the end of the 18th century
parliamentarism had its champions of influence-peddling.
Political parties and their sponsors would often offer an election
favour to a hoodlum in exchange for beating up a stubborn voter.
There are numerous examples of notables who were in
constant conflict of interest with political parties. A serious
analysis will show that the the government's decisions were
undoubtedly favourable to those who controlled the ruling party,
who controlled democracy as the member for Richelieu said so
well.
Mr. Speaker, it has to be recognized, and the House will agree,
that election mores and practices have changed in Canada.
Indeed some practices have disappeared while others remain.
Some new practices meet obstacles, namely the financing of
political parties by voters only. This would concern the whole
electoral system.
Not so long ago I was a young man living a quiet life in the
small town of Coleraine located in the beautiful riding of
Frontenac. My father, a well-known businessman and
experienced merchant was a Liberal Party member and
organizer. Of course, that was back in the 1940s and 1950s and at
that time, the Bloc Quebecois did not exist as a political party in
Quebec. My father had a decisive influence on me and I
inherited from him my interest in politics. The only thing I could
have faulted him
2511
for at the time, given the political experience I now have, would
of course be that he was a Liberal.
At the time, I had been amazed by some electineering tactics
that Liberal organizers were practising in the riding of
Megantic, Quebec. It took me some time to understand the
connection between a refrigerator or a Bélanger electrical stove
and a constituent. Later on I understood the meaning of the
slogan: ``Give the party a buck and you will get it back with a
1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 per cent interest''.
I have seen this with my own eyes, Mr. Speaker. I know what I
am talking about. However, in 1994, these days are gone. This
should not exist any more, and my colleague, the hon. member
for Richelieu, expressed it very well when he proposed in his
motion a principle that should allow constituents to control our
electoral system and thus respect democracy and become the
true possessors of that democracy.
The urgency of reform is recognized by every party. The
previous speaker on the government side did say that his party
was considering a reform of funding for political parties, but we
will see how much courage they show and, especially, how fast
they act. Will we have a committee or a sub-committee? I am
anxious to see.
(1445)
In November 1988, the leader of the Conservative Party,
Brian Mulroney, promised to bring in public financing of
political parties. Recognizing the effectiveness of Quebec's
legislation on this subject, Mr. Mulroney thought it necessary to
end financial contributions from corporations and unions.
For some time, people have been talking about credibility and
trust and the government and the governing party are talking
more and more about openness. We will see. Now is the time to
prove this openness. They remember the sorry errors committed
by members of the former government. They remember the
conflicts of interest, the resignations, the dismissals and so on.
There must be no hesitation when the integrity of the
government is at stake and especially when the integrity of
Parliament is at stake. This House must show exemplary
honesty. Those who have been elected to lead the nation must
show the way. Very early in his first mandate, René Lévesque
understood the need to clean up election practices by forbidding
any corporation to contribute to the election fund of political
parties. The 1977 Quebec Bill, to which several of my
colleagues have referred, remains a model of financing by the
people and of how to clean up the electoral system itself.
Those who doubt that it can work need only come to Quebec to
see how it works. As was just said, the Quebec Liberal Party has
collected much more just from the voters in Quebec than the
Liberal Party of Canada has collected in that province from big
companies, banks, etc.
In 1977, the press at the time was categorical and here I quote
from La Presse: ``Although the Parti Quebecois has rushed the
process, this legislation is absolutely necessary; it is shaking up
fund-raisers, upsetting many vested interests and destroying
hidden influences that are unhealthy for the proper functioning
of democracy''. What was true in Quebec in 1977 is even more
so in Canada in 1994. This motion means the end of slush funds
and of influence peddling and the beginning of healthy
democracy.
I close on this point: public financing remains the way of the
future for our political parties. The present government must be
concerned about it and accept the motion of the member for
Richelieu. Canadian democracy-I repeat-Canadian
democracy will be much better for it.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with great intensity to the debate, both
in the lobby when I had some phone business to do and in the
House as much as I could.
I am here today because I am very interested in the motion of
the hon. member for Richelieu. It affects all of us in the House.
There is not a member sitting here who is not affected by the
issue. If there is any issue that affects us all, it is this one.
I come here with an open mind. I have listened attentively and
objectively to the arguments that have been put forth on both
sides of the House. Quite frankly I take a certain comfort in my
view of democracy. We have already studied the issue. We have
looked at the issue. We have looked at other alternatives. To
analyse it properly, as I understand the motion of the hon.
member for Richelieu there are two aspects to it. One is that the
donation should be made by an individual. The second is that the
donation should be not more than $5,000.
(1450)
The Lortie commission looked at the whole business of
contribution to parties. In the last Parliament it was studied with
great seriousness and was the focus of an awful lot of discussion
both in committee and in the House.
In the hon. member's opinion his view of the world and
democracy would improve the situation. The only reason for
putting forward his private member's bill is to provide another
form of control of the business of electioneering in Canada. As I
say, we have already looked at this item and it has been studied.
There are existing controls on contributions and spending
with respect to federal elections. Probably the greatest one is the
very clear and explicit directions to members of Parliament and
candidates on (a) how much they can spend, (b) how they can
spend it, (c) the maximum limit that they can use to the cent and
(d) how that has to be accounted for. If we are looking for
2512
control, how money is spent in an election is very clearly
defined.
There is another aspect which does not necessarily pertain
only to the responsibility of the candidate, that is that a donation
has to be reported. Any donation over $100 to a federal political
organization has to be reported publicly. I feel fairly confident
that with those two measures in place, if the hon. member's
intent was to be concerned about control, there is excellent
control. I do not think we need any more control. I have already
raised the point that this has been studied democratically,
debated democratically and decided on democratically.
There are other aspects as well. If we are to agree with and to
approve what the hon. member is suggesting, there are other
aspects we must look at. We cannot take the bill in its singularity
and in isolation of other aspects.
The following aspects have been looked at. I am referring now
to the source of donations, the amount of donations and other
contributions to parties and their candidates, the definition of
election expenses, limits on third party expenditures and tax
deductions. If we open the door again we have to open it fully.
The underlying current I have heard alluded to a couple of
times is very disturbing. The concern, somewhat obliquely
stressed, is that there is a return other than the participation in
democracy. I find that quite antagonizing. I find it disruptive. I
do not find it democratic. I have not seen in my time in politics a
return in any form other than the election of a member to
represent people.
As one of the 295 members of the House I find it quite
offensive for one of my hon. colleagues to suggest that those
people who give freely of their time, their money and their
resources do so for any other reason than to contribute to the
democracy of this great country.
To summarize, I have taken into consideration the points
made by the other side of the House, some of which are good
points. However I come down on the side of saying that I do not
see any compelling argument for me to support the bill as it
stands or if it were considered in the larger context.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 98(1) the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence.
Before closing the day, I know the member for
Mission-Coquitlam is seeking the floor. A few weeks ago, if I
recall correctly, she shared with us the good news that she was
expecting to be a grandmother. I wonder if she could bring us up
to date on that matter before we adjourn for the rest of the week.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I
have a seventh grandchild. He is a boy. His name is David
Michael Jennings. He weighed in at 9 pounds, 5 ounces.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 2.55 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.55 p.m.)