TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, April 15, 1994
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motions 3085
Bill C-9. Consideration at report stage 3085
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3085
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3086
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3087
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 3087
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3087
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motions 3088
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3089
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3094
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3094
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3096
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3096
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3097
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3097
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3097
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3097
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3097
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3098
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3098
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3098
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3098
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3099
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3099
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3099
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3099
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3099
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3099
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3100
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3100
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3100
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3100
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3101
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3102
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3102
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 3103
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3104
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3104
Motion for concurrence in 16th report 3105
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 3106
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3106
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3106
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motions 3108
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3115
Division on motion deferred 3118
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3118
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3122
3085
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 15, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 14 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 22, 1994, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate. The
hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the
motion of Mr. Milliken. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, in case a vote is called for, I
wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House to
defer the taking of the vote until 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday next.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies):
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We were supposed to have a
debate today on Bill C-17.
An hon. member: You were not there.
Mr. Pomerleau: We are now.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When I called the
debate, not a single member rose to take the floor, and in that
case, the question is put. Members who wish to speak in debate
must be in the House and rise in their seat.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Madam Speaker, if
I am not mistaken, I believe you gave everyone plenty of time.
Personally, I said ``question'' more than five times. You looked
around the House. You even asked members whether they
wanted to speak. When no one rose, you rose yourself to put the
question. Everyone was given plenty of time. I am sorry. We
were prepared to have a debate, but now the question has been
put. That is how it is.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): A motion has been
moved to defer the taking of the division until 6.30 p.m. next
Tuesday.
Is there unanimous consent for deferring the division?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(6), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred
until 6.30 p.m. on Monday, April 18, 1994.
* * *
On the Order: Government Orders: Bill C-9, an act to amend
the Income Tax Act, reported by a committee without
amendment.
An hon. member: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe, on a point of order.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, I
told you, and I want to make it clear, that my colleagues and I did
not hear the request for debate. We simply heard a question, not
that debate was being called.
Madam Speaker, I would ask you to please reconsider your
decision.
3086
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I called debate after the
clerk read the Orders of the Day.
(1010)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): On a point
of order, Madam Speaker. We were both in our seats when you
asked if we wished to proceed with the debate. We answered by
saying ``débat'', because we do want to speak on this bill. I do
not understand-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would point out to the
hon. member that when the Chair calls for the debate to begin, a
member must rise in his place. No member did in fact rise when I
called for debate.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): On a point of order,
Madam Speaker. I would like to support the comments on the
point of order made by my other colleagues on this side of the
House. Our members also were here prepared to debate. We did
not hear the Chair indicate that this was an appropriate time to
begin the debate. We believe this debate should go forward this
morning as we have clearly indicated we are prepared to do. We
have submitted speakers to the Chair. It was obvious that we
were ready to go ahead and we think that the process should have
allowed us to hear and realize that this was the time to do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In response to the point
of order by the hon. member for Calgary North, I called the
debate, I named one of the ridings on the member's list
effectively. That member was not in his place and did not rise.
The question was called for and once I have called the question it
is too late to go back to debate unless we have unanimous
consent of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order. It has always been my impression that the goal of
this House is to allow members to speak on issues put before
Parliament by the government. In this particular instance, I
would point out that in order for the debate to flow smoothly,
insofar as the translation in both official languages is concerned,
the Chair must co-operate with members and show considerable
understanding, and vice-versa.
As far as this particular debate is concerned, members were
prepared to speak. That includes members of our party and of the
other party as well. My colleagues indicated to me that they
were somewhat unclear on the approach taken to this debate.
They did not understand exactly at what point in the proceedings
the Chair was and they wonder if perhaps the Chair could not
have been a little more tolerant toward the members who wanted
to speak on this subject, in particular the member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, even though apparently they had
missed their opportunity to do so.
I think one thing should be made clear. We need your
co-operation to ensure that the proceedings flow smoothly, as
the government needs ours. The smooth running of Parliament
depends on this mutual trust. Tricks should not be played on
members and the Chair should not move hastily to ask if
someone wishes to speak and when no member rises
immediately, move on to something else. We know that the
Standing Orders require that we ask for the floor. We have an
agreement which works very well for Question Period. Members
do not have to clamour to be recognized. The Speaker proceeds
in a specific order. Some customs in this House cannot be
overlooked. If my colleagues were to understand from your
decision that they must now rise and shout in order to be
recognized, then the complexion of this House could change
rather dramatically.
(1015)
Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your
decision and allow our colleagues to speak. Our goal is not to
muzzle members, but to give them an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
there is obviously a problem here this morning but, in my
opinion, the problem is not on the government side.
When the House met, you called for debate on the question
before the House, on this bill at second reading, twice. Yes, you
called for debate twice and you even called on a member who
was not in the House to start the debate. The member was not
here. Only two Bloc members were here in the House. And I am
sure that these two members could not have participated in the
debate because the member for Richmond-Wolfe has already
delivered his speech on this bill; he cannot make another one.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I was here. I rise on a point
of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Milliken: No. I am on a point of order. Wait for your turn.
May I refer all members and you, Madam Speaker, to
Standing Order 17:
Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place, uncovered, and
address the Speaker.
[
English]
It is vital that members rise. No one rose to debate. We sat
here and called for the question and finally after a lengthy
delay-I submit a more than adequate delay-Your Honour put
the question to the House. The question was put, the votes were
called for, and then members realized after the vote had been
called for that there was a problem because they wanted to
debate.
There is a third reading on this bill. Members will have ample
opportunity to debate the bill at third reading. We have had three
days on the bill already. I do not understand why there is an
objection now, after the vote has been taken, when none of them
3087
was here ready to debate when the order was called at ten
o'clock.
It is not the responsibility of the government to do more than
make the opportunity available. It was available. The members
failed to show up and now they are complaining about it. Madam
Speaker, you cannot be responsible for their tardiness.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe has risen. Does he want to speak to the same
point of order?
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Yes, Madam
Speaker. First, I would like to set the record straight. I was in
this House and I did not speak in this debate.
Second, I think you were aware, as you were given the names
of the speakers in this debate, that we were going to rise. Reform
members had also given notice that they would rise.
I do not intend to continue and stir up a dispute. What you
must realize, regarding our mutual co-operation in this debate,
is that we in the Bloc did not quite understand the meaning of
your announcement. This is why we are asking you to exercise
your authority and your good judgment. We misinterpreted your
remarks.
So if in the future we in the Bloc must alter our relationship
regarding this co-operation, you must tell us clearly that
sometimes you cannot make use of your good judgment to allow
the debate to go on. And I think the party in power should
consider that what is important in this part of House proceedings
is to allow members to speak to get through the whole process in
a democratic fashion. That is basically why we make speeches.
It is a matter of democracy.
And if the party in power wants to muzzle us this morning,
knowing full well that we had members ready to speak, Madam
Speaker, I call on your good judgment and ask you for a ruling.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Charlevoix on the same point of order.
(1020)
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Speaker, with all
due respect I think that the authority over this House rests with
the person occupying the Chair; you are vested with that
authority.
Earlier, at the opening of the sitting, to make the Chair's job
easier, I tabled on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois the complete list
of our members who wished to speak. Two of my colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois had taken their seats when I handed in
my list at the Clerk's table. At the same time, you asked: ``Are
there hon. members who wish to ask questions?'' At that precise
moment, I was at the Clerk's table dropping off my list in
duplicate, with one copy for the Clerk and one for the Chair, to
help identify those members who were to speak.
When you called a member from the Reform Party to speak, if
he was not here at the time, you should have called the next
speaker, namely Gérard Asselin, member for Charlevoix, the
first name on that list. I was right here, at the Clerk's table.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Madam Speaker, I could not agree
more with the hon. member for Roberval when he says that
co-operation from all hon. members in all parties and from the
Chair is essential to the proper operation of this House. But I
would like to add that the same kind of co-operation must be
shown by members in debate, when we have to rise to indicate to
the Chair our desire to speak.
That did not happen, and seeing that no one was rising in his or
her place, you simply put the question, which was perfectly in
order. Madam Speaker, for the sake of preserving the good will
prevailing in this House, we would be prepared, on this side, to
consent to revert to debate and give these people the chance to
speak. We are prepared to do this to accommodate you as well as
the hon. members opposite.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I just want to remind
hon. members of this House that the orders of the day had been
called and that I had called for debate. Not one single member
rose in his or her place, as required for debate. Furthermore, the
government side asked for the question to be put. As no hon.
member indicated a desire to speak, I then put the question.
I would have a question for the government whip. Could the
unanimous consent of the House be sought to revert to debate?
The hon. member for Roberval has the floor, on a point of
order.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, I understood the
Secretary of State to say that he allowed the debate to resume.
So, quite simply, that means the government no longer objects.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order! I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but his microphone is not on. The
whip's mike was not on.
So let us go back. Is there unanimous consent of the House to
revert to the debate on Bill C-17?
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, we will give unanimous
consent to the proposition on the understanding that the question
will be put on the motions by the conclusion of the time allotted
for government orders this day.
3088
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): I would have a question for you,
Madam Speaker.
We are satisfied with the decision just rendered and the
agreement just made in this House. Nevertheless, for our future
guidance, I gather from your decision that the indicative lists of
speakers that we provide you are no longer useful and are
worthless. We have always been opposed to providing the Chair
with a list of members who should speak in the question period
during debate.
(1025)
I must conclude from your decision that these lists are no
longer useful in our work and that members will have to ask for
the floor as the debate proceeds. That is how I understand your
decision. I would like you to enlighten me on that, because we
will not make a list just for the fun of it. We will proceed
differently in future.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The lists are still very
useful, but they are to be seen only as a guide. Members must
rise in their place to be recognized.
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
would like to clarify events. We too are happy that the debate
can go forward as it ought to so that everyone can be heard on the
matter. However, when one of our members was recognized who
was not present-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. We have responded many times that you are
just as essential but it is more essential that the member called
be seated in his or her seat.
We have resolved the question and I resume debate with the
hon. member for Charlevoix.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22,
1994, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and
of the motion.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate this morning in the debate at second
reading of Bill C-17, which deals with the budget.
Let me give a little background on Canada's budget, debt and
deficit. In 1980-when the Liberals were in office-a debt was
generated, as well as a deficit which set the first record. Four
years later, in 1984, the debt had climbed to $187 billion with
Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in charge, and the current
Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, as his Minister of Finance.
From 1980 to 1984, 74 of the 75 members representing
Quebec in this House were Liberals. There was only one
Conservative MP in the province, namely Roch LaSalle from
Joliette. What did the Liberal members representing Quebec do
in this House? Were they muzzled by MPs from English
Canada?
The debt of $187 billion which the Conservatives inherited
from the Liberals in 1984 had grown to $500 billion by 1993. In
1988, the riding of Charlevoix was represented by a
Conservative member; however, it was represented by a Liberal
from 1980 to 1984.
Between 1984 and 1993, the member for Charlevoix and
Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, was at the helm and
left a debt of $500 billion, which costs Canadians $108 million
every day in interest charges. Six months later, Canada's debt
stands at $525 billion, costs $110 million a day in interest, and
the Liberal government is proud of the Minister of Finance's
budget. A deficit of $39.7 billion-which sets the second record
in this House-is something unheard of until now. The
government wants to reduce the deficit by creating deficits.
Many Liberal MPs are uncomfortable with this $39.7-billion
deficit but, unfortunately, when the vote is taken in this House,
the Liberals, who are too uncomfortable to discuss this issue,
will prove us right and vote for their budget because they are
once again muzzled by the government.
(1030)
Madam Speaker, you cannot gag members for years and years.
If you do, they will try to speak from the side of their mouths and
those who enjoy a long career in this House might end up with a
crooked mouth. Liberal members must have the opportunity to
vote freely on the budget, which will then undoubtedly be
rejected.
There is no light at the end of the tunnel. This budget contains
a lot of increases. People in Charlevoix will be affected by all
these measures, since the government has increased
unemployment insurance premiums for workers and taxes for
the elderly. It has increased the deficit as well as the number of
unemployed Canadians and helped to create a feeling of social
insecurity in this country. Unfortunately, all of this will have a
negative impact on my constituents in Charlevoix.
The budget does not only include increases, it also contains
cuts that we have to mention here, if only to be honest. Social
programs are cut by $7.5 billion over three years. Instead of
dealing with unemployment, the government has chosen to go
after the unemployed. The government also cut social housing
and daycare programs, as well as assistance to low-income
families, job training, post-secondary education, assistance to
single-parent families, help for families with handicapped
people and programs to help the handicapped re-enter the labour
force. All this in the International Year of the Family.
3089
The government did not take its responsibilities. It has no
backbone. It should have cut where cuts are needed. It should
have cut the Senate budget, ministers' expenses and pension
funds of members of Parliament. It should also have set the age
of pension eligibility at 60. People in Charlevoix, in Quebec and
in Canada are being hurt and this budget will only increase the
poverty level. This week, the Prime Minister was pleased to tell
us that the unemployment rate was down, but when
unemployment decreases by 2 per cent in Quebec, welfare
increases by 2 per cent.
I want to remind members that the Bloc Quebecois tabled a
motion in this House to set up a committee to examine all
government expenditures, item by item, department by
department, to review the Auditor General's recommendations
and to report on these issues. Auditors General, past and present,
have always done a good job. Unfortunately, their reports have
always been overlooked.
The government is seeking additional revenues. In the red
book, the Liberal government said it would abolish the GST.
Why do they want to do so? Because this tax is visible and the
Liberals want a hidden tax. Why? So they can raise the GST
from 7 to 12 per cent. They want to broaden the tax base to be
able to tax food products, drugs, education, volunteer
organizations and charities. Who will pay and suffer? Not the
senators, but workers and consumers, low-income families,
seniors, single-parent families, the unemployed, students, the
handicapped-of which I have many in my riding of Charlevoix.
They are the ones who elected me to represent them and defend
their interests. That is why I speak today, to defend their
interests.
There are too many welfare recipients and UI beneficiaries in
Charlevoix. Once these people have paid for rent, food, clothing
and hydro, which are necessities, they cannot afford to buy
medication for their children or for themselves.
(1035)
Let us look at what the government has spent. According to an
old saying, money cannot buy happiness. That may well be true,
but money sure helps to pay the bills. The government spent
$800 million to implement the GST, but it cost small businesses
$6.4 billion. Yes, the GST needs to be improved. Canada is
going deeper and deeper into the red, the budget is in the red and
the deficit is not getting any smaller under this Liberal
government.
The message is clear: Quebecers do not trust the federal
system anymore. The people of Charlevoix proved it on October
25. Quebecers from 54 ridings proved that they have finally
understood that the federal government is no longer effective.
Liberal or Conservative, it is all the same.
I have to thank the people of Charlevoix, both the
sovereignists and the disenchanted federalists, who voted for me
and sent me here to protect their interests in this House today.
It was Paul Martin, the minister, who said that the House of
Commons is a theatre. On October 25, the people of Quebec
tried to change the actors in this House. If the House of
Commons is a theatre, it is important also to change the horror
movie that is playing here, the one about social insecurity in
Quebec and in Canada.
Is it the politicians who spend too much or the bureaucrats
who are guilty of mismanagement? I asked the Minister of
Finance this question. His answer was: the politicians, of
course, because we lack control mechanisms.
In closing, I would like to leave a clear message with the
people of Charlevoix and of Quebec. Tomorrow's generation
will have to foot the bill. I hope that Quebecers will choose the
only solution that will enable us to help them. They will very
soon be given another option, namely Quebec's sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, I listened to the member from
the Bloc Quebecois and I have to ask myself whether or not I
have been working in the same Chamber, in the same Parliament
of Canada, as he has this week.
I must say that even when one is in government there are many
days when one shares the opposition's frustration with the speed
with which things happen around here. We know that the private
sector moves much more quickly than we do. It is just a fact of
life.
The rules are different. The systems of checks and balances
are not as rigorous as the checks and balances in Parliament but
those checks and balances are here for accountability. We do not
have the luxury that the private sector has of making decisions
arbitrarily and flying them through the system in 24 hours.
I know there are many Canadians who would like to see it
happen that way. There are days when I feel that is the way it
should happen, but that is not the reality. We have accomplished
some things in the last few weeks that were related to the
economy of his community, my community, our country.
Look at the work that members of the Bloc, members of the
Reform Party and our members have done. Look at the work that
we have done in the industry committee on accessing capital to
small business. It is important that members tell their
constituents that the financial institutions of Canada are
beginning to move. They are beginning to respond.
3090
Look at the tremendous announcement that we received this
week from the Royal Bank of Canada on its new $125 million
venture capital fund for knowledge based industries. That is a
first.
(1040 )
I know it is not the be all and end all but our responsibility,
and I say this to the Bloc through you, Madam Speaker, is not to
just talk about the frustrations that we all go through in this
institution. It is also to talk about some of the real meaningful
things that we have accomplished here and we have
accomplished some good things this week.
I would suggest that access to capital for small and medium
sized businesses is beginning to happen and in a better way. We
know we have a long way to go but members should tell their
constituents about that. Part of our responsibility here is to deal
in hope.
There is a second matter that I have to remind the members of
the Bloc of because they are always questioning this: ``What is
in Canada for Quebecers? What is in Canada? Why should we be
here? It is not working''. I have repeated this message several
times, and I am going to say it over and over: I cannot
understand why the members of the Bloc refuse to talk about the
announcement of the Minister of Finance on January 21, that is
how far back it goes, when he announced the terms of the five
year equalization renewal.
The minister announced that under the equalization act, an act
of Confederation, over the next five years Quebec would receive
$70 billion over and above the other basic allocations on
programs and services. That additional $70 billion being
transferred to the province of Quebec over the next five years is
an unfettered, unguided, no strings attached entitlement.
Does that not mean anything to their constituents? Through
Confederation, this federation of Canada, in the name of
fairness-and in no way, shape or form am I questioning
this-there is a $70 billion transfer under equalization from the
have provinces to the have not provinces.
By the way, for the previous five years there was about $58
billion. We are talking over the last five years and the next five
years about $130 billion being transferred to Quebec under the
equalization entitlement.
In my community no one questions that, but they think that is
a meaningful amount of money. I have never heard a member of
the Bloc say yes, equalization is a good thing, and they do in fact
recognize it. They always stand up and say: ``We are entitled to
that because of the personal and corporate income taxes that we
put into the treasury. We are just getting back what we put in''.
That is not the case. This is $70 billion over and above that.
My point today in responding to the member for Charlevoix is
that yes, there are many areas in this government where there is
room for improvement and efficiency. There are some
duplications that we must figure out and correct.
Of course I take an opposite position from the Bloc. If we
want to talk about eliminating duplications, let us take in the
area of small business programs. I would not suggest that we
eliminate the duplication by just handing over all the small
business programs to the province of Quebec and cancelling the
national government's small business programs. I would say the
reverse. Have the province of Quebec cancel theirs and let the
national government operate them.
I am a traditional Trudeau trained centralist and I believe that
we must have a strong national government. We must have a
strong national government in order to create national
programs. National programs are where we create national will.
That is where we get the spirit that holds the whole country
together.
(1045)
The standards whether they be in education, environment or
health care should be the same whether someone gets sick in
Newfoundland, downtown Toronto, Quebec City or northern
Saskatchewan.
This whole notion members of the Bloc Quebecois have of
wanting to destabilize and dismantle the national government
ultimately works against the citizens not only of Quebec but also
of every region of our country.
I just wanted to take a moment to try and convince the Bloc
Quebecois members that yes, we too are not satisfied with the
speed with which things are happening here. We are trying to
move as fast and as aggressively as we can. However, they
should not forget to tell their constituents about some of the
good things we manage to get done in the House and in
committees day to day.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby):
Madam Speaker, this is the last opportunity I have during these
scheduled debates to speak specifically on the budget.
The budget document outlines the Liberal version of national
priorities. It certainly has now been widely accepted that this
year's budget lacked courage and does not sufficiently respond
to the new realities we are facing in international finance, where
money and wealth have no loyalties. At the mere touch of a key
on a terminal, disgruntled or nervous investors representing
large blocks of funds can turn against an economy when the
wrong signals are sent.
We must not forget that much of what is done in investing and
international finance is in the realm of what is believed may
happen in the future, what is being speculated on.
3091
The range of options a government has in order to perform for
the international audience is becoming smaller. At this point the
Canadian government still has a few choices left but these in
themselves may not be available for long.
Specifically, the enactment of this bill implements various
parts of the February 22, 1994 budget. It affects persons
employed in the public service as well as federally appointed
judges, parliamentary agents, the Governor General, Lieutenant
Governors, parliamentarians and members of the Canadian
Armed Forces and the RCMP.
This law extends the freeze for two years, suspends the
upward movement within salary scales for a two year period and
enables incentive payments to be made to indeterminate
employees of National Defence, Emergency Preparedness and
the Communications Security Establishment under the civilian
reduction program.
It also fixes a maximum on contributions to provinces under
the Canada assistance plan. It extends restrictions on the
payment to provinces under the Public Utilities Income Tax
Transfer Act.
It makes permanent the 10 per cent reduction in payments to
railways under the Atlantic Regions Freight Assistance Act. It
increases the reduction in the government share of freight rates
under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
The act also allows the CBC to borrow money.
The act establishes a two tier benefit rate in unemployment
insurance at 60 per cent for low earners and a basic rate of 55 per
cent. It reduces employee premiums to 3 per cent of insurable
earnings in 1995. There is also a new benefit entitlement
schedule which addresses the link between work history and
duration of entitlement. The minimum entrance requirement is
increased from 10 to 12 weeks of work.
It provides that workers suspended for misconduct, who take
a leave of absence or quit their jobs for a few weeks before the
end of their employment will no longer be disqualified from
receiving benefits for their entire entitlement period. They will
not be entitled to benefits while suspended or on leave or while
their contract of employment continues. The benefit of the doubt
will be given to claimants on these and other issues related to
just cause or misconduct where the evidence is equally
balanced.
The act also authorizes the establishment and operation of
pilot projects to study ways to make unemployment insurance
more efficient.
That is the general description of this bill. However, it really
falls short of what the country needs. I am sure the finance
minister and members of the cabinet are reasonable people who
realize what must be done. The problem is they do not have the
political courage to do the right thing for the long term benefit of
the nation, compared to the leadership it will demand in the
short term to get everyone on side, the vested interests, the
self-centred thinkers, the politicians who seek to please for the
short term at all costs.
That is what is represented by this bill: a government that is
only beginning to say it hears what the majority are saying,
rather than being prepared to act on what the majority are
saying.
(1050 )
The budget in general terms sounded as if it came from the
Reform Party book but when one checked the numbers against
the rhetoric all credibility was lost. That is why I say this bill
before us today falls so short.
I am not opposing just for the sake of opposing. I truly believe
that under the guise of being lean and not mean the government
is discovered to be weak in what it perceives is the prescription
necessary to be a manager of the national economic climate.
Compared with either the experience of other countries or
with our own history, the four decades between the end of World
War II and the mid-1980s were a period of some measure of
economic success for Canada. The Canadian economy grew to
be one of the strongest in the world. The lot in life of the average
Canadian greatly improved during that period.
The basic reason was the development of our resource base.
We traded our way to prosperity. However the traditional
advantages that Canada has had are disappearing and we are
being eclipsed. The resource sector will always be important but
the rate of growth we have known because of it is gone.
We expect to enjoy continued improvement in our standard of
living. If we expect to engage in the kind of public programs at
home and abroad that we like then we are going to have to find a
new economic vocation and vision.
Canadians are beginning to realize what is needed is a vision
of a new Canada and that is coming from this corner of the
House. The ethical, democratic and economic visions
Reformers have developed in close dialogue with communities
outline the prescription of required action, not the timid
measures in this bill, but bold efficacious governance that leads
with courage and compassion.
The very last thing we should do about our situation is
nothing. We cannot afford to assume, like this government, that
things would work out for themselves in our favour without
much adaptation, without much effort or without using our
creative minds. Change begins with the recognition that a
problem exists.
I am encouraged that government members are increasingly
sounding like Reformers. They are getting the talk. We on this
side are getting through to many on the other side. Many more
know in their hearts that we are right but they are part of a club, a
gang that plays the political game as if it were politics as usual in
Canada and that if they just talk nice and do lots of opinion
polling they will keep power. Others appear to have a sincere
desire to do what is right for the nation but have not yet gathered
3092
the courage to make a difference, to say no to what they
rationally know is the wrong course for Canada.
I invite them for once in the history of Canada to vote against
this bill, vote against their club. Say to history and to all time
there were members with courage and principle who acted for
the national interests rather than self interests.
We must secure our economic base as a nation. As a trading
nation we must be in the international trading game with
courage and vigour and not shrink from trading arrangements
that foster openness, yet strongly monitor the international
rules, and without fear holds other players to account.
We must restructure our income security to ensure that in
providing assistance from public funds those who are given
priority are those who need assistance the most. We have built a
comprehensive set of programs but these efforts do not
adequately meet the requirements of those who should have first
call on our national resources, those most in need. We will be
forced to do it. We will do it ourselves in a compassionate
manner or we will have it done for us in blunt terms from outside
forces.
Education at all levels must have a greater level of proportion
of resources. Our emphasis in education must not be just to train
for a specific task but to prepare the workforce to adapt to
changing opportunities. A commitment to education goes with a
commitment to research. Enhancing the Canadian capacity to do
the basic work of discovery and our ability to apply the results in
the marketplace will also be keys to future economic success.
We have another basic economic question in Canada that is
not solved by the budget. We must address interprovincial and
interregional conflict. Canada must become an open market
within its borders. The free movement of goods, capital, labour
and cultural pursuits is fundamental.
One of the past strengths of Confederation has been that we
have found ways in our political system to accommodate
regional differences. Indeed Canadians are generous and
tolerant of difference, but we bridle and chafe at the prospect of
preference. Therefore we need a new set of institutions which
can aid in bringing about a better reconciliation of regional
differences.
Finally we have come to expect that we will play a positive
role in the world. Attempting to help others is not a Canadian
service that is new to this generation. Missionaries from
Canadian churches began to play a significant role in other
countries in the last century and continue to do so, as our
soldiers have done in this one.
(1055)
We have a proud history of making the world a more stable
place and we have been prepared to pay the price. The great
powers have their role. Because we are not one of them we can
more uniquely play a positive role in international economic and
political affairs. We can ensure that the interests of the small as
well as the great are taken into account within the community of
nations.
While we cast our vision afar, we must also do some repairs at
home. We must erase the consequences of our misguided
political ideologies and economic policies of the last decade.
In closing, for government to be effective we must be open
and honest with Canadians. This will be politically hazardous
for some but it will be necessary if the Canadian people are to be
involved in charting Canada's course. The more we can bring
democracy into this House and involve Canadians in the
decision making process we will realize our potential for the
21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, Bill C-17 is
meant to implement several provisions of the budget but the
main ones are those concerning unemployment insurance.
Even though several members spoke on the subject, I think
that it is worth repeating the three main changes in the House.
First is the increase in the number of weeks of work required to
qualify for unemployment insurance. I stress this point first
because, as the opposition critic for training and youth, it is
clear that the future of our young people is my top priority. Now,
one of the measures that will hit young Canadians who are
excluded from the workforce the hardest is the increase in the
number of work weeks needed to qualify for benefits. The first
job that those young people can find is often precarious and very
temporary and, in my opinion, the government's measure will
hit them particularly hard.
The second change is the reduction in the number of benefit
weeks according to the regional unemployment rate. That kind
of attack began under the Tories, with Minister Valcourt, and
continues with the present Minister of Human Resources
Development, even though members of the present government
condemned the Conservative policy. Today, the government
wants to go even further by reducing the number of benefit
weeks.
The third change is the decrease in the benefit rate, which
once again goes in the same direction as the change brought
about by the Conservative government, by lowering the rate
from 57 per cent to 55 per cent of the salary previously earned.
This will affect over 85 per cent of claimants.
3093
I would now like to mention some statistics published in
today's La Presse; the source is none other than the Department
of Human Resources Development. We learn that the changes
brought about today will result in 44,000 people being deprived
of UI benefits.
Is my time up, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: You still have about thirty seconds.
Mr. Dubé: So, this concerns every province. For instance,
and members from Newfoundland will surely be interested by
this, 1,635 people in that province will be affected by the
increase in the entrance requirement and 1,370 will be affected
by the reduction in the maximum benefit period.
Prince Edward Island is also hit hard. And so is New
Brunswick, with particularly striking effects. In that province,
1,155 people will be affected by the first measure and 1,335 by
the second. In the case of Quebec, 4,880 people will be affected
by the reduction in the maximum benefit period.
You can thus understand that, under the circumstances, I am
indignant about these changes we are asked to approve for the
unemployment insurance program. I am thinking of the MIL
Davie workers, whose numbers dropped from 3,000 to about
1,500 in six months. Six months from now, only 300 will remain
employed; all the others will have to live on unemployment
insurance benefits, which will have been reduced by these
changes.
The Speaker: I am not sure if the hon. member has used all
the time allowed; if not, he can resume after question period.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
3093
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
rail service, both passenger and freight, has played an important
historical role in Canada. It is an integral part of our
transportation system.
Most industrialized countries have modern, efficient rail
systems. In Canada we appear to be closing them down. Instead
we should be modernizing them with new technologies to make
them efficient and effective for the future benefit of our
transportation system.
Effective and efficient rail systems are most important to the
future transportation needs of all Canadians. We must review all
opportunities for the future advancement of our rail systems
instead of closing rail lines and losing them forever.
This is an important issue in my Carleton-Charlotte
constituency and indeed in all of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out that today is the 50th
anniversary of Hydro-Quebec, a Quebec company whose skills
and expertise are now recognized throughout the world.
Remember that it was René Lévesque who gave
Hydro-Quebec the impetus to become an essential tool for
Quebec's economic development by providing work for
thousands of Quebecers and generating billions of dollars in
economic benefits.
Keep in mind as well that the energy produced by
Hydro-Quebec is renewable and much cleaner than coal or
nuclear power. The new challenges facing society today are soft
energies and energy efficiency. We must encourage this option.
In closing, I would like to mention the historic agreement in
principle reached yesterday between Hydro-Quebec and the
Inuit of northern Quebec. We hope that this agreement marks a
new partnership between the government owned corporation
and native peoples.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
with regard to the Pearson airport development deal I am happy
to see the Liberals are honestly attempting to sweep away this
tainted plan signed hastily in the dying days of the last Tory
government.
The Pearson fiasco was clearly an example of unfair lobbying
tactics and shady backroom dealings so typical of the Mulroney
era.
I have only one real concern with the government's handling
of the aborted airport deal. I believe in no uncertain terms that
no compensation whatsoever should be provided to the
consortium responsible for whipping up the Pearson
privatization plan and then pushing it through the Tory cabinet
like a knife through butter.
These people know full well any controversial contract signed
during an election campaign would never hold water if the
Tories were not re-elected. I ask, compensation for what? For
abusing the public trust?
3094
I say tough luck if they lost money putting their shady plan
together. I call on the government not to extend a single dime in
so-called compensation payments.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, today it is
an honour for me to recognize the achievements of one of the
great museums of Canada.
The Vancouver Museum, Canada's largest civic museum,
celebrates its 100th birthday this Sunday, April 17. To celebrate
and commemorate its first century the museum is presenting the
exhibition, ``100 years, a million stories''.
One artefact or set of artefacts from each year of the
museum's history will be displayed in chronological order.
Viewers will see a wing from Vancouver's first plane crash and
the city's first gas pump. They will learn about a medicine
woman's outfit and hear the story of outlaw Soapy Smith.
This will be an exhibition of tales untold and mysteries yet
unsolved. It will amaze visitors with a century's worth of
treasures bestowed by citizens and friends who cared enough to
create and sustain the Vancouver Museum.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, this year
marks the 20th anniversary of the illegal occupation of nearly 40
per cent of the island of Cyprus by Turkish military forces.
Canada has played an important peacekeeping role in helping
to bring about a solution to the Cyprus issue. Unfortunately, the
problem continues to this day.
(1105)
[Translation]
This week, I participated with three fellow members of this
House in the 5th international conference of PSEKA Cyprus in
Washington, D.C. For those three days, we had the opportunity
to talk about Cyprus with several senators and members of the
U.S. Congress. As we did 20 years ago, we all agreed that the
problem of Cyprus has gone unresolved for too long.
[English]
To this day, 35,000 Turkish troops continue to occupy the
island. Thousands remain displaced from their homes. Over
1,500 people are missing. Rights of free movement and
ownership have yet to be re-established on the entire island.
I call upon the government to continue to support the UN
resolutions and help to bring about a final resolution to this
problem. It is time the human rights and freedoms of all citizens
of Cyprus were guaranteed and respected. Enough is enough,
thank you.
The Speaker: That was a good statement right at the end.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the
House to the outstanding contribution made by Canadian women
to job creation and to the important role they play in the
development of our economy.
The Montreal region has been well served by their spirit of
entrepreneurship. Women understood the importance and
potential of small businesses. The women of Montreal realize
that small business are responsible for 85 per cent of the new
jobs created in this country and that they need better access to
capital.
Last year, 35 per cent of small businesses started in Montreal
were headed by women. Furthermore, the five-year survival
rate of small businesses headed by women is twice as high as the
survival rate of those headed by men.
I want to congratulate these women on their courage and
entrepreneurial spirit and wish them every success in the future.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, culture is the living memory of nations. On April 9 this
year, Laval, Quebec's second largest city, wanted to draw
attention to the exceptional way in which the people of Laval
have contributed through their art to Quebec culture.
The entire community joins the Académie des Arts de Laval in
congratulating Sylvie Samson, Joanne Pontbriand, Violaine
Poirier, Sylvia Daoust, Michel Cailloux and Joël Des Rosiers, as
well as the members of the Théâtre d'Art Lyrique in Laval. We
also want to thank Bell Quebec for its financial support to the
arts community in Laval.
I am proud and delighted to have this opportunity to say thank
you for expressing so well what we are.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the justice minister for responding to the
two recent slayings in Ottawa and Toronto by calling for tougher
laws for violent young offenders.
3095
It has been far too long in coming but people back home in
northern B.C. are gravely concerned over other statements by
the minister. He has been quoted as saying that he came to
Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country
who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.
This is a sobering thought for millions of responsible gun
owners in Canada. Why is the focus on disarming citizens
because criminals continuously misuse guns?
While people in Ottawa and Toronto mourn the loss of these
latest victims, one of our elderly was murdered in Val Belair in
yet another senseless home invasion.
Only the criminals would have guns in the minister's city of
the future and they would not have to guess, they would know
that Canadians would be defenceless in their homes.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, Ukraine
has just completed the first and second rounds of its first
democratic elections.
It has been more than 70 years since Ukraine has had
democratic elections, but its people are rich in patience and
tolerance.
They have waited very long for this day and they have worked
hard to ensure the success of their democracy. They are proud to
have achieved a Parliament without bloodshed and extremism
during the election process.
I would like to extend congratulations to Elections Canada,
especially to Andre Bouchard and Ambassador Francois Mathys
for their excellent work in assisting the Ukrainian election
committee during the past several months.
The Canadian government and the Canadian people have
played a very significant role in Ukraine's search for
democracy, its search for hope and its search for peace and a
better way of life.
I congratulate Ukraine for having earned the respect of people
throughout the world. May Canada and Ukraine continue to
work together to make both countries prosperous.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
there is considerable pressure being mounted within and outside
this Chamber to persuade the finance and natural resources
departments to grant sizeable tax concessions to artificially
create the ethanol facility proposed for southern Ontario.
(1110 )
Certainly the creation of new industry is always welcome
news but industry must be based on economics and not
agrohysteria. Let us remember that this ethanol project is
premised on cash infusions from government, a principle which
should be disavowed.
Ethanol in jurisdictions with very high taxation can be a
competitively priced fuel in relation to ordinary fossil fuels.
However, such is not the case in Canada. Our refining industry
provides a quality Canadian product at a competitive price.
If the proposed ethanol industry could compete on a level
playing field then it will proceed successfully. Conversely, if the
ethanol industry as proposed will only be viable as a result of
artificial means, that is, long term tax concessions and cash
donations from taxpayers totalling close to 600 million Ontario
and federal dollars over 12 years, we could conclude that it is
still the fuel of the future, but not that of the present.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
Baha'is are the largest religious minority in Iran, totalling
350,000 people. Religious beliefs are the only thing that
differentiate the Baha'i from the rest of the Iranian population.
Iran has classified these people as unprotected infidels and has
engaged in their systematic persecution on the basis of religion.
Because of their religion Baha'is are denied basic human
rights, including the right of redress or protection against
assault, murder or other forms of persecution. Since 1979 there
have been 201 Baha'i killed and 15 are missing and presumed
dead. Baha'is are denied access to education and employment.
Many have also lost their homes and savings. All of this
persecution is designed to force the Baha'i to recant their faith.
Canada and the international community must continue to
scrutinize the human rights situation in Iran and make every
effort to encourage the full recognition of religious and human
rights for the Baha'i in that country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois deplores the fact that the Liberal government is
dragging its feet on a number of issues, including MIL Davie,
Hyundai and Oerlikon. The government's inertia will be very
costly to Quebec in terms of lost jobs. This is happening at a
time when Quebec would need an additional 215,000 jobs to
bring employment back to pre-recession levels.
3096
Unfortunately, the many instances of federal intrusion in
provincial jurisdiction indicate that the government is anxious
to extend its influence, thus creating the usual duplication and
overlap. We saw this recently in the manpower training
question. The federal government's desire to intervene in this
field in provincial jurisdiction is a blatant contradiction of the
consensus reached by all social and economic partners in
Quebec.
In a nutshell, the federal government intervenes where it
should not and does not intervene where it should.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of the House a deplorable
excuse that is being used by murderers in our country in order to
receive lighter sentences. It is called cocaine psychosis and has
affected yet another court case in British Columbia.
Dale Hicks was convicted for manslaughter, not murder, in
the brutal killings of two women in their home. One of his
victims was pregnant and was stabbed 17 times.
The judge ruled that the deaths are considered manslaughter
because Hicks, who was high on cocaine at the time, was
afflicted with cocaine psychosis and was unaware of his actions.
He was sentenced to 10 years but could be out in three and half
years if he behaves in prison; three and a half years for taking the
lives of two innocent people. To top it off, his lawyers have
appealed the sentence, calling it excessive.
By taking an illegal drug this killer has been allowed to get
away with murder. It is time justice is served by making
criminals accountable for their actions-no excuses any more.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's economic and social development as a nation was and
is based on the strong west-east link created by our national rail
lines. New Canadians and goods travelled on these rails to bring
prosperity to our young nation. Now this vital part of our
heritage is being ripped from the ground forever.
In my riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe the
NTA is to rule on CN's application for abandonment of the
Collingwood to Barrie line. This subdivision could be saved if
the premier of Ontario would grant an exemption to Bill 40 so
that short line operators would purchase the line.
I implore the premier of Ontario to act now and grant an
exemption to Bill 40 to save this important business and historic
link.
* * *
(1115 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, time was
when things like world-wide trading, industrial R and D, and
innovation in management-worker relations were entirely in the
hands of large multinational corporations.
Today increasingly we have the extraordinary phenomenon of
tiny local companies working in the global marketplace living
off their own technological innovations and developing creative
and productive worker relations programs.
Peterborough Paper Converters is one of those. It has made
great technological contributions to the coating of paper used
for labels and postage stamps. Its employees are fully involved
in company affairs and have developed their own systems
software. Their products are exported around the world.
I know members of the House join me in congratulating the
100 or so employees of Peterborough Paper Converters on their
10th anniversary on 10 difficult but productive years. We wish
these fine Canadians all the success they have earned in the
years ahead.
_____________________________________________
3096
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we
learned that several provinces were joining forces to defeat
Ottawa's plans to centralize social program reform.
In light of this revelation and further to the insulting
comments of the Prime Minister who, on Wednesday, described
traditional demands as whims, the National Assembly passed a
unanimous motion yesterday confirming Quebec's position, on
which all sides agree, to the effect that exclusive jurisdiction
over manpower training should be transferred to Quebec.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the decision to
cancel the meeting is a step backward and a sign of bad faith as
well as a reflection of the serious unease between the provincial
and federal governments, all because of Ottawa's centralizing
aims?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, what I find somewhat
regrettable about the opposition party's stand is that right now,
3097
there are 400,000 unemployed workers in Quebec. The federal
government is working with the provinces to find a way that
would enable the unemployed to receive training that would
lead to employment.
Instead of complaining that we are trying to achieve a
consensus, instead of criticizing us for our decision to take some
more time in order to make the best possible decisions, the
spokesperson for the opposition should be congratulating us for
seeking the co-operation of all provinces. That is why we have
decided, not to cancel the meeting, but only to postpone it until
we are certain that we have achieved this consensus.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the National Assembly unanimously rejected the federal
government's package. Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister
should take this fact into account.
My supplementary question is directed to her colleague
responsible for Human Resources Development. Can the
Minister of Human Resources Development give us his
assurance that the decision to cancel the meeting is not simply a
strategic withdrawal, that he will review his centralizing
strategy and take Quebec's demands into account and that he
will get back on the right track?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is
committed to overhauling the social security system. We want
the process to be open and we want to work in co-operation with
the provinces.
In this regard, the government has a role to play in manpower
training and in the labour market. To carry out its role, it must
consult with all groups and governments to find ways of making
the system as effective and as beneficial as possible for all
Canadians.
(1120)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development confirmed yesterday that he
intended to keep to his schedule and make his reform initiatives
public before the end of June. Will he not admit that his
bulldozing operation flies in the face of the unanimous
consensus that emerged yesterday in the National Assembly and
is nothing short of a constitutional incursion into the field of
manpower and social programs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member doth protest too
much.
The fact of the matter is that in the last two months we have
had two major rounds of consultations with the provinces,
unprecedented during that period of time. Agreements were
reached in a number of areas of joint collaboration, particularly
to go forward and look at ways in which we can reduce waste and
duplication, where we can begin to examine a variety of
initiatives we can take together. Just a week ago my deputy
minister travelled throughout all provinces to discuss with them
the nature of the agenda.
The hon. member says this is bulldozing. I say it is the most
active process of consultation and co-operation that has been
seen because we want to make this an open process.
Let us be fair about one thing. The hon. member opposite and
his colleagues have no interest in this process of reform. They
have no interest in co-operation. All they want to do is destroy
this process because they want to destroy the country along with
it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, accompanied by the
Minister of National Defence, minimized the seriousness of the
situation in Bosnia by comparing it to ``a last-minute glitch''; in
addition, he expected a quick settlement for the 16 Canadian
peacekeepers held hostage by the Serbian armed forces. We
know that the situation has degenerated since then, because the
Serbian forces have taken other UN troops and observers
hostage, bringing the total number to 155.
Can the Minister of Defence report on the negotiations which
were to begin this morning between UN representatives and the
Serbian military forces for the release of the hostages?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, our people in Bosnia were able to contact our soldiers;
the situation is calm, and I must add that the soldiers are not
being mistreated.
[English]
We hope to have some resolution of this situation soon. There
was a meeting this morning between Mr. Akashi, the
representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
and the Serb leader Karadzic. I think that meeting is still going
on. As soon as we have any results of that we will let members
know.
I do resent somewhat the assertion of the hon. member that we
are trying to minimize this. We find this situation completely
unacceptable and we are very concerned.
3098
Given the delicacy of the problem in the former Yugoslav
republic of Bosnia it is wise for everyone to be rational at this
particular stage because the lives of Canadians and others are at
stake.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with the minister that the situation is sensitive and cause
for great concern. That is why my second question is for the
minister.
Can the minister enlighten us on Canada's role in the present
negotiations involving the UN, the United States and Russia,
among others, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned
yesterday in a press conference?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
should point out the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in Montreal
today. However he has been holding discussions throughout the
early hours of this morning and right now with his various
counterparts in the NATO countries. I believe he talked with Mr.
Hurd a few moments ago. These discussions are going on at the
highest levels with our NATO allies and with a representative at
the United Nations.
* * *
(1125 )
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the Minister of Human Resources
Development how long the cancellation of Monday's
federal-provincial meeting will delay the minister's social
reform program?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it will have a
major impact on the timing.
In the very delicate and complicated negotiations that must go
on not only with provinces but with a number of groups of
Canadians of course we are going to have to make adjustments.
However I still believe we can meet a timetable of bringing in
major changes by the end of this year provided we have the
goodwill and collaboration. After all, there are millions of
Canadians who want a change, who need change and are
concerned about change. It is too bad a few individuals are
attempting to put a road block in it like the hon. member who
just spoke earlier.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, if the
government of Quebec did not want to participate in Monday's
meeting, that is Quebec's business but other provinces were
prepared to attend.
Why is the minister allowing the Quebec government to delay
not only the federal government's planning but that of the nine
other provinces as well?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it was my decision to postpone
the meeting. It was not dictated by any province. I just felt if we
are going to reach agreements and if we are going to have a good
climate of co-operation then we should give one province,
several provinces or whatever the time they feel is necessary.
We had a useful agenda in front of us. We were going to be
meeting with the aboriginal groups. We were going to be looking
at some of the strategic initiatives. We were going to put in place
an agenda for the reform of the child care system and get those
started. However, those are all items we can continue.
As I said yesterday, I will be recommending that we have a
meeting of senior officials within the next week or so. We can
discuss how a further ministerial meeting can get the process
under way and we can make sure that all the provinces feel they
can be a full part of the process.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, what
Canadians really want to know is whether the minister is
allowing the Government of Quebec to drive the agenda of the
Government of Canada.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the conclusions or the
implications drawn by the hon. member are wrong. Let us try
and put this thing into perspective.
We are doing social reform review for one simple reason. We
want to get people in this country back to work. We want to give
people a greater sense of income security. We want to help a lot
of very poor children who are not being nurtured properly.
Those are the reasons we are doing it.
We recognize in a federal system like this that we must also
work carefully with all our partners. I will do everything I can to
make sure all the partners feel comfortable within that process,
that they are a part of that process and that it is not being dictated
by one government or by one group but is an attempt to find a
consensus.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
According to an internal report of the Department of Human
Resources Development, the unemployment insurance changes
announced in the last budget will deprive some 44,000 people of
UI benefits and put 19,000 on welfare.
3099
How can the minister justify his changes to the unemployment
insurance program when they clearly restrict access to UI
benefits and increase welfare rolls, without offering these
thousands of people any job creation alternative?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to
point out in that analysis is that the numbers are far, far smaller
than the members of the opposition were claiming during budget
time. In fact, they were making claims that hundreds of
thousands of people would be thrown on to the welfare rolls. In
fact, the best estimate we have is that it is only 19,000.
We do not take that lightly. That is the reason in the budget by
the Minister of Finance we have initiated a $6 billion
infrastructure development program that according to the
President of the Treasury Board will create close to 100,000 new
jobs across the country. We will be putting in place a number of
new employment training programs for these people. We will be
stimulating small business.
The hon. member forgets that one of the real results of the
budget is that by reducing the UI premiums we will in fact be
creating a climate where 60,000 to 70,000 jobs will be provided.
All those jobs will be available.
(1130 )
It would seem to me the hon. member should be looking at
how we create jobs and create growth rather than simply at how
we keep a system that is not working.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): The
minister seems to have no idea what it is like when 44,000
people lose their UI benefits. Does he admit that, in addition to
offloading major expenditures onto the provinces, his reform
excludes 44,000 people from training programs that would have
helped them to find jobs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing to the hon.
member. If he can get the co-operation of his colleagues, and
perhaps some of his colleagues in the opposition party in the
province of Quebec, we would be able in the next several months
to create new programs to help deal with unemployment and to
revise our social security network so we could put far more
people back to work.
The purpose of our reform is to put in place systems so that
people do not have to be on social assistance and do not have to
be on UI but get the chance to go back to work. We want to help
them to do it.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Yesterday the minister suggested that one of my colleagues
should not question the youth employment strategy because it
had not yet been released. However yesterday's Financial Post
carried a detailed description of the program, complete with
direct quotes from the minister.
Why does the minister feel that he can comment on
information leaked from his department when asked by the
media, but members on this side of the House cannot even
comment or ask questions?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the youth employment strategy
is still not released, contrary to all leaks by whomever.
The fact of the matter is that if the hon. member has an iota of
patience, if he can wait perhaps an hour or two, he will be in full
possession of exactly what we intend to do to give hope and
opportunity to the young people of the country.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for the answer.
I have learned that he has planned a news conference for later
today to release the details of the program. I may be new to
Parliament but I hear that holding Friday afternoon press
conferences is an old Ottawa trick. Apparently the idea is to get
the information out without any chance for opposition MPs to
question or criticize before the following week.
It is obvious the announcement has been ready for several
days. Why is the minister trying to sneak it out the back door on
a Friday afternoon?
The Speaker: I would caution all hon. members please not to
give motive to any action by any other member. The final
question is in order, but the preamble was a bit off. I would ask
hon. members to consider that.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I will make my answer short.
We work Friday afternoons. Maybe the Reform does not. We
want to work Friday afternoons. Not only that, I am going to be
working Saturday and Sunday as well. If the hon. member can
3100
get back here in time on Monday I will be happy to answer his
questions.
The Speaker: We are all hard at work today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister
has just informed us today that he will be holding a press
conference to announce, with great pomp I imagine, his
apprenticeship plan for Canadian youth.
But this plan implies an obvious infringement on the
provinces' jurisdiction over education. One simple question:
Did the minister make a point, before announcing this plan, of
securing the support of the Quebec government?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I met with all the ministers of
education and labour a month ago in Toronto where we outlined
the directions of the program.
(1135)
We indicated at that time we would be working in
co-operation with the provinces, as we presently do, on the
existing co-op education program which the provinces utilize at
the moment. We have agreed to establish working groups of
officials in each province so that we can ensure the programs are
totally harmonized and there is no overlap or duplication.
Again I come back to one central fact. It strikes me as
exceedingly strange, when there are 400,000 young people in
the country desperate to go back to work, wanting to find a place
where they can get serious training in the workplace, that the
only question the hon. member has is how do we stop the
program rather than how do we go ahead with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, normally the
Minister of Human Resources Development should have taken a
lesson in humility from the National Assembly, yesterday, but
that does not seem to have been the case. Is the minister
prepared to postpone the implementation of his apprenticeship
plan until such time as he has secured the co-operation of the
provinces and of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, once again he is asking us to stop
a program that will put young people back to work.
I am not in the business of stopping programs to put young
people back to work. I am in the business of helping them get to
work. As a result I will never listen to that kind of advice.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
He referred to the 400,000 young Canadians actively seeking
work in the country. Leaked information implies that the
program would help about 1 per cent of those 400,000 young
Canadians.
Why is the minister playing politics with such a serious
problem as this one? Why is he cruelly creating false hope for so
many young Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, once again the Reform Party is
working on the basis of leaks.
I would suggest that Reform members get themselves a proper
research department so that they can start basing their questions
on facts rather than on rumour and speculation. The only thing I
take great comfort from in the hon. member's question is that for
the first time in the history of the Reform Party's presence in the
House we now have Reform members saying to the Liberal
government: ``Spend more money''.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, I did not say
to spend more money. As a matter of fact these programs have an
effect of costing taxpayers more money.
I have a supplementary question. Recently the government
has begun the very difficult job of trying to reduce the
dependency cycle of thousands of east coast fishermen. The
history of these make-work projects in Canada has been a series
of failures. I had hoped that the 1970 tactics had gone out with
the last election.
Why is the minister now planning to introduce thousands
more young Canadians to a dependency cycle with yet another
make-work program?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, that is a very cruel statement.
There are over 40,000 people on the east coast of Canada who
have been deprived of a way of life and a way of making a living
through no fault of their own. Their families for generations
have fished honestly. The fish have disappeared.
It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada, along
with others, to give every support and assistance to enable those
people to find new hope, to find new choices and to find new
careers. We will be basing a program on giving people who have
had their way of life and their livelihood disappear a new way of
3101
finding the chance to make a good living for themselves and
their families.
The cruel and insensitive remarks by the hon. member are not
acceptable because we will be giving, as the hon. member will
see next week, a real chance or a real platform for those people
to find once again real hope that the country cares about their
plight.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Yesterday, the
ultrafederalist Quebec Minister of International Affairs,
Cultural Communities and Immigration, Mr. John Ciaccia,
made the following statement: ``COFIs teach immigrants to
cope with problems of daily life. They are told how schools and
institutions work in Quebec. They are given tips on food and
housing.''
(1140)
Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, whom the
Quebec government has called to order along with his colleague,
the Minister of Human Resources Development, prepared to
mind his own business from now on and to apologize to the
Quebec government?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, no Government of Quebec official
has called me to order. Quite the contrary. I spoke to the Quebec
minister responsible for immigration and he said very clearly
what I told the member yesterday on the floor of the House of
Commons.
First, he says that Quebec has nurtured a settlement process
that clearly is at the top of the list after a 20-25 year agreement
with the federal government.
Second, he has no problem that the committee overseeing the
Canada-Quebec accord regularly meets with federal and
provincial officials to discuss what there is for public debate.
Third, he confirms to me that there is no incompatibility with
promoting strong, exciting patriotism and love of Canada and
one's fierce loyalty to one's province or region. One either lives
in a province in a country or one lives in a country and in a
province.
Quebec has jurisdiction over independent immigration that
comes to Quebec, but as far as I know Quebec is still in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, now the
minister is backpedalling. Does he not realize that his clumsy
action calls into question Quebec's jurisdiction for integrating
its immigrants into the French community?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I think clumsiness is in the eye of
the beholder. Quite frankly the hon. member is trying to make an
issue of a non-issue. No one is calling the Quebec government
or the province of Quebec into question on its resettlement and
settlement programs.
I told the hon. member in committee two days ago. I told the
hon. member yesterday. I repeat for him again that my
government and I believe Quebec has done a yeoman's job and
service on settlement.
Second, the hon. member intentionally confuses what I said
on the settlement issue with citizenship materials to try to
standardize citizenship materials from one coast to the other.
That is citizenship, settlement is immigration, and the member
knows it.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The government recently announced the preparation of a
broad discussion paper on Canada's programs for seniors. The
minister clearly stated that the objective was to define a set of
efficient and compassionate programs to meet our future needs.
Could the minister clarify whether this means that the review
of seniors' programs is part of social security reform? Could the
minister give his assurance that old age security pensions will be
protected?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give the hon.
member that assurance.
Nobody in the government has ever said in any way, shape or
form that we would be making changes to the fundamental
protection of seniors through the OAS. The social review that
we presently have under way is primarily designed to deal with
questions of employability and with questions of security for
families and children. That is our real commitment.
The Minister of Finance indicated in the budget that we would
be preparing a paper on the long term issues and implications of
what happens to a society that is aging and what that means for
some of the long term security benefits 20 to 30 years ahead. We
3102
must address those matters because of the changing age of the
population and what that would do in terms of premiums and so
on.
That is a discussion paper looking at the long term. We have
no intention of making any changes whatsoever at this time in
existing security programs for seniors.
* * *
(1145 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Yesterday, while the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was busy briefing the
press, some real news was revealed by his deputy minister.
Apparently no HIV test is required as a part of the routine
medical testing for immigration to Canada. This is despite the
fact the Immigration Act reads that:
No person who is a danger to public health or who would create excessive
demands on health services should be allowed into the country.
That is the law. Why is the minister's department not testing
each and every immigration applicant for HIV and why are we
letting these people into Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, that is only news to the hon.
member because as my colleague mentioned earlier, they clearly
have a vacuum in their research capacity.
The fact is there is not mandatory HIV testing. However, if in
their routine checks they find traces of HIV, our doctors
throughout the world are allowed to ask applicants to have that
test. In the majority of cases they have been refused.
There is not mandatory testing yet for HIV. Many applicants
are tested and many are not permitted to come not only with the
perspective of problems for other Canadians but also with
respect to the effect and impact it would have on our health care
system in Canada.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the Canadian people are going to be satisfied with that
kind of an answer.
The minister has been aware for some time that HIV testing is
not done. Not only that, but if an applicant admits being positive
to HIV he or she still can be admitted to Canada. This is
outrageous. Surely the minister cannot deny that HIV infected
immigrants are a threat to our already overburdened health care
system.
Does the minister have statistics on how many AIDS infected
immigrants or refugees have been admitted to Canada to date?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I caution the member to try to
curtail the kind of fishing expedition he wants to engage in.
I would point out that that mandatory testing has not taken
place. Second, where those individuals exhibit traces of HIV
they are asked to be tested. Third, most of those individuals are
not permitted into the country. Fourth, the whole question of
medical inadmissibility is now being reviewed as a result of
some of the charter cases that have happened in the last number
of months.
I will be happy to provide the hon. member with some answers
to questions that he asked with respect to specific statistics,
which I do not have at my fingertips today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.
On Wednesday, the minister announced to the Government
Operations Committee that a memorandum of agreement had
been signed with BioVac of Laval and Connaught in Ontario for
the purchase of influenza vaccine by the federal government for
the provinces. This agreement is the direct result of an
intervention by the Minister of Public Works.
Can the minister confirm that his intervention resulted in the
division of the contract in two equal parts between BioVac and
Connaught, whereas before BioVac held an exclusive contract?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for raising the question which is indeed important to all
Canadians.
The member may not be aware, but the Government of Canada
purchases approximately 1 per cent of the vaccine in question.
Ninety-nine per cent is purchased by the provinces. We act as a
facilitator for the provinces. The member is quite correct that
yesterday I did announce at committee that there was an
agreement in principle between the participants and that the
details of that particular agreement will be announced very
shortly.
(1150)
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am not very patient. Could the minister tell us today
what reasons led him to intervene personally so that the
government would circumvent the normal contracting process?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a
question which is quite contradictory to a previous question one
of her colleagues raised on the floor of the House.
3103
The primary concern of the Government of Canada, as I am
sure it is of all hon. members despite political differences, is
obviously to protect the health of Canadians.
There are Canadian companies which wanted a Canadian
solution to a particular problem. I think we have arrived at that.
We have an agreement in principle which I think will satisfy all
of the participants. At the same time the primary concern is to
provide a quality product for those individuals across the
country who have to use it, namely the children.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question based on fact is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for the Environment.
On January 24 the minister told the House that the decision to
locate the NAFTA environmental secretariat would be public
and transparent throughout and that the decision would be made
free of politics based on an independent consultant's report of
the competing bids.
The minister said that for the first time in the history of
government the decision would be based on the environmental
record of the competing cities. When the minister announced
that Montreal was to be the site of the secretariat, the minister
admitted the decision was political.
When the government made the political decision to locate
the environmental secretariat in Montreal, was the minister
aware that of the competing cities Montreal has about the worst
environmental record? Therefore, based on the minister's own
words will the minister reconsider her decision?
The Speaker: I know that hon. members will want to make
their questions quite succinct and specific. I would invite the
hon. Minister of the Environment to answer the question.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, first of all the statement by
the member is absolutely false.
I invited him last Monday along with any other colleague in
the House to come to my office and personally review every
single one of the applicant cities. There were 25 cities that
applied, 25 cities that had applications based on five criteria
which were public criteria, which I released with all relevant
documents.
I invited the member last Monday to come and review the
applications from his city and from the other cities.
Unfortunately, he and his colleagues have not shown any
interest in actually seeing the documents.
I have released in this House, publicly, every single document
on that issue that was reviewed by me. I have invited the member
and his colleagues to come and personally review the
approximately 15,000 pages of documents that came from the
cities. I would ask him to come over and review the facts and I
think when he sees the facts he will agree with me that among 25
very good applicant cities, Montreal was the best choice.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
given the fact that the decision to place the environmental
secretariat in Montreal appears to have been made before the
phoney competition began, will the minister tell the House if it
is the intention of the government to buy the affection of the
separatists in Quebec at the expense of federalists in the rest of
the country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the tone of the hon.
member's question is a very good indication of how he and his
party do not understand that this party believes that Canadians
belong in every part of this country. My brother living in the city
of Montreal is every bit as Canadian as anybody living in his
city. One thing that is going to be very important for the future of
this country is if Canadians from Edmonton, Montreal,
Vancouver, Dartmouth, St. John's and Hamilton begin to
understand that we are all in this together.
(1155)
If the member is really interested in moving the
environmental agenda forward, I would ask him to participate in
the conference on environmental technologies. I would ask him
to put his mind to new and innovative ideas for future
technology.
The reality is that environmental technologies are the cutting
edge of jobs for-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I promise that my
question will be short and to the point. For a while now, Bloc
members have been having fun, scaring francophones outside
Quebec by saying that our government is cutting funds for
francophones. In view of the importance of education for
francophones outside Quebec, could the Minister of Canadian
Heritage tell us if the education budget for francophone
communities will be cut?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, there will be no cut in education support for
francophones outside Quebec. For fiscal years 1993-94 to
1998-99, we will commit $112 million in new funds. The budget
cuts announced last February 22 do not apply to these
contributions.
3104
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In answer to questions from the Official Opposition during
committee hearings, the Director of the Canadian Museum of
Nature acknowledged that the museum suffered from serious
mismanagement. Disturbing facts, especially concerning the
awarding and managing of contracts for consultants and the
hiring of museum executives, were confirmed in the committee.
In view of the seriousness of these disturbing examples of
mismanagement, is the minister ready to place the museum
under administrative supervision and allow the committee to
proceed with an in-depth review of the museum's management?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am myself
extremely concerned about situations like this one. The person
who is most suited to carry out such a review is the Auditor
General of Canada, who will do just that.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister confirm that the museum director is
not waiting for the Auditor General and has already hired a firm
to conduct an investigation?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, we can have both. It is quite natural for the managers of
an institution such as the museum to be concerned about the
quality of their own management. They carry on their affairs at
arm's length, and I respect this relationship between the
institution and the minister responsible for its operations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said that
for the next few weeks the Minister of Justice and the
department will be studying very closely the possibility of
making changes to gun control laws. We know that in the 1993
Auditor General's report it was said that we must have
evaluation of the existing laws before we even know if they are
currently being effective.
(1200)
When is this evaluation going to take place, for surely it must
before we proceed with any changes to the existing laws?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the effectiveness of the laws
at present are being evaluated on a continuing basis and we will
continue that effort.
I want to make it clear however, in terms of what the
parliamentary secretary may have said, as I have said earlier this
week I am studying a broad range of options to bring forward to
caucus and to cabinet for consideration, and that process is
under way.
As to the effectiveness of the present laws, we simply have to
look at the evidence all around us, the increasing availability of
guns for people with criminal intent, to know that we have a long
way to go before being as effective as many of us want to be on
this subject.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Justice really feel there is any point in spending $60
million on the Auditor General's department which said that an
evaluation should take place and then possibly, as he has done
here, come to the House and say it is fine to do the evaluation
within the Department of Justice?
Should these evaluations not be made public, should they not
be made transparent so that the people of Canada know whether
the laws are presently working?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a
point that is very fair but I think we are talking about two
different things.
First, the Auditor General was speaking about evaluating the
effect of the laws that were put on the books in recent years. That
is an ongoing process. All of that will be made public. We will be
determining the effect of Bill C-17 and its implementation. That
is one thing and it is fully public.
The second thing, and I think evaluation is not a good word for
the second subject, is this government, Bill C-17 now being
behind us, is looking at other steps we might take for more
effective gun control.
On that subject, what the parliamentary secretary said is that I
and my colleagues in justice are putting together a list of options
for further steps that can be taken. We are going to go to caucus
and cabinet with that list. We are going to select a strategy we
think is in the public interest and then bring it forward as
proposals to this House.
The Speaker: Colleagues will have heard a few seconds ago
something new we have instituted. I have ordered that the
cannon be fired on Fridays at 12 noon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
3105
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Kim Doo-Hee,
Minister of Justice, Republic of Korea.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I know all members join
with the Prime Minister and the government in welcoming the
arrival of the new Clerk of the Privy Council. It is the first time a
woman has held the most senior position in the bureaucracy in
the Government of Canada.
I rise on a point of order because as she is a public servant she
cannot defend herself. Clearly in the press reports this morning
there are claims that the Clerk of the Privy Council in some way
misrepresented her educational and academic credentials.
The company that published the academic credentials was the
Financial Post company, a private corporation. I took the
opportunity of reviewing three other so-called résumés in this
particular document-
The Speaker: With all respect to the hon. member, perhaps
she could find another avenue than a point of order to raise this. I
invite her to terminate in the next few seconds.
(1205 )
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I asked to rise on a
point of order because only the Government of Canada can act to
defend the credentials of the Clerk of the Privy Council if they
are challenged. I wanted to point out for the benefit of all
members that in the alleged document that claims to be the
accurate credentials of every member, I took the opportunity of
reviewing the credentials of myself, the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the member for
Cochrane-Superior.
The Speaker: With all respect to the hon. member, there must
be another avenue for her to bring forward this information to
the House. I would invite her to seek these channels perhaps at
the next sitting of the House or even a little later today.
I would like to put an end that point of order now. We will
continue with the business of the House. Is there other business?
3105
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the 1993 Report of the Immigration and
Refugee Board.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages,
proposals to correct anomalies, inconsistencies and errors in the
Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a
non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those statutes
and to repeal certain provisions of those statutes that have
expired, lapsed or have otherwise ceased to have effect.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
Order in Council appointments made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present the 16th Report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on committee
membership. With the House's consent, I intend to propose that
the 16th Report be concurred in later today.
3106
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent,
I move that the 16th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this
day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1210 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, any division or divisions on matters relating to government legislation
requested this day be deferred to Tuesday, April 19, 1994 at 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it
is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of various
constituents of mine.
The petitioners are asking the government to make
amendments to the Divorce Act to ensure that they have access
to their grandchildren. Furthermore an amendment to the
Divorce Act would give the grandparent who is granted access to
a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information as
to the health, education and welfare of the child.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Madam Speaker, I have
two petitions from citizens of Peterborough riding.
The first which is signed by 25 people urges that Parliament
enact legislation to request effective tax paid markings on legal
tobacco products. These citizens believe it is important to
clearly distinguish legal, domestic product from contraband
product and they believe that these markings will make
enforcement of federal regulations easier. I have also signed this
petition.
The second petition is also signed by 25 citizens of
Peterborough. The petitioners point out that we export Canadian
tobacco but there is virtually no market for this tobacco in the
United States and so that tobacco is simply reimported. They
urge that quotas be imposed on tobacco exports to ensure that
only legitimate export markets are met by our exports. I have
also signed this petition.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, I have received yet
another petition from constituents requesting the repeal of
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
I would like to present it pursuant to Standing Order 36. It has
been duly certified by the clerk of petitions. I wholeheartedly
endorse the request of these constituents.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in the House today to
present a petition collected by the British Heritage Institute. The
petitioners request that the government ensure that the
provisions of Canada's multiculturalism policy apply to all
ethnic groups without favour and to publicize widely its
intentions to do so immediately.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): My second petition is on
behalf of 4,500 residents of
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to undertake a process to
thoroughly investigate the very serious indiscretions committed
by their elected representative to determine if he is fit to
continue as the member of Parliament for the riding of
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Madam Speaker, once again I am
honoured to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present a petition with several hundred names on behalf of my
constituents of Kent.
The petitioners state an ethanol industry will provide definite
stability for Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy in
general. Ethanol is one of the most environmentally friendly
fuels available. Chatham, Ontario was recently selected as the
first site for a major ethanol plant, 20 times larger than any in
Canada to date, creating approximately 1,100 person years of
work and contributing an estimated $125 million in annual
economic impact.
(1215 )
Noting this petition, one of the signatures is the former hon.
member of Parliament, Maurice Bossy, who was here 12 years
ago and another is John Burgess, QC whose father was a member
of Parliament here in the early 1950s.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to place before the House a petition signed by some 700
Canadians from the Niagara-Hamilton area.
3107
As you know, Madam Speaker, I have spoken in the House
before about the harm to society of serial killer cards. The
petitioners state that they support the efforts of Debbie Mahaffy
in her quest to have the killer cards seized at the Canada-U.S.
border to stop their distribution in Canada.
The cards published by Eclipse Comic Books, True Crime
Trading Cards and other publishers feature the crimes of serial
killers, mass murderers and gangsters. We do not want these
cards in our community.
The petition goes on to state: ``We abhor crimes of violence
against persons and we believe that killer trading cards offer
nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but
rather contribute to violence. Therefore, the undersigned your
petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada
to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation,
distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in law and to
advise producers of killer cards that their products, if destined
for Canada, will be seized and destroyed''.
I reiterate my support for this petition which I table in the
House today.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of citizens of the
riding of Etobicoke Centre. They humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to take all necessary measures in legislation to
protect the lives of the unborn.
* * *
[
Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos 6, 14 and
15.
[Text]
Question No. 6-Mr. Grubel:
What is the incidence of social spending by deciles of family income, in
particular with respect to old age security, unemployment insurance, family and
youth allowance, and other federal transfers to persons?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): The following table provides the information
requested by the hon. member form Capilano-Howe Sound.
The data in this table are based on Statistics Canada's survey
of consumer finances for 1991 incomes, the latest year for which
incomes data are available.
There are a number of different definitions of family. For the
purposes of this tabulation, an ``immediate family'' concept has
been used. Thus, a family is defined as either a husband and wife
(including common law relationships) with or without children
who have never married, or a parent living in the same dwelling
with children who have never married. All other persons
(including single persons living alone) are defined as a separate
family unit. Thus, many recipients of federal transfers would
show up in high income families because they live with high
income parents/children. For example, a child receiving UI
benefits could be living with high income parents.
The table shows transfers before taxes. Thus, the table does
not show the effect of OAS recovered from high income
individuals. About $300 million of OAS benefits are recovered
from individuals with incomes above $51,800. This represents
about 15 per cent of total OAS paid to families in the top three
deciles. While the entire OAS is recovered from an individual at
$81,000 of income, a lower income spouse living with a spouse
who has high income is not subject to the recovery.
Family allowances and child tax credit have been replaced by
the child tax benefit since 1993. The table does not show the
distribution in respect of the new program because the relevant
data are not yet available. However, a table showing average
child tax benefit by income follows.
Notes: (1) Incomes from some of the transfers in this table are
not fully reported in the survey. For example, the survey does
3108
not cover residents of Yukon and Northwest territories, Indian
reserves and institutions (including homes for the aged). In the
case of OAS, some $1 billion are not captured in the survey data.
Further, incomes from some of the transfers are under-reported
in the survey. (Reporting on the Survey of Consumer Finances is
estimated by Statistics Canada to be 100 per cent for OAS, and
85 per cent for the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and for
Unemployment Insurance.) Hence total expenditures on each
program may not correspond with actual expenditures.
(2) A family consists of either a husband and wife (including
common law relationships) with or without never married
children or a parent with never married children, living in the
same dwelling. All other persons (including a single person
living by himself/herself) are defined as separate family units.
(3) Each income decile represents about 1,150,000 family
units.
(4) OAS expenditures are before taxes are collected, inluding
the high income recovery.
(5) Statistics Canada data does not report Canada and Quebec
pension plan benefits separately.
(6) The table does not include a number of other federal
transfers to persons (e.g. veterans pensions and allowances)
because Statistics Canada data does not report these transfers
separately.
Question No. 14-Mr. Hermanson:
With respect to the conference on the deficit and the economy held by the
Minister of Finance on December 13, 1993, at the Ottawa Conference Centre,
were any of the conference participants' expenses, fees or honoraria paid by the
government, and if so, what are the amounts, as well as the total costs of hosting
the conference?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): With respect to the conference on the deficit and the
economy held by the Minister of Finance on December 13, 1993,
at the Ottawa Conference Centre, the Department of Finance
paid $10,380.84 in participants' expenses. No fees or honoraria
were paid by the government. The total cost of hosting the
conference is $24,244.91.
Question No. 15-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead):
With respect to the GST and businesses which have gross sales exceeding $6
million per annum, will the government amend the GST regulations to allow
these businesses to make their remittances on a quarterly or 60-day basis rather
than on a monthly basis?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Under the GST, only the largest 1 per cent of
businesses must be monthly filers. Small businesses have, of
course, much more flexible filing requirements.
The filing periods for the GST are quite comparable to those
in other countries.
Providing large businesses with an extra 30 days to remit their
GST would entail a one-time cash flow cost to the federal
government of more than $1 billion. This translates into an
ongoing interest cost of about $60 million per year.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The questions
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3108
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22,
1994, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and
of the motion.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-17.
Overspending, high taxes and the enormous debt we are
paying interest on are the big, big problems this government has
still to deal with.
I spoke before about high taxes that Canadians are paying,
taxes that are preventing investment in Canada, taxes that are
3109
making it necessary for both parents to go out and work so that
they can pay their rent, their mortgage and feed their families.
Most of all I talked about the fact that high taxes have resulted
in an underground economy that is going to be difficult to stop.
Sure, we have halted some of the smuggling of cigarettes
because the government has cut the tobacco tax, but in its place
is liquor smuggling. Stories in this week's press tell of
warehouses stacked to the ceiling with contraband alcohol. The
reason for this is the high taxes that Canadians are no longer
willing to tolerate.
I have also talked about the government's infrastructure
program and the fact that it will not create the permanent high
tech jobs this country needs. Rather, what we have coming are
short term jobs, jobs that will last only as long as the
government pours money into the program affected.
(1220)
I mention high tech jobs and the fact that the government
seems to be shying away from the realities facing this country.
Whether we want it or not, high technology is already here. It is
going to affect all of us at some point. The information network
is the first example that comes to my mind.
But what does the government do? It announces it will be
pulling out of the space program. It cancels KAON. Here the
potential job programs of the right kind are to be found, high
tech jobs. We are losing the opportunities to create and expand
the kind of skills this country is going to need if we are to
compete in future markets, markets that will be technology
based.
A constituent from Williams Lake, British Columbia wrote to
me about the space program. He is convinced there are very
good reasons that Canada should stay involved in the space
program beyond the fact that it provides an insight into cutting
edge technologies. My constituent goes on to say that he does
not want to see Canada put on the back burner, but not getting
involved in high tech industries will put Canada on the back
burner.
The future more so for the next generation is going to be
exciting. High technology will ensure that this is so, but only to
the extent that we keep up with all the changes. Just look at the
last 10 years and the changes to the workplace brought about by
computers. This leads me to my next point, being able to be a
part of the changing face of the workplace.
The February budget made reference to investing in jobs and
people. Today the government will introduce its five point
education program and work strategy program aimed at solving
the problems of this country's youth, who are rapidly becoming
known as the lost generation. The aim of the program is to create
a new work ethic for young people between the ages of 15 and
24. There will be apprenticeships and the Canadian youth
service corps. Is this Katimavik revisited? There will be a
learning package.
Apprenticeships can be wonderful things. We do need young
people to have formal training and marketable skills, but we
must not leave it to the government to take responsibility for
teaching the people. The private sector has to take the lead role
so that people are trained for the jobs that will be there, not the
jobs the government thinks might be there.
The learning package is probably the most commendable part
of the youth program. If it does offer hope to the youth, if it does
offer promise and jobs, I commend the government on this. I
sincerely hope it is not a false promise.
In Tuesday's Globe and Mail there was an article by a young
university student. This student passed comment about the fact
that the professor had to take time from giving the economics
lecture to give the class a lesson in grammar. It is a fact that
some university students, although they have got into university
and will probably get their degrees, still will be unable to
function effectively in the real world of business and commerce
because they cannot write a proper memo. They cannot
reproduce a report or a letter that can be understood clearly. This
is a major problem. It is not an isolated incident.
The government intends to work developing national
education standards in math, science and language skills. This is
long overdue and is a good move by the government. Only when
we ensure that our children can read, write and express
themselves properly will we be able to see a decrease in the
unemployment rates for the younger generation.
Education is a major key to self esteem. What satisfaction to
be able to pass the interview for a job and to adapt to the rapidly
changing world marketplace.
(1225 )
Although the government's first budget does have some
positive attributes, it does not in any way address the most
pressing problem facing the country: the need to get Canada's
financial affairs under control.
Many Canadians have learned how to cut back on spending
because they have been forced by economic circumstances to do
just that. However it is plain to see the federal government has
not learned this whole lesson yet.
Taxation at current levels is an abuse of power. We have a
government that is taking money from people and businesses in
such quantities that these people are unable to maintain their
present standard of living.
It is ludicrous when a young person with a minimum wage job
has to try to borrow money to pay taxes because his employer
3110
did not deduct sufficient at the source. This is really being put
between the proverbial rock and hard place.
It is just as ludicrous when a small business person is forced to
shut down because after taxes, licence fees, the cost of special
audits and all the intrusions that can come from government the
income is just not there. The business closes down and the
employer and employees are out of work.
At a time when the government could and must reduce its
expenditures it stubbornly refuses to do so. Rather it borrows
what it is unable to tax, while taking from people money needed
to put food on their tables. What is the government using it for?
Grants to special interest groups; building multicultural centres;
enforcing bilingualism; grants to multinational corporations;
duplication of services between departments and between
provincial and federal governments. A lot of this is in the name
of humanity and kindness.
The government talks about Reform policies being of the
slash and burn kind. The Reform Party has never advocated
slash and burn policies as we have been accused. Instead we
have proposed a program of maintaining essential services such
as health care, pensions and education while prioritizing areas
of expenditure reductions with a goal to reducing taxes.
Non-essential programs that are a heavy drain on the treasury
have to go if we are not to go belly up as a country. Effective
prioritizing must begin. The government continues to avoid
such prioritizing.
For example as part of its so-called cuts in spending the
Liberals have slated closing down the chinook salmon hatchery
on the Quesnel River in Likely, British Columbia. The reason
given is that the hatchery is uneconomical. This is true, but the
reason it is uneconomical is it is being operated at 10 per cent of
its capacity. How could it possibly be operating in an economic
manner at such a low rate? The major risk of losing this hatchery
is the real possibility of also losing the chinook salmon in the
upper Fraser system. Along with the salmon will go the hatchery
workers' jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, I feel it is
my duty to speak on Bill C-17, particularly the part concerning
unemployment insurance. A duty because I am the member for
Jonquière and-according to the weekend papers-the
Chicoutimi-Jonquière region has again the unemployment
record for Canada, 14.7 per cent. This is an official figure. You
know as well as I do that many people are discouraged and no
longer looking for work. These people do not show up in the
statistics, but they nevertheless live in our communities.
In my area, 25 per cent of the population might be on welfare
or unemployment insurance. Last week, I received a paper from
a professor at the Université du Québéc which said that, in my
area, the rate might be close to 50 per cent if everyone who
wants to work is counted. This is enormous. That is why I feel it
is my duty to speak out.
The bill reduces unemployment insurance payments, raises
the minimum entry requirements and reduces the number of
weeks during which unemployment insurance can be paid.
(1230)
I read the bill carefully and the only rationale for the
government to introduce such a bill is to save money. I agree that
government spending should be rationalized, and during the
election campaign our party was calling for deeper cuts than the
ones proposed.
But why single out the unemployed? There seems to be a
philosophy in that bill which says: ``That is it, the government is
no longer going to support you, you are going to be thrown out in
the street, and then you will have to manage on your own''. What
we are doing is applying to the unemployed the law of the
market, which is the law of the jungle. Everyone must manage
on his or her own with less and less help from the community or
the country.
I find this attitude scary. We are telling the unemployed: ``You
are probably out of work because you want it that way, you do
not really want to work''. We are calling into question the
honesty of our fellow citizens who, we claim, like to do nothing
and get paid for it. You know this is not true.
If we send people into the street to find jobs, there must be
jobs to find. Where are they? The government has just launched
an infrastructure program that is supposed to create 45,000 jobs
in Canada. The program has just started and there is nothing
concrete yet. Statistics show that many people would like to
work, but are unemployed. Where are the jobs? We are often told
that there are tens of thousands of unfilled positions because
there is no one qualified to take them. Where are these
positions?
I am a guidance counsellor by training. Before I had the
honour of representing the riding of Jonquière in this House, I
worked in a vocational training centre and was, among other
things, in charge of admissions. Whenever I met people who
wanted to be retrained and better prepared for the workplace,
some would ask: ``Which field has jobs available now?'' These
people had read in the newspapers and heard politicians say that
there might be tens of thousands of jobs available. Where are
these jobs advertised? In the newspapers or in the offers of
employment? We do not see very many there, nor on the bulletin
boards of UI offices. In my riding, there are people skilled in
leading sectors because they received training in new
technologies at the Université du Québec in Chicoutimi. At the
CEGEP in Jonquière, at the vocational centre where I worked,
people are
3111
told to develop skills because there will be jobs available, but
these jobs simply do not exist.
Madam Speaker, if we reduce benefits and force the
unemployed to go back to work, there should at least be jobs
available, which is not the case. This is not the time for the
Government of Canada to go after the unemployed. What is
needed are well thought out policies to stimulate employment.
And, in particular, we should take advantage of the current
unemployment situation to retrain those who are in need of
training.
I mentioned earlier that I worked in a vocational training
centre. I used to receive a lot of calls from unemployed people,
since massive layoffs took place in my region, including at
Alcan, Abitibi-Price, Cascades, as well as in some stores and
other businesses. People are not stupid; they realized that they
might not get their former job back, so they wanted to develop
new skills and be retrained. This is why they would get in touch
with the centre where I worked.
I would meet with them to assess their retraining
opportunities. But when it came to the crucial issue, that is,
``how will I survive while I am retraining and while I am in
school?'', I would tell them: ``Right now, you get your
unemployment insurance benefits, but if you come to my
training centre to take courses during the day, or even at night,
and you join some groups that are already there to be trained,
well, you will have to give up your benefits.'' People were
saying: ``That does not make any sense, I have to support myself
and my family.'' So, they would postpone their training plans.
(1235)
But this is absolutely criminal! It is criminal that, in
vocational training centres like the one in Jonquière, there are
spaces available in disciplines which are part of the new
technologies, such as electro-mechanics, digital controls and
refrigeration. In my training centre alone, hundreds of
thousands of dollars have been invested in equipment and
instruments. Often, these are not being used. And in the streets,
in stores, there are thousands of people who want to be trained,
but who are wandering around, trying to occupy their time.
I think it would have been important in the present situation to
have a concerted and effective vocational training policy which
would make room for people and allow them to be supported by
the community during their training. After that, they could go on
the labour market and become an asset for society. But this is not
what has been done.
What did we do during that time in terms of training? We
argued. I have witnessed that in my own training centre.
Often, we waited for information from the federal
government to see if unemployed workers wanted to apply for
various training programs. At a certain point, the federal
government would inform us that, for the time being, it did not
have the funds and that personnel might be available in three or
four months. Yet, workers cry out for training while various
levels of government cannot agree on a clear policy.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois have denounced the present
overlapping in occupational training. The federal government
makes decisions, the provinces make decisions, the Department
of Education decides to structure its programs the way it wants
and, at the end of the day, we have a situation where people who
want to be trained have no training while places remain empty in
our training centres.
This is outrageous, and that is why I condemn this bill,
because it sends the following message to the unemployed: You
cost too much, we doubt you really want to get back into the
labour market, and so we are going to shorten your benefit
period, but things should turn out in the end. But they will not.
One really wonders about the logic behind this kind of budget
proposal. It takes a short-term view of the problem. The
government wants to save billions of dollars in unemployment
insurance benefits for a couple of years, but the money will be
spent on welfare benefits because-and one of my colleagues
made the point this morning-there are some very scary figures,
and by that I mean that we can calculate the cost of the
unemployment insurance measures proposed by the
government. There are new welfare recipients in Quebec and
people who are not eligible for unemployment insurance
benefits. This is a frightening situation, because the government
is introducing measures, knowing there will be a significant
negative impact, and meanwhile, it does not hold out any hope
for the unemployed.
Last Wednesday, I attended a seminar organized by people
who are concerned about regional development. At this seminar,
a number of young people had this to say: We want jobs, and we
want real jobs. We do not want another Katimavik program. We
do not want be kept busy painting fences in the parks during the
summer. We want to get into the labour market. We want to be
part of the social, political and economic life of our country.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and of
course I will vote against Bill C-17, because I think it is
absolutely unfair to the unemployed.
(1240)
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Madam Speaker, I rise to
speak against Bill C-17 which has been introduced with a fair
amount of rhetoric but very little substance.
I would like to quote from a news release dated Ottawa, March
16, 1994 which says that the twin ``objectives of the bill are job
creation and deficit reduction''. I started to think about job
creation.
3112
When the Liberals won the election in October of last year,
one of their first acts was to cancel the helicopter program and
introduce their job strategy-job creation program which was to
pave more roads and build a few more sewers.
Maybe we did not need the helicopter program but we
certainly do need the experience, the research and the
development in the high technology field. If there is anything
that is going to bring this country out of the doldrums it is in and
show us the way into the 21st century, surely it has to be the
electronics industry rather than the paving industry.
We have in front of us the electronic highway that will be
crucial to the development of the technological business of
industry over the next many number of years. We very much
stand to lose our competitiveness around the world if we do not
invest in this high tech area. Yet the government has seen fit to
cancel everything in that area and introduce a subsidized,
government paid job creation program that is going to pave
some more roads and build some more sewers.
We had the opportunity to develop a highway that would go at
the speed of light and yet we think we are only going to build a
highway on which we can only travel at 40 or 80 kilometres an
hour. The electronic highway is the way of the future. It had
vision. It had substance.
The job creation program that the government sees has in my
opinion no vision, no real hope for 400,000 young people. It has
no real vision for saying: ``We have a program that is going to
see you through school right through to your retirement. It will
give you opportunity and prosperity''. All it can think of is short
term job creation programs to help them through the summer
and carry on from there.
Six billion dollars was supposed to create 65,000 short term
jobs. I understand that the Minister of Human Resources
Development may be talking at a news conference at this very
moment. As he said earlier today, he is going to announce a
program to spend another $100 million for 10,000 young
Canadians to see them through the summer. It is with no long
term vision. That is what upsets me most about this bill.
I read in the Globe and Mail today that the federal government
and the Government of Quebec are now at loggerheads over
which will do the job training in this part of the country.
Therefore the whole idea of job creation is stymied, put on the
shelf. It has been delayed. It has been postponed. Young people
desperately need the government to get its act together to do job
creation.
The only job creation I see is that civil servants in Ottawa are
at loggerheads with civil servants in Quebec City. That seems to
be going on ad nauseam and it is not benefiting the country. It is
not job creation.
If we are going to have job creation and deficit reduction,
surely we must hold out the vision of lower taxation, lower
deficits and controlling the debt. As we tell Canadians, they are
going to be faced with higher taxes and more government
spending.
There is no real incentive on anybody's part to invest in the
real wealth creating jobs in this country. The government has to
go back to square one and back to basics and rethink its whole
strategy on job creation, job training, job motivation, building
and creating wealth and prosperity. The bill is a very poor start.
(1245)
The government also said in its press release that there would
be a two-year extension of the freeze of public service wages.
Many Canadians would be glad to have a freeze if their jobs
were assured. Jobs are in jeopardy; jobs have been lost. Many
people are now on the unemployment rolls and are asking what
their futures are.
I would like to offer them some real hope that we are spending
their tax money wisely, but I cannot even offer that. I am looking
at the Ottawa Citizen article of April 9 written by Mr. Greg
Weston and entitled ``Pink (Slip) with Envy''. He writes about
the fictitious Bob who has been working for the federal
government as follows:
No matter what Bob's rank in the bureaucracy, he will be given at least six
months on the payroll to look for another job. During that time, he and other
surplus people like him will have priority over everyone, everyone (except
ex-political hacks) applying for similar positions elsewhere in the government.
They are going to shuffle the deck at taxpayers' expense and
maintain some jobs that may or may not be necessary in the
federal government. Poor people out there are working hard to
pay their taxes while civil servants in Ottawa and elsewhere
around the country feel quite cosy with their job security and
will not be laid off. The writer continues:
In fact, under a deal worked out with the unions in 1991 the government has
agreed not to lay off anyone without first making them a ``reasonable job
offer''.
Again the whole concept is to recycle the civil service rather
than make it efficient, responsive, lean and affordable. He
continues:
Even when Bob is finally given directions to the nearest unemployment
insurance office, he still remains at the front of the government line for
government jobs for another full year.
Even if somebody who is qualified and on UI he plays second
fiddle to our hypothetical Bob who is at the front of the line just
because he used to have a federal civil service job. He is
guaranteed to be the first in line for the next one that comes
along. In conclusion he writes:
In the past seven years only 5,629 public servants were actually laid off. That
is an average of about 800 a year out of the 230,000-odd people working for the
federal government. Among those landing on the street, about 60 per cent spent
more than six months on the public payroll doing nothing.
3113
Is that the type of job creation program the government likes:
people being paid by average Canadians who have to pay their
taxes to keep people on the public purse for doing nothing? He
continues:
No one seems to have any accurate figures on what all this is costing Canadian
taxpayers, but the tab is at least $60 million a year just for the 1,700-odd
bureaucrats currently floating around in surplus never-never land.
That article tells us that the government has neither addressed
deficit reduction nor job creation in a positive and serious way.
It is time government members heard from all Canadians. They
are certainly hearing from Reform Party members on this side of
the House that it is time they acted seriously and brought in
some serious job creation programs. That attitude would create
an environment or playing field for the private sector to create
job creation programs.
While I still have time I would like to mention I am appalled
the CBC is now going to be given authority to borrow money.
Surely the country has enough debt. It is time to recognize we
cannot keep borrowing money. We cannot keep giving every
agency in the country the authority to borrow more money, off
budget by the way, so the finance minister can tell us that the
deficit is coming down. He has just passed the buck over to the
CBC.
I will wrap up my speech by saying I am opposed to the points
raised in the bill. The government should bring in something
positive and concrete to do the job properly.
(1250 )
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Madam
Speaker, I stand today to respond to a few of the comments on
Bill C-17 by members of the opposition this morning and on
previous days.
I am a strong believer that we have the good fortune of living
in the greatest country in the world. I would also include the
province of Quebec in my country. It is part of Canada today. We
certainly look forward to it being part of Canada for many years
in the future.
With regard to Bill C-17, I am extremely proud of the
Minister of Finance and the time he took for consultations
across the nation. As every member of the House is well aware
he gave every opportunity to bring forward expertise from the
various sectors of our community and our business world. He
did this in addition to bringing together a number of economists
and other people with background and expertise in various
fields.
In addition he did something a little different. He allowed the
House to have the opportunity of a pre-budget debate. Members
of opposition parties had the opportunity to bring forth
suggestions, ideas and input previous to presentation of the
budget.
I must welcome the occupant of the chair. We have a new
Acting Speaker, a member from my home province of New
Brunswick who looks exceptionally good in the chair of the
House of Commons.
I am extremely proud of the minister and the opportunity he
gave each and every one of us in the House to bring forward our
ideas and thoughts. It should not have been an opportunity just
to bring forward our own thoughts and ideas on the subject
matter. It should have been an opportunity for us to bring
forward the thoughts and ideas of our constituents. Like every
member of the House I received many pieces of correspondence
and many telephone calls with sincere suggestions, input and
ideas about the forthcoming budget.
After all the consultation and opportunity, the Minister of
Finance brought forward a balanced, fair and equitable budget
for all parts of Canada and all Canadians. Some difficult
decisions were made in the budget. They were difficult for the
minister and for government members. Yet they were
responsible decisions.
For example, I am sure no one on the government side
anticipated prior to the election a $46 billion projected deficit
for 1993-94. Even after being presented with it, did the
government back off and say it was going to change its plans?
Was it going to do something different because it was new and
different news? No. The government said that it made it more
difficult but it was going to keep its commitment to Canadians
over the next three years of 3 per cent of gross domestic product.
The government is not going to back off. It is going to carry
forward on the commitments made in the red book that all
members of the House have held up from time to time and
referred to by section and page. It was well read across Canada.
It probably was the most well read book in 1993 and we are
extremely pleased by that.
(1255)
The bottom line is that every decision the government has
taken is looked at in light of what it would do to create an
atmosphere in the country that gives our business sector an
opportunity to create jobs for the future. We stated that up front,
first and foremost, and we are backing it up today. We are going
to continue to announce programs with that specific purpose in
mind.
I cannot imagine why that is something anyone should be
ashamed of, as some opposition members mentioned earlier. I
am extremely proud to be working with the Minister of Finance.
We will certainly continue to work with him in that endeavour.
3114
Now is the time for the government, all members of the House
and all other Canadians to work together. We have to continue to
build confidence in our people and confidence in business and
industry. They are the people who will create jobs in the future.
Since February 22, the date the budget was brought down, that
has been certainly brought forward to the people in my
constituency and many other constituencies across the country.
A new and modern Canada will see an opportunity for young
people. This plan will bring back hope to Canadians, hope for
their futures and the futures of their families.
During the recent break we had a couple of weeks ago I had an
opportunity to meet with many people across my constituency in
public meetings. Their comments were very positive. They were
saying: ``You are on the right track. Keep going in that direction.
It is a good balance. It is a balanced budget. We think we can
make it work''. They had the confidence we want to see.
On arriving in Ottawa I am sure everyone in the House,
especially the new members, had heard about our perks. One of
the first things the government did was to look at the so-called
perks. I have never had an opportunity to use low priced shoe
shine outlets or to have low priced haircuts. Maybe that is
obvious today. I have never had the opportunity to have free
gymnasium workouts or masseurs. That was one of the things
the government said first and foremost would be gone with one
mighty slash.
In comparison to a projected $46 billion deficit, $5 million
may not sound like much but to me $5 million is a lot of money.
To my constituents $5 million is a lot of money. I believe to most
Canadians $5 million is a lot of money. That is the amount the
action of eliminating those perks is projected to save Canadian
taxpayers during the next year. There is a lot more to be done, no
question about that, but we have to continue moving forward
with input and consultation with the citizens of the country.
When we start working together that is when we start making
accomplishments, that is when we start getting action and that is
when we start building an economy and getting people back to
work.
(1300)
I am not embarrassed by the fact that every decision the
government has made is based on creating the opportunity for
jobs. I am proud of the Minister of Finance and proud of this
government. I am proud to continue working with this
government toward that goal.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Thank
you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on this bill and I will vote
against it. This bill is a good example of why Canada does not
work.
Look at this morning's figures. I think that, instead of ``jobs,
jobs, jobs,'' their party's election slogan should have been
``welfare, welfare, welfare.'' In Newfoundland, the higher
eligibility standards will throw 1,635 more people on welfare,
while the reduced maximum number of weeks of benefits will
increase welfare rolls by 1,370. In New Brunswick, welfare rolls
will grow by 1,165 because of the higher eligibility
requirements and by 1,335 because of the reduced maximum
period of benefits.
I would have expected government members representing
ridings in these two provinces to rise and tell us that it does not
make sense, that this is totally at odds with what their party said
during the election campaign. This would have allowed the
government to come to its senses and stop sending misleading
messages.
We are telling people that the economy is stalled, to be even
more cautious, to avoid consuming more, to be careful. We act
in a way that will make more people go on welfare, consume
less, and contribute less to the economy. We kill off the weak
recovery our society may be experiencing. It is a strange
message to give to Quebec and Canada, to Quebecers and
Canadians.
In their previous speeches, government members told us there
was a free debate on the budget, that opposition parties could
make suggestions. Good, I think that is the purpose of the House
of Commons! That is not the problem, the problem is that our
suggestions are not acted on. Every time we propose job creation
programs to kick-start the economy and make people proud to
earn a living, they come up with measures such as this
legislation; it will only put more people on unemployment
insurance.
When I say that this bill is an example of why Canada does not
work, it is because the people cut off from UI benefits will no
longer have access to training programs linked to
unemployment insurance. In that sense, it is linked to one of the
fundamental problems with this system, namely its inefficiency
when the federal government lacks the will to co-operate with
the provinces.
The minister of Human Resources Development told us that
youth employment was the priority. Now he is surprised that the
opposition raises the need to respect the wishes of the provinces
in that area. The minister should be the first to know-I would
say this is a very important quality in a minister-that, if you
want to get somewhere, the co-operation of the people you are
working with is essential. The only indication he has given was
to the effect that he wanted to bulldoze the issue. The reform he
had in mind was one that would override the wishes of Quebec in
the area of manpower.
What he did not bargain for, though-and it must have taught
him a good lesson-was to see the governing federalists in
Quebec, who can hardly be called ``big bad separatists'', pass a
unanimous motion in the National Assembly yesterday. Here is
what it said:
3115
That the National Assembly of Quebec ask Mr. Jean Chrétien and the federal
Liberal government to abide by the unanimous consensus among all concerned
in Quebec on the need for Quebec to have exclusive jurisdiction over manpower
training.
It does not sound like a whim to me, yet it is said to be so in the
case of the Parliament representing the only majority
French-speaking nation in North America. It seems to me that
some attention should be paid to that kind of thing.
(1305)
In a way, the bill before us reflects this government's problem
in that it sends a double message: on the one hand, promote
economic recovery, but oddly enough on the other hand, do it on
the backs of the least fortunate in our society.
Ontario will not be affected as much as other provinces by this
reform, with 30 people or so not meeting the new eligibility
requirements. That gives some idea of the influence the Ontario
caucus has over this government, but I hope members who
represent other provinces will make sure they have their say and
convince the government to show a little more compassion for
regional economies which do not necessarily keep going
year-round. In that sense, I think it is important for the
government to act quickly.
I would have preferred to vote today on a bill setting up real
job creation programs. This bill touches on several issues; in
fact, we might even say that someone tried to smother the
unemployment insurance issue in this great omnibus bill, but no
one was fooled. We realize that the reform before the House
today is the same reform the Conservatives introduced last year
and which the Liberals have re-established and will continue to
apply.
That reminds me of the question Premier Daniel Johnson of
Quebec, still a true federalist, put to this government. He asked:
``Look, who is in charge in Ottawa, the bureaucrats or the
government?'' That is what we have come to realize with this
bill. The machinery of government kept working after October
25, and no one bothered to stop it. That is why these things are
still going on.
When you live in the lovely Ottawa region, it is very easy to
forget that some people are stuck with unemployment rates of 20
or 25 per cent and to conclude that UI beneficiaries are people
who do not want to work. It is not true. If the unemployed were
happy, they would not have the highest rates of suicide and
prescription drug use. They would not have to put up with high
crime rates and other social problems.
Some ridings and regions are more dependent on the
econo-mic situation; in those regions, we need new ways of
coping with structural change. But this government lacks
imagination and awareness and takes no action.
As a matter of fact, I am very happy to be part of the Official
Opposition because it gives me the opportunity to speak for
those who have no voice here. The two provinces most affected
are Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Quebec, too, is hard hit.
We have been taking the floor for three days in an attempt to
convince members opposite to change their mind. Government
members should be rising to demand that this bill or at least the
clauses on unemployment insurance be withdrawn.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I thank you
very much for the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill
C-17.
What I want to do in these 10 minutes is summarize the
arguments of my colleagues in the last three days of debate. We
have looked at this omnibus legislation and in all omnibus
legislation we have a difficult time in deciding whether we vote
for it or against it because involved in that type of legislation are
often some good ideas and often ideas that are partly acceptable
and some that are not acceptable at all. That is the choice we
have to make in the final analysis, whether in an overall sense
there is enough on the pro side to move one to a position of a vote
of yes rather than a vote of no.
That is the way the bill has been presented. The ruling of the
Speaker was that is the way the debate will carry on and we
intend to do that. We want to put the government on notice,
however, that at committee stage and at report stage it is our
intention to be very aggressive in some of the areas before us.
(1310 )
I would like to touch on each of the important principles in the
bill.
First of all, with regard to public sector compensation, we
support the government's freezing of salaries as it has at the
present time and also the freezing of the increments. There may
be some abnormal circumstances or anomalies arising during
the next period of time and I hope the government will be
considerate and compassionate. I hope it will be able to deal
with any of the circumstances that may in an adverse way affect
some employee in government who, in terms of their
responsibility, may have a right to an increase or fair pay for the
work that they present and the responsibilities that they take in
the public service.
I think of the Government of New Brunswick, I think of the
government of Alberta when an issue such as this arises and the
government either freezes a salary or reduces it. I have heard
this from government and I have heard people in the public
sector say they are being treated unfairly, governments are
trying to balance their budgets on the back of the public service.
We have to assess that statement and look at the framework in
which it is being made.
3116
As I walk through my constituency-I am sure it would be
consistent no matter what community I visited in Canada,
whether it be a major urban centre or a small community-I find
people supporting themselves through some entrepreneurial
endeavour. I find that their incomes have been reduced in the
last four to five years in a significant way. They have also
reduced the number of their employees. In the majority of cases
it is 20 per cent to 25 per cent.
Their expectations have been lowered. They have made an
adjustment in the business community. I visited 800 businesses
in Lethbridge in the latter part of 1993 and again in 1994. They
saw they were under economic pressure. The only way they
could continue their businesses was to have a balanced book in
which the revenues would somewhat equal the expenditures.
They could not go out and borrow more to maintain their staff
levels, their expenditure levels or the standard of living that they
and their families were enjoying. They had to make adjustments.
They made those adjustments. They quietly made them. Many
of them maintained their businesses. They are in place looking
for growth in the economy. Certainly they have placed their
confidence in us as members of Parliament to assure and to work
toward factors that will bring about that growth.
They have made a significant adjustment, more than the 5 per
cent that is being requested in the province of Alberta, more than
the 7.5 per cent that is being requested in the province of British
Columbia. On that basis we support this first move of the
government in terms of freezing not only the levels of income
but the increments that usually follow from year to year to the
public service.
The second area is the reductions to the Canada assistance
plan and the Public Utilities Transfers Act. Again we recognize
the need for that. The government must consider the fairness
with which it is done. In 1991 a cap was put on the amount of
money that was transferred to three of the provinces of Canada.
The other seven provinces did not have that cap. Now the cap is
being put on all of them. Supposedly there is equity in the
distribution of funds so that each Canadian, in no matter which
province, is treated fairly in terms of those programs. As
members of Parliament we must examine the concept of
equalization. I spoke on an earlier bill in this House that brought
about the equalization formula. I made the point that if the
equalization formula is right and fair and is doing its job, it will
mean the equalization of funding across Canada for a variety of
programs. If that is correct, every other program that
redistributes income or dollars to the provinces or a transfer of
dollars to individuals in Canada should be done on an equal
basis because we have created equality. I hope when the
government implements this program it keeps that principle in
mind.
(1315)
The third area in this bill is with regard to transportation
subsidies. We would support these reductions in terms of our
economic conditions because we have to make those kinds of
decisions. We feel that western Canada in terms of the Western
Grain Transportation Act and the maritimes should be involved
in the decision-making and the government should consult
those respective parties as these programs are delivered and the
shared responsibility for them is taken.
The other area in this bill is the borrowing authority that we
are giving to the Canada Broadcasting Corporation. We do not
support that because we feel this is only another avenue by
which funding is going to the CBC in order to pick up its deficit.
In the last fiscal year I believe its deficit was between $40
million and $60 million.
We do not believe this is the right thing to do and we certainly
are going to be speaking about it in subsequent debate. We do
not believe that the capital projects the CBC has in mind can be
repaid in a period of two to three years as it stated to us in our
briefing on this part of the bill. We do not believe that can
happen.
We believe that another means is being established by which
the CBC is able to secure funds by borrowing. We must
recognize that the Government of Canada, this Parliament, in
the end result has the responsibility of picking up the deficit. If
this plan of the CBC does not work, we are on the hook. It is just
another way that public funds are put into the broadcasting
system of this nation. We think this authority is opening up a
valve that cannot be controlled by this Parliament, even though
there is a lid of $25 million on the amount that can be borrowed.
The last area is the area of unemployment insurance changes.
I know that has received a lot of debate in the House, both the
pros and cons, the good and the bad. We believe that this
program should be put on an insurance basis so that if someone
loses his or her job, he or she has income during the interim
period between jobs. It should not be an income program as it
has been. It has changed from its original objective to an income
program in many instances.
I know presumably responsible people who have highly paid
jobs for three or four months who after that automatically go on
unemployment insurance and take advantage of this government
income. It is in every business community that we can think of.
It is up to us as legislators to stop that in any way that we can.
In conclusion, and I realize I only have a few seconds left, I
will make these two points.
First, we are going to vote against this because of the mixture
of principles that are in the bill. Our position is weighted on the
side to say nay to the bill.
3117
Second, we are opposed to some of the measures that are
contained in the bill and we are concerned that the reforms do
not go far enough. They could be extended and be better for
Canadians.
On that basis, and I summarize this for my colleagues in the
Reform Party, it is our intent to vote nay on this second reading
of the bill.
(1320)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies):
Madam Speaker, during the two-week Easter break, I am sure
many members, particularly those representing eastern regions,
have had the opportunity to find out what their constituents and
Canadians in general think about the conclusions and
consequences of the last budget.
In my riding, right in the middle of income tax time, people
called by the dozen to complain and say how mad they were
about the government digging again into their pockets to take
more than what was planned. With the implementation of the
new regulations on unemployment insurance, ordinary workers
will again be the ones to foot the bill for the cuts imposed by the
budget.
Before the election, the Prime Minister said to people in his
riding that he was still the ``little guy from Shawinigan'' and
promised, in clear enough words as we all heard on TV, a shower
of contracts that would create jobs in his region where the rate of
unemployment is quite disastrous. A few weeks only after his
election, he strikes; he goes after all the unemployed in his
riding. We should not be surprised that the Prime Minister of
Canada has to be surrounded by bodyguards when he visits his
riding.
Madam Speaker, I represent a riding in east-end Montreal,
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies. This district has been suffering
the ill effects of the recession for longer than the rest of Canada.
As for back as 1987, the government recognized the very serious
case of chronic unemployment in that riding. That is why I want
to talk about Bill C-17 today.
According to the document tabled by the Minister of Human
Resources Development at the time of the budget, and I quote:
``The proposed changes to the UI program are designed to
promote job creation, adequacy and fairness''. The minister is
therefore telling us that the fundamental reasons for changing
the unemployment insurance program are adequacy and
fairness. We will see that it is not so. When you look at the bill
before us, you realize that the Liberals have simply dug up a bill
that was being prepared by the Conservatives, as others have
already pointed out.
As three researchers at the Université du Québéc à Montréal
said in a study on the federal budget and the unemployed: ``The
federal budget of February 22 forecasts a net reduction in the
deficit of $8 billion for 1995-96'' but they say that only half of
that, about $4.1 billion, will come from new measures
announced by Finance Minister Martin. The other half comes
from a continuation of the measures announced in the
Mazankowski budget. Since Canadians and Quebecers have
chosen to get rid of all but two of the members of the former
government, one can safely assume that they were not exactly
pleased with these ineffective measures to create jobs.
As a matter of fact, in the study we just mentioned, the UQAM
researchers dealt at some length with the inefficiency of these
measures. They had this to say: ``We fear that reducing the
length of the benefit period will be quite ineffective and will not
bring about the desired results, namely, as to Mr. Axworthy
himself said, to oblige recipients to work for a longer period of
time in order to qualify for benefits for the same number of
weeks. Current research does not allow us to draw conclusions
on how the length of the benefit period affects job tenure and the
length of unemployment in Canada''. They conclude on this
note: ``It certainly does not support the minister's position''.
And yet, the Minister of Human Resources Development had
at his disposal the tools necessary to evaluate the inefficiency of
the measures he was about to propose since, as early as the fall
of 1993, the National Council of Welfare-a body created in
1969 by the Liberal government of the time-said the following
in its report: ``Changes to unemployment insurance which
would exclude certain workers could lead to an increase in
welfare rolls.''
(1325)
Ironically, this would add to the financial burden of the
federal and provincial governments, which are already worried
about their huge deficits. That is what we see happening in fact,
although unemployment is supposed to have gone down a few
points, in Quebec or the Maritimes or elsewhere.
What is actually happening is that people are leaving
unemployment insurance to go on welfare. There is no
employment recovery, then; that is nonsense. The authors of this
report continue: ``Before thinking of reducing unemployment
insurance further, governments should do more research on the
connections between unemployment insurance and social
assistance.'' We can reasonably believe that, if the measures
concerning unemployment insurance contained in this bill are
adopted, any resulting decrease in the number of unemployed
people will just add to the number on welfare.
The government, for its part, estimates that the impact on
provincial welfare programs will total $65 to $135 million. The
study that we are quoting today speaks of $1 billion, of which
$280 million would be borne by Quebec. As we clearly see, this
government is just passing its deficit on to the provinces again.
Meanwhile, our pseudo-premier of Quebec says nothing about
it, but the voters are not fools. They well know that when the
federal government transfers its deficit to the provinces, wheth-
3118
er it is in Quebec City or in Ottawa, they always end up paying
the bill.
So what other issues or reasons could have motivated the
minister to present this bill or have it passed? It is simply to
lower the deficit. Once again, the poorest people in society are
being made to bear the burden of the blunders committed
previously by all levels of government.
We all know that the government could have tried to save
money quite differently. The three economists of the Université
du Québec à Montréal mention one way, which I will quote here:
``There was no shortage of ways to reduce federal spending
besides the budget for unemployment insurance.'' The
government could simply have opened the last few annual
reports of the Auditor General of Canada-I should have
brought them with me, they are very thick-in fact, any report at
any page. It would have found enough cuts to make without once
again going after the unemployed.
Under the circumstances, we have no choice but to say that the
government did not do its job properly. In fact, I should rephrase
that comment because it is not strong enough. Once again, the
Liberals merely pursued the previous government's policy, a
policy which they vehemently criticized when they sat on this
side and which allows the rich to get richer, while penalizing the
poor.
The report released by the National Council of Welfare
clearly showed the way to go. Our priority should be to develop
tax and economic policies which will lead to a reduction in the
number of unemployed people. The best way to reduce
dependency on welfare or unemployment insurance is to ensure
full employment. But this is clearly not being done.
People in my riding are fed up, and so are ordinary citizens in
Quebec and in Canada. They are fed up with seeing their
purchasing power being eroded day after day. They are fed up
with seeing the deficit still growing after being told for years
that it will diminish. Our only perspective is a disastrous deficit
of $500 billion. And we are told that, for sure, it will climb to
$600 billion in the next three years. People are fed up with
seeing successive governments resort to the same old solutions
which have already proven to be costly, ineffective and illogical.
Last October, voters in Quebec realized of course that they
should not support those who resort to these old solutions which
have the direct effect of ruining the country. Soon, when the next
provincial election is held, Quebecers will again display the
same wisdom. It may be that, in the not too distant future, we
will achieve the ultimate goal of this process and find the true
solutions for us Quebecers by becoming a sovereign state which
will eliminate the useless spending, wasting of public money
and overlapping of systems which our governments have been
tolerating for too long and which they ironically refer to as
profitable federalism.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 1.30 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier this day it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion of
Mr. Milliken.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to order made
earlier this day the recorded division on the motion will take
place on Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
[Translation]
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3118
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval) moved
That in the opinion of this House, the government should approach Canadian
National Railways and have it authorize the privatization of the
Franquet-Chapais trunk line for a nominal sum and ensure the maintenance
and consolidation of the CRAN subdivision in the riding of Roberval, in order to
promote mining and forestry development in the region.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to put
this motion before the House so that it can be debated by
members of Parliament, because in my riding of Roberval, and
especially in the Chibougamau-Chapais area where mining
development is vitally important, rail service is to be abandoned
pretty soon.
3119
I know that the region of Lac-Saint-Jean and
Chibougamau-Chapais is not the only one in Quebec, and
indeed in Canada, where rail services are being shut down. I
know that Crown corporations need to rationalize their
expenses. I know the various services provided to Canadian
taxpayers are expensive. But I also know that infrastructure is
needed to further the economic development of a region.
Some people will say that, of course, we must shut down trunk
lines, especially those that are not really profitable. However, as
far as the region of Lac-Saint-Jean is concerned, and especially
the Chibougamau area, we are talking about a crucial
infrastructure for mining development throughout the region.
I know that members of this House are in the habit of using
such expressions as ``it is vital for the development of my
region'' and we ``cannot do without it''.
(1335)
In this instance, we should realize that a railway is frequently
the only viable alternative for moving the output of mining
companies from a remote region like Chibougamau-Chapais or
even Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, both of which are quite far
from Quebec City or Montreal. Infrastructure is needed to offset
geographical disadvantages.
I would not raise this issue in the House if the CN did not turn
a deaf ear to repeated pleas by people in my riding. I would not
make representations in the House if the Minister of Transport
proved more sensitive to this problem.
Yes, we can all agree on reducing rail service in many regions
o Canada. We are ready to look at the problem responsibly as
elected representatives who want to spend public money
sparingly. My colleagues responsible for regional development
and transport tried to make the Minister of Transport more
aware of the problem and get regional public hearings before
unfortunate decisions are made that could jeopardize the future
of a whole industry.
Unfortunately, I was not able to convince the Minister of
Transport that he should review these decisions. I have found
and read reports dating from the days when those who are now
government members or ministers were in opposition. In a paper
those people, including the present Minister of Transport, wrote
and signed, we read that the Conservatives set out to dismantle
our railway network, especially in Quebec. They called for an
end to that strategy, which was being implemented
irresponsibly, and demanded public hearings in affected areas to
allow people there to at least have a say and voice their
concerns.
One cannot make cuts in a railway system, in an infrastructure
essential to the development of an area, and get away with it, if
one has not previously taken the trouble to go to listen to local
people and determine the risks involved in dismantling it.
It has to be understood that there are two important rail lines
in northern Quebec, namely the Franquet-Chapais line, which is
the object of my presentation today, and the CRAN line.
In the case of the Franquet-Chapais line, Canadian National
Railways, when it submitted a request for abandonment, was
authorized to dismantle this rail line in June. You can
understand, Madam Speaker, how important it is to deal with
this issue today because, starting in June, CN will be at liberty to
dismantle the Franquet-Chapais rail line, the line between
Franquet in the Abitibi and Chapais in the
Chibougamau-Chapais region.
Canadian National Railways has also indicated that it
intended to ask the Transport Commission for authorization to
abandon its operations on the CRAN line. For the benefit of
those who are not familiar with the local geography, the
Franquet-Chapais trunk line is presently not in use, operations
having been stopped for some time already. The mining
companies are using the CRAN line for their operations.
Just imagine the vicious circle the people of
Chibougamau-Chapais are caught in; they need rail service to
carry their ore, but the Franquet-Chapais trunk line was closed
down some months ago and is about to be dismantled, and now
CN is announcing that in an effort to streamline, it has decided
to drop rail service through the Lac-Saint-Jean region that
allowed the companies to carry on their operations.
(1340)
It is absolutely unthinkable to use trucks for transportation in
the mining sector. Yet, that is what the people of
Chibougamau-Chapais are being told to do, use trucks to
transport the ore to where the concentrators and the necessary
facilities are. However, this would mean a 50-per-cent increase
in transportation costs. Given the state of the economy today,
what business could absorb a 50-per-cent increase in operating
costs? In some respects, this decision jeopardizes the
development of the Chibougamau-Chapais region.
The Franquet-Chapais line is located along a geological fault
where new deposits are discovered nearly every day. New hopes
arise each day along the geological fault, from the
Chibougamau-Chapais sector all the way to Abitibi. Ore
deposits are being discovered every day and every day, new
projects are on the verge of being launched. However, a decision
such as the one Canadian National is preparing to make will
snuff out any hope that the Chibougamau-Chapais region may
have. This is a region in desperate need of hope, given its remote
location in
3120
northern Quebec, a region which relies on the discovery of new
mines and new deposits for its development.
The people of Chibougamau-Chapais are proud. They depend
neither on the Quebec government nor on the federal
government for their livelihood. They are involved in mining
operations, make good money and contribute to the economy of
this country, of Quebec, of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region and of Abitibi as a whole.
What you have here is an entire region not begging for
hand-outs or asking the government to go out of its way to
create temporary jobs, an entire region capable of creating real,
productive employment to help increase Canada's gross
domestic product. You have people willing to contribute to our
collective wealth. Are jobs not scarce these days? When any
initiative should be welcome and every effort should be made to
support economic development and job development instead of
investing in social programs, temporary programs and even
infrastructure programs?
Here is a suggestion. The hon. members and ministers
opposite are out of ideas and are wondering how to pull the
country out of this recession. They are looking for ways to
regain the considerable number of jobs lost in Quebec since the
beginning of the recession. Figures published this week
revealed that-if these timid actions are all this government has
to propose-it will take three years to restore the level of
employment enjoyed in Quebec before the recession. But when
the people of Chibougamau-Chapais find new mineral
deposits, propose economic development solutions, try to
increase the wealth of this country, they see their initiatives
jeopardized because the Minister of Transport disowns his
signature.
The Minister of Transport refuses to be sensitive to the people
of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, of Chibougamau-Chapais. The
Minister of Transport is no longer the man of the situation and
the government refuses. The people responsible for setting up
the economic team which it lacks flatly refuse to see the light.
(1345)
The unemployment problem is caused by people who refuse to
seize opportunities. However, the people of
Chibougamau-Chapais, in desperation, decided to take matters
into their own hands, to make up for this government's
inefficiency, to thwart CN's plans and they called for the
privatization of this trunk line. Let the champions of private
enterprise stand up in this House, if there are any among the
members across the way. They wanted to privatize the network,
to have CN transfer the Franquet-Chapais line to the people of
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean-Chibougamau-Chapais for the
nominal sum of one dollar so that they could keep this section in
operation until such time as it will become absolutely
indispensable, with new mining discoveries. Let these people
hang on to this life buoy, this line which CN wants to dismantle.
The request was made. Our people did their job. They asked
CN and they got this answer: ``We would get $5 million for the
line's old steel-the railway being made of steel-, so we are
going to sell the line to you, the people of Chapais, for $5
million.'' Big deal! CN is acting as if it had not stayed in
business because of the taxpayers' money, as if it was the
railway's sole owner and had paid for it without the help of
taxpayers. It is forgetting that the Franquet-Chapais line, like
all other rail lines in Canada, was paid for by the hard work of
generations and generations of Canadian workers.
Why should we deprive people of the opportunity to take
charge of their own lives? Could someone across the way
explain to me in a sensible way, without partisanship, trying
only to think that we must help people, that we were elected to
support our people, to defend them, to help them earn a living,
could anyone explain to me why we should refuse the request of
people who are not asking for anything, but only to buy for a
nominal sum a rail line which was closed down by CN? Why
refuse that? Is it impossible to respond to these demands? I
appeal to my colleagues on the other side. I appeal to the
Minister of Transport. I appeal to the Minister of Finance and
Minister Responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development. I appeal to all my colleagues on this side of the
House and my colleagues in the Opposition. Why should the
government not reexamine such an issue and allow people to
take control of their lives and ensure their development? What
else does it want? Did it ever receive a more attractive proposal
from a group of citizens who want to live, who want to survive,
who want to ensure their development without asking anything
from the government? I am proposing to the government a job
creation program that will cost only one dollar, but will bring in
lots of money to the government and will allow people from our
region to use that infrastructure. While the government is
putting millions and billions of dollars into the development of
infrastructure that does not exist, it keeps citizens from
acquiring, for one dollar, something which already exists and
which is necessary. Explain that to me, Madam Speaker.
Finally, I would like to tell you that this issue is very serious
for my region and for Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. There are so
many raiy lines in western Canada. And we agree that they are
needed.
(1350)
We understand that for the sake of the economy in that region,
it is necessary to use rail lines as links between urban and rural
centres, in order to transport grain and various commodities. We
understand that. There is no one on this side who has asked to
3121
dismantle those lines. Everyone agrees that they are important
for the economic development of that part of the country.
But we ask that the same sensitivity been shown towards the
East. Why should that not be the case in the East also? What
makes Chibougameau-Chapais less remote than any other area
in the West, say northern Manitoba or Saskatchewan? Where is
the difference? Lines are maintained when they are important to
development in western Canada, and we agree with that. But we
cannot agree to the dismantling of rail lines that belong to us in
our area.
Moreover, we want to buy that line and keep it open. We
simply want Canadian National to give us back the taxes we paid
to finance the construction of those trunk lines. As I see it, the
Canadian National is a one-way organization. They pull the
plug to drain away the savings of Canadians but when the time
comes to open the tap at the other end, there is nothing left. I
think this is the way things are done.
We would ask the government to take action on that issue in a
non-partisan way and without using the schemes that some
would want to see implemented in that case. There is no concept
as reasonable and as cheap as the one that has been submitted to
this House to guarantee the development of a region.
Some businesses will inevitably close down if that trunk line
is abandoned. With a 50 per cent increase in transportation
costs, it will not be possible to ensure the economic
development of Chibougamau-Chapais. Annual wages of
$50,000, $60,000 and $70,000 are paid in the mining sector. Our
people are proud of those wages, but they work very hard to earn
them. However, we need help. Is there anyone in this House who
would refuse to support a motion that gives one dollar to the
government, that ensures the development and the pride of a
region, that ensures people that their livelihood will not be taken
away from them?
I see that my time is up, Madam Speaker, but I would ask the
members of this House to show solidarity. We have to save the
Franquet-Chapais trunk line. We have to hold public hearings
on the dismantling of the rail network in Quebec and in the rest
of Canada.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Madam
Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on Motion
M-194, presented by the member for Roberval. The motion asks
the government to call on Canadian National Railways to sell
the Chapais line for a nominal sum and to ensure that CN
maintains the neighbouring CRAN subdivision.
Concerning the first part of the motion, let me first give a
brief summary of the present situation of the Chapais
subdivision and to explain how it got that way.
Parliament delegated to the National Transportation Agency
the powers necessary to enforce the provisions of the National
Transportation Act, 1987, on the abandonment of rail lines.
In 1987 CN asked the Agency for the authorization to abandon
a 90-mile section of the Chapais subdivision, between Franquet
and Chapais, because it was losing money on it.
After reviewing the case presented by CN and the testimony
gathered at public hearings held in 1989 across northern
Quebec, the Agency agreed that the line was not cost-efficient
but that there was a reasonable probability of it becoming so in
the foreseeable future and that its operation should be
maintained in the public interest.
Consequently, on January 31, 1990, the Agency rendered a
decision ordering CN to keep operating the line.
(1355)
As provided for in the law, three years later, the agency
reviewed CN's application for abandonment and ruled that, with
the exception of a six-mile section, the line was not profitable
and there was no reason to believe it could eventually turn a
profit.
On July 12, 1993, the agency ordered CN to continue
operating the six-mile section between Franquet and a site near
Grevet and allowed CN to stop operating the 91-mile
Grevet-Chapais section as of August 12, 1993.
I must stress that, in the last five years, the line was only used
in November 1992 to transport Hydro-Quebec transformers.
We must realize that the operation of this line costs CN over
$600,000 in annual losses. Since the NTA order requires CN to
keep the line in service, CN receives compensation for its losses
from the federal government, or rather from taxpayers. So the
Chapais subdivision is operational but does not handle any
traffic.
It is quite understandable that local communities, fearing the
impact losing the line would have on their economic
development, lobbied the former government, which issued an
order delaying abandonment until May 31, 1994. The purpose of
this nine-month delay was to allow interested parties to review
various options to maintain the line.
CN is ready to sell the line. However, nothing is happening
and CN should be allowed to go ahead. But the matter is not
necessarily closed. Once the abandonment order is in effect, CN
can sell its right of way and facilities without any kind of federal
regulatory approval, which it cannot do at the present time.
Currently any interested buyer can negotiate a selling price for
the line with CN.
Which brings us to a very interesting aspect of this motion,
the expression ``nominal sum''. As a commercial Crown
corporation, CN received from Parliament the mandate to
operate like a business in order to remain viable. I fear that a
business cannot
3122
remain viable if it sells land and salvageable steel rails for what
is commonly called a ``nominal sum.'' Too often, we associate
the concept of ``nominal sum'' with the amount of $1, instead of
at least considering net salvage value which can amount to
millions of dollars.
It is therefore not necessary for the government to authorize
CN to sell the Chapais subdivision. CN is ready to sell the line at
a price equivalent to the value of the land and the net salvage
value of the track facilities. It has all the necessary authority for
this.
Madam Speaker, if I may, I will briefly talk about the second
part of the motion, that is to obtain a guarantee that CN will
maintain the neighbouring CRAN subdivision, and make sure
that it is integrated in such way as to promote mining and
logging in the region.
Maybe I should apologize, but I do not understand the
meaning of the word ``integration'' in this context, and neither
do the officials of Transport Canada. The CRAN subdivision is a
side track to and from transfer points to lines with much heavier
traffic. In order to be operated properly and safely, the track and
the related infrastructure must be properly integrated.
As for the maintenance of the CRAN subdivision, CN is
seeing to it. CN also uses this track for rail traffic within the
region. Railway activities and maintenance work done by CN in
the CRAN subdivision are regulated by the government and
supervised by railway safety inspectors designated by the
minister.
In conclusion, I want to insist on the fact that existing
statutory provisions and policies allow for the purchase of the
CN's Chapais subdivision. CN wants to sell the line. As for the
CRAN subdivision, it is operated by CN according to operation
and maintenance standards approved by the federal government
under the Railway Safety Act.
(1400)
For all these reasons, I cannot support the motion.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed by the answer from the
government member to the motion of the hon. member for
Roberval asking for the maintenance of some railroad lines in
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. When you listen to the government
member, we would almost think we were hearing CN officials. I
imagine that the member's reply was prepared by CN officials,
because what we just heard is almost exactly the same as the
letters sent in recent years by CN to all concerned, regarding this
line.
The problem with this government is its lack of sensitivity to
regional development and its lack of vision when it comes to
public policies. This comment has been made before, but this is
yet another prime example of this shortcoming. The Liberals are
merely repeating the mistakes of the previous Conservative
government which they so vehemently criticized for years in the
House and elsewhere, insisting all along that it be more
compassionate and more sensitive to the regions.
This is a good example where residents of a region, in this
particular case Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau, are not
asking for subsidies. They are not begging to get money from the
government in order to maintain and preserve their economic
development. If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
gives me a few moments, I will convince him of the merits of
this motion.
People from Chibougamau-Chapais and from
Lac-Saint-Jean are merely asking that we respect their desire to
look after their own economic development in the years to come.
In his reply, the Liberal member used CN figures when he said
that, in recent years, the line had been used once by
Hydro-Quebec to transport transformers.
The hon. member for Roberval spent 20 minutes explaining
why rail service must be maintained in this region, and he
pointed out that, nowadays, given the crisis in the mining
industry, the rail line is not being used as much as it would be if
there were a boom in mining development. Who knows, in a
week, a year or two years from now, the mining industry may
enjoy an incredible boom. What would happen then, Madam
Speaker, if we decide now to dismantle the rail lines and get rid
of this infrastructure? The taxpayers will have to reach into their
pockets once again to rebuild roads or rail lines in order to
further the economic development of their region.
In his speech, the hon. member for Roberval raised another
important issue to which I want to come back, and that is the
ownership of this rail line.
(1405)
This rail line does not belong to the private sector but to a
public institution called Canadian National. As my colleague
has mentioned, for many decades, in fact for more than a
century, Quebecers and all Canadians as well were involved in
financing and maintaining this service in all regions of Canada.
Therefore, they are the real owners. This rail line does not
belong to the President of Canadian National or to officials in
the Department of Transport. It belongs to the citizens who paid
for it over and over again.
If we had to keep in mind only this criterion, which is the
immediate cost effectiveness of a rail line, what would happen
to the rail lines in western Canada which get hundreds of
millions of dollars in subsidies for grain transportation? As my
colleague pointed out, we, in the Bloc, are not opposed to
3123
subsidizing grain transportation in the West. We want fair
treatment.
In this case, we are not asking for subsidies. I repeat, what we
want is to allow the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and
Chibougamau-Chapais, who have always shown considerable
dynamism in their economic development, to allow these
people, who are simply asking their government to show some
sensitivity, to acquire this segment of the railway, which they
will manage to make profitable.
Does this mean, and are we to conclude from what was said by
the Liberal member, that the only way the people of
Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau will be able to save this rail
line and obtain ownership will be when we have a sovereign
Quebec and own a railway network that has been paid for many
times over? That is when the people of this region will really be
able to take control of the development of their area.
We are always being accused in this House of bringing up
Quebec's sovereignty, but the technocratic and unfeeling
response of the member from Ottawa leaves us no alternative.
In concluding, I would like to return to this government's lack
of vision on the issue of railways. To paraphrase a common
expression, one could well ask: Who is minding the Department
of Transport?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Is there
anyone who is capable of making decisions? In the next few
months, there will be some important changes in the railway
sector in eastern Canada, and I am referring to the CN-CP
merger. The government is waiting for a decision from senior
officials to find out whether or not to recommend the merger.
A number of decisions must be made now, including whether
or not to proceed with the CN-CP merger, and to conduct studies
on the viability of the rail lines, and finally to help the people of
Lac-Saint-Jean and of Chibougamau-Chapais take control of
the development of their economy by letting them develop this
rail line.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Madam
Speaker, I would like to raise a few points and some issues with
regard to the motion by the hon. member for Roberval.
I am going to be as frank and straightforward as I can possibly
be with him. Hopefully by doing so I will be able to get closer to
the heart of what he is proposing.
I would welcome the opportunity to have the various doubts I
have about the member's motion cleared up. First I should spell
out some of the issues as I see them. To begin with let us take a
good look at the Franquet-Chapais line that the member is in
favour of privatizing. Let us examine the history of this trunk
line so that we can better understand what it is that is being
requested.
(1410)
The line in question, which is 97 miles long, is located in
northern Quebec. This is a rather short line but it would make no
difference to Canadian National which controls the line if this
route were considered a profitable one. However, it is not. Let
me make myself very clear about that because CN officials have
stated unequivocally to me that the Franquet-Chapais line is not
profitable and has not been for quite some time.
CN Rail first applied to the National Transportation Agency
for abandonment of the line in 1989. At that point, to quote the
railroad, there was no traffic at all on the line in question.
The NTA ruled that the line was not economical to maintain
and operate and stated that there was no near term possibility for
that line to become profitable. At that time the NTA also pointed
out there was a reasonable possibility the line could be
economically valuable at some point down the road.
As a result of this CN Rail was told to continue operating the
line for a period of three more years to determine beyond a doubt
whether the line had any economic potential. As it turned out, it
did not.
The Franquet-Chapais line has been a drain on CN's
resources ever since and traffic on that line has continued to be
next to non-existent.
In 1992 the NTA reviewed the case again and ruled that all but
six miles of the entire 97-mile route were uneconomical with
``no possibility that it could become feasible to operate''.
Since that time the line has existed in a sort of railway
hinterland. It has not been abandoned outright but this is due to
occur on May 31, 1994, unless a private buyer can be found for
the line.
What should we make of this? I presume the hon. member for
Roberval raised this motion in order to head off the unhappy
destiny this trunk line is about to meet. I think that is both an
honourable and just thing for him to do. After all CN has stated
quite flatly it has no use for that line and no desire to keep it in
service any longer.
The member has nothing to lose by putting forward his
privatization motion and everything to gain.
I would like to point out a few minor things, however, which
may run against what the member is trying to accomplish with
his motion. Number one, allow me to say to this House that
although the Franquet-Chapais line has been on the CN auction
block for a good number of years not a single private or public
3124
body has ever expressed a concrete interest to CN officials in
purchasing the line, not one, Madam Speaker.
Where then would the hon. member suggest a a real buyer be
found for this trunk line? It may be accurate for him to say that
such a line would allow mining and forestry development in the
northern region of Quebec but such potential did not transpire
overnight.
Even when the Canadian economy was booming and prices
were high for mineral and wood products, there was not one
proposal put forward to CN which called for the 97-mile route to
be taken off the railroad's hands.
With this in mind at a time when the natural resource industry
remained depressed I sincerely do not know how the member
hopes to find a saviour, a white knight who will rescue the
Franquet-Chapais line from its ultimate fate.
Let us not be mistaken. CN Rail has not been jealously
guarding its many trunk and feeder lines in the hope of
preventing potential buyers from taking them away and making
better use of them. Quite the contrary, in fact.
For a number of years Canadian National has been making a
strong concerted effort to sell off its smaller lines to private
interests in hopes of concentrating more fully on the primary
areas of operation and reducing its staff and maintenance costs.
The sell-off has been even more actively promoted in eastern
Canada. In fact, CN even went so far as to produce a line of all
trunk lines that it felt had a real potential for interested buyers.
Unfortunately the Franquet-Chapais line did not make that list.
I believe the reason for this was simple. It has been a consistent
money loser for years while many of CN's other trunk lines were
managing to turn a profit.
What is one to make of this predicament? CN Rail went even
further to do away with lines like the one in question. It actively
pursued sales offers not only from the private industry but also
from other public entities such as municipalities and even the
Quebec government. Not one of these bodies expressed an
interest in taking on the Franquet-Chapais line.
(1415 )
Simply put, CN Rail would love someone to take the line off
its hands but no one has approached the railroad about it and
time is running out for anyone to do so. Therefore, what am I to
make of the hon. member's motion? It is certainly well
intentioned and I commend him for that but I honestly do not
know if it is feasible. This is where my concern lies.
That is not the end of the confusion surrounding this motion.
Officials I have spoken with at CN expressed some concern
about the vague terminology of the member's motion, especially
the phrase that calls for the line to be offered to a bidder for a
nominal sum. What is exactly meant by this unclear choice of
words? He has cleared that up a bit today.
In terms of what CN Rail would actually be willing to see the
Franquet-Chapais line sold for, federal transportation policy is
very explicit and, I might add, quite reasonable. If a company
wishes to take over unwanted rail line from its owner at any
point during the abandonment process and is willing to pay the
basic salvage value of the rail line as determined by the National
Transportation Agency then the railroad must sell the line in
question.
In the case of the Franquet-Chapais line this abandonment
process has been dragging on for a period of five years but no
potential buyers have forced CN to divest itself of this asset. I
may point out that the concept of salvage value is important here
because it shows that CN could not possibly be holding on to a
money losing line because it is not getting top dollar offers from
outside sources.
In actual truth the railway simply has not received any
purchase offers for the Franquet-Chapais line, period. It could
be that in this case the total salvage value of the 97-mile route
would turn out to be nothing more than a nominal sum. Is this
what the hon. member is actually driving at?
My impression is that he would be satisfied to turn the trunk
line over to private interests for the sum of $1. Certainly this
would accomplish his goal but it would not be a benefit to CN. It
would open every line in its system to takeover for $1. In fact,
CN Rail would never agree to such a proposal and this is the hard
fact of the situation. The Franquet-Chapais line is worth more to
CN sitting idle than it would be as a gift to private investors.
Let me express my sincere sympathy for the member for
Roberval because I understand very well what he is trying to
accomplish with his motion. My riding is also facing rail
problems similar to those that have plagued the
Franquet-Chapais trunk line.
In British Columbia's Slocan Valley, a rail line is being
threatened with closure because of a variety of negative
economic factors. I understand what the member is driving at. I
am now trying to get abandonment proceedings delayed in my
own riding just as has been done in the past in the hon. member's
own area.
If a delay in Slocan Valley is successful as it was in his own
area with the Franquet-Chapais line, then it should be up to that
specific area to promote rail business through local economic
development if the people of that area want to keep the rail line
in the long term.
In the case of the Franquet-Chapais line the citizens of the
region had the chance of stretching it over a five-year period to
bring about the renewal and redevelopment of the line.
Unfortunately, it appears that nothing was done with this
opportunity. This suggests that there simply was no business to
promote on the line to begin with.
Hopefully the Slocan valley rail line that is now on the
chopping block will be given the same chance for renewal the
Franquet-Chapais line has already had. Hopefully we will be
3125
able to accomplish more with our opportunity and save our line
by making it more economically viable for private industry.
However, I do not know how much more can be done in the
case of the rail line advocated by motion 194. Private and public
investors have had since 1989 to revamp and reinvest in the line
and return it to profitability. This has not been done.
I do sympathize with the hon. member's motion but
unfortunately I simply do not believe there are any simple
solutions to be gained from motion 194.
[Translation]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to address this
House in French. After only six weeks of French classes, I know
I still make mistakes. I agree with the member for Roberval.
[English]
CNR, CPR and VIA serve Canada.
It is easy for the member for Kootenay West to get up and
reject outright the thesis of the member for Roberval when he is
harboured by the Western Grain Transportation Act. They get
underwriting which is a subsidy that is not able to be taken by
the member for Roberval's CNR track. There is also the Crows
Nest Pass and I can go on and on.
This whole thing is why I support the member for Roberval.
CNR, CPR and VIA pick off whatever line they like each year
until all they have left are very few Canadians who have access
to public transportation which has been enormously supported
since Confederation; billions and billions of dollars have gone
into CPR and CNR, particularly in the west.
Please, enough of throwing mud at each other. Let us work
together for a national rail strategy that will serve Canada in the
21st century and not leave one section out to the benefit of
another.
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Madam
Speaker, I feel compelled to take part in this debate today and
support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Roberval
since my riding of Cochrane-Superior, like many other rural
ridings across Canada, is experiencing the very same problems.
First of all, we have to remind CN that its primary mandate is
to promote regional development by ensuring the operation of
rail lines across the country so that remote areas in particular
can develop economically and have access to urban
communities in Canada.
I find it extremely unfortunate that CN has adopted such a
policy over the last few years. We who live in rural areas of this
country are beginning to feel abandoned. We are seeing our
chances of becoming self-sufficient diminish.
Even though CN wants to abandon rail lines, the National
Transportation Agency could intervene to save them, if only it to
ensure the future development of our regions.
A few moments ago, I talked about people feeling isolated.
Once rail is gone, what are you going to replace it with? Whether
we use a bus, a truck or anything else, it will still cost money.
I repeat and maintain that CN has responsibilities to isolated
areas and to its employees; it has a moral duty to ensure that all
regions of the country have a chance to develop. Dismantling
unprofitable branch lines is no way for CN to fulfil its mandate.
Absolutely not.
I strongly disagree with what my colleague from
Carleton-Gloucester was saying a while ago. At this stage I
would like to make a very important digression.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bélair: I am astounded, to say the least, when I see
members from urban areas, who have probably never seen a
rural rail line, rise in this House to denounce or deny support for
the concerns of their rural colleagues.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this opportunity
to voice my concern.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You still have some time
left.
Mr. Bélair: Thank you, but I said what I had to say.
(1425)
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, hearing the
member for Carleton-Gloucester on the profitability of the
trunk line, which my colleague from Roberval wants to save
from destruction, from being scrapped, I was reminded that
some people have never travelled to the regions. Some people
have never seen what an isolated region of Canada is.
I am from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region where the
Chibougamau-Chapais area is located and I can tell you that
this region is 150 years old. The first settlers used axes and
two-handed saws to clear the land in the hope of finding some
future north of Quebec City. These people worked like slaves
and never stopped fighting to open up the area to the rest of the
world and to get means of transportation. They fought to obtain
a road from Charlevoix to Chicoutimi. They fought for a rail line
from Quebec City to Chicoutimi and Roberval. They fought for
the Chibougamau road and for a road from Chicoutimi to
Sacré-Coeur on the North Shore. More recently, they fought for
the road to the Far North which gives us access to the
development of the great dams being built in northern Quebec.
3126
Today, they tell us they will close part of a rail line in the
Chibougamau region. Of course that line is not being used at the
moment. There is a recession, our mines are closed, our miners
are unemployed and they are cutting their benefits so these
people will now have to resort to welfare. They are closing the
doors to the future for these people; they tell them their railroad
is worthless, it is not profitable it will be closed and that they
will make $5 million by selling the metal. It is the answer of a
scrap dealer.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Caron: It is not the answer of someone interested in
regional development.
Last Wednesday I took part in a symposium organized in
Chicoutimi by people who want to plan their regional
development. They want to draw up a strategic development
plan for their area. Today, they will be told to forget about
including Chibougamau-Chapais in their plan because there
are people in the Department of Transport and at the CN who say
that if the rail line is not profitable, it must be closed. At this
rate, all the roads to Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean are going to be
closed. What highway pays for itself? What is the government's
duty?
The duty of the government is to provide services, it is not to
calculate their cost-effectiveness to the penny. Is the Jonquière
Hospital cost effective? Of course not. Is the CEGEP in
Jonquière cost effective? People will say that we spend millions
of dollars, we train people and some of these young people are
unemployed, because of the economic policies of past and
present governments. It is not profitable, so close it down. At
that rate, let us close Canada down. Is Canada profitable?
Canada is running a $40-billion deficit, so close Canada down.
That is why I support the previous speaker's thinking, not on
shutting down Canada, but on closing down railways in outlying
regions. They are extremely important, they are our arteries, our
lifeblood, our economic development depends on them. If we
start closing them, we will be paralysed. That is how paralysis
occurs in the human body; blood stops circulating. If you close
our railways and our highways, if you do not give us the
infrastructure we need to develop, we will be paralysed and die.
I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague from
Roberval and I am sure that hon. members will support it too.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
the speech of the opposition House leader was so interesting that
I felt I had to add a few words.
The hon. member forgot something. I remember quite well
that during a by election in the Lac-Saint-Jean region a few
years ago, the Conservative government spent $143 million to
help elect the present opposition leader as member for
Lac-Saint-Jean. Why did the hon. member not ask him to be
generous with this project, to be its benefactor in return for all
the money that was spent?
[English]
Really the money was spent. They should have named this
project as one of the things they spent the money on instead of
spending it on all of the other projects.
The hon. member knows his leader got this money to get him
elected into this House. They spent $143 million on one
byelection in one riding. It is an extraordinary confession when
he comes to this House pleading for more money for his riding
when all that money was spent in that area just to get his leader
elected and he did not get him to do it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hour provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped
from the Order Paper.
[English]
It being 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)