TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, May 26, 1994
Bill C-31. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 4431
Bill C-17. Report stage 4431
Motions Nos. 1 to 11 4432
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4439
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 4441
Motions Nos. 12 to 15 4442
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4442
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4443
Division on motion deferred 4447
Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39. 4447
(Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39 negatived) 4449
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4449
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred 4460
Motions Nos. 23 to 38 4460
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4460
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4460
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4460
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4460
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4460
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 4464
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4465
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4466
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4467
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4467
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4468
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4469
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 4472
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 4472
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 4473
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4473
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of report stage and Motions Nos. 23 to 38 4473
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4473
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4491
Bill C-206. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 4493
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 4496
4431
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 26, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an act to amend the
Canadian Film Development Corporation.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 2,000
residents of my riding of Québec-Est and the surrounding area.
The petitioners want to bring to the attention of the Parliament
the plight of senior citizens in Quebec, denounce the measures
recently adopted by the government, namely age credit cuts and
the setting up of inhumane devices such as voice mail boxes.
(1010)
Therefore, the petitioners pray that Parliament will refrain
from taking any measures that would reduce their income and
make it harder for senior citizens to have access to services
designed for them. I wholeheartedly support this petition and I
call upon the government to accede to it.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present
a petition on behalf of my constituents asking the government to
amend the Divorce Act to include a provision which would
ensure the right of access of grandparents to their grandchildren.
I am adding a further 600 names to the previous thousands I
have already submitted. I wish across Canada we could all be
aware of the needs of our grandparents and grandchildren today.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition with 400
signatures of residents of Canada whereby these petitioners
request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a
provision which states that the relationship that exists between
grandparents and grandchildren is a natural, fundamental one;
that the denial of access can constitute elder abuse and can have
a serious detrimental emotional impact on both the grandparents
and the grandchildren; and in no case may a father or a mother,
without serious cause, place obstacles between the child and the
grandparents.
We as parliamentarians have a strong obligation to uphold the
right of grandparents and I encourage all members of the House
to do so.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act
to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
4432
The Speaker: There are 39 motions in amendment on the
Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend
certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 will be grouped
for debate, but voted upon as follows:
a) A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the necessity
of putting the question on Motion No. 4.
c) A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be
put on Motion No. 4.
[English]
Motions Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 will be grouped for debate but
voted upon as follows:
(a) Motion No. 12 will be voted on separately.
(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 obviates the
necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 13 but requires
the question to be put on Motion No. 14 which will apply to
Motion No. 15.
(c) A negative vote on Motion No. 12 requires the question to
be put on Motion No. 13 which applies to Motions Nos. 14 and
15.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39 will be grouped for debate. A
vote on Motion No. 16 will apply to Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 39.
[English]
Motions Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22 will be grouped for debate but
voted upon as follows:
(a) A vote on Motion No. 19 will apply to Motions Nos. 20 and
22.
(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 19 obviates the
necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 21.
(1015 )
(c) A negative vote on Motion No. 19 requires the question to
be put on Motion No. 21.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37 and 38 will be grouped for debate but voted upon as
follows:
a) A vote on Motion No. 23 will apply to Motions Nos. 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.
b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 obviates the
necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 31
and 33.
c) A negative vote on Motion No. 23 requires the questions to
be put as follows:
i) A vote on Motion No. 24 will apply to Motion No. 25.
ii) Motions Nos. 26, 31 and 33 will be voted upon separately.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert) moved:
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-17, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 3, the
following:
``(7) On the expiration of the extensions of compensation plans provided
under subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2), these provisions shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or
established by that House for the purpose of reviewing the administration and
operation of this Act and the committee shall undertake a comprehensive review
of the administration and operation of these provisions and shall, within one
year after the review is undertaken or within such time as that House may
determine, submit a report to that House thereon including a statement on
whether there should be any further extensions of the compensation plans.
(8) There shall be no extensions of the compensation plans to which
subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2) apply before the House has considered
the report submitted under subsection (7).''
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert) moved:
Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
(1020 )
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak on
Bill C-17. The first thing I have to say is that Bill C-17 is an
omnibus bill. It covers many areas, some of which we support
and some to which we take exception.
4433
We have asked the government to break the bill into its
constituent parts, which it refused to do. We were therefore left
with little or no choice but to put these motions in order that
we may stress the point that we agree with some parts of the
bill and disagree with other parts. While we will be forced to
vote against the bill in its entirety, we wish to go on the record
as saying that we do support certain parts of the bill and hence
our motions this morning.
Basically we are in favour of the sections pertaining to the
freezing of wages of the public sector. As everyone knows we
are in a serious debt and deficit crisis. Anything that can be done
to help alleviate that problem has to be in the best interests of the
country.
However as the Reform Party has pointed out on many
occasions, much more could be done by the government rather
than turning on its own civil service and squeezing some extra
money out of its pockets to help the government come to terms
with its debt and deficit situation. If we had not only frozen the
salaries of the public sector but eliminated every civil servant in
the country and saved every nickel that we were paying in wages
to these people, we would still not save even half the annual
deficit.
Therefore if the government thinks it is going to balance the
budget on the backs of the civil servants, it has it entirely wrong.
However the basic concept that we are going to save some
additional money because every nickel helps in this exercise has
to be supported.
There are some items that I want to point out. One is the
extension not only of the salary freeze for an additional two
years but the introduction of a two-year suspension of pay
increments within the salary grades.
I have had numerous representations made to me as a member
of Parliament for the constituency of St. Albert where the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police perform the police services. In the
RCMP, when a new Mountie graduates from training school, his
pay increases semi-annually over the next three years until he
reaches the normal salary for a police constable.
With this change the increments of a new RCMP constable are
now frozen. Now we have an inequity between the amount of
money that is paid to new RCMP constables on the beat and the
ones who are there already. It is not that they do not want to do
their part, but members of the RCMP are subject to transfer from
one part of the country to another more frequently than any other
member of the civil service. As they move from rural Alberta or
Saskatchewan to perhaps downtown Vancouver the cost of
living is going to change dramatically.
They are being asked to maintain their salaries at exactly the
same level as they entered the police force rather than have the
semi-annual increments to bring them up to the level of any
other constable in the force.
(1025)
We see the rise in crime. We have talked about it in the House
on many occasions. Perhaps we should give some consideration
to recognizing the value that our police force provides to us in
the maintenance of law and order. How can we expect them to
get by on less than a shoestring? We are not adequately
compensating these people as they in many cases put their lives
on the line for our protection. We are asking them to do that with
less than reasonable salary for the new members of the force.
We support the wage freeze in the public service. We want to
do whatever we can as the Reform Party to ensure that every
effort is made to come to terms with this horrible deficit that we
have. It may be a small step but it is a step that we support with
some reservations in some areas.
As I said at the outset, while we will be voting against the bill
in its entirety when it comes up for a vote we wish to go on
record as having supported the basic thrust of the clause
regarding public service wages in Bill C-17.
The other sections that deal with compensation in other areas
outside the ones I have mentioned we are basically in support of,
especially the one that would freeze the salaries of MPs. We
have always wanted to send a clear signal to Canadians saying:
``Let us provide leadership''.
During the last election that was one of the things that we as
Reformers said, that providing leadership to Canadians,
demonstrating that we as government and parliamentarians, as
those elected to show the way and lead the way in the country,
are prepared to do our part to ensure efficient government is
provided at a reasonable cost to Canadians at this time when
restraint has to be the watchword.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on the amendments of
the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois grouped for debate, all
the more so because this bill is very important to me.
Why do I consider it important? Because it is the perfect
expression of the total lack of openness that has characterized
this government ever since it came into office.
What do we find in this part? To start with, I would like to tell
you that I am pleasantly surprised by the position taken by the
Reform Party regarding this part of Bill C-17 because, since the
beginning of the debate and even the study in
subcommittee-the one which considered all the provisions of
Bill C-17-the Reform Party has not demonstrated much
interest in what the government has been doing to its employees.
The Reform Party did not say a word on the fundamental right to
open collective bargaining, a thing that the Bloc Quebecois has
defended from the start.
4434
As I said, we are pleasantly surprised because, by introducing
these amendments to delete all the clauses dealing with the
wage freeze in the federal public service, the Reform Party
shows it is now more kindly disposed towards fundamental
rights like collective bargaining. Consequently, based on the
reasoning and the actions of the Reform Party this morning, we
can assume that it is also more kindly disposed towards
collective bargaining itself and towards workers rights, and that
it would be willing to come back to the former system whereby
the government and its employees would talk constructively
and come to some synergic agreement on working conditions.
(1030)
This means they agree with the new models introduced just
about everywhere around the world which call for co-operation
between public service employees and the government with a
view to finding constructive solutions to controlling public
finance problems and to recording yearly deficits smaller than
those recorded year after year by the Canadian government.
I am surprised by this. With our motion, which would require
the government to come back to the House on the expiration of
the compensation provisions in the legislation to debate either
an extension or changes to the provisions, we were simply trying
to be realistic. We did not want to introduce one or more motions
calling for the elimination of all of these provisions since the
government, given its majority position, would surely vote
against any such motion.
Indeed, while the Reform Party's motion goes further than our
deep-seated convictions, our motion is more realistic because it
calls for a democratic debate upon the expiration of the
provisions in Bill C-17 respecting public service compensation.
We are also asking for transparency, something which this
government has not demonstrated since the start of this debate.
I will give you one example of the lack of transparency and
the attitude of this government which is quickly trying to put one
over on us with this omnibus bill before the House this morning.
As you know, the sub-committee which considered Bill C-17
was initially supposed to hold two and a half days of public
hearings. Some of the provisions in this bill, particularly those
pertaining to unemployment insurance which will be debated
during the course of the day, are fundamental. The government
was trying to stage a reverse kind of filibuster.
The government was attempting to impose some fundamental
provisions within the context of an omnibus bill, and had it not
been for the actions of the Bloc Quebecois members of this
sub-committee, we would not have had two weeks of public
hearings during which testimony was heard from at least one
hundred individuals.
Transparency will not stifle this government. A similar thing
occurred with the Pearson airport bill. Here again, the
government tried to hastily pass some fundamental measures,
without resolving in any way whatsoever the problem with
lobbyists in Canada.
That is what the Bloc Quebecois motion is about. When wage
agreements between the federal government and its employees
expire, let a transparent public debate be held, let the
government account for the decisions that will have to be made
and let the whole world see that while this government may be
new, it is totally out of date with regard to the relationship it
wants to establish between its employees and their managers.
That is not how things are done now. Imposing is no longer an
option; and whether we agree with the idea of a wage freeze or
not has nothing to do with the matter. But imposing a wage plan
upon public servants in a dictatorial fashion will have disastrous
effects.
First, it will demotivate workers. Second, it is gagging union
representatives. You know that these people have things to say,
and a job to do, as they have demonstrated in the past.
I was pleasantly surprised in early February, before the
government even tabled its budget, to see public service unions
volunteer to make sacrifices that often went far beyond a simple
wage freeze like the one now imposed upon them. They came up
with positive ways of reducing the annual deficit, increasing
efficiency in the federal administration and achieving that
wonderful meeting of the minds which we see in many regions in
the world yet is totally non-existent here because this
government is out of touch and out of date.
(1035)
It prefers to avoid confrontation, like the Prime Minister is
doing with the Constitution issue, rather than face the real
issues, rather than make real decisions in consultation and, I
might say, in a spirit of brotherly love.
That is what the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is
about. We want to force a public debate not only on public
servants' wages but on wage costs as a whole, the efficiency of
the government machine and even suggestions made by the
unions.
So, with our motion, the House would debate the issue anew
upon the expiration of the wage provisions in the budget and, as
I mentioned before, if we had not been so concerned about being
realistic and had not considered the fact that this government
shamelessly takes advantage of its majority to always have its
way, we would have introduced, probably with respect to the
Bill C-17 clause on public service compensation, motions
similar to those of the Reform Party.
4435
But, because we want to be realistic, we know very well that
such motions would probably be defeated by government
members. Therefore, we have proposed a very realistic motion,
which is likely to be approved by the Liberal members, if they
are really concerned about transparency and democracy.
By voting against our motion, they will confirm that the
government has something to conceal, that it lacks the political
will, that it has no vision, and that it could not care less about
civil servants, about the state of our public finances, and even
about the improvements that we could all make to the
government system which is cumbersome, outdated, and rigid,
just like the members of this government.
Mr. Walker: I think there are changes to the text.
Mr. Loubier: I thank the hon. member for reminding me of
my technical obligations. We noticed this morning after the
motion notices were printed that there were discrepancies
between the English and the French versions.
The errors are in the French version. I want to move the
necessary amendments with the unanimous consent of the
House. In fact, they are not amendments but corrections. If we
have unanimous consent, I will read them to you. I would
appreciate your accepting them. So shall I read them, Madam
Speaker?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent of the House to accept the amendment to the motion by
the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do you want to read
them for the record?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Motion No.
4 reads as follows in section 7:
On the expiration of the extensions of compensation plans provided under
subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2), these provisions shall be referred to
such committee-
The French version, which refers to a House of Commons,
Senate or joint committee, should be amended to ``a committee
of the House of Commons'' only.
Instead of ``as may be designated or established by
Parliament'', the French version should read ``as may be
designated or established by that House'' to match the English
text and on the last line, ``changes it deems desirable'' should be
replaced with ``whether there should be any further extensions
of the compensation plans''. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): So if I understand
correctly, there is no change to subsection (8).
The hon. government whip.
(1040)
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Madam Speaker, I
would like to participate in this debate this morning. After
listening to the finance critic of the Official Opposition tell us
that the government had things to hide and was doing things in
secret, I would not like this debate on this motion to end leaving
those listening to us under a completely erroneous impression. I
want to set the record of this House straight.
This government was one of the first to establish a process
that is open to consultation, first of all in this House where we
have special days to debate the budget process. The Minister of
Finance held public consultations throughout the country that
were televised, not only for those who could take part in this
debate, but also for people to follow it on television and even in
the committees.
The hon. member referred to the committee where an
agreement was first made. We had two days of hearings with all
members of the committee. When the opposition asked for more
time, their request was granted. We are operating with an order
of the House which specifies that we will have two days, today
and Monday, to debate the motions after they have been debated
in committee at report stage.
So when they tell us that the government wants to rush this
through and that we do everything in secret, the opposite is true,
because this Liberal government established an open process in
which everyone can participate. In the parliamentary reform we
made at the beginning, when this House opened, we decided that
for the next budget, the finance committee, on which the hon.
member sits, will be able to help prepare the budget; it will not
be as before, when we learned what the budget was only when
the Minister of Finance came to the House to make his speech.
So, it is wrong to say that the Liberal government wants to
rush changes through in secret, because everything was done
publicly. We are still doing so and will continue to do so. I
wanted to make sure that the other side of the coin is seen also
and that our listeners can have the other side of the story.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I rise with regard to this series of amendments because
this discussion is symptomatic of a rather fruitless debate which
has been going on for several years in Canada and in Quebec. On
the one hand, it is conceivable to support the Reform Party's
amendments for a return to open collective bargaining, instead
of having decisions on employees's wages imposed by the
government. On the other hand, no lesson seems to have been
drawn from past experience. Let us face it: bargaining in the
public sector differs somewhat from bargaining in the private
sector.
4436
Through its consultation exercise on the budget and on
management as a whole, the government should have come up
with a vision different from that of the Conservatives. What we
have is a Liberal rehash of an old Conservative recipe.
Permanent solutions should definitely be found with respect to
collective bargaining in the public sector, so as to avoid the
current situation, where the government is once again forced
to impose wage conditions to its employees, because it did not
react soon enough. Indeed, it should have developed labour
relations enabling it to reach agreements and implement a real
social contract with its employees.
This is probably why the two opposition parties want
significant changes to be made. This bill sends the message that
government employees are not productive enough, do not work
hard enough and that, consequently, they must not be paid any
more than they are. Yet, the truth is altogether different. The vast
majority of people in the public sector, as in the private sector,
do their job very well and the government should have had the
courage, the determination and the originality to develop an
adequate collective bargaining model for them, because they
deserve it.
(1045)
During the first few months of this session, we were able to
speak on the issue of the special bill passed to settle the labour
dispute at the Vancouver harbour, where once again the
government took a stand that showed some unwillingness and
inability to negotiate fair agreements. Today, we are faced with
this bill and we must deal with it. Unfortunately, we are not
being asked to recognize a bargaining system arrived at through
consensus by the employer, the government, and by
representatives of the employees, the unionized public servants.
For all these reasons, the government should review the
amendments put forward by the opposition. Up to a certain
extent, the amendments from the Reform Party seem
interesting, because they at least come back to the main issue,
which is open collective bargaining. But such bargaining
between a government and its employees occurs in a different
context than bargaining in the private sector. Even if the
amendments of the Reform Party are agreed to, we would still
need to add new stages to the process.
It seems to me that the position taken by the opposition parties
is much more in line with the new way we want to manage our
labour relations. In fact, the message the opposition wants to
convey to Canadians and Quebecers is this: we are here to see
that our employees are treated fairly, and not to stand by while,
year after year, the situation remains the same, whether we have
a Conservative government or a Liberal government. We have a
new government, and it has not made the slightest difference in
this area and on several other issues.
I think it is important to watch what new strategies are being
applied in this area elsewhere. There must be some information
on compensation in the public and the private sectors. In
Quebec, we get this kind of information from the Institut de
rémunération, and we have learned that over the last 10 or 15
years, compensation in the private sector has slowly caught up
with compensation in the public sector. Forget the tales about
overpaid public servants, we are getting closer and closer to
wage parity in both sectors.
If it is wage parity that we want, we will have to provide for a
bargaining process as free as possible, taking into account the
specificity of the government as an employer. Our amendments
were to that effect, that is to find ways to oversee the action of
the government because they seem to have already made up their
mind, and whatever their decisions might be, they have a major
impact on the budget for this fiscal year. We thought we had to
ensure an adequate control in order to have the opportunity to
see the results so as to be able, in the short term, to manage our
labour relations in a way which does not de-motivate employees
while allowing us to reach normal productivity objectives for
the public service, which are measured in terms not only of
lower operating costs, but also of job satisfaction.
Employee satisfaction starts with meeting their basic needs.
Whenever these needs are not met, workers will not respond to
second- or third-level motivation. It is well known among
personnel motivation experts that basic needs have to be met
before anyone can be asked to contribute more. If these are not
met, no other motivational action will work.
I therefore encourage this government to accept the
amendments by the opposition, be they by the Reform Party or
the Bloc, which all aim at a more realistic bargaining process
and at truly equal opportunities for both employer and
employees. I hope the government will take heed of the
amendments which have been tabled.
(1050)
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, I am glad to
speak on the amendment of the Reform Party and that of my
party and denounce the Liberal government for continuing the
Conservative government's policy of ending what I would call
the open collective bargaining in the Public Service.
In the past, I lived through two situations where the
government changed the rules of the game and imposed its will.
I assure you that that had serious consequences, not on the
motivation, but on the morale of the workers affected. Of
course, people who work for the government and provide a
public service continue to do so. On the two occasions when
such laws were passed in Quebec, I observed that the people
around me. The public servants continued to do their work well
but something had changed in their attitude. It seemed that the
workers had become more suspicious or distrustful of their
employer, which is the government in this case.
4437
So I think that the government should interfere in open
collective bargaining only in extreme situations and I do not
think that we are in such a situation at this time. But what kind
of a situation are we in right now? We see governments that
have lost control over their spending. They must therefore make
political decisions to show that, at least, they care for the
interests of their people.
What is the first decision? They find a scapegoat and public
servants, the government's employees, are the perfect
scapegoat. The government will say: ``Public service employees
cost a lot of money, so we will cut their salaries''. When you
look at those salary cuts compared to our national debt, it really
is not much, but it still allows politicians to say: ``Yes, we do
spend a lot of money, but remember that we have cut public
service employees' salaries''. I think that it has simply become
an excuse for a government that has lost control of its spending.
There is another point that I would like to raise, and it has to
do with the fact that we live in a country where the rule of law
prevails. The government can make all the laws it wants to
make, but they have to be considered fair and adequate by the
people. And when a law is considered questionable and
inadequate by all the people, I think that we find ourselves in a
situation where the rule of law does not prevail any more. In
fact, we find ourselves in a situation where the state wants to
impose its will, where arbitrary considerations take precedence.
People are willing to negotiate an agreement, to take part in a
collective bargaining process, but there is always somebody
somewhere that can say no. The contract that was signed in good
faith by people who took the time to think about it and who voted
during union general assemblies has now been unilaterally and
arbitrarily repudiated.
I am in favour of the amendment proposed by my party.
However, if it is rejected, the amendment of the Reform Party
advocating a return to open bargaining seems more acceptable to
me than what we find in this bill. In this instance, the
government, wanting to show the people that it is ready to make
tough decisions in managing our country's affairs, finds a
scapegoat and hits its workers in order to avoid having to look
elsewhere.
After spending six months in Ottawa, we, in the Bloc
Quebecois, know that there are cuts to be made elsewhere. There
are things that need to be examined. That is exactly what my
party wanted to do at the very beginning of the session when it
proposed the establishment of a special committee to review all
government spending.
(1055)
When I say all government spending, this includes wages, but
this also refers to all things that are bought, things that are sold,
things that often seem, even for the layman, ill planned and that
entail expenditures much more substantial than those related to
cuts that could be done by a freeze in public servants wages.
I will vote for the amendment proposed by my party and
against the main amendment presented by the Liberal
government that is putting an end to what I call open collective
bargaining in the public service.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Madam Speaker, I too
would like to condemn strongly the fact that this one bill
includes all sorts of important issues for Quebec and Canadian
society. This bill deals not only with unemployment insurance,
as we will see later on, but also with the CBC and with the public
service, the subject of my remarks today.
Many public servants listened to the government party's
sirens's song. The Liberals told them to change government and
re-elect Liberals in order to get open collective bargaing back.
Many of them told us how disappointed they were when, a few
short months into the mandate of a new government, the wage
freeze was extended.
We should know that this is not the first wage freeze. For most
of those concerned, this will merely be an extension of an
existing freeze.
Public servants are a resource for this country. Their role is to
provide to their fellow citizens in Quebec or the rest of Canada
the services they need and, most of the time, cannot provide
themselves.
This refusal to engage in a real dialogue between negotiating
parties has untold consequences in terms of productivity. The
way you are dealt with very often determines the way you react.
Obviously, you can always coerce somebody into working
because there is a salary at the end, whatever the amount. But
you can never force anybody to give his or her maximum unless
he or she wants to. If we want workers to do their best, and we do
need that everywhere now, one of the important things is that
they have to feel that they are respected.
One may think that it is arrogant to deprive public sector
workers of their dignity with a few paragraphs of a bill which
contains measures on programs as important as UI that have
attracted the most attention because they affect the most
disadvantaged people in society.
The Liberals are at the beginning of their mandate. They are at
a stage where they should have started a bargaining process.
(1100)
They should have tried to ensure a settlement, even one which
would subject workers to restrictions. Such a settlement implies
that there is an exchange, give and take between parties, and
that, at the start, the parties put their cards on the table, and
respect each other.
4438
All the conditions were in place for the Liberals because they
had not been in power for a long time and the economic
situation was better. But, by doing what they have done, what
they are about to confirm, what they are threatening to do, if
I really said what I think, they have blown their opportunity
to re-establish a real dialogue with their employees who, let
us not forget, are employees of the government and render
services which we would not be able to provide otherwise.
Yes, they often have a bad reputation. However, many citizens
know that they can count on their civil servants because they
know them well, they know about the cuts, the problems that
they face, that their workload is heavy, that they are the ones
who answer the questions of the elderly taking their problems
into account and that they are much better than answering
machines with which the government wants to replace them.
We need a public service that gives the best of itself, and it is
not by treating it the way we do that it will. On the contrary. This
is the reason why-not expecting the government to reconsider
its decision regarding the freeze-we proposed this amendment,
inviting the government to have this reviewed by a House
committee and give the public service the conditions so that they
can do their best. By supporting this amendment, the
government would at least-despite its tough position-show
its commitment to review the whole matter.
It could start right away to prepare the ground for the return to
open collective bargaining. It is in this spirit that this
amendment has been formulated. We hope that everybody in this
House will support its adoption and its implementation.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Madam Speaker, I
would like to say how surprised we are with the amendment to
the motion of the Reform Party, and I would like very much to
congratulate them. I think that they perhaps have a much more
realistic vision of the public service today and that they made
the right decision.
The lack of motivation of public servants is such that I think it
is high time that the government opens its eyes. They already
have had a wage freeze for several years, and what the
government is doing this year is simply carrying over that freeze
once again.
That is totally irresponsible on the part of the Liberal
government. With all its good will, it could have renegotiated its
contracts with public servants in order to find an area of
agreement so that things would be much more realistic. Since it
came into office, the government has been proving to us that it
refuses to make cuts where it counts.
(1105)
Again, we are talking about tax shelters, an issue that remains
taboo in this House. We and the Reform Party are the only ones
who talk about it. We talk about family trusts. How many times
did we ask for studies? The government still has not responded.
It is impossible to get answers on that issue.
Our economy is not as its best. We should not delude
ourselves. I think it is very well known that the economy is not
about to make a big start this year. If the government decided to
give good wages to its public servants, it would probably help
the economy considerably, because the economy is like a wheel.
When you give good wages to your employees, they buy more
products and they make the wheel turn. The more you freeze
salaries the more prices go up and the less people will make the
economy work. This is all quite normal.
The government really has made its choices this time. Again,
it is always the same people who pay the bill. We have talked
again and again in this House of the poorest in our society. We
have had discussions on many occasions about social housing,
among other things, but the government ignores the issue. We
have also talked about the middle class which is the public
service.
I have relatives working for the public service who are
responsible for big departments and who told me that the rates of
absenteeism and sick leave in the public service are so high that
it has created a real problem. People loose their motivation and
this of course gives rise to absenteeism, sickness, depression
problems and what have you, while the number of single parents
is constantly increasing. This is why the salary freeze is totally
unacceptable.
I do not want to go from one extreme to the other and say that
we have to give everything away, but perhaps we should accept
open collective bargaining. This is what matters here. I am very
happy to see that our Reform friends have changed their minds. I
support the Bloc Quebecois' motion and hope that for once the
government will make wise decisions and sit at the bargaining
table. Being at the beginning of its mandate, the government has
an opportunity to do so, to prove it is a good government, to sit
with civil servants and renegotiate so we can have a public
service which is efficient rather than dissatisfied as it has been
for many years.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, I rise to
address the Bloc amendment in this grouping and to set the
record straight on two issues: first, collective bargaining and,
second, the purpose of our amendments.
First, at the beginning of the debate on this grouping the
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot indicated that he was both
surprised and shocked that we had changed our minds. He felt
that the Reform Party was against collective bargaining but with
these amendments we had somehow or other changed our minds
and were now in favour of public sector negotiations.
4439
I would like to set the record straight. Our party's position
is that we are in favour of collective bargaining. We are in
favour of people forming groups and unions. We are in favour
of them having the right to strike. What we are against is
holding the public to ransom. We are against employers not
being able to find replacement workers should they need to.
Those are the areas where we have to make the public sector
a little more like the private sector.
I say that so that the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot will realize that we have not totally
changed our position on that issue.
Second, I would like to set something straight on the omnibus
bill of the government, Bill C-17. We object very strongly to the
bull-headed, arrogant fashion in which the government brings
forth legislation dealing with five or six different areas of the
economy, lumps it all into one bill and tries to force it on an
opposition party, not allowing us to question the purpose of each
area or to evaluate each individual category separately.
The Reform Party had to come up with a strategy. I guess it is
a political game to come up with some amendments to the
omnibus bill in order to force debate.
(1110)
What is happening now is based on Reform Party strategy and
on what we feel is in the best interests of all Canadians so that we
can discuss each of these five categories separately instead of
them being all lumped together in order to confuse everybody.
We wish to point out those areas of the bill that we favour and
those we are against. When it comes to voting on the groupings
on this bill, I warn the members of the Bloc Quebecois that
although we are getting compliments for changing our minds,
we have not changed our minds.
Do not be surprised that we will be voting against our own
amendments in the groupings.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, I am very
happy today to say a few words about Bill C-17, the group of
amendments proposed by the Reform Party and the way those
amendments are being dealt with. I think that there are more
than thirty of them. Of course, we have put about ten of them
together and decided to vote on these ten amendments.
As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of some of those and
against some others. Since I have to vote on a group of
amendments, I find myself in a very awkward position.
That being said, I would like to talk briefly about
unemployment insurance and the way this government treats our
society. It is said to be a Crown corporation, but the government
acts as if it was its own business. All of a sudden it decides to
increase the unemployment insurance premiums, to reduce the
benefit period and to increase the number of weeks that one has
to work to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
It is a hard blow on employers and employees who both have
to pay higher premiums. At a time when recession is so hard on
us, I wonder how the government can consider such a measure to
be reasonable and responsible.
Madam Speaker, once again, and I am talking here only about
employers, I realize that small and medium-sized businesses
which will be burdened with this increase in premiums are still
going to see their chances of success diminish-
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like confirmation that we are still on part I, public sector
compensation, and not on part V, unemployment insurance.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are indeed on part I,
which is a grouping of resolutions on remuneration.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): This puts a very heavy burden on
companies and their employees, and I must say that reducing the
number of weeks during which unemployment insurance
benefits may be received will have a negative impact which will
be very costly for the provinces, especially in Quebec.
Reducing the number of weeks during which people are
entitled to unemployment insurance means that when they run
out of benefits, and this will happen soon as a result of the
government's proposal, they will have to go to Quebec's social
assistance department for help.
It is estimated that in Quebec, another $500 million may be
needed to help the unemployed when their unemployment
insurance benefits run out.
(1115)
In other words, the federal government has used this devious
approach to pass its financial burden-the unemployed-onto
the provinces. That is unfair, and irresponsible.
We see this happening in other sectors as well. For instance,
when medicare was introduced, the provinces did not want the
federal government to be involved in health care because it came
under their jurisdiction. At the time, the federal government
said: ``Do not worry, we will establish national standards, we
will control health care and introduce regulations, and of course
we will also provide 50 per cent of the money required. We will
collect the money from the public and give it back to the
provinces-they did not say that, of course-and it will be a nice
present for the provinces, because we will pay 50 per cent of
health care expenses. But of course they never said the money
would come out of taxpayers' pockets.''
4440
So the federal government took control of health care with
its national Canadian health care policy. But today, the
government pays only 30 per cent, not 50 per cent, and the
provinces pay 70 per cent of their health care bills. And
meanwhile, the federal government still insists it should
oversee medicare.
More or less the same thing is happening in the case of
unemployment insurance. In this case the approach is even more
devious. The government says it will reduce the number of
weeks during which people have access to benefits which means
the provinces will have to take up the slack and ensure that these
people can continue to eat and sleep and heat their homes in the
winter, in this harsh climate of ours. This is outright hypocrisy.
The government also says it does a lot of consultation. It does,
but it is not really listening. It does what it feels like doing. To
consult usually means to listen to what people have to say, but
the government does not listen. It does not respect their views.
That is what their consultations amount to.
When the government decided to raise UI premiums, it said
that it was gradually getting out of unemployment insurance
programs, but since it was still paying, it also wanted to get
involved in training as well. Since I will not have enough time to
expand on this point, I will mention what happened and what I
heard in committee during the past few years.
The Conseil du patronat and the unions said: Listen, if we as
employers and employees have to pay most or all of the
unemployment insurance premiums, why does the government
continue to manage the program? The Conseil du patronat said,
for instance: If we pay and the employee pays, why should we
not be responsible for managing unemployment insurance?
For the benefit of our listeners, a distinction must be made
between unemployment insurance and job training. The
government has managed to confuse the issue, but basically,
employees and employers pay about the same for
unemployment insurance, while the remaining amounts go to
job training. This is another example of federal interference. It
takes the money contributed by companies and their employees
to provide job training, although this should be strictly up to the
provinces.
So, employers and employees say: ``Look, we would be
willing to administer this unemployment insurance corporation,
since we are paying for it. This way, we would assume our
responsibilities''. The government would not make all kinds of
unrealistic rules which often do not reflect real needs;
employers and employees would administer the fund and
probably have a more responsible attitude. Employees would
not be dismissed without due cause, and neither would they
resign on a whim. They would realize that acting this way would
bring about an increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
I personally believe that people must be given more
responsibility. They must be able to administer their own
unemployment insurance program. It could provide a good
example to have the unemployment insurance fund
administered by employees and employers.
(1120)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I want to clarify
something for the members. Motions dealing with the same
subject have been grouped together. Therefore, motion No. 1
deals with compensation.
[English]
The grouping of resolutions on which members will be voting
as groups of motions is under sections or parts of the bill. This
particular group is under compensation. I thought I would clear
that up in case members had any doubts or questions on it.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Would you also clarify whether I am correct in understanding
that a member may speak once to each of these areas and then
not speak again? In this case would the hon. member be able to
speak on compensation later on, or is he entitled to speak again
to unemployment insurance, so that we are not having two
swings at the same ball here?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): At the present time we
are speaking on Motion No. 1 which is on part I, compensation.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, just for clarification, if a
member has spoken on unemployment insurance, would that
member again be able to speak on unemployment insurance
when that grouping comes before the House?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Members desiring to
take part in the debate will be able to debate on every group of
motions.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Madam Speaker, I thank you for
the opportunity to speak to this motion, firstly because I am the
critic for public service renewal and secondly, because I am
familiar with the collective bargaining process from a labour
standpoint, having served as president of a teachers' union.
When one wishes to increase employee motivation, the first
thing one must do is respect the employees, not only by
following universally accepted practices, but also by engaging
in ongoing dialogue and by paying attention to arguments put
forward by the union, particularly when the aim is to improve
the situation. Federal public servants realized that the
government had financial problems, was deeply indebted and
needed to find ways to resolve the situation. Public service
unions even made some suggestions to the government on ways
to achieve these objectives without singling out public servants
to bear the full brunt.
4441
The government apparently did not even bother to seriously
discuss these proposals. Instead, it imposed a salary freeze. Not
only did it freeze salaries, it also imposed a freeze on pay
increment increases. This action means that public servants not
only take an immediate step backward, they also lose ground
for the rest of their working days. Those nearing retirement will
see their pension calculated on the average salary earned during
the last five or six years, and this salary will have been frozen.
Everyone recognizes that the federal public service is highly
competent. The members who have been here for several years
have repeatedly said so. We have had the opportunity to judge
this for ourselves since starting to work in this House and to rely
on the help of the public service.
(1125)
You cannot on the one hand, contend that these people are
competent and deserve our respect and on the other hand,
disregard what they have to say concerning possible solutions to
government problems.
The best way to ensure someone's co-operation certainly is
not to kick them in the rear end. If you want them to work
together with you, you cannot just tell them they are nice, good
and intelligent people and then turn around and completely
disregard their proposals for making things work better.
The way the government has gone about imposing a wage
freeze on its employees without any consultation or rather
serious consultation, because some may say they have been
consulted. Meetings were held, speeches were made and
legislation was passed. But that can hardly be called serious
consultation. Serious consultation sometimes involves
changing your approach.
That is why we are requesting today that before making
decisions in that respect, the government be required to submit
its plans to a committee of the House of Commons so that a
public debate can be held to allow the public to determine
whether these decisions were made too hastily or at the expense
of a segment of the population, one which has unfortunately
been a favourite target over the past ten years. The middle class
is always targeted. Yet, it is the one expected to pay yet more
income tax. The middle class has been a cash cow for the past ten
years. Now it is being eliminated without any regard for its
contribution to the nation's coffers.
As far as I am concerned, this is no way to establish and
maintain good union-management relations and I hope the hon.
members will support the motion before us not only out of
fairness for this segment of population but also to show the
government's regard for all those members of our society who
are willing to co-operate, by asking them to pay no more and no
less than their fair share.
The government must figure out what can reasonably be asked
from this group of government employees without affecting
their motivation, credibility, enthusiasm and the respect they
have for their employer.
I hope we will show them the same respect and from now on
have these people join us around the table for the sake of
maintaining the atmosphere of confidence that must continue to
exist in the Public Service.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(18), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Mr. Crête: Until what day?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Until Monday evening
after the debate.
(1130)
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, what about Motion No. 4? Are
we going to vote on it right away or wait until Monday evening?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It depends on the results
of the vote on Motion No. 1.
4442
Mr. Loubier: So if Motion No. 1 is rejected, does it mean
that we will vote on Motion No. 4 Monday evening?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is correct.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-17, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 36, on page 6, the
following:
``(3) The operation of this section shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by
such committee of the House, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as
may be designated or established for the purpose.''
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West) moved:
Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 15
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
[
Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this
part of Bill C-17 and the amendment proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois, that is, to designate a parliamentary committee to
review the operation of this section on a permanent basis.
This section deals with the federal-provincial tax agreements
on the Canada Assistance Plan, in particular the freeze on
federal contributions to the CAP.
The Canada Assistance Plan has often been the subject of
harsh criticisms, which were quite justified in some respects,
especially since the CAP is a shared-cost program where costs
are split 50-50 between the federal government and the
provinces.
The main criticism expressed in recent years is that this
formula favours the richest provinces, which can invest in
assistance programs and initiatives in the hope that the federal
government will pick up half the costs.
I can tell you that the changes made by the previous
government were rather fair in some respects and more socially
equitable or democratic that those of the current government,
which calls it a general freeze.
What the Conservatives did is freeze federal contributions to
the CAP for Canada's three richest provinces, and with good
reason. Contributions were frozen for Ontario, Alberta and
British Columbia.
Then the Liberal government comes to office and decides to
freeze contributions for all Canadian provinces, whether rich or
poor.
(1135)
So I would say to you that the Liberal government is less
liberal than the previous Conservative government. I would say
that it is like what we have been getting since the morning of
October 26, under the cover of social democracy or even
socialism, in some respects. Rules that are not quite social
democratic are imposed on us. As was mentioned in the previous
debate, we are forced to put up with an attitude that is not quite
open and not quite fair when it comes to equity between the
provinces, for example, or fiscal equity in general.
Madam Speaker, just capping CAP and funds for
post-secondary education will cost the Canadian provinces at
least some $2 billion in 1995-96 alone.
I was telling you about the federal government passing the
buck to the provinces because of the inability of this
government, like its predecessor, which was strongly denounced
by members of the present government, to regain control of the
public finances in a responsible manner, not by shifting
financial problems to the provinces as they have been doing
since the morning of October 26, and when it is not the
provinces, sovereigntists are blamed for the poor economic
situation or the bad state of Canada's finances; sovereigntists
are accused of creating instability and causing high interest
rates, although it is the present Minister of Finance who cannot
properly manage Canada's finances without passing the buck to
the provinces, who is responsible for the economic crisis and the
way the government's finances are headed for disaster.
We deplore this attitude of the present government, just as we
deplored the ceiling on equalization payments when we had to
debate that issue. In both cases, behind these shameless,
ill-considered decisions, we find the same incompetence of
those who are running this government.
In this regard, let me remind you that, in the House, we are
constantly hearing government members, as well as Reform
members, claim to be great Canadians while disregarding-and
the debate we had on equalization is still clear in my mind-,
sneezing at or dismissing offhand one of the fundamentals of
Canadian federalism which is fiscal federalism. They want to
limit expenses such as equalization payments, which constitute
the underpinning of fiscal federalism, and they congratulate
themselves for capping or freezing payments, knowing very
well that they are destroying one of the fundamentals of the
system for which they stand as great Canadians. That explains
why the system is in total disarray.
Anyway, I think that the members of the Bloc Quebecois have
made the right decision, which is to leave that system behind.
According to our motion on this clause, which limits federal
transfers made under the CAP, each time a freeze, cap or cut is
introduced on such basic programs, the matter would have to be
debated, and the government would have to justify its support
for the hateful measure and put up with our telling it that its
so-called system based on equalization payments or transfers
under the Canada Assistance Plan is faulty. This system attacks
the provinces with impunity and it shamelessly off-loads the
federal government's fiscal problems onto the provinces.
4443
(1140)
I also recommend a follow-up on these bad decisions, this
government's shameful decisions, a follow-up on the impacts,
because there will indeed be repercussions. To freeze all
contributions to every Canadian province, including the poorest
ones which are experiencing the most serious problems in terms
of welfare recipients and underemployment in general and
which include Quebec and the Maritimes, can only have
disastrous consequences from an economic and social point of
view.
This decision by the government follows another one which
we will have the opportunity to debate this afternoon and which
concerns the Unemployment Insurance Program where, once
again, the government is prepared to totally destabilize and
demoralize entire communities, particularly in Quebec and in
the Maritimes, which are in no position to support such
hardship.
We too could have proposed the deletion of this part of Bill
C-17. However, unlike Reform Party members, we are
responsible people. We know that tax agreements were signed
by the provincial and federal governments and this is why we did
not deem appropriate, particularly with a majority government,
to ask that these clauses be deleted.
However, we are proposing transparency, honesty and, more
importantly, we want this government to be accountable to the
House and to Canadians for the shameful decisions it has been
making since it took office, decisions which are in total
contradiction with the agenda and the vision-because the
Liberals think of themselves as visionaries- which it keeps
referring to. I submit this amendment and ask all members to
support it.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I am
rising also to speak on these motions at report stage of Bill
C-17, the Budget Implementation Act, particularly at this time
motions dealing with sections 12 to 14, the fiscal transfers
portion of the bill.
We are debating four motions, three of which I have moved,
and I want to clarify my reasons once again for moving those
motions. We have opposed the bill because of its omnibus
nature. We insist upon having a debate on the floor of the House
of Commons on each section of the omnibus bill because this
should not be one bill.
I raised a lengthy point of order at second reading on this
particular issue. I realize that the Chair ruled against it and I
respect that decision which was based on precedent. I
nevertheless reiterate that precedent is an unfortunate way to
proceed here because we do have a new Parliament. We have a
chance to right some of the wrongs and some of the questionable
practices we have fallen into, in particular the practice in recent
years of presenting omnibus legislation with respect to
budgetary matters.
This particular section which I want to address in report stage
today concerns fiscal transfers and specifically two areas: the
CAP or Canada assistance plan and the PUITTA or Public
Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. We very reluctantly support
these particular aspects of the bill, although my amendments are
here to provide us with an opportunity for debate on this specific
portion.
Let me first of all address section 12, that is the Canada
assistance plan portion. The government is introducing through
the budget a freeze to CAP transfer payments to the provinces at
present levels for the immediate future.
(1145 )
Through this, the government projects savings of $466
million in the next fiscal year, 1995-96, and the budget has
promised social security reform based on co-operative effort
among federal and provincial governments.
This is an area where the government, although it is adopting
some of the things we proposed, is really proceeding without a
plan and causing friction with provincial governments. I would
note that in spite of its promise of co-operation this is clearly
not happening. The evidence for this was the refusal in April of
some provinces to attend a scheduled briefing to inform them of
the federal government's progress in the area of social security
reform.
I caution the government against making the same mistake
with welfare that it has already made with health care, that is
getting into an area of provincial jurisdiction-welfare is
clearly an area constitutionally of strict provincial
jurisdiction-enforcing national standards through, in this case
the Canada assistance plan and regulations, and then gradually
decreasing funding levels; in other words cutting the provincial
funding but not giving them the freedom to adjust to the changes
to make their targets and policies appropriate to funding levels.
Obviously this is a formula for alienating the provinces.
Along with cuts which decrease their spending power it will
make it difficult for them to implement social policy now and
could also impact their ability to implement proposed social
policy reforms down the road.
We need national deficit reduction of course, but we need it in
a plan. We need it with an agreement in these areas with the
provinces rather than a dysfunctional partnership in which the
federal government makes unilateral changes through transfer
arrangements but leaves in place policies that were based on full
funding.
4444
Section 12 of the bill which freezes the current level into the
future does, I would also note, perpetuate certain anomalies.
It perpetuates the CAP discrimination that exists today with
regard to the so-called have provinces, Ontario, Alberta and
British Columbia, particularly Ontario and British Columbia
where the unilateral and discriminatory reductions over the
years in CAP funding have dramatically impacted upon those
provinces.
I note, for example, that in Ontario the federal share of costs
of CAP has decreased from 50 per cent to 29 per cent. This is one
anomaly. Another is in the case of Quebec. This is an area that
has been brought to my attention for not being clear in the bill.
In the area of CAP, Quebec operates under a bilateral tax
abatement agreement with the federal government. I would call
upon the government to clarify how exactly this freeze of
transfers affects that agreement into the future.
[Translation]
Considering these problems, I want to congratulate the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot for his amendment,
Motion No. 12, which proposes the setting up of a parliamentary
committee to review on a permanent basis the implementation
of this policy. It is important, given the lack of a comprehensive
strategy by the provincial and federal governments, to have such
a committee, and I asked Reform Party members to support the
motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
I conclude with a comment on sections 13 and 14 that affect
the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. These sections
extend the freeze, basically a freeze of 10 per cent below the
1989-90 payment on these transfers to the provinces into the
future.
I support this and our party supports this with even more
reluctance than we support the CAP transfers. Of course the
income tax transfers in this area to the provinces should be 100
per cent funded.
(1150 )
One should remember that the purpose of these tax transfers is
to refund to provinces that have privately owned utilities the
portions of tax revenue that are raised by the federal
government. These are transferred back to the provinces where
these private utility companies are located. In the case of
Alberta, which receives a lion's share of these transfers, they are
passed on to the customers of these utilities.
This is not a special payment. This simply ensures that there is
not discriminatory taxation against provinces and against
individual Canadians who happen to be customers of private
rather than public utility companies.
While this should be fully funded, I understand the reason for
the government's finding that at this time it cannot restore that
but must continue the policy that was unfortunately established
by the previous government.
We support that with some difficulty but we hope that will be
reassessed some day when we do have a plan to get our fiscal
House in order within a reasonable time period.
In conclusion, I would like to say on these amendments that
we recognize the need for significant reform and some reduction
of federal transfer payments to the provinces to balance the
budget. These are not the best ways of proceeding. They are the
ways the government has chosen. We are very concerned about
the lack of an overall plan and strategy but are prepared to
support them on an interim basis.
I would remind the House once again that I have moved
certain amendments to allow this debate, but I would
recommend to my caucus that we support the Bloc amendment
to study particularly the operation of CAP transfer programs in
the future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Madam Speaker, I was
interested to hear what the hon. member had to say. I will also
speak on the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois,
which calls for the review by a committee of the administration
and operation of this clause.
What we call CAP for short is in fact the Canada Assistance
Plan. This plan, also funded by the taxes paid by all Quebec and
Canadian citizens, was established during the major economic
recession between 1957 and 1961, when we noticed a significant
increase in the number of poor people, including unemployed
workers.
In fact, in its first three years, the plan was called the
Unemployment Assistance Program. This program, which was
created in cooperation with the provinces, but still comes under
a federal law, ensures that the federal government will finance
50 per cent of a number of expenditures. As the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe said earlier, to a certain extent, this program
was of a greater help to the richer provinces, which could incur
more expenditures, knowing that the federal government would
cough up 50 per cent of the costs, as was the case, for example,
for daycare and social housing programs.
As far as social assistance is concerned, the amount to be paid
by the Canada Assistance Plan varied according to how
generous the individual provinces were. On the one hand, you
had people living below the poverty level, and on the other hand,
you had individual provinces deciding upon the kind of
programs they could afford.
4445
(1155)
This budget completely changes the terms and conditions of
what could be called the moral contract between the provinces
and Canada, because, from now on, the subsidies given to the
provinces will not exceed what was granted as of March 31,
1995.
I must add, Madam Speaker, that the Canada Assistance Plan
is subject to many more changes, since, for all practical
purposes, the same budget also announced the end or the
overhaul of the Plan. The consultations to be undertaken by the
Minister of Human Resources Development, which, as we know,
are also announced in the same budget, concern the social
assistance reform. And yet, social assistance unequivocally falls
within provincial jurisdiction.
When the federal government freezes the payment transfers
for the Canada Assistance Plan, it changes naturally, first, the
situation the provinces are in and, second, the rules governing
the other programs which exists under this Plan. Moreover, and
this is extremely important, we will speak a little later of the
changes to the unemployment insurance. These changes to the
unemployment insurance will mean a heavier burden for
provinces as far as social assistance is concerned.
Thus, in two very important ways, the budget and this
omnibus bill will make things worst for the provinces when it
comes to dealing with poverty-and this is what it is all
about-when it comes to helping people without any revenue
whatsoever to survive. With what poor people are given in each
of the provinces, they can barely live.
We are talking here of distributing the contribution of the
richer provinces to the poorer to help people who have no
revenue not to live but, as I said, to barely survive.
Under these circumstances, the amendment is very modest.
We would very much like the Reform Party and the government
to agree to incorporate it into the omnibus bill. It will allow us to
look more closely at the operation of this act, to examine the
means available to each province to fight poverty.
I must add that I have the feeling that, given the reform
undertaken by the minister, these sums will be used for other
purposes and that we will have heated debates in this House over
the next few months if I am right about the changes that I think
are forthcoming. But I will wait.
I would like to respond here and now to those who wonder
why Quebec sovereigntists want to separate from the Canadian
federation when Quebec benefits from equalization and from the
Canada Assistance Plan. Yes, we want to separate because we
are not only convinced but certain-because we have studied all
these issues very carefully-that if Quebec had all the powers of
a sovereign state to develop its economy and fight poverty, it
would be in a better position to help those in need, to provide
social housing and child care services to Quebecers. Quebec
would do better as an independent state than if it continued to
receive transfers that are constantly reduced and subject to more
and more conditions. It would do better than if it continued to be
deprived of the means with which to develop a strong economy,
with workers who have all the job training they need. The fact of
the matter is that the federal government does not give the
province enough money, money it collects from Quebec
taxpayers in the first place.
(1200)
So, this is a modest amendment which will hopefully allow us
to continue to demonstrate that the operation of this act makes
no sense.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, I would
like to reiterate our party's philosophy on debating the bill
today.
The purpose of our amendments is to make our support clear
for some portions of the bill. At the same time we may not
support our amendments when they come to a vote. We were
forced to do this because the government wanted to lump a
bunch of bills together and put it through without due and proper
deliberation.
We feel it is important that everybody get a chance to debate
each specific issue on its own merits and not have things lumped
together. The advantage of this philosophy or political strategy
is that it has forced debate on five separate areas. We can bring
attention to each of the areas so there is a clear understanding of
what areas we are for and what areas we are against, on all sides
of the House.
What is wrong with an omnibus bill is that it groups unrelated
pieces of legislation together. It is an admission of two things.
First, it is an admission that individual members, at least
government members, have no real input into substantive
legislation. There is so much put together and so much to
consider that it is too hard for an individual to comprehend.
Second, it shows how ineffectual the committee system is. If
input was really expected from committees a bill as broad as this
would never go to just one committee. It has five different
components and thus should not go to just one committee.
Members of this House, especially government members, could
then do a proper and better review.
In the accounting taught in most schools eventually
everybody gets to hear about the kiss system: keep it simple,
stupid.
It would be nice if this government would not ram big bills
through on the opposition and on the Canadian public but
instead applied a new approach, a more simple and more visible
approach. It should start separating bills and discussing each
4446
issue individually. I encourage the government to adopt that
kind of a philosophy. It would be advantageous for everyone.
We favour the section on the fiscal arrangements with the
provinces, partially because it adopts some of the policies and
principles of the Reform Party zero in three plan. With that plan
we would have a zero deficit in three years.
At first we had a lot of criticism of that zero in three plan. The
Liberal government said our cuts were too draconian and that
our suggestion of 6 per cent cuts on this year's budget alone was
too draconian. I have now found out that when the finance
minister appeared before the Business Council on National
Issues, he indicated that in next year's budget he is actually
looking for perhaps up to 12 per cent in cuts. If our 6 per cent is
too draconian for the spending cap we set this year, what can be
said about the government's proposed 12 per cent? We would
work toward showing the government where those areas of cuts
could be.
(1205)
Our zero in three plan for cuts in this area would have been
combined with some workfare and some constructive
mechanisms and with hope for people to do just as much with
less money, acknowledging the fact that we all have to start
living within our means. We know the Canadian public is forced
to live within its means. It is only this government that will not
accept the fact that the problem is the deficit and the debt. It is
not looking for ways to reduce spending.
I want to make the point that when we see the government
does recognize that, and there is a significant saving here of up
to $466 million through this freeze, then we support it. We
compliment the government on that section and we encourage it
to do more of the same.
An hon. member: We will.
Mr. Silye: I heard an hon. member opposite say: ``We will''.
We will hold them to that promise.
I caution the government about making the same mistake with
welfare as it is making with health care, which as members
know, is another purpose of the Canada assistance plan and
transfers to the provinces. The government has promised social
security reform based on a co-operative effort among the
federal and provincial governments. Clearly this is not
happening. Evidence of this is in the refusal of some provinces
to attend a scheduled briefing on health care.
The government makes the same mistake with this welfare
program and decreased funding levels which it must and is
doing. However it has to give the provincial governments the
freedom to adjust to these changes and target funding
appropriately.
The provinces cannot be punished by having to reduce their
spending or having to figure out alternate ways of paying for
these programs that are only partially subsidized by the federal
government. Whereas they should have been subsidized to a
higher degree, the federal government reduces the funding and
the provinces have to look for ways and means to pay for the
programs and then they are cut off. We know it is a problem but
we just wish the government would be more aware of it.
Currently despite the fact that constitutionally welfare is
strictly under the control of the provincial governments the
federal government enforces national standards through the
Canada assistance plan and regulations. We have a few concerns
about this area. Alienating the provinces along with cuts which
decrease the federal spending power may make it difficult when
it comes to the social policy reforms being planned for in the fall
by the minister of human resources.
Overall we recognize the need for significant reform and the
reduction of federal transfer payments to provinces to balance
the budget. We just have a concern about the overall plan or
strategy.
Mr. Walker: Madam Speaker, in response to a question raised
earlier, the amendments we are proposing do not affect tax
points.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, this is a
Bloc Quebecois amendment and I want to comment on it. It
would amend Bill C-17 which proposes to freeze the federal
contribution to the Canada Assistance Plan.
You know that the Canada Assistance Plan is financed by the
federal and provincial governments.
(1210)
According to Bill C-17, the federal contribution to CAP
would be capped after March 1995.
CAP is a plan that was developed in the 1950s and 1960s for
the sake of social justice for classes of people who, for some
reason, cannot support themselves.
So, it is a plan that really addresses the basic needs of some of
our fellow citizens. The government's proposal would impose a
unilateral freeze on the federal contribution to CAP.
My party denounces this way of proceeding. This change
would have major consequences that we parliamentarians can
hardly assess at the present time but we in the opposition know
that some parts of the population would be severely affected.
With this in mind, my party proposed an amendment calling
for a standing committee to study the whole question so that the
members of this House could know the real impact of the Liberal
government's proposal on the most needy in our society. As
parliamentarians, we must in all honesty seriously consider the
consequences of our decisions.
4447
I think it is not improper to really want to take into account
the serious impact that could result from legislation we pass
here. It is therefore important that people, through their
representatives, be made aware of the situations that could
result from a proposal such as the one the Liberal government
is making.
I also want to denounce the practice followed at various levels
of government, that is using a seemingly harmless measure to
freeze transfer payments to other levels of government. That is
what is called passing the buck, shifting one's problems, one's
responsibilities onto someone else.
That is exactly what the federal government is doing now.
And what will happen? Provincial governments will get less
contributions. To maintain their present level of services,
provincial governments will have to spend more and perhaps go
deeper into debt or they will have to bear the responsibility of
cuts in programs affecting the most disadvantaged members of
our society.
But then the federal government will wash its hands of the
matter, saying that it simply made cuts in transfer payments
whereas provincial governments decided not to make
supplementary expenditures in order to offset the cuts.
I think this is dishonest and hypocritical, because the
government proposing this bill knows perfectly well what will
happen, but it is going ahead with it nevertheless; when in 1995,
1996 or 1997, provinces have to either cut services to the most
disadvantaged members of our society or borrow money to
maintain services, they are the ones that will have to face
criticism for their actions.
As parliamentarians, I think we have to be responsible for our
actions. If we want to cut social programs, we should say so. We
should not force others do that by putting them in a situation
where they will have no other choice, but that is typical of this
Liberal government.
(1215)
We know that a reform is under way. Mr. Axworthy, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, announced it.
Committees are studying the matter. Experts were hired to
determine the government's position. The Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development is exploring different
avenues. The government has no project, no overall plan. Things
are done in a piecemeal way. We hear that cuts might be made in
UI or in social assistance or that the student loans program
might be redesigned. But since they are informed of all this in
such a fragmented way, Canadians cannot assess the whole
reform. And we parliamentarians cannot say to our constituents
what our objectives are and what results we want to achieve in a
few years.
So this proposal, which looks pretty insignificant but will
have important consequences for many of our most
disadvantaged fellow citizens, is a patent example of the
hypocritical and often lying way in which our country is now
ruled and its social policy for the poorest members of our
society is designed.
I will certainly vote against the main proposal on freezing
federal transfer payments, and I will vote for the amendment
moved by my party to strike a standing committee for the
purpose of reviewing all these proposals and gauging their
impact. Parliamentarians will thus be accountable to Canadians
on important measures and bills such as the one before us today.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Before resuming
debate, I would remind the hon. member that ministers and hon.
members should not be referred to by name.
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 Motion No. 12?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour 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 nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke) moved:
Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
(1220 )
He said: Madam Speaker, although we do not mention names
in the House, I would like to clarify that the name is Gouk. I
would not want people to think we have 53 members in the
Reform Party just yet.
We have moved this amendment to allow us to address the
various parts of the bill. When I first spoke on this I pointed out
that it was an omnibus bill. The nature of an omnibus bill is
something that presents so many different parts that may not
closely or even relatively link to one another that it is impossible
to pick and choose what you can support and what you
consequently have to reject.
4448
If there are things in it which are totally unpalatable and one
cannot support then one has to reject the entire bill. The reason
we have moved this amendment is so that we can address the
individual parts of the bill in debate.
With regard to the transportation subsidies, as I said before
that is one portion which I can agree with at least in principle. I
also suggested at the time that the government had not really
done its homework on these issues. Had it done so it would have
found that there were many areas, both in the western grain
transportation subsidies and in the Atlantic regional subsidies
where other costs could have been cut that would have achieved
the same or a higher level of saving for the government without
penalizing the people of the region that these subsidies were
initially designed to serve.
It could be done in such a way that the subsidies could be
reduced and the local people would still realize a saving in
money if we got rid of some of the waste and inefficiencies. I
suggested this was a lack of homework on the part of the
government. I have seen very little in the ensuing period since I
last spoke on this issue to suggest that the government is yet
ready to do this work.
Much of this can be resolved in committee. I believe that is
what committees are for. It is unfortunate that the government
sees fit to take all these different aspects of things generally
relating to the budget, lump them into one omnibus bill and then
suggest that we have to accept or reject the bill in its entirety.
We have seen the folly of this under such things as the
Charlottetown accord. The Charlottetown accord was probably
the most omnibus piece of work that has ever come from any
government. It was rejected by the majority of Canadians who
reviewed it and said: ``While there may be some things in there
that we support, there are things in there that we cannot plug our
nose and vote in favour of as the previous Prime Minister
suggested''. Consequently the majority of Canadians in their
own best interest rejected that.
Forevermore, from the previous Prime Minister to the present
Prime Minister and all his cabinet ministers, every time we try
and raise an important issue for Canadians we hear that we
rejected that. We hear: ``We offered that to you and you rejected
it under the Charlottetown accord. Never, ever bring it up
again''.
Using that same rationale, it brings to us Bill C-17. In Bill
C-17 there are probably some good things we would like to see
through. We are told that the government has to reduce its cost
and yet every time it tries we reject what it is saying. We say
there are things in here where we can save money and we support
that. Transportation subsidies is one area which in general
principle we can support.
An example of something I personally cannot support tied
into the same bill is allowing borrowing by the CBC. It is not bad
enough that the government borrows more than it can ever hope
to repay and cannot even pay the interest on, but now it wants to
farm out those rights to its various crown corporations so that
they can borrow. In that way it is not seen as part of the
government's national debt.
With regard to the transportation subsidy I would support the
reduction in grain subsidies but I couple that with a request if not
a demand that the government at the same time look at the
inefficiencies of the transportation system. It has been proven
that simply pumping money into the transportation system does
not get the grain moving and that is what the farmers require.
By all means we can reduce the costs but at the same time we
have to get rid of the inefficiencies. I suggest that if we got rid of
all inefficiencies we could get rid of subsidies almost entirely
without any penalty to the farmers who are in dire straits
because of government inaction.
(1225)
With regard to the Atlantic regional subsidies, again the same
situation. There are many areas where the government could
reduce subsidies if it would improve certain other areas which
penalize the Atlantic region. One that I mentioned specifically
was the icebreaking services provided without cost to the
shippers in order to keep a frozen port open while ice free ports
remain underutilized. This is penalizing the Atlantic region.
As I mentioned, I have no problem with keeping that service
available but shippers should pay the cost of providing that
service which costs $20 million a year. This would more than
offset the type of subsidy it is looking to reduce and which is
actually penalizing the Atlantic region.
I also mentioned the economic development grants. Those
could be reduced as well if at the same time the government
would do something about interprovincial trade barriers which
costs the Atlantic region more than its entire economic
development grants.
On the basis of breaking this up, I will support with my added
remarks the transportation subsidy portion. But until the bill is
broken up and the parts dealt with individually so that the
ludicrous parts can be eliminated, it makes it very difficult to
support.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Madam
Speaker, I will not talk at length about this part of Bill C-17,
since I do not think there are major problems with the
administrative provisions on transportation contained in this
bill.
I will rather speak about the lack of seriousness of the Reform
Party when it proposes to examine the bill section by section.
We were just told in a very strange way that the party wants to
eliminate the entire clauses of that part of the bill, while
recognizing that some provisions could be beneficial. I have
never heard such a thing before. I have already seen politicians
4449
who were not serious, but we expected that the Reform Party
would be a little more serious than that.
Had they proposed constructive amendments to this part of
the bill, it seems to me that it would have been promising for the
overall examination of the bill. I see that they are unable to do
that, because they are not serious. All the more so since it was
just said that the bill contains some provisions that are
beneficial for Western grain transportation. They have been
elected only in the West and they are proposing amendments to
eliminate these provisions as a whole, including the ones
concerning Western grain transportation, the famous Crown's
Nest Pass Agreement.
Do these people talk to their constituents? As they claim, their
way of doing politics is somewhat different. They bring up
questions faxed to them by citizens. They should have gone
directly to their constituents, especially the western farmers and
the western carriers to seek their opinion, instead of acting so
irresponsibly and proposing these amendments.
I also noticed that each time a bill, including the motion
introduced by the Reform Party, dealt with a region east of
Manitoba, it was necessarily bad. One said for example that, in
the Maritime Provinces, users could have been asked to pay for
the ice monitoring. As if these people were not already
overburdened. I noticed it during the hearings held by the
sub-committee on bill C-17, especially on the part dealing with
unemployment insurance. Let us stop -as the Reformers
always do-taking the Maritime Provinces as the sole example
to illustrate inefficiency.
The same thing applies to regional development grants. I feel
it is a little too much. I wanted to stress that. It does not add
anything to the motion introduced, it does not take away
anything from it. But the attitude of the Reform Party today is
disgraceful.
(1230)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 nays
have it.
I therefore declare Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39 negatived.
(Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39 negatived.)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) moved:
Motions Nos. 19 and 20
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-17, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 9, with
the following:
``year, including indication of the purposes for which the Corporation plans to
borrow money and its plans for repayment of the borrowed money.''
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, while the government bill
proposes to amend the rules pertaining to unemployment
insurance, Canada Assistance Plan and collective bargaining by
imposing a salary freeze upon its employees, while the
government is making cutbacks everywhere and taking money
in the taxpayers' purse, it is still granting the CBC a borrowing
authority of $25 million which could be increased under an
appropriation act.
First of all I would like to denounce the omnibus bill which in
the hands of the government becomes a way to disguise
important policy changes. This bill is a soup containing to many
ingredients and too spicy to the taste of the poorest.
That being said, I would like to emphasize the borrowing
authority that the government intends to give the CBC.
According to the rule book, a line of credit is generally granted
to individuals and to financial institutions that know how to add
up figures, how to administer their business, that have
expansion plans based on market research studies or who know
how to balance their books. In other words, individuals and
institutions that have a financial reputation that can justify their
request.
4450
Yet, this is far from being the case with the CBC. Let us have
a closer look at the facts. Based on data prepared by senior
officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the CBC will
see its deficit grow from $41 million this year to $78 million
next year and this does not take into account the budgetary cuts
of April 1993. You must add to those projections an amount of
at least $100 million that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
intends to recover from the CBC over the next five years.
The minister also stated that he would like to see the CBC less
dependent on advertising revenues. Those revenues will account
for 26.3 per cent of the total revenues of the CBC in 1994, that is
almost $400 million on a total budget of $1.5 billion.
(1235)
Up until now, several drastic measures have been taken by the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to redress its structural
deficit. With a document published by professor Lauzon, I want
to remind you of some of those measures which in the end did
not solve anything and, above all, did not allow the corporation
to balance its books. Yet, we still suffer from some of those
measures. There have been 2,800 jobs lost since 1984, including
some lay-offs, French and English television services have been
restructured, three local television stations have been converted
to satellite stations, and all regional programs have been
cancelled except for news bulletins. That measure should bring
about an economy of $46 million.
Incidently, it is impossible for me, as a citizen, to find out how
much it costs to operate the French CBC station in Quebec City.
People in Eastern Quebec have the vivid impression that that
station profited from the savings that were to result from the
closing of the Rimouski, Matane and Sept-Îles stations. But
when we ask for information in Quebec City, the answer is:
``Sorry, we have competitors, we cannot give you that
information''.
Let me go on with the list of cuts the CBC made in order to
reduce its deficit: $12 million in expenditures for the television
network. Another apparent cut affects precisely the office of the
Speaker of this House; the parliamentary channel has been
transferred to the budget of his office. Such a measure seems to
result in an economy of $5 million but in reality the service still
costs taxpayers $5 million; it has simply changed envelopes.
Another cut was the reduction of Radio Canada International
services abroad and the transfer of its financing to Foreign
Affairs. This might look like a $20 million saving for the
corporation, but it is costing $20 million to Foreign Affairs.
Such measures are deceitful for the public; they are a real
disgrace.
But not all services have been cut, not all services have borne
their share of budget cuts. The amounts withheld from the
regions have simply been transferred to the networks.
According to a study conducted by the Syndicat des
journalistes de Radio-Canada, contrary to what they would
have people believe, the closing of stations in the regions in
1991 has not reduced the costs of television programming. It has
led to a transfer of funds to the networks. If you compare the
costs of television programming for 1991 with those for 1992,
you realize that they have decreased by $40 million in the
regions and that the costs of the regions' contributions to the
network have also decreased by $7.1 million. One regionally
produced program we all know very well is ``SRC Bonjour''
which originates right here in Ottawa.
Therefore, you will say, there was in fact a cut of some $47
million. Quite the opposite; if you look at the figures, the
network costs have increased by $60.7 million. There you have
another example of the kind of cover-up this government and
that corporation are carrying out. The final cost was $13 million
higher than the anticipated cuts. Therefore, the network
benefited from the closing of our regional TV stations and it
hurts even more. We are still reeling from it.
I would like to mention something that was promptly
dismissed by the president of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation and by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, namely
the funding discrepancies between Radio-Canada and the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
On April 5 last, the Coalition pour la défense des services
Français de Radio-Canada, which, I will remind the House, is
made up of technicians, journalists, musicians, researchers, and
in-house artists, published a report showing that the funding
discrepancy between the two networks now totals $76.4 million.
SRC gets $69 million, whereas CBC receives $146.1 million.
One hour of TV programming costs on average $37,400 on
CBC, and $18,390 on SRC. Producing the news on the French
network costs on average $7,000 an hour, whereas the same
thing on the English network costs $18,000. And yet, news are
news, no matter the language.
(1240)
Comparing average drama production costs is just as
shocking: $68,000 on the French network against $99,000 on its
English counterpart. In spite of such disproportionate funding,
which can only be due to cultural racism, CBC and the Société
Radio-Canada have comparable audiences. With a BBM
audience rating of 13.6 per cent, the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation reaches approximately 2.8 million viewers whereas
the Société Radio-Canada, with a rating of 33 per cent, reaches
an audience of 2.2 million. Therefore, such funding
discrepancies between the two networks cannot be justified.
4451
Recently, the CBC bought the broadcasting rights for the
Olympic Games in Atlanta for $28 million. Its competitors
were offering $10 million. The corporation believes that it can
sell $35 million worth of advertising, which experts in this area
tend to doubt. Does the corporation intend to use its new line
of credit to make up for any revenue shortfall? It is a question
every citizen is wondering about.
In view of such financial mismanagement, the Bloc
Quebecois, on behalf of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, wants
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be accountable to
Parliament for the use of its line of credit. That is the reason why
we proposed an amendment which would make it compulsory
for the corporation to explain to Parliament the purposes for
which it plans to borrow money and its plans to repay the
borrowed money. What sense is there in giving the corporation
borrowing authority if it is unable to manage its affairs?
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on part four of Bill C-17 which would
grant borrowing authority to the CBC.
I wish to address the several flaws inherent with this notion.
First, the government has committed itself to a management and
funding review of the CBC. Without waiting for the completion
of this same review the government has remodelled funding for
the CBC on two occasions.
In the first instance this administration has reversed spending
cuts announced by the previous Conservative government from
$350 million to $250 million over four years. Meanwhile the
government's budget includes a provision that a $25 million
borrowing authority be awarded to the CBC in order to offer it
more businesslike flexibility.
I am very sceptical when it comes to assuming that the ability
to borrow $25 million would accomplish efficient management
not realized with $1.1 billion in appropriations from the
Canadian taxpayers.
It really does baffle all logic that the government would call
for a funding review in one instance while at the same time
tampering with existing funding formulas.
It is obvious to me that the provision to grant the corporation
borrowing powers is premature based on the government's own
announcement. From a practical standpoint it makes no sense
whatsoever to allow the CBC to seek loans.
The CBC is not like a business in the private sector. There are
no shareholders or customers in the normal sense to answer to.
There is no compelling obligation to strive for efficiency
because there is no bottom line. In short, there is no need to
worry about turning a profit, nor is the concept of bankruptcy a
constant preoccupation.
In this type of structure there is never a shortage of things on
which to spend money. Permitting the CBC to borrow is more
likely to enhance the national debt than corporate efficiency.
The budget document suggests that the public broadcaster
may be allowed to borrow an amount greater than $25 million
with parliamentary approval. In effect the ceiling of $25 million
is really a decoy. How did the government arrive at this figure?
What measures will keep it from climbing to $50 million or
$100 million? Who will be ultimately responsible for the debts
incurred by the corporation?
(1245 )
The general trend is that when one includes clauses like these
in legislation, there is a tempting desire and requirement to use
them. The law of wasteful spending requires that unaccountable
financial entities will spend any and all funds directed toward
them without adherence to efficiency.
While testifying as a witness before the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage not long ago on April 12, CBC president
Anthony Manera conceded that the corporation currently
estimates a shortfall from all sources to be in the order of $180
million over the next four years. The CBC has a $45 million
deficit on operating budget on revenues of about $1.4 billion.
It would be paramount that any business facing such a
financial crisis first put its own house in order before assuming
any further liabilities. Borrowing to reduce debt load is
synonymous to using a Visa card to pay down a MasterCard.
Even in a best case scenario, it would require shrewd
investments and a commensurate amount of time and good luck
for the CBC to realize economies of scale from its borrowing
authority.
Allowing an indebted company to accumulate further debts at
the public's expense is poor management and it is morally
irresponsible. The rationale behind the new borrowing power is
supposedly to allow the corporation to make investments in
systems and equipment that will result in long term savings.
What are these investments? What are the risks involved?
What is the projected return on investment? Who will be
responsible if the investment fails? These questions demand
answers before this request by the CBC can even be considered.
It has also been suggested that a levy be raised on private
broadcasters or cable subscriber fees be initiated to fund the
CBC to the detriment of their competitors and the public. The
crown corporation cannot have one hand in taxpayers' pockets
and another in the marketplace, giving it the best of both worlds
when there is no incentive to be cost effective or competitive.
4452
With respect to its mandate, the CBC is facing an abundance
of difficulties. For example, the CBC English language
television audience has been declining steadily since 1990-91.
The viewership has declined to only a 13.3 per cent share of
audience, which caused CRTC chairman Keith Spicer to remark
to Mr. Manera at a recent licence renewal hearing: ``You are
going down the tubes here in ratings. You are going down to
oblivion''.
What of the U.S. programming during prime time and a litany
of U.S. soap operas from one until six in the day? How does the
CBC explain the decline in arts programming, in children's
programming since 1987? All of this combined with
technological breakthroughs cause us to question the need for
the existence of the CBC.
Specialty channels and the electronic superhighway have
become catch phrases of the 1990s. Is there a need for a public
broadcaster when the public will have 500 channels to choose
from offering a similar and cheaper product to the CBC? The
CBC has jointly submitted a bid to operate one of these specialty
channels under the name of Festival.
Since Parliament has not changed its mandate, is it even
appropriate for the CBC to establish and operate new television
networks? One must also examine whether the CBC is
undermining its current obligations by engaging in another
channel bid. This relates both to its legally required
programming as well as its management of scarce resources.
In addition, it would be important to critically examine the
program management and copycat production practices of the
CBC. Canadians frequently criticize the Canadian style U.S.
programs that find their way on to the air waves. Meanwhile the
shifting around of ``Prime Time News'' from 10 p.m. to 9 p.m.
only to have it return to its original time slot has diminished
public confidence in the operation of the CBC.
In the futile task of persistently propping up the CBC, there
are some serious questions to consider with the prospect of
borrowing money. Here are four issues which really demand
answers. First, how will the CBC generate profits on its revenue
in order to repay any loans it has incurred?
Second, clause 19 of the bill states: ``Notwithstanding the
Financial Administration Act, part VII of that act does not apply
to a debt incurred by the corporation''. It is not clear after
consulting the Financial Administration Act and the
Broadcasting Act if the crown or the corporation would be
ultimately responsible for the debts of the CBC.
(1250)
Third, what guidelines has the government established to the
exercising of this borrowing authority?
Fourth, why is the government allowing the CBC to borrow
money in the first place? Would it not be more financially sound
to privatize portions of its operations and realize substantial
savings which then may be used to finance new cost effective
ventures?
It is crystal clear that any attempt to revitalize the CBC using
measures normally reserved for companies competing in the
private marketplace undermines its integrity as a public
broadcaster. Any special measures designed to raise capital for
the CBC, such as loans, subscriber fees or licence fees, would be
an unfair advantage should the CBC underbid its private
counterparts for any services which it is given in addition to its
heavy state sanctioned financing.
These factors along with the changing technological
landscape bring into question the relevant role of the CBC. It is
for the reasons outlined above that our caucus will not be
supporting this borrowing authority.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Madam
Speaker, I too would like to say a few words on Bill C-17. I will
come in a moment specifically to section 18 which deals with
the proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Act to grant CBC
some borrowing authority from the consolidated revenue fund.
First, the bill, in effect the budget implementation bill which
flows from the budget of a couple of months ago, would seek to
do a number of things. I am surprised, I say to my friend from
Medicine Hat, that he did not spend a good amount of his speech
lauding the bill because a lot of it goes straight to the issue of
budget restraint which in some ways will be painful for various
parts of the country, but necessarily painful because, as the
Minister of Finance has said again and again and as the Prime
Minister has said repeatedly, we are committed to getting our
financial house in order and Bill C-17 goes a fair distance to
doing that.
In light of the comment made by my friend from Medicine
Hat, let me come directly to the matter of the proposed
amendment to the Broadcasting Act.
This amendment would give to the CBC the businesslike
flexibility which I submit is necessary for a billion dollar
corporation by authorizing the CBC to be able to borrow up to a
limit of $25 million from the consolidated revenue fund and
from Canadian banking institutions through lines of credit,
through commercial loans and the issuing of bonds or
commercial paper.
I believe this measure would represent an important step in
our campaign to help the CBC by permitting it to become more
efficient in operations and allowing the corporation to enter into
other ventures acceptable to the government that provide a
return on investment. It is perhaps in this context, I say to the
member for Medicine Hat, that I find his objection most
surprising. It is interesting to note that he did not say what he
was going to do today. He said what his caucus was going to do.
4453
I say to my friend from Peace River, I assume that is another
example of the free vote approach of that party. Now one stands
up and says what the entire caucus will do. What happened to
the free vote we used to have in that great party, that party that
I have come to admire? Where is the leader today when I need
him to answer on this particular issue of why suddenly he is
allowing the member for Medicine Hat to muzzle a party of free
voters?
I digress. On the one hand the member for Medicine Hat
decries the bill for allowing the CBC some borrowing authority
but yet we hear them wax eloquently from time to time about
how we ought to become more efficient as a government and as
crown corporations. Again I say to him that we cannot really
have it both ways, can we?
(1255)
The funds that the bill would permit the CBC to borrow would
be used only to generate operating savings. This idea that
somehow it is going to go out and buy Lotto 649 tickets with it or
somehow splurge-
Mr. Penson: It might be a better investment.
Mr. Simmons: In fairness, the member for Peace River
interjects that it might be a better investment. I have to say to
him in response that for a member of the Reform Party hope
must spring eternal.
These borrowed funds would be used to generate operating
savings or for venture investments. The operating savings would
come from investments in capital equipment and projects which
have a payback of four years or less. At the present time the CBC
is unable to take advantage of these opportunities due to its
shortage of capital resources and the immediate need of
addressing physical obsolescence in plants and equipment
across the country.
Perhaps a good example of how this proposed borrowing
authority would help the CBC was the arrangement reached by
the corporation to disaffiliate from its Pembroke, Ontario
station and replace it with rebroadcasting towers at a capital cost
of $2.2 million.
The subsequent annual savings in payments to the affiliate
less the cost of using the towers yielded net savings to the CBC
of $374,000. As well the corporation earned an additional $1
million in advertising revenue as a direct result of this
disaffiliation in Pembroke. A capital investment of $2.2 million
was repaid in under three years. That flexibility to undertake
such initiatives is an indispensable tool for the CBC.
It is worth reminding ourselves that under no circumstances
would the CBC be permitted to use these borrowed funds to
address an operational shortfall and thereby operate on deficit
financing.
I say to my friend from Medicine Hat, there is the answer to
one of the questions he raised. If he listens to the debate he will
get the answers to all these questions. We heard his questions.
We not only heard them we had anticipated them beforehand
because these are some of the legitimate questions that need to
be asked. Nobody has scored the member for Medicine Hat for
being unthoughtful. He is very thoughtful about his questions
but he rushes to judgment a little too quickly. He decides this is a
bad thing before he has fully examined it. However I give him
credit for at least knowing the questions to ask.
I repeat to him that the CBC will not be allowed under any
circumstances to use these borrowed funds to address
operational shortfalls and thereby operate on deficit financing.
It is not only a commitment of the government. It is a caveat that
will be in the agreement that would be entered into between the
government, the Minister of Finance on the one hand and the
CBC on the other.
The CBC's borrowing ceiling under this provision would be
$25 million. A memorandum of understanding between the CBC
and the Department of Finance would, as I have just said, set out
the terms and the conditions governing the borrowing authority.
Foremost among those conditions is that the CBC would require
the approval of the Minister of Finance, in accordance with the
established Department of Finance guidelines, for each
transaction it undertook pursuant to this particular provision.
We have heard again, particularly from my friends in the
Reform Party, some concern about this issue. It is not surprising
on the one hand because we know they are for the dismantling or
the privatization of the CBC and I respect that point of view as a
policy position. I do not agree with it myself and my party does
not agree with it either but certainly I respect the point of view.
It flies in the face of our position. It is diametrically opposed to
what we believe on this issue. We see the CBC as a key national
cultural institution.
(1300 )
At the same time I cannot resist mentioning to my friends in
the Reform Party that there is a bit of an inconsistency in their
position in that we hear them so often talking about the
importance of the businesslike approach. I believe the record,
what we said on this issue, demonstrates that what we are trying
to achieve here is a more businesslike approach for the CBC.
Finally there have been concerns about adequate reporting to
Parliament. This is addressed by the procedure under which the
borrowing authority will be included in the corporate plan
summary which the CBC is obliged to table annually in
Parliament.
In the context of the $1 billion crown corporation that we are
talking about, the $25 million we are talking about is a relatively
small amount. I submit the government is taking adequate
safeguards to see that it is done in a reasonable manner.
4454
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker,
in Bill C-17, it is mentioned that the government can authorize a
borrowing of $25 million. I wonder about that. Where will this
money be spent? Will it be in large centres or rather in fringe
areas?
Madam Speaker, you know that in my region, in Matane,
Rimouski and Sept-Iles, we have been terribly penalized. It is a
sparsely populated rural area. When constituents are few, it
seems that they can take everything away from you. It hurts us in
the rural areas.
How many of these millions will be used to restore television
service in Rimouski, Matane and Sept-Iles? In our modern
world, communications are extremely important. In my region,
in small isolated parishes with nothing for 8, 10 or 15 kilometres
around, people are beginning to speak out.
Last Saturday, I attended a meeting of Urgence rurale in
Saint-Marcellin, a small community of 300 inhabitants. For
once, the people spoke for themselves instead of inviting Ph.Ds
from the university. They were asked: ``What do you want in
your region?'' They had stunning things to say. For the last 15 or
20 years, these people have taken things into their own hands
and almost made miracles with very modest, very minimal
means. Their parish was supposed to be closed, but they reacted.
They asked me why they no longer had services from
Radio-Canada in Matane, Rimouski and Sept-Iles. They told
me they had invited reporters to a meeting of Urgence rurale, but
the CBC never bothered to cover their story. They were too
small. Small parishes are not important for the CBC.
Then, I asked myself: ``Where are these 25 million going to
go?'' If none of it comes to our area there will be a serious
problem. You must realize that there might be some political
game involved. Duplessis used to say: ``The less people know,
the more they will vote for me''. He had another saying: ``In
Quebec, we have the best education system in the world''. Of
course, it was not true then.
(1305)
Is our communication system threatened? If we cannot
communicate with each other we will stay ignorant, and
ignorance is the saddest and the most rotten thing in the world.
We demand to be provided with CBC services. Today we do
not have such services. We can still communicate of course, but
we do it differently, we have to go through the telephone. This is
a rather crude way, when television could really unite us.
Our region includes the Magdalen Islands, Sept-Îles, Matane,
Rimouski, and we cannot communicate with one another. As
long as we are unable to talk to each other, the governments will
be satisfied. Because we are isolated, we are almost islanders
and this give us a tremendous dynamism, although we cannot
export it to the right places.
As I was saying, the area of the Lower St. Lawrence, the area
of Gaspe, the islands, the North shore, no longer has access to its
own means of communication and this is painful.
In order for people to develop a sense of self-worth and to
understand one another and in order to raise their collective
consciousness, communication is essential and the
Radio-Canada television network is an excellent
communication vehicle. If the government does not want to give
money to Radio-Canada, then it should give it instead to
Radio-Québec or to community television stations, because this
money comes from the taxes Quebecers pay. It is their money to
begin with. We could use this money to readily defend ourselves
with dignity.
Three stations were shut down and a decision was made to
broadcast from the Quebec City station. I have nothing against
this station. Quebec City reporters are undoubtedly very
competent, but what do they know about our region? Do they
know that there is no university in my riding? Do they know that
there is only one CEGEP? What do they know about eastern
Quebec or about the federal-provincial agreement? Absolutely
nothing. Are Quebec City reporters familiar with the
unemployment rate in the area ridings? Absolutely not. They
deliver the evening news and they do a good job of it, but they
know nothing at all about our region. Even if they want to be as
objective as possible, quite often they are ignorant of local
events and do not give a totally fair account of the facts.
The ties that bind us together are being severed. In today's
global village, we receive news from around the world. We
receive an immediate account of events taking place in all
countries abroad, whereas we have to wait two, three or four
days, and sometimes even one week, before learning about the
goings-on in our own backyard.
(1310)
Would you not agree that this is insulting and frustrating? The
$25 million to be spent should be spent in the regions. I firmly
believe this and I hope that my colleagues opposite understand
the problems faced by rural communities. I hope that they will
come to our defence because we too pay for a great many things
in Canada through our taxes. However, we do not get our kick at
the can as often as we should.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak in opposition to this portion or grouping of Bill
C-17, specifically clauses 18 to 20 which authorize the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to borrow up to $25
million, plus more by special legislation if necessary.
4455
When will the Liberal government and the country
understand that this borrowed money is in fact debt capital and
not equity capital which at the end of the day will simply
increase the government's deficit?
The government in this fiscal year will add $41 billion to the
debt which will take it over the $550 billion mark. It is this debt
and the interest to service the debt that have helped to create the
recession and put 1.7 million Canadians out of work and forced
countless businesses to close their doors.
Why does the government continue to lend money it does not
have? When will it face up to the reality that just as Canadians
are forced to curtail spending so must the government?
Unaccountable crown corporations like the CBC sail through
these troubled times spending money believing that there is
plenty more where that came from.
In the finance department's March 16 news release regarding
Bill C-17 the finance minister stated:
The act proposes to implement initiatives in support of our twin objectives of
job creation and deficit reduction.
I put this question to all members of the House and all
taxpayers watching this on TV: How can $25 million in
borrowed money, in addition to the $1.1 billion of taxpayers'
money that the CBC currently receives, possibly reduce the
deficit? Is the CBC going to hire more people? Will the tax
revenue from income create a profit for the government?
This is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying the more
money we spend the more money we will have in savings. The
CBC is not a made for profit corporation. Therefore any amount
of money that we give it will add to the deficit. It is a corporation
whose ratings have dropped and the only way it generates any
revenues at all is by playing U.S. produced shows which do not
satisfactorily portray Canadian culture.
It is this generosity with other people's money that creates the
pie in the sky Liberal logic which takes the emphasis off the real
problems in this country, high debt, high interest costs to service
this debt and high taxes to pay for wasteful grants and subsidies.
Liberal government members have said that 85 per cent of
real jobs are created in the private sector. Therefore I submit
they would do a better job creating long term, meaningful jobs
with $1.1 billion in tax reduction rather than subsidizing the
CBC with $1.1 billion.
If the government truly wants to promote Canadian identity
and pride, let the private sector create long term, meaningful
jobs and put Canadians back to work. The government should
regulate, administer, pass laws and defend borders, but stop
interfering with the marketplace by endlessly funding crown
corporations and short term job creation programs that benefit
the few and not society as a whole.
If the federal government sees a vital role for Canadian
content on TV then regulate it, do not pay for it. Let the law of
supply and demand dictate which shows stay on and which
shows are cut.
I believe it is time to consider a partial privatization of the
CBC. The fact is that under the present situation Canadians are
not watching.
At a recent licence renewal hearing CRTC chairman Keith
Spicer told reporters that CBC's English network saw its
audience share dip to 13.5 per cent in 1992-93 from 15 per cent
in 1990-91. Mr. Spicer went on to say: ``Your ratings are
plummeting. They are falling like a rock''.
This is a perfect example of what happens when companies
lack a competitive atmosphere. There is less incentive and lower
overall quality of the product. Private sector companies in this
position have shut their doors and have closed forever. This is
not the case, however, with the CBC which has guaranteed
government backing. With Bill C-17 it will have yet another
option to borrow.
(1315)
When will the government acknowledge that it is in fact part
of the problem and not the solution? When will the government
stop the unlimited funding of the CBC? When will the
government create the atmosphere and environment for
investment and stop making investments with money that it does
not have? The private sector understands this. It is time that
cabinet ministers did too.
Private sector growth generates confidence and opportunity.
It sends a message to investors that this country is able and
willing to compete.
The Liberal government should send a message to foreign and
domestic investors, lenders and businesses that Canada
welcomes competition in a fair marketplace, free from
government interference, subsidies and grants. This signal alone
would bring in equity capital for businesses and the government
could get out of businesses it knows nothing about such as the
CBC, Petro-Canada and Canada Post.
The CBC presently pays millions of dollars to broadcast
American comedies. Mr. Spicer stated: ``The network is merely
tinkering with this direction in the face of crisis''. Where is the
accountability or the justification?
As a businessman I know that corporations both public and
private over time begin to lose their overall objectives. Perhaps
Mr. Spicer's quote is an indication that the CBC has itself moved
away from its original objective of providing quality Canadian
programs, promoting Canadian culture and talent.
4456
Privatization of the CBC in whole or in part would, as Mr.
Spicer said, force the company off the road to oblivion without
a rescue plan.
With privatization the performance of the CBC would be
subject to market rules with market benefits and market
sanctions. Even partial privatization would reduce the deficit
and still maintain jobs. Time and again private corporations
have proven that they can operate more efficiently and
effectively than crown corporations. A dollar spent in the
private sector requires three dollars for the same service in the
public sector.
At risk money motivates, government money obligates but it
obligates the wrong people, the taxpayers, without enough say.
Decisions in the private sector must be made quickly to take
advantage of investment opportunities as they arise. Companies
that make these decisions subsequently suffer or gain from the
consequences. Crown corporations have long been criticized for
their inability to make these decisions. It is largely due to the
lack of incentive, motivation and accountability because the
government acts as a safety net.
Who gets fired if a costly program never airs? Who ever hears
about it? Who ultimately pays for the extravagance and the
errors?
Government involvement gives these corporations a kind of
financial longevity that corporations in the private sector do not
have. Therefore the longevity becomes a burden to taxpayers.
This promotes unfair competition within industry sectors, those
who have to answer to shareholders and those who have an
endless supply of taxpayers' money.
Privatization would also improve the government's financial
position. Selling assets would allow this government to reduce
its monetary requirements for the year, which for this year will
be $41 billion, and repay part of our accumulated debt of over
$516 billion.
Privatization in whole or in part of the CBC, not $25 million
in borrowing authority, would help the government truly meet
the so-called twin objectives of the finance minister of job
creation and deficit reduction.
As of eleven o'clock this morning, the Doomsday clock
calculated the national debt at $516,293,742,299.79. Since 11
o'clock this morning the debt has continued to grow at a rate of
$1,473.50 per second with a debt per taxpayer of $36,730.20.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill dealing with a wide range of
subjects, from unemployment insurance to Western grain
transportation and Atlantic region freight assistance, including
a line of credit for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
(1320)
In fact, Bill C-17 affects directly or indirectly 16 acts of
Parliament, that is 11 directly and another 5 indirectly. This goes
to show the lack of transparency of the federal government, in
spite of its campaign promises to that effect.
Bill C-17 typifies the lack of will to be open on the part of the
federal government, by bunching various acts together and
asking the House to vote on them as a whole. There are many
good things in Bill C-17 and some bad ones. I am totally
opposed of course, to the planned unemployment insurance
reductions in view of how severe the unemployment situation is
in Canada.
As for the $25 million line of credit extended to the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, I would like to focus on this aspect of
Bill C-17 for the next 10 minutes. We cannot object to the CBC
having a $25 million line of credit. Many reasons can be
provided in support of the CBC. The hon. member for
Burin-St. George's mentioned earlier ``the intention is to put
the financial house in order''.
There are several other reasons, including perhaps acquisition
of new equipment or restructuring. The problem is not so much
the line of credit as the matter of control. How will we know how
this $25 million will be spent and on what? And how will it be
repaid? That the problem. If this government was concerned
about transparency, it would make sure this $25 million loan
will be subjected to the scrutiny of this place, like all CBC
expenditures. Even a blind person could see that there is
mismanagement at the CBC.
Here a few examples of mismanagement at the CBC that
basically reflect the essence of this government. There is
financial mismanagement in government in general. It is
particularly obvious at the CBC. And we parliamentarians
cannot examine the particulars of CBC expenditures. It would
seem that the corporation has no business plan, but if it ever did,
it was shelved a long time ago. Recently however, this
mismanagement has being causing serious problems. While this
government is taking money out of the pockets of the
unemployed and away from seniors in their tax credits, it seems
ready to tolerate blatant squandering on the part of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation.
I would even dare to ask questions on the fact that the CBC
increasingly seems to favour the English-language network at
the expense of its French-language counterpart. On the subject
of mismanagement, that is quite obvious. Did you know that
since 1984, 10 years ago, about 2,000 jobs have been cut at the
CBC? Rather drastic cuts were made, for instance, in regional
production. In 1990-91, regional production was cut by $46
million.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage even announced very
recently that another $100 million would be cut over five years.
While experiencing major cuts, layoffs, job losses and service
cuts in the regions, the CBC has increased its share of the
advertising market.
4457
(1325)
Between 1979 and 1992, the CBC increased its share of the
advertising market from 15 per cent to 25 per cent, nearly
doubling its market share in 10 or 15 years. Its revenues have
therefore doubled or increased considerably.
Despite drastic cuts in the staff budget and a growing share of
the advertising market, CBC's deficit continues to climb. From
1992 through 1995, CBC's deficit was absorbed by the
employee pension fund surplus. This deficit is expected to reach
$41 million in 1995-96 and CBC itself predicts that it will
increase to $78 million by 1998-99. My God, what is wrong at
the CBC?
We have serious questions on the operation and management
of the CBC. It is obviously poorly managed, there is no control.
It is a little like the federal government: a kind of ship sinking in
the middle of the ocean.
All we ask for on this side of the House is not necessarily to
object to CBC's line of credit because CBC is, of course, an
important network with top-notch reporters and expertise we
want to keep. We do not necessarily object to this line of credit,
but we would still like to have the power, as parliamentarians, to
see where this money goes and why the deficit keeps growing
despite the cuts and CBC's bigger share of the advertising
market.
It is a basic request, and if the federal government really cared
about transparency, it would grant it to us. But it will not do so,
of course, because its majority will enable it to pass this bill
regardless of the good reasons to improve it.
The cuts are serious. For example, I just told you that in
1991-92, CBC's budget was cut by $108 million. Did you know
that it cost $129 million to cut this $108 million? The
reorganization, that is, all the services put in place to implement
the cuts, costs $29 million more than the cuts themselves.
The fact that CBC's production costs rose by $177 million
from 1988 to 1993 leads me to believe that this mismanagement
on the part of the CBC- In fact, if I had more time, I could have
shown you that money has been transferred to the
English-language network at the expense of the
French-language network.
In any case, in conclusion, we on this side would certainly like
to have the right, as parliamentarians, to review the use of this
$25 million line of credit to the CBC.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): On the same motion, I
recognize the hon. member for Témiscamingue.
(1330)
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Madam Speaker, it is no insult
for me to be called the member for Témiscamingue, but I will let
him speak for himself shortly.
I am pleased to speak on the third part of the omnibus bill
concerning the CBC's borrowing authority. As my colleagues
just said, the Bloc Quebecois is not here to gum up the works.
The Bloc Quebecois presented a motion for more openness in
the management of the CBC, but since we are good managers
too, we understand that the Crown corporation needs borrowing
authority to be able to operate. Whether this borrowing is on a
line of credit or they have to acquire more assets to finance new
things, we will support it.
What bothers us, though, is the lack of openness in CBC
management. Although management has done certain things and
revenue is rising and some things are being cut, they still have a
deficit. It is a structural deficit and it is like a cancer constantly
eating away at the CBC.
Why am I talking about cancer, Madam Speaker? It makes me
think of a loss we had in the Gaspé. As a result of this lack of
openness and this unwillingess to listen to the people, the CBC
closed three television stations in our region, in Sept-Iles,
Rimouski and Matane.
I am criticizing it for lack of openness; it is as though the
government asked or allowed the corporation to do its dirty
work. ``You be the one to do it.'' It is as though they wanted to
cut the means of communication of people in eastern Quebec,
especially in the Gaspé peninsula.
This time, we might say that the government is a little
ashamed to come and borrow money itself. It is telling the CBC
to go and do it this time. I am sorry; as long as Quebecers are in
this federation and part of Canada, we pay taxes and we have a
say.
They took from us what was our pride, that is our means of
communication. Now, we are asked to close our eyes and to say:
``Okay, you will allow CBC to borrow up to $25 million'', but
we will not be allowed to knowthing any more. The purpose of
this motion is precisely to make sure that we know what will be
done with that money, and particularly how CBC intends to
repay such loans because, as I said, as long as Quebec remains
part of Canada, we will have to pay part of that loan and part of
the deficit. We can argue later about what that part will be. In the
meantime, however, as long as we are here, we will ask for
greater transparency.
Canadians and Quebecers certainly deserve some
explanations from the Parliament of Canada. People can
understand. They are not dummies, to use a common expression,
and this is demonstrated by the fact that news and information
programs get the best ratings. People want to understand what is
going on. They want to know what is happening and, as a
parliamentary institution, the House must be receptive. But I do
not think it was receptive enough in the past.
4458
We are concerned by the fact that the government is prepared
to give a blank cheque to the corporation, without knowing
what it will do with the money. If I was told that the corporation
needs authority to borrow $25 million because, following the
mistake made by closing regional TV stations, it now has to
recapitalize regions and part of that $25 million would be used
to that end, I would say fine, because I would at least know what
is going on. But here we are only told: ``We borrow $25
million''. What will those millions be used for? This evening,
some people will listen to the parliamentary channel, since they
do not always hear directly from their MP on the local news.
(1335)
So this evening, they will hear their own member, the member
for Gaspé, say that he wishes the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation would seriously consider reopening the regional
stations it closed down, which was a big mistake; that it would
indicate, as any good manager would, how the $25 million
would be spent; and that we as parliamentarians could see how
the money is allocated.
If the CBC's requests were sufficiently detailed and included
the proper justification, the Bloc québécois would be among the
first to say: Well, your request is very reasonable, and since your
$25 million authority is not sufficient, we would be willing to
increase it. But you must understand our concern. A blank
cheque for $25 million is out of the question. This is 1994, and
the public has a right to know.
Why this emphasis? I referred to the stations that were closed,
and I said that we would agree to give them the $25 million
borrowing authority they want, but the problem is lack of
transparency.
I would be the first to acknowledge the excellence of the
performers on Radio-Canada. We all have our favourites. We
have Marylin who discusses municipal politics at 7 p.m., and we
have newscasters like Bernard Derome. I think we can say that
Quebecers, and I imagine Canadians generally are like that,
enjoy a variety of programs. They want entertainment but they
want the news. I realize that getting the news costs money.
Through these administrative measures, Parliament enable the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to fulfil the mandate it was
given by Parliament. However, as far as news programming is
concerned, people in the Gaspé and Eastern Townships, and I
said this before, feel left out.
Today, we get local news bulletins from Quebec City. I do not
mind getting the Quebec City news, because I have some good
friends in Quebec City, including the members for the local
ridings, but news from these areas is not as interesting as our
own local news. That kind is just as important. I am sure,
Madam Speaker, if you had to listen to the local news from the
Gaspé, you would say: What a wonderful region! But you would
not be as interested in the local news from that area. Oh, sure, at
the end of the news bulletin they give you two or three minutes
worth about your own community, but that is not much. And in
our case, that is what happen.
And that is why, as a member of the Bloc québécois, I wanted
to say in the House today that from a manager's point of view, I
agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation needs
management tools. However, I am outraged at the lack of
transparency in the government's proposals, and I want to make
it clear that if all Canadians are supposed to be involved, I think
we should not forget that the people in the Eastern Townships
and the Gaspé are very upset about the fact that their regional
stations were closed, and if the government wants to convince
me that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has come of
age, then it should do something about correcting these
mistakes.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I would like to expand on what my colleague was
saying. As a member for the same area I also wonder, when I see
that the CBC is being allowed to borrow, what they are going to
borrow for? We have been burnt before.
Just think that $46 million were cut when regional stations
were closed, 100 specialized jobs in communications and radio
and television were abolished, but at the same time $61 million
were added to the networks. There is some imbalance there.
(1340)
After that experience we wonder: ``If this was done in the
past, and if we now add this borrowing power, what are they
going to do with the money?''
The next Olympic Games, in Atlanta in 1996, are another
good example. CBC submitted a tender for $28 million. This is a
totally unacceptable overbidding if you consider that TVA had
offered $10 million for the same coverage.
Is the $18 million difference going to come from money it
borrows? Is it what is going to be used to pay a somewhat
inflated price to cover an event which, after all, will only last a
short period of time, whereas the cuts which are depriving our
regions of adequate coverage will last all year long?
I would willingly trade three weeks of Games in Atlanta for a
TV station in Eastern Quebec and on the North Shore, which
would provide year-round coverage and would allow us to know
how our own people are managing, how they are coming to grips
with the situation and how they see their future.
4459
You will not be surprised then to learn that what the Bloc
Quebecois is asking is that this new borrowing authority be
transparent. We know that for the past few years, the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation has been presenting its business plan
to the minister, but we have never seen such business plans in
this House. The CBC does not produce canned goods. It is a
corporation with a Canada-wide communication mandate.
Consequently, one would expect that it should be accountable
to the Canadian Parliament for the manner in which it carries out
its business, not with a view to censuring it, but rather to see how
it spends its money. Now is the time to start doing it, especially
regarding the use the Corporation is going to make of its new
borrowing authority.
How is it going to spend this $25 million plus interests? Will it
be for projects Canadians and Quebecers generally approve of?
Will these projects provide better service to the people in
Quebec and in Canada, or will they be like the icing on the cake,
something extra for areas which already receive service?
So, I think it is important to know how this money will be
spent. In fact, we are very concerned about the openness of this
process, all the more so given the estimated deficits of the CBC.
Despite cuts made especially in regional stations over the last
few years, the estimated deficit should reach $41 million in
1995-1996; $54 million in 1996-1997; $65 million in
1997-1998; and $78 million in 1998-1999.
So, if this borrowing authority is going to increase the deficit
without improving the service, I do not see how we can support
such decisions. We want to see the CBC budget and we want to
know in what direction the CBC is going, how it intends to spend
the money and mostly how it will manage to provide services in
Quebec and in Canada to ensure the public gets adequate
information.
Let me give you an example. Two weeks ago, I was asked to
act as commissioner during community hearings held by Rural
Dignity and an organization set up to maintain the train service
in Chaleur, in the Gaspé Peninsula.
The newspaper coverage we got was quite interesting.
However, the television coverage was not so good, not because
the technicians, communications experts and announcers in
Eastern Quebec are not capable, but because when you have only
two or three reporters to cover such a large territory as ours, that
is thousands and thousands of kilometres, it is obvious that you
cannot provide the same adequate service as if you had regional
stations.
That shows the extent of social disintegration that can occur if
we do not have a communication network which the people in
the regions can relate to and identify with. You can be sure that
we will never renege on our commitment to provide adequate
television services.
(1345)
And since the closing, we are taking steps to make sure that
the services will be offered once again and that we can have in
our region some experts, some people who can provide the
adequate broadcasting for the people within the region as well as
elsewhere.
So, indeed, we could say that the borrowing authority of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is relevant, as for any other
business that may have to borrow money at a given time. But, in
order to get that money, that business must prove to us that,
indeed, it is using the funds in an adequate and fair manner and
is also fulfilling its mandate, which is to provide
communications throughout Canada.
We must get away from the image left to us by the previous
Conservative government which, whether in the case of VIA
Rail, Post Canada or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
decided to define the mandate of these national corporations as
if they were private companies, when their mandate should
reflect the realities of the country as a whole.
In that context, we would like to make the government aware
of the fact that, if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a
borrowing authority, the uses of the amounts provided for by
that authority, whether in the form of credit lines or other,
should be tabled here in the House.
I hope that government members will be sensitive to this
amendment and will vote with us to make sure that, at least, we
know where our money is going.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, are you referring to my
colleague's motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu):We are on motions Nos.
19, 20, 21 and 22. The question is on motion No. 19, standing in
the name of Mr. Solberg.
[English]
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.
4460
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to
Motions Nos. 20 to 22.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 10, with
the following:
``(a) 57 per cent of the claimant's average''.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 11,
with the following:
``(ii) the greater of 57 per cent of the''.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) moved:
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 26, on page 11,
the following:
``(1.1) For purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a claimant need only establish a prima facie
entitlement to application of the rate of weekly benefit provided under that
paragraph, whereupon the onus is on the Commission to establish that the claimant is
not entitled to application of the rate of weekly benefit provided under that
paragraph.''
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) moved:
Motions Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup) moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-17, in Clause 26, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 22, on page 13, with the following:
``48.1 (1) Notwithstanding section 48, the rate'';
(b) by replacing lines 25 to 27, on page 13, with the following:
``(a) for the five month period beginning on January 1, 1994, 3.07 per cent of
insurable earnings in that period;
(b) for the seven month period beginning on June 1, 1994, 3 per cent of insurable
earnings in that period;
(c) for the year 1995, 3 per cent of insurable earnings in that year; and
(d) for the year 1996, 3 per cent of insura-''; and
(c) by adding after line 31, on page 13, the following:
``(2) For the purposes of applying subsection 50(1), section 51, paragraph
75(1)(p) and subsection 75(5) in respect of the year 1994, each period referred
to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) shall be deemed to be a year within the meaning
of those provisions.''
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) moved:
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier) moved:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-17, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 13, with the
following:
``the House of Commons given by resolution of that House, make such
regula-''.
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
(1355 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) moved:
Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to explain to the House once
more the reason for our motions. We are opposed to the
government's use of an omnibus bill to implement the budget
rather than introducing separate bills for each act it proposes to
change.
Today I would like to comment specifically on the changes to
the Unemployment Insurance Act. I spoke to Bill C-17 on April
14 during second reading stage. At that time I said that the
Reform Party was generally in favour of the changes to the UI
Act, but argued that the government did not go far enough with
its amendments. Even though we think that further improve-
4461
ments to the unemployment insurance provisions could have
been made, we are prepared to vote in favour of the UI changes.
However, there are other changes in Bill C-17 which we
cannot support, such as the CBC borrowing authority
provisions. Therefore, in order to register our opposition to
certain legislation contained in the bill, we have to vote against
the whole bill.
How do we express our views and the views of our
constituents when we are forced to vote yea or nay to a block of
legislation with such diverse concerns? How can we do that?
Dividing the bill logically into its various components would
facilitate the democratic process. It would also allow for
meaningful votes based on the analysis and voter reaction of
each part of the bill.
That is the reason for our motion. We are not trying to be
obstructionists; we are being practical. We want the procedures
of the House to be understood by the voters. An omnibus bill is
not a common sense way of doing things. People sent us here to
bring common sense ideas to Parliament. I think the voters
would agree with our position on omnibus bills and the motions
we have introduced today.
I would like now to specifically address each of the changes to
Bill C-17 that we would implement in respect of the
Unemployment Insurance Act. I am going to comment on these
as I go along.
First, the bill would roll back UI premiums for 1995 and 1996
to $3 for every $100 in insurable earnings, down from $3.07.
The Reform Party generally supports this measure but would ask
the government to consider further reductions in payroll taxes.
If jobs are created by doing this, why not find other ways to
reduce payroll taxes?
Second, the bill will reduce UI benefits to 55 per cent of
insurable earnings, down from 57 per cent. The Reform Party
supports this measure but would ask the government to further
reduce benefits to bring them in line with benefits paid by other
OECD countries and to lessen dependency on the system.
Third, the bill will increase the benefits for those UI claimants
with low earnings and with dependants to 60 per cent of
insurable earnings, up from 57 per cent. The Reform Party
supports this measure because it states: ``to target payments to
those people who are most in need''. That should be the aim of
our social program.
Fourth, the bill will increase the minimum amount of time a
person needs to qualify for UI from 10 weeks-
The Speaker: The hon. member of course will have ample
time at the end of question period to take up where he left off.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4461
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
ethanol is being presented as a subsidized gasoline additive
offering environmental benefits.
However, the United States energy department earlier this
month revealed that an assessment study of ethanol showed that
the losses outweigh the gains, taking into consideration the
money spent and pollution created in production and
distillation. In fact ethanol will produce negligible if any
benefits for air quality.
In the U.S., environmental groups such as the Sierra Club
have publicly expressed their opposition on the basis of cost, use
of fertilizers and potential pollution resulting from production.
Similarly the American experience reveals the economic
trickle down to the farm community is negligible.
Anyone who spends taxpayers' money expects a positive
result. Before we embark on this experiment let us remember
those taxpayers and be in a firm position to tell them just what
they are receiving.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, some very
serious problems have undermined the credibility of the process
to review, on compassionate grounds, cases in which refugee
status was denied. Although the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration has been aware of these problems since March,
there has been a steady stream of deportations without any
particular show of concern by the minister.
The Davis Wallman report is clear: the process lacks
compassion, it is arbitrary and it puts in jeopardy the lives of
hundreds of people deported to their country of origin where
human rights violations are the order of the day.
We have every reason to ask ourselves whether Canada still
observes its international obligations or whether it is taking an
increasingly suspicious and rigid stance.
The minister can no longer afford to hide behind studies and
committees. He must act now!
4462
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
having yesterday returned from a special joint defence
committee visit to our Canadian forces servicemen and women
in Bosnia and Croatia, I want to report that we found them
enthusiastic about their role and activities in that theatre.
Although only recently rotated into the region, they have
quickly and effectively adapted to their conditions and the
situation in which they perform their duties. They have rapidly
learned about the area for which they are responsible and the
people with whom they must negotiate to achieve a peaceful
resolution of the many problems encountered.
Our forces are required to display copious quantities of
resolution, diplomacy, patience, compassion and understanding
and once again they have risen to the task.
The local people respect them for their professionalism, their
dedication, their impartiality and firmness.
Although we are a long way from achieving a solution to the
problem, all Canadians can take pride in the part that Canada,
through our Canadian forces, is playing in the former
Yugoslavia.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite all members of the House and
all Canadians to attend the Stratford Festival, Canada's national
English speaking repertory theatre.
Monday, May 30, marks the official opening of the 42nd
season of the Stratford Festival, the jewel of southwestern
Ontario. North America's most esteemed repertory company
performs on three world class stages in a town renowned for its
park systems, shops and restaurants. This is a cultural success
story.
The theatre achieves the highest artistic standards while
attracting thousands of visitors to the region every year and
pumping millions of dollars into the local economy.
This season ends on November 13 and offers 10 marvellous
productions. I hope to see you in attendance.
* * *
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, an
excellent example of how government, industry and the
community are co-operating to restore our environment is
evident in my riding of Central Nova.
The Scott Maritimes pulp mill in my riding has been working
steadily with the province of Nova Scotia in recent years to
improve the quality of the effluent that is being released into the
adjacent lagoon at Boat Harbour.
Scott Maritimes Limited is upgrading its treatment facility to
meet federal government pulp and paper effluent regulations. In
addition, the province, as owners of the Boat Harbour treatment
facility, has proposed the construction of a pipeline to discharge
the treated effluent one kilometre out into the Northumberland
Strait instead of into the Boat Harbour lagoon.
Mr. Speaker, be advised today that the pipeline proposal is
being subjected to an initial environmental assessment by
Environment Canada, in co-operation with other federal
departments and the province, to address environmental and
social impacts.
As a first step, federal officials will meet in early June with
fishermen, native groups and other local organizations.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John Wintermeyer,
formerly of Kitchener, Ontario, who died recently after a
courageous battle with Lou Gehrig's disease.
John Wintermeyer was a past leader of the Ontario Liberal
Party. Although never elected, he stood for the finest principles
in politics and was a pillar of his community and his church.
(1405)
Three of his sisters and his brother-in-law, who is my
favourite uncle, are in Ottawa today. I would ask all hon.
members to join me in honouring the memory of the late John
Wintermeyer.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to
the tenth anniversary of the Cirque du Soleil, an organization
that has acquired international fame.
Over the years, many awards have confirmed the genius of
these performers, including the gold medal of the second
international circus festival in Genoa, the gold medal of the
fifteenth Festival mondial du cirque de demain, held in Paris, as
well as several other awards in Europe, Asia and America.
Now ten years old, the Cirque du Soleil is still a remarkable
testimony to Quebec's place in the world, with its 580
employees, including 162 performers, and an operating budget
of several million dollars.
4463
A total of 6.5 million spectators have seen their
performances, and another 1.5 million are expected to attend
this year.
Here is an outstanding example of what Quebecers can
achieve when they act independently.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
I received letters from the 10th grade social studies class of
Senator Gershaw School in Bow Island, Alberta.
One reads:
Dear Mr. Solberg:
I have decided to write to you on an issue that concerns me, the Young
Offenders Act.
I am only fifteen so I can relate to the young offenders in this country better
than an adult could. I saw on television a short time ago a little ten year old boy
who is already an experienced car thief. He even admitted to his
crimes-because he knew he could get away with it and-police could do
nothing but ``slap their wrists''.
I am appalled that we are protecting the criminals. About a week ago in
Medicine Hat, a young offender stabbed another and his name was not released.
Why? Who did the crime? Why are we protecting the child who stabbed another
one of his classmates? We should be protected from him, not the other way
around.
Is this the Canada we really want? These are the generations ahead that will
be in charge of our great country. What happens then?
Yours truly,
Adam Larsen
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, as a
former teacher of West Hill Secondary School in Owen Sound, it
is my experience that the majority of students are good citizens.
I cannot tell members how proud I am when I look to the new
generation of Canadians in our ranks who will be carrying the
torch for Canada into the 21st century.
Today I rise to congratulate Chris Hendrie from West Hill
Secondary School in Owen Sound. Chris has just been selected
as one of six students from across Canada to be a member of the
Canadian Mathematics Olympiad team.
This summer Chris will travel to Vancouver to prepare for the
international Olympiad and from there he will travel to Hong
Kong to represent Canada as a member of Team Canada in this
world competition. The team is selected by members of the
Canadian Mathematical Society under George Gwyenther from
St. John's, Newfoundland.
The Canadian team is composed of four students from metro
Toronto, one student from St. John's, Newfoundland and one
student from Owen Sound.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
May is Cystic Fibrosis Month. This reminds us of the
tremendous challenges experienced by those who have cystic
fibrosis. It is an inherited disorder that affects primarily the
respiratory system of small children, and it causes devastating
and ultimately fatal damage to the lungs.
Since 1960 the volunteers of the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation have been working to improve the lives of those
affected by cystic fibrosis and to find a cure. Through research
and better forms of treatment, the life expectancy of those who
suffer from the disease has increased from under four years to
more than 30 years.
I urge all members of the House to support the work of the
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the researchers who
are dedicated to finding the cause of, and a cure for, this disease.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the Toronto director, Atom Egoyan, who just won
the International Critics Prize at the 1994 International Film
Festival in Cannes for his film ``Exotica''.
A young film-maker of only 33, Atom Egoyan quickly
distinguished himself with his talent, his wit and his creative
audacity, in films like ``Family Viewing'', ``Speaking Parts''
and ``The Adjuster'', widely acclaimed on the international
scene.
(1410)
[English]
Since making his first feature film in 1985 his works have
attracted increasingly large audiences both in Canada and
internationally. Exotica is the first Canadian English language
film since 1985 to be in official competition at Cannes. This
honour clearly represents an important milestone for the
recognition of our feature film industry.
4464
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, the
release, this week, of a new study on the Hibernia project gives
us another opportunity to express the concerns of Canadians and
Quebecers who see this megaproject has a financial black hole.
This study by two professors from Memorial University, in
Newfoundland, shows clearly the folly of this undertaking
which requires billions of dollars of public money just to
survive. Even the General Secretary of OPEC was, this week,
casting doubts on the economic validity of this project.
By stubbornly refusing to demonstrate to the people of
Canada that Hibernia will eventually be cost-effective, the
Canadian government is proving once more that it does not
know how to deal responsibly with public money. It is asking the
population to continue to support blindly this shameful and
unjustifiable waste of public funds.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to announce that this year's Centennial Cup
Junior A hockey champions come from the heart of the Wild
Rose country, Alberta, known as the Olds Grizzlies.
Due to the outstanding efforts of the coach, his staff and the
entire team, the Grizzlies were undefeated throughout the entire
round robin tournament. They competed against such fine teams
as the Chateauguay Elites from Ontario and Quebec, the Red
Wings of Weyburn, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Kelowna
Spartans from British Columbia, and the Bulldogs from
Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
This achievement could not have been possible without the
hundreds of volunteers who not only own, but run the team on a
day to day basis. During this time of fiscal restraint this is a
perfect example of people donating their time for something
they believe in without regard for monetary return.
On behalf of the constituents of Wild Rose, we are proud of
this team's accomplishment and the contribution it has made to
sport in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to remind the House that May is Hearing
Awareness Month. This is a time to recognize how important
hearing is to communicating. It is also an opportunity to
promote public awareness about deafness and to emphasize the
importance of protecting our hearing.
More than a million Canadians have a hearing loss, with the
greatest incidence occurring among the elderly. For people with
this problem, communicating may necessitate additional
resources such as sign language, oral interpreters, and
telecommunications devices for telephone access.
Many national, provincial and regional organizations such as
the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Hard of
Hearing Association and the Canadian Hearing Society work
diligently to improve the lives of deaf and hard of hearing
Canadians through services and advocacy.
Let us all acknowledge the challenges faced by those with
hearing loss and urge Canadians to safeguard their hearing. It is
a precious avenue of communication.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence
Policy has just returned from hearings and briefings at NATO
headquarters in Brussels.
We also visited, travelled and lived with our 2,000 Canadian
soldiers who are doing a superb job of enforcing United Nations'
peacekeeping rules within the former Yugoslavia.
When we accompanied our soldiers throughout the vast area
they patrol on land and sea, we saw the devastation of war and
man's inhumanity to man which one could not believe without
seeing and without on site briefings.
What a first rate job our Canadians are doing. What
dedication and professionalism they are exemplifying. They
perform humanitarian tasks far beyond the call of duty. They are
firm in handling infractions of the United Nations rules and are
respected.
The soldiers feel very disappointed that all their efforts to
represent Canada are not being recognized by the media,
including the CBC. Many of the reports that get back home come
through the BBC.
Come on, Canadian media, let's give our troops some well
deserved recognition. Put Canada out front where she belongs in
promoting peace.
4465
(1415 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity today to give some words of praise for
two dedicated public servants.
Members may recall a recent incident in Saudi Arabia where a
group of foreign nurses were harassed and assaulted by local
authorities. One of my constituents, Mr. Terry Wood, spent that
entire weekend seeking information about his daughter, fearing
she may have been involved in that incident. Happily she was
not.
Mr. Wood is extremely grateful for the assistance he received
from two watch officers with the Department of Foreign Affairs
who were on duty that weekend, Jean-Pierre Paquet and Andrée
Massicotte. Mr. Wood feels that the effort they put forth on his
behalf went beyond basic job requirements and that they truly
went that extra mile to see his concerns settled.
When a family member is in trouble incidents such as this one
become very important indeed, something Mr. Paquet and Ms.
Massicotte obviously recognize.
Their efforts on Mr. Wood's behalf reflect great credit on the
Department of Foreign Affairs and on the public service as a
whole and they are to be highly commended.
_____________________________________________
4465
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of heritage. In a
submission today to the official languages committee, the
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne points
to the urgent need to adopt a comprehensive policy for the
development of Canada's Francophonie. The federation is of the
opinion that the lack of a comprehensive policy is preventing the
federal government from fulfilling its responsibilities under the
Official Languages Act.
My question is as follows: Does the minister recognize the
urgency of the situation and the need to implement immediately
a comprehensive policy for the development of Canada's
francophonie, given that the federation is arguing today that the
absence of such a policy is the reason for the failed
interdepartmental co-operation effort and for the relaxation in
the application of the Official Languages Act?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to report that such a policy is on the
drawing board. A great deal has already been accomplished and
we will continue to meet our legal obligations in the area of
official languages.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, here is a government that has been in power for six
months and, in the face of an emergency, responds that the
policy is on the drawing board. That will not do.
How can the minister not commit immediately to adopting in
the coming weeks a general, comprehensive policy on the
development of La Francophonie? According to the federation,
which proclaims the urgency of the situation, ``the rate of
assimilation is increasing and the socioeconomic situation is
deteriorating''.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have
paid close attention to our actions in recent months. We have
increased grants to La Francophonie in different parts of
Canada. School governance has been spared budget cuts. We
have negotiated and are continuing to negotiate a whole series of
agreements with minority groups and provincial governments.
If the Leader of the Opposition would like a list of our
achievements, I would be delighted to provide him with one.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it would appear that the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadienne did not benefit from any of
achievements on which the minister is complimenting himself
since today, it has sounded the alarm.
Will the minister commit today to establishing the central
federal agency which the federation is demanding to put an end
to the process of assimilation which, and I quote, ``is having a
devastating impact on these communities''?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, clearly, we have not spoken to the same persons. The
Leader of the Opposition is getting his information from
malcontents, while I have talked to people with whom I am
negotiating. My objective is to ensure the survival and growth of
these communities across Canada, not to make political hay for
reasons known to us all.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Last week, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs announced that an
agreement had been reached with the Quebec government
concerning the College in Saint-Jean, which was proof, he said,
that federalism was alive and well.
4466
(1420)
Last Tuesday, the minister stated before this House, and I
quote:
We clearly had a meeting of the minds on a number of items that will be part of
the final round of negotiations. But, as I indicated last week, the final agreement is
not ready yet.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Education,
with whom the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is
negotiating, told the National Assembly: ``As we speak, I have
yet to receive what I have requested, namely a written federal
proposal to use as a basis for our discussions and negotiations''.
How can the minister expect us to believe that an agreement is
about to be reached with Quebec when his colleague admits to
not even having received the document required to start
negotiations?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I can only repeat what I said in response to the previous
question and inform the member opposite that the Minister of
Education, Mr. Chagnon, is now in receipt of a written proposal.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, instead of
blathering on, does the minister not agree that the problem he is
facing right now is the stubborn refusal of his colleague, the
Minister of National Defence, to let it be business as usual at the
Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, as requested by the
Quebec government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Quite
the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence has been of
great assistance to me during the course of the negotiations.
When the final agreement is signed, I think the proof will be
there, plain and simple.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister
has stated on numerous occasions that amendments to the Young
Offenders Act will be introduced before the summer recess.
Including today, there are 21 legislative days left in this session.
Will the minister tell the House precisely when these
amendments will be introduced and, even more important, when
the minister expects to see them actually passed into law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the government remains on
track. As we said from the outset we intend to introduce during
June changes to the Young Offenders Act. I expect if we have the
co-operation of all parties we can enact them into law very
quickly.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, there are specific changes which could be made
quickly and easily to the Young Offenders Act. For example, the
age parameters of the act could be reduced from the current 12 to
18 years to a proposed 10 to 16 years.
My colleague from New Westminister-Burnaby recently put
this proposal forward in the form of an opposition motion but it
was defeated by both the government and the Official
Opposition.
Why is the minister reluctant to respond decisively to the
demands of Canadians by immediately introducing specific
amendments to the Young Offenders Act which after
consultation with the House leaders could be passed before the
summer recess?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the decisiveness of the
government will be shown with the legislation we will bring
forward here. But as I have made clear to the House on past
occasions, we intend to deal with the Young Offenders Act in
two ways. First, is the introduction of the legislation that will
contemplate specific changes and which we are going to ask this
House to consider for immediate implementation.
Second, I am going to turn over the statute in its entirety to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with a request
that in this the 10th year of its operation that statute be looked at
thoroughly from one end to the other, that the committee hear
witnesses, hear the concerns of Canadians, speak to those most
affected by this legislation and decide once and for all whether
in current circumstances the Young Offenders Act remains the
best model for juvenile justice for Canada.
Those are the two steps we are taking. The first is a bill for
specific changes at the outset and, second, a thorough review in
the course of the coming months through the standing
committee.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I still have some very real concerns because for nine
years under the Tories Canadians heard all the promises that
action on the Young Offenders Act was a government priority.
The recent announcement by the Solicitor General that the
promised registry for child abusers will be delayed has created
speculation that the Liberal government may be issuing the
same hollow promises.
(1425)
Will the minister reassure Canadians that the well publicized
split within his party on this issue will not derail his
commitment to immediate, and I emphasize immediate, reform
to the Young Offenders Act which the House could deal with
promptly?
4467
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I can report that there is no
split within this party on the changes being made to the Young
Offenders Act.
The fact is that we are acting on campaign commitments in
introducing the changes that are contained in the bill that will be
put before this House within the coming weeks.
So far as the national registry is concerned, I am constrained
to correct the impression left by the hon. member that that
proposal is in some way being derailed or delayed. The fact is
that we will be releasing today or tomorrow the discussion paper
which was referred to in the House on the steps to be taken to
create the registry. In consultation with Canadians, members of
the House and our provincial counterparts, this government is
going to design and put in place, probably through an adaptation
of the existing CPIC technology to begin with, a registry of child
sexual abusers that will be available for use in the fall of this
year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The statements made by the Auditor General of Canada confirm
that the Minister of Human Resources Development has
launched a reform of social programs without the information
required to make a real diagnosis. The Auditor General also
deplored the lack of co-operation between Ottawa and the
provinces.
Does the minister admit, as the Auditor General points out,
that he has launched a reform of social programs before he was
ready and that his haste can only be explained by his eagerness
to meet the budget requirements of the finance minister, who has
found no better way to reduce his deficit than to make the
poorest people pay?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the hon.
member by quoting the Auditor General himself. He said, ``I
find nothing wrong with his approach''. The answer is clear. The
Auditor General does not have a problem with our approach. He
asked for other assessments and I agree with him. That is why
we have an agreement with all the provinces to exchange
information on social programs.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, given that
this reform of social programs is not included in the red book,
that the Liberals did not bother to get the information at that
time and that they are not mandated to carry out this reform,
does the minister admit that the reform must be based on the full
satisfaction of the provinces and that they must therefore be
closely involved in the process, unlike what has been done so
far?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, in the last week we have had a
report from Statistics Canada based upon a very substantial
evaluation showing that the unemployment insurance system
has a very strong impact upon the way jobs are created in this
country, a detrimental impact.
We have had a major report from the Centre for Policy
Alternatives based upon two studies of economists in Quebec
saying that there is a substantial cost to unemployment in the
country. We received a report just yesterday from the Family
Planning Council in Toronto which says:
Unless we develop innovative programs to ensure that young families do not
become outsiders, Canada's future is truly endangered.
There were three specific reports in the last week that point to
the fundamental need to reform our social programs. Our
mandate comes from people who are concerned about the future
of this country, not the opposite side who have no concern about
Canada.
* * *
(1430)
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Last week the four western premiers jointly requested that one
of the 10 premiers should co-chair the upcoming forum on
health care with the Prime Minister.
Health care is a provincial responsibility and the provinces
pick up the large bulk of the health care tab. On this basis, does
the Minister of Health agree that the premiers deserve better
access not only to health care but also to decision making and
that one of the premiers should co-chair this important
upcoming meeting?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am quite pleased to answer the hon. member's request.
The national forum on health is meant to be an advisory body
to the Prime Minister and to this government. However there is a
place for the ministers of health both federally and provincially
to discuss matters and to make decisions. There is also a place
for premiers to meet, discuss and make decisions.
We certainly are not in any way wishing to take away the
powers of the premiers as they meet and discuss issues nor do we
want to take away the decision making process of the ministers
of health.
4468
The national forum on health will look at long term issues
rather than the day to day occurrences within the health system
and health. Remember, I am the Minister of Health, not just the
minister of health care.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
On Tuesday the Minister of Health said that she was forced to
withhold health care funds from B.C. because she had a duty to
enforce the Canada Health Act.
Another provision of that act the federal government
conveniently ignores is its commitment in that act for funding
for 50 per cent of health and health care costs. At present the
federal government funds less than 35 per cent of those total
costs.
Could the minister explain why she vigorously enforces some
portions of the Canada Health Act while conveniently allowing
the federal government to ignore its commitment under that act
to funding 50 per cent of all health care costs?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that the hon. member look more closely at the
Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act has five principles.
It does not mention a percentage of funding.
During the last election as part of our red book we clearly
stated that we supported the principles of the Canada Health Act
and yes, we stood by them, unlike the party across the way which
during the last election made absolutely no mention of the fact
that it was in favour of extra billing and a two tier health system.
We were very clear on our stand. I say to that party, shame.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. On May 11, the minister
said in this House: ``It might be in the best interest of all
Canadians who fear they might have contracted Hepatitis C due
to a blood transfusion to be in contact with their physicians. That
would be very advantageous to anyone who fears that.''
Beyond this amazing statement, has the minister decided to
assume her responsibilities and ask officials in her department
to ensure that people who might be infected are finally
contacted?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
now have a commission of inquiry on blood. This commission is
sitting today and considering all issues related to possible
problems with blood transfusions.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that all these issues concern us.
(1435)
We want to do all we can to support the Krever Commission.
That is what we are doing and we very much look forward to
their report. We know that the commission will give us some
guidelines and we will consider the issue within that timeframe.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, those
infected with Hepatitis C are victims of the worst negligence in
the history of Canada's health care system and 75 per cent of
them still do not know that they are infected.
Despite what the official in charge of the Bureau of Biologics
in her department said, does the minister know that there is a
treatment to help carriers of Hepatitis C and that this fully
justifies her taking immediate action to reach these people?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
concerning all of the problems with diseases that may be
transmitted through blood transfusions, I am happy to say we
have taken these questions so seriously. We have agreed to
extend the timeframe for Judge Krever to report to us. We
understand that he needs to do a very in-depth study of all of
these questions.
I am pleased to say that we will also consider giving him
additional funding to meet these extended deadlines.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Senate approved amendments to Bill C-18 to
ensure that riding redistribution takes place before the next
election. However, the government leader in the Senate
indicated that one of the problems with the current process was
the lack of supervision of the independent, non-partisan
boundary commissions.
Could the Acting Prime Minister explain what sort of
supervision the government thinks is required? Why does the
government not support the independence of the independent
commissions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the government supports the concept of an independent arm's
length setting of riding boundaries.
We have said however that the process for doing this has not
been thoroughly reviewed since it was created in 1964 and that
is why the House has agreed with our proposal that this be
looked at by the procedure committee of the House of
Commons. I look forward to the early report of that committee.
4469
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to hear the government supports the independence of the
commissions which have now virtually completed their work
at a cost of over $5 million.
Surely killing the process is not a serious priority for this
government. Could the Acting Prime Minister assure the House
that the only reason left for stopping this redistribution again
would be to follow the suggestion of my party echoed by the
Minister of National Revenue that the number of seats in the
House of Commons be capped or reduced?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the suggestion of the hon. member is one that deserves to be
looked at by the House of Commons procedure committee.
Before one makes a decision on that, one has to consider the
impact of capping or reducing the number of seats on the
expectations of people in certain parts of Ontario where
populations have grown and the expectations of people in the
province of British Columbia where populations have grown for
additional seats.
It is interesting for the people in British Columbia to hear
from the Reform Party that it does not want additional
representation for the people in that province.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
The Krever commission has already been sitting for six
months and will probably be sitting for a while yet. In the
meantime, the life of some Canadians is in danger. Again, I ask
the minister: What does she intend to do to warn those who are in
good health?
(1440)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak about people who enjoy good health. I
do not think that they need to be told they are in good health. The
hon. member's question is truly extraordinary, but I understand
that he may have misspoken.
Let me reassure you by saying that we take a real interest in
this issue. However, as I said before in this House, it must be
understood that medical treatments always involve some risks.
Nothing is 100 per cent sure. It goes without saying that if
people think they are suffering from side-effects, they should
see a doctor. This is my opinion. In the meantime, we are
interested in hearing what Mr. Justice Krever will have to say
about these blood transfusions and their recipients.
The Speaker: I simply want to remind members that they
must always address the Chair.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that some people will die while she just sits and
waits for the findings of the Krever commission? Will the
minister do something to save these people? After all, their life
is in danger.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
us not get carried away! People have good reason to feel rather
safe. If one have problems, one goes to see a doctor. We can get
very good treatment in this country. Hepatitis C is not AIDS. Let
us be reasonable, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Interprovincial trade barriers are costing Canadians as much
as $7 billion and many are losing economic opportunities while
the discussions drag on. Some provinces are co-operating and
some are making it difficult to remove costly barriers for other
Canadians.
Could the minister tell the House what he is doing to get the
co-operation of all provinces and to meet the June deadline for
an agreement?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Edmonton East raises a very important issue which I
think most Canadians find quite astonishing, that while Canada
has entered into international trade agreements it has failed to
find a way to reduce interprovincial trade barriers which in some
ways would not be permitted in our relations with other
countries.
I am pleased to advise the House that progress is being made.
A great deal of effort is being put into this project by ministers
who are members of the committee of ministers on internal
trade, ministers from all provinces and the territories, as we
work toward the June 30 deadline.
Given the commitment that is being made on the part of all
provinces, there is a very good prospect it will succeed in having
a broad based and worthwhile framework agreement together
with comprehensive chapters in a number of areas, a number of
sectors, which will provide a good base for continuing progress
in this issue.
Frankly I find the spirit of co-operation from all provinces
very encouraging, although I must say I worry about retaliatory
action being taken by Ontario in light of the results of the
Stanley Cup playoff game the other night.
4470
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
It is becoming apparent that the mandate and operation of the
Canadian International Development Agency needs a thorough
review. The OECD, the academic community and the Auditor
General have all demanded changes to CIDA. We hear reports
and we read all the time that CIDA's mandate may even be at
cross purposes with the humanitarian objectives of Canadians.
Will the minister bring in enabling legislation so that
Parliament, not cabinet, can debate and eventually direct
CIDA's mandate?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, CIDA has a very clear mandate,
one of sustainable development in developing countries.
(1445 )
The hon. member knows very well because he was at the
meeting this morning. The Canadian Council for International
Co-Operation appeared before the joint committee on foreign
policy and it praised CIDA for providing a very enviable
reputation in many countries where it is doing work.
The hon. member also knows we are now going through an in
depth review of foreign policy, including foreign aid, defence
and other issues. Any recommendations the member has should
be made to the joint committee on foreign affairs which may
consider some of his recommendations. However it would have
to be an agreement of the foreign affairs standing committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, part of
the problem is that Parliament does not have an opportunity to
give direction to CIDA because it is a creation of cabinet and is
not under the direction of this House of Commons.
In order to reassure CIDA management, Canadian NGOs and
the Canadian people, will the minister bring in that enabling
legislation to refocus CIDA's mandate on the truly needy people
of the world?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will pass the hon. member's
question on to the minister. Again the hon. member knows the
forum to which to take such a recommendation.
I would not agree with the hon. member when he says that
CIDA is not accountable to Parliament. The Auditor General
just did an in depth audit of CIDA programs, specifically in
three Asian countries. He gave CIDA a glowing report.
There is accountability. No one more than the workers in
CIDA are conscious of getting the best for the Canadian tax
dollar. They know how hard it is to collect that dollar and they
spend that dollar very wisely. They look at their objectives and
the programs that would meet those objectives. The hon.
member must know that before a program is implemented the
local provincial governments are consulted, as are the NGO
people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, AVCORP
Industries, a subcontractor in the aerospace sector involved with
the EH-101 helicopter program, finds itself in dire straights
while waiting for compensation from the federal government, as
promised by the Prime Minister after he cancelled the helicopter
contract. This firm is desperately trying to convert to civilian
production.
Does the Minister of Industry not realize that his attitude, in
dragging his feet with respect to compensation for those
businesses which were penalized by the cancellation of the
helicopter contract, is threatening the very survival of several of
them, including AVCORP?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that the government made it perfectly clear, when it
announced the cancellation of the helicopter contract, that there
would be no compensation for the companies involved, except
for contracts between the government and those companies.
[English]
It was quite clear and the Leader of the Opposition should try
to understand there was no offer of compensation outside the
contracts. The contracts are being settled by the process of
negotiation and perhaps legal proceedings.
On the broader issue of defence conversion, we have
discussed that in this House many times. There are many
elements to a defence conversion policy.
The government has a program which is intended to aid
companies in converting from defence to civilian or dual use
purposes. The program is known as DIPP.
[Translation]
Since November, when this government came into office, we
have agreed to 41 proposals under DIPP, 39 of which came from
companies converting to civilian production or dual use
purposes.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, does the
case of AVCORP not show clearly to the minister that a defence
conversion program is more urgent, and does he not remember
that the Liberal Party of Canada had promised such a program
during the last election campaign?
4471
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
yes, we did make commitments about defence conversion and
we are honouring those commitments.
What is very confusing about the Bloc members' position is
that they seem to think the taxpayer of Canada is prepared to sit
and write cheques to companies in order to help them succeed.
We are prepared to sit down with management of the
companies and help them find strategic approaches to their
marketplace. We are prepared to work with them to find ways in
which they can find new products and new solutions to their
problems. However if the hon. member's idea is that there is
some kind of deep pocket out there that can put money into
companies then he did not read the red book. We talked about
cutting subsidies to business and that is what we stand for.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Last December the government acted on a Canadian
International Trade Tribunal recommendation for an annual
quota of 72,000 tonnes on imported boneless beef. This measure
was necessary to prevent serious injury to the Canadian beef
industry. Now the government has increased that quota to
85,000 tonnes.
Why is the government disregarding the CITT
recommendation, thereby abandoning the Canadian beef
industry?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the government is most certainly not
abandoning the Canadian beef industry. The CITT
recommendation upon which the government acted last
December also included the recommendation that we should
monitor the situation and take into account changing
circumstances.
A surprising thing which occurred this year is that the 1994
quota level which was established in the area of 72,000 tonnes
was in the process of being filled very early in the year. I think
none of the participants in this process anticipated that. When it
became obvious the quota was about to be filled, some 12,000 to
15,000 tonnes of product which had been contracted for at a
lower price were actually in transit. Because of the time taken in
transit the product would have arrived in Canada at the higher
price and subject to the surtax. Therefore the number was
adjusted to take into account, among other things, that volume
of product which was actually in transit and would have been
treated unfairly upon its arrival in Canada at the higher price.
We continue to monitor the situation. There are discussions
going on today and tomorrow with respect to the importation
situation for offshore boneless beef. We will try our best to keep
a very balanced view of the situation to make sure that all
Canadian interests are properly taken into account.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for that answer. I would like to point out to
him that cattle farmers have taken a 20 cents per pound
reduction in prices since January. At present beef exports from
Australia and New Zealand to the U.S. are down, while exports
from Australia and New Zealand to Canada are up 47 per cent.
Our cattle producers are being forced to ship live-
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to
put his question.
Mr. Hoeppner: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Why is the minister
putting the Canadian cattle industry at risk and also allowing the
export of jobs in the Canadian beef processing industry?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my intention nor
that of the government, nor that of any Canadian I am sure, to
put the Canadian cattle industry at risk.
Over the last period of time while we have been plagued with
some difficulties in our grain sector, the red meat sector
particularly the beef industry, has been one of those bright spots
we would obviously want to encourage in every way possible.
I am certainly sensitive to the point the hon. member has made
about the need to ensure the viability of this industry, including
the processing and further processing side of this industry for
the future. That is indeed one of the factors the government will
take into account in making its decisions from time to time with
respect to imports.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa. Like the vast majority of Canadians, I applauded the
success of the election held last month in South Africa. I was
particularly proud of the prominent role played by Canada in
supporting the democratic process in that country.
4472
(1455)
Can the minister tell the House how the Canadian government
will help the new Mandela government and the people of South
Africa, especially during this post-election period, which is so
crucial for the future of that country?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of
tabling in the House the report of the official delegation of
observers to the elections in South Africa, a very historic event.
I have said and I repeat to the House today that elections are just
the first but very critical step for South Africa on the road to
democracy.
I am very pleased to announce to the House today that cabinet
has made the decision that South Africa is now fully eligible for
official development assistance. Through this process we will
be looking to see how we can continue to help South Africa grow
on the road to democracy.
Today I have pulled together a group of Canadians who have
been very involved in South Africa up to now. This symposium
of non-government organizations, media, business people and
officials from government is trying to find out in particular how
we can use official development assistance to help South Africa
in its ongoing process of democratic development.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. This morning
we learned that the minister gave to the former president of the
Liberal Party of Canada, Michel Robert, the mandate of
negotiating the establishment of an independent Mohawk
territory in Kanesatake. In that regard, the minister said that the
top priority was the project to expand the native cemetery.
We all agree on the need to solve the native cemetery issue.
However, will the minister pledge to ensure that the case of the
forgotten ones of Oka, which has been dragging for two years
now, will not be shelved by his negotiator, Michel Robert?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the preamble that
there is a reference perhaps to the negotiator's confidence, I
want to point out that the appointed negotiator was the president
of the Canadian Bar Association-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: Okay. The Bloc agrees he is a very competent
person with a big reputation.
As to the process, everything is on the table. There is going to
be an orderly process on the cemetery, the houses north of 344,
the houses south of 344, the Seigneurie of Deux-Montagnes,
past housing grievances, working with the Mohawk community
toward some of the catch up on the program of financial
responsibility.
What I wanted was a process that would move pragmatically
ahead. With the appointment of Michel Robert as our negotiator
that will happen. Moreover, I have approached a member of the
Quebec judiciary at the Supreme Court level. If we get
permission, not only will we have Mr. Robert, but also a very
eminent person from the judiciary who will act as a mediator and
facilitator. I think my friend will be happy with that type of
procedure.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
I never questioned Michel Robert's competence. However, I ask
the minister: Is there a link between the mandate which he just
gave to Michel Robert regarding the Oka issue and the fact that
Mr. Robert currently sits on the Security Intelligence Review
Committee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, in its quiet way, that is an
unacceptable slur on a man of the highest integrity.
He was president of the Canadian Bar Association, a member
of the International Bar Association, the American College of
Trial Lawyers. Do you want more? He was a Corporation of
Industrial Relations counsellor, a member of the royal
commission on economic union and development prospects for
Canada, the McDonald commission, an appointed member of
the Privy Council and, incidentally, a member of the security
intelligence review committee.
(1500)
He is acceptable to us. He is acceptable to the Mohawk
community and I do not accept that slur on a man of this type of
integrity.
We should be glad that these types of men are prepared to
come forward from Quebec to help the country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. Recently the former and
current premiers of Alberta, as well as senior oil patch
executives, voiced their concerns about the imposition of a
carbon tax.
4473
When questioned by my colleague from Prince
George-Peace River, the Minister of Natural Resources said
that to get a definitive answer we should ask the Minister of
Finance. I ask him to provide the House with a one-word
answer. Is the government planning to impose a carbon tax? Yes
or no.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon.
member has been listening over the last little while. The only
place I have heard a carbon tax mentioned is on the Reform
Party.
We have never mentioned a carbon tax. We are not in the
business of doing that. It seems the Reform Party is.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, let us lay
this speculation to rest. We are genuinely concerned, given the
fact that the national energy program was imposed by a Liberal
government in the early eighties which was disastrous to Alberta
and the west.
Will the government put an end to the speculation and just
answer the question? Is the government considering a carbon
tax. Yes or no.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I do not know which part
of the word ``no'' he does not understand. We have never
mentioned a carbon tax. Read the red book. Is it found in the red
book? No, it is not in the red book. It is not a part of our policy,
period.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ahmed Abdulaziz
Al-Sadoun, Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait, and
parliamentarians who are on a delegation to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask
the leader of the government in the House to inform us of the
order of business for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
with the weekly business statement, today we are debating the
report stage of Bill C-17, the budget implementation bill.
Tomorrow the House will consider a number of bills. First, we
will consider Bill C-26 regarding the National Library. Then we
will move on to Bill C-30 regarding assistance to workers and
then to Bill S-2 regarding certain international tax agreements.
If we make progress very quickly we could also look at the bill
introduced today by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deal
with support for the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
On Monday the House will continue the report stage of Bill
C-17 and on Tuesday the House will deal with third reading
stage of that bill. On Wednesday the House will consider
legislation, to be confirmed later, although I expect that Bill
C-18 will be one of the items for discussion that day. Thursday,
June 2 shall be an allotted day.
(1505 )
Finally I want to dispose of the rumours that seem to abound
every year around this time with respect to the date for the
adjournment for the summer.
As usual, the rumours are not well founded. They keep talking
about June 10 as a possible date of adjournment, but I want to
say it is the present intention of the government to follow the
parliamentary calendar set down in the rules and adjourn on
June 23.
I should point out we have more than a dozen and a half bills
to be dealt with by that date and members therefore can expect
the House to sit during the evenings as provided in the rules for
the period made up of the last 10 days before the adjournment.
That is my statement.
_____________________________________________
4473
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-17, an act to
amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994 as reported
(without amendment) from the committee; and Motions Nos. 23
to 38.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand the hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville has six minutes remaining on
his intervention and therefore I will give the floor to the hon.
member.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
made the point that we could not accept the omnibus bill here.
There are parts of it that we agree with but there is a part that we
disagree with and therefore we have to vote against the whole
thing because of one element, and that is not acceptable. I want
to continue my remarks with regard to Bill C-17 and the
Unemployment Insurance Act with the fourth point that I was
making.
The bill will increase the minimum amount of time a person
needs to qualify for UI from 10 to 12 weeks. The Reform Party
supports this measure and would ask the government to consider
making it tougher for repeaters to continue to get UI benefits.
4474
The fifth point is that the bill will allow more workers who
voluntarily quit their jobs or are fired with just cause to collect
benefits. The Reform Party is opposed to this measure because
there are now 43 just cause reasons which allow job quitters
to collect UI. Need more be said?
Finally, the bill will reduce the length of time a worker can
remain on claim and include specific provisions for areas of
high unemployment. The Reform Party supports this measure
because it will encourage workers to move to areas where there
is a better chance of finding work.
As members can see, of the six major changes to the
Unemployment Insurance Act the Reform Party supports five.
Had the bill been only addressing these specific changes, the
Reform Party would be voting in favour.
When I spoke on Bill C-17, I put the UI reforms outlined in
this bill to a simple test which I referred to as the taxpayer's test.
I would like to take my remaining time to discuss the principles
we believe should be used to design and develop a true
unemployment insurance program.
Reformers believe that the UI program is no longer a true
insurance program. The system has been used and abused by
politicians over the years. Now it is operating more like a social
welfare program. People in many regions of the country are so
confused that they now think unemployment insurance is a right.
Many Canadians see UI as an entitlement that comes without
any obligations. A common observation for many workers is
that ``I have paid into it, therefore I am entitled to draw as long
as I want''. They proceed to do just that.
The majority of workers who have paid into the
unemployment insurance program year after year and have
never collected are tired. They are tired of paying the bills for
the minority of workers who collect UI year after year.
Employers who pay UI premiums are tired of subsidizing
other employers who use and abuse the UI program to keep a
captive workforce. Reformers believe it is time to get back to
some basic principles and return unemployment insurance to its
original purpose, an employer-employee funded and
administered program to provide temporary income in the event
of an unexpected job loss.
(1510 )
We know that the Minister of Human Resources Development
is currently trying to develop an action plan for the reform of
social programs. Reformers would like the minister to keep
these fundamental principles in mind. The government says it is
listening. I hope this is true.
I will go through this list without explanation because I do not
believe my time will allow it.
(1) Social programs should be designed to eliminate all
administrative duplication between the federal government and
other levels of government.
(2) Social programs should be structured so as to minimize
economic distortions and disincentives and thereby encourage
clients to become economically productive.
(3) Social programs fall into one of two categories, income
supplements or income insurance. Both should be financially
sustainable but only income insurance programs can be
self-financing.
(4) Income insurance programs should operate on true
insurance principles. This means the workers who make
repeated claims on the program and employers who repeatedly
lay off workers would have to pay higher premiums.
(5) Income insurance programs should be democratized,
meaning they should be administered by employers and the
employees who pay for them.
(6) Income insurance programs must be accountable. Every
Canadian should receive annual statements indicating how
much he or she has paid into the program and how much she or
he has received in benefits.
(7) Income insurance programs should treat all Canadians
equally, regardless of the area of the country in which they
reside. Regionally based entrance requirements, regionally
extended benefits and other forms of geographically based
discrimination should be prohibited.
(8) Income insurance programs should be designed to
minimize abuse of the system. It should be possible to virtually
eliminate abuse of income insurance programs once they are
made completely self-financing and administered by workers
and employers.
(9) Any large scale reforms to the federally administered
social programs should be approved by the electorate in a
national program.
I believe if the government is serious about reforming the UI
programs, it should seriously consider applying these
principles.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I would
have appreciated more time in order to address the amendments
we proposed one by one. However, since according to our
procedure, we can speak only once, addressing all the
amendments to this clause which deals with unemployment
insurance, I will keep my remarks fairly general.
I would like to start by commenting on what was said by the
hon. member for the Reform Party. I was amazed he did not
know how much he paid into the unemployment insurance fund
and how much he received. You have to know both figures to do
your income tax return.
4475
This unemployment insurance reform has split Canada in
two, and the people who support a united Canada and a great
Canadian federation are now the first to attack-that is the term
we must use, under the circumstances-the economy of the
Atlantic provinces and the economy of Quebec, with no
warning to all their supporters who voted for them in the
Maritimes. On the whole, these proposals will bleed more than
$1.3 billion annually from the economy in Quebec and the
Atlantic provinces. The members opposite have not heard the
last of this from us, believe me. It is going to take a lot of
infrastructure programs to make up for that.
We in the opposition are convinced that the government failed
to consider the economic impact, because budget measures do
have an impact on the economy. At a time when the economy is
very weak and growth is slow and is not supported by an increase
in employment, taking this kind of money out of the economy of
the eastern provinces which are already in poor shape merely
undermines what the government is trying to accomplish.
(1515)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to
two of the amendments we proposed. My colleagues will
address the others, but since not much has been said about this
aspect, I want to address the provision in clause 22 which reads
as follows:
``(1.1)For purposes of paragraph (1)(b)'',-
It sounds confusing, but it is about making sure that claimants
with dependants will receive 60 per cent of their insured
earnings, and we want to ensure that the onus is on the
Commission to establish that the claimant is not entitled to
application of the rate of weekly benefit provided.
Let me explain. Claimants with dependants and insurable
earnings of up to $390 per week will be entitled to this 60 per
cent. Three hundred and ninety dollars per week for someone
with dependants is not much, but by introducing a form of
assistance in an insurance program, the government may be
faced with resorting to some kind of inquisitorial means test in
the case of individuals who receive this kind of assistance
instead of straightforward unemployment insurance benefits.
The purpose of our amendment is to allow the claimant who
would receive the 60 per cent to establish a prima facie
entitlement, and to put the onus on the commission to establish
that the claimant is not entitled to this rate.
I would like to make a few comments regarding another
provision, which we are also proposing to amend, and which
may appear rather innocuous, in spite of the fact that it gives the
minister all latitude to suspend the application of the provisions
of the Unemployment Insurance Act in the case of workers who
have lost their jobs in areas where a pilot project is being
conducted.
If you are lucky or unlucky enough to be involved in a pilot
projet, the usual provisions of the act may not apply any more, if
the minister so decides. We believe that it does not make any
sense at all and that is why we want the House of Commons to
give its approval by resolution, to make sure that we have a
public debate and that each pilot project is examined on its own
merits. As I said before, being involved in a pilot project may be
worth it, but you never can tell, and it is important to ensure that
the minister cannot change, at will, the provisions of the UI Act.
The minister may say that he would never do such a thing, but
the legislation is there, regardless of who is responsible for it.
That is why it is very important for us to convince our colleagues
opposite to accept this amendment. They may not have realized
how enormous the powers they are vesting on the minister are.
By giving him full latitude to deprive anyone, anywhere, of his
or her legal rights to unemployment insurance, they are indeed
giving the minister discretionary powers.
Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill is a shame. As we said many
times before, we do understand that the government is in a
serious financial situation and that it must deal with the deficit.
(1520)
We strenuously object to this being done on the backs of
people who are not only becoming vulnerable from loosing their
jobs but living in regions in which the economy is the most
vulnerable.
To wrap up, those who cloak themselves in the Canadian
identity are in fact engaging in a shameful cover-up because the
proposed measures affect directly the economy, and even more
so in Atlantic Canada than in Quebec, although Quebec's
economy is also hard hit. Only 8 per cent of the total population
of Canada lives in the Atlantic provinces; yet, they are hit with
26 per cent of the cuts. All the adjustment programs for Atlantic
fishermen practicing ground-fishing will not make up-it will
not even come close-for these drastic cuts.
Seeing that I have a couple of minutes remaining, I will say
this. The government probably did not think about the
depressing effect these measures would have on the economy. It
is important for every citizen to bear in mind that when
governments reallocate money taken out of our pockets to
unemployed persons, this money is immediately pumped back
into the economy. It is not used for speculation purposes or to
buy luxury items which are generally imported. It is pumped
directly back into the economy. It is used to pay rent which
would otherwise be more difficult to collect, assuming that
someone needs to collect rent. It makes life easier for small
businesses which derive their livelihood from it and, of course,
it makes life easier for families which depend on these
provisions.
4476
Some will argue that there may be people who will use or
abuse the system in the sense that they will apply repeatedly
for unemployment insurance. Let me say that any one of these
people who apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance
would gladly trade places with someone who has been paying
UI premiums for 25 years and always held a good, decent job.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, in the
riding of Laurentides that I represent, the unemployment rate is
18 per cent, which is significantly higher than the national rate.
One would have to be a little naive to believe the Liberal
government's recent actions can lower this unemployment rate.
All you have done since October 25, all your decisions and
actions are only a drop in the ocean. With your false optimism
and pompous speeches, you try to mislead the population by
telling them that your plan is working and producing results. In
fact, you throw a few crumbs here and there. You aim for the
precarious and the very short-term. In Quebec and in my riding,
the pre-election period brings its usual jobs.
The provincial and federal Liberal ministers announce here
and there that financial assistance will be provided under the
infrastructure program, thus creating or preserving some
temporary, short-term jobs. The government opposite is
satisfied and delighted with its miraculous action.
But where is the true vision, Mr. Speaker? Where are the
longer-term plans that would bring us a more stable economy,
one that would create more jobs? Instead of seriously tackling
the problem and looking for solutions, the ministers opposite go
from place to place and see themselves as the bearers of good
news.
The people opposite practice day-to-day management while
waiting to see what will happen tomorrow. The unemployed
people of Laurentides know full well that nothing has changed.
There are no more jobs available for them since you moved over
to the government side.
(1525)
What they know however is that after unemployment
insurance comes welfare. That is the Liberals' real contribution
to the economy. That is what is really happening in our ridings.
The federal government has shifted its responsibilities to the
provinces. This transfer, this shameful process shows the laxity
and inertia of the Liberals. Welfare, UI cuts, dead-end jobs,
increased taxes for the middle class and empty rhetoric, of
course, are the only results achieved by the red book
government.
The finance minister's Bill C-17, a real post-budget grab bag,
introduces amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
We find several changes completely unacceptable. The
amendment of my colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup concerning the change to the
premium rate would make this rate change earlier.
We want to end as soon as possible a measure that hurts
employment. Instead of waiting for January 1, 1995 to bring the
rate back to $3 per $100, we want to bring it back to 3 per cent on
June 1, 1994. The Liberals have not been very honest on this rate
issue, since they themselves increased it from $3 to $3.07 on
January 1, 1994.
Now they are acting like real comedians when they tell the
public that they are correcting this rate which is too high, when
they themselves just increased it. The process is not honest and
the Liberals are making it worse by pretending that they will
create 40,000 jobs by correcting this rate.
For one thing, if the government is so confident about the
positive impact of a lower rate, why did it raise it on January 1,
1994, and why is it delaying the decrease until January 1, 1995?
Furthermore, this projection of 40,000 jobs is illusory or
hypothetical, as it is based on the old schedule which would have
seen the rate rise to $3.30 on January 1, 1995. This lower rate
simply eliminates a deterrent to job creation and, according to
the minister's very debatable figures, reduces job losses.
As far as I know, reducing job losses is not the same as
creating jobs. Maintaining jobs or stopping job losses keeps the
unemployment rate from rising, while creating jobs lowers the
unemployment rate, but for the Liberals, it is the same thing.
Their recipe for employment, which is in very poor taste,
combines all the ingredients blindly, without measuring them
and without discernment. Then they give the people their
product and hope that they will just swallow it all.
Well, wake up. The people know very well what is going on
every day. My constituents want real action and tangible results.
The people of Laurentides want jobs. They are ready to train,
retrain and upgrade themselves to acquire the skills needed to
meet the needs of the labour markets.
The 30 per cent of my constituents who are unemployed, I
repeat, 30 per cent, want to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
They ask the government to put forward programs that will help
them go back to work. Long-term employment that will give
them some security. Not more small jobs lasting just a few
weeks and created through programs designed only to ensure the
required number of weeks to be eligible for UI benefits.
We are not getting anywhere with this system. The
government only supports a vicious circle which workers cannot
escape. It must change its approach to get better and more
profitable results, both for workers and employers.
The new changes to the UI program make it harder to be
eligible for benefits. In my riding, these changes will adversely
affect a large number of workers who are simply not able to work
the 12 weeks required, because of a regional economy based on
tourism. This is their ticket to welfare. Nice job by the Liberal
4477
government. It never occurred to the decision makers opposite
that some workers have all the trouble in the world to find work
for the required weeks of insurable employment.
(1530)
The Liberals go even farther. They say: You work more but we
give you less. Fewer weeks of benefits and those benefits are
reduced. This translates into less money to spend and a declining
purchasing power which, in turns, means that other workers are
laid off, no jobs created, and the spiral continues.
The Liberals make cuts in the UI program without offering
alternatives to workers. They do things the wrong way round.
Their logic has nothing to do with common sense. This is
worrisome and depressing for my constituents. It clearly shows
that the Liberals are more interested in figures than in people.
Consequently, I ask the Liberals to support our amendment
regarding the premium rate. If the Liberals are so sure of the
positive effects of that drop, they have to support our position.
However, it remains to be seen whether they have the courage
and the will to do so. I have strong doubts about that.
[English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-17, in particular those clauses
relating to unemployment insurance.
Canadians have quite rightly been proud of the unemployment
insurance benefits in this country. During the so-called free
trade debate one of the grave concerns expressed by the New
Democratic Party was the attempts that would follow the
agreements to Americanize our unemployment insurance
scheme among other issues such as health care.
What we see in the bill is not a true reform of legislation, not a
true measure to build a system in Canada which really addresses
the needs of the unemployed but rather regressive steps to attack
the unemployed rather than to address the very serious question
of unemployment.
During the discussions in the last session of Parliament on
Bill C-21 brought in by the former Conservative government
and Bill C-113, the Liberal opposition at that time was
vehement in its opposition to the regressive measures in those
two pieces of legislation. The clauses on unemployment
insurance in Bill C-17 far exceed the regressive measures in
those previous pieces of legislation which were decried loudly
by members opposite when they were in opposition and now are
being implemented with a vengeance in the bill.
Just to give one example, in 1989, 90 per cent of unemployed
people were covered by unemployment insurance in this
country. Just four short years later, after the Conservative
government trashed the unemployment insurance scheme, only
65 per cent of unemployed workers are covered by
unemployment insurance.
Let us be clear what we are talking about here. This is an
insurance scheme. Under the previous regime, the government
withdrew its funding and financial obligation for unemployment
insurance. It is an insurance scheme by employers and
employees. Insurance means you pay into a scheme and you are
entitled to a benefit from that scheme.
I am truly shocked that the current Liberal government has
chosen to bring forward a piece of legislation even worse than
that brought in by the Conservative government. I am sure there
is not a Canadian in this country who expected this government
to be worse than the previous government. It is going some to
say that it could actually accomplish that in the bill. That is
exactly what it has done.
I want to give a few specific examples. First, Bill C-17 will
introduce a means test to determine the level of rates. What is
really concerning about the bill is that it hurts those in areas of
high unemployment even more than those in areas with less
unemployment. I cannot believe the provinces and territories
are not screaming from one end of this country to the other
because what this bill does as it has done in the past is simply
transfer responsibility for supporting unemployed workers
while they are looking for a job to the provinces and territories.
Once again this is what the government is doing.
(1535)
The duration of benefits has been slashed across the country
just at the time that long term unemployment becomes a
problem. In the past we saw that the duration of unemployment
for Canadians was much shorter than it now is. What is even
more shocking is that at present only 59 per cent of Canadians
have full time jobs in the country.
A report released this week called ``The Outsiders'' reports
levels of poverty and unemployment not seen since the
Depression.
On the one hand we have in our country an economic system
in crisis. For far too many people this is not a recessionary
period, this is a depression. On the other hand we have a Liberal
government that says it is going to take a new way but has taken
an even worse way than the previous government in attacking
the unemployed.
4478
In the February budget 60 cents on every dollar in cuts was
taken from the unemployed through job cuts and cuts to other
social programs.
The second matter that is very concerning about this bill
directly contrasts to the red book which we hear so much about.
In the red book it was said: ``The people are irritated with
governments that do not consult or that disregard their views or
try to conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors.
A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore
confidence in the institution of government''.
What has it done in this legislation? It is one of the biggest
grabs of power by the government from Parliament that I have
seen in the seven years I have been in this House of Commons.
Under this legislation, particularly the pilot projects section, the
power will rest solely with the government to determine the
rules and the nature of those projects, not with Parliament.
The government has appropriated $20 billion of taxpayers'
money. It has said that it will not be all of the parties elected to
Parliament that will help to decide how it develops this program.
It is us, it is the government. That is exactly what makes people
cynical about the majority kind of government we have and
exactly contrary to the red book.
These regressive measures regarding unemployment
insurance completely undermine any faith that might exist in the
social policy review undertaken by the minister of human
resources. The minister and the government on the one hand are
saying they are really going to look at changes to the system. We
in the New Democratic Party agree. We know the system does
not function, that younger families are falling even faster into
poverty and that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing.
We agree with looking at this.
However, what has the government done? It said on the one
hand that it is going to consult everybody. In the secret
document leaked this week it said it is going to spend over a
million dollars not to do but to promote social policy review. At
the same time in a piece of omnibus legislation hidden away we
see that this government is setting the very parameters of new
social policy.
The minister of human resources must answer to Canadians.
Where is the review when the ministry of finance under this bill
has set the policy?
We have here a very hypocritical piece of legislation at least
in terms of meeting the kind of rhetoric we heard both when the
Liberals were in opposition and now with their commitment to
consult Canadians.
All Canadians are concerned about the social service network
and how we should deal with that, none more so than the New
Democratic Party. Let me mention several things that could
achieve some of the same objectives.
The government did not come in with a full employment
policy.
(1540 )
I hope it will support my private member's bill on full
employment which will be up for discussion next month. If it
had through a real plan reduced unemployment to about 9.5 per
cent, the $2.4 billion cutback that we saw in this year's budget
could have been avoided.
If the government were to truly focus on a full employment
program we would not need nor would we even be talking about
changes to the unemployment insurance system. We have to get
away from the myth that unemployment is free and that we can
deal with unemployment if we just hit the unemployed a little
harder.
The New Democratic Party is totally opposed to the measures
that the government has brought in regarding unemployment
insurance. They do not address the serious problems in our
society. In fact they make them worse.
I do not believe that Canadians elected this government to
make the lives of millions of Canadians worse. That is exactly
what is being done in the bill. I hope that the provinces and
territories will stand and counter as well the measures that are in
the bill.
Unfortunately, the objective of slash and trash has become
much more the watchword as we see reflected in the bill than
real reform and a real concern for Canadians. The social and
financial costs of unemployment are huge. We know that but we
will not address those costs by making it more difficult or by
trying to transfer the problem.
I have received thousands of letters, petitions and cards
opposing these unemployment insurance changes. I agree with
them because they do not deal with the substantive issue in
society.
In conclusion I hope the government will re-read its own
speeches on Bill C-21 and Bill C-113 where it opposed even
less drastic measures than the ones it is now taking. Shame on
you is what I have to say to the Liberal Party.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to address the proposed amendments
to the clause on unemployment insurance in Bill C-17. I would
like to start by making it clear to Quebecers and Canadians that
from the very beginning of the sub-committee's consideration
of Bill C-17, during which I was the critic for the official
opposition, the government tried to sneak through one of the
major, if not the major reform of our social programs.
The proposals in the last budget, the first and last budget
brought down by the Minister of Finance, provide for slashing
$5.5 billion from the unemployment insurance fund during the
next three years. More than 50 per cent of these cuts will be felt
by two particular regions, mainly the Maritimes, an area that is
4479
not known for its booming economy, and especially in recent
years with the crisis in the fisheries, and another region that has
been hit very hard, my country, Quebec, which will also absorb a
major share of the cuts the federal government proposes to make
in the unemployment insurance fund through the Liberal budget.
Next year alone, although the Maritimes represent 8.5 per
cent of the population, they will be hit by 26 per cent of the cuts
totalling $21.4 billion which the federal government will make
in the unemployment insurance fund. The government is going
to take $630 million out of the pockets of the unemployed in the
Maritimes.
(1545)
As for Quebec, next year, the impact of these cuts will
represent $535 million or 31 per cent of the total for that year.
Again, this government, and I see a few of its eminent
representatives, will make these cuts at the expense of the
unemployed, of the neediest in our society.
That is how this government treats the unemployed. That is
how this government says it will create jobs. That is how this
government treats people who do not deserve to be treated this
way, since they already have to cope with the unemployment and
under-employment that is widespread in Quebec, in the
Maritimes and more or less across Canada. Should we be
surprised that this is happening?
When, not so long ago, I heard the Prime Minister refer to the
unemployed as people who were always drinking beer and say
they should stop drinking beer and go out and look for a job, I
said to myself: Now that is statesman like. That is a man with
vision. And that from someone who on so many occasions
waved the red book, saying: We are concerned about jobs. Now
that is a kind of cynicism we have never seen before in Quebec
or Canada: cynicism at the expense of the unemployed.
And when we consider that the present Prime Minister once
represented the riding of Beauséjour in the Maritimes, and that
normally if he did his job-which I sometimes doubt when I see
him in his prime ministerial role-he ought to be aware of the
economic situation in the Maritimes and the impact of the cuts
he himself proposed as the leader of the government. He should
know that these cuts will have a tremendous impact on all the
Maritime communities already crushed by the demise of one of
its most important industries, the fishing industry, and by other
difficulties of industrial revival and redeployment or
diversification.
Without the Bloc Quebecois, without our hard work, the
subcommittee responsible for studying Bill C-17, and in
particular the part relating to unemployment insurance, would
have sat only two and a half days. One day to hear department
officials explain the content of the report and a day and a half to
hear witnesses. By being very persistent, we finally managed to
obtain an extension of about two weeks. But even that was not
enough, because this is the biggest reform of unemployment
insurance since its creation. What I heard during those two
weeks was, for example, the feeling of helplessness of the
people from the Gaspe.
I was talking this morning with my colleague, the Bloc
member for Gaspé, and he was telling me that in his riding the
unemployment rate was at least 27 per cent. The increase in the
number of weeks required to qualify for UI, from 10 to 12
weeks, will have an enormous impact on some people. My
colleague was telling me that last month, only 42 per cent of the
unemployed had been able to secure at least 10 weeks of work
and were therefore eligible under the new rules introduced by
this government. At 12 weeks even fewer people would have
qualified. In these single-industry areas, where seasonal work is
the norm, there are very few places where you can work more
than 10 weeks.
(1550)
And I would tell you that, during the two and a half weeks of
hearings of the sub-committee on Bill C-17, people from the
Maritimes came to see us saying that the measures proposed in
that bill would destabilize whole communities, would make
most of the seasonal workers, fishermen already affected by the
fisheries crisis, go from unemployment insurance to welfare and
that welfare benefits would come out of the already scarce
provincial funds, as we well know.
When I saw how offhand my Liberal colleagues were with the
people of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and everywhere else
in the maritimes, and particularly the people of the Acadian
Peninsula, I could not help but find it revolting. These people
presented arguments to us and to the government, saying that
with these measures, the government was attacking them
directly without offering any compensation like economic
development measures, diversification of the economic base or
programs to help them get back into the labour force. The
government was attacking them and cutting their means of
subsistence and it was saying: ``Come what may, it is a case of
make or break for these people''.
I even saw, and I must admit I am still troubled and moved by
that, members of this government who threw out people who had
driven hundreds of kilometres because they could not afford to
fly. They came from the Acadian Peninsula and from
Newfoundland to shout and cry their hopelessness. And the
members of the government did not even have the courage to
listen to all they had to say; they just threw them out.
4480
One evening, there was one Bloc member, no Liberal
member, no Reform member, and yet people had come all the
way from Atlantic Canada to once again voice their grave
concerns.
I was outraged by such a show of cynicism during the
committee hearings. We can see this characteristic trait of the
Liberals displayed in their attitude in general, and in the
measures they are implementing. I can tell you that my
constituents in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, and the
constituents of all my colleagues and probably of quite a few
Liberal members opposite, have had just about enough of their
cynicism, and their sarcasm regarding such fundamental things
as human misery and suffering, which are considerable east of
Manitoba.
I am particularly interested in one specific amendment aimed
at deleting clause 28. The purpose of the amendment is to
eliminate the proposed table of required number of weeks of
insurable employment, and to go back to the initial provisions.
In areas which are heavily dependant on resource industries,
people have no other choice than to hope for some better times,
and now they see that to be eligible for UI, they need 12 weeks of
insurable employment, instead of 10.
What I have heard in the past three weeks has convinced me
more than ever that it is important to treat people with respect.
For instance, we were given statistics for Labrador, showing that
up to 65 per cent of the people there, whole communities in fact,
were without work at one time or another during the year, and
that, of course, they would be hit very hard by this bill.
All I ask is a bit of compassion for these people. Let
Parliament adopt the proposed amendments to the
Unemployment Insurance Act and let the government
implement measures for the diversification or the strengthening
of our industrial base, and to facilitate the re-entry of
unemployed workers into the labour force. These people need
hope.
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to these
motions and respond to the critic of the Bloc Quebecois.
I am very pleased to see such a large audience here today.
Sometimes we see the ironies of Canadian politics first hand. It
gives us an opportunity to understand, and I do wish the member
has the opportunity to listen to me here. Here is a man standing
up right now who has been one of the great supporters of the UI
program. What is the UI program?
(1555)
The UI program is one of the greatest contributors to national
unity we have ever had. It does not matter what part of the
country you live in. We have made rules; we have made
exceptions; and we have reached out to make sure that no matter
what economy you are in or what part of the country you live in,
you have an opportunity to participate in UI.
There is a party whose sole purpose is to come here and
destroy our country, but what does it do? It ends up defending a
program that benefits all Canadians. This is the hypocrisy which
drives the government crazy. Yes, this is a very important
program and, yes, people in Atlantic Canada deserve to be
protected and deserve to be supported. These members have to
realize that this is a national program which requires national
participation. No program in the last 50 years has contributed
more to the needy regions of our country than this legislation.
Part of the difficulty with the opposition is it repeats day by
day misrepresentations of what happens in committees, which
allows people to think what it says is really the truth.
Let me clarify the record of what happened in committee.
When we began hearings there was not one particular group
which had expressed an interest in talking on the bill. We had an
agreement from this party that we would allow a week to see if
groups came forward.
Suddenly, to use a colloquialism, to hot dog it for the press,
they said: ``we are cutting off the debate'' when they had made
an agreement that a week was sufficient. Suddenly the press
shows up and the line changes in the cheapest of all forms of
politics.
Second, several weeks were set aside for people to come
forward. Not one group that asked to come forward has not been
heard on the bill. There has not been one group that has not been
spoken to and asked questions of.
The government has reached out to make sure that its program
is understood and that when groups come forward, whether they
are from the Gaspé or from Atlantic Canada or a group from
downtown Toronto, which had really good ideas to reform and to
improve on the system, they are responded to.
The government has been very proud of the way it approached
a very complicated bill such as this and the way it set out
hearings and gave an opportunity for everyone to speak who
wished to speak on the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate on the proposed unemployment
insurance reform. I have already criticized certain aspects of the
proposed reform and today, I would like to draw the House's
attention to one particular measure which would reduce UI
premiums to $3 as of January 1, 1995.
As everyone knows, the premium was increased to $3.07 on
January 1, 1994. In its budget, the government party stated the
following:
4481
The UI measures proposed in the budget will enable the government to rollback the
UI premium rate for 1995 to $3. By the end of 1996 there will be 40,000 more jobs in
the economy than could be expected if premiums were allowed to rise.
What is the government saying? It is saying that
unemployment insurance premiums increased on January 1,
1994, that is while the current Liberal government was in office,
and that this increase resulted in the loss of 9,000 jobs in
Canada. Yet, the government did nothing to stop the increase
from taking effect.
The premium rate was slated to increase to $3.30 in 1996. The
government is saying that if the rate increase were allowed, in
view of the cost to employers, roughly 31,000 jobs would be
lost. When we add 9,000 jobs and 31,000 jobs, we come up with
a total of 40,000 jobs. And yet, in the budget, this is called
creating 40,000 jobs.
I think this illustrates one typical way the current government
has presented the facts in the last six months.
(1600)
The government floats some figures as to what might have
happened had it not acted in a certain way. People are left with
the impression that jobs have been created. The figure of 40,000
jobs is almost equivalent to the number of jobs announced in the
infrastructure program of which the government is boasting of
late.
In the meantime, what is the government doing for the jobless
person in a region such as my own, the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region? It is a region in need of
industrial development, a region, particularly my riding, where
major industries, workers and the surrounding population once
flourished. Large companies such as Alcan and Abitibi-Price
paid their workers handsomely and brought obvious wealth to
the region.
This glorious era is long gone. Large companies are
converting their operations and rumours are flying in the region
that employment levels will decline even further.
Alcan in Arvida and Abiti-Price in Kénogami have reduced
the workforce at their plants by at least one third in recent years.
Unemployment is high in my region. People are hoping that
governments will take adequate steps to ensure that wealth is
generated and employment picks up.
What do we find in this Liberal government budget? A
hypothetical measure which, had it been implemented, would
have caused a number of jobs to be lost but, since the
government is dropping it, fewer jobs will be lost.
And that is presented as a job creation measure! I would say
that in the regions, people are worried, particularly in resource
areas like mine, in which traditionally, heavy industry has
developed natural resources and produced primary products.
What Alcan produces is primary aluminium for use abroad in
the manufacturing of industrial goods. What the Abitibi-Price
plant in Kénogami produces is paper and paperboard for the
export market. Our regions have come to depend on these
industries and today jobs cuts have local residents concerned.
Some have lost their jobs while others live in fear of loosing
theirs. So, what does the government have to suggest in its
budget to ensure some kind of a future for these people? First, it
announces cuts to the unemployment insurance plan at a time
when people need it the most and, second, it proposes no
concrete measures to create jobs.
Instead, you find hypothetical measures like the one I am
denouncing now. There is also the infrastructure program, but
these are all measures that take time to implement and even so, I
have noticed that certain municipalities take advantage of the
infrastructure program to get the federal and provincial
governments to pay for work they would have done anyway.
One can seriously doubt the job creation potential of such
programs because, after all, part of this work would have been
done anyway. Creating jobs, and creating new infrastructure for
that matter, does not ensure that we will have a stronger
financial base in the future. All this does is to make the federal
and provincial governments foot the bill for work that would
have been done anyway.
I am therefore amazed that a party which ran on a platform of
jobs, jobs, jobs, produced this kind of budget.
The unemployed and, in my region, small business owners,
people looking to market new products, those who want to
continue to build our region which celebrated its 150th birthday
just two or three years ago, are disappointed.
(1605)
Some of these people had expected a lot from this
government. You will say that in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region, the Bloc Quebecois candidates captured perhaps around
65, 66 or even 75 per cent of the vote like my leader, Mr.
Bouchard, in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean.
You will say that a lot of people may not have believed in the
illusions, in the nice promises of the Liberal Party, but there
were still people who looked at the Liberal Party's platform and
thought it contained a few measures that would have improved
our economic situation.
These people may have voted for the party because of these
promises and they now realize that nothing of the kind has been
done after six months and a long development process. We are
told that the Liberal government has been in office for only six
months, except that the whole election platform development
process had started a year or a year and a half earlier, so we can
say that the Liberal Party platform has been around for a year
and a half.
4482
A year and a half later, the people of my region who need
new development programs to kick-start their economy see
nothing in the government program that can meet their needs.
I think it is important to reduce UI premiums. They obviously
place a heavy strain on employers. But if it was so important and
if we should be so proud of it, why does this reduction not take
effect on June 1, as proposed by my colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup?
Why must we wait another year to give hope to the people, to
create jobs? Because if, as we are told, this measure had caused
9,000 job losses as of January 1, by cancelling it now we could
assume that 9,000 jobs would be created. What is the Liberal
government waiting for when it could be creating 9,000 jobs? It
is waiting for January, for people to be even more desperate, for
a number of people now on UI to go on welfare. Is that what the
government is waiting for?
We see that deep down the government did not have a firm
policy and that it has pursued the policy established by the
previous Conservative government because this premium
increase which took effect on January 1 had been planned by the
Conservative Party.
In closing, I must point out that this new economic wind, this
new hope for workers and the unemployed that had been raised
by the Liberal Party of Canada in the last election campaign did
not materialize. I will be happy to support the amendment of my
colleague who wants the proposed UI premium to come into
effect on June 1 so that jobs can be created as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad the hon. member had only 10 minutes within which to
misrepresent the bill and mislead the Canadian public.
Earlier one of the speakers from his party used the phrase ``my
country, Quebec''. I suggest if that is the case, he is in the wrong
Chamber. If he wants to represent Quebec, Quebec is
represented in the Senate. It is also represented by the premier of
the province of Quebec. The hon. member only represents a
riding in Quebec.
We are discussing Bill C-17. It deals with the unemployment
insurance program which is a program for Canadians from coast
to coast. We all contribute to this program to get the benefits.
Shortly after World War II, Winston Churchill was asked to
make a distinction between communism and capitalism. He
said: ``If capitalism is the equal distribution of wealth, then
communism is the equal distribution of misery''.
If Canada is not good enough for some members of the Bloc, if
Canada is not good enough for them to share in the prosperity of
this country then no doubt their opposing the bill guarantees the
people in Quebec the equal distribution of misery.
(1610 )
I ask my colleagues to support the bill because the bill is a job
creation bill. In the last two months this government has created
115,000 jobs. This government is the only government to have
58 per cent popularity in Canada today. We have to continue
with this progress until we get the maximum number of
Canadians working again and bring the unemployment down, to
the benefit of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the previous speaker said that we did not necessarily
represent Quebec or our ridings; I remind him that the mandate
we received is to defend Quebec's interests, as was stated very
clearly. That is why Quebecers chose the Bloc Quebecois,
because the Liberal candidates did not represent the way of the
future that they considered necessary.
Today, I rise to speak much more about the owners of small
and medium-sized businesses in my riding who are looking for
real straight-forward job creation measures. Rioux Fibreglass,
for example, in Sainte-Françoise, MT Pressure Moulding, FF
Soucy Prelco are small or medium-sized companies-in fact,
the paper company is fairly large-that want simple programs.
They want something so that they can contribute quickly to
society by creating jobs.
The infrastructure program is a smoke screen. It is good
politics, it is good for their image, it creates some jobs, we
admit, but there are much clearer and simpler measures that
unfortunately do not provide the political coverage which this
government seeks and seems desperately to want.
My amendment is very simple: it would lower the employer's
contribution to UI to 3 per cent right away, instead of playing the
government's very Machiavellian game. They have created a
new kind of job. Before, there were full-time, part-time and
temporary jobs; now there are the jobs that they saved. They
boast that they created 40,000 jobs because they saved them
from disappearing.
I think that the message we must give Canadians and
Quebecers now is one of confidence and the way to do that is
with positive actions which tell industrialists that it is time to
invest and go ahead, not contrary actions that restrict their
economic commitment and keep them from playing the role that
they should in creating jobs to restore prosperity.
This government prefers to give very ambiguous messages.
While the government claims to want to create jobs, it decided
that, in a region such as the Gaspe Peninsula, which has an
unemployment rate of 27 per cent, workers will need three
additional weeks to be eligible to UI benefits and will get these
benefits for a shorter period. What a way to build confidence!
The same bill tells civil servants, whose salaries are rather good,
that things are so bad that the government must freeze their
4483
salaries and that they cannot be paid what they deserve. Another
negative message.
It sounds very much like the old Conservative line. It sounds
like what they used to say before Franklin Roosevelt became
president of the United States, just after the Depression. Then,
people were saying: ``We have to cut spending. Let us cut as
much as possible and, more importantly, let us not create jobs
because this will happen by itself''. The purpose of this
amendment is to send a clear message to entrepreneurs, to give
them some leeway as quickly as possible. This is particularly
important in the case of an industry such as tourism.
There are many seasonal jobs in the summer. This is the time
to send a message to put people back to work. With the savings
they will make, employers can contribute more easily to the job
creation effort.
(1615)
This is not merely a question of money and maths. There is
also a psychological effect involved. In that regard, the current
Liberal government missed the boat and this is why its budget
satisfied so few Canadians.
Consequently, I ask members opposite, particularly those
who live in the Maritimes and in regions where there are many
seasonal workers, to support our amendment.
Imagine if, tomorrow, we were to send employers a message
to the effect that it has dawned on the government that the
simplest way to create employment was to allow small
businesses to act quickly, without red tape, without additional
paper burden, and without having to get approval from three
levels of government to build a sidewalk. This would allow
small entrepreneurs to directly invest the money they would
save by not having to spend it on bureaucratic formalities.
I do hope that government members will understand that.
After all, they were elected by promising ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
They should understand that when such political commitments
are made but not fulfilled, it greatly undermines the credibility
of politicians.
Last fall, Canadians elected a new government because they
wanted one which would put the emphasis on job creation
through concrete and realistic measures. Today, you have the
opportunity to adopt one such measure with this amendment and
I hope that you will do it.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, since my riding is Cumberland-Colchester in that
great province of Nova Scotia, which is classified as a maritime
province, and since the hon. member has just referred to us on
several occasions I believe it is important that I express some of
the views that business in the maritime provinces has expressed
to me on Bill C-17 and our budget.
In Nova Scotia we have some 90,000 small businesses
employing fewer than 50 persons each. We have a population of
just under 900,000. That is a one to nine ratio of small business
to population. Those business people have said to me: ``If we
could only reduce payroll taxes, UI premiums, if we could only
reduce worker's compensation and those things that impede
taking on more employees, then we could take care of job
creation''. This is the message that small business has sent to me
as a member of Parliament representing the maritime provinces.
I suggest that it is small business in the great province of Nova
Scotia that will do more to create jobs. By doing our part by
dealing with some of the payroll taxes we are doing the most to
stimulate economic growth and jobs in the business sector.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, this is
the second time that I have the opportunity to take part in the
debate on Bill C-17. It is vitally important for me, as a
Quebecer, not to keep quiet about the major changes the
government wants to make to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
These changes will particularly affect Eastern Canada, the
Maritimes and Quebec. The Liberals are trying to play down the
losses Quebec will incur by talking about job creation. It would
be day-dreaming to think that the public will be fooled by that,
because no jobs will actually be created by these changes. That
is what I will try to demonstrate here, today.
Like all of Eastern Canada, Quebec will be hard hit by the
increase in the number of weeks of insurable employment
included in Bill C-17. Indeed, as I said previously, only the
regions in Canada with a high level of unemployment will be
affected by the changes to the number of weeks of insurable
employment. That means six out of thirteen regions in Quebec,
and seven out of thirteen regions in the Maritimes. Also, 95.6
per cent of UI claimants in Quebec will be directly affected by
the changes to the number of insurable weeks needed to become
eligible for UI benefits.
(1620)
The people of my riding will be directly affected by these new
measures. We have received hundreds of letters asking me to
intervene in order to prevent the unemployment insurance
system from being changed that way. Those are protest letters
coming from taxpayers who, as myself, cannot accept these
major changes to unemployment insurance. It is on their behalf
that I speak today and also that I oppose Bill C-17. It is for my
constituents and also for all those of Quebec and Canada who
will be targeted by the changes made to the Unemployment
Insurance Act that I oppose that bill today.
4484
Mr. Robichaud: No problem.
Mr. Sauvageau: May I continue, Sir? I thank you very much
for your indulgence and your attention; that is very nice.
Mr. Robichaud: I was answering your colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I can only listen to
one speech at a time. I would ask the hon. member for
Terrebonne to continue.
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, there are people for whom
causing the loss of jobs or unemployment insurance benefits is
not a major problem. But it is for us.
The impact on workers from eastern Canada and Quebec will
then be considerable. Taking measures that penalize a specific
region is dishonest and illogical. Those taxpayers pay taxes and
contribute to the unemployment insurance system as much as
other Canadian taxpayers. They give their share but do not get
much in return.
Once again, the federal government's approach shows us the
importance of acting quickly to put an end to these
irregularities. A sovereign Quebec could very well administer
its unemployment insurance system. The cuts, or even the
savings that the federal government is trying to achieve show us
how our federal system is totally absurd, with its duplication
that is costing Quebecers and Canadians millions of dollars
every year. The Liberals cut where it is most painful because
unemployment insurance recipients will be the first victims of
this economic chaos.
Let us have a look to the so-called jobs creation that is
supposed to be generated by the premium reduction. At this
point, the premium rate is $3.07 per $100 of income. The
Liberals intend to reduce the premiums to $3.00 on January 1,
1995. It should be reminded to Quebecers and Canadians that it
is the Liberals who raised and voted in December the increase
from $3.00 to $3.07.
The Liberals figure that the reduction next year will result in
the creation of 40,000 new jobs in 1996. There is no need for a
comprhensive financial analysis to understand that there will be
no job creation and that we will only maintain existing jobs.
These are two very different notions that the Liberals do not
seem to understand.
Let us summarize in a simple way how unemployment
insurance premiums went up and down. In 1993, they were at
$3.00 for every $100 of income. In 1994, they were raised to
$3.07 per $100. And they were supposed to reach $3.30 per $100
by 1995.
The new plan of the government is the following: $3.00 per
$100 in 1993, $3.07 in 1994 and down again $3.00 in 1995. So
we are back to the rate of 1993. Logically, as said Einstein,
nothing is lost and nothing is created, but the Liberals do not
understand that.
That is not the way the Liberals figure it. According to them,
if the previous calculation formula had been kept, we would
have lost 9,000 jobs in 1994 and 31,000 others in 1995.
By bringing the premiums back to $3.00 in 1995, the Liberals
figure that 9,000 jobs will be saved in 1994 and 35,000 more in
1995, for a total of 40,000 jobs created. This is totally false. As
was said previously, a simple calculation gives a grand total of
zero. As a matter of fact, the increase decided by the Liberals for
the current year has brought a loss of 9,000 jobs. If premiums get
back to their 1993 rate of $3.00, we will only recover 9,000 jobs.
Quite a number! Therefore, we are not talking here about 40,000
new jobs but about 31,000 jobs protected for 1995 and 9,000
others lost the previous year but recovered.
(1625)
We should not try to mislead the public with such a vain
promise. People are not so easily tricked any more. We must
stop offering them empty shells and address the real problems. It
is true that unemployment is a serious problem in Quebec and in
Canada and we must not pretend we can solve it so easily.
The government must stop believing it can be the sole source
of job creation. As we said before, small and medium-sized
businesses are and will remain the main source of job creation
and we could reduce the unemployment rate, for example, by
increasing government assistance to those employers.
Everybody is eagerly awaiting the recovery but unfortunately it
is a long time coming.
Through its actions, the government must show a real will to
fight down the economic difficulties that people of Quebec and
Canada have been facing for too many years already. The trust
they put in their leaders is not unconditional and we must show
our constituents that the government really wants to get the
country out of this economic abyss in which it is sinking and this
is not what it is doing.
They must stop making empty promises and developing
legislations which have negative financial impacts on the
public. They must instead show they really want to get out of
this economic impasse.
You might say that we criticize without proposing any
solutions. Not so. My colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has proposed amendments to
Bill C-17 which could help reduce job losses.
For example, why not lower the contribution to $3 per $100
starting June 1, 1994, instead of waiting until January 1, 1995?
This would mean 9,000 jobs, about 9,000 families who would
not have to wait another six months. Can we afford 9,000 more
unemployed? Certainly not. Do you not think that workers
would prefer a salary rather than unemployment insurance
payments, also reduced by Bill C-17 I might add?
4485
To conclude, we are faced with a bill which is unacceptable
for a large portion of voters. We should stop trying to make
people believe that they have something to gain, where there
is in fact nothing to gain. The people will not be fooled again
by the government. What they want is a real economic recovery,
they want real jobs. Let us proceed towards the economic
upturn that the population of my riding and Quebec has been
expecting for too long now.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
was not going to participate in the debate but this morning I
heard remarks by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot
and I could not resist the temptation to step in because of course
what he said was an attempt to create a monster. He wanted to
pretend that the government was a big bully boy, doing a bad
thing in ramming the bill through the House.
I thought it was useful to clarify the position so that the
statements made by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, which were patently false, can be
exposed for what they are. He knows that there have been no
bullying tactics by the government on the bill. He tried to
suggest the government was railroading this particular bill
through the House.
As parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who has been
more than fair in his dealings in all matters in respect of House
business, I felt that the record should be clarified. I want to do
that.
I cannot imagine where the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot got his ideas, but I can only suspect
that he went through Hansard for the last few years and read
speeches by the Liberal opposition in the last Parliament.
We were faced with a government that was using bully boy
tactics all the time. It used closure a record number of times and
time allocation a record number of times. He must have read our
speeches, the only thing I can conclude, and decided he would
make the same kind of speech himself at report stage of the bill
because after all it is a budget bill.
The last government used closure on almost every budget bill
that it introduced. We have not used closure on the bill. I want to
state that for the record. There has been no time allocation on the
bill. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has been
given ample opportunity to express his views and he knows it.
He tried to suggest otherwise this morning. That is why I am
rising this afternoon: to correct the record.
(1630)
Let us look at what happened and let us not bother looking
back at the old Liberal speeches in the last House. Let us look at
the record that has gone on in Parliament in respect of the bill.
The bill was introduced on March 16 and was called for
second reading on March 25. Therefore nine days had elapsed
between first and second reading. At second reading there was
ample opportunity for members on all sides to read the bill and
become familiar with its terms and indeed also for members of
the public to obtain copies and become familiar with the terms
of the bill.
The bill was called for second reading on March 25. There
were a number of speakers that day. It was called again on April
11 and there were a number of speakers on that day as well.
There were a number of speakers again on April 14. It was called
again on April 15, when the bill was given second reading after
the speeches ran out. There were no more speakers; speeches ran
out on April 15.
Seventy-one speakers participated in the debate. Some
members spoke twice. I for one spoke twice. There was ample
opportunity again for the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and all his colleagues to make
speeches on second reading of the bill. Second reading occurred
on April 15 and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee
on Finance at that time.
This morning the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot
suggested it was rammed through the committee in a week. It
was referred to the committee on April 19-I do not know why
my record is different from the last day of debate on the
15th-but it was referred at the latest by April 19 and it just
came back from the committee yesterday.
Where is this week the hon. member speaks of? That sounds to
me like a lot more than a week. Yesterday was May 25 and the
bill went to committee on April 19. Where is the week in here?
That sounds like five weeks. What happened in this case was the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot suddenly discovered
there was some opposition to the bill and he had better oppose it
because he had done nothing of any significance up to that time
to oppose the bill.
When the bill was in committee he discovered there were
some opponents to it, so what did he do? He ran back to the
Hansard for the last Parliament and pulled out the speeches
saying: ``What do I do now?'' He read all the precedents and said
that the first thing to do was to attack the government and make
it look like a bully boy.
In committee he tried to make it appear the government was a
bully. He tried in the House in his speech this morning to make it
appear the government was a bully. If he made it appear as
though the government was a bully then maybe people would
think the government was doing something wrong.
4486
The government is not doing anything wrong. This is a
normal budget bill. It was introduced in the House with notice
in the budget. The minister said what the bill was going to
contain. It was introduced in the House on March 16 after the
budget. It has been debated extensively in the House since that
time. There have been 71 speakers on the bill at second reading
stage. There were extended committee hearings and there was
opportunity for five weeks of hearings.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot obviously
took his time in the committee. He had ample opportunity to
consider the bill in committee and this morning he had the nerve
to stand in this House and rant and rave, whine and whimper a lot
of stuff and nonsense about the government being a bully and
ramming this bill through the House. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
We have not heard a peep about that kind of tactic from the
Reform Party because it knows better. It knows the government
has behaved with perfect propriety in this matter. It knows the
government has dealt honourably with the opposition in giving
ample opportunity for debate at all stages of the bill.
We agreed by all-party agreement to limit debate to two days
at report stage and one day at third reading. It was all-party
agreement, but it is a good agreement. It is a reasonable time to
debate the bill. Therefore we have all day today and all day
Monday. They are long days.
At the request of the opposition, we deliberately selected long
days for the debate on the bill. Instead of having it on a Friday
we put it on a Monday so there would be a long debate. At report
stage everyone is limited to 10-minute speeches anyway so
there is plenty of time for members to express their views. There
is no bullying here. This is a fair and sensible arrangement in
respect of the bill.
Ample opportunity was granted at second reading. Ample
opportunity was given to the Standing Committee on Finance
and its subcommittee which considered the bill to review the
bill.
I know the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance spent endless hours listening to complaints and whining
from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot because he
decided he had to oppose the bill late in the process. He has
shown great patience in enduring hours of argument. I know
members of the Reform Party have been subjected to the same
kind of treatment, but we have all survived that.
(1635)
Why continue the whining today in the House? Why not
acknowledge that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot
has made a good arrangement. He has had ample opportunity to
express his opposition. Certainly he objects to the bill; he has
reservations about it. I was in opposition once. I used to make
speeches of the kind he made, but I had some reason for it.
Mrs. Brushett: You did not whine.
Mr. Milliken: I had some reason for it and of course I did not
whine.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has
been speaking for the last five minutes about the way we deal
with speeches, about the way we treated the people who came
before the committee of the House of Commons.
He did not address the real issue, which is Bill C-17. I think
he is wasting our time. He says that we are wasting our time, but
in fact he is the one who is wasting our time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please! It is not
really a point of order. It is rather a matter of debate.
To conclude his remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am almost finished, anyway.
[English]
I am glad the hon. member is paying close attention to what I
have to say.
I wanted to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance has been an exemplar of patience in his
dealings on the bill. I know he has put up with a great deal. I
know he has bent every nerve and every muscle to assist
opposition members so that they have full opportunity to debate
the bill in the House and in committee. That opportunity has
been granted. This government is not using bully boy tactics to
get the bill through the House.
I can appreciate the hon. member has disagreement with parts
of the bill. I recognize that in government sometimes tough
decisions have to be made. However I respect the Minister of
Finance for the decisions he has chosen to make in this case.
I believe it was the hon. member for Terrebonne who
suggested it was somehow improper for the Minister of Finance
to make the changes he did and he could have reduced the rate of
contribution to the unemployment insurance fund on January 1
this year instead of next year. Yes, he could have. However, for
financially and fiscally prudent reasons the minister chose not to
do that. He chose to do it next year and I respect his decision in
that regard.
Frankly, the reception the minister has received from the
Canadian press and the media and indeed from the business
community generally has been very positive for this budget.
This is notwithstanding the cries from the Reform Party that
deficit slashing did not go far enough and notwithstanding the
cries from Bloc Quebecois members along the same lines. They
have also complained about the lack of deficit reduction.
4487
I see my time is running out. I could go on at length on this
bill. I appreciate the opportunity to address my remarks and to
explain the government's tactics in respect of this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government introduces today its Bill C-17 resulting
from the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in this House
a few weeks ago.
The measures respecting unemployment insurance which are
contained in that bill have two purposes. First, the minister
wants to get the national treasury back on a sound financial
footing by taking the money out of the pockets of most
unemployed in Canada. Second, he is trying to give us the
illusion that this bill contains fair measures for those who have
lost their jobs.
The minister must have performed numerous legislative
contortions in order to meet the two targets he had set himself.
You will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-17, as most of the
initiatives that this government has introduced in this House
since the beginning of its mandate, lacks cohesion and
consistency, which is the least one can say.
The Liberals have always bragged about being the ones who
had introduced social programs in Canada and who have really
promoted them.
(1640)
How many times during the last campaign have we heard them
speak about the importance of preserving the integrity of these
programs? God knows that they rent their clothes in public,
when they were in the opposition! At that time, nothing seemed
more important than our social programs. Every single time that
the Conservatives dared propose any minor amendment to the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Liberals were quick to once
again defend the Canadian social safety net.
The current Prime Minister of Canada was seeing himself as
the Canadian Robin Hood, great protector of widows and
orphans, always ready to come to the rescue of the poorest of the
poor. At the time, he kept stressing the importance for Canada to
clearly distinguish itself from the United States and kept saying
that the best way to do so was to maintain the quality of the
social programs provided to Canadians. The unemployment
insurance seemed then to be on the list of programs sacred to our
friend Robin.
But the noble philosophy of our Liberal companions seems to
have changed dramatically since they came to office. It appears
that the new Minister of Finance had no difficulty in taking over
the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham which I must admit, seems
to be made for him.
As insensitive and ruthless as the famous character of the
legend, not only has he continued to grossly overtax Canadians,
he has also decided to attack without mercy the most vulnerable
among us: the elderly and the unemployed.
With bill C-17, the rate of UI benefits drops from 57 to 55 per
cent of insurable income.
The very first goal that the Minister of Finance had set for
himself when he tabled the budget has been achieved. We will
save money on the backs of the unemployed and the deficit will
be partly paid by those who are basically victims of the federal
government'a mismanagement of public funds.
It is certainly not by choice that some find themselves in the
difficult situation of the unemployed. The problem is rooted in
the federal employment policies of the last 30 years. The lack of
any long term vision in areas like job training is the only factor
responsible for the precariousness of employment.
The minister's second goal was to create the illusion that his
proposed measures were equitable and progressive. So, he
decided to provide relief to 15 per cent of those affected by his
bill. Thus, he is increasing the benefit rate of low-income
unemployed with dependents from 57 to 60 per cent. As if
Canadians were too stupid to realize that the government is
taking away millions of dollars from the unemployed only to
give hand-outs to a select few. The relief promised by the
minister is only an illusion and we did not buy it this time.
Canadians, and especially Quebecers, are no longer fooled.
Last year, the Prime Minister kept repeating that Canadians
were lucky because they could benefit from social programs. He
kept saying how envious Americans were of our social security
system. Perhaps he should be reminded that, in several
American States, unemployment insurance benefits are
approximately 50 per cent of average insurable earnings. By
cutting the rate from 57 to 55 per cent for most claimants, the
Liberals are doing precisely what they always said the
Conservatives were doing: bringing our standard of living more
and more in line with that of the Americans. There is really
nothing to brag about, Mr. Speaker.
(1645)
The situation here is becoming dangerously similar to that in
the United States and the Liberals have done nothing about it
since they came into office. Bill C-17 is but one example among
many of the lack of respect this government has for the people.
Our national Robin Hood has lost a lot of his prestige since being
put in charge of the Canadian Sherwood Forest.
4488
Indeed, up to now, the Liberals have reneged on so many of
their election promises and taken so many measures that
contradict their traditional philosophy that Canadians and
Quebecers came to see the government as a very little Little
John.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate,
it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Yukon-Trade; the hon.
member for London-Middlesex-Food labelling; the hon.
member for Vancouver Quadra-Pacific salmon treaty.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to speak to this bill and I would like to ask some questions
in this House. For example, what is an unemployed person?
In my riding of Matapédia-Matane, an unemployed person is
someone who does not want to be unemployed. It is someone
who wants to work. I find that the Liberal infrastructure program
is a joke, because it does not provide work in our area, or so
little.
In my riding, we decided to seek out our own solutions. We
made incredible efforts, but we still have many unemployed
persons who are receiving UI benefits. It is not because they
want to receive benefits. It is because they are forced to be
unemployed, and I will tell you why. We live far away from large
centres, like Quebec City, Montreal and of course Toronto. A lot
of things are going to Toronto.
In my riding, it is very hard to organize further processing,
which means that everything we produce materially, physically,
goes outside the region. So economic activity is of course very
seasonal. People would love to have second or third stage
processing. We have been asking for it forever, but we are told
that since transportation is so costly, we cannot have second or
third stage processing.
In our area, we have wood. Last year, we were declared
forestry capital of Canada. It was marvellous. But when it comes
to the second or third stage of processing-such as lobster traps
or snow fences-we cannot even do that in our region. You want
to know why? Because transportation costs are too high. It
means that we have to ship the whole lot to be processed outside.
But people want to work.
(1650)
Do you know what we have done in my area? We decided to
band together and set up what we called Operation Dignity. It
involved people who took matters into their own hands, who did
incredible things, investing all their energy and even their
money to achieve something. With the first Operation Dignity,
we managed to create a few jobs, but it was not enough. So, what
did we do? We formed grassroots movements, marched in the
streets, rattled the governments a little and finally got certain
things. It was not much, though. To create a few jobs we had to
expend a lot of energy.
And now what is the Liberal government proposing to do?
People in my riding have tried very hard, setting up
development corporations where owners would get together to
create jobs. They would share their woodlots, telling others to
come and work on their woodlots, which they did. It worked, but
now we are wondering if this will continue, if they will be
generous enough-you must invest in forestry-if they will give
us our fair share, a share we can claim as our own with great
dignity. We are not even sure if the Canada-Quebec program,
the federal-provincial agreements will be renewed.
For us, they mean employment, but we cannot even be sure
that the program will be renewed in the east. For people living in
Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, an increase of two
weeks-from 10 to 12 weeks-in the qualifying period may not
be too significant, but for those living in our region, two weeks
can be an incredibly long period of time. Winters in our part of
the country are long. When I left Matapédia and reached
Montmagny, the trees were just starting to bud. Here, the Tulip
Festival is under way, when back home, the tulips are not yet in
bloom. The natural resources committee was planning to cancel,
if it has not already done so, its scheduled visit to my riding,
supposedly because the logging roads were still snow-covered.
That is not quite true and I was rather angry that they would
consider cancelling their visit, ostensibly for this reason.
The season is quite short in our region. And when this is the
case, one or two weeks can make a big difference as far as
unemployment is concerned. It could mean ten additional weeks
of benefits. That is what is absurd. Everyone says that Canada is
a vast, beautiful country. However, I find it quite sad that
disparities exist. One another point we need to consider is that
each region is unique. Companies have come and created jobs.
In the forestry sector, the federal-provincial agreement is based
on a 50/50 arrangement.
(1655)
And now, it seems we are not sure if we are going to renew this
agreement, the Eastern Development Plan, for another five
years. What does that mean? It means that we are constantly
living in a state of uncertainty.
The situation is terrible at home. Elsewhere in Canada, it may
not be so bad, but I am talking about the area I know best, and I
can tell you that the situation back home is terrible. Can the
members opposite realize that going from 10 to 12 weeks, to use
only that example, can have more serious consequences in my
area that elsewhere in the country?
4489
Things are even worse in the Magdalen Islands. The
fishermen have a highly seasonal job and work only for six to
seven weeks. Sometimes, for ten weeks maximum. In their
case, however much we try, whatever we come up with, if we
cannot keep them working for a bit longer, what do we do?
If people cannot work for 12 weeks in the Magdalen Islands,
what are they going to do? They will have to rely on income
security. In other words, the federal government is transferring
the problem to the provinces and having them pay for it all. Is
that what equalization is all about? I really wonder, I hope not.
Back home, if we go from 57 per cent to 55 per cent, it is
almost a tragedy. If people took to the streets for Operation
Rural Dignity and for the Ralliement populaire, what are they
going to do now?
I do not advocate violence at any time. I want the people to
stay calm, but I know tension is high and I hope that members
opposite will understand that, in some areas in Canada and in
Quebec, something needs to be done, if not, I do not know what
will happen. When there is no food on the table, what is left for
you to do? What is next?
Patience, of course. You can always try to create your own
job, of course. But maybe there is something else that can be
done, something for the members opposite to do.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I also would like to
support the amendments by my colleague for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup dealing with the premium
increases. Of course, he wants to come back to the previous level
of premiums for the workers as well as for the businesses.
I also support the amendments by my colleague for Mercier,
who is afraid that the Minister of Human Resources
Development will use the Unemployment Insurance Bill to
increase his power over regions where pilot projects will be
implemented.
That is why she suggests that these amendments or clauses be
at least approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
There is also the amendment by my colleague for
Saint-Hyacinthe, who naturally proposes to delete clause 28.
For the benefit of our audience, clause 28 has to do with the
number of weeks one will now have to work to be eligible for
unemployment insurance benefits.
(1700)
I want to remind members that this bill reduces the benefit
period, increases the qualifying period and reduces the benefits
from 57 to 55 per cent of the claimant's average weekly
insurable earnings.
The role of a member of Parliament is to represent the opinion
of his or her constituents, among other things. Like my
colleague from Matapédia, I met with many people over the last
few months and I will use the testimony of those people who
came to my constituency office in the riding of Lévis to tell me
why they were opposed to these cuts in the unemployment
insurance program. They are very significant cuts, $1.3 billion a
year. That is $300 million more than the infrastructure project
that the government intends to implement in cooperation with
the municipalities and the provincial governments. By the way,
if there is a level of government for which this job creation
program will be less costly, it is the federal government since it
will be able to recoup part of its investment through income tax
and GST revenues.
But I do not want to stray away from the subject, which is
unemployment insurance. So, $1.3 billion in cuts is very
significant. What are my constituents telling me? First of all, I
will tell you about an important group, the workers of MIL
Davie. Some members opposite are smiling, but I can assure you
that there is no reason to smile. The members opposite should
listen instead of smiling. They do not bother to listen and they
keep laughing when we deal with the plight of hundreds of
workers at MIL Davie. The workforce there was 3,000 strong
last year, but the number of workers is down to only 1,200 now
and should drop to a mere 700 or 800 in the coming weeks. The
very survival of the MIL Davie shipyard is in jeopardy. Why?
Because, among other things, the Minister of Industry, as he
confirmed today, does not intend to implement new programs to
help military industries convert to civil production.
The government turns a deaf ear to MIL Davie concerning the
Magdalen Islands ferry. It turns a deaf ear concerning the smart
ship too, when it could help this industry which gave jobs to
3,000 workers last year. When the Liberal Party was writing and
publicizing its red book, there were 3,000 workers there when
the Prime Minister came to meet them one week before the end
of the election campaign. He told them he would look after the
shipyard. What did he do? Nothing. In that same campaign, the
present Prime Minister said during the leaders' debate that he
did not intend to cut social programs. What does he do now?
Through Bill C-17, he slashes $1.3 billion in the unemployment
insurance program. So much for the MIL Davie workers.
Construction workers also fell on hard times; they are still
going through hard times. They experience seasonal
unemployment. They came to my riding office, and to those of
all members in my area, including that of the Prime Minister, to
tell him that this situation is intolerable.
(1705)
The situation is problematic in the construction industry.
Some degree of security is required. Unemployment insurance
provided that security. Now it is being cut. At the time, jobs
were created through the job development program which was
funded in part by UI funds. Hundreds of organizations in Quebec
and Canada are waiting for an answer from the government in
4490
the form of job development programs. Months have gone by
and they are still waiting.
You know, not all the blame lays with this government. Just
before the election, the previous government had emptied the
tills of the job development program and incurred commitments
that carried over into the current fiscal year. What does this
government do? It announces a social program reform
sometimes used to cover up a certain lack of decisiveness, but
pilot projects are supposedly essential. As far as youth programs
are concerned, I am the youth spokesman and young people have
told me how precarious their situation is in Quebec, with 19 per
cent of workers between the ages of 20 and 24 out of a job. That
is 19 per cent. In Canada, 400,000 young people are unemployed
and, during that time, the government introduces bills to tell
them to study longer at the price of getting further into debt. UI
benefit rates are reduced while the qualifying period is
extended. At some point, young people who got jobs best
described as menial, sometimes a combination of part-time jobs
found here and there, find themselves incapable of meeting the
UI entrance requirement. What are they facing then? Welfare.
What are they offering? The Youth Service Corps. After
starting at $61 a week in the fall, 2,500 young Canadians will see
their weekly salary rise to $150. They then dare to cut
unemployment insurance.
When this government was in opposition, they fought with the
former Minister of Employment whom I can name, Mr.
Valcourt-
An hon. member: He was incompetent.
Mr. Dubé: Yes, he was incompetent but you are doing what he
did and worse. You are following in the previous government's
footsteps. You continue to reduce the number of weeks of
benefits while you increase, let rise or implement the planned
premium hikes.
Mr. Robichaud: You are shouting.
Mr. Dubé: Yes, I am shouting, sir, because the situation is
troubling and tragic. This is no time to laugh while there are
hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who are now
listening to us and who are suffering. That is what we hear from
the people in our ridings.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I understand that
this is a very important subject, which leads to a lively debate.
All the same, I would like to give the floor for the few minutes
that remain to the hon. member for Lévis.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I not only seem indignant, I am
indignant about the insensitivity now being shown to the poorest
people in our society. These are not people who go to cocktails
or to social activities to which members of Parliament are
invited and which I attend as little as possible but only when I
believe it is useful for making representations.
Meanwhile, these people's purchasing power is declining. It
is not a trivial thing. Purchasing power to do what? To pay rent,
buy food, get what their children need to go to school. Every day
in my riding, my region, the Quebec City region, the Lower
Town of Quebec, I see people who did not go and have a good
time on the weekend, hundreds of families that sometimes are
on their last week before they go on welfare. They are worried
about what they will eat. We should not laugh. We must act. I
think that when the government wanted to reform social
programs, it should have sent another message, one of hope, not
a message of lower spending on social programs, but a plan for
work-
(1710)
An hon. member: Jobs, jobs, jobs!
Mr. Dubé: But we are still waiting for your jobs!
Mr. Speaker, I will not let myself be provoked by that. I will
calm down and ask this government, while it is still time, to
make C-17 consistent with the positions it took when it was in
opposition and to be sensitive also to what thousands of workers
did on May 1 in various large cities in this country.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, as I have only just begun to prepare this speech, I will
rely on you to stop me if I run over my time.
While Bill C-17 contains parts which are acceptable to me, I
would have preferred that the government had introduced
separate bills for each act for which it is suggesting changes. In
particular, I would have preferred the changes to the
Unemployment Insurance Act to be a separate bill.
As we know the government's budget proposed changes to the
unemployment insurance program. We support the direction of
the changes, the reduction in benefits, the increases in the
qualifying period and the reduction in the employer premiums.
However we in the Reform Party feel that the government did
not go far enough.
The proposed changes or amendments could have gone much
further. This is a good time to state that the Reform Party
supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original
function, an employer-employee funded and administered
program to provide temporary income in the event of
unexpected job loss.
Is that not the purpose of such a program? Should it not be a
self-sustainable program? Is it supposed to serve a purpose?
Yes, it is supposed to serve a purpose; unexpected job loss,
unplanned job loss. Yet in Canada we have seasonal workers
who go on unemployment every year like clock work.
4491
If the Canadian economy were flush, if it were abundant in
a surplus of tax dollars unused and needing or waiting for a
recipient, okay, great. Then perhaps we could understand this
abuse of our tax dollars. We all know that the premiums paid
through the unemployment insurance plan do not even begin
to cover the cost of our current program.
However the program is not working as it was set out to work,
as a sincere and caring effort to help those in need who through
perhaps no fault of their own were suddenly without a job and
therefore income. Those people pay into the unemployment
insurance plan in good faith, hoping it is there for them if they
ever need it.
The unemployment insurance act was first passed in 1940 and
has been amended many times. When it began in 1941 UI was
limited to full time wage earners. Part time workers as well as
salaried employees with high pay and good job security were
excluded. The subsequent history of the plan has been its step by
step expansion to include high risk seasonal workers as well as
low risk workers, civil servants and teachers. About 90 per cent
of Canadian workers are now included although MPs and
senators have not chosen to include themselves, yet.
Particularly noteworthy were the reforms undertaken by the
Liberal government in 1971 when Bryce Mackasey was the
responsible minister. Mr. Mackasey made UI much more
generous and introduced regionally extended and maternity
benefits.
Subsequent studies and reforms have tried to undo the damage
but progress has been limited. The Conservative government
appointed the Forget commission in 1985 but did not have the
courage to act upon its excellent report. The changes made by
the Tories in 1990, higher contributions, stiffer conditions for
eligibility and directing some benefits to job training were in the
right direction but far from sufficient.
How should unemployment insurance be reformed?
(1715 )
Decades of politically inspired manipulation have produced
grave defects in the Canadian unemployment insurance program
and system. It is discriminatory. The combination of regional
entrance requirements and regionally extended benefits means
that claimants are treated more generously in regions of the
country where the unemployment rate is higher.
The result is unfair inequality between individuals. Simply by
living in a certain place, one person may be entitled to far
greater UI benefits than another even though both have
contributed equally to the plan.
It increases unemployment. After the Liberals reformed UI in
1971, the Canadian plan became the most generous in the world.
Overly generous benefits create what economists call induced
unemployment. In plain English, people are tempted to slow
down their job search to take maximum advantage of their
benefits.
It creates despondency and dependency, for one certainly
brings on the other. When one can work 10 weeks and collect UI
benefits for 40 weeks there is little incentive to switch to a more
stable employment. Extending UI to fishermen and other
seasonal workers has had the perverse effect of encouraging
workers to remain in declining industries. It has become an
inefficient income support plan rather than social insurance.
Politicians have loaded so many special features on to the UI,
regional preference, coverage of seasonal workers, benefits for
pregnancy, child birth and adoption and so on, that the original
purpose of providing temporary income in case of unforeseeable
and unintentional job loss has been lost.
These and other problems of UI have been pointed out in
several studies, most notably the one I have just mentioned, the
Forget commission appointed by the Conservatives in 1985
when they first came to power. The Conservatives lacked the
courage to do what all impartial students of UI agree needs to be
done; namely, reform the system so that it treats people equally,
bring benefits into line with those paid in other countries and
stop using UI to subsidize seasonal industries. Rather, stand up
to the entrenched special interests.
The Tories conveniently decided to forget Forget. The Reform
policy, in contrast, is to make UI a sensible, sustainable program
of social insurance. As with all social programs, reform will be
undertaken prudently with due regard to the expectations that
people have been led to develop. It would be desirable to phase
in reform of UI at a high point of the business cycle when
unemployment is relatively low.
To finish and sum up, the Reform Party will return
unemployment insurance to its original and basically sound
purpose of providing temporary income in case of unexpected
job loss.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, earlier, you said
this was a very important debate. I think you are absolutely
right.
Just now I listened to the parliamentary secretary who said
that since March 15, there had been very extensive debates
during which people had plenty of time to express their views.
He is right. There was a lot of debate and a lot of consultation in
committee. This went on for a long time. We heard testimony
from business and the unemployed. The committee even
travelled across Canada to hear people's views. The
government, however, failed to act on what it heard. And that is
what is so unfortunate.
4492
Today, we are told there was a lot of consultation, a lot of
debate. Of course there was, but this afternoon they were saying
there had been more than enough debate and that we had to vote
on this bill as soon as possible. That is not playing fair. It is
unfair and misleading to tell the public that there was a lot of
consultation. Oh, yes, there was, but no one was listening.
Recommendations were ignored, and that is the problem.
To Quebecers, these measures are quite a shock.
(1720)
We have an unemployment rate of 12.6 per cent, while the
Canadian average is 11 per cent. This means that there are 1.6
per cent more unemployed than in the rest of Canada.
It means we have more unemployment, and reducing the
number of benefit weeks means reducing the amount of money
the federal government invests in Quebec. This means it will be
up to Quebec to support people when their unemployment
insurance runs out, and Quebec will spend millions of dollars
more as a result of this measure.
And that is also why we are in no hurry to pass a bill which has
such a negative impact on Quebec. And another good reason is
that the government keeps bragging about creating jobs, saying
that if it creates jobs there will be less unemployment and that
would solve part of the problem.
Unfortunately, so far, since it came into office, this
government has not taken any action to indicate that it will
reduce unemployment. It started by raising unemployment
insurance premiums, since we are talking about unemployment
today, and these premiums will cost companies and individuals
about $800 million.
This means taking $800 million out of the pockets of
consumers. It means people will have $800 million less to
spend. If this is supposed to create jobs, the government is really
out to lunch. It says it will inject about the same amount into its
infrastructures program.
Infrastructures will be a three-year project, while
unemployment insurance will be around for much longer. Which
means that absolutely nothing has been accomplished. The
number of jobs created by the infrastructures program will have
zero impact as a result of the increase in unemployment
insurance premiums.
Neither infrastructures nor unemployment insurance reform
will in the end create more jobs. The government also intends to
raise personal income tax by $1.5 billion over the next three
years and will do the same in the case of corporate taxes.
Altogether this means $3 billion, at a rate of $1 billion annually.
One billion dollars in corporate and personal tax increases.
Here again, consumers will have $1 billion less to spend. And
of course, most of this money will be used to pay interest to
American, Japanese or European lenders. It will not be used to
create jobs. It will not be used in Canada. This money will leave
the country.
If the government expects to create jobs with the timid
measures it has put in place, it is in for a surprise. There will
definitely be no jobs created as a result of these measures.
If any jobs are created, they will be generated by small
businesses which innovate and thus create jobs. So basically, the
government has no long term vision.
The government is taking stopgap measures. Instead of
resurfacing the entire road, it is merely filling up the potholes. It
does the trick for a while, but it is lacking any real long- term
vision.
These are merely bandaid solutions. They stop the bleeding
momentarily, but do not attack the root of the problem. There
are, of course, other well-known and obvious solutions to these
fundamental problems, but the government continues to ignore
them. It has its reasons, reasons with which the Bloc Quebecois
disagrees.
The first reason is that the government is being told to be a
centralizing government. It keeps on trying to take over
manpower, health and education, whereas these fields come
under provincial jurisdiction. Duplication is an extremely costly
phenomenon. It is costly not only in dollar terms, but in terms of
inefficiency. There is considerable lack of cohesion between the
projects, programs and regulations of the provincial
government-particularly the Quebec government with which I
am most familiar-and those of the federal government. This
lack of cohesion hinders operations and prevents small and
medium-sized businesses from flourishing and expanding as
much as they could.
(1725)
Our businesses must have the opportunity to expand if jobs
are to be created. That is how we must go about creating jobs,
not by increasing UI premiums or by penalizing the jobless. One
does not create employment by penalizing the jobless or social
assistance recipients. One creates jobs by giving our small and
medium-sized businesses what they need to flourish. And this
government is doing exactly the opposite of that.
The folly of this Liberal government is its determination to be
a centralizing government. It wants to control everything from
Ottawa. That is crazy. Everyone knows that decentralization is
the key to economic growth. Major corporations such as General
Motors and Ford are experts at decentralization. They turn over
responsibility to their plants and have them compete directly
with one another. The federal government, on the other hand,
wants to control everything. That is ridiculous and that is why
Canada is heading toward bankruptcy.
4493
Day after day, we are digging ourselves deeper and deeper
into debt and everyone knows it. The business community and
international investors know it. Where are investors putting
their money today? They are investing it in the United States,
in Europe, in Japan or in Asia. They are no longer investing
on the same scale as they used to in Canada. Why is this?
Because the economic climate is not beneficial. The basic
employment problem is due to the fact that Canada does not
handle its affairs in a way that benefits our businesses, so they
leave the country. Finally, according to a Canadian Chamber
of Commerce survey, 20 per cent of Canadian businesses are
leaving or are about to leave Canada to move to the United
States. That is tragic.
The government itself creates unemployment by stubbornly
trying to manage everything from here. How can the federal
government adopt national laws and regulations when Quebec's
economic culture is totally different from that of Ontario, the
Maritimes or Western Canada? To withstand international
competition and freer trade, our businesses must become
sophisticated competitors. To help them achieve this goal, we
must stop hindering them as is now the case. Do not look any
further, that is what is happening.
The government should invest a little more in technology and
make more equitable choices. It gave Ontario $1.2 million more
than Quebec for science and technology; that is what creates the
most unemployment in Quebec. I made another very important
discovery this week. According to a study, Ontario has 100,000
more federal public service jobs than Quebec. Again, this
represents a very significant amount. Quebec has more
unemployment than Ontario because it is very poorly served by
the federal government. That is why we want Quebec to become
sovereign.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I just want to remind the
hon. member for Calgary North before I give her the floor that at
5.30 I must move to Private Members' Business.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure members of the House will be very sad that I only have
three or four minutes. It is very interesting to me that members
of the Bloc keep urging the goose to lay more golden eggs while
at the same time they want to kill the goose.
I thought I might throw into the debate a few observations. I
am indebted to Mrs. Karen Selick for some of this material.
These days in Canada our unemployment rate is over 11 per
cent. Most probably know that, but what most of us probably do
not know is that the unemployment rate in Hong Kong is about
1.5 per cent. That is the rate at which economists consider to be
full employment. Those 1.5 per cent are primarily people in the
process of changing jobs. About 1.5 per cent of our over 11 per
cent are unemployed for the same reason, but what about the
other 10 per cent?
With 1997 fast approaching and many Hong Kong residents
scrambling to find a way out before China takes over, one would
expect that Hong Kong would be going through a major
economic recession complete with a high unemployment rate.
Strangely it is not. Why? It is in part because it has no
unemployment insurance.
There is a hypothesis that the existence of unemployment
insurance increases unemployment. This hypothesis has been
proven correct by economists. Economic theory can predict and
explain this result and empirical studies have validated the
theory.
I thought members of this House should have these
scintillating facts before them as they consider this issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I must confess the
member's timing was pretty good.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4493
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and
protection of witnesses, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today
for two reasons. One reason is to thank the hon. member for
Scarborough West for bringing the important issue of witness
protection before the House today.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General
rightly pointed out in the first hour of debate, the member
deserves the thanks of all hon. members for his many months of
hard work on this bill, for his determination and commitment to
this issue and many other significant justice related issues. He is
to be commended. His commitment and dedication reflect credit
on the entire House.
My second reason for rising to speak to one aspect of Bill
C-206 is the question of the scope of a protection program.
More specifically, I would like to examine in some depth the
categories of persons who might be deemed eligible for
protection under a witness protection program.
We are all familiar with the concept of protecting crown
witnesses who provide testimony against criminals. This group
is the focus of the bill we are being asked to consider today. I am
sure members recognize that court proceedings are the
culmination of many months or even years of diligent work by
enforcement authorities and prosecutors.
4494
Witnesses are crucial to this process, but there is also another
group of persons whose activities are equally important and
who often operate at great personal risk. These people inhabit
that shadowy nether world between the courtroom and the
criminal underworld. I am speaking here of informants, or
sources as they are typically referred to by police, and of
agents.
The activities of both of these categories of persons are often
crucial to the process of building a case that can be taken to
court. Sources are persons who pass information to the police on
the activities of criminals. They are usually paid for their
actions and not infrequently are criminals themselves.
As with witnesses, sources run the risk of violent retribution
if their co-operation with authorities is exposed. Betrayal is not
treated lightly in the violent criminal subcultures and
retribution can often mean death.
Agents are not only paid sources of information. They often
take on another role. As the word agent suggests, persons of this
category acting at the direction of the police can undertake
specific actions to help further investigations.
(1735)
For example, during drug investigations an agent can be used
to introduce an undercover police officer to the criminal suspect
or suspects. Performing the agent role can involve additional
risk as one is not only providing information but also actively
working against individual criminals or organized crime
networks. Such work by its very nature entails greater risk of
exposure.
Most sources and agents are motivated by the prospect of
money and there may be little or no altruistic dimension to their
behaviour. Despite their suspect motives the employment of
such persons is necessary. The use of sources and agents is
fundamental to our dealing effectively with organized crime and
protecting such persons is often the only way to guarantee their
co-operation.
The promise of protection also allows us to neutralize the
weapons of fear and violence that criminals use to cow potential
sources into submission.
Protection programs offer safe havens for criminals fearing
for their safety. Their only option may be turning themselves
over to the authorities. We must address these types of issues in
a comprehensive manner if we are to construct strong and
lasting legislation.
For this reason and because the activities of sources and
agents are so fundamental to police investigations we must
consider fully the categories of persons to be included in any
protection program.
In this context, I would like very quickly to outline for the
House my understanding of the situation in the United States, as
I feel it is instructive to our examination of this bill.
The U.S. marshal service witness security program began
operation in 1971. The program only deals with organized
criminal activity or other serious offences. As its title suggests,
the program is limited to providing protection for those persons
testifying in major federal criminal proceedings. Police sources
who do not provide testimony in court are not eligible for the
program.
We have to bear in mind that the intent of the U.S. marshal's
program is to elicit testimony that will convict major criminals.
With a caseload of 500 witnesses per year the program is fully
occupied with these witnesses alone. Police sources who do not
testify remain the responsibility of the police. This restriction
could create difficulties for Canadian enforcement.
Before acting we must deliberately and carefully explore
what categories of people should be covered by any future
Canadian witness protection program. If we move in haste we
run the risk of limiting ourselves as the Americans have done
with their federal program.
Certainly we may wish to be restrictive about the types of
cases in which protection can be granted. To restrict a protection
program to witnesses alone would in my opinion be
self-defeating without a great deal more in depth consideration
of the underlying issues.
Other related issues that might be dealt with in the legislation
are questions of how parolees or probationers can receive
protection while serving their sentences.
Practical issues aside, I also believe that the state has a moral
responsibility to protect people who assist the authorities in
criminal investigations. I believe this holds true even
recognizing that the unsavoury character of many persons in the
protection program makes them in the public eye unworthy
recipients of taxpayers' dollars.
I would re-emphasize, however, that unsavoury or not,
protection arrangements are crucial to effective enforcement
action against criminals and organized crime. The proposed act
to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses has
raised an important issue. We now have the opportunity of using
the bill as a starting point to take comprehensive action on the
issue of providing protective services for people who assist the
authorities during criminal investigations and prosecutions.
(1740)
In my view this may mean going beyond the boundaries of the
protection program proposed in the current bill by examining
how protective services could be provided to the full range of
categories of witnesses, sources and agents. Anything less
would be a disservice to the intent and spirit of the bill and to the
hon. member who sponsored it.
4495
I congratulate the member for Scarborough West. He and I
share the same views on most other matters as well. It was a
pleasure for me to take part in the debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak in the debate on Bill C-206, an Act
to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.
The hon. member for Scarborough West, the sponsor of this
bill, deserves to be commended by all of us in this House for
raising an issue that concerns law enforcement agencies not only
in Canada but throughout the world.
For ten years, the need to protect witnesses has steadily
grown, in direction proportion to increasing violence by
criminals who act on their own or belong to organized crime. We
need only remember the television news last night and this
morning where threats were made; I am thinking of threats made
in Italy against some judges and others by a criminal when he
appeared in court. For this reason alone, then, the hon.
member's bill is pertinent and certainly timely.
In the proceedings on Bill C-206, the Source-Witness
Protection Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was
often mentioned. For obvious reasons, the RCMP is reluctant to
disclose anything at all on this subject. Nevertheless, since it is
the main program of this kind in Canada, we must have an idea
of its extent and effectiveness to properly understand all the
issues raised by this private member's bill.
This is why I am pleased to have this opportunity to present to
the House a general outline of the RCMP's Source-Witness
Protection Program.
First, let me put the program in its context. Source-Witness
protection programs were always closely related to organized
crime investigations. The expression ``organized crime''
includes various criminal activities, including the smuggling of
large quantities of drugs, murders, aggravated assaults, money
laundering, as well as extortion and robbery. As you know, it
was strongly contended that organized crime was responsible
for the smuggling activities in my riding, in your riding, and
elsewhere.
More often than not, the perpetrators of these crimes also use
fear and intimidation to make sure that witnesses and possible
informants remain silent. However, the protection of witnesses
now has a much greater scope. It is disturbing to see that, over
the last few years, individual criminals have started to rely on
fear and intimidation too. Let me go back to the comments I
made earlier. These people are prepared to do anything to avoid
being found guilty or to take revenge on witnesses.
Consequently, an increasing number of citizens need
protection because of their role in cases which have nothing to
do with organized crime. It is because of this increasing need to
protect witnesses and informants, and also because of the
priority given to the fight against major national and
international drug smuggling rings that the RCMP's
Source-Witness Protection Program was created in 1984.
The creation of this program was also based on several other
factors.
(1745)
There is the increasing need to use informers instead of
RCMP undercover agents to penetrate complex criminal
organizations. There is also the increase in violent crimes in
Canada. There are, furthermore, obvious signs of extremist and
terrorist activity in Canada. And finally, even more importantly,
there is the jurisprudence on disclosure of information since the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted.
All these factors have led to increased use of the RCMP's
witness protection program.
Originally unique to the RCMP, the program is now used to
provide protection for witnesses and informers through
provincial and municipal police services across Canada.
Many of these services depend solely on the RCMP for this
protection, but some of the bigger services have created their
own units. They do not call on the RCMP for assistance except in
cases where this is necessary in order to facilitate an identity
change.
[English]
Most people entering the RCMP sources witness protection
program in the mid-1980s were associated with major drug
trafficking activities, but as I mentioned before, this has
changed.
Today a growing proportion of the people entering the
program have been involved in Criminal Code offences such as
murder and serious assault. Obviously not every witness
qualifies for witness protection despite the thousands of serious
assaults that take place each year in Canada but the RCMP and
other police forces must exercise care and good judgment when
deciding who is eligible for witness protection and who is not.
These common sense safeguards ensure that the number of
witnesses and informants do not outstrip the human and
financial resources allocated to support the various witness
protection programs.
In the last 10 years, the witness protection programs of the
RCMP and other police departments have become highly
effective enforcement tools against criminals who previously
were able to use threats and violence against the witnesses to
their crimes to avoid prosecution and conviction. The success of
the witness protection program of the RCMP and other police
departments speaks for itself.
4496
Of the large number of witnesses and informants and their
families who have been relocated over a 10-year period, none
have come to any harm. That is a very important issue for us
to consider, the effectiveness of what has been done thus far.
The RCMP carry out an average of 50 witness relocations per
year. Of this number, approximately 10 cases are in support of
other police departments. The direct cost of maintaining the
RCMP's witness protection program averages $1.1 million per
year.
When those expenses are added to the human resources cost to
support the program, its total annual cost exceeds $3 million.
Based on current trends, the costs of the program will probably
increase as more people are given protection. However the costs
are relatively cheap when measured against the impact that
witnesses and informants have on individual criminals and
organized crime.
There is no more devastating evidence than the firsthand
testimony of a trusted accomplice exposing the inner workings
of a criminal organization or that of a witness who has seen a
serious crime take place and can identify the perpetrators.
Whether a witness or informant, these individuals are
invaluable assets to the police and to the judicial system, not to
mention society as a whole. In many cases the testimony cannot
be replaced by any other investigative means no matter how
expensive. This is especially true of drug enforcement.
Here the availability of the RCMP witness protection program
has prompted informants and witnesses to come forward and
assist the police and testify in court against major national and
international drug traffickers despite the proven ability of these
organizations to exact violent retribution. These witnesses have
provided crucial first hand information to further investigations
which otherwise would have been obtained at considerable cost
to police resources, human and otherwise.
(1750)
Major police investigations often require the police to use
investigative techniques such as long term telephone intercept,
extensive surveillance and the attempted infiltration of target
groups using undercover police officers. These techniques are
usually more expensive than the cost of providing protection for
a witness or an informant.
Since starting the witness protection program, the RCMP has
built up an infrastructure of experienced members and contacts.
RCMP officers are available in every province and territory to
support witness relocations and protection, to obtain secure
identity changes and to provide the necessary provincial
documents to authenticate these changes.
At headquarters in Ottawa, RCMP members have developed a
national RCMP witness protection policy and procedures and
contacts to facilitate the changes that must be made within
numerous federal government databanks where a witness or
informant receives a new identity.
A witness protection program is an enforcement tool that
must be administered to some extent under the veil of secrecy. If
information about police methods and procedures were to leak
out, criminals could use this knowledge to locate and harm their
accusers, not to mention the chill it would have on future
witnesses. For this reason, witness protection is one of the most
sensitive law enforcement techniques used by the police.
The RCMP is well aware of the sensitivity and the need for all
to take suitable precautions. This holds true whether the witness
or informant requires a complete protection package or just
short term emergency protection during court proceedings.
The RCMP also provides the same level of quality service to
any other police department that requests advice or direct
assistance in that regard.
Witness protection is not a cure for violent crime or for
organized crime, but it is an important weapon in the law
enforcement's arsenal to investigate and to convict those who
participate in organized and other serious crime in Canada. In
short, witness protection is here to stay.
The RCMP source witness program and other witness
protection programs initiated to date in Canada are constantly
undergoing review, change and improvement to ensure that they
complement the justice system and provide effective, secure
support for the protection of witnesses.
I see Bill C-206, the proposed act to provide for the relocation
and protection of witnesses, as part of that process for change
and for improvement.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-206, the
witness protection act. Members of the Reform Party are calling
for numerous improvements and major changes to Canada's
criminal justice system. Reformers, some members opposite
and indeed most Canadians want to see the federal government
take action on many fronts.
The Young Offenders Act and the parole system both need to
be fixed. Stricter sentencing guidelines for convicted people
must be implemented. The protection of law-abiding Canadian
citizens must be an integral part of a major overhaul of the
criminal justice system. Penal reform and consideration of
capital punishment are other areas that should be pursued.
4497
Bill C-206, the private member's bill pertaining to the
relocation and protection of witnesses, is a step in the right
direction. This private member's bill is an important one and
it is a long time coming. For far too long, witness protection
programs, where they exist, have been administered in a
helter-skelter type manner. Canada does not have a national
witness protection program which is rather ironic given our
federal system where the Criminal Code is the responsibility
of the federal government.
I commend the member for Scarborough West for the work
that he has done in an attempt to fix just one aspect to facilitate
an improvement on how justice is done in our country.
(1755 )
Complaints have been forthcoming for some time regarding
the lack of adequate protection of witnesses in the current
unorganized, hodge-podge way in which witnesses are dealt
with in Canada. It is no wonder Canadians are losing faith in the
criminal justice system when the state cannot uniformly protect
its witnesses, the people it relies on to gain convictions against
organized crime.
Introducing a national witness protection program is only a
beginning step in the right direction when it comes to reforming
Canada's justice system. Perhaps there can be no full and
complete reform of the criminal justice system without
addressing the entire legal industry. There is some speculation
suggesting that our criminal justice system is in such a bad state
of affairs because of the proliferation of lawyers which just may
have something to do with the clogged court system, both
criminal and civil.
Observations are beginning to be made in the United States
that the true cost of the ballooning lawyer industry in American
society amounts to billions upon billions of dollars per year. In
the United States the number of students graduating from law
school is 10 times higher than those who graduate from
engineering.
In Japan and other countries whose industrial output is higher
per capita than in the U.S. the opposite is the case and that is 10
engineering students graduate for every student who graduates
from law school. I suspect both sets of figures may apply to
Canada as well.
It is interesting and instructive to note there are 100,000
lawyers in Washington D.C. alone. The American capital has
one of the highest crime rates in the United States. It seems that
the proliferation of lawyers and the proliferation of laws go hand
in hand. Part of the solution is to recognize that there might be a
problem.
People want and demand fair but quick trials and sentencing
in criminal cases, but the courts are backed up as a result of the
growth of a system which is, as we all know, extremely top
heavy. Justice, due process must not only appear to be served but
seen to be served and as efficiently as possible.
The Young Offenders Act is a major contentious issue with
Canadians. It represents yet another inadequacy in Canada's
criminal justice system. The Reform Party believes, as do most
Canadians, that the punishment of crime and the protection of
law-abiding citizens and their property must be placed ahead of
other objectives.
The present Young Offenders Act flies in the face of that
major objective. It is the young offender who is protected, not
law-abiding citizens. Youths between the ages of 12 and 17 are
abusing the system. For committing murder they face a
maximum sentence of five years. For armed robbery and violent
sexual assault they can only be sentenced to a maximum of three
years. For lesser offences, such as vandalism and theft, young
offenders can get away with only a slap on the wrist, often in the
form of community service work. Numerous instances exist
where even this minimal sentence is spurned.
Where is the government's action on the Young Offenders
Act? All we get are vague postulations, even as recent as this
afternoon in question period, postulations but no action.
Another blatant breakdown in our criminal justice system is
the issue of parole. Parole is now virtually automatic after
one-third of the sentence is served. Parole must be
discretionary, given for good conduct and should not amount to
more than one-quarter of the sentence. Patronage appointments
to the parole board must cease.
In 1987 parole reform was suggested by the federally
appointed Canadian Sentencing Commission. So far we have got
nothing. Perhaps the whole bureaucratic parole system should
be abolished. Where is the government's action on the parole
system?
Another flaw of the criminal justice system lies within the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 7 to 14 of
the charter cover the legal rights of the accused. Judicial
interpretation of these sections has made the work of police and
prosecutors more difficult in areas such as detention, search and
seizure, interrogation and the speed of cases going to trial.
(1800 )
In fact it can be argued that the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms actually hinders the Canadian justice system as it
protects the criminal. The rights of the victim are not taken into
account. Victims must be compensated by the offender to the
greatest extent possible. Yet it is the offender who is
compensated to the greatest extent by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
People, indeed members, cabinet ministers and some
provincial governments are calling for the abolition of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Great Britain from whence we inherited much of our system
of government and criminal law does not have a written charter
of rights and freedoms. I doubt that anyone would argue that the
fundamental rights of the people in the United Kingdom are in
grave danger.
4498
Obviously the Canadian justice system is in rough shape.
Law-abiding Canadians are demanding that the Young
Offenders Act and the parole system be overhauled. They are
demanding that the criminal justice system work for them and
not for the perpetrators of crime.
It is a sad state of affairs when Canadians must wait to have
their criminal justice system fixed one private member's bill at a
time, but it is a start. Again I commend the member for
Scarborough West for taking the initiative to do what is
necessary and I support the member's efforts on Bill C-206. I
support it as I hope do all members of this House.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, as
you have already heard from other hon. members, the main
intent of witness protection is to offer protection to those who
assist the authorities in criminal prosecutions and in particular
those prosecutions aimed at organized crime. Given this
emphasis on organized crime I think it would be useful to give
the House a brief overview of exactly what that term means in
the context of the bill.
If we can understand the threat that organized crime poses for
our society then we can understand why the bill is so important
and why it must be given careful consideration. What is needed
is a statutorily based guarantee of protection for people who
come forward and are prepared to give evidence against
organized criminals.
Police of all jurisdictions deal with organized crime,
including the RCMP, provincial and municipal services. Other
enforcement authorities also have important roles to play. For
example, federal immigration and citizenship authorities work
with the police to deal with the smuggling of illegal aliens and
illicit trafficking in forged or stolen personal identification
documents. In a similar fashion customs and excise authorities
work closely with the police in dealing with the movement of
drugs, weapons, contraband liquor and tobacco, protected
technologies, or other illegally imported or exported goods.
On the judicial side federal and provincial crown attorneys
are of course responsible for pursuing prosecutions and
obtaining convictions through the court system.
All of those authorities are united in their desire to develop
and use the most effective laws and programs possible to combat
organized crime. This desire is understandable given the serious
threat organized crime poses to Canadian society.
The raison d'être of organized crime is simple: to make as
much money as possible and to minimize the risk of getting
caught by forming organized groups and networks. In its pursuit
of illegal profits organized crime will engage in activities as
varied and complex as those engaged in by legitimate
multinational corporations.
Consider money laundering for example. The laundering of
criminal proceeds through financial institutions and otherwise
legitimate businesses by organized criminals subverts the
operation of the legitimate economy by introducing unfair and
unlawful practices, including tax evasion. Organized crime
plays a key role in the maintenance and expansion of the
underground economy by fueling the trade in stolen and
smuggled goods.
The results are enormous tax losses for government and
poorer services to the public. Every honest Canadian pays for
the illicit profiteering of organized criminals and not just in
terms of dollars and cents.
Many organized crime activities, such as drug trafficking and
gaming, can have serious negative effects on our youth and
families.
(1805 )
Violence associated with organized crime contributes to
public fears and perceptions about personal victimization. In
certain instances organized criminals use violence and
intimidation in an attempt to dominate community members. In
so doing they contribute to the isolation of some groups in our
society. As profits from organized crime grow, so does the
potential for the corruption of public officials and democratic
institutions.
Organized crime groups challenge the legitimacy of
government and encourage disrespect for lawful authority and
public institutions. In its international variations, organized
crime threatens Canadian sovereignty and our ability to control
our borders.
Let me set out a brief typology of organized criminal
behaviour to further illustrate the depth and seriousness of the
organized crime problem.
Organized crime can occur locally. Juvenile prostitution rings
operating in urban centres are one particularly sad and cruel
example of local organized crime at work. In many cases local
criminal operations are loosely or formally linked to other
operations across the country.
Interprovincial organized crime is a particular problem
because when criminals operate across jurisdictions it is more
difficult for authorities to track and to combat their activities.
Then we have transnational crime where Canadians are
involved in the movement of commodities into or out of the
country. The initiative launched recently by the government to
bring the smuggling problem under control shows how serious
this variant of organized crime can be. Similarly transnational
economic crime and money laundering by Canadians or by
foreigners using Canadian or international institutions represent
serious threats to the integrity of our financial and economic
systems.
4499
Finally, there is the very difficult and growing problem of
international organized crime. Here foreign crime networks
work with or co-opt Canadian criminals. International
trafficking in cocaine and heroin is the best example with
extremely well financed, well organized and ruthless cartels
manipulating the international drug trade.
Underlying all of these criminal enterprises are two common
denominators: violence and intimidation. Violence and
intimidation are used to enforce discipline in criminal
organizations, to compete for shares of illicit markets and to
prevent people victimized by crime from co-operating with the
police. This is a crucial point in the context of the bill because
violence creates a climate of fear and fear can be a powerful
disincentive to co-operation with the police and prosecutors.
To break the conspiratorial silence of organized crime we
have to be able to offer protection to people who are willing to
assist the authorities in their criminal investigations. There is a
clear need for a system that encourages people to come forward
to give information or evidence against organized criminals, a
need recognized by the bill.
In summary, I would like to make some general observations
on what I believe a protection program must do in the context of
the organized crime problem.
First, we must ensure that a program would accommodate the
needs of all the police and enforcement authorities with
responsibilities for dealing with organized crime.
Second, every kind of organized crime is serious. In setting
the parameters for a program we would need to ensure that the
fullest range possible of offences carried out by organized
criminals are addressed.
Finally, I note that the problem of international and
transnational organized crime is a growing concern in the
context of economic and political globalization. Therefore a
protection program would need to take into account the
necessity of co-operation between Canadian agencies and their
counterparts in other nations.
I believe that this proposed act to provide for the relocation
and protection of witnesses is important in signalling to the
Canadian public the need for a statutorily based protection
program for people who assist the authorities in criminal
investigations and prosecutions. However before that is possible
it must be studied further in light of the criteria I have just
described.
(1810 )
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I also
rise today to speak to Bill C-206, an act to provide for the
relocation and protection of witnesses.
Listening to previous debates on the bill, it is clear that we all
agree on the importance of providing Canadians with an
effective and efficient witness protection program. We also
appear to agree that the best means of achieving this, of
ensuring a first rate witness protection program is through
legislation. The obvious benefits of legislation pertain to
accountability, transparency and universality.
In terms of accountability, there is no question that a minister
should be held accountable to Parliament for the administration
of this important service. While acknowledging that witness
protection is inherently a confidential program, its basic
principles and features should be matters of public knowledge.
There would be less misunderstanding about the purpose and
scope of a witness protection program if its fundamental
principles, criteria and procedures were expressly defined in
law. When we speak of the need for universality, it is that
witness protection should be available to all Canadians given
the criteria for eligibility are satisfied.
There are of course other desirable features of legislation
many of which have been raised in this debate. My point is to say
we are all convinced that Canada's witness protection
requirements would best be addressed through legislation.
Having agreed that a legislated witness protection program is
desirable, we must then ask what we want addressed in
legislation besides the program's basic tenets and parameters.
As we have already learned, witness protection is a complex
function of law enforcement, criminal prosecutions and public
safety. It involves the interest and participation of numerous
individuals and government departments. It generates
considerable administrative activity. To what extent, I ask,
should we address in legislation administrative requirements
that comprise a witness protection program?
One thing is certain and that is that an ineffective witness
protection program could lead to drastic results for all
concerned. We must ensure we do not create a program without
providing the tools for its effective implementation.
Of course, to address the specific issues that should be dealt
with by legislation requires a thorough understanding of the
intricacies of this service. This leaves us in a bit of a quandary as
there are few experts in this field. Certainly we in this House,
although we have been considerably enlightened over the course
of this debate, really are not witness protection experts.
It is not my intention in speaking to trivialize in any way the
efforts of my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West,
or to minimize the knowledge he has obviously gained in this
area; indeed he ought to be complimented for his efforts in this
area. Knowing the scarcity of information on witness protection
and the difficulty in accessing whatever information there is, the
hon. member is to be commended for his tabling of Bill C-206. I
speak today only to suggest that as with any law, the proposed
legislation should take into consideration the representations of
experts in the field.
4500
A recent example of a similar undertaking can be found in
Australia. A parliamentary review of witness protection took
place in Australia in the late 1980s. The joint committee on the
national crime authority produced its final report in 1988
following extensive testimony and submissions to the
committee by police, lawyers, academics and even protected
witnesses themselves.
We are fortunate to be able to benefit from the Australian
experience, particularly in light of the scarcity of information
on witness protection. I would like to share with the House some
of the committee's observations and recommendations as well
as review aspects of the Australian witness protection bill which
was tabled in its Parliament in March 1994.
For members' information, the bill proposes the
establishment of a national witness protection program to be
operated by the Australian federal police.
(1815 )
To begin with, the committee clearly recognized that witness
protection is crucial to the investigation and prosecution of
organized crime and that in fact the vast majority of individuals
who receive protection are informants, more specifically police
agents.
I quote from the report:
The reality is that the majority of witnesses likely to be in need of protection
will look at some involvement in the criminal activities in respect of which they
are giving evidence.
The importance of this fact cannot be overemphasized. The
implications of protecting and relocating individuals who have
criminal experience or criminal associations are significant. I
would suggest that this fact be specifically addressed in any
proposed witness protection legislation in the interests of public
safety and the general success of a witness protection program.
The Australian witness protection bill clearly considers this
important issue. For example, clause 7 of the Australian bill lists
matters that the witness must disclose before being included in
the program. Most of these matters pertain to possible civil
obligations, including debts, bankruptcy and other financial
liabilities, as well as a detail of the applicant's criminal history.
This provision addresses the practical but very important,
complex and costly problem associated with protecting
witnesses who have outstanding liabilities in the old name. In
effect it provides the commissioner of the Australian federal
police permission to terminate an agreement with a witness if
these kinds of liabilities were not disclosed prior to admission of
the program.
I would suggest that this is the kind of practical matter that
needs to be considered when legislating witness protection so
that the program eventually created is workable.
Similarly, the committee recognized the importance of an
efficient name change and documentation process and made
several recommendations in this regard. Clause 22 of the
Australian bill reflects the intention of one of these
recommendations by creating an offence of unlawfully
disclosing information about the witness' identity or
information that would compromise his or her security. This is
another example of an important aspect to witness protection
that should be addressed in law.
The provisions of documents in the witness' new name in a
timely and secure manner is vital to the success of relocation. In
fact, this is the key to the success of any witness protection
program. If an efficient name change and documentation
process can be achieved by providing legal authority for the
administration of this function and also sanctions for disclosure
then we should be addressing this issue thoroughly in
legislation.
I referred to just a few of the Australian bill's provisions.
Overall the bill addresses numerous practical administrative
considerations with informed detail. I have referred the House
to the bill and the commentary in the Australian parliamentary
joint committee's report to underscore the need to address this
issue in a comprehensive manner. These are the types of factors
that must be examined before this government can in good
conscience proceed further with legislation for a witness
protection program.
In closing, I would suggest that we learn from the experience
of our Commonwealth partner and adopt a similar thorough
approach to the important issue of witness protection in this
country.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on Bill C-206, legislation for the protection of witnesses and the relocation system. I commend the hon. member for Scarborough West for bringing the
Many court cases are lost because of fear from witnesses.
Family safety is paramount to allow witnesses to give evidence
without fear of reprisal from criminal elements. My three years
of work in the Ontario parole system taught me and made me
very aware of the problems that exist within our penal system.
Inmates live in constant fear within the system, afraid of being
identified as rats because rats have a very short lifespan in the
prison system.
(1820)
Gangs from every segment of our population exist in prison.
They control the institution from the prisoner's point of view. If
a witness who is himself or herself a criminal wants to change
their lifestyle this program offered by Bill C-206 is a ticket for
them to give valuable evidence and be assured of some life after
the court appearances.
4501
Innocent family members are also offered an escape from the
criminal life they may be trapped in and have no way out of.
The reform of our criminal justice system may come from bills
like this one from members and particularly from the member
for Scarborough West.
I have experience in an organization called Crime Stoppers
which I helped form and was the first chairman of in the town of
Lindsay. I learned that anonymity was the key to success. Pay
for evidence for convictions. Judges grant search warrants based
on tips from Crime Stoppers because they know it comes from
very close sources to the crime.
We even had instances of people calling from the Lindsay jail
for bail money through the Crime Stoppers program. People are
motivated by not having to worry about going to jail if they give
evidence or having to exist in a criminal element in our prisons
by giving evidence. This proves the point that being assured of
no punishment allows people to come forward and give evidence
against criminals who have no regard for life or limb of any
witnesses and will do almost anything to eliminate a witness
from a court trial that may put them behind bars.
Bill C-206 is an important step toward the fight against
organized crime. Youth gangs, organized mature adult criminals
and other elements in our criminal society are not prosecuted for
fear of reprisal from witnesses. If this program does anything to
address that problem it will certainly make me feel better that
we have done something in Parliament to forward our criminal
justice system in a method that allows it to work as it properly
should without fear of reprisals and to be able to have a life after.
Canadians will benefit from the bill. All members should
support it and help promote witness protection as a right of
every individual in Canada. It will take away that fear, take away
that element that criminals thrive on, that wonderful thing that
they have of intimidation. Take that away in some form and we
help to make our society a better place in which to live.
I support the bill in its entirety. I hope that it goes forward and
that every member of this House will support it and support
other bills that come forward, no matter whether they come from
our friends on the opposite side of the House or from members
on this side of the House. If they make sense and if they help us
to promote our society to be a safer, better place to live, we
should look at all members supporting them and bringing
forward ideas and bringing forward amendments if we need to.
The bill should go forward and it should help Canada be a
better place to live.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Bill C-206, an act to provide for the relocation
and protection of witnesses.
The hon. member for Scarborough West, the sponsor of the
bill, deserves credit for bringing before the House an issue that
occupies the attention not just of Canadian law enforcement
agencies but of law enforcement agencies around the world.
In the past 10 years the need for witness protection has grown
dramatically in direct proportion to the increased violence
displayed by individual criminals and organized crime. For this
reason alone the hon. member's bill is timely and well deserved.
(1825)
In previous debate on Bill C-206 mention was made several
times of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police source witness
protection program. For obvious and very good reasons the
RCMP is cautious about revealing information concerning the
program. As this is the main witness protection program in
Canada we need to know something of its scope and
effectiveness if we are to better understand all the issues raised
by this private members' bill.
To this end I am happy to have the opportunity today to
provide the House with a general overview of the RCMP source
witness protection program.
First let me set out the context. Historically witness
protection programs are most closely associated with the
investigation of organized crime. The term organized crime
covers a broad range of criminal activity including large scale
drug trafficking, murder, serious assault, money laundering and
extortion and robbery. As often as not these crimes go hand in
hand with the use of fear and intimidation to ensure the silence
of potential witnesses and informants.
However witness protection today has a broader application.
A disturbing trend in recent years has been the use of fear and
intimidation by lone criminals. These people are willing to go to
any lengths to avoid convictions or to extract retribution from
witnesses. As a result there are a growing number of people who
need protection as a result of their roles in cases that have
nothing to do with organized crime.
To deal with this growing need for witness and informant
protection and in response to the increased enforcement priority
placed on fighting major national and international drug
trafficking organizations, the RCMP source witness protection
program was started in 1984.
There were also several other factors underlined in the launch
of the program. These included an increasing need to use
confidential information rather than undercover RCMP officers
to infiltrate sophisticated criminal organizations; the growing
incidence of violent crime in Canada; clear evidence of
extremist and terrorist activities in Canada and, most important
of all, disclosure jurisprudence flowing from the charter of
rights. All of these factors contributed to the growth of the
RCMP's witness protection program.
4502
Although originally intended for the use of the RCMP alone
the program now provides protective services to provincial and
municipal police forces right across Canada.
While many of these police forces rely entirely on the RCMP
for witness protection program services some of the larger
police departments have formed their own witness protection
units. These larger police services only come to the RCMP for
assistance in cases where federal help is needed to facilitate a
change of identity for a witness or an informant.
Most people entering the RCMP source witness protection
program in the mid-1980s were associated with major drug
trafficking activities. However, as I mentioned a moment ago,
this has changed of late. Today a growing proportion of the
people entering the program have been involved in Criminal
Code offences such as murder and serious assault.
Obviously not every witness qualifies for witness protection
despite thousands of serious assaults that take place in Canada
each year, but the RCMP and other police forces must exercise
care and good judgment when deciding who is eligible for
witness protection and who is not.
These common sense safeguards ensure that the numbers of
witnesses and informants do not outstrip the human and
financial resources allocated to support the various witness
protection programs.
In the last 10 years the witness protection programs of the
RCMP and other police departments have become highly
effective enforcement tools against criminals who previously
were able to use threats and violence against the witnesses to
their crimes to avoid prosecution and conviction.
The success of the witness protection program of the RCMP
and other police departments speaks for itself. Of the large
number of witnesses and informants and their families who have
been relocated over a 10 year period none have come to any
harm.
The RCMP carries out an average of 50 witness relocation
programs per year. Of this approximately 10 cases are in support
of other police departments. The direct cost of maintaining the
RCMP's witness protection program averages $1.1 million per
year. When those expenses are added to the human resource
costs to support the program its total annual cost exceeds $3
million.
(1830 )
Based on current trends, the cost of the program will probably
increase as more people are given protection. The costs are
relatively low when measured against the impact that witnesses
and informants have on individual criminals and organized
crimes.
There is no more devastating evidence than the firsthand
testimony of a trusted accomplice exposing the inner workings
of a criminal organization or that of a witness who has seen a
serious crime take place and can identify the perpetrators.
Whether a witness or informant, these individuals are
invaluable assets of the police and judicial system. In many
cases their testimony cannot be replaced by any other
investigative means.
This is especially true in drug enforcement. Here the
availability of the RCMP's witness protection program has
prompted informants and witnesses to come forward and assist
the police and testify in court against major national and
international drug traffickers despite the proven ability of these
organizations to exact violent retribution.
These witnesses have provided crucial firsthand information
to further investigations which otherwise would have been
obtained at a considerable cost in police resources, human and
otherwise.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4502
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, on April
21 I raised a question with the Minister for International Trade
specific to the attack on Canadian wheat farmers, including such
extreme attacks by certain people in the U.S. talking about
minuteman missiles coming over to Canada.
At that time with the minister I raised the issue in general of
Canada's trade policy, in particular this government's trade
policy, and what it meant for Canadians specifically to the issue
of wheat farmers, particularly durum wheat which is an ongoing
dispute which has not been resolved with the United States by
this government.
4503
We learned on May 24 that as part of an attempt to resolve
this dispute the minister simply confirmed that there was a
Canadian proposal to resolve the farm trade dispute and through
that Ottawa would eliminate a rail transportation subsidy on
grain shipped through Thunder Bay, clearly affecting in a
detrimental way the shipping industry in Thunder Bay. The
rerouting seems to me not to be an answer to the problem of
this trade dispute but the creation of yet another problem for
Canadians in another industry.
When I first raised this question with the minister I raised the
issue as well of NAFTA. He reminded me that the wheat dispute
did not come under NAFTA but under GATT and of course I was
very well aware of that.
However I am concerned that even since April 21 we have
seen a deterioration in our trade relations with the United States.
The minister has made a number of statements that do make the
connection between these disputes that we have had and the
NAFTA agreement which was proclaimed by the government on
January 1, 1994.
Prior to January 1, prior to the election of 1993, the often
quoted Liberal red book with regard to trade relations stated:
``The Canada-United States free trade agreement and the North
American free trade agreement are flawed. A Liberal
government will renegotiate them''.
The government implemented NAFTA on January 1 and is
now backtracking. For example, the minister on May 25 stated
in an article in the Toronto Star: ``In the harshest remarks by a
Canadian minister in recent years, the minister yesterday
accused President Bill Clinton's administration of increasingly
arbitrary use of U.S. trade law to thwart Canadian exports in
wheat, lumber and other commodities and of kowtowing to
regional interest''.
(1835 )
The article goes on to say that the minister stopped short of
talking about abrogating the North American free trade
agreement if disputes continue, but certainly did warn in that
same interview that NAFTA is in a somewhat uncertain position
at this time.
My party has said for a very long time that NAFTA is not just
uncertain, it is bad news for Canada. Yesterday in another
journal, the Globe and Mail, the minister was quoted as saying
that we may see a move away from the dispute settlement panel
procedures into a broader based discussion.
Clearly the harassment by the United States on this issue
continues on a variety of fronts. Farmers know what they have
given up after the NAFTA deal and under the trade policy of the
Liberal government in general. Lumber producers know what
they have given up under Liberal trade policy. Unemployed
workers in the manufacturing and service industries know what
they have given up under Liberal trade policy and I would like to
ask the minister or his representative can they tell this House
what Canadians have gained from Liberal trade policy.
All we see is the backtracking now coming to the realization
that NAFTA is not in Canada's interest, and implementing such
measures, for example, is eliminating the rail transportation
subsidies. Canadians on a wide variety of fronts know what they
have lost from Liberal trade policy. Can the representative
explain what exactly Canadians have gained?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, in response to the
hon. member, the North American Free Trade Agreement, with
improvements secured by this government, provides improved
access to the Mexican market and builds on the Canada-U.S.
free trade agreement in enhancing Canadian access to the United
States.
Canada and the United States are each other's largest trading
partners. In 1993 the total bilateral trade between our two
countries was $256 billion. This trade was in Canada's favour by
nearly $30 billion. Given such a large volume of trade, it can be
expected that differences may arise. What is important to
remember is that 95 per cent of this trade is undisputed.
I can assure the House and the member across that a
satisfactory resolution of the agricultural negotiations with the
United States is a top priority of the government. The issue has
been raised at the highest level in discussions between the Prime
Minister and the President of the United States. As well, the
Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food have been working very hard in negotiations
with the U.S. in order to conclude an agreement that respects the
interests of the Canadian agricultural industry.
The Minister for International Trade has just returned from
meetings in Washington with members of the U.S.
administration where he again vigorously underscored the
Canadian position. With respect to grains, the United States has
chosen to pursue the matter of Canadian exports to the United
States under the GATT and not NAFTA.
On May 3 the United States officially notified the GATT of its
intentions to renegotiate tariffs on wheat and barley under the
GATT article XXVIII. This notification triggers a 90-day period
in which Canada and the United States will continue to attempt
to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement of several agriculture
trade issues.
If no agreement is reached following the 90-day period and
the United States does proceed with restrictions on Canadian
wheat and barley, Canada has the right under GATT to retaliate.
If necessary we will exercise our GATT rights in response to the
U.S. trade action.
4504
I wish to emphasize that the government remains committed
to reaching a negotiated solution to these issues and will
continue to work toward that objective during the 90-day
period to ensure that the best interests of the Canadian
agri-food industry are served. The Minister for International
Trade and the minister of agriculture will be meeting with their
U.S. counterparts next month in an effort to resolve.
In conclusion, I want to remind everyone that in bilateral
trade in agricultural and agri-food products between Canada
and the United States, that portion alone is worth several billion
dollars. It is in the interest of both Canada and the U.S. to ensure
that this trade grows in both directions to the benefit of both
countries.
(1840)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, on
February 21 I had the opportunity in the House to ask a question
of the minister of agriculture about the expansion of country of
origin labelling in Canada. At that time the minister indicated
general agreement with the concept and the fact that there would
obviously need to be ongoing discussions with the various
sectors of the agri-food industry.
In April I had the opportunity to put a question to the
parliamentary secretary to the minister, again about the issue of
country of origin labelling, with the twist that it had come to my
attention at a meeting of the Middlesex Federation of
Agriculture that there was concern among Canadian farmers that
perhaps there had been an agreement, a secret agreement I
guess, made between Canada, Mexico and the United States not
to pursue the idea of country of origin labelling. I had the
assurance from the parliamentary secretary at that time that this
was not the case.
I wish to pursue this briefly today in the House because we all
know that it does pay to buy Canadian. I certainly prefer to
purchase Canadian product, and that obviously includes
agri-food product, as I think many Canadians do. Within a given
range of expense, I think that many Canadians are prepared to
pay a little bit more for a Canadian made product or a Canadian
grown product in the agri-food situation.
My farm constituents in London-Middlesex would want me
to say that we certainly have the safest food anywhere in the
world, and as an urban Canadian I agree with that. If it is a little
more expensive through no fault of Canadian farmers, then I am
prepared to pay that little extra and I would certainly hope and I
do believe that many Canadians are also prepared to pay that
little extra.
I wonder about the labelling we see in food stores. I have
spoken to the parliamentary secretary and the minister
informally on this as well as many members. It is pretty easy to
go into a food store in this country and see in large letters
``Packaged in Canada'', and below it in very minuscule letters,
almost unreadable, ``Product of California'' or South Carolina
or wherever.
To the naive purchaser, which I would be, not often
frequenting these food stores because that chore is taken on by
one better qualified in my family, my wife, it is pretty easy to
think you are buying a product that was produced in Canada
when in fact it simply was packaged in Canada.
I have a couple of questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
First, will the government consider some expansion of the
concept of country of origin labelling, or at least will there be an
opportunity to have a dialogue with the Canadian agri-food
industry about this idea?
Second, is there not some concern from the minister and from
our government about safety standards of agri-food product that
is imported into this country? I ask this second question because
we have all heard the horror stories about imported food. Let us
for example talk about chicken from the southern U.S. The
former illustrious member for Lambton-Middlesex has a
pretty good horror story about southern U.S. chicken coming
into this country, treated in such a way that I think if most
Canadian consumers knew it might turn their stomachs, if not
dissuade them from buying that product.
To what extent is that a concern of the minister and of the
parliamentary secretary and of our government?
(1845 )
I have two questions in summary. Will the concept of country
of origin labelling be pursued with our Canadian farmers in at
least a determination of how much they want to pursue it? I
understand there is a potential downside when that is done to our
product in other nations. To what extent is there a concern about
imported agri-food product being up to the safety standards of
our product, not that it is acceptable to come into the country,
but is that food in all instances as safe as our own Canadian
agri-food product?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
answer the questions from the hon. member.
In answer to his first question, yes, the department will
continue and is open to dialogue as far as the labelling of food
products in Canada is concerned.
In response to the second question, Canada has country of
origin labelling requirements for food products sold in Canada
at the retail level. These requirements are provided under the
appropriate regulations for food covered by the Meat Inspection
Act, the Canadian Agricultural Products Act and the Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act.
The rules apply to these products for purposes of health and
sanitary inspection whether they are produced domestically or
imported. Our main objective has been and will continue to be
the safety of the agri-food product.
4505
Both federal and provincial labelling requirements for
agri-food products were in place prior to the signing of the
North American Free Trade Agreement and were not affected
by the agreement coming into force.
Product which is imported and only packed in Canada will
still be marked with the country of origin. However if it is
substantially transformed with the addition of further value it
will then be marked as product of Canada.
Under the NAFTA, rules were negotiated for determining the
country of origin. These rules will be used for customs purposes.
In this regard U.S. customs require that all imported products be
marked with the country of origin while Canada does not use
markings for customs purposes for agri-food products.
Under the negotiations Canada achieved its objective of
transforming the U.S. discretionary marking rules into a clear
set of rules based on tariff classification. As a result Canada will
have a better mechanism to ensure that the U.S. applies more
consistent rules to Canadian exports into the United States.
Appropriate government departments are currently working
to ensure that the new rules do not create unnecessary costs for
Canadian exporters and that they are favourable for Canadian
products which may be packed in the United States and returned
for sale in Canada.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
On April 26, 1994 I asked the minister of fisheries a question
regarding the failure to reach a successful conclusion during
recent Pacific salmon treaty negotiations. This failure could
result in serious consequences for the Canadian fishery industry.
Canadian fishing conservation measures have been
undertaken for many years now. Unfortunately our American
neighbours have not been as diligent in their past efforts to
maintain a viable fishery stock. Presently they are being forced
to close salmon runs due to the destruction of habitat and to
place moratoria on fishing in the Strait of Juan de Fuca due to
past fisheries mismanagement and the squandering of too many
fish.
It is my understanding that negotiations have gone off track
due to the intransigence of Alaskan negotiators and their refusal
to co-operate in Canada's definition of fair and equitable goals.
Surely the Americans must understand that if we have shared
fish stocks and they have destroyed or drastically reduced the
viability of the Oregon and Washington fish stocks in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca, we as Canadians will want to work out a
solution to this problem that will not penalize Canada for
maintaining sound conservation measures in contrast to the lack
of any of the same practices south of the border.
We already have a situation whereby last year we in effect
subsidized the American fishery by the sum of approximately
$65 million. This represents Canadian fish being caught by
American fishermen. We are now being asked to close or
seriously curtail our fishery in order to correct the poor
management of the Canada-U.S. shared fisheries resource. This
would mean a drastic reduction to our catch, tying up Canadian
boats and putting Canadian fishermen out of work.
This situation I suggest is unacceptable for my province of
British Columbia and for Canada as a whole. I ask the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
what further action we may take to get the negotiations back on
track. If this is not possible, what further action may the
Government of Canada take in its dealings in the Pacific salmon
fisheries in order to prevent a full scale fish war?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for his question. I know how crucial this issue is for
British Columbia and how important it is to the hon. member.
Let me begin by saying that we are very concerned with the
position of the U.S. government. Its position on fishing
arrangements is completely unreasonable. It wants more
Canadian fish but wants us to take less of its fish. It wants
Canada to help conserve its fish stocks but is not prepared to
help us to conserve ours. It wants increased access to Canadian
salmon when its stocks are low but denies Canadians the same
treatment.
Its position on the equity principle is also completely
unreasonable. According to the Pacific salmon treaty the
principle of equity means that each country is entitled to
fisheries benefits which are equivalent to its own production of
salmon.
This fair balancing has never been implemented by the U.S.
The current imbalance against Canada has almost doubled in the
last four years and we are now in a deficit position of
approximately $65 million a year. Instead of recognizing this
imbalance the U.S. position is that for this year it wants to
increase the deficit to $100 million.
Canada's position is clear. We are doing everything possible
to ensure that we negotiate terms with the U.S. which are fair
and responsible for both countries.
The Prime Minister has raised this matter with President
Clinton who has agreed to become involved. The Canadian
negotiator recently met with the state governors who have
agreed to pursue the matter further with the U.S. administration.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is currently in
Washington, D.C., meeting with U.S. congressmen and senior
officials. The province of British Columbia has agreed to assist
in putting the Canadian case before U.S. opinion makers.
4506
Barring these extensive measures, Canada's position is
equally clear. We are not prepared to allow the U.S. to continue
to reap the rewards while Canada bears the burdens. For too
many years Canada has put off until the next year taking a firm
line with American negotiators.
I want to make it perfectly clear that this year that will not be
the case.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)