TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 8, 1994
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 4983
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4985
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4985
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 4986
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4988
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4988
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4989
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4989
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4989
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4989
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4989
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4989
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4990
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4990
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4992
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4992
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4993
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4993
Bill C-257. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4997
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 4997
Motion for concurrence 5000
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5002
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5003
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5010
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 5010
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5017
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5018
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5019
Motion for concurrence 5025
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5039
Division on amendment deferred 5049
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 5049
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 5052
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 139;Nays, 93 5053
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 41;Nays, 191. 5054
Bill C-39. First reading 5056
4983
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 8, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina): Mr. Speaker, this week
across the country Canadians of Portuguese origin are hosting
Portugal Week, a festival of celebration and good cheer. The
highlight of this week is June 10, the Portuguese national day, a
celebration of the many accomplishments of the Portuguese
Canadian community. This day has historic significance as well
for it is the anniversary of the death of the great poet, Luis Vaz
de Camoes.
In my riding of Trinity-Spadina, the week's festivities are
organized by the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations
of Ontario. Among the events scheduled are a soccer
tournament, art exhibits, a parade, as well as numerous concerts
featuring internationally recognized Portuguese entertainers.
I would like to salute members of the Portuguese community
in my riding for their contribution to the cultural life of Toronto
and of Canada during this their week of celebration.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, on June 6,
the Deputy Prime Minister challenged the figures quoted in
Le
Devoir to the effect that officer cadet training at Kingston's
military college was more costly than the training provided at
the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean.
The Deputy Prime Minister did so in spite of the fact that the
Ministerial Committee on Canadian Military Colleges tabled a
report in May 1993 containing figures which support the claim
that the cost of officer cadet training is higher in Kingston than it
is in Saint-Jean. Training costs were assessed at $71,291 at the
Kingston facility, compared to $58,356 at the college in
Saint-Jean. Training costs are, therefore, 22 per cent higher in
Kingston.
This government refuses to reconsider its decision to close the
Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. We can only conclude that its
decision must be politically motivated.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, the
Kemano completion project in British Columbia is currently
under review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. However the
terms of reference of this commission do not address reduced
water flows into the Nechako and Fraser River systems and the
subsequent impact on fisheries, municipalities and industry.
A petition from 1,100 constituents of Comox-Alberni shows
the deep concern that this project has the potential of becoming
the worst environmental disaster B.C. has yet encountered. The
only way to avoid this potential disaster is to ensure a full
federal environmental review is carried out on this project. Until
this review is conducted, there is no process where all activity
that occurred behind closed doors among the previous
Conservative government, the B.C. government, DFO and
Alcan is out in the open.
I encourage the government to order a full environmental
review of the Kemano completion project in order to alleviate
the concerns of many British Columbians.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to report on the success of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury's latest public consultation
meeting held last Sunday. Over 100 participants gathered to
debate gender related issues ranging from housing and child
care to abortion and same sex spousal benefits.
This marked the fourth in a series of riding forums since
February. The first dealt with health care, the second, national
defence and the third, human resources development. I wish to
thank my colleagues from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo for
participating in the defence forum, from York North for
contributing to the HRD debate and from Halifax for input on
gender related issues. Thanks also to provincial ministers Russ
King,
4984
Vaughan Blaney and New Brunswick Deputy Premier Marcelle
Mersereau for their contributions.
Canadians want to debate public policy. I am grateful to the
more than 40 volunteers and over 400 participants who
contributed their time and talent to making this possible in
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations go out to Katie Johnson, the grade one pupil at
Centennial Central elementary school in Arva who recently
placed first in a CBC radio story writing competition with her
story entitled ``Henry''. Katie exemplifies the importance of the
ability to read and write and the personal rewards they can bring.
As an educator, I recognize there are people in every walk of
life who, through no fault of their own, may not be able to read to
their children or be able to fill out a job application.
I wish to commend the work of the organizers of the National
Adult Literacy Database which is located in my riding of
London-Middlesex. I praise the efforts of all of the individuals
who are working hard to provide literacy training to thousands
of Canadians. Their work and the restoration of the national
literacy fund by the government will significantly improve
literacy skills.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, recently
Centraide of Montreal honoured one of my constituents with the
Antoinette Robidoux prize for her outstanding volunteer
contributions. I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Juliette
Catelani Corsini who has dedicated the past 40 years of her life
to volunteer work. She is one of the unsung heroes of our
society.
(1405)
[Translation]
For over 40 years, Juliette Corsini has combined her family
obligations with her ongoing commitment to the community.
She continues to work actively for the Moisson Montréal food
bank which she helped found. Mrs. Corsini also devotes her time
to Jean-Talon hospital and to L'Arche-Montréal.
As a volunteer, Mrs. Corsini performs numerous tasks, from
taking part in food drives to compiling data and handling
accounting and secretarial duties.
[English]
I wish to congratulate Juliette Catelani Corsini for her
constant commitment and enthusiasm. She is a fine example we
should all follow. I wish her continued success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, according to
Mr. André Lalonde who will take over at the helm of the
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario next month,
ACFO intends to reach out and grasp the hand extended to it last
Friday by the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
We congratulate ACFO for its courage and determination and
for refusing, in spite of the pressure put on it by Liberal
franco-ontarian members and ministers, to allow a partisan line
to be dictated to it and for its desire to remain faithful to
franco-ontarian interests.
We encourage leaders in the rest of Canada to follow ACFO's
example and to come to the realization that their relations with
Quebec are about to take on an entirely different complexion.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that this gesture is the first step to
achieving greater co-operation between francophones in
Quebec and those in the rest of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to pay a special tribute to one of my
constituents, Betty Larke of Morden, Manitoba.
Betty has recently been awarded the 1994 Kinsmen
community service award. She has been a member of the Royal
Canadian Legion auxiliary for 50 years. In 1985 she was
awarded the jubilee medal and the meritorious award. Betty has
also worked extensively with the Salvation Army's Red Shield
Appeal, Meals on Wheels, the United Way, the community's
senior home and her local church.
In this, the Year of the Family, it is very appropriate that we
recognize Betty's dedication to her community and her respect
for family and values.
Betty Larke has enriched the lives of many people in our
community through her strong desire to help others. All
Canadians can learn from her example.
4985
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, today,
Oceans Day, we celebrate our oceans, the source of life on our
planet. First declared in Rio, Oceans Day inspires and
challenges us to become caretakers of our ocean environment.
Oceans supply the world's people with more animal protein
than any other source. The sea has given us anti-leukemia drugs
from sea sponges, bone graft materials from coral, and
diagnostic chemicals from red algae. The ocean is the economic
lifeline for coastal communities and fish workers by the
millions.
For this reason we must keep in mind that human activities
have a direct impact on coastal waters. For example, activities
which take place inland account for nearly 80 per cent of marine
pollution. Inshore dams can cause declining coastal fisheries.
Oil spills from ships are to be prevented.
For all these reasons we need to protect and appreciate our
oceans.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, the University of Guelph has embarked on a strategic
planning process which will create the blueprint for its
development into the next century.
The university's planning process allows for consultation
with university and non-university participants. The eight task
forces will study a number of issues, including identifying
external factors, assessing its values and culture, and
identifying the strengths and weaknesses of existing programs
and resources.
The University of Guelph is an important part of
Guelph-Wellington. Its remarkable international reputation
can only be enhanced by this process.
I congratulate the president of the university, Mordechai
Rozanski, on this important initiative. This process will result in
a clear vision of the values and the strengths of the university. It
will prepare the staff and student body to meet the challenges of
the 21st century.
* * *
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity this afternoon to commend the activities of
National Transportation Week to the House.
(1410 )
As Canadians we are all aware of the major importance
transportation has in the life of a nation that borders on three
oceans and ranges across mountains, tundra, prairies and rolling
countryside.
On the export market 18 to 45 per cent of the price of
Canadian primary products such as coal and forest products is
transportation costs. For manufactured goods at least 5 per cent
of the price is the result of transportation and in some cases that
figure can be as high as 17 per cent. Domestically the cost of
transporting goods is equally important. An estimated 40 per
cent of provincial exports are sold in regions other than where
they are produced.
Government and industry must work together to build the
operational links that will ensure the seamless transportation
systems that will do justice to the professionalism, dedication
and hard work of the hundreds of thousands of men and women
who keep our transportation systems running safely, efficiently
and effectively.
Please join me in a salute to these Canadians workers during
National Transportation Week '94.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the
percentage of women in the labour force has been decreasing
since 1990. Women between 15 and 24 are the main victims. The
Minister of Human Resources Development claims that his
Youth Service Corps will help turn the situation around by
allowing participants to spend $2,000 on child care when this
money has already been earmarked for other purposes.
This measure discriminates against women since it is
primarily women who have custody of children and nearly 60
per cent of these women live below the poverty line. Without a
specific program to help them find jobs or go back to school,
these women will not be able to get out of this intolerable
situation. What is the government waiting for when it should be
formulating a job-creation policy that takes these women's
reality into account?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, there is just
one week to go before voting begins on referendum '94.
I am pleased to advise the House that secret PIN numbers have
now been distributed to all registered voters and more than 700
high school students in the riding of North Vancouver, to all MPs
and also to yourself, Mr. Speaker. I believe this will be the first
secret vote by MPs on any issue other than the election of the
Speaker of this House.
When we vote between June 15 and 20 we will be making
history as we test a Canadian developed technology that could
revolutionize democracy as we know it. I would like to thank
4986
MT&T Technologies Inc. of Halifax for pioneering this system
of electronic voting.
I hope that all members will take part in this experiment in
direct democracy.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, the
price of gasoline has gone up again in Regina and other parts of
Canada with no explanation. There have been no new taxes and
the price of crude has declined from one year ago.
The price of gas jumped three cents a litre for no reason
except to make oil companies richer. Energy consumers are
angry and want an investigation into why they must pay more to
line the pockets of big oil giants.
The government must put an end to the gouging at the pumps
now. Canadians need an energy price review commission to
encourage fair competitive pricing and to review monopoly
pricing.
Last year Esso Canada made a profit of $582 million and
75 per cent of that money went to the U.S. as dividends.
Companies like Esso show little respect for the consumers in
this country. Huge profits do not mean fair prices but higher
prices. Why? We want to know why.
The government must put an end to this outrageous practice of
price gouging. I look forward to seeing what action the
government will take on this matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I was relieved
to hear the Leader of the Opposition yesterday make a
commitment to respect the democratic process guaranteeing
everyone the right to express themselves freely on our country's
future. He said that the last 30 years have led us to a dead end.
What a gross misstatement! In the last 30 years, Canada and
Quebec have enjoyed the highest rate of economic growth and
the highest standard of living of all OECD countries.
Just imagine what this country would be like if instead of
splitting up, we joined forces. It remains to be seen whether Mr.
Parizeau shares the ideas of his friend and ally in opposition
regarding the democratic process. It is ironic that the Bloc
leader tries to pass himself off as a champion of democracy
when his own troops and his separatist confederate threaten to
boycott and retaliate against any group or institution daring to
question their independence plans.
That is a very strange conception of freedom of expression!
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, today is Oceans Day. First declared on June 8, 1992
during the Rio earth summit, Oceans Day is meant to remind us
and challenge us to become better caretakers of our oceans'
environment.
Regardless of where you live, marine life and oceans are
important to every Canadian. Not only does what happens in the
marine environment affect us but what we do affects it.
No better example of this exists than in my riding where the
sea is an economic lifeline for many coastal communities. This
lifeline has been placed under considerable strain over the past
few years.
Oceans Day serves to remind us that individuals can make a
difference through the many projects, exhibits and conferences
which are taking place today across the country.
I encourage all members of the House to help raise public
awareness among our constituents about the importance of
oceans to our lives.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, the
degree of danger and very real battle conditions that our brave
men and women of the armed forces are facing in the former
Yugoslavia is a source of both worry and pride.
We feel pride when we recognize our maple leaf emblazoned
on the uniforms of those brave people who are putting their lives
on the line to represent Canada and to bring a modicum of justice
and humanity to that desperate part of the world.
Despite the obvious bravery of our troops and the harsh battle
conditions they can be exposed to, we have not chosen to honour
our troops with the Canadian Special Service Medal. This medal
was authorized in 1984 and was created to recognize the service
of Canadians in special circumstances. It has been awarded to
Canadian troops serving with NATO in western Europe and has
not been extended to our brave men and women in the former
Yugoslavia.
I pray that the minister of defence will realize the oversight of
the department in not extending this award and will take steps to
bestow recognition as that recognition has most definitely been
earned.
4987
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today in honour of the students in my riding of Hamilton
West and across Canada who will graduate from elementary,
secondary and post-secondary institutions this month.
This year over 260,000 students will graduate from high
school, over 83,000 will graduate from college and
approximately 170,000 will graduate from university.
It is my hope that as these students progress through our
system of education and training they will continue to achieve
new levels of accomplishment in the lifelong learning process.
I have said in the House before that education will be the
salvation of our society. In the present information age this
statement is proving to be more and more important as we
approach the 21st century.
I am sure that all members of the House will join me in
congratulating the class of 1994.
_____________________________________________
4987
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in a speech he gave yesterday in Paris at the annual
meeting of the OECD, the Minister of Human Resources
Development said that Canada's present job-creation program
does not fit the socio-economic reality and must be revised. I
quote from the Canadian press, where the minister is reported to
have said: ``We must build a new program that will put
Canadians back to work, while ensuring income security for
those who need it.''
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does she admit
that this statement by her fellow minister is a stinging
denunciation of the government's job-creation strategy, which
only creates temporary jobs in the infrastructure program? Are
we to conclude that this government will finally do something
specific to create jobs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the
opposition leader's statement. Obviously, we are reforming
social security because the present system is not working.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, I believe that I must apologize to
the Deputy Prime Minister, who told us yesterday that
ministers' trips to Europe were worthwhile.
In fact, this trip has brought out the truth, an admission of
failure, since in this moment of sincerity, the minister admitted
abroad that the government's job-creation program, the one in
the red book, is not working and will be replaced.
I would ask the minister to continue to own up and tell us
whether her government intends to review its budget strategy,
which involves reducing the deficit on the backs of the poor by
taking food from their mouths, as the finance minister himself
said, the very man who imposed an unprecedented cut in
unemployment insurance benefits.
(1420 )
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the
minister did not say. If the Leader of the Opposition is interested
in the truth, perhaps I can read exactly what the minister said,
and I quote:
The message is that it is time for a change and we must move toward a very
strong approach to relieving structural unemployment. It is very much a part of
our unemployment strategy.
Obviously the reason for the social security reform is because
there are too many unemployed people who have not found jobs
for weeks, months and years. We have a structural problem and
that is what we are going to try and solve.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister should not send the
Deputy Prime Minister to Europe; it seems that things are
clearer in Europe when Canadian affairs are discussed.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if she admits that the
substantial cut in unemployment insurance benefits penalizes
even more heavily local communities in several regions of
Quebec and Atlantic Canada, where a large proportion of
seasonal workers face conditions that restrict their eligibility for
unemployment insurance.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, trips to Europe were
mentioned. It seems to me that the hon. member, when he was in
Europe a long time ago, was a federalist.
While things are happening in Europe, it is also obvious that
the reason the Minister of Human Resources Development is
now adopting a new social policy is that workers in Matapédia,
Matane, Lac-Saint-Jean and Roberval have not found work for
years. That is why the system must be changed.
4988
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, over the last
few days, the federal government demonstrated on numerous
occasions that it was constantly improvising when negotiating
with the Quebec government regarding the future of the military
college in Saint-Jean. This is evidenced by the project proposed
by the president of the Université de Sherbrooke, who is
anxiously waiting for an agreement between the two
governments.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that each
day that negotiations with the Quebec government are delayed
jeopardizes the implementation of a project such as the one
proposed by the president of the Université de Sherbrooke, since
the teachers at CMR may make commitments to other
institutions and no longer be available? Is the minister aware of
that?
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, the object of the ongoing negotiations with the
government of Quebec is to adequately solve the issue of the
military college in Saint-Jean. It is much more important to find
the right solution and solve the problem for good than to make a
hasty decision which might leave some issues unresolved.
There is no doubt that the teachers at CMR can find jobs in
Kingston and elsewhere, but there is no great need to hurry. The
hon. member should not worry about imaginary problems.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, how must we
interpret the minister's comments? He says that there is no great
need to hurry, but his government is shutting down the military
college in Saint-Jean.
After creating all kinds of problems for the region with the
unjustified and unjustifiable closure of the college, does the
minister not realize that people in Saint-Jean and in Quebec are
tired of his apathy, his lack of initiative and his inability to
propose any solution to that issue?
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, getting carried away will not help solve the issue. The
military college in Saint-Jean will remain open until the spring
of 1995. Consequently, the important thing to do right now is to
arrive at a solution which solves all the problems regarding the
college, and which meets the needs of both the province of
Quebec and the federal government. There is no doubt that the
spending cuts which were made in the defence budget have
served Canada well, since they allow us to put our budget back
in order. This issue is of much greater scope than the problems
related to the military college in Saint-Jean.
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Canadian government has already approved a deal to sell
helicopters to Columbia and is now considering the sale of
coastal frigates to Taiwan. Concerning these sales the Minister
of Foreign Affairs said last week that we have a process of
reviewing our sales of arms abroad. We are doing it only under
very specific conditions and every sale is reviewed carefully
before being allowed.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain whether the
guidelines used in reviewing these sales are the guidelines
established and employed by the previous government or
whether this is a new set of guidelines developed by the present
government?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
Absolutely no consideration is being given by the government to
sales of Canadian patrol frigates to Taiwan right now.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
that was an interesting reply but it had nothing to do with my
question.
Maybe I can repeat the question. We are simply asking if the
guidelines that are being applied to these arms sales are the
guidelines that were developed and used by the previous
government of which many members were critical or are these
new guidelines developed by the current government? If they
are, could the parliamentary secretary tell us what they are.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question but I will answer
part of it.
The sale of military equipment to Taiwan is subject to
standard export control procedures and policies. We consider
any such sales on a case by case basis and consistent with our
one China policy.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, a
further supplementary question.
The sale to Columbia involves so-called civilian versions of
the Bell model 212 helicopter. This civilian distinction avoids
the necessity of gaining approval under federal defence export
regulations. Concerns have arisen however because it is
relatively easy to convert the model 212 into a military attack
vehicle.
In light of these facts can the parliamentary secretary please
explain what the guiding philosophy of the government is
regarding international sales of arms, especially to countries
4989
like Columbia whose military has a history of human rights
violation.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs I am pleased to notify the hon. member that
these helicopters are certified as civil by Transport Canada.
They are not certified as military helicopters.
This was raised in our foreign affairs review policy by some
witnesses. It came out that some of these helicopters will be
used to fight the drug trade which is affecting our society in
Canada. The hon. member also knows the country has just gone
through an earthquake so these helicopters will come in handy
for rescue and humanitarian relief.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the CRTC commissioners, who were unable to reach a
consensus, refused to issue a licence for one of the two
French-language pay-per-view proposals. This decision was
roundly criticized by many parties, including the Government of
Quebec, since it would deprive Francophones of an important
cultural tool.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage justify a decision
that is blatantly unfair to Francophones, in Canada and Quebec,
when Anglophones have enjoyed a similar service for some
time?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, it was not my decision and consequently it requires no
justification on my part. I explained yesterday that there was a
procedure for parties to appeal or to ask the Government of
Canada to refer the decision back to the CRTC for review. I
understand that the Quebec Minister of Culture and
Communications is interested in taking this route, but I have not
yet received official notice from the minister.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, will the minister confirm that this decision came about
as a result of a split between the CRTC's Anglophone and
Francophone commissioners who were unable to agree on one of
two projects, with the Francophones supporting the Chapiteau
project from Quebec and the Anglophones favouring the project
by Astral, from Toronto?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I explained that I could not judge and be
judged. If and when I become the judge, I will have an opinion,
but meanwhile I will remain silent.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
In 1987 the Conservative Minister of Finance, Michael
Wilson, excluded his home town of Toronto from the list of
international banking centres in Canada. The opposition
Liberals opposed this exclusion and the mayor of Toronto, now a
Liberal cabinet minister, initiated a lawsuit against the federal
government. He described the Tory decision as crass politics at
its worst.
Will the minister now reverse this unfair Tory decision and
designate Toronto as an international banking centre?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the pros and cons, the
benefits of an international banking centre, in fact the whole
concept of designating certain areas of the country for specific
tax treatment, is something the government has under
examination.
When we have completed the examination I will be delighted
to respond to the member.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
On Monday the Toronto Star reported that the lawsuit against
the government has recently been revived. Will the Liberal
government act swiftly to prevent the useless waste of
taxpayers' dollars for unnecessary legal defence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question
as notice. I thank the government House leader for giving me
advice.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Yesterday in
the National Assembly, the Quebec Minister of Culture asked
the federal government to review the CRTC's decision on
pay-per-view television, in French of course, and I quote: ``I
would ask my colleague Michel Dupuy to submit to his cabinet a
memorandum aimed at persuading the CRTC to review its
decision. Pay-per-view is the way of the future-''
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to act on this
urgent request from his Quebec counterpart and will he
personally intervene in cabinet, which can instruct the CRTC, as
provided under Section 18(1) of the Act-
4990
(1435)
The Speaker: The question, please.
Mr. Fillion: Of course, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister have to
ask cabinet to change this decision, as provided under Section
18(1) of the Broadcasting Act?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is substantially what I said in reply to a
question from the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
I read the papers, of course, including the article that attracted
the attention of the hon. member. I said that I was waiting for the
Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications to get in touch
with me. Yesterday, I mentioned that I had asked for an analysis
of the CRTC's decisions. Once I have heard from the minister
and the analysis is ready, I will be able to make some decisions.
The Speaker: The question, please!
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, on a
supplementary. Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage think it
is acceptable and fair for the CRTC to have granted eight
licences out of ten, all to English-language channels, which
means that once again, Francophones will have to pay for
channels whose programming does not reflect their cultural
interests?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I trust that I expressed myself clearly in French. I said
that as soon as the minister is approached for his views on
changing the CRTC's decision, the minister becomes a judge
and it is therefore inappropriate for the minister who may have
to act as a judge to give his views before hearing all sides of the
case. That is where the matter stands now, and I hope I made
myself sufficiently clear in my answers to previous questions
and to the question that was just put.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
At a time when social programs are being reviewed because of
a lack of funds and health care transfers are being cut back
because of a lack of funds, the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council is still dishing out ridiculous grants like
$94,000 to study the resolution of unfinished emotional
business with a significant other.
When will the government take action to put an end to this sort
of nonsensical waste of taxpayers' money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be highly
unethical for the federal government to be making granting
decisions about an independent body like the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, it is tough
to stay cool.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): The Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council has a staff of 100 and a budget of
$100.1 million, equivalent to a year's worth of taxes for 22,871
taxpayers and certainly symbolic of government waste to most
Canadians.
How can the government continue to support $16,000 to
investigate attacks on aristocratic behaviour in 18th century
Britain and $59,800 to study ecology and history in the insular
Quoddy region?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think there is a very
important principle here that seems to escape the hon. member.
Under the budget of the Parliament of Canada there are
certain moneys allocated to the Reform Party for research.
There may be certain people in Parliament who think that
research money is wasted. The fact is that is your choice.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday, in the House, the minister said that he understood
the disappointment felt by the francophone and Acadian
communities, and he added that he could not be both a judge and
a party at the same time, which he repeated again today. He
suggested instead that the francophone and Acadian
communities appeal the CRTC's decision regarding the
French-language all-news channel.
Does the minister share the opinion expressed by the ACFO
President to the effect that, once again, a CRTC decision places
the francophone and Acadian communities at the mercy of local
cable companies? Does he agree with the ACFO president who
said that, once again, our rights are being infringed upon?
4991
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, all these people have to do is give me some kind of a
notice and I will be able to start the proceedings. I am waiting
for them to do that. They stated that they intended to take such
action; that is what I heard yesterday; when they approach the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, he will take the appropriate
action.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister agree that, contrary to what he
alluded to yesterday and again today in the House, in addition to
the appeal mechanism available to citizens, the federal cabinet
may also, and the legislation is quite clear in this respect, act on
its own to do justice to the francophone and Acadian
communities, and demand that the CRTC reverse its decision?
The legislation is quite clear on that; we can provide him with a
copy of it.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, when I am told that I will be contacted, I have the
decency to wait to be contacted. I do not behave like members
opposite who pose as messengers for the francophone
communities, in the hope of scoring political points. I am
waiting to hear officially from them, and then I will make the
appropriate decisions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the minister of agriculture.
Back in mid-May, when the minister of agriculture met in
Winnipeg with industry representatives about solving the grain
transportation problems for this year and for future years, the
minister established a number of committees that were to report
back in two weeks.
Have those committees reported back? If so, has the minister
decided what action should be taken on the part of the
government?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, besides responding directly to the
hon. member's question I would like to congratulate him and
thank him and all members of the agriculture and transport
subcommittees of the House that investigated certain problems
we experienced this year in our grain transportation system.
I can advise the House that I will be announcing later today a
package of changes in this area. I believe the hon. member and
other members of the transport and agriculture subcommittees
will see that very many of their recommendations are included
in the announcement I am about to make.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On June 6 my colleague from Simcoe Centre asked the
government if all documents related to the Pearson airport deal
would be released to the public. He was promised that the
Minister of Transport would respond to that question as soon as
possible.
I would like to ask if the hon. minister would respond to that
question today.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
we are trying to conclude the cancellation of the contract at
Pearson with the negotiator.
(1445 )
The matter is before the House in terms of the legislation, so I
would not want to contravene the rules of the House. The
member will know that a lot of this involves companies and
commercial undertakings that are not just directly related to the
Pearson project. I want to say to the hon. member that when this
matter is concluded, all material that is appropriate, that can be
released and what can be legally provided to the public will be
provided.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for his answer.
I would like to ask him when he is making his decision as to
the release of these documents if he would include as interested
parties the Canadian taxpayers who are actually going to be
footing the bill for this.
Will he include in his decision of releasing the documents that
they are very concerned about the way this deal is put together
and the amounts of moneys that are going to be paid out if any?
They demand to have an answer and an assurance that this type
of deal will never again happen.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
as the member recognized implicitly in his question, Canadians
know that this deal was questionable and certainly not in either
the public interest or in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers.
I have no doubt that whatever decision is arrived at with
respect to compensation for out of pocket expenses precluding
any compensation for lobbyist fees or foregone profits, the
Auditor General of Canada as well as Canadian taxpayers will
want to scrutinize in a very careful way every penny if in fact
any money is paid in compensation. That is why the minister
who is given fairly wide discretionary powers under the
legislation that is presently before the House will be very careful
in making sure he recognizes his fiduciary responsibility to the
Canadian taxpayers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today, the Minister
of Public Works is attending a federal-provincial conference of
housing ministers in Bathurst, New Brunswick. This conference
is particularly important because the federal government totally
4992
withdrew its funding for social housing and is now thinking, it
seems, of reducing the $2.1 billion budget of the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Would the government commit itself to using the savings the
minister claims to be realizing, exclusively for the construction
of social housing, that is to say low-cost rental housing,
co-operative housing and non-profit housing?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
clearly the minister is aware of his responsibilities regarding the
funds available for social housing. I can tell my colleague that,
today, the minister responsible is in the beautiful city of
Bathurst, New Brunswick, negotiating with his provincial
counterparts.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given
that the Liberal government is not very kindly disposed towards
the people most in need, would the Deputy Prime Minister, at the
very least, promise that there will be no rent increase for the
thousands of social housing tenants in Quebec and Canada, since
these people are already in a very difficult situation?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I am sure that all members of the House recognize just how
difficult it is for individuals and families with very limited
means to be able to provide adequate housing for themselves and
their families.
That is why, although we made a commitment to retain some
$120 million in expenditures in the social housing program,
ministers of all provinces including the minister responsible for
the Government of Canada are meeting in Bathurst, New
Brunswick today trying to find solutions to these very difficult
problems facing Canadians at a time when we have very
restricted resources.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The ``Writing Thru Race'' conference sponsored by the
Writer's Union of Canada has made no changes to its
exclusionary policy. Racism is racism and you cannot hide it
behind a banner of intellectual rationalization.
The minister stated last Friday that he would get the facts on
the ``Writing Through Race'' conference.
(1450 )
The facts of this discriminatory conference are quite simple.
Parts of the conference exclude white writers from participating
and the Canada Council has committed $10,000 to support it.
Now that the minister has the facts will he issue a ministerial
directive to the Canada Council to immediately withdraw its
funding for this conference?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not issue
directives to the Canada Council, an arm's length institution.
However, the writer's union did apply for financial support
from programs from the ministry of heritage, which is under my
jurisdiction, and I am not going to proceed with this request.
The reason why I am not doing it is that, as I said in this
House, I am profoundly against discrimination as a principle.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister is so profoundly disturbed by discriminatory practices
as evidenced by this conference I find that funding it is a very
strange way of addressing what he has just stated.
Further to this, two departments in the ministry have been
approached for funding but neither of those departments has
made a decision at this point regarding its financial support.
Expecting that the minister will do the right thing, will he also
direct the organizations in his ministry not to fund the racist and
discriminatory conference that will take place in Vancouver at
the end of this month?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I conclude that as I am not funding from departmental
resources I am doing the right thing.
As I tried to explain, the Canada Council is an arm's length
institution and the meaning of arm's length is precisely that the
minister does not issue instructions concerning specific
decisions taken by the board of directors.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.
This weekend marks the fifth anniversary of the events at
Tiananmen Square. Can the secretary of state assure the House
and all Canadians that the government remains committed to
human rights in China and, in particular, that the pursuit of our
expanding trade links with China will be used as a way to
advance human rights in that country?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosedale, the vice-chair of
the foreign affairs committee, for the question and for his
concern about an issue that is so dear to my heart.
4993
I understand the hon. member has been travelling across the
country with his work on the committee, and the issue of human
rights in China has beenraised consistently. I am sure that we
will have the support of the House and Canadians for advocating
human rights in China, and I appreciate that.
I would like to reaffirm to the member and the House the
conviction of the government concerning the issue of human
rights in China. The situation remains a concern to us and there
are different efforts being ensured to advance that cause.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, for
several days, the Minister of the Environment has been claiming
that government regulations concerning double-hulled ships in
Canada are in force, despite a contrary opinion from the legal
service of the Department of Transport.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. As the one
responsible for applying the Canada Shipping Act, does the
Minister of Transport confirm, as his legal advisors indicate,
that there is no regulation now in force under this act with
respect to double-hulled ships?
(1455)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows very well that international agreements
on ships plying Canadian waters and those anywhere else on
earth allow 15 years to comply with international regulations.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, since
there is no Canadian law, can the Minister of Transport inform
his colleague in Environment that there are no regulations on
double-hulled ships and that such regulations should be passed
urgently in order to avoid environmental disasters?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I even
gave the hon. member a copy of the law yesterday. Maybe he did
not want to take it, but on page 1407, Chapter 36 of the Statutes
of Canada, he will find the text of a law that was passed in 1993.
Do you still want a copy?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. Order.
Hon. members, you know that from time to time it is
necessary to have books to quote from in the House, but I would
ask you all not to raise any books or papers.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians have been constantly demanding that the
government abolish the current MP pension plan which allows
members to collect benefits after only six years of service.
The Prime Minister has stated that his government is
reviewing this overly generous plan but that we have four or five
years to deal with it.
We do not need a commission to tell us what needs to be done.
We have already suggested changes that can be implemented
immediately.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to bringing the MPs'
retirement compensation package in line with the private
sector?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the House has been previously informed, as hon. members
know, that there was a study commissioned by the previous
government that was brought to a committee of the House and is
now under study by a committee of the House as provided for by
the Parliament act with respect to compensation including
pensions for members of Parliament.
The government has made it clear that it intends to bring
about revisions to the pension plan for MPs. As soon as the
Lapointe commission submits its report, which I understand will
be about mid-July, we will examine the results. We will look at
the recommendations. We will then proceed to deal with the
matter of MPs' pensions and other compensation factors.
I have indicated previously to the House that we expect to deal
with the matter of MPs' pensions prior to the end of the year.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
Mid-July simply is not good enough. It has become public
knowledge that the Leader of the Official Opposition, a man
dedicated to the break-up of Canada, will become eligible for
his pension on June 20.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that this alone
constitutes a good enough reason to reform this extravagant MP
pension plan?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, if
any member of this Parliament is to receive a pension, first of all
4994
it is after they cease to be a member of the House. They must
qualify under the provisions of the act to do so.
I understand the question that is being asked by the hon.
member, but I fully expect that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition will qualify as a Canadian citizen to receive his
pension for many years.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister of Health has not been able and/or has refused to
release the terms of reference for the national health forum. The
Prime Minister will be chair of that forum.
(1500)
Also, if the current cost-sharing between federal, provincial
and territorial governments continues there will be no federal
funding for health care by the year 2015 and some provinces will
not receive federal funding in the life of this Parliament.
Given the above, can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee on
behalf of the government that there will be a rebalancing of cash
transfers to provinces and territories to ensure that the
principles of the Canada Health Act can be maintained and
enforced?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of
Health and the Prime Minister are working very hard with the
provinces to ensure that the process of the forum is in fact a very
productive one. That will obviously be one of the issues on the
agenda at the forum.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.
In the red book we talked about the whole farm safety net
program. When can we expect the government to take action on
this commitment and are producers taking part in the process?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, in February I convened a meeting in
Winnipeg with 40 or 50 farm organizations from across the
country in addition to provincial and federal government
officials. Their objective was to consider the future need and
shape of a national safety net system based upon the whole farm
concept that was described in the red book at the time of the
election.
A national safety nets committee involving these 40 or 50
farm organizations is now in place. They have been working
hard through the spring and early summer. Producers are very
much leading the process. Their work is augmented by and
co-ordinated with the ongoing work of federal and provincial
officials. Their work has also involved consultations with all
members of the House who have on occasion expressed an
interest in making representations about the safety net system.
The objective is to have recommendations in place to present
to federal and provincial ministers of agriculture when we meet
for our regular meeting in July in Winnipeg. Our objective after
that is to begin the implementation of the whole farm system by
the beginning of 1995.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Gombosuren, Minister
for External Relations of Mongolia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Jerome C. Dill, Minister of
Human Affairs and Information of the Government of Bermuda.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4994
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to inform
members of the House of the government's plans to address
several problems experienced during the current crop year in the
transportation of western Canadian grain to market. These
actions are intended to help clear up this year's difficulties.
Even more important, they will help ensure that those
difficulties are not repeated in the next or subsequent crop years.
(1505)
Members of the House will be aware that significant delays
were experienced this year in getting western Canada's grain to
market. The reasons for this were several. The flooding of the
Mississippi River system forced United States' shippers to turn
to other modes of transportation. This tied up rail cars in the
United States that would normally have been available for lease
to Canadian rail companies. The turnaround time on rail cars in
the United States is longer than in Canada. A severe winter
limited unloading at country elevators and slowed the
movement through the system. A labour dispute on the west
coast
4995
added to the congestion of ships waiting in harbour to take on
Canadian grain.
While I was on a trade mission to the Pacific rim earlier this
spring, I was told in no uncertain terms by our customers that
their purchases of grain and oilseeds from Canada were not
being delivered on time and that this was disrupting their own
operations. While Canada's reputation as a quality grain
producer helped the country through this year's difficulties, our
customers told me that unless we improved our delivery record
they would begin to look elsewhere for more reliable suppliers.
While I was in Asia the subcommittees of the agriculture and
agri-food committee and the transport committee of this House
were working in Ottawa to produce valuable recommendations
to help alleviate several of the problems we were experiencing.
As soon as I returned from the Pacific rim I called an urgent
meeting of key players in the western grain transportation
sector. The meeting was held in Winnipeg on May 16. There
were representatives from the grain companies, the railroads,
the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission,
the Grain Transportation Agency, the unions, and the maritime
employers. I presented them with a list of initiatives including
many of the subcommittees' recommendations. I asked that
group in Winnipeg for their input and advice.
Shortly before that meeting was held, members of the Grain
Workers Union and owners of the west coast grain terminals
reached an agreement that allows for weekend unloading, thus
reducing some of the bottleneck at the ports.
From a backlog of 41 vessels waiting for grain on the west
coast when our problems were at their height late in the winter
and earlier this spring, we now have that number of waiting
ships down to 15 as of this week. That is the number which is
considered close to reasonable for the efficient use of the ports.
The railways also will have increased their fleet this month to
more than 30,000 grain cars, compared to 24,600 in
mid-February.
What is critical though is that we cannot afford a repeat of this
past year. I want to congratulate the labour and industry
representatives and the members of the two subcommittees of
this House for their dedication to solving the myriad of
problems that have plagued western grain transportation these
past several months.
Incorporating the work of those subcommittees, the industry
leaders, the labour representatives and advice from Transport
Canada, Human Resources Development and my own
Department of Agriculture and Agri-food, I wish to announce
the following measures with the support of my colleagues the
Minister of Transport and the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
First, the system of back hauling grain from Thunder Bay as
far as Winnipeg just to qualify for subsidies under the Western
Grain Transportation Act is going to end. This practice which
has crept into our system in the last period of time is nothing
more than a waste of our resources and an inefficient use of our
rolling stock.
Second, a system of demurrage and storage charges for rail
cars will be developed. Currently there is no system of penalties
or incentives in place to encourage shippers of grain to use and
return rail cars to the general fleet expeditiously.
(1510)
These two changes require amendments to the Western Grain
Transportation Act. We propose to make these changes with an
implementation date of January 1, 1995. Thus those who may be
entering into contracts now have notice that changes are to be
expected.
Third, if the railways do not deliver sufficient rolling stock in
the future to accommodate grain shipments, the government
will use provisions of the Western Grain Transportation Act that
apply to sanctions and hold backs where necessary.
Fourth, a policy will be developed to define the circumstances
under which private cars could be added to the general grain
fleet for western grain movement, if we are again faced with
severe rail car shortages.
Fifth, we will end the maximum elevation tariffs at the west
coast and Thunder Bay to increase competition among elevator
companies and to allow them to charge at sufficient levels to
cover the increased costs of weekend loading at port.
Finally, the forecasting of rail car requirements will be
improved, as will be the co-ordination of inland loading and
movement of rail cars with vessel arrivals at the ports.
We will be working with the group of key leaders who met in
Winnipeg on May 16 to make sure that these changes are in fact
implemented as quickly as possible. We will be looking beyond
that group as well for input on longer term measures to prepare
our western grain transportation system for future challenges.
In that spirit I have spoken today by teleconference with 34 of
the senior leaders of relevant farm organizations, businesses and
institutions who are the stakeholders in these processes for both
the short term and the long haul.
Through the changes we are beginning to make, we fully
expect Canada will be able to restore its reputation as a reliable
supplier of quality grain. Nothing less is acceptable.
4996
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, the
issue of western grain transportation is not a new one. The crisis
that just occurred is the result of the apathy of the federal
government which, for over 20 years now, has never done
anything to solve this problem. Contrary to comments made by
the Minister of Agriculture, the increase in American demand
for grain was not the primary cause of the crisis in grain
transportation in Canada. This factor merely helped show the
lack of planning and flexibility of the grain transportation
system in Canada. The problem is not a temporary one.
This year, the Grain Transportation Agency will not be able to
deliver more than 30 million tonnes of grain, compared to over
35 million in the past. Major changes must be made to meet the
needs of foreign importers as well as of Canadian and Quebec
buyers. Indeed, it is disappointing to see that it will have been
necessary for the Minister of Agriculture to go to Asia to realize
how serious the problem of grain supply is, while right here
several buyers have suffered major losses because of grain
shortage or delays in delivery.
Something must be done urgently. The estimated $35 million
in demurrage charges in the West, as well as sales of 2 million
tonnes of grain which were either lost or delayed, confirm the
existence of a crisis. In fact, Canada's credibility and reliability
as a major grain exporter are being questioned. I am pleased to
see that the Minister of Agriculture intends to make changes in
the grain transportation system. However, I would have
preferred to hear him tomorrow, since he is meeting the
Sub-Committee on Grain Transportation this evening.
(1515)
This would have helped, among other things, clarify some
conservatively worded recommendations, and add other
changes to those intended. The minister says that the system of
back hauling grain shipped from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg,
merely to be eligible for subsidies provided under the Western
Grain Transportation Act, is going to disappear.
I fully agree with this decision, which should have been made
a long time ago. Having to take rail cars to Thunder Bay results
in high costs, since the turn-around time for those cars is
extended by several days. Each year, close to 2 million tonnes of
grain use that itinerary.
But what is really serious is the fact that, during the crisis,
when there was a shortage of cars and when Canada was losing
buyers, the National Transportation Agency did not even have
the common sense of abolishing this obligation. This is a prime
example of the system's lack of flexibility.
And what about grain transiting through the Panama Canal on
the way to Europe? I raise this issue because the problem goes
far beyond the waste which results from the system of back
hauling grain. The minister does not deal with the issue of the
under-utilization of the Port of Thunder Bay and the St.
Lawrence River. The Sub-Committee on Grain Transportation
recommended to the Minister of Transport to ask the Canadian
Wheat Board to ship more American-bound grain through
Thunder Bay.
The same recommendation could be made regarding grain
exports to Europe, through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Indeed, the
under-utilization of the St. Lawrence Seaway has now reached a
critical level. Since 1984, the Seaway has lost more than half of
the volume of exported grain. Obviously, the Minister of
Agriculture shows little concern for this issue; yet, this is a
totally irrational utilization of our transportation network.
Moreover, the minister gives no indication as to his intentions
regarding the subsidy for Western grain transportation. I remind
the minister that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose any transfer of
the subsidy which might result in an unfair competition between
farm producers.
The minister must propose concrete measures to improve
forecasts regarding the need for rail cars, and to co-ordinate
domestic loading and the movement of rail cars with the arrival
of ships. The minister must not merely make pious wishes. The
problem is not a new one and we can no longer wait and risk to
once again paralyse our supply system.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to provide a brief response to the hon.
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's statement on the grain
transportation system of today.
The minister explained for us in the House what in my
judgment was not just a problem or series of problems this year
but a real crisis in the grain transportation system. While some
of the stakeholders in the transportation industry did not see it as
a crisis, I believe most did; certainly farmers who could not get
their grain moved.
Granted, a unique set of problems did occur this year with the
weather and farmers know a lot about weather problems. I
believe we should be able to develop a system that can adjust to
extreme weather problems. We must try to be prepared for
eventualities of all kinds.
The minister also clearly articulated the repercussions of the
marketplace to our problems. Our reputation as a reliable grain
provider was questioned by our customers. Essentially they
issued an ultimatum to us: ``Improve your delivery record or we
will be shopping somewhere else''. That is very serious.
4997
The minister then outlined some of the ways we have been
trying to deal with this crisis, including referring the work of the
subcommittee which had two days of emergency hearings and
the May 16 meeting of concerned parties in Winnipeg.
(1520 )
We on this side concurred with the report of the co-chairman
of the subcommittee, believing that some good solutions were
proposed. In all honesty I do question the impact or benefit of
the May 16 meeting in Winnipeg when the subcommittee had
just heard some of the same witnesses and when certain
stakeholders, including farmers, were not at the meeting.
Once again farmers are left out of the problem solving
equation and yet they are the ones who bear the brunt and the
cost of a crisis such as this. I would implore the minister to get
farmers more directly involved in issues that directly affect
them.
I have said before and will say again that farmers can fix
almost anything if they can get their hands on it.
The minister noted developments which have helped alleviate
the situation. A west coast labour settlement occurred, although
it does not seem to be entirely satisfactory and in fact may only
be temporary. The railways have also increased their fleets.
One amazing thing that many of my colleagues who sat on the
subcommittee were incredulous over is why the turnaround time
for rail cars on a trip to the ports is not any faster than it was
80 years ago. Surely there must be room for improvement there.
The minister also stated for us today the lessons that we have
hopefully learned from this crisis and announced a list of six
steps that he and the Minister of Transport will implement by
January 1, 1995. Generally we believe they are good and we
believe we are on the right track. We would urge, however, that
the entire system be overhauled so that there are commercial and
financial incentives on the part of all to improve efficiencies and
services. If each stakeholder in the entire system held up their
end of the bargain and were rewarded for doing so and penalized
for not doing so, the system could move toward more
excellence.
Farmers are held responsible for their actions, and so should
everyone else in the system.
What is also needed is legislation to prevent labour disputes
from holding up product movement while still allowing for a
collective bargaining processes. My colleague from Lethbridge
and I are presently bringing forward legislation to address this.
We on this side of the track are willing to work with those on
the other side of the track to ensure that this crisis does not
happen again, to revitalize our world-wide reputation and to
help farmers get their grains and their goods to market.
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of
the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development regarding Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Canada
Wildlife Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
Act.
[English]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report
of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to an order of the House dated Tuesday, April 19,
1994, the Standing Committee on Finance studied Bill C-11, an
act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco
Sales to Young Persons Act, and has agreed to report the bill
with amendments.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 27th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding technical
amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
* * *
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-257, an Act to amend the Auditor
General Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (appointment of
the Auditor General of Canada).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for Oxford for seconding my motion.
I am pleased to table today a bill whose purpose is to change
the way the Auditor General of Canada is appointed. The Prime
Minister now appoints the Auditor General without consulting
the House, and I would like the act to contain a provision
whereby, in the event of a vacancy, the House of Commons
Committee on Public Accounts would consider the proposed
candidates and submit to the House of Commons a report
recommending the appointment of a competent person. In my
opinion, after the House of Commons receives the report from
the committee, it should be up to the Board of Internal Economy
of the House of Commons to choose the next Auditor General of
Canada.
4998
[English]
This bill would ensure a greater independence of the Auditor
General of Canada, would make the House of Commons
responsible for his or her appointment, and I believe strongly
that it would help us to better account to Canadians for public
funds.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
seeking unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That notwithstanding Standing Orders 132 and 140, a petition for a private bill
from Garth Wagner and others, presented on Friday, June 3, 1994, and reported
on by the clerk of petitions on Monday, June 6, 1994, be deemed to have been
filed within the required time limit and received by this House.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 1994 the Speaker
shall entertain no quorum calls nor shall he receive any dilatory motion.
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons) moved:
That a member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of
Disabled Persons be authorized to travel to Fredericton, New Brunswick, to
attend a meeting of the Premier's Council on the Status of Disabled Persons, to
be held from June 23 to June 25, 1994.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. The first one is from some 100 residents of
the federal riding of Kamloops who have asked me to present
this petition.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions signed by residents of my constituency,
Scarborough West, the first of which deals with the issue of
crime prevention and makes the suggestion that one way to help
alleviate what seems to be a rash of crime is to protect witnesses
who may have evidence that can lead to the apprehension and
incarceration of criminals.
(1530 )
In that regard they call upon Parliament to enact a witness
protection bill. More specifically, they pray that Parliament
enact Bill C-206, which happens to be my bill, at the earliest
opportunity so as to provide a statutory foundation for a national
witness relocation and protection program.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I also
have a petition signed by residents of my riding in which they
pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Some have said, incorrectly in my view, that this is a matter of
human rights legislation but as we all know every person in
Canada has the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and the rights stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
regardless of what they do or do not do in their bedrooms.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, my first
petition concerns serial killer cards. One hundred and ten
residents of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo have signed
this petition. These petitioners feel that these cards glorify
violence and show
4999
disregard for the sanctity of human life and offer nothing
positive for children and adults alike to admire.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition is with regard to right to life. I have the honour to table a
petition signed by over 260 petitioners from Cambridge.
The petitioners firmly believe in the sanctity of life and urge
Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to those
unborn children by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by living human beings to those who
are not yet born.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, my last petition
concerns human rights sexual orientation. Over 300 petitioners
who have signed this petition in Cambridge pray and request
that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate public
approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality. I fully
endorse and support those petitioners.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36 it is my honour to table two petitions from residents of my
constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.
The first one, signed by 89 residents of the rural districts of
Rockglen and Vanguard, Saskatchewan, petitions the
government to require Canada Post to rescind its proposed
sevenfold increase in the cost of return postage on a book
dispatched on interlibrary loan.
I concur with the petition, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, my second petition-and I
think this about the eighth of this one I have presented in the
House-is from people in the Coronach district of
Saskatchewan.
It says whereas under section 745 of the Criminal Code of
Canada convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment
without chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for
review after 15 years and where the murder of a Canadian citizen
is a most reprehensible crime, therefore your petitioners request
that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of
Canada.
I also endorse this petition.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have 2,064 signatures on a petition asking the
Parliament of Canada to prohibit and to continue to prohibit
assisted suicide and to support the Criminal Code provisions
prohibiting such activity which exists at the present time.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I also have petitions signed by 657 Canadians asking
the Parliament of Canada for tougher sentences for youthful
offenders.
(1535 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 1,698
Canadians who want to ban the product known as the serial killer
board game.
This brings the number of signatures that I have tabled in this
House to ask for a ban of the serial killer board game to a grand
total of 111,638.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition
from my constituents to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit
the importation, distribution, sale or manufacture of killer cards
and to advise the producers of killer cards that their product, if
destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
I believe that the commercialization and glorification of
violence in our society should be abhorred by all.
* * *
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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5000
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of
Papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all notices of
motions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
19 minutes.
_____________________________________________
5000
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since today is the final
allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 1994, the
House will go through the usual procedures to consider and
dispose of a supply bill.
In view of recent practices do hon. members agree that the bill
be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the President of the Treasury
Board) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $26,952,000 under the heading
Parliament-The Senate-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1995 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to support the motion of the President of the
Treasury Board that vote 1 in the amount of $26,952,000 under
the heading Parliament-The Senate be concurred in.
It would be appropriate for me, speaking on behalf of a
government that is committed to fundamental institutional
change and modernization designed to update our institutions
for the economic and other problems at the end of the century
and the beginning of the next, to comment on the role of the
Senate as an institution in our governmental system. One of the
first things to recognize is the antinomies presented by the
Senate in its present operation.
On the one hand, and I quote from the beautiful wood carvings
in the office of the president of the Senate from the Roman saga
Seneca: ``Nothing is well ordered that is hasty and precipitate''
which of course indicates attention to the conventional role that
senators talk of themselves today, a House of sober second
thought.
It is balanced by the quote from the great Roman tribune
Cicero which translated says: ``It is the duty of the nobles to
oppose the fickleness of the multitudes''. Horace, who is a more
popular poet, put it a little better when he said: ``Odi profanum
volgus et arceo!''I hate the profane mob, I keep aloof from them.
The Senate has always had this particular problem that you
are exerting a power historically of correction and revision of a
lower House that over the centuries had become increasingly
more representative and fully democratized by the opening of
the 20th century with the expansion of the franchise. Yet it is a
House that over the centuries became increasingly more
representative and fully democratized by the opening of the 20th
century with the expansion of the franchise and yet the Senate
has remained with a constitutional system that is wholly
non-elective and that by the beginning of the 20th century had
become anachronistic in historical terms. Indeed, the great
House at Westminster, in light of which the Canadian
Constitution Act in 1867 was framed and which members of this
House refer to reverently and probably appropriately in that
sense, abolished the powers of the House of Lords, the upper
House, effectively in 1911.
(1540)
The Parliament Act of 1911 reduced the powers of the House
of Lords to a suspensive veto of two years. This was in 1911. It
was a reform measure introduced by a dynamic Liberal premier,
Mr. Asquith, and his lieutenant, Lloyd George. It was changed
after World War II by the Attlee government through reduction
of the suspensive veto to three months.
There was a recognition that the principle of constitutional
legitimacy which is one of the hallmarks of western and western
derived constitutional democracy requires that large
discretionary powers be based on an electoral mandate or some
species of electoral confirmation.
So there is the dilemma for the Senate today, one which we
have lived with for a considerable number of years and for which
we have not as yet made the steps taken by the House at
Westminster, the model for the Canadian Parliament.
I had the pleasure of addressing a seminar of eastern European
parliamentarians who were here last week seeking advice from
the Canadian Parliament, seeking to benefit from our
experience. One of the Polish members of Parliament, a
thoughtful gentleman who is also a professor of law at the
University of Warsaw, said to me: ``You have unconstitutional
constitutional provisions in your constitution''. It sounds like an
oxymoron and yet it is there. He said: ``Look, I have read in the
Constitution Act that to be a member of the Senate you have to
have property worth $4,000''. He said: ``Is that democratic? It
would not be constitutional in Poland''.
5001
My friend, who is a senator and whom I respect was with me,
explained that in 1867, $4,000 was a fortune. You could buy a
carriage with four horses and various other things. Today
perhaps it buys several cups of coffee or more. The comparison
was perhaps a little bit far-fetched but nevertheless the point
was made to our Polish colleague. He said: ``Nevertheless, it is
not a healthy part of a constitutional charter to have this in. Why
do you not get rid of it?'' Then we had to get into the intricacies
of how you change the Constitution of Canada since the time of
the Constitution Act of 1982, which put us in a constitutional
straitjacket in relation to direct constitutional amendment but
which would leave, nevertheless, possibilities of change by
more pragmatic and ingenious methods.
I would like to add something and I did this in conversation
with a very thoughtful senator today. We were talking of
unconstitutional constitutional norms which is a European
concept really devised in the belief after World War II that there
must be provisions on which you can challenge Nazi or
communist constitutional provisions that are in denial of
constitutional principles in the constitutional charter itself.
One of the points I raised with him, because he was
approaching retiring age, was: ``Do you think it is constitutional
in Canadian terms to have mandatory retirement at the age of
75?'' Of course the answer is that it is not. This would be another
point to consider.
I would raise the basic point whether a non-elected House
today is constitutionally legitimate and therefore constitutional
in the large sense. Obviously I am not suggesting that we rush
out to the Supreme Court to obtain a declaratory judgment or
advisory opinion on this point, although I do think that the most
recent ruling in 1979 by the Supreme Court of Canada on reform
touching the Senate was somewhat wide of the mark even then.
(1545)
Today, granted changing public opinion controls so much in
public law and the evolution of the public conscience which
affects the content of constitutional norms, I would wonder
whether that 1979 decision is not worth re-examining.
Nevertheless in the context of the Senate today, and granted the
difficulties of amending the Constitution by the front door
methods the Trudeau patriation project introduced-we do have
to face this issue-is the fact that we have a non-elected second
chamber, part of the widespread public disaffection with
constitutional institutions and processes today. I think the
answer is yes.
What can we and the Senate collectively do with this? By the
way, one of the suggestions I have always considered is that the
courts should be used more fully. Could a constitutional ruling
be obtained and, following the example of litigants in
far-reaching constitutional matters of this sort before the
United States Supreme Court, could one not ask the court to
delay application of any ruling for enough time to allow a
corrective constitutional amendment or other change to be
made?
Let me, however, return to the more practical and immediate
issues that could control our approach to the Senate. The Senate
can be changed without its own assent. This is one of the
changes made by the Trudeau constitutional patriation act of
1982, the Constitutional Act, 1982. Only a certain time delay is
involved.
There are areas in which change could be made without
necessarily involving the provinces constitutionally and
therefore touching the power of the federal Parliament alone,
which then would require the Senate's assent or delay.
I hasten to say that I advanced some of these propositions in
evidence as an invited expert witness before the Senate and the
House in previous years. I have said in other committees on
which I saw one of my learned colleagues opposite, a pox on
expert witnesses or self-styled expert witnesses. I have to say
with all humility that when I have been summoned as an expert
witness by the Goldenberg committee, an excellent committee
of the Senate, and by the Molgat-MacGuigan committee and
others I offered these suggestions with all modesty.
One of the issues would be whether the Senate would not
better assume a role, as the United States Senate has, in
confirmation or review of executive power rather than in review
of legislative power in which its lack of legitimacy through
direct election limits it. The public appointing processes in the
United States are subject to Senate confirmation, as to the
Supreme Court, ambassadorial appointments and what we
would here call crown corporations. This is an important and
democratic role in the United States and one that ensures the
better functioning of the public services.
The Senate role in foreign affairs, the two-thirds Senate
majority necessary to confirm a treaty made by the United
States, gives a role for a body removed at once from the
executive power making the treaties and from a house often
subject to too much sectional pressure.
These are the sorts of powers one proposed to the Goldenberg
committee, to the Molgat-MacGuigan committee and to others
under condition that the Senate be reformed and be elected.
One further role would be the election of the head of state, the
Governor General. There is a case to be made for this and for
providing a further constitutional legitimacy for that office.
Once again this is a condition precedent. A condition precedent
would be electing the Senate or in some way legitimating it by
some other process.
In western Canada there is a strong body of opinion associated
with a former Social Credit minister, Rafe Mair, known for
broadcasting and other activities, that the Senate should be a
states house, very much like the German Bundesrat. The
Bundesrat is really a body for federal-provincial co-operation
in the practical administration and application of legislation. It
is not really a second chamber in the North American or British
sense. It is an interesting model.
5002
(1550)
I raise these areas in which change in Senate powers, new
powers, could be introduced and provide a worthwhile and
valuable role, a necessary countervailing power granting
conditions at the end of the century to an executive power that
many feel has become presidential and therefore without the
checks and balances however applied to presidential power in
the United States and some other countries.
How would we change the Senate? Granted there are the
difficulties of amending it and expecting that we are not going to
have a fundamental act of constituent power that usually occurs
only after revolutions or great military victories in other
countries. Certainly some changes could be made by
convention, by custom.
The Government of Alberta proceeded to elect somebody
whom it designated as a candidate for appointment to the
Senate. In one case the Prime Minister of Canada accepted that
advice and appointed the person so elected. If that were
followed it could create a general practice.
More interestingly, the Mulroney government, after the
failure of the Meech Lake accord, proceeded to name four
Quebec senators following the procedures outlined in the Meech
Lake accord of consultation with the provincial attorney general
and premier. Some would say that those are better Quebec
senators than the usual type of nomination; interesting persons
in any case.
In the meantime, though, the Senate itself can exercise
self-restraint in its powers. Again to quote our Latin scholars, it
probably would better to use the Fabian tactic of delay and
conciliation without it trying directly to defeat measures.
I say this in welcoming the role of the Senate, a discreet role
in relation to Bill C-18. I am not speaking of the confrontation
with the House which I think would be unacceptable according
to my constitutional thinking, but of the quiet conversations by
individual senators with members of the House that seem to
have produced a felicitous accord between the two
Houses-maybe I am being premature-as to whether and how
Bill C-18 should be adopted in its revised form.
This sort of process of interaction between two houses, a
dialectical process, is very much in accord with the evolution of
democratic constitutionalism. It produces a sensible and
pragmatic approach to revising, updating and modernizing an
institution that was honoured in its origins but has failed to keep
pace with the changes in Canadian society, with the views on
political representation and political constitutional legitimacy
flowing from that and with the changes in other countries.
I commend to members, in voting on this measure which has
my full support, that we keep in mind an agenda for
constitutional change involving the upper house; that we keep in
mind that the constitution is not simply an issue of the place of
one or more provinces in Confederation, renewed or otherwise,
but that there are larger issues involving the relationship
between the citizen and the state; that we keep in mind that there
are better functioning and more modern institutions that
correspond more exactly to the main trends in democratic
constitutionalism. This sort of change would do much to restore
public confidence in our parliamentary institutions and in the
people who serve them.
On this basis I am happy to support the motion as introduced.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to what was said by the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra, and I would appreciate his comments on the
Legislative Council of what was then known as the Legislative
Assembly in Quebec City. In 1967, Premier Daniel Johnson
senior abolished the Legislative Council. Well, you know how
these things work. There was the usual wheeling and dealing,
and finally the councillors agreed to be voted out of existence.
(1555)
I would also like to recall for the benefit of the hon. member
and this is another point, that I used to live in one of seven
so-called protected ridings in Quebec.
An hon. member: Protected under the Constitution.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Yes, under the Constitution. I
lived in Wolfe, where there were about 6,000 voters at the time,
compared with nearly 100,000 in Westmount. There were six or
seven protected ridings, and to revoke their protected status
required a unanimous resolution of the Quebec National
Assembly. So the members for these ridings agreed to vote their
ridings out of existence and themselves out of a job. Of course, a
number of mutually acceptable arrangements were made.
I think that is the price we have to pay, because after going
back in time several hundred years during the very interesting
overview the hon. member gave us earlier, when we get back to
the situation today in 1994, and soon in 2000, well, the Senate-
In any case, when I mention the Senate in Frontenac, people tend
to laugh. I will not repeat everything they said, but they do not
take the Senate very seriously.
5003
I would appreciate hearing the views of the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question and I will make the following comment.
I regret that it is almost impossible to change the Constitution
directly with a law, as far as the Senate is concerned. If it is
possible, we can consider it, but it will take the senators'
consent.
But without changing the role of Parliament, of the elected
House, I do not think that we can simply abolish the Senate.
Legislative committees absolutely must have an increased role
and the House must have a much more sophisticated system than
the Constitutional checks and balances than what we now have.
As for Senate reform, in the 1980s, we considered the
possibility of a sort of Constitutional counterweight, a body that
would oversee executive decisions, confirm appointments,
review treaties and international agreements, things like that.
We are faced with this dilemma that it is almost impossible to
abolish the Senate without its consent, except as far as details
and particular powers of the Senate are concerned.
I agree that we must work with the Senate and try to obtain
their co-operation. If not, I am quite prepared to accept an
increased role for legislative committees and even to consider
the possibility of an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I too listened closely and with a great deal of interest to
the speech given by our colleague from Vancouver Quadra who
is an expert in constitutional matters.
(1600)
The Senate is, by definition, the chamber which represents the
interests of the provinces. Now is not the time to debate how
well it actually does this job, but the fact remains that this is one
of its many duties, namely to counterbalance the representation
by population in the House of Commons.
In light of these considerations, does the hon. member not
consider it highly unusual, as I do, that a party which claims to
have provincial interests at heart all of a sudden attempts in this
federal chamber to abolish a mechanism which belongs to the
provinces, without even bothering to consult them, and what is
more, attempts to do so by cutting this institution's budget?
Does he not find this the least bit odd? I do. The member
opposite claims that Canadians do not really care all that much
about the Senate.
If my colleague from Vancouver Quadra will recall the
Charlottetown constitutional debate, he will remember that the
Senate did indeed matter. Once the debate had begun, the people
argued over whether their province should have one more
senator, or one less. Would he not agree that the Senate seemed
to matter then, that Canadians should at the very least be
consulted before the Senate is abolished and that such a decision
should not be made if that is not what the provinces or the
Canadian people want?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his question. It is important to recognize the
distinction made by the renowned Austro-Hungarian jurist by
the name of Ehrlich between written law and the actual practice
of law. I cannot consider the Senate as it is today as representing
the provinces, unless major changes are made to its make-up.
You cannot really say that the Senate represents the provinces.
Under these circumstances, it is very important to change the
representation system applied to the Senate so that it can play
the role it was originally set up for, but which does not reflect the
social reality in Canada any more. That is why I would be
tempted to make these changes, even though I am not very
optimistic.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as
the member for Richmond-Wolfe and on behalf of my
colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and of all the people we
represent in the House of Commons, I will speak to the notice I
gave to this House objecting, on behalf of the Official
Opposition, to the vote in the amount of $26,952,000 under the
heading Parliament-The Senate.
The Bloc has always spoken out against the existence of a
Senate, and I would like to demonstrate that this institution is, in
our opinion, as archaic as it is useless. This institution is nothing
more than an excuse for the government to reward its friends, be
they Liberal or Tory, who will then work-in true partisan
fashion-for the government or for the interests they represent.
Several of my colleagues will prove it in several ways during
this debate.
I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra and I will go over the issues he dealt with. He
will probably not like my arguments. I note at the outset that the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra must be feeling lonely
because, first of all, he looked at the issue of maintaining the
votes through the objective of revamping and improving the
Senate. He must be feeling lonely because, first, his own leader
does not want to address in any way the constitutional issue and,
second, the Senate itself would have to scuttle its own ship.
5004
(1605)
I would like to remind you that the current distribution of the
104 Senate seats is provided for in Section 22 of the 1867
Constitution Act. As Canada is divided into four regions, these
regions must be equally represented. Ontario and Quebec get
24 senators each; New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, six each;
Prince Edward Island, four; the four Western provinces, six each
for a total of 24; in 1948, Newfoundland got six; finally, the two
territories have one each.
Senators are appointed by the Governor General who,
according to tradition, acts on the initiative and advice of the
Prime Minister. Everyone recognizes that they are in fact
appointed by the Prime Minister.
Since senators are not elected, and the hon. member directly
alluded to that fact, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the other place
is an anachronism, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra
put it so well, given the modern criteria which underly the
political management of a State.
So, on behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I
denounce this unacceptable waste in the form of a credit of
$26.9 million, plus statutory expenditures of some $15.7
million, for a total budget of $42.6 million, not including the
services provided. This is an unacceptable expenditure for an
archaic political institution which plays a useless role for
Quebecers and Canadians at large.
Let me remind you of the origin of senates in the various
political systems, and of the objectives of the Canadian Senate
when it was created. This will give you a better idea of how that
institution is a miserable failure in the Canadian political
system.
Let us take a look at history. In ancient Greece, more than
500 years before Christ, the legislators formed a council of the
500, whose role was to control the possible excesses of
democracy. The very ancient societies had the wisdom to create
a political body to monitor decisions concerning society as a
whole. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra alluded to this
earlier. On one of the walls of the Canadian Senate, there is a
maxim by Cicero, who was a thinker in Ancient Rome, to the
effect that it is the duty of the noble to oppose the instability of
the people. How pretentious!
From time immemorial, when democracy was still in its
infancy, people sought to give an aura of wisdom to the Senate,
in order to legitimize this institution, whose mission is
fundamentally a conservative one for society.
The Senate is like the British House of Lords; it is a House for
very important people. True to the British tradition, the accent is
on sharing legislative power among the two Houses, which
represent two different social classes, that is the people and the
nobility.
The first objective of the Senate, like its British model, is to
review and think, thus monitoring the House of Commons. This
is very close to the perception that prevailed in antiquity. Senate
members are supposed to counterbalance the executive side of
Parliament. Moreover, the Fathers of Confederation also wanted
to follow the American model and created a Canadian Senate
similar to a federal Chamber whose objective was to protect the
rights of the regions and provinces, and to ensure its
participation in the legislative process of the Federation.
The founders of the Canadian Upper House took their
inspiration both from the British House of Lords and the
American Senate, two models that were clearly incompatible
and light years away from any historical affinity. The House of
Lords, anchored in the medieval myth of the monarchy, and the
Senate, with its modern North American dynamics firmly
anchored in the twentieth century. This was a highly unsuitable
marriage between a modern American Senate and a medieval
British system.
We must not forget that the criteria for representation from
Quebec and Ontario, at the time the Canadian Constitution was
drafted, were included at the behest of Lower Canada-in other
words, Quebec-in exchange for agreeing with the principle of
proportional representation in the House of Commons.
(1610)
In the minds of the founding fathers, the Senate was intended
to provide equitable representation for the regions. However, it
was never intended as a house of the regions. Today, there is no
reason why the House of Commons should appropriate funds to
a political institution that is ineffective and totally useless.
Considering the state of the economy, with a debt of over
$550 billion and unemployment and poverty in Quebec and
Canada, the total budget of $42.6 million allocated to this
institution would be better spent on economic recovery and job
creation.
To continue this discourse on the failure of successive federal
governments to provide for responsible management of public
funds, as they sank millions into an institution that is utterly
useless, I would like to give two examples of a functional
Senate; the U.S. Senate and the German Bundesrat referred to by
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Unlike the Canadian Senate, the American model-the first
federal model on this continent-is unique in its simplicity. In
the House of Representatives, representation is based on
numbers, while in the Senate, it is based on absolute equality
among the States.
A description of the duties of U.S. senators demonstrates how
ineffective and useless members of the Canadian Upper House
really are. Here is why American senators have specific
legislative duties that are essential to the proper functioning of
the American presidential system. Thus, in conjunction with the
House of Representatives, they pass bills previously approved
by the President. If no compromise can be reached, the bill is not
passed. They also have executive functions whose importance is
5005
still growing, such as the approval of appointments made by the
President, appointments of judges, ministers and ambassadors
which are often subjected to rigorous inquiries by the U.S.
Senate.
Ratification of international treaties is another major
executive power held by the Senate within the American system.
The American presidential system is efficient in that, among
other things, the Senate produces prestigious members well
known for their legislative skills, and let me remind you that
they are elected by the people, which is not the case in Canada.
They are elected by the people.
The U.S. Senate alone has attracted the most talented minds of
the nation and constitutes an intellectual centre of indisputable
superiority compared with the legislative dynamics of the
Canadian Senate.
The United States Senate has really brought to the fore,
through a real and constant practice of politics, the spirit of
wisdom and reason which inspired people from antiquity when
they set up the early senates.
Let us talk about the Bundesrat. As for the German Bundesrat,
or Federal Council, it is another Senate-like democratic
institution, but contrary to the Canadian Senate, it works. The
Bundesrat, which was created by the Constitution of the German
Empire in 1871, was a major legislative body of the Empire. It
was originally an assembly of ambassadors from member states.
It is the ancestor of the second German House, the Assembly of
the Landers' Executive members or, if you prefer, of the
federated provinces representing the various territories, either
provinces or regions.
Simply to explain how the Bundesrat works, it is formed by
45 members of the government of Landers and each Land is
allowed at least three votes. To illustrate the process, when a bill
is introduced, for instance, it must be submitted to the approval
of the Bundesrat, the equivalent to our Senate, which has a veto
it can use within one week, provided there is a majority of two
thirds of the votes. The head of the government of a Land
automatically becomes a member of the Bundesrat. The central
government designates as many ministers as the number of
votes the Lands are entitled to.
I should add that the approval of the Bundesrat is required
when an issue deals with administrative or financial interests of
the Landers, the equivalent of the provinces and regions in
Canada.
(1615)
In Germany, federalism finds its true meaning. Eleven
Landers are directly represented by the members of each Land's
government. Therefore, Canadian federalists cannot decently
talk in Quebec or elsewhere of the merits of a viable federalism
that does not even respect its own components. Federalism has
never existed in Canada. There is a central government that tried
by all means to grab as much power as possible at the expense of
provinces and regions. The Canadian Senate plays no significant
role in the defence of regions and minorities, one of the reasons
why it was created, which leaves the Executive of the House of
Commons a maximum of powers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): We must admit it is not
easy to deal with two legislative houses in a British type of
parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems, clearly
dominated by the executive, give their Upper House very
limited if not meaningless powers. Given that such is the system
in Canada, the Senate is reduced to an anachronism since it has
no weight in the country's political balance and lacks legitimacy
because its members are not elected but simply appointed by the
Prime Minister. Since the executive is accountable only to the
House of Commons, the Senate loses any influence it might have
over the government. The parliamentary system requires that
the Lower House have greater powers than the Upper House
because the government comes from the former and is elected
and, therefore, is accountable only to it.
That problem does not exist within a presidential system like
the one in the United States since the executive is politically
accountable neither to the House of Representatives nor to the
Senate. The separation of powers is more strictly established in
a presidential system than in a parliamentary system like ours
where the Senate is useless.
In the third part of this demonstration, I would like to touch on
the question of administrative responsibilities associated with
the allocation of $26.9 million for the operation of an Upper
House within the Canadian parliamentary system and, with your
permission, I will explain how the Canadian Senate is unable to
accomplish various tasks which, in theory, are part of its
obligations.
For example, it is difficult to justify the existence of an Upper
House based on the principle of legislative review. The idea that
the Canadian Senate could reflect soberly on the legislative
measures of the House of Commons flows from the conservative
prejudices that existed earlier under the monarchy. The
Canadian Senate is a remnant of a traditional and elitist
representation opposed, in a way, to the monopolistic
embodiment of a democratic legitimacy already more than 200
years old in the western world. The Canadian Upper House, the
Senate, accepts its secondary role by undertaking activities that
have nothing to do with its legislative role. In fact, senators are
named by the
5006
Prime Minister to play a partisan role, red or blue, or to
represent pressure groups. What they do is lobby.
Here is the truth: Over the last 50 years, the Senate used its
veto power only to delay, as was pointed out by my friend, the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Between 1943 and 1964,
only two bills were rejected by the Senate and since 1964, only
one, and under circumstances which were not really significant,
considering that on the rejected bill, C-43 about abortion, MPs
and senators were free to vote according to their conscience.
Before the Constitution Act of 1982, the Senate always bowed to
the desires of the government and the Commons. It did not
exercise its veto power because it was continuously controlled
by the party in power.
When the Canadian Senate was created, the idea was to enable
the senators to distance themselves from the partisan positions
taken by the members of the House of Commons. The idea was
to have a House of sober second thought which would be above
the bursts of passion of the people.
(1620)
In Canada, the Fathers of Confederation were in favour of
nominating senators to preserve the independence of the
members of the Upper House. One could have expected that
senators, who hold office until they turn 75-quite the job
security at a time when unemployment rate is so high, both in
Canada and Quebec-and are not subject to the whims of the
people, would have shown their independence towards the party
in office.
On the contrary, the Upper House members have been
staunchly partisan, with little regard for their role as impartial
law-makers. It needs to be stated again, senators are appointed
on a strictly partisan basis.
For the Bloc Quebecois, which is concerned not only with
Quebec's interests, but also with the democratic values dear to
all Canadians, the contradiction between the myth of a House of
sober second thought and the reality of a partisan Canadian
Senate, is reason enough to oppose any kind of subsidy for this
useless institution and to advocate its abolition.
Some hon. members: What a waste!
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): The principle of equal
regional representation has become increasingly more tenuous
as the regions have evolved, as the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell mentioned in his question. I
submit that the original regional distribution, which dates back
to the negotiations surrounding the 1867 Constitution Act, is no
longer representative of today's population nor of present
regional borders. Fortunately, provincial assemblies quickly
took over the Senate's role regarding representation of regional
interests.
Finally, we must mention the dismal failure of the Canadian
Senate as the protector of minorities. One of the Upper House's
important roles, which is enshrined in this country's
Constitution, is not only provincial or regional representation,
but also the representation and protection of interests less well
protected by the House of Commons.
Since linguistic duality, the notion of two founding nations, is
a fundamental characteristic of Canada, such duality should
normally be manifested in the Senate and be a fundamental
element of its make-up. I am referring here to the
double-majority mechanism, which ensures a more adequate
protection for French-speaking minorities outside Quebec.
But, never ever has the Upper House stood up for these
minorities' interests, and this is a proven fact. Take, for
example, the problems encountered by all French-speaking
communities in Canada, and that was evidenced again today.
The Senate's action in all its spheres of activity fails miserably.
In fact, Canada's Upper House has a very clearly defined
mandate, which is to represent partisan interests, Tories or Grits.
A majority of the senators appointed by the Prime Minister have
some political experience, in fact approximately half of them,
and the others usually have rendered well-recognized services
to the party in power. The Senate does allow a golden retirement
for politicians and others who are long-time supporters of
Liberal and Conservative members and who have always been
close to the corridors of power in Canada.
From 1925 to 1963, the average age of senators was 69. In
1975, it was 64 years. A seat in the Senate is a true reward at
carreer's end, since one does not have to fight anymore to keep
one's seat until the age of 75. For the government, it is both a
reward and a way to control its institution.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with some of the hon. member's comments but
certainly not with all of them. First, the hon. member claims to
be the champion of regions in Canada. He said a few moments
ago that his party and himself are protecting the interests-these
are his exact words-the interests of Quebec and those of the
other provinces.
(1625)
Should he be reminded that the premier of Alberta, for
example, wants the Senate not only to be maintained but to be
even more powerful? How can the hon. member suggest
abolishing an institution which some premiers want not only to
keep but to strengthen?
Second, as for the French-speaking senators from outside
Quebec, well, the hon. member does not seem to be very well
informed. At this very moment, Senator Eymard Corbin is on the
official languages committee, defending the interests of
francophones outside Quebec. It is not the first time that Senator
Corbin has defended the interests of French-speaking minori-
5007
ties. Furthermore, he is a former chairman of the Assemblée
internationale des parlementaires de langue française and he
played many other roles.
The hon. member opposite may not have been here for long,
but he should take a little look at the background of our
French-speaking parliamentarians from outside Quebec. The
late Senator Bélisle was Mayor of Sudbury and a minister in the
Ontario Legislature before being called to the Senate. Did the
hon. member forget the history of Senator Bélisle, one of the two
francophones outside Quebec to have been in municipal,
provincial and federal government? The other one is me.
An hon. member: At the same time?
Mr. Boudria: No. Not at the same time.
Third, he said that the senators were almost all appointed to
their position as a political reward. Does he forget the work done
by Senator Beaudoin, a constitutional expert who was not
appointed to represent my party or his own? Senator Beaudoin
speaks in defence of francophone minorities.
Surely the hon. member opposite should apologize to those
three parliamentarians I just mentioned.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will certainly not
succeed in making me cry.
In response to a comment that the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made earlier, the hon. member
for Vancouver Quadra told him that provincial representation in
the Senate simply does not exist. So, you can just forget about
regional representation.
Second, I will tell my colleague that his party is in a catch-22
situation. The Liberals are defending the allocation of funds to a
Senate which, according to the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra, must be reformed and improved. My colleague does not
realize that, to do so, we have to amend the Constitution, and it
so happens that his own leader has said clearly that amendments
to the Constitution were absolutely out of the question. Do these
people talk to each other sometimes? It seems that they do not
talk to each other at all.
Does the hon. member not hear what his leader says here in
the House? Each time he is asked a question about constitutional
matters, the Prime Minister says that he does not want to talk
about the Constitution. Yet, the argument invoked by the hon.
member to defend the allocation of funds to the Senate is that we
must improve the Senate, change the name of the game, and so
on. Such comments cannot be serious.
We know full well that the Senate has no power. Senators are
appointed by the Prime Minister and they have a particular job
to do, a job that is partisan in nature. Everybody knows that. The
Senate costs a fortune to administer, more than $42 million to be
exact, and yet, as mentioned by the Auditor General in his last
report, it sits only a little over 40 days a year, with absenteeism
running at between 20 and 25 per cent. It is ridiculous to invest
millions of dollars in such a useless institution when there are so
many unemployed and so many people on welfare in Quebec and
across Canada.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a question to the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe.
He has pointed out the constitutional contradictions in our era
of transition. He has quoted two models, but they are completely
divergent. The American model is not a House of sober second
thought, like the one in Westminster. He admitted that. It
operates equally as a House of sober second thought and as a
body working as a constitutional check and balance vis-à-vis
the executive power. In comparison, the German Bundesrat is
certainly not a House of sober second thought. It is essentially
an intergovernmental committee of high-ranking officials.
(1630)
Is he then advocating one or the other as a model, for example,
for a revision of the Canadian constitution?
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I thank the hon. member
for Vancouver Quadra for his question. We have frequent
discussions in committee. I know that he is very learned and that
he has great concern for democracy and parliamentary
institutions.
The hon. member noticed that I made reference to two
different systems in my remarks. I meant to compare our
Canadian Senate, which is completely ineffective, with two
different models that do work, each in its own way. They get
things done, they wield some power, and play specific roles. My
colleague had mentioned a few models, and I just added a few
more.
Our fundamental goal is always to increase the powers and the
role of members in this House so that they can really begin to
carry out their duties as soon as they are elected and do so
completely.
I do not advocate any model for the Senate. What we are
doing, Mr. Speaker, is examining an ineffective institution, and
pointing out that this government does not want to change the
rules because it refuses to reopen the Constitution. It does not
want to hear a single word about the Constitution, even though
some of its members would like to bring about improvements
and propose amendments.
I do not advocate any specific model. All I said is that the
Senate just does not work, and that it does not need that much
money.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in response to the Bloc
motion. I am happy to stand before the House and say that I and
the Reform Party certainly oppose the Bloc motion. We believe
the intent of this motion obviously is to eliminate spending on
the Senate and thereby achieve the de facto abolishment of it.
The
5008
Reform Party is and always has been an advocate of a reformed
Senate, certainly not of its abolishment.
In large countries where the population is unevenly
distributed there is a fundamental need to balance
representation by population with representation by province.
This is especially true in a parliamentary system like Canada's
where regimented party caucuses engage in bloc voting under
the direction of party leadership. In other big federations like
the United States and Australia this balance has been achieved
by establishing two levels of government and a bicameral
legislature in which the provinces are effectively represented in
the upper House and representation by population prevails in the
lower House.
The Fathers of Confederation intended to provide this type of
balance in the Canadian Parliament, but the Senate as currently
constituted has failed to play this role and it simply needs to be
reformed.
First, the Senate must be popularly elected. In a democratic
age an appointed upper House will always lack legitimacy and
hence political power. It is time to take democracy seriously.
Second, the Senate must be equal, in the sense that each
province must have the same number of seats, such as in the
Australian and United States models. In such a Senate the thinly
populated areas, provinces of Canada, would have a majority of
seats in the Senate, just as the heavily populated provinces hold
the majority of seats in this House of Commons.
Reformers will not be misled into supporting a counterfeit
regional version of equality according to which the west,
Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada will each have the same
number of senators. This is approximately what Canada has now
and it simply does not work.
Third, the Senate must be effective. It must have adequate
power to balance the House of Commons. There is some room
for fine tuning here. Reformers do not believe that the defeat of a
government bill in the Senate should lead to the defeat of the
government. However, the Senate must not be shorn of power so
that it becomes unable to amend or veto regionally offensive
legislation emanating from the House of Commons.
(1635)
Reformers believe that only a triple-E Senate, elected, equal,
and effective, can balance the interests of less populous
provinces with those of the more populous provinces in this
Canadian Parliament.
When I talk about regional fairness I like to relate it to some
of the things I have been involved with, one of which is my work
on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.
Certainly we live in a country with diverse interests and diverse
problems and certainly agriculture is no exception to that.
Recently Reformers proposed at the committee level a 5 per
cent reduction in the overhead costs of the Department of
Agriculture. The reason we proposed this was that we believed
there was a need for cuts in the department other than those
which would come on the backs of farmers or the people who
work in that area. I relate this to the regional fairness issue
because with the diverse differences in this country only
regional fairness and equality in an elected Senate would
compensate for those differences.
The Reform Party made the first step toward a triple-E Senate
when it pressured the Government of Alberta into holding
properly constituted Senate elections in 1988. Most recently the
Reform Party asked the Alberta government to pass a resolution
which would request the current appointed senators in Alberta to
resign so that sanctioned elections could be held in conjunction
with the next Alberta provincial election. The Reform Party
would herald the accomplishment of Senate election for all
senators, both inside Alberta and throughout Canada as a
significant leap toward the goal of a triple-E Senate.
There have been many reasons, many arguments, many
pressures by politicians and people of all stripes for the
abolition of the Senate. The Reform Party favours and has been
advocating for many years now the abolition of those features of
the Canadian Senate which render it useless and repugnant to
voters and taxpayers, namely: Abolish the patronage
appointments to the Senate. Elect all senators. Abolish
exorbitant perks, pensions and privileges. Establish an
independent commission to recommend a pay and pension
package for senators and members of Parliament comparable to
what is available in the private sector. Abolish inequitable
representation in the Senate. Elect equal numbers of senators
from each province.
If the Senate is abolished completely, Canada will
immediately be governed by a one House Parliament in which
the heavily populated centres would have an absolute majority
of seats. In such a Parliament it would be virtually impossible to
secure effective representation of the interests of the thinly
populated parts of the country, namely the west, the north,
Atlantic Canada, northern and rural Ontario, and northern and
rural Quebec.
The members of the current House of Commons who are
suddenly advocating Senate abolition have no interest in
establishing any checks and balances on themselves, in
particular the regional checks and balances which a reformed
Senate would provide. They are simply seeking to consolidate
power in their own hands.
If the Senate is completely abolished it is also highly unlikely
it would be replaced in the foreseeable future. The premiers who
are most loudly advocating Senate abolition simply want to
maintain their own monopoly on representing their provincial
5009
interests rather than sharing their responsibility with a reformed
Senate.
If the Senate is simply abolished therefore there is very little
likelihood a reformed Senate would ever be established. The
Canadian federal system would fail to balance representation by
population with representation by province, an essential
characteristic for any federal system, particularly in a large
country with an unevenly distributed population.
It is therefore the position of the Reform Party that the useless
and offensive features of the current Senate should be and must
be abolished and that an elected, equal and effective Senate
created in its place.
(1640 )
In the short term, representatives of an elected body would be
more responsive to the desires of the provinces of Canada and it
would not require a constitutional fight to accomplish the
changes we are suggesting.
In the longer term, Canadians should continue to demand an
effective regional federal body to ensure that all Canadians are
adequately represented in the Canadian Parliament. The long
range interest of Canadian federalism, Senate reform, must be
put ahead of the short term expediency of Senate abolition.
As has been mentioned by many members today, we talk a lot
about drastic changes in the way this place and the entire federal
system operate. Certainly we have been talking about fiscal
responsibility, getting government spending under control and
cutting government spending.
There are two ways to look at this. One is to cut federal
spending; the other way is to prioritize federal spending. We
want to take the approach of prioritizing federal spending and
we talk about that in many areas and in many programs.
Certainly the Senate must be one of them. We must prioritize our
spending. If an elected, effective and equal Senate is a priority
as we believe it is, then we must use those funds in our Senate
and make cuts where there is excess in programs or
non-productive programs.
I look forward to questions and comments from hon.
members. I appreciate very much having had this opportunity to
speak on this subject.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, let us say
that, for only a few minutes, I agree with my colleague and that I
support the Senate. It is only for a few minutes, because I do not
really agree with him, but it is a figure of speech. I would like to
ask my colleague, since the Senate is so important, if he can say
who is the senator representing his region.
I would also like to ask him, in the case of an elected Senate
such as the one proposed by his party, the triple-E Senate, which
House would make the final decision on passing bills? Would it
be the elected House of Commons or the elected Senate? Let us
take, for example, a bill on the right to abortion.
My last question is: does he believe that having bills passed
by only one House in his province is wrong or harmful?
[English]
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's first
question about who would make the final decision on a bill, it
really is a very simple process, almost too simple to believe it
could work. Many times in the past ordinary rank and file
Canadians have had ideas that seem too simple to work, yet they
do.
When talking about where the final responsibility would be
for a bill, what would happen under a triple-E Senate would be
as is the normal process in the House. We would vote on and pass
a bill, send it to the other place and the Senate would then have
the opportunity to either accept or defeat it and send it back.
The other part of the solution is that the defeat of a
government motion or bill would not necessarily bring down the
government. That is the safeguard in sending a bill back from
Senate which was not passed in the Senate. The bill would come
back to this House, we would deal with it again, make it better
and make it acceptable to the Senate. The process would work
very well.
As far as the second part of the member's question about one
House by itself in a province, I assume he means Saskatchewan.
Certainly on a provincial level it is an entirely different issue, or
at least it is in my province which is thinly populated, with fewer
than a million people. There is no need for an upper and lower
house in that type of process. Certainly in a Canadian-wide
process where there are 10 provinces, much diversity and many
different areas, there is certainly a need for an effective Senate.
(1645 )
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with enthusiasm to the member opposite with
regard to his presentation. However, I find that having been here
the same length of time that he has we must be attending
different meetings of this House.
As I remember we have had some free votes. I think the
member opposite was likely here when we voted on Bosnia. We
have had other discussions that are going to lend to free votes.
Yet there seems to be the impression that the 35th Parliament is
not going to provide that mechanism.
I would like to know from the member opposite if he was in
attendance. Has he seen that happen? Is he aware of the fact that
5010
yes we have changed in this House? I feel the operation of the
other place is likely going to change as well.
I would like to know from him what his feelings are with
regard to this whole implementation of the 35th Parliament and
the voting procedure and free votes that will come forward.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments and his questions. I think they are valid comments.
Certainly there has been significant change in this House. I
believe there could in fact be significant change in the other
place.
I have to agree however with some of my colleagues from the
opposition party when they talk about a policy and the Senate. I
believe and we believe that we have to abolish some aspects of
the Senate such as the appointments, the perks, the pay and
pensions and those types of things.
Yes I was in attendance for the free vote the member speaks
of. I congratulate the government for those types of initiatives. I
think that is long overdue in this country. I do applaud that.
I look forward to more of those same types of things. If we
openly look at the Senate, how it is created, what the process is
and how it works I really do not see any other answer other than
to make the thing effective. That is the only hope I see for thinly
populate areas of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party member who just spoke about the Senate
expressed very interesting views. His determination to stand up
for the regions was one aspect of his speech that I found
particularly striking.
I have here the list of Quebec senators with their mailing
address. At the moment, Quebec is lucky enough to have
21 senators. Being myself a representative of a large riding far
from the big urban centres, I insist on the rights of regions. If
really the Senate is that important, our
regions-Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the North Shore, the Gaspe
Peninsula-should also have a senator to represent them
adequately. According to this list, of these 21 senators, 13 are
from the Montreal area. There is one whose address is
Laval-sur-le-Lac. I wonder if he would not also be from the
Montreal area.
An hon. member: That is in the Montreal area.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): I am told it is in the Montreal
area. In Quebec, 14 senators represent the Montreal region. Is
this a good regional representation?
Could the member tell us if, in his home province, regions are
well represented in the Senate? I can tell him that in Quebec, I
seriously question the value of the Senate as champion of the
regions. I think it is not very effective, on that score.
[English]
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate this question
and comment from the hon. member. In fact he makes my case
exactly. I would rest my case saying that has been the problem
with the Senate. There is very unequal representation.
Fortunately for the member there are 21 senators from
Quebec. We do not have that luxury in Saskatchewan simply
because we are a thinly populated area.
(1650 )
Having said that, I also believe that an equal number of
senators for each province will rectify that problem. Certainly
the member will know that if there were to be two to four
senators from his province that he should have equal or good
representation, the same number as Ontario, Saskatchewan or
any other province would have.
I understand the problem with the regional unfairness and the
regional representation that is currently not happening.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to advise the House that as of
now, the official opposition will be splitting its time into
ten-minute, rather than twenty-minute periods.
I would like to begin my presentation by recounting an
anecdote which, to my mind, clearly reflects Quebecers'
feelings about the Senate, because it is a fact that virtually the
entire population favours and indeed has long been advocating
the abolition of the Senate.
This anecdote involves the one-time Quebec legislative
council which my colleague from Frontenac referred to
moments ago and which was abolished in the late 1960s.
However, while the council still existed, more specifically
during the 1950s, Maurice Duplessis who was then premier
appointed Mr. Patrice Tardif, a member of the legislative
council, to the Senate.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): From
Saint-Méthode-de-Frontenac.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr.
Tardif, who represented the riding of Frontenac at the time in the
National Assembly, or as it was known, the legislative assembly,
had a rather unusual way of talking in that he pronounced the
letter s like a z. One day, several months after his appointment,
he encountered Premier Duplessis in the halls of the Quebec
parliament.
Mr. Tardif asked the Premier what the people were saying
about his appointment. The Premier answered in French ``Ils ne
dizent rien, Pâtrice, ils rizent.''
This answer speaks volume about the way Quebecers felt at
the time about the Upper House. I think we can safely say that in
1994, their opinion has not changed.
5011
On a more serious note, I would like to use my few remaining
minutes to speak about the effectiveness of the Senate,
commonly referred to as the Upper House. When our colleagues
in the Reform Party talk about the importance of a Triple E
Senate, I would simply say to them, with all due respect, that to
my mind, we already have a Triple E Senate, a Senate with zero
effectiveness, zero efficiency and zero elected members.
In fact, we could even qualify the current Senate not as a
Triple E Senate, but instead as a Triple I Senate, the I standing
for ineffective, inefficient and inane. You may tell me, Mr.
Speaker, that I am the only one who thinks this way.
(1655)
You may think that the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead is too harsh on the Senate. For
the benefit of all my colleagues, I will refer to the report of the
Auditor General, who is a serious and reputable man whose
competence is recognized by all members of this House. The
situation has not changed since he wrote his March 1991 report.
This is what he wrote: ``The Senate is unique and operates in a
rapidly changing environment. Managing the Senate is different
from managing a department, a public organization or a private
business. As a legislative body, the Senate can establish and
adopt most of the regulations impacting on its conduct. It is not
necessarily subjected to the same laws as the administration. It
may not even be bound by the Financial Administration Act. The
usual accountability mechanisms therefore do not apply.
Without these mechanisms or appropriate alternatives, the
Senate, just like the population, cannot be as certain as most
other institutions that its administration is sufficiently
concerned with economy and efficiency''. That is what the
Auditor General said in his report tabled in this House in March
1991.
He goes on to say: ``A distinctive feature of Senate
administration is that senators are collectively responsible.
Senators are themselves responsible for their own
administration. They are accountable only to themselves''. He
adds: ``We noted that the Senate did not, either officially or
unofficially, delegate clear responsibilities to the
administration or clearly indicate what the administration was
accountable for''. In other words, the administration of that
chamber resembles a free-for-all. They do what they want with
public money, as the Auditor General pointed out.
He goes on to say: ``The Senate does not report adequately on
its administrative and financial record and its management of
human resources. It does not have sufficient information to do
so systematically. As far as senators' expenditures are
concerned, we noted that the amounts declared in public
accounts were incomplete and not informative enough to enable
us to determine whether they constitute Senate operating
expenditures under the Parliament of Canada Act. Neither the
Senate's policies nor its practices provide assurance that all the
amounts reimbursed were spent for the operation of the
Senate''. That is a damning judgement of the Upper House, the
Senate.
That year, the Auditor General made 27 recommendations to
improve the operation and efficiency of the Senate. I will give
some of them. These recommendations just as they are show that
the Senate is ineffective, inefficient and useless.
Recommendation No. 1 is that the Senate should define more
clearly the mandates of the Committee on Internal Economy and
its subcommittees. Recommendation No. 2 is that the Senate
should publish its expenditures of public funds and the
performance of its administration. The Senate should regularly
publish a summary of the activities and expenditures of its
committees. Mr. Speaker, it goes on like that for 27
recommendations.
(1700)
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to refer to this
report of the Auditor General from 1991. I am told that this
situation still goes on; according to all the information now
available, the situation is still the same.
In conclusion, I will simply convey some facts on the Senate's
spending as reported in an article by Claude Picher in La Presse
of February 3, 1994. He drew on a report by Gord McIntosh in
the Financial Post, which reported some Senate expenses like
changes or improvements for $125,000 to Senate premises. As
was said right here in this House, a senator had his floor raised
so that he could have a better view outside.
An hon. member: It is disgraceful!
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr.
Speaker, if you allow me, I will conclude with this. The Senate
sat only 47 days in 1993, so each sitting day cost about $1
million on average.
I repeat, this Senate is ineffective, inefficient and useless.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for
unanimous consent to defer all divisions on this debate to
10 p.m. tonight.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the Official Opposition whip. Do hon. members
agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The five-minute period
for questions and comments to the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead will now begin. The
Parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the government in the
House.
5012
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
was very interested in the comments made by the hon. member
for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, but I was surprised by his
attack on the Senate.
[English]
I remember in the last Parliament that the House was not full
but had a great number of Conservative MPs from the province
of Quebec sitting on the other side who were staunch supporters
of the Senate. My recollection is that members of his party who
used to be Conservatives-apparently they either saw some
light or went blind, I am not sure which; either way they fell off
the path and landed on another-or supporters of Mr. Mulroney
and his government supported the Senate. They supported it so
much they stuffed it full of good Tories.
We know this happened during the last Parliament. We know
it was supported by Conservative members of Parliament, many
of whom were from the province of Quebec and never said a
word in the House about their electors wanting to get rid of the
Senate. Now we hear this is the popular rage in his province. I do
not recall hearing raised during the last election campaign
anywhere in Canada that the Senate was the subject of extensive
discussion, either in Quebec or elsewhere.
I am very surprised to hear the hon. member telling us today
that everyone in his province is in favour of abolition of the
Senate when this patently was not the case until at least October
25, 1993. Has something happened that has changed the minds
of Quebecers? I am interested to know what it is that in his view
has resulted in this-
[Translation]
-about-face, as we say, which changed the opinion of all his
constituents.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
for his very pertinent question regarding the comments I just
made and the fact that the vast majority of Quebecers, if not all
of them, are in favour of abolishing the Senate. The hon.
member says that he has doubts about my statement, since the
Conservative members who formed the previous government
were in favour of the Senate, and in fact their government
appointed many Conservative senators to protect its interest in
the Upper House.
(1705)
The answer is quite simple: You only have to look at the
results of the election held on October 25, 1993. There is only
one Conservative member left in this House.
An hon. member: Two.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): No, I
mean to represent Quebec. Quebec has only one Conservative
member who, somewhat like senators, was appointed leader of
the Conservative Party without being elected to that position.
There is the answer. On October 25, 1993, Quebecers made a
choice based on their interests; they made a choice based on
what they really thought of federal institutions, and this is why
they sent 54 Bloc Quebecois members to represent them in this
House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): I can see
why the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may have
some doubts. This is exactly what we said during the election
campaign, last October, and what we are repeating day after day
in this House. For over 125 years now, Quebecers have been
elected to represent their fellow citizens in this House and to
talk to the rest of Canada. This time, there are, in this House,
people who do not want to be appointed to the Senate under any
consideration. We simply want to tell our friends from English
Canada what Quebecers want. And what they want is to have
their own country; they want to set up their own institutions, and
this is why I say once again that Quebecers in general are not
only in favour of abolishing the Senate, but are even in favour of
abolishing their own representation in this House.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity to speak on the subject of the appropriation of
certain votes, and especially the $26.9 million allocated to the
Senate for the 1994-95 fiscal year. I think it is high time this
government realized that sound government management starts
with more prudent and especially more efficient management of
taxpayers' money.
I think it is useless to allocate $26.9 million to the Senate for
program spending, an amount that will be added to the
$15 million it will receive directly in the course of the current
fiscal year and to another $12 million in services provided by
various federal departments and agencies to maintain an
institution that has absolutely no connection with how a modern
democracy operates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the Government, on a point of order.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must refer to Standing
Order 18, because I am afraid the hon. member went too far. The
text reads as follows, and I quote:
5013
18. No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the
Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the
Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or
against any Member thereof.
That is the rule under the Standing Orders. This is very
important, and I hope the hon. member will speak respectfully
of the Senate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to thank the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for his comments. In
fact, I have the text of Standing Order 18, from Standing
Annotated Orders right here, because I want to be vigilant at all
times.
(1710)
However, I must admit I was taking some notes in the chair, so
I cannot comment on what was said by the hon. member for
Joliette, who nevertheless caused the hon. member on the
government side to raise his point of order.
I do want to make it clear to hon. members that I will remain
in the House until the end of the debate. And I want to thank the
hon. member for his remarks, because members must behave in
a parliamentary fashion, as has always been the tradition in this
House, and I am confident that we will continue to do so.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I promise to show respect in my
choice of words, but I must admit that it is sometimes frustrating
to hear people speak against things you hold true and which are
dear to you. If I talk about these institutions, it is not because I
do not appreciate them, but rather because I believe that they
should be modified, if not abolished.
I was going to say that the government claims that it wants to
take steps to save money. Allow me to suggest an excellent way
to do just that. As I said a moment ago, cancel the estimates for
the Canadian Senate.
The men and women who are in the Senate, the other House,
or more respectfully, the other place, were not sent there by the
people; they are not accountable to the people for their
decisions, therefore they are not democratic representatives of
the people.
I will admit that they are people of considerable merit-as
you can see, Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for
them-but no matter how much merit they have, the Senate is
still a very costly institution for Canadians and Quebecers,
especially given our present economic situation.
One must ask what was the reason for giving Parliament two
houses back in 1867? And why today, more than 125 years later,
we still have this non-elected House called the Senate?
Since 1960, 52 different bills have been introduced in this
House with a view to changing either its role or its operations, or
even questioning its very existence. This proves that the
Commons had realized that the Senate urgently needed to be
updated. In 34 years, there has been 52 attempts, some
successful, some not, to change the way the Senate operates.
At the time the Senate was created, it was meant to be a House
of sober second thought. Its members were to serenely review
legislation, free from popular pressure. That could be justified
in 1867, but nowadays, the Senate's role has changed drastically
due to the practical limitation of its authority.
In those days, the Senate used to be a place where the
members of the Federation could be heard. It allowed for the
protection, at the federal level, of provincial and regional
interests. In today's context, the only link between senators and
their province is the fact that they own property and reside there.
Nowadays, the Senate remains an institution without a basis,
which derives its authority solely from the merits of its
members.
(1715)
Above all, the Senate provides a legal framework for political
rewards. In fact, I believe that, in its present form, the Canadian
Senate is an anachronism as a legislative body, a mistake that
costs millions of dollars in public funds.
Communications being what they were in 1867, the public
was informed of decisions taken by the legislator long after the
fact. In such a context, one could understand the existence of a
Senate comprising people having reached the age of wisdom,
having acquired an experience recognized by everyone; one
could understand the usefulness of such an Upper House in
protecting the taxpayers, the voters, against sometimes
emotional or hasty decisions by legislators. Since the taxpayers
were sometimes informed 30, 60 or even 90 days after the
decisions were made, it was difficult for them to react and exert
pressure on their member of Parliament.
But with our modern satellite communications, with the
advent of television, people can exert pressure every day on
their legislator, on their member of Parliament, and can tell
them that they think he or she is making a mistake by supporting
one bill or another, with the opportunity for all the wise people
from each of our ridings-I think that there are 104 members in
the Senate-in each of our ridings I can find at least a hundred or
so wise men and wise women who can very ably advise each
member of this House on the relevance of supporting one bill or
voting against another one.
That safeguard is already guaranteed by our modern means of
communication. We no longer need this Upper House to protect
taxpayers from the mistakes that a single House, voting too
emotionally or too hastily, could make.
Of course, some still think that this group of non-elected
people must have a permanent right to veto decisions made by
elected representatives of the House of Commons, that senators
are here to restrain members of Parliament in their decisions
and to correct their errors. It is true that members of Parliament
can make mistakes. However, we are accountable to our
constituents and they are the ones who will judge us. Not six
months later. They have an opportunity to judge us every week
when we go back to our riding and even before because, when an
error is
5014
too blatant, you can be sure that taxpayers back home call their
member in Ottawa to pressure him or her into reconsidering his
views.
Yet nobody will judge the actions of the senators in the Upper
House. These individuals are there, appointed by the
government in a partisan way and often for services rendered.
They stay there until their retirement at 75. We then must pay
them a pension on top of having to pay the full salary of their
successors.
You will understand that I cannot consider such a treatment to
be in accordance with the principle of democracy. You will
therefore better understand my opposition to the payment of
$26.9 million for program expenses to an institution that is in no
way representative of Canadians and Quebecers.
The five provinces that once had an Upper House abolished
that political institution. That was the case in 1968 in Quebec,
which was the last province to abolish the Senate because it no
longer served a need that once existed. The same question arises
for the Canadian Senate.
Can we consider abolishing the Senate? For almost 30 years,
the question of the further existence of the Senate has constantly
been raised. The Supreme Court gave a break to the Senate when
ruling in 1980 that Parliament could not abolish the Senate
without having a law passed by the British Parliament.
(1720)
Yet, at patriation time in 1982, the main aspects regarding the
powers of the Senate, its regional and provincial make-up and
its non-elected nature were enshrined in the new Constitution,
which opened a door for the government.
Rather than taking steps and solving once and for all the
Senate issue, the government preferred to focus on Senate
reform, with the results that we now have. How can senators
justify being allocated $54 million a year when the Senate does
not sit for long periods of time, when recess periods are
numerous and long and when absenteeism is very high even
when the Senate is sitting?
Do people know that 450 employees had to be hired to work
for the 104 senators. This is an average of 4,3 employees for
each senator? Do people know that $54 million represents a
yearly average of $520,000 for each senator? We could create a
lot of jobs with $54 million.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wonder why we have to add to
the burden of the taxpaying population of Canada and Quebec an
extra $26 million to maintain a non-democratic institution that
does not represent at all the regions and has not been given any
mandate by the people.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the passionate speech of the hon.
member. Much has been said about the Senate already.
During the election campaign, many people asked me to do
something about the Senate. I believe we all have the same
problem, we want to improve the Senate. My question is about
the Senate. Most civilized countries have a Senate, but I heard
the opposition party's members say that they want it abolished.
What kind of checks and balances do they think we should
have for the House of Commons? Do they think we have to
abolish the Senate to improve the system, or would they
consider an improved Senate which would work the way it
should?
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the hon.
member that the provinces which did away with their upper
houses never regretted it. The province of Quebec, where the
Legislative Council was abolished in 1968, never regretted that
decision, and the laws are not worse than they were.
The people of Quebec barely noticed the disappearance of the
Legislative Council. If it had not been for the headlines in the
dailies, a good part of the population might never have known
that the Legislative Council had ceased to exist.
I repeat, the modern means of communication are the
watchdog of the people. When the Prime Minister of the former
government announced his intention to pass legislation to limit
old age pensions, a little lady, very shy, very modest, rose up in
front of television cameras and said to the Prime Minister:
``Charlie Brown, you broke your promises''.
It did not take long, it did not take a Senate to make the Prime
Minister realize that he was about to do something that the
people did not approve. It took only a single and modest
taxpayer to tell the Prime Minister, in front of the cameras, that
the bill he was about to pass was unjust for a good many people.
It did not take a Senate, the Prime Minister backed down and
the bill was never voted on.
(1725)
I challenge the present government to try to pass, tomorrow, a
bill which would be against the best interest of the people, and
then try to enforce it despite the opposition of the population.
The Senate would be of no help in such a case.
Senators themselves had to be called to order a few months
ago when they asked for a pay raise. It is not the House of
Commons that made the senators reconsider their position, it
was public opinion. Senators were told that they had not shown
enough wisdom to realize that in a recession everybody had to
5015
tighten their belts. It is not the Senate, in its wisdom, which
understood it had gone too far, it is public opinion alerted by the
media. The House of Commons told the Senate to show more
wisdom. All this goes to prove that our democracy is well
protected, even without a Senate which costs $54 million a year.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I think it
is absolutely essential that this House question the relevance of
the Senate. This Upper House made up of members who are
nominated and not elected-it bears repeating-goes against
our democratic system in which we take so much pride. In fact,
it is against any form of democracy to give important
decision-making powers to a nominated House. That is why I
rise today against this fossilized institution that costs taxpayers
millions of dollars.
I want to remind my colleagues opposite and the House that,
on January 28, 1957-a long time ago-a member, I think he
was a Liberal, suggested the following-and I quote in view of
my colleagues' lack of memory: ``We will call a meeting
between the federal and provincial governments and, taking
their recommendations as a starting point, we will make the
Senate into an efficient instrument for Parliamentary
governance''. Liberals are probably still studying the issue,
which is probably still a priority for them, 37 years later.
The federal Senate is the only non-elected House still in
existence in Canada. Having understood what a nonsense it was,
provincial legislatures abolished theirs. Unfortunately, on the
threshold of the 21st century, we are still debating the issue in
this House.
The Senate was created in 1867 to quietly review legislation,
free from the glare of public pressure. However, over time,
practical limitations were imposed on its powers. The Upper
House long ago abandoned its practice of introducing bills.
Furthermore, it can, even if it only rarely does so, block bills
that the people's elected representatives have democratically
brought in. Such an opportunity arose in 1961 in connection
with a bill respecting the dismissal of the Governor of the Bank
of Canada, and again in 1964 over the bail-out of the
unemployment insurance fund. More recently, we saw the
Senate block bills concerning the GST and the NAFTA. Rarely
does the Senate invoke this power akin to the sword of Damocles
dangling over the House's head to block government bills, the
reason being that Senate appointments are basically partisan in
nature.
Appointments are handed out to acknowledge services to the
party in power. That is an undeniable fact. The Senate
legitimizes the practice of doling out political rewards. This is
an aberration of the federal system which purports to be
democratic. The appointment process is the reason for the
passive role now played by the Senate. It also explains why a
party newly in power like the Liberals is in such a hurry to gain a
majority in the Senate.
One patently obvious example of the kind of partisanship
which prevents the Senate from making objective decisions is
the speed with which Senator Jacques Hébert, without
mentioning any names, opposed unemployment insurance
reform during the Conservative reign. So concerned was he for
the unemployed that he had gone on a hunger strike four years
earlier to show his support for young people and the jobless.
Well, Senator Hébert does not seem to be quite as perturbed this
time around by the Liberal reform which reduces unemployment
insurance benefits. At least he has not shown any signs yet of
being perturbed. Surely his lack of passion has nothing to do
with partisanship. Or does it?
(1730)
Getting back to the role of senators, each one is appointed to
represent a region of Canada. One of the objectives in creating
the Senate was to ensure regional representation. However, we
would be deluding ourselves if we believed that today's Senate
provided real regional representation. Speaking about regional
representation, how can we forget the passion with which
Senator Gigantes who represents the senatorial division of
Delorimier in Quebec cautioned Quebecers-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take the time to
check but, as far as I know, the members of this House should
not refer to other members or to senators by their names but by
the names of their ridings. I will check but I would still ask the
hon. member to keep this in mind in his comments as much as
possible. I will come back to this if necessary.
The hon. member for Terrebonne.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this
clarification. I checked and I thought we could use names but I
will refrain from doing so.
The senator I just mentioned, who represents Delorimier, in
Quebec, warned Quebecers against the possible failure of the
Charlottetown Accord. He even predicted such a failure would
lead to a crisis similar to what happened in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you see tanks in Quebec, senator?
Who did the Delorimier people vote for in the last election,
senator? We wonder who you represent today, senator.
This senator recently did it again, predicting a civil
war-what a wise man he is-in Quebec if that province ever
becomes independent. This senator represents Quebec. Is this
wise senator acting like a good regional representative when he
accuses Bloc members democratically elected by the Quebec
people of being traitors. I doubt that this senator really
represents his region. As I said earlier, the fact that he represents
Delorimier, which was named after a Quebec patriot, is one of
the system's
5016
absurdities. I repeat, who did the people of Delorimier vote for
on October 25, senator? Again, who do you represent?
I would like to shed light on something. I would like to quote
from two articles that appeared in La Presse to show the
intellectual rigour of this senator from Delorimier. In September
1992, this senator said about the Charlottetown Agreement:
A no vote in Quebec would not be a return to the current status quo. Under the
current status quo, all the premiers from English Canada approved the agreement
which, as Professor André Tremblay said, contains all the concessions that
English Canada would be prepared to grant to Quebec.
Two months after the Charlottetown Accord failed, this
senator said: ``Obviously, if the rest of Canada could not
swallow the Charlottetown Accord, Quebecers now have only
two choices, namely the status quo and independence without
previously negotiated economic association''.
Two months earlier he was saying that the status quo was not
an option and two months later, that it was the only option. What
a wise man!
In the wake of the Charlottetown Accord he said this:
The rest of Canada will never allow the Bloc Quebecois to wield influence by
holding the balance of power.
Someone who was appointed in a non-democratic fashion and
who represents a Quebec division dares to speak against
democracy. That is the Senate for you!
An hon. member: Against duly elected representatives.
Mr. Sauvageau: Against duly elected representatives!
(1735)
Let us now look at these exorbitant costs of this other House,
by the way. According to the Auditor General's report of 1991,
the Financial Administration Act could not apply to the Senate.
The Auditor General says that the usual accountability
mechanisms do not apply to the Senate. Without such
mechanisms or appropriate alternatives, neither the Senate nor
the people can be sure that it is managed with sufficient concern
for economy and efficiency.
Moreover, the expenditures declared by senators in the public
accounts are incomplete. The Auditor General's report tells us
that neither the Senate's policies nor its practices provide
assurance that all the amounts reimbursed were spent for the
operation of the Senate. The Senate administrators cannot
distinguish the Senate's operating expenses from the senators'
personal expenses.
That is serious, Mr. Speaker. But what are the Senate's actual
expenses? In 1990-91, the total budget of the Upper House was
$40 million and today it is $43 million. Need I say that this is
public money, funds provided by the taxpayers, and the Auditor
General's report tells us that there is no control over this
spending. Forty-three million dollars with which we could
create jobs for the unemployed is wasted.
The senators have a very busy schedule but they still have
plenty of free time. They sat for 29 days in the four months from
February to May 1993 and they collect an annual salary of
$64,400, which is public, plus a $10,000 non-taxable expense
allowance, which is also public, to which we must add 64 travel
points to which they are entitled and this is also public.
This is a little more than the average salary of taxpayers who
work 40 hours a week. We could go on talking for a long time
about what journalist Claude Picher in La Presse calls a list of
horrors.
For example, based on the Auditor General's report for
1990-91, I would like to ask you a question now, Mr. Speaker.
Because I do not know her division, can I name Senator
Cochrane or not?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to clarify some
points at the end of your comments, for the benefit of the House.
I simply want to say that your 10 minutes have now expired.
However, I will recognize you for another minute if you want to
conclude your remarks.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, a public report
released by the Auditor General refers to Senator Cochrane, not
to mention any names, who, on top of her $60,000 salary, as I
was saying earlier, and her expense allowance of $9,000, cost
Canadian taxpayers $35,000 in travelling expenses and $49,000
in office-related costs. Canada does have its own museum of
horrors and its own villains in that museum.
In the minute I have left, I want to point out how absurd it is,
in a democratic system, to have a house of non-elected members
with decision-making power. Canadian dignitaries who are so
proud of their democracy have no lesson to teach to other
countries. When will they abolish that House which costs
Quebecers and Canadians $43 million every year, even though it
is ineffective and non-democratic?
We are in the midst of an economic crisis and our debt
increases by thousands of dollars every minute. The federal
government cannot continue to waste public money on a useless
institution.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to the
period of questions and comments following the intervention
from the hon. member for Terrebonne, I would like to bring
some clarification to the issue of naming either members of
Parliament or senators.
[Translation]
Those comments are from the Annotated Standing Orders and
refer to Standing Order 18(3): ``What is acceptable depends
largely on the circumstances, but personal attacks, insults,
obscene language or words which question a Members' or a
5017
Senators' integrity, honesty, or character are not in order. To
reduce the possibility of personal references, convention further
requires Members to refer to each other by title, position or
constituency name. Likewise, the Senate is usually ``the other
place,'' and Senators, ``members of the other place''.
(1740)
I simply wanted to make this clarification for the benefit of
the House during the rest of the debate, until 10 p.m. this
evening. Resuming debate.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to question the previous speaker and the one prior to him on
a couple of things.
First of all, I want it perfectly clear that I stand firm in the
belief of a truly triple-E Senate, and I also believe that what we
presently have is ineffective and truly a waste of dollars for a lot
of reasons.
One area that I am familiar with is the United States, as that is
where I came from, and although the systems are slightly
different the Senate has a significant purpose in that country and
that is to protect the districts and regions from exploitation from
larger regions. That is primarily its purpose.
For example, the state of Montana, with one representative by
population, is protected by two senators, as all states. Montana
could have been exploited on a great number of occasions had it
not been for that set-up.
First of all, if we had no means of protection from exploitation
by larger regions for smaller regions, what process would we use
to make certain that does not happen? I am going to assume that
he is going to answer in the same way as the previous speaker,
that the people would take the appropriate action and put a stop
to it. If he believes that, would he believe that the people of
Canada as a whole should be able to take appropriate action if
Quebec decides to separate?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I would like to thank the hon. member for his
question, as is the tradition here in this House. First of all, I want
to say that, before their independence, the Americans promoted
a philosophy which resulted in the fact that their Senate,
although quite effective, is not representative. It is
representation by population. We often heard about Loyalists
demanding rep by pop and the United States having rep by pop.
Of course, it is all right to have two senators per state, but then
you do not have rep by pop. However, this is not the place to
review the U.S. Senate, so I will try to give a more direct answer
to the hon. member.
About the triple E Senate, we believe that an elected House
can undoubtedly make responsible decisions, because we
support ministerial responsibility. An elected House could and
should be able to make decisions concerning some legislation.
Two elected Houses, if the Senate were to be a triple E Senate,
could create confusion about which House must make the
decision. The ten Canadian provinces, which do not have two,
but only one House, show us how one House can make decisions,
and very sensible decisions at that.
For example, the province of Quebec, with a population of
about 7 million, got rid of the legislative council in 1968, that is
nearly 30 years ago. No one in Quebec has any regrets about that
decision. Other provinces also got rid of their legislative
councils and I do not think they have any regrets about it. So, in
Canada, an elected House where hon. members would abide by
the principle of ministerial responsibility could give proper
consideration to the decisions they are about to make.
(1745)
And if Quebec were to become sovereign, I hope Canada will
respect the democratic principles it has been advocating since
1867.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague and friend, and also neighbour, the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe, clearly explained why he is against
spending $26,952,000 for the Senate. I totally agree with him,
given that such a measure would, in the long run, abolish a
costly but far from essential institution, namely the Senate.
It is a well-known fact, and has been for quite some time, that
Quebecers do not see why they should pay to maintain the Upper
House. The country is going bankrupt. Social programs are
being slashed. In senior citizen centres, soup portions are being
reduced from four ounces to two ounces, but we can still afford
to appoint senators.
In my riding of Frontenac, every Friday, I receive a call from
Mrs. Lessard, from East Broughton in my riding of
Frontenac-and she must be listening now, because I informed
her-, and she asks me the same question: ``Hon. member, when
will the government increase old age pensions? I have not quite
paid my heating bill yet''. She said that only last week. She also
asks the following question: ``When will the government
abolish the GST? They promised to do so. I have some purchases
to make, but I am waiting for them to abolish the GST''.
How can I explain to Mrs. Lessard the government's delay in
abolishing the GST, which they would rather hide than abolish?
How can I explain to Mrs. Lessard that she will only get a $1.28
monthly increase in her old age pension, while, in the other
place, some are handsomely paid, appointed, not elected, to
serve until they reach 75 years of age? If we had jobs like that in
5018
the riding of Frontenac, I am sure the list of applicants would be
very long.
To prove to you to what extent the Senate is unknown in
Quebec, I will give you the results of a poll I conducted in my
riding, in July of last year, with some of my assistants. We asked
some people in the riding about the Senate, to find out what they
knew. We crisscrossed the riding of Frontenac, from Thetford to
Plessisville, from Coleraine to East Broughton, via
Saint-Jacques-de-Leeds, Sainte-Agathe and Saint-Sylvestre.
We visited grocery stores, credit unions, shopping centres, gas
stations, etc. In fact, we went everywhere we could find people.
We wanted to measure how voters reacted to the Senate, and
to find out whether they knew any senators. I can tell members
opposite that I heard many sighs and saw many skyward looks.
(1750)
Many told us straight out that the Senate was useless, or that it
was a circus manned by people appointed by the government as a
reward. We asked those who were more receptive whether they
knew any senators and could name some. Only two names out of
104 came up, and not very often. They were Solange
Chaput-Rolland and Jacques Hébert. Considering their past
achievements, it is clear that their notoriety did not come from
the fact that they were senators.
Ordinary people do not see how the Senate could possibly
help them. They only see a group of individuals appointed for
reasons sometimes obscure, on whom they never call to defend
their interests. As one of my constituents pointed out to me, it is
difficult enough for people to know if they have to go to their
provincial or their federal MP for a particular problem. They
just do not want to bother finding out what a senator can do for
them.
Last year, I polled the people of my riding on their knowledge
of the Canadian Senate and on their reactions to the $6,000
non-taxable raise that the senators had voted for themselves, as
hon. members will all remember, especially the members
opposite. A $6,000 non-taxable increase is worth about
$12,000. Do you know that, in my riding, many people work 50
weeks a year and barely earn $12,000? It is outrageous.
As the hon. member for Joliette was saying earlier, public
opinion has been the senators' watchdog. During the three
weeks following this shameful decision by the senators, public
opinion in Quebec and in Canada ran heavily against them and
they had to undo what they had done.
My colleague from Terrebone gave some examples of
outrageous expenditures, like the senator who had his office
remodelled at a cost of more than $100,000. I built myself a very
good house for about half that amount. There are some Canadian
families, and I use the word Canadian to please the members
opposite, who cannot afford a $60,000 house. Yet, the senator
had his office remodelled for double that amount and more.
We will have a provincial election in Quebec in a few months
and I invite my colleagues across the way to come and defend
the Senate during that election campaign. They will see what
Quebecers think of the Senate.
To illustrate my point, I will tell you that when the hon.
Marcel Masse was representing my riding in the House, I
phoned his office to inquire about the name of the senator
responsible for our region. Of course, I did not talk to Mr. Masse
personally, but I talked to highly qualified individuals with eight
or nine years' experience since that was at the end of the
Conservative regime. Believe it or not, no one in his
constituency office could give me an answer. After waiting for
many days, someone finally called me back to give me the name
of my representative in the Senate, but I have since forgotten
that name.
(1755)
Again last night, my assistant here, Manon Genest, called the
Senate communications service to know which senator was
responsible for my riding, Frontenac. ``We will call you back''
was the answer. This is a fine example of the active involvement
of senators in political life! When even the communications
service of the Senate itself cannot give the name of our
representative right away, frankly, I must tell you that that does
nothing to give me confidence in the other Chamber.
If I ask the hon. member sitting next to me what riding he
represents, I am sure that it will not take him 20 minutes to give
me the answer. He knows. If I call the House of Commons to
know what riding Antoine Dubé represents, they will tell me
immediately.
An hon. member: The hon. colleague.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): My hon. colleague, to be more
precise.
We also asked the people we met to tell us what they
remembered the most about what the Senate did. Among the
older age group, some people mentioned Senator Hébert's
hunger strike. That stayed in people's minds.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have to interrupt to
indicate whether names are to be used or not. Early in the hon.
member's speech, I agreed that names be mentioned since he
was conveying the results of a survey he had done in his riding. I
thank him for the fact that in a later part of his speech he did not
mention parliamentarians by their names but by their
designations instead. I hope we will abide by this rule up till the
end of this debate. The hon. member for Frontenac.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank you for the patience you always show and for the
thoughtful manner in which you correct us. You do it so well that
in my turn I would like to beg your pardon for having mentioned
the senator by name. I will therefore skip a few paragraphs to
conclude with the way our famous senators are appointed.
5019
I finally learned the name of my senator, and the reason for
that appointment. When we look at the list of Quebec senators,
the 21 left, most of whom live in Montreal, we find that one is an
organizer for the Conservative Party, one is a fundraiser for the
Liberal Party-I know him-another was a top adviser to the
former premier of Quebec who just left office, yet another is an
organizer for the Conservative Party, and another is a good
Liberal, yes, and has been a Liberal MP for a long time. The
letters P.C. are added to his name.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have a list of 21 senators and none of them
is truly representative of Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank the hon.
member for Frontenac for his co-operation and understanding.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia has the floor.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not
understand. I am really confused. If the hon. member and his
party want to leave Canada, why are they so interested suddenly
in the future of Canada? If the member wants to destroy our
country, what importance does all this have for him?
(1800)
Why should he talk about the future of Canada if he has no
interest in it?
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend
my colleague in the Reform Party for asking his question totally
in my language.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, Quebecers, every
year, pay 24 per cent of all taxes to the federal government. As
long as Quebecers are part of this country, we will defend their
interests here.
The members across the way and those in the Reform Party
are probably thinking: Why do so many Quebecers wish to leave
the Canadian family? My hon. friend in the Reform Party is
happy in the present regime, and so are his children. As for me, I
am sad and unhappy to be part of Canada, and I wish Quebecers
would finally wake up and decide to give their children who are
listening to us on television a country to which they are entitled:
Quebec.
We see senators who are defending the regions. But when I ask
what senator represents my region, which is made up of three
ridings, nobody knows. He never comes to the ridings of
Frontenac, Lotbinière or even Bellechasse. There are three
ridings in my region. But we never see our senator. He is a
Conservative senator who was appointed by the preceding
government.
I tell you this: we pay, so we have our say. The present Senate
is just a bunch of patronage appointees, people who were
appointed for services rendered. And we have no confidence that
they will defend Quebec's interests.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I
would like raise a question about the role of a Senate in an ideal
world. Most countries have found that the idea of a totally
sovereign legislature in the form of a House like ours is not
adequate in protecting the interest of the people as a whole.
What we have at the moment costing $27 million a year is not
the ideal kind of chamber that we see around the world. This was
brought out by hon. members today and I agree. It is essentially
a chamber which is serving the purpose of a sober second
thought. We should not be too harsh on it because it has done a
very good job.
For example, the amendments it has proposed recently to the
bill on redistribution served a useful function. There was some
partisanship which served the country in bringing out debate
over the GST, over free trade. These served useful functions.
However, $27 million a year may be a bit expensive. The role
we should strive for is that the Senate take the other functions
that we see in similar chambers around the world, namely the
protection of regional minorities and for senators who have a
longer election-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret, but it is very
difficult for chair occupants when members choose to split their
time, in fact speak for 10 minutes and only have five minutes for
questions and comments.
I hesitate when there is only a minute left because I appreciate
that all members want to make their point leading up to their
questions. I would ask the member for Capilano-Howe Sound
whether he wants to leave the comment as is or if he has a short
question to add.
(1805)
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time constraint. I
am sorry if I went on a little long. I did not keep track of time.
With a reformed Senate, one which is modelled after
successful upper chambers around the world, I wonder whether
there is not a chance that the member who spoke so articulately
against the present system might be willing to consider that a
reformed Senate might be in the interest of all Canadians, in
particular the people of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, back in 1968,
Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson abolished the provincial
equivalent of the Senate, the legislative council. Is Quebec
worse off today because of the elimination of that council 26
years ago? Quite the contrary. The National Assembly in
Quebec is much
5020
more effective. The legislative process is shorter. Is it not true
that the $65 million we spend for the Senate would be a great
help to create jobs? I would like to hear your views, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for Frontenac for his invitation. Time permitting, I could have
accepted, but I am afraid I cannot.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity as the member for Lévis and above all as the official
opposition critic for training and youth to report on
consultations I have had carried out with young Quebecers
concerning the Senate. They have been most revealing.
Let me explain the context of those consultations. Last
February, young Quebecers participated in a youth Parliament
experiment. I noticed that one of the motions passed as a matter
of priority concerned the abolition of the Senate. I found that
concern interesting and, later on, asked a few young assistants to
help me with a survey of young people on that issue. I feel that
my findings make a suitable follow-up to remarks made by the
hon. member for Frontenac on the point of view of senior
citizens in his riding.
What do young people think? I asked them first of all what
they thought of people in the Senate. My first finding is that they
do not know what the Senate is all about. Most of them do not
know what it is. Very few of them know. I will quote the answer,
such as it was, that they gave: ``It is a room full of older people
who cost a lot of money to the taxpayers and whose work does
not appear to be useful, in the eyes of young people''. Who could
give even an approximate number of senators without counting
the empty seats in the Upper House? The vast majority of young
people, almost all of them, did not know that there were 104
senators. As for determining the composition and the role of that
other place, we can only get an answer by referring to the
Constitution.
A second question that was raised was: ``But who elects these
104 people?''
(1810)
These young people wondered, since these are not elected
people, how they can get involved in various debates,
supposedly as representatives of the Canadian citizens.
In Quebec, for young people as well as older people who are
familiar with the Senate and have read about it, such as young
people who are studying political science or history, the Senate
is the Mecca of patronage, with members from God knows
where, but who surely have good friends in high places. Some
young people believe that, once they have been appointed,
senators are the people of Canada who benefit from the best job
security, because we all remember that the age limit in the
Senate is 75.
The job situation today in Canada as well as in Quebec is a
precarious one for young people. To them, job security is an
unfamiliar concept. According to Statistics Canada, the
unemployment rate for young people between the ages of 15 and
24 is 17.7 per cent. According to the Conseil permanent de la
jeunesse in Quebec, 4 out of 10 part-time jobs in Quebec are
held by young people under 25; part-time jobs represent 33 per
cent of all jobs held by young people between the ages of 15 and
19; and more than two-thirds of young people under 25 who are
working get minimum wages.
Therefore we should not be surprised by the perception or
position of young people regarding an institution that costs
almost $1 million for every session day.
Who are they? Very few young people can identify more than
five. Since I cannot give any name, I will somewhat change my
speech.
Those who could identify some senators were able to do it by
recalling current events. For instance, a very well-known
person in Quebec has resigned because she was 75 years old.
People finally realized that she was much better known for her
novels and the books she had published than for her work in the
Senate.
It is the same thing for a senator known for his constitutional
law expertise, who had a high-profile role at the time of the
Charlottetown Accord. I know that by mentioning that fact only
many people in Quebec will be able to identify that person.
Besides, how can we blame young people for not being able to
identify the senators? The best one of them could do was to name
five out of 104. I have not put my colleagues on this side of the
House through this test but I think it would be worth trying to
ask new members for instance-because older members might
find it easier-how many senators they can name.
An hon. member: How many senators could the Chair name?
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I will not ask the hon. Speaker of the
House to take part into this exercice because of his
parliamentary responsibilities.
The young people I consulted did not know that senators
represented ridings, just like MPs. They did not know that. How
can we blame them since I am convinced that adults themselves
would not know any better. I must admit that I myself could
absolutely not say which senator is representing my riding. It is
not obvious. Perhaps I should have done some research but I
realize after listening to the last speaker that I cannot tell the
name of the senator who, among 21 others, is representing me. I
did not have to do this research but I must say that she never
called or dropped by.
Nevertheless, how could we blame young people for not
knowing their senators' names?
5021
(1815)
Young people wonder how unelected senators can block bills
like the GST. Remember that big debate. They blocked the drug
patent bill, and once again very recently, we have the example of
Bill C-18. The House of Commons and this government
proposed postponing consultations on redrawing the electoral
maps. The bill went to the Senate and the Senate asked us to
reconsider our position. That is not the issue today, but we
realize that it is a source of delay which slows down the work of
the House of Commons.
You know, this federal system is already complicated for
Quebecers. They already see it as double representation and
duplication. I will not take you through this whole scenario
again, but you see that the Senate duplicates what the House of
Commons is doing. The triple E was mentioned, but I see it as a
threefold exercise of political power and you can understand
that young people, who already find it difficult to be interested
in politics in this state of affairs, find this situation triply
complicated and even more repulsive.
The Senate should act as a social conscience, but how can it
play this role when senators are appointed by political parties
and constantly surrounded by lobbyists. Some senators even sit
on the boards of private companies. The various possible
conflicts of interest are not considered. What about openness?
Furthermore, senators now represent two political parties.
Furthermore, the majority of senators currently belong to two
political parties, one of which has almost been wiped out in the
House of Commons. How can we explain such a situation to a
young person interested in politics and tell him that the Senate is
open to the future, when, in fact, the exact opposite is closer to
the truth. I personally have difficulty explaining that situation,
and I think it is also the case for any member of this House,
regardless of the region which he or she represents, even outside
Quebec. How can we claim that senators are representative of
the different regions of Quebec and Canada when other political
parties are present in those regions?
In the minute that I have left, I simply want to remind
everyone of the extremely difficult context in which young
Canadians and Quebecers find themselves right now. Last year,
Gilles Lesage, who is a journalist for the daily Le Soleil, referred
to the Senate as a nuisance costing $50 million a year. This
comment was not made by a politician, but by a journalist, an
editorialist.
Remember the debate held last July, when it was thought that
Quebecers and Canadians were on holidays and that they would
not notice anything. Senators wanted to vote themselves a futher
$6,000 allowance.
Our young people see that senators have very good pension
plans and working conditions, while they themselves are
unemployed and worried about their future. Under the
circumstances, is it really a surprise that a resolution from a
group of young people interested in politics proposed, at the
beginning of February, that the Senate be abolished. I certainly
can understand them.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I find it rather
surprising that Bloc members are telling us we should not have
the other House and they are trying to remove the funding from
the other House. They comment on how ineffective the other
House is, when they sit here trying to destroy this House and this
country. They talk about the ignorance of the people in Quebec
and that they do not understand the other House.
(1820 )
Why do they not take the opportunity to go back to the
province of Quebec and tell people what a wonderful institution
this Parliament is in both Houses? Why not take the opportunity
to tell people how much better off they would be if they
remained in this country? Why not do that rather than saying:
``We are not aware of what goes on there. Therefore it is
irrelevant and does not matter, so why not set up our own
institution in Quebec City?''
Why does the hon. member and his colleagues not take the
opportunity to make this institution work, both Houses that is?
Why does he not take the opportunity to make this institution
work, rather than thinking they are better off to pack their bags,
walk out and destroy this institution and everything it stands for,
thinking they would set up something better in Quebec City?
What does the hon. member say to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to be surprised. The
questions and comments of my colleague from the Reform Party
express a particular point of view.
We have a debt of over $500 billion. In the six months I have
been in this place, I have heard almost every day Reform Party
members say that we must cut our expenses, that the way we are
overspending does not make sense. On that I agree with you. We
have to find ways to reduce expenditures.
What we must consider today is not the abolition of the
Senate, but rather the funds requested by the Senate. Until there
is a referendum on sovereignty and until the majority of
Quebec-
5022
ers support this idea, it is obvious that-since we are paying
24 per cent of taxes-we must protect the interests of Quebec.
Today, we are not requesting the Senate's abolition. We only
oppose the funds allocated to it. We feel that, in these very tough
economic times, these funds should be reduced. I am very
surprised that Reform Party members do not agree with a
measure aimed at reducing expenditures in Canada.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is necessary to ask a supplementary question
to follow up on the one just asked by my colleague from the
Reform Party.
The member opposite says that he is not amending the
Constitution when eliminating a vote in the Main Estimates. At
least, I think that this is what he is saying. He is not abolishing
the Senate, because an amendment to the Constitution would be
required to do so, and I do not personally, and neither do my
constituents, feel in the mood to amend the Constitution at this
time.
However, this seems more or less what the member wants to
do. Does he think, since the two chambers, the Senate and the
House of Commons, are under the authority of the Constitution,
that the House of Commons has the right to abolish almost all
the Senate votes? Does he also think that the Senate has the right
to abolish all the House of Commons votes, including his own?
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the member usually asks questions
that are, I will not say devious, but certainly clever from his
point of view.
Let me repeat: no, the purpose of the motion is not to abolish
the Senate. It concerns budget votes. I think we have the right to
say, to estimate, to declare that the amounts voted for the Senate
are too high. That is why we are expressing such an opinion.
A member of Parliament should, among other things, reflect
the opinion of his constituents. I mentioned certain opinions,
more particularly those of young Quebecers. Members from
Quebec are here to say to the other side of the House: ``Here is
what Quebec thinks, here is what Quebecers think of this
situation''. That is the long and the short of it.
(1825)
I think my time is up, but I feel any member should share my
concern, he should find ways to attract young people to politics.
I think we should propose alternatives to young people so that
they get interested in the public life. Therefore, any member
should be open to discussion on changes, even if these changes
affect something that he considers to be very important today.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise in the House today to defend the interests
of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, by demanding that votes for
the Senate's expenditures be cancelled.
I believe that this whole debate on the Senate is highlighting
two aspects of Canadian federalism; it proves that it is not only
inefficient, but also unable to renew itself to meet the challenges
of the 21st century. As we all remember, on February 22 last, the
Liberal government tabled its budget.
We must remember that this budget made significant cuts
affecting the unemployed and senior citizens. Moreover, it
increased the tax base for the middle class. Therefore, this
budget hit the unemployed, senior citizens and the middle class.
When reviewing allocations in this same budget, one notices
that close to $27 million are ear-marked for Senate
expenditures. No cuts there. This very brief analysis of the latest
budget tells a lot about the Liberal government's real priorities,
and even more about the operation of this bankrupt Canadian
federation.
We do not want to play party politics, because we know full
well that the previous government would have done just the
same, and that the next one will do likewise. As we just saw, it is
now simpler for the government of this country, regardless of
the party in office, to hit the poor, those who are already reeling
from the recession, than to ask its very rich friends, the senators,
to do their share.
A country where it is easier to let the deficit grow, signing
away future generations' life, where the only cuts are made on
the backs of the needy, where government patronage appointees
do not reduce their extravagant lifestyles while the public is
stuck in a very hard recession, is a very sick country. It could
even be terminally ill.
All in all, when we add indirect spending inherent in its
operation, this Senate packed with the government's
non-elected and non-representative friends, spends more than
$54 million dollars over some forty sitting days a year, about
twelve hours a month. Moreover, the absentee rate of some
senators is around 66 per cent. All this is highly significant.
Those nasty Quebec separatists are not the only ones asking
that this House made up of non-elected members be eliminated.
Somebody called Claude Ryan-maybe some of my colleagues
have heard about him-proposed in 1980, in his beige paper, the
elimination of the Upper House. That is why during the 1980
referendum debate in Quebec, federalists were proposing the
total elimination of the Senate.
A few months shy of another important referendum, what do
federalists suggest to Quebecers? The status quo. In other
words, they want taxpayers to go on paying more than a million
dollars a day to keep a House that represents no one.
5023
Some Reform Party members could argue that, contrary to
their unimaginative Liberal colleagues, they have a suggestion
for Quebecers: the well-known triple-E Senate.
(1830)
This brings me to the second part of my speech in which I
intend to demonstrate once again that Canadian federalism does
not work and never will.
The proposal for a Triple E Senate reflects a very poor
understanding, not only of Quebec but of the history of Canada
and of the purpose of our institutions. I would urge the Reform
Party to examine the reasons and discussions that led to the
adoption of the Constitution Act, 1867. At the time,
francophones and anglophones decided to unite in a
confederation that recognized the equality of its two founding
peoples. It took some vigorous negotiating before these two
founding peoples managed to agree on their choice of political
institutions for this country.
A constitutional expert, whom I will not name but who is also
a member of the Senate, recalled, and I quote: ``Sir
George-Étienne Cartier wanted parity between Quebec and
Ontario for the Senate and he got it, in other words, 24 senators
for each province''.
We signed acts of union with a partner, English Canada, based
on two houses, one with proportional representation and one
with equal representation for Upper and Lower Canada. Over the
years, as new English-speaking provinces were added and of
course new senators for each province, Quebec's political clout
in the Senate gradually diminished, so that today, Quebec is
under-represented in the Senate in terms of its demographics,
with only 23 per cent of the members in that house.
As though this were not enough, our English Canadian partner
now wants to marginalize us even further and consider us as only
one of ten partners. I may recall that in 1867, the Fathers of
Confederation felt that the presence of the Senate was also
required to restrain the democratic excesses of members elected
by universal suffrage.
Perhaps the Liberal government still thinks it is necessary to
restrain the democratic excesses of elected members. However,
it should realize that times have changed and that Canadian and
Quebec public opinion has changed as well.
To sovereigntists from Quebec, English Canada's desire to
make the Senate more effective, elected and equal is not a
problem. However, there is no way we would agree to be
included in this reform.
We will not let the other provinces further diminish Quebec's
political clout within our federal institutions. On behalf of all
Quebecers, we say no, no forever to this kind of reform. Senate
reform will happen without Quebec, or not at all. If the Reform
Party or the other supporters of a Triple E Senate truly wants to
provide English Canada with a democratic legislative system,
one that is less cumbersome and more efficient, then they should
begin by ensuring a victory for the sovereigntist forces in the
next Quebec referendum.
Need I remind members that to reform the Upper House, the
constitutional debate would have to be reopened? Pursuant to
section 42 of the Constitution Act, the consent of the federal
government and of seven provinces representing more than 50
per cent of the population is required in order to alter the powers
of the Senate or the way in which senators are appointed.
After the recent failures of the Meech and Charlottetown
agreements, to name only two, I think that Canadian federalism
has proven itself to be inflexible and incapable of adapting to
new realities.
The members of this House who are concerned about the state
of Canada's public finances must support the Bloc's motion.
Canada can ill-afford from an economic standpoint the luxury
of having a Senate. It is no longer dynamic enough or flexible
enough to carry out in-depth reform. Until such time as they
acquire institutions which correspond to the realities of Canada
and Quebec, the members across the way sometimes enjoy
pointing out that the official opposition is not truly
representative of Canada as a whole.
In conclusion, I would simply like to recall the findings of the
latest Gallup public opinion poll which asked how Canadians
and Quebecers felt about the Senate. On July 22, 1993, Gallup
found that for the first time ever since it started asking this
question, that is since 1944, a majority of Canadians said they
were in favour of abolishing the Senate. Fifty-four per cent
favoured abolishing the Senate, as the Bloc advocates, while 37
per cent said it should be reformed, the option favoured by the
Reform Party, and 4 per cent preferred the status quo, the option
being defended today by the Liberals.
(1835)
The results in Quebec are even more revealing. Sixty-eight
per cent said they were in favour of abolishing the Upper House,
while 20 per cent would prefer to see the Senate reformed and
4 per cent prefer the status quo.
The numbers speak for themselves. All that remains for the
government to do is to heed the will of Canadians and Quebecers
and vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois' motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, while
the hon. member is engaged in giving the House a history lesson
he might be well advised to include in his remarks the fact that
long before Claude Ryan in 1980, or long before they asked the
5024
first question in a poll in 1944, the predecessor of the NDP, the
CCF, was calling for the abolition of the Senate since 1933.
This is the longstanding position of our party with respect to
the Senate and the effrontery over the decades at having an
appointed body in the centre of our democratic decision making
process. I have certainly found it very difficult on occasion to
explain Canadian senators when I have been in other countries
with them. They tend to be treated as if they are American
senators. Everybody sort of oohs and ahs when they hear that
someone is a senator. We have to take them aside and explain
that they are not like American senators who get elected every
six years, that these people are appointed for life and are
thereafter untouchable except by the good Lord himself. It is
something that most banana republics would not tolerate, the
idea of having a body like this one appointed basically for life or
until age 75.
I wanted to say that we agree with the notion that the Senate
should be abolished. It is certainly something that has been on
the Canadian political table for a long time, long before the Bloc
Quebecois came along. We have been open in recent years as to
how the Senate might be reinvented on a more democratic basis
to deal with some of the political problems that the country has
experienced, and we continue to be open to that.
As for the existing Senate, that appointed body, we
continually take the same offence at it that we have historically
taken. We therefore agree with the thrust of the motion to do
away with the current Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Péloquin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
reminding me that his party and others before already debated
the idea of the Canadian government abolishing the Senate.
I would just like to make a short remark here, Mr. Speaker, if
you allow me. I wonder why this state of affairs exists. We
members of the House of Commons are asked to tighten our
belts, cut our budgets and act like good representatives of the
people. Members of this House travel economy class, you
realize. The representatives of the other House always travel
business class. Members of this House refused, with the consent
of the Chair, which you represent, to continue accumulating
frequent flyer points. All that was eliminated.
(1840)
However, members of the other House continue to use those
points, which are a bonus. So I ask why members of the other
House have special privileges that are better than ours, when we
are just asked to cut the fat.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I think
today's debate is most important since we are addressing the
issue of the other place.
Today's economic environment does not allow us to take for
granted the amounts allocated to the Upper House, especially
since we in the Bloc Quebecois have been defending, since the
beginning of the session the entitlements of the most
disadvantaged in our society. Given the difficult situation now
faced by the people, that is, the insecurity and
unemployment-there is 14 per cent unemployment in my
riding-how can one support allocating money to the Senate,
when all sectors are facing cutbacks? How can one justify the
money spent on the other place with its 104 members?
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a few examples.
Last year, the Senate paid a total of $125,000 for a new hall with
mahogany and granite panels.
An hon. member: That is not cheap!
Mr. Fillion: The Senate only sat 47 days last year but it
employs stenographers. Even when it is not sitting-and I will
let you draw your own conclusions-these stenographers still
get paid. They do not even have to show up at work. Some of
them even fill their free time by offering their services to other
firms, thus receiving two salaries. The total bill for taxpayers
comes to $1.6 million.
The senators also have their own $29,000 fitness centre when
there are schools indire need of such facilities. Yet only one
senator uses the centre on a regular basis.
Between February and May 1993, the Upper House met for six
days in February, 10 days in March, five days in April and eight
days in May for a total of 29 days in four months. At least one
day out of two, 17 senators or more were absent. They can miss
21 days a year without penalty. After that, they must pay $60 for
every day they miss. It is totally ridiculous.
They also have their own furniture store. Eleven
people-carpenters, cabinetmakers and even a professional
framer-work there. As far as communications are concerned,
each senator claims on average $10,000 per year in telephone
charges. All these examples show how public funds are spent.
(1845)
We are not talking about individuals democratically elected
by the population. No, senators enjoy privileges without being
accountable.
The existence of the Senate generates costs which Canadian
and Quebec taxpayers can question in this difficult economic
period, a period during which the government is targeting social
programs. In that context costs related to the Senate have very
little to do with the daily reality of Canadians and Quebecers.
People take an interest in the Senate because it generates
costs, not because it plays a proactive role. It is the elected
members who have democratic legitimacy. The public would
not tolerate that a non-elected House, with members appointed
by the central government, playing an interventionist role.
Senators represent neither the population, nor the provincial
5025
public authorities; yet, every year, taxpayers have to pay for that
institution.
Those taxpayers have the right to ask themselves questions.
However, it was not until 1991 that an audit was conducted for
the first time. The Auditor General tabled a report on the
administration of the Senate and made 27 recommendations. He
said that the Senate is a unique institution operating in a rapidly
changing framework. Senate management is different from that
of a department, a public organization or a private business.
Being a legislative body, the Senate can define and adopt most
of the rules which have a bearing on its activity.
Consequently, the usual accountability rules do not apply.
Even if you argue that the budget has been decreasing in recent
years, it is not enough. Only minor cuts were made to the
1994-95 budget. For example, no Senate employee will be laid
off, while thousands of positions are being abolished in the
public service. There were 450 person-years in 1992-93, and
there will be 447 in 1994-95. The numbers change only because
of attrition, retirements and resignations. Six senators will retire
this year. Unlike federal public servants, they will be replaced
very quickly by friends of the people sitting on the other side.
Quebec and Canadian taxpayers must pay for the Senate. Yet,
more than ever before, public money should be spent in a useful
way. We must ask ourselves if it is appropriate to maintain the
Upper House, considering all the costs involved. Why is a
non-elected House allocated public funds which could be better
used? Why, in the present context, should we continue to pay for
an institution which has no fundamental reason to exist?
We live with a constitutional status quo. The situation is that
the Senate continues to exist. How can we tolerate such a
situation?
(1850)
This status quo results in the continued existence of the Upper
House, as well as the continued existence of major costs. This is
what is happening. The Senate is the best example of the apathy
of our federalism. That federalism is removed from the reality.
In fact, discussions on a reform of the Senate began soon after
Confederation, and, in the last 20 years or so, the number of
studies, reports and proposals has increased significantly. The
situation which persists is also the result of unacceptable federal
proposals and is unaceeptable for Quebec.
Therefore, I firmly support the motion tabled by the hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe, opposing the vote of $26
million under the heading Parliament-The Senate-Program
expenditures.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to the order
made earlier today, a recorded division on the question now
before the House stands deferred until 10 p.m. later today, at
which time the bells will be sounded for not more than
15 minutes.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Vote 5 in the amount of $164,985,000 under the heading
Parliament-House of Commons-Program expenditures, in the main estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995 (less the amount voted in interim
supply) be concurred in.
[
Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to join in this very important debate. I
would like to report to this House and to our listeners on what
we, as a government and as members, have accomplished during
the past months.
On October 25, in the last election, Canadians voted
massively for change. The hon. member said a change for the
better, and that is true, we have had a Liberal government since
October 25. In this massive vote for change, Canadians sent
more than 200 new members to the House of Commons in
Ottawa. For me as the Government Whip, it was a challenge to
organize the allocation of offices on Parliament Hill as well as
the proceedings of this House. At times it was a difficult task,
but it was a challenge and a very important one.
5026
(1855)
I must say that with the co-operation of my colleague, the
Deputy Government Whip and member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, we managed first of all to
ensure that each member had an office on the Hill. We
negotiated with the whips of the other two political parties
recognized in this House, we negotiated various budgets
including research budgets and budgets for party leaders and
House officials, so that by January 17, when the Prime Minister,
the government called back the House, we would be ready to go
and members would be ready to function and fulfil the mandate
they received on October 25 as legislators.
From my very first day as Government Whip, my objective
was to reduce operating costs for all parliamentary activities and
their administration. We started with the budget for the various
caucuses, and after several meetings we managed to save a
couple of million dollars, which is quite substantial.
When allocating members' offices, we were determined to
keep moving and installation costs to a minimum. In fact, I
released the figures several months ago. We managed to save
quite a bit of money. We saved about $1.1 million on moving
costs alone here on the Hill. This was a reduction of 87 per cent
over what was spent after the 1988 election.
The purpose of this initial operation was to meet the
commitments we made during the election campaign. In the red
book we said that we wanted to set an example by starting right
here. If we tell people they have to tighten their belts, we have to
start by tightening our own here in this House. And we did that
with our first operation, the allocation of members' offices. We
told members and ministers: These are the offices you have been
allocated and you take them as is, and if any repairs or
improvements are necessary, we will make a report and ensure
only the absolute minimum is done. There will be no abuse of
the system. And the results are there.
We did not want to stop there. Once all the members were
accommodated on the Hill, we started looking at all the
expenses, all the privileges, all the things provided to the
members. That was the beginning of what people commonly call
the Gagliano plan. I am pleased to note today-a few weeks
before the summer recess-that the exercise was not just for the
media, it was not simply a shopping list that we made as long as
possible to take credit for it. We did not say we were going to cut
five or six million from the operating budget of the House of
Commons just to be able to brag about it afterwards. No, we did
it because we believed in it. We did it because it was necessary.
There were things which had to be changed, things which were
no longer suitable, no longer necessary.
(1900)
We had two criteria. To save money, naturally, but also to give
members services they really needed to do their jobs effectively.
We did not cut for the sake of cutting, we analyzed each cut. I
must, at this stage, thank the management of this House which
provided me with the figures I needed, and put their knowledge
and experience at our disposal. Of course, I also had the support
of my caucus colleagues. As politicians, we must make choices.
With the staff of the House I was able to define options, and then
it was simply a matter of deciding which option to implement.
We have only a few weeks left before we adjourn for the
summer. Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to adjourn on June 23. I
am proud to say that the Gagliano plan, that is the expenditures
reduction plan which I announced to all Canadians on January
16 in a press conference, has now been completed. There are still
a few points left. This very afternoon, there was a meeting of the
sub-committee on internal economy regarding parliamentary
associations; a meeting is planned to adopt a plan to make the
cafeteria and the restaurant more efficient and to save money.
By June 23, my cost control plan will be in place. Some steps
were already implemented in February and March.
But, my plan is not part of the estimates we are going to vote
on tonight. The savings do not appear in the grand total since, at
the time we had to table the estimates for the House of
Commons, our plan was not ready, of course, but we still had a
deadline to meet, a deadline to cut government expenditures and
table the results in the House, which had been set by the
President of the Treasury Board.
I am sure that members have had a look at that booklet. The
plan is mentioned in there and it will appear in the next
estimates, but I want to ensure the House that the savings which
were announced are real and that they are possible. Some
savings have already been made, and will be carried over year
after year. As we said in the red book, we want to be fiscally
responsible, and will continue to be so. Mr. Speaker, I will
continue. As I said on January 16, in the short time we had
between the October 25 election and the opening of the current
Parliament on January 17 and despite all the work involved in
organizing the situation on the Hill and the offices of all
members, we came up with a reduction plan in which we
addressed what seemed at the time the most feasible and visible
goals we could reach.
We are currently considering other changes. There are more
savings to be made. What is important is that we are willing to
take our responsibilities and ready to announce and defend our
positions. And when you take logical and fair decisions, you can
only be confident like I am. I believe this expenditures reduction
plan will work, because I have received several letters from
5027
voters throughout the country who think that this is a step in the
right direction and who encourage me to go on.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues
in the government caucus. Without their support, I would not
have been able to make these savings.
(1905)
My colleague, the deputy whip, and I are not the only ones
responsible for these achievements. We were fortunate to have
the support of all government members. I also want to thank the
other whips and the members from the opposition who sit on the
Board of Internal Economy and who approved our plan and
made it all possible.
We still have a long way to go. As I said, this is only the
beginning. However, I would like to outline our achievements,
so that everyone watching us tonight can realize what we have
done so far. Some of these things might not seem important, but
all together, they show how courageous and determined the
government is.
For instance, one of the things we did is look at the whole
issue of members' special travel allowances. As everyone
knows, each member is entitled to 64 trips from Parliament Hill
to his or her riding and, according to the rules, these 64 trips
could also be used to go anywhere else in Canada. We reduced
this number to 20. This means that members are still entitled to
64 paid trips a year but only 20 of them can be used to travel
across the country. I think this will generate very significant
savings. We also looked at the whole issue of printing services
and mass mailings. The board has just adopted these new
regulations that will allow us to save over half a million dollars a
year.
We did not cut services to members. They are still allowed
four mass mailings a year, as they have been for a long time, to
inform and communicate with their constituents. Although we
kept these services allowing members to communicate with the
public, we managed to save over half a million dollars by
introducing new procedures.
We are now looking at the whole issue of food services on the
Hill. Many journalists wrote that taxpayers have been
subsidizing sumptuous meals for members of Parliament. Mr.
Speaker, you and I, as well as my colleagues and all those who
had lunch or dinner at the parliamentary restaurant know very
well that nothing is subsidized and that the prices we now pay
are the same as in any establishment and are sometimes lower
elsewhere because of competition.
When we talk about the deficit related to food services here on
Parliament Hill, let us not forget that we employ over 3,000
people and, as you know full well, any employer of this size has
a partly subsidized cafeteria or restaurant for its staff.
We acknowledge that we have to make some cuts, that we
have to save money. However, we also realize in this plan that as
far as slashing expenditures is concerned, we have an obligation
as an employer to ensure that a proper food services system is in
place for our employees. We are in the process of finalizing our
report. We have looked a little at what the private sector has
done so that our system can be comparable and meet the target of
savings in the order of $1.5 million to $2 million per year. We
want to ensure that our employees have access to an adequate
cafeteria at or near their place of work, as it the case everywhere
else.
The newspapers made quite a big fuss over the fact that our
members had access to an exercise room and to the services of a
masseur, all at taxpayers' expense. We also reviewed this
expenditure. Since April 1, our members have had to pay a fee to
use the gym. This was also something that was in the plan.
(1910)
We reviewed the matter of the barber shop and hair salon, two
services which had also been the focus of some criticism and we
rationalized these operations. Today, if a member or senator
wants a haircut, he or she will pay the same price as shops
located off the Hill charge their customers.
The operation of messenger services was also rationalized.
This was very important. Our aim was not to reduce service to
members or to rationalize a service that had not proven useful in
the past. In fact, we wanted to keep pace with new technology.
There is fax, electronic mail and many facilities we now have as
members that we did not have before. So in view of this, we
rationalized our messenger service.
We looked at the whole allocation for which we were
criticized. Of course, the Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs studied all these issues and approved the plans. We saved
nearly $2 million on printing the House agenda and other
documents in order to streamline and save money, but still to
ensure that hon. members have what they need to do their job
and give our citizens the services to which they are entitled.
So as I said at the beginning, this is an initial plan. I intend to
continue and I am sure that in the weeks and months to come,
with the co-operation of my caucus, my colleagues and the
opposition parties on Internal Economy, we can make other
savings and improve the operation of this House at the same
time.
When we said during the election campaign that we wanted to
set an example starting with ourselves, that we wanted to regain
credibility with Canadians, I think that we took a step in the
right direction. We will continue as I said.
You are signaling me that my time is up. I would again like to
thank my caucus, my colleagues and the Prime Minister for
letting me help reduce public spending and also improve the
5028
services of this House and make it more functional and more
credible.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise this
evening to discuss the concurrence of the main estimates placed
before this House.
I would like to congratulate the hon. whip on the government
side for his fine speech and his Gagliano plan that he talked
about. I was hoping that his Gagliano plan does not become a
Galileo plan and they revert to star gazing rather than getting the
job done.
He also said that they want to give an example starting with
themselves to demonstrate to the country that they are prepared
to provide leadership. I cannot think of a better opportunity than
this evening when they get the opportunity to provide leadership
in the vote we will have later on the estimates because there are
two things that concern us as Reformers. One is to give
Parliament the opportunity to get back into its real role of
passing its opinion on the estimates rather than rubber stamping
what the government lays in front of the House.
(1915)
There are two elements that have denied Parliament the
opportunity to fulfil its role. One is the convention of
confidence which has prevented this House from being able to
express its opinion on the estimates. The other is excessive party
discipline by the government in power.
These two elements when combined have led to the fiscal
rubber stamping by the House of Commons once the estimates
have been reported back to this House by the committees which
were supposed to have examined them beforehand. I say
supposed because quite often the committees do not even
address the main estimates before they are tabled in the House
and through convention and party discipline the House is forced
to concur. Therefore it is a sham and a mockery of the role of
Parliament to control the public purse.
The traditional role which Canada inherited in many aspects
and in many forms from the government and traditions of the
British parliamentary democracy is that the Canadian House of
Commons reviews the government's proposed expenditures. We
inherited that tradition from the British parliamentary
democracy. It is outlined and enshrined in the British North
America Act, 1867.
This theory goes back a long way and is based on certain
principles. The crown must come to this House and request
funds on the advice of the crown's ministers. In Canada, the
requests originate from the Governor General on the advice of
cabinet, which forms the government, to this House of
Commons in the form of recommendations. As in Britain, it is
the House of Commons which grants or denies-and let me
emphasize or denies-the requests for funds after having
reviewed them.
In theory this House has the authority to grant or deny the
elected government's request for funding of expenditures it
wishes to make in the upcoming year. Unfortunately, as I said,
because of the convention of confidence and excessive party
discipline we have made a mockery and a sham of the process. It
has been many a long year since we have seen this House
exercise its prerogative to express its real opinion on the
estimates laid before it.
The record of this House in making reductions to the
government's expenditures at this stage in the estimates process
has been a complete and dismal failure. It is a fiscal disgrace and
an abomination. Since 1969 the House of Commons annual
review of the estimates has resulted in a reduction on percentage
terms of only one-millionth of one per cent. By one-millionth
of one per cent have we in this House reduced the estimates in
the last 20-odd years that they have been laid before this House.
That is an absolute disgrace and my colleagues agree with me.
Listen to them over here.
The last time this House exercised its prerogative was in
1973, 21 years ago. It was a Liberal government, albeit a
minority government, and that is when conventions of
confidence really do matter. The government at that time, when
confidence really did matter, allowed a reduction in the
estimates. Ever since then Liberal governments and Tory
governments-the only governments we have had-have
refused to allow any further reductions in the estimates.
Tonight the government said, and I quote the hon. government
whip: ``Give an example starting with ourselves''. That is a
direct quote of what he said. Now is a wonderful opportunity for
government members to say that the convention of confidence
and strict party discipline need not necessarily apply any more
and this House is going to demonstrate the open government
they so liberally campaigned upon last fall. This is their
opportunity to realize upon that commitment they made to
Canadians, to express the will of this House and reduce the
estimates as laid before us.
(1920 )
The amount was $20,000 out of the entire government
expenditure which was around $60 billion at that time. The
government cut $19,000 from the Department of Labour for an
information program. We talk about advertising and polls today
and I think we should cut them as well, but it cut $19,000. It cut
$1,000 out of the salary of the president of the CBC. There must
have been a tiff with him at that point in time. I think Reformers
have a tiff with the CBC today and maybe we should cut more
than $1,000 out of his salary, but we are not recommending that
at the moment.
5029
For the record, back in 1973 when the government allowed the
estimates to be reduced, albeit by $20,000, the member for
Shawinigan, our current Prime Minister, voted against the
motion. He refused to allow the reduction. Here is a great
opportunity for him to make amends by allowing this motion to
go through this evening. The Liberal government has a great
opportunity to change and redress the problems of history and
the things that have gone on in the past.
The confidence convention has traditionally been interpreted
to mean that any motion to reduce the vote on the estimates
would be viewed as a test of the confidence of this House in the
government. We are saying that if there is a reduction in the
estimates the government need not necessarily have to resign.
We are not going to go that far.
The confidence convention reinforced by excessive party
discipline leads to fiscal rubber stamping and fiscal
irresponsibility by the House of Commons and the committees
when it considers the estimates at this stage. The result has been
an extremely modest reduction since 1973, as I said,
one-millionth of one per cent.
We would like to see that changed. The negative implications
of those two things have contributed to the fact that we are now
$500 billion in debt. This House has never been able to express
its real opinion as we rack up $40 billion deficits every year.
This year is going to be no exception.
We have never been able to express our opinion on the lavish
and excessive government spending which has gone on unabated
now for over 20 years since we last had a balanced budget. Why?
Because there has been no genuine parliamentary safeguard on
government spending and there has been insufficient scrutiny by
this House on these changes. Change and reform are required
and are long overdue.
That is why the Reform Party has offered an alternative. There
has been a longstanding Reform policy that says we want to
modernize the confidence convention. We are saying to allow
this House to express its will freely and democratically on the
estimates. If there are reductions, then let there be a motion after
it has all been debated and voted upon. If reductions are
approved then let a motion of confidence be placed in this
House. If that is approved as well then the government knows it
still enjoys the confidence of this House and can continue to
govern.
These are the things we are talking about as Reformers
bringing a fresh new face to Parliament, a new opportunity to do
things so much better. For the government whip who said earlier
to give them an opportunity to show they are prepared to make
an example of the government, here is a great opportunity for
them to start now by allowing the reductions.
We are talking about a reduction in money spent by the Board
of Internal Economy. The main estimates according to the
President of the Treasury Board indicate they are going to spend
$164,985,000 in the administration of the House of Commons.
The government whip has told us of his plan which has
already led to specific reductions in this fiscal year of over
$2 million. We are saying to this government, since that amount
has already been reduced and eliminated from spending by this
government in this year, which was acknowledged by the
previous speaker, then surely it is not a threat to the convention
of confidence that we amend the main estimates to reflect the
new reality.
(1925)
The point we want to make is that these reductions are already
in place. They have been approved. The government whip has
acknowledged that point in his plan. We are saying there is no
threat of confidence by recognizing that and putting them back
and changing the main estimates to reflect the reality.
We will be talking on other motions about minuscule amounts
like $20,000. Out of the total expenditure of $163.6 billion this
government is going to spend this year, what is $20,000? Is
$20,000 a threat to convention? Does the member think the
government is going to fall on that? No. That is the point I want
to make.
Another point is the Liberal platform that cuts the grants and
subsidies. We are concurring with that point because we also
believe in cuts to grants and subsidies. We knocked 5 per cent off
that as well.
There are three great opportunities where those members can
concur without any threat whatsoever to them and to their
government by acknowledging that a cut has already been made.
The main estimates should be amended to reflect that reality.
The minuscule amount of $20,000 based on all the inflation
caused by the Liberal government in its past life and the Tory
government is not what it used to be. It is worth a lot less than in
1973. How on earth could that affect the confidence this House
would express in the government?
Liberal policies say cuts to grants and subsidies. We concur so
let us just do it. That is all we ask. That is the point. My
challenge to the government and to all members on the other
side of the House is to recognize what they have been saying
which was reiterated by the government whip: ``Give an
example starting with ourselves''. A direct quote of five minutes
ago.
Here is a great opportunity to do so. I challenge government
members to stand up later this evening and vote according with
what they have said in the red book and in accordance with the
platform on which they were elected.
5030
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to thank the hon. member for his good comments about me,
but I regret he is turning this debate into something it is not. We
are debating budgets and not free votes or recalls. I am sure the
hon. member knows that.
Yes, I said that the plan of reducing the expense is in effect. It
was announced in January. The board took a decision on the
global plan. Some decisions were taken on individual items and
some are already in effect. Some are entering, for example, the
July 1 householder. The restaurant section has not been decided
on.
I said at the beginning that we had to adopt a budget. We had a
deadline to prepare a detailed budget of expenses that the
government wanted to introduce and have passed by the House
according to the rules. There is nothing wrong. Next year we
would show a reduction in expenses instead of what the member
is proposing.
(1930)
If I am correct, he is proposing to reduce the budget expense
by $2.471 million. The difference between the member and I is
that everything we accept is detailed. I do not know what he is
counting in the $2.471 million. He should tell the House which
items they are because the motion is on the House budget. He
should do a service and tell us about them.
I thank all my colleagues in the 35th Parliament. We started in
good will and displayed good decorum. We have done very well
so far. However I do not think this is a case for a free vote. In an
administrative way we do not know the exact effect of the plan I
announced on a yearly basis. For this fiscal year, and being the
author of the plan, I do not know exactly how much it will reduce
this budget.
The member says that we should reduce it by $2.471 million.
He should start by giving us the details. Did he check the figures
with members of the administration? We enact policies but on a
daily basis they keep the books.
From the beginning I have approached this issue on a
non-partisan basis. If the member checks with his colleagues on
the Board of Internal Economy who have been working with me
on the matter, I am sure he will concur. The purpose here is not
for each party to make political points. It is to make sure we save
money for Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the question.
The member sits on the Board of Internal Economy and tells us
that he has a plan.
An hon. member: It is a secretive board that nobody can get
into.
Mr. Williams: ``It is a secretive board that nobody can get
into'', according to my colleague. The Reform member who sits
on the board advised me that certain savings have been
introduced, passed and are being implemented at this time. This
year there will be a savings of that amount of money.
The point I made during my speech was that it was a
confidence convention. I never mentioned a free vote. I am just
saying that we should allow the House to recognize that savings
have already been approved by the Board of Internal Economy
in the amount of $2.4 million. Why do we not collectively
recognize that already exists and change the main estimates to
reflect the new reality?
The President of the Treasury Board comes into the House any
time he exceeds a budget and asks for more money. All I am
saying is that now we recognize the Treasury Board is not going
to be spending the money, let us make that recognition in the
House. That is the point I am trying to make today.
I know the government whip concurs with our idea of saving
money. They have gone along and made these changes. Let us
recognize that and change the estimates now to reflect that.
What signal are we sending to other departments to save
money if we say that we do not care if they save money, that they
have been allocated money and we are not going to change it,
that we are not going to take it back from them, that they can go
ahead and spend it anyway? This is a great opportunity for them
to reduce the estimates.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask a question of the member who tells us to
reduce the budget by this amount.
(1935 )
Does he have a list to prove what he is saying now, that it is in
fact the amount of savings realized by the government whip's
plan? Or, is it not true that those figures are concocted and he has
no idea what the savings are? If it is true that he has such savings
in mind with a detailed list, I say to the hon. member that I am
ready to give him unanimous consent to table the list now. If he
does not have such a list, why does he not just withdraw the item
from the Order Paper?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a list in my office. I do not
have it in front of me at the moment. I was advised by our
member who sits on the Board of Internal Economy, although it
is a secretive board and we do not know what really goes on
there until the minutes are tabled long afterward, that these
payments-
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is
an unfair statement about the board because it has passed a
policy wherein the minutes are tabled once they are approved. In
the past few months we have been tabling minutes in the House
every two weeks because the board meets every two weeks.
Before the member makes such a statement he should check his
facts.
5031
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I must inform the
government whip that I do not believe that is a point of order.
Certainly as we all know there is representation from the various
official parties.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, my point is that our
representative on the board has assured us of these savings. The
cuts are effective for this particular year. Therefore we are
asking the House to recognize the savings and amend the
estimates accordingly.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I have
just a quick comment that has more to do with the member's
remarks on the question of party discipline and the question of
confidence.
I would like to say to him as a member of the Reform Party
that members of the Reform caucus should be careful not to
think that this kind of debate about free votes, party discipline
and the confidence convention came to the House with them.
I recommend the member read the McGrath committee report
on parliamentary reform tabled in the House in 1985. It was an
all-party report, headed by Jim McGrath, a former long time
Conservative member and then lieutenant-governor of
Newfoundland. I was a member of that committee in which it
was said that the Canadian parliamentary system was far too
dominated by party discipline, that there needed to be a broader
range of issues on which members of all parties felt free to vote
as individuals rather than as party members.
I made my first speech calling for more free votes in the
House in 1981. By way of advocating a little humility, I just say
there were people advocating this kind of flexibility in the
House of Commons before those guys came along. If the
member wants to read the McGrath report, I would recommend
it to him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret the member's
time for questions and comments has elapsed.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
today to speak about the main estimates for budget year
1994-95.
These estimates represent the fulfilment of the government's
commitments to Canadians. They also represent a balanced
approach to promoting economic growth in jobs while taking
steps to reduce the deficit.
These estimates reflect the fact that there are no quick and
easy solutions to the financial issues which confront Canada. It
is essential that Canadians understand this in order that they
may be able to make with us the difficult choices which lie
ahead. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to talk
about some of the highlights and significance of these estimates.
First it is important to set these estimates in the context of the
government's fiscal plan. When the minister tabled his budget in
February of this year he said that it represented the first stage of
a two-stage budget. That budget has set the country on the road
to economic recovery, but there is still a great deal of work now
being done to prepare for the second stage of the budget.
As we promised, the government has launched a number of
initiatives and reviews which will enable us to accelerate our
progress down that road to economic recovery.
(1940 )
It is important that the government take action but it is also
important that the government take the time to take the right
action.
[Translation]
For example, the President of the Queen's Privy Council and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal is reviewing
the programs of every department. He is also reviewing the
structure of every commission and federal organization.
Moreover, he is co-operating with the provinces to find ways to
reduce overlapping and duplication. These measures will ensure
more efficient and affordable government services to
Canadians.
As for the Minister of Human Resources Development, he is
currently conducting the most comprehensive review of the
social security system in Canada since that program was put in
place. It should be clear to everyone that the government intends
to do what is necessary, and to do it in a responsible way, from a
financial point of view. The results of these reviews and other
initiatives will be made public as early as this fall, so that they
can be discussed in the most open budget process ever put in
place by a government.
Canadians will have a say in the critical decisions which will
have to be made. At that point, we will have reached the second
stage of the budget.
[English]
As the President of the Treasury Board said in the House when
the main estimates were tabled in February, the estimates set out
the details of $160.7 billion in planned expenditure for this
fiscal year. Overall program spending, which is total spending
less debt service charges, is increased by just 0.7 per cent.
Spending on most government programs has been reduced.
The operating budgets of government departments have been
reduced by $400 million, with further reductions of
$600 million to come in the next two years. Defence cuts total
$745 million this year alone, with more to come. Grants and
subsidies to business have been substantially reduced. The
government has frozen the wages of public servants for a further
two years. This action has reduced the cost of providing
necessary services
5032
while making it possible to protect jobs and meet job security
commitments to our employees.
At the same time as taking these necessary reduction
measures, the estimates provide for $700 million for the
implementation of the national infrastructure program. This is a
key element in fulfilling our red book commitment to create
jobs. We know there are two sides to the ledger. There is the
expenditure side and there is the revenue side. With so many
Canadians out of work the revenue side of our ledger book is not
in good shape either. We are paying attention to both sides of the
ledger book.
It was the Prime Minister who launched the infrastructure
program in his December 1993 meeting with the premiers.
Within eight weeks agreements had been signed with every one
of the provinces in Canada. In spite of those who said it could
not be done, a three-level program was put together in a matter
of weeks. The municipalities have found the money to
participate and all three levels of government are working
co-operatively.
Furthermore the federal government came up with its
$2 billion share of the program without increasing the deficit.
As we promised, funds were reallocated from other less
productive, less high priority federal programs.
I take this opportunity to say that we expect 80 per cent of the
project funding will go toward core infrastructure such as water
and sewer systems, roads and bridges. We are committed to
funding projects with the municipalities that are their priority.
Some of these projects are non-traditional but nevertheless are
innovative and worthwhile.
(1945)
When the budget discussions take place this fall it is
important that Canadians understand where their tax dollars go,
what benefits and services are provided and who receives them.
It is important because I believe that many Canadians have been
given the impression that with a few minor changes here and
there, a bit of tinkering we could balance the budget and live
happily ever after and nobody would be hurt.
This is nothing but a fairy tale. We can and we will return to
full economic health but difficult choices lie ahead and making
the right choices requires that the public be fully informed and
involved.
When the main estimates were tabled in the House in
February both official parties in opposition predictably
expressed their disappointment and claimed that the budget did
not go far enough to eliminate waste in government.
We recognize that we must constantly find more efficient
ways of delivering services to Canadians and we are doing that.
The Treasury Board secretariat is pursuing a variety of
initiatives to improve efficiency, including a number which take
advantage of the exciting potential of new information
technology. These initiatives promote responsive and
affordable government services.
In one of many examples 18 government departments are
together establishing 10 Canada business service centres, many
of them with the participation of the provinces and local
authorities. These centres reduce complexity and overlap for
business clients and provide one stop shopping with no increase
in costs.
A wide variety of initiatives to improve service and reduce
costs is described in part I of the estimates. It makes good
reading for those want a current picture of what the government
is really doing to improve efficiency.
[Translation]
I certainly recognize that, in a parliamentary system, the role
of the opposition is to oppose government's measures.
Moreover, it may be that the two sides truly disagree as to which
policies would best serve our country. However, we are not
doing Canadians a service by implying that the deficit could be
reduced overnight if only someone had the courage to take the
bull by the horns.
Last February, the hon. member for La Prairie said that there
was some fat and some waste in the government operations, and
that billions of dollars could be saved if only the government
eliminated waste and poor management practices. The fact is
that if these simple measures were enough to solve the problem,
we would already have taken them.
[English]
As the main estimates show, the cost of operating the entire
Government of Canada, excluding defence, is just 12 per cent of
the total expenditures of $160.7 billion, about $19 billion. If the
government were to shut down all of its operations, cancel every
one of its programs, fire every one of its employees, there would
still be a deficit of more than $20 billion.
There would be no food inspectors of course, no air traffic
controllers, no prison guards, no scientists working for
Canadians in the fields of health and the environment, and no tax
collectors either. Some of us might like that, but then the deficit
would be even higher. That there would still be a deficit without
any government operation assumes of course that there would be
somebody to write cheques for the other 88 per cent of
government expenditures.
The other levels of government receive transfer payments of
almost $29 billion, most of it going to health care, to social
services, to post-secondary education and the equalization
payments which ensure that from coast to coast to coast in this
country the less wealthy provinces have an opportunity to
provide comparable services to their citizens.
5033
(1950 )
There is another $20 billion that the Minister of Finance
perhaps would need some help in writing cheques for if we had
no public service, no government operations; $20 million to
Canadian seniors for old age security and the guaranteed income
supplement as well as another $19 billion to the unemployed.
Perhaps people who complain about fat and waste could tell
us how we can possibly solve the deficit problem by getting rid
of the government.
Canada has just recently been rated by the United Nations
once again as the best place in the world to live. This is
something all Canadians should be proud of. It has not happened
by accident. It has not been achieved without a cost either. We
have been borrowing to finance our programs, programs which
many Canadians have come to view as a right of citizenship.
The public accounts of Canada show that in the 10 years from
1984 to March 1993 the debt of the federal government has more
than doubled to just over $500 billion. As a result this year's
main estimates provide for interest charges of $41 billion or
25 per cent of the budget on that debt.
If we add another $11 billion for defence and $5 billion for
crown corporations we begin to get a picture of where the money
goes. We spend money on what Canadians want and need and
that is what these estimates are all about. That is also why we
have a deficit.
Part I of the estimates provides a comprehensive overview of
the government's expenditure plans. I recommend it to all
Canadians who want to know how their money is spent. I
recommend it to all Canadians who want to participate in a
meaningful and positive way in the budget consultations that
will take place this fall.
[Translation]
So it is not being honest to tell taxpayers that we only need to
cut some fat to alleviate the tax burden, or that it is possible to
significantly reduce spending with no one feeling any real
adverse effect.
To try to make Canadians believe that there is a quick fix and
that the government is not prepared or able to apply it,
undermines the confidence of Canadians in their democratic
institution. When they hear about these so-called quick and
simple solutions, Canadians are less apt to realize that some
hard and vital decisions must be made.
My comments may sound somewhat like propaganda, but I
want to tell this House that the government intends to ask
members from all parties, as well as the general public, to
participate in a comprehensive discussion on the importance of
the budget. To that end, we must question the very nature of
government spending. I would like to conclude, for the benefit
of those who might still be sceptical, by referring to some
comments made by the Auditor General.
[English]
In his 1991 annual report the Auditor General said that he had
an impression that a dedicated, competent public service is
dealing with complex problems that have developed over the
years. He also stated: ``The deficit is not a result of bureaucrats
burning the taxpayers' money but rather the reasons for the
deficit are profound, complex and difficult to solve. I sense that
there are few easy fixes''.
In his 1992 report he went on to say that the reality is that
governments alone do not create deficits. International forces
beyond our control and the needs and demands of the electorate
also contribute to deficits.
I would like to conclude with a final piece of advice from our
Auditor General also from the 1992 report: ``There is a need
today for full and frank discussion about deficit, debts and
related public policy choices''.
(1955 )
I invite members of the House today to begin that frank,
honest, open discussion and I assure Canadians that this
government will give them the opportunity to be part of that
debate as well, well before the budget for 1985-96 is prepared,
well before the tabling of the next version of these estimates.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Madam Speaker, I have
a couple of comments.
We all realize that to eliminate the deficit like that is an
impossibility. One does not have to have the brains of a rocket
scientist to figure that one out. However, what puzzles me is
when we hear the rhetoric from that side of the House. Surely we
are not ready to give up prison guards, food inspectors, air
traffic controllers. We know the difference between essentials
and waste.
However, how come when we hear speakers from that side of
the House we do not hear such things as contributions to MP
pensions which are somewhere in the neighbourhood of
$17 million per year? How come we do not hear about
Challen-ger jets that ought to be gone? How about blue
limousines that we could do without? How about free residences
and all the other things of that nature that amount to several
millions of dollars? Why do we not ever hear that?
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member
came in late, if he was not listening, if he was too busy talking to
his colleagues over in the corner or if he has not read the
estimates that he is now preparing to vote on later this evening.
Had he and had he been listening since he walked into this House
in January he would have seen our government tackling virtually
every one of the issues he just mentioned and many more.
5034
We are not looking at saving money by the millions. We have
looked at saving money by the billions. The member really
should know that if he has been paying attention. I do not know
if he is attempting to mislead people. He knows very well that
the matter of MPs' pensions is in the hands of a commission
established specifically by law after every election for that
purpose and that report will be coming back and we will be
taking action on that report.
He also knows perfectly well that I said very clearly that the
finance minister in tabling his budget said this is a two-stage
budget. This is step one. We have done more cutting in this
budget than in previous budgets. We have also closed some tax
loopholes and he knows that very well. We paid attention to that
side of the ledger as well by making sure that there is some
increase in revenue and that tax breaks that certain people were
getting are no longer there. However, we have done five times
more in cutting expenses than we have increasing revenues
through closing those tax loopholes.
The member knows perfectly well that these estimates on
which he is voting today represent billions of dollars of cuts in
government expenditures. I think he should be saying that
honestly to the Canadians who are listening to us tonight.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, I have a very brief
comment.
I think we are making some progress in this House. I noticed
the hon. member has recycled very large portions of a speech
that I heard the member for Calgary Southwest giving about a
year ago with the respect to the fact that of course you cannot
balance the budget by tinkering, of course you cannot balance it
merely by cutting fat. We know that. We still would like to see
some cuts but the bottom line, as members will see, in our zero
in three plan with which I hope members are familiar is that if
one is ever going to get the finances of this country under
control, deep substantive cuts have to be made.
(2000)
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Reform members
always get up and say that without ever saying where they are
going to cut or who they are going to hurt.
We know perfectly well in the analysis of their three-year
deficit reduction plan that it tabled during the election campaign
that that could not be done without hurting 1.5 million children
in this country who live in poverty, without hurting senior
citizens who depend on their pensions, without hurting single
parents, two-thirds of whom live in poverty with their children.
Their plan was not realistic. Their plan would have destroyed
the social fabric of this country. Their plan would have
destroyed any sense of justice in this country.
The member opposite has said there were not cuts. From the
moment our government took office we have been reducing
unnecessary expenditures. The Prime Minister was the first to
set an example by getting rid of his limousine. Members know
the actions that have been taken to cut the use of-
Some hon. members: Ah, gee.
Some hon. members: Good.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but this is ridiculous. I
am saying to Canadians that we have done exactly what the
Reform Party is telling us we should do and those members are
sitting there saying ``ah, gosh, gee''. Members cannot have it
both ways.
Do they want these cuts made or do they not want these cuts
made? When these cuts are made, they should be giving credit.
We started at the very top with our Prime Minister, then with
reducing the number of cabinet ministers, with reducing the
budgets that those cabinet ministers have to operate on, and with
reducing our own expenditures here in this House of Commons
because we know that Canadians are counting on us to set the
example. We are doing that.
To suggest that we are tabling estimates that do not include
several billion dollars in cuts is simply not accurate or quite
honest.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Questions or comments?
Resuming debate. I am waiting to recognize someone who wants
to speak on this motion. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy
River.
Let me see if I can be of some help to my colleagues in the
House. When we began the debate on the motion, we began with
the government whip. We recognized people from other parties
and then came back. In this instance as we continue this debate,
the last spokesperson being the parliamentary secretary, I did
look to see if there was a member from the Official Opposition
who wanted to speak. Not having taken notice, I then looked to
this side of the House, the government side. I recognized the
member for Kenora-Rainy River.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I suggest to my colleagues across the way that I was not trying to
jump in front of them as far as the speaking order of the House.
As my colleague from Beaver River would know, having sat
beside her for a number of months in the last Parliament, this
member would not at all be interested in doing that sort of thing.
Tonight I would like to talk about issues that are very close to
my heart as they relate to the estimates. Those who have had the
opportunity to spend some time with the member for
Kenora-Rainy River know that my interests are the interests of
a very large rural riding. In that large rural riding there are some
issues that I think need to be discussed in this place.
5035
Those issues of course are the issues of what northwestern
Ontario is all about. That basically is forestry, mining, tourism
and a small amount of manufacturing along with the retail
sector.
Like the rest of Canada, my riding is dependent on a very
small business sector to create and maintain valuable jobs. The
small businesses in Kenora-Rainy River can be found
servicing, complementing and drawing on the strengths of major
resource sectors. The viability of small and medium sized
businesses in my riding is typical of the diversity needed to
build secondary industries in Canada.
There is no doubt that main estimates' spending in 1994-95 in
the federal budget is geared to reinforcing a solid small business
sector to create jobs and spark the economy. It is because of the
dependence on small business that I am pleased to see the
initiatives in the 1994-95 budget addressing stability and
growth for small business.
(2005)
As I have said before, as a member of the opposition in this
House in the previous Parliament, one of the major concerns that
I focused on was the lack of initiative for small business, the
lack of help that we as parliamentarians gave to the small
business sector.
In Canada we must ensure sustainable and viable resource
based industries are supported. But in order to build an
economic foundation for the long term we must diversify our
economy to take advantage of our raw materials and our
technological development. Perhaps nowhere in Canada is that
more evident than in northwestern Ontario where diversification
and secondary industry development are the keys to opening
tomorrow's doors.
The small business working groups recently established by
this government are examining the initiatives needed to foster
an environment for growth and give business the tools to
expand.
I am happy to see that the government is making access to
capital and appropriate training a priority for the small business
sector. I have risen in this House on previous occasions and
lamented on the sad state of the relationship between small
businesses and the financial institutions.
I sincerely hope a new code of conduct between small
businesses and banks provides a more fruitful relationship than
we have seen in the past. Entrepreneurs need capital investment
in order to expand and start up new ventures which provide the
jobs this country is looking for. Expansion of the Small
Businesses Loans Act will also enhance the flow of capital to
legitimate business operations in Canada.
Small business also needs the expertise to explore export
markets and utilize new technology. The budget speaks well to
these concerns. The Canada investment fund for example will
help companies access leading edge technology. As well, the
business centres will help make information on government
programs and services more readily available as well as
providing insight into strategies for exploiting export markets.
The remote locations of many businesses in Canada have
historically made it difficult to access pertinent information.
Federal government spending on information services will give
these businesses the knowledge they need to explore new
technology and make inroads into international markets.
I am anxious to work with the business community in
developing this government's objectives. Believe me, we have
many ambitious and capable entrepreneurs in Kenora-Rainy
River if only given half a chance simply by doing very key and
very elementary things.
Let me give a couple of examples of those. One of those of
course is replacing the GST. Reducing red tape and the burden
that is on small business as it relates to red tape and harmonizing
federal and provincial regulations are just some of the things
that I find to be extremely important to creating the right
environment for our business sector to flourish.
Such federal initiatives are a breath of fresh air to our small
business community and something that I wait anxiously for in
order that we can start creating the jobs. The small business
sector is the key and what we as parliamentarians should not lose
sight of if we are to see this economy start to grow.
Other measures such as changes to the social security system
and new job training strategies for young people are essential to
changing the fundamental structures in this country that will
help lead the way to practical training for people entering our
workforce. An expanding small and medium sized business
sector needs a talented and appropriately trained workforce.
I am confident federal spending on innovative training
programs will help accommodate this objective.
Realistic job oriented training, better financial, technological
and information resources for small business are essential to
building a strong economy in my region and across the country.
However, to take advantage of these enhanced resources for
small business my region in particular needs the very basic of
infrastructure networks.
I feel we are on the right track with spending on the
infrastructure projects. Not only are we creating jobs to
jump-start the economy, small that it is, we are also providing
the basic foundation for a competitive national economy. Basic
infrastructure involves roads, buildings, transportation and
water and sewer services.
5036
(2010)
I invite the members of this House to come and visit
northwestern Ontario. Members will truly be impressed with the
beauty of our natural surroundings, our forests, lakes and our
famous sunsets. I am sure they will enjoy their visit. I am also
sure that discerning individuals with attention to economic
development will witness certain inadequacies in infrastructure.
They will see that our highways still need improvements.
Some members will be dissatisfied that they cannot travel to
certain areas simply because there are no roads at all. Some
members will see and be surprised that growing municipalities
do not have adequate sewer and water treatment facilities. One
or two visits to First Nations communities will likely leave
members disenchanted with current conditions.
The federal infrastructure works program speaks to these
conditions. But I emphasize that northwestern Ontario and other
regions in Canada need improved infrastructure. The north,
remote areas of my riding such as First Nations communities,
require basic infrastructure such as roads to open up economic
opportunities. A road network where there is currently nothing
will create the opportunities for trade within the region as a
starting block.
Further road links such as the highway I have talked about in
this House on many occasions from Red Lake in my riding to
Winnipeg, which I have been requesting for some time and more
reasonable air transportation connections, will then lead to
enhanced trade outside of the region.
This trade will not only be in goods and commodities but also
people themselves. Although tourism is a strong component of
economic development in my riding there remains many
untapped opportunities mainly because of poor transportation
infrastructure.
Finally, I return to where I started, the resource sector. First I
would like to comment on the mining industry which as most
people are aware is a struggling industry in Canada. It is
encouraging that the federal budget makes contributions to trust
funds for mine reclamation tax deductible. This deduction will
help mining companies utilize cash flow for other operating
costs as well as making it convenient to ensure mine sites are
rehabilitated after operations cease.
Certainly market trends have not been favourable recently for
the mining sector in Canada. That is why it is all the more
important for this government to seriously consider tax
incentives or other measures to help stimulate mining activity.
We need to encourage grassroots exploration and investment in
Canadian based mineral companies.
I understand the Minister of Finance is open to the concept of
mining incentives and I look forward to contributing to the
process of renewing this policy.
Furthermore, I acknowledge that environmental guidelines
for the mining industry are necessary and it is our responsibility
to protect the environment. However, the procedures in place are
convoluted and confusing, resulting in unnecessary delays to
legitimate mine start-ups. As a result we are losing mineral
investment dollars to foreign nations.
We must stop this leakage and support mining projects in
Canada by established, concise and efficient environmental
assessment procedures. We can protect the environment and
ensure mining operations are safe without frightening away
investment due to red tape and uncertainty from within the
bureaucracy.
I can say from talking to the Minister of the Environment and
the understanding that I have within the government that we are
now in the process of dealing with that very difficult and
complex issue of duplication of environmental policy across the
country. I hope to be able to stand up here very soon and share in
the announcement of this government that we now have one
process for mines, one process for forestry, one process for
Canadians as it relates to the environmental assessment process
and not have to spin our wheels going from one department to
the next, municipal, provincial, federal and God only knows
wherever else we have to go before we can get economic
development within our regions.
Second, I would like to directly address the forest industry in
Canada which is by far the primary economic activity in my
riding. The federal government as we all know does not have
direct jurisdiction over forestry practices. The federal
government instead contributes to research and scientific
development through federal-provincial forestry development
agreements.
(2015)
I feel it is the federal government's responsibility and should
remain an eminent priority to lend as much support as possible
to the development of sustainable forestry practices. A viable
and environmentally responsible forestry sector will provide a
launching board for the growth of diversified businesses in
northwestern Ontario and other forestry regions.
In the estimates there are many things involved, as I have
talked about, relating to forestry and mining. It is so obvious to
those of us who have been around this House for awhile, the
opposition, where I was before this Parliament, that it is very
easy to stand up and pick one or two issues to criticize the
government on. I hope the members opposite get the opportunity
to be on the government side, as some of them have. It would be
of benefit to not hold their breath, but if in fact it were their wish
to get the opportunity to create policy they would look at
initiatives like this in a very favourable light as I have.
5037
Coming from a region that is one-fifth of Ontario, almost the
size of the Atlantic provinces put together, that fits in my riding,
people have to understand that there is tremendous potential for
economic growth given the right kind of policies. These are the
policies that I am trying to relate tonight.
I want to conclude by saying that there are many decisions
reflected in the budget estimates which hold promise for me and
a renewed and vibrant future within the small business
community which I talked about extensively in my speech.
Although I have expressed concerns for northern
infrastructure and certain resource sectors, I want to stress
again, as I have said to my colleagues opposite, that I am
confident that if this government does not do what the previous
government did, and that is lose its way and forget why we are
here and why the people put us here, we will put the kind of
policies in place that even the members opposite will cheer.
I know the member for Beaver River will stand up and cheer
with me as she has done on numerous occasion when we were in
opposition and did get our way on occasion.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, now that
my name has been mentioned I feel I should stand up and say
something.
I do appreciate the hon. member's comments. I realize what a
huge geographic area he has to represent. He is quite right when
he states that we did sit together for some months or even years I
think at the beginning of the last Parliament, and I did appreciate
that.
I want to address a couple of things which he talked about. We
in the Reform Party caucus said that we have one or two areas
that we want to cut. Let me make it very plain that we would only
start with one or two areas. There are dozens and dozens of areas
in all of these main estimates that need to be cut; not just that it
is a good idea, but it is absolutely necessary. Only then will
forestry, mines and all these other things be able to take first
place, as they should.
However, if there is no money left in the federal coffers then
there is going to be nothing to help out any sort of social
programs that the member needs in his area. We know that there
are certain things absolutely necessary there.
If we focus on one part of the red book and not on the other
part of the red book in which he refers to and the Liberals always
refer to the fact that we need to cut spending to make sure that
there is money available, we are not just talking about one or two
areas that we need to cut but dozens and dozens in order to save
those social nets and in order to make sure that programs and
policies in his constituency are going to go ahead.
With the debt rate going up at an incredible rate of thousands
and thousands of dollars every minute that will do more to harm
any social programs or any forestry or mines or infrastructure
programs that are going on his riding. Perhaps he could respond
to that.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I am much better in debate than I am
at making speeches. I appreciate that the member would entice
me to get involved in the debate.
One of the things that concerns me about the Reform Party's
continued approach of the zero in three, which was part of its
main plank in its campaign, that it could reduce the deficit in
three years, is the fact that Canadians did not believe it.
(2020 )
If in fact they did believe the Reform Party, it would be sitting
over here and I would be sitting over there. Let us face it, there
are times when members in the opposition, when members of
Parliament continue to suggest things that may appear to be a
good political tool to get governments to react to certain issues.
We lay down the facts and give the numbers as the Reform has
done. I am one of those who has read the direction you would
like to go as far as reducing the deficit in three years.
For example, if it reduced $20 billion, which is what it
suggested roughly during the campaign, if you take the very
conservative estimate of a reduction of a billion in an export
economy, a billion dollars relates to 15,000 jobs of reduced
activity per billion. It does not take a rocket scientist, as has
been mentioned on the opposite side, to figure out how many
jobs would be lost if we reduced that quickly out of an economy
that is used to having $20 billion creating economic activity.
What I am suggesting is that we would not have 11 per cent
unemployment, we would probably have somewhere in the
neighbourhood of 17, 18 per cent unemployment.
I am a history buff and my colleague who sits on the
committee opposite me will know that in the thirties there was a
Conservative by the name of Bennett who tried the same thing,
who used the approach that the quicker you slash everything the
quicker you will get more economic activity. He drove the
economy of Canada right into the ground completely within a
period of three or four years. He said: ``It is an international
recession, we cannot do anything about it''.
My understanding, and the history books will prove this, is
that as soon as the Liberal government came back in after Mr.
Bennett and reversed those programs, the economy took off and
we started to make money again, people started to pay taxes and
we started to pay our debt off.
That is the only issue that I am relating to members on the
opposite side. People do not believe that if you were in govern-
5038
ment you could reduce this massive deficit that we inherited in
three years. You should stop kidding yourselves about that.
The issue is we believe that a balanced approach is a better
approach. We were elected on that platform. We are going to
reduce the deficit. We are going to make some very tough
choices. I want to suggest to the member from Beaver River, if I
am mistaken, and I would hope that my colleagues will back me
up, you will be one of those who will be very happy to see the
next budget in February of next year when we will be making
more severe cuts to make sure that when we get our fiscal house
in order it is done in a very balanced and structured way.
That is why you have to negotiate with the provinces and not
do as our friend Brian Mulroney did and say to the provinces it
really does not matter what they think, this is what we are going
to do. We know how many seats the Conservatives have.
The opposition members should stop suggesting to Canadians
that the zero in three is the way to go, because it is not. Nobody
believes it. As a member I know that it will not work and they
should revamp that strategy.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested in hearing the hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River attempting math. Math is a very precise
science and I know that our zero in three got us from one to 52.
That was in five years, but give us another four years and there
may be very few opposition members in this House when the
Reform Party forms the government.
It is interesting that the hon. member's own finance minister
indicated that by reducing unemployment insurance premiums,
a type of tax, jobs would be created. How can the hon. member
then suggest that by cutting government spending we would be
reducing jobs rather than creating jobs? He is not exactly lining
up with some of the logic or the math of his finance minister.
I have a young family and I am quite concerned about taking
this national credit card that we have and continually running up
a debt, year after year, deficit after deficit, to the point at which
we are over half a trillion dollars in debt, and then at the end of
my life presenting that credit card to my kids and asking them to
pay it off.
(2025 )
I notice that the hon. member is approximately the same age
as I am. I expect that he either has some similar concerns or
knows friends who have similar concerns. I wonder how he can
justify running up this debt for his children.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat of an insult since I
am much younger than the member who just spoke.
My family is so young, not even a year old. During the
campaign I ran against a Reformer and it was a very enjoyable
experience, I might add. One of the things that gentleman said
over and over again is that government is wasteful and we have
to clean up the government and make sure that we tune it in
right.
We know in this place, because we see the expenditures, that
total government operations, everything that we do from RCMP
to buildings we own across the country, are $20 billion. The fact
remains that we could shut the whole government down. The
member talks about selling the odd jet and doing this and that.
This government is talking about a fundamental restructuring
of the economy, fundamental changes in the right direction, not
tinkering around with one jet or a limousine versus a Chrysler,
or a Honda versus a Tempo. We do agree that there have to be
significant changes and cuts. We are not arguing that.
Mr. Hermanson: That is what Mulroney said.
Mr. Nault: The member suggests that is what Mulroney said.
What Mulroney said and did are two different things, as we all
know. He played around on the fringes. He liked to play around
and pretend he was making cuts while he sat there with
40 ministers along the benches. There were so many of them and
so many limousines around they had trouble getting to their
offices after question period.
We do not see that in this government. There is a dramatic
change in how we do things and how the Prime Minister is trying
to use a more common man approach because that is where he
comes from. We do not have a presidential kind of atmosphere
around here any more. We have a House of Commons attitude
with which we are going to slowly work our way through this.
I have said to my constituents that we need, and what I think
we are following as a government, is about a 10-year plan, not a
3-year plan in which we slash and trash everything that is not
nailed down and then say: ``I cut the deficit but everybody is out
of a job, but are we ever doing good''. What we want to do is
build the economy over a 10-year period. I certainly believe that
I will still be in this place if I am so fortunate as far as my
constituents are concerned to prove to members opposite that we
have done the right thing and have the right policies in place.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before we resume debate
I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight.
Just before the member for Kenora-Rainy River spoke, at
the same time the member for Fraser Valley West and the
member for Kenora-Rainy River sought the floor. I gave an
explanation at that time on why I came to the final decision to
recognize the member for Kenora-Rainy River when in fact
upon further verification with the table officers I have been
made aware that my decision was not consistent with the
5039
precedents of this House. In recognizing the hon. member for
Fraser Valley West I also add my apologies.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is
good to see that the person in charge is always willing to admit
an error from time to time. It is too bad the government in charge
would not follow in line with that.
I had a great speech prepared tonight, but there have been so
many quotes I have to address them and change everything.
The government whip talked previously about re-establishing
our credibility. That was the comment he made. One wonders
why the Liberal government has to re-establish its credibility
rather than establish it. Could it be that this was the very
government that started borrowing money on the backs of our
youth in the first place and now it is back to try to re-establish
credibility?
The question about why Reformers are in this House of
Commons is quite obvious. The government did not quite
re-establish the credibility it thought it did, and so here we are.
(2030 )
There was some prior discussion about tabling a list. I think
one of the members opposite suggested that one of our members
did not have a list. He was referring to the list of restraint
measures to be reflected in future estimates, the reductions from
the House of Commons budget. That was the list he was
referring to. I intend to put forward an amendment to the motion
based on that list. It is not as though he were coming up with
something out of thin air. It is not a list this government needs; it
needs a conscience. This government has to do a little soul
searching on how to balance budgets.
We are asked time and time again what specific cuts could be
made. We divulged a great deal of cuts during the election.
Nowhere in these estimates have we see anything like reducing
non-salaried items by a certain percentage, not even 2 per cent,
not 3 per cent, not 10 or 12 per cent. If members look at some of
the non-salaried issues in this government today it would not
take very much to figure out there is some money to be saved.
One wonders how hard they are looking.
I would like to get back to my old dilemma of how much we
are spending to promote the official languages policy. The
$650 million we have established could be anywhere from
$650 million to $2 billion or $3 billion. No one is certain in this
government. There are a lot of places to find cuts. It is just a
matter of getting at it and doing it.
I have tried to put these reductions into the House of
Commons budgets we are talking about here of about $2.4
million. By the time we put this in perspective, it is interesting
that in the period of a 20-minute speech we have already spent
$1,767,600 in interest on the debt. Here we are this evening
debating probably ten times that amount.
Today the cost to our young people, each and every one of
them, is about $26,000 per annum to pay the interest. This is
transferred to the young people listening and watching tonight.
It is not this party that brought this upon these next few
generations. It is the government of today and that previous
party from Jurassic Park, wherever it is. I am sorry, I did not
mean to point to the hon. member from the NDP. They are not
Jurassic Park, yet.
There was a quote a little earlier from the government whip
who said that we do not want to get into this discussion on a
partisan basis. Unfortunately these discussions about dollars are
partisan. They are biased. Many people are very angry at
politicians and government. Reformers have come to this House
in part to address some of those concerns people have. We have a
right to speak about these things and we intend to do so with
vigour.
Just imagine for a moment in any country in the world a
government which spends $160 billion a year. This factitious
country overspends by $40 billion a year. In other words the
money it takes in just is not enough, so it borrows to spend
$40 billion a year. This government borrowing that much each
year then says: ``We want to get more jobs. We want to show
people up front we are going to get them jobs. What will we do?
We will buy them some jobs. Let us spend $2 billion more, even
though we are only borrowing $40 billion. Let us borrow
$2 billion more and let us go to the municipalities and get them
to throw in $2 billion and why not ask the provincial government
for $2 billion as well. We have $6 billion, but there is only one
taxpayer. Fancy that''. Here is a government borrowing on the
backs of one taxpayer at three different levels of government.
This is the same government which is spending $160 billion a
year, of which $40 billion is borrowed.
(2035)
A member opposite said a little while ago: ``If this
government does not lose its way''. I suggest this government
has started to lose its way, it is on a different path than the day it
started. It is already borrowing money to show politically it can
create jobs when at the end of the day what is going to happen is
there will be more people unemployed and we will owe more
money.
Mr. Mitchell: The Canadian people voted for it.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The Canadian people voted
the Conservatives out. They did not vote a red book in.
Government members say: ``Why not spend $6 billion of the
taxpayers' money on infrastructure jobs? Let us find something
else to spend our money on. After all we are only borrowing
$40 billion. Why not create 150,000 child care spaces if the
economy goes to 3 per cent of GDP? That is a good idea, but we
do not want to show the people out there that we are borrowing
$1.5 billion to do that. Therefore we will spend $750 million
federally and we will ask the provinces to spend $750 million''.
Here we go again spending another $1.5 billion on the backs of
5040
the taxpayers. And it is in that silly red book if you do not
believe me.
Where is this government going as far as spending money? In
actual fact it is spending $3 billion more this year than last year.
Yes, it has made some cuts. I am going to go through some of
these cuts, but they are surface cuts and it has really not touched
the problem at all.
By the way, I should not forget to mention it did give about
$3 million to the Prime Minister's riding to help build a museum
of industry. I think there was another $33 million given to
Quebec City for a conference centre. So maybe the government
is looking at cutting back somewhere somehow.
What do you say to a government that comes up with
estimates and we debate them when in fact it is spending more
money than it should? How does one get excited about
discussing estimates? Why is it that we have not had a reduction
in the estimates in the last 20 years? Just what is wrong with
governments in this day and age, in particular this federal
government? What is wrong with these folks that they do not
understand that people want them to cut back, not spend more?
The government is cutting some surface things and spending
more on other things. It is amazing how these governments
continue year after year to justify their existence and justify the
spending of more money.
We are the directors of Canada corporation. All 295 members
are the directors. If you were a director of any corporation and
you said to your shareholders: ``Well we sort of overspent this
year but it is only $40 billion. Next year we are going to
overspend by $30 billion'', what would the reaction be of the
shareholders? I suggest that in private industry, in the real world
out there, the directors would not be directors any longer. And
this government sanctimoniously stands up and talks about
cutting $2.4 million? It is not really a cut. Surface spending is all
it is.
Changes have been made in some of the House of Commons
expenditures. Why is it that it might be seen as a vote of
non-confidence if the estimates were more reflective of that
fact? What we have asked for is to have these estimates amended
and sent back.
I am going to go through some of the changes as the
government whip did. However, I am going to put another side
to the story because the warm fuzzies that were presented are not
so warm at all. In fact, even some of these small cuts would not
have happened had the Reform Party not been here. We pushed
this government to make cuts in all of its perks and it still came
up with some surface stuff.
(2040)
The suggestion has been made that we give ourselves too
much credit, but we probably do not give ourselves enough. We
will give ourselves more credit when we oust that motley crew.
Let us look at some of the reductions. It was talked about that
we are going to save approximately 15 per cent of $98,000 and
what is that on? The shoeshine service has been eliminated. The
number of the barbers has been reduced from three to one. I am
not a fan of barbers, as you might have guessed. However the
facts are it is really despicable that any government would have
the unmitigated gall to stand in this House and say: ``We have
done you a favour, Canadians. We have cut back on three barbers
to one and on the shoeshine service''. It is despicable and there
is no other word for it.
However the government did save on the messenger service
and some office renovations. As I say, the whole list of savings
the government whip talked about amounts to just a little more
than 20 minutes' worth of interest on our debt. I do not know
how you can get in this House and really talk high on something
like that. The people of this country should be ashamed of what
is going on here.
I notice that we did leave something in the House of Commons
budget. There are all kinds of things in there. Let us talk about
the $9.2 million it cost for information services. It is still in
there. You know what that is besides a PR exercise. It is more
paperwork than Mount Baker which is very close to my riding. If
you piled the paperwork up in this place you could probably
build a small mountain out of it. It would not take a brain
surgeon, as my colleague from Wild Rose says, to figure out
there is a lot more money to cut in here. To throw some of these
little numbers out as government is doing is really incredible.
I could go on about many of the costs in here, but there is a
point to be made. This government has not got the idea yet that
Canadians by and large, regardless of their political affiliation
are looking for significant reductions, a sign that government is
in control of itself. Two separate Auditor General reports said
specifically that the government is out of control financially. I
would be one who concurs with that and I think the greater
number of Canadians agree. In fact I probably would guess even
people who vote Liberal might think that, although the people
they elected seem to have walked away with a different
philosophy.
The bottom line is that we do want a change. We are desperate
for a change. This country is going broke. We have to stop
borrowing money. We have to stop the facade that it is okay to
spend more of taxpayers' borrowed money to show people that
there is a little blip in employment. That just will not do in the
long run.
5041
In line with that, I would like to move the following
amendment to the motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting the amount of $164,985,000 and
substituting $162,514,000.
That amendment reflects the fact there were some commitments
on behalf of this government to make some changes. That is the
list my colleague was referring to earlier.
(2045)
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for all the information, but I am not sure we really
gained much.
He mentioned that we on this side of the House might like to
re-establish our credibility. That was certainly re-established
on the date of the election. I certainly notice in the polls from the
west that we are doing very well in an area represented by a very
regional party.
Our party has established confidence in the country.
Confidence is something that we need. Certainly many of his
constituents are very much more in favour of where we are
headed today. There is a lot of confidence in the oil patch in the
west. Prairie grain producers recognize what our ministers are
doing and what we are doing around the world to protect the
interests of our people. Things are certainly looking much
better.
In Ontario small business is feeling better. Small business is
starting to hire. The major employer in my riding is Goodyear
Canada, the most modern tire plant in the world. It has just hired
a few more people. It has gone over the 700 mark. It is investing
in eastern Ontario and is shipping to auto manufacturers in
Quebec, in western Ontario and right into Michigan. Its tires are
being shipped all over North America. Why did Goodyear build
a new modern plant in eastern Ontario? It is because it believes
in the country.
The other day I was in the northern part of my riding. Georgia
Pacific, one of the largest lumber companies in North America,
has just invested several million dollars in a GP waferboard
plant. Money is coming from the States and it is to hire 85
people next month. Certainly there is confidence there.
Our party is not like the party opposite. We do not want to cut
the legs off the working people. We want everybody to be able to
go to work.
You mentioned a $26,000 debt per person. Let me ask you:
How many people in North America-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I have been
seized by the member's enthusiasm, but I remind all colleagues
to address their colleagues opposite through the Chair.
Mr. McCormick: I would like to ask a question of the hon.
member opposite. How many people in the world today would
like to pay $26,000 or $50,000 and be able to move into this
country? The world has recognized that we are living in the
world's greatest spot. Many people would like to move here
tomorrow.
The member opposite mentioned infrastructure.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Was that my question?
Mr. McCormick: The member will get his question. I want to
let him know that infrastructure is an investment in the country.
We believe in Canadians and we invest for tomorrow.
Does the member opposite believe he would like to cut at
random affecting the lives of innocent people? Does the member
opposite not believe in investing in tomorrow? Does the member
opposite not believe in Canadians?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, there were
three questions. I will back to the first one.
The member opposite talked about how the Liberal
government had established confidence in the people of the
country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): They are clapping, I say to
those who cannot hear it.
(2050 )
Let me just cite a couple of things that have not established
any particular amount of confidence, some things that I have
tripped over lately. The government gives CPP, old age security,
the old age security income supplement and GST rebates to
criminals in prisons. Does that give a lot of confidence to people
out there? I have received hundreds, if not thousands, of
telephone calls from senior citizens across the country since we
divulged that. Does that give people confidence?
Our people are overtaxed. Does that give people confidence?
The Young Offenders Act so weak that it is just a plain, poor job.
I do not know where the confidence is coming from. It is not
oozing from my riding. Perhaps it is somewhere along the line.
There was a question about $26,000 per person. To have the
unmitigated gall to justify that debt to our young people because
they would like to live in the country is pretty poor justification
indeed. It is future generations that we have to try to help.
Because we live in such a great country does not justify Liberal
borrowing at all or borrowing by the other party from Jurassic
Park.
The final question was whether or not we could justify cutting
at random. We produced during the election zero in three. We
justified it. For a new party with 52 elected people, a lot of
people understood it. The reason why the zero in three does not
quite work right now and we have to amend it is that the debt
5042
charges have risen so high. The government refuses to cut back
on its budgets. What are we stuck with? Now we have to go with
a higher number of zero in something.
It is a shame the government cannot understand what the
people want. It will not take the bull by the horns.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I go back to the issue my colleague raised as it relates to
infrastructure.
There seems to be an underlying motive in the Reform Party's
attitude that money should not be spent on infrastructure
because they are part time jobs and that when there is a debt, the
money should not be spent or used toward the development of
infrastructure.
Even though we have financial and fiscal problems-we all
admit it; we are not suggesting otherwise-his party is
suggesting that we should not bother with infrastructure in
regions like mine which of course are huge. There are 800,000
square kilometres with virtually no roads that have tremendous
potential, as I mentioned before.
Should we hold off on trying to develop regions like that until
some day when we may be able to get our debt back to zero? It is
going to take a significant amount of time if we are reasonable
about it. I need to know from the member whether he is
suggesting that we should put everything on hold and let
infrastructure crumble and fall apart as is the case in other
countries around the world.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I think we
have to go back a way on this one. We are in debt. It is so hard to
get it through over there. We are borrowing $40 billion a year.
The reason there are no roads or some infrastructure is breaking
down in the first place is that we have been borrowing money on
the backs of the taxpayers for years. They do not have it through
their skulls yet that they have borrowed, borrowed and
borrowed. We cannot afford these programs any longer.
I might add that I talked to several mayors about the
infrastructure program. Basically in many cases, and I am not
suggesting all of them, there may be some areas that require
purposeful funding for infrastructure. In some cases the mayors
said that these were jobs they were going to do in the first place.
Their costs have been cut. Instead of having 100 per cent
infrastructure costs coming out of the residential taxpayer
dollar, the provincial government will pick up some and the
federal government will pick up some.
(2055)
All the government has succeeded in doing is borrowing more
money on the backs of the taxpayers. That is the philosophy we
have here. It is smoke and mirrors.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
this evening to speak on this most auspicious occasion, the
debate on the first main estimates of the government.
Other members have talked about how the government has
demonstrated its resolve to restore order to Canada's fiscal
house. I would like to talk about another pledge that we made to
Canadians: to provide government services that Canadians want
and need in an affordable and efficient manner. We promised to
work to eliminate overlap and duplication with other levels of
government and to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is not
paying twice for the same or similar services.
The government is very serious about keeping these pledges
and about restoring the faith of Canadians in their government
institutions. It is equally serious about ensuring that a public
service that has been cut repeatedly over the last 10 years is still
able to deliver quality, responsive services to their clients.
I would like to talk about some of the many management
initiatives of the government that will enable us to keep our
promises to Canadians. As the February budget announced, the
government will release a declaration of quality service by the
end of the summer. This declaration will be a service scheme for
all public servants to follow. It will describe what the
government views as good government service. It will tell
Canadians what kind of service and treatment they can expect to
receive when they telephone a government number, visit a
federal office or write to a government agency.
This declaration will provide clear direction to all public
service employees about the kind of service the government
wants Canadians to receive from all federal offices. While we
may not be able to deliver all services in line with the
declaration right now, an achievable but challenging target is
one way of getting there.
The declaration is only one part of the government's plan to
tell Canadians what they can expect when they use a government
service. It will be a broad government-wide vision of quality
service.
Just as important as the declaration are the service standards
that each department and agency of government are expected to
produce. Service standards will build on the quality pledge
included in this declaration and go even further. Written in plain
language they describe the particular services and programs of
each department. They will talk about the actual level of service
that Canadians should expect to receive, such as how long
before the telephone is answered, applications are processed or
letters are responded to. They will include some measures of the
cost of the service or program so Canadians can judge if they are
getting value for money.
5043
Finally, service standards will include simple, easy to use
complaint mechanisms so Canadians have an effective avenue
of redress if they are not satisfied with the service they are
receiving.
Service standards should be developed in consultation with
the program's clients and employees. The government believes
consultation with Canadians is an important step in restoring
faith in federal institutions. To this end we are determined to
develop an effective consultation process.
By talking to the people who actually use or deliver the
service, government managers get a better idea of what is most
important to their clients. When asked clients generally offer
worthwhile suggestions on how the service could be improved.
By finding out what Canadians value, government managers can
concentrate their energies and efforts where the return in terms
of increased client satisfaction is the greatest. They can use the
information to eliminate or reduce services that no longer meet
the needs of today's clients.
Service standards are real. Mr. Speaker, when you filed your
income taxes this year you will have noticed in the guide the
declaration of taxpayers' rights. This is not new. What was new
was a statement by the department that even at the height of
income tax processing in April and May returns can normally be
processed and cheques or assessments returned within four
weeks. This gives Canadians a very concrete idea of what they
can expect.
(2100)
Enquiries Canada, part of the Canada Communication Group,
has a number of service standards in place. For example, phone
calls are answered, with a bilingual greeting I might add, in
three rings or 16 seconds 85 per cent of the time. Any inquiry
requiring further research is answered by the research team
within 24 hours and the research officers do the callbacks to the
clients themselves.
Correspondence received by Enquiries Canada is answered
within 48 hours.
As we can see, this is a real and concrete description of the
services that are being offered, something Canadians can
monitor to see if the organizations are continuing to meet these
targets.
The inspections branch of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans has developed draft standards that are based on
consultation with clients and staff. One set deals with how the
department will handle complaints. Complaints involving
health and safety of fish products will be investigated
immediately. Trade complaints or complaints involving quality
or consumer fraud will be investigated within three working
days.
This is an example of how the department is becoming more
sensitive to the service needs of its clients.
My final example of the service standards comes from
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The department has
established a single access food labelling service for the
Canadian food industry. The service consolidated food labelling
activities involving the former departments of consumer and
corporate affairs and agriculture under four different pieces of
legislation. The new service will complete a label assessment
within 10 working days.
These are all examples where federal departments and
agencies have clearly spelled out for Canadians the level of
service they can expect to receive. We can monitor their
performance and see if they are meeting their targets. We can
discuss their targets with them. For the first time we will know
what response we should expect from a government department
or agency.
Of course, developing service standards is only one step in
more efficiently delivering effective and affordable programs.
One way to really improve the services that Canadians are
receiving is to eliminate the stovepipe mentality resulting from
separate government departments. Based on clients'
perspective, related services from a number of departments and
agencies can be provided in one location. That is what the
Canada Business Service Centre concept is all about, one stop
shopping for the business client.
CBSCs provide a comprehensive access point for
information, assistance and referrals on all federal programs
and services to business.
In the last budget this government made a commitment to
open at least one centre in a major urban area in each province
this year. Furthermore, we are working with the provinces and
the private sector to develop a single access point for federal,
provincial and community-based programs and services of
interest to business clients.
Clients have access to CBSC services by telephone and
facsimile transmission, in person and in future electronically
from home or business. Aside from some start-up funds to offset
technology investment, CBSCs are being established within
existing operating resources.
Since these estimates were tabled on February 24 the
Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre has officially opened,
this in addition to three CBSCs in Halifax, Edmonton and
Winnipeg which have been up and running for some time. Four
new centres will open in the early summer in Montreal,
Fredericton, St. John's and Charlottetown. Most of these will
operate in conjunction with provincial services and one will
even have the participation of the local chamber of commerce.
The remaining centres will open in the early fall.
Harmonizing federal and provincial services in one location
is a giant step forward. However, it is even more important to
determine that the programs and services that we are delivering
are still relevant to the needs of today's Canadians. To that end,
the budget announced a series of program reviews. The most
5044
fundamental and far reaching of these is the government's
review of Canada's social security system.
The Minister for Human Resources Development is leading
this review. He has already launched a dialogue with Canadians
and the provinces on our social security system. The entire range
of social programs and issues will be covered in this review.
They include unemployment insurance, training and other
employment programs, the Canada assistance plan, security for
families and children, assistance for persons with disabilities,
post-secondary education and student loans.
(2105)
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
will begin consultations on the action plan in the very near
future. Members of this House will be invited to undertake their
own consultations.
Redesigning services and programs to meet the real needs of
Canadians is absolutely imperative to ensure that the most
valued services and programs are delivered efficiently and
affordably. However, it is just as important that public servants
are ready and equipped to deliver these services.
As part of this broader re-engineering effort, the government
released the blueprint for renewing government services using
information technology. The blueprint contains a vision of how
the government can use today's information technology to
deliver responsive and affordable services. It identifies the need
for a government wide electronic information infrastructure to
support service delivery renewal.
The common infrastructure will allow the development of
knowledgeable employees free from organizational constraints
and able to answer questions and deal with the programs of a
number of federal governments.
The blueprint is one of many approaches to advancing the
one-stop shopping concept and eliminating the stovepipe
attributable to government organizations.
The government is taking other measures to ensure that
taxpayers' money is spent wisely, with true consideration given
to real need. For example, with the introduction of operating
budgets managers were provided with one sum of money to
cover employee costs and operating and maintenance costs. This
eliminated the person year control system. This person year
control system often acted as a barrier to improving services to
Canadians by not allowing managers to achieve the right input
mix of staff, services and equipment.
To cut down on the wasteful year end spending practices that
we often read about in the Auditor General's annual reports,
departments were allowed to carry forward from one fiscal year
to the next 2 per cent of their operating budgets. There was
therefore no need to rush out and purchase computers or lab
equipment that departments did not need right away but knew
they were going to need in the next fiscal year.
This government is currently evaluating whether the 2 per
cent carry forward has been effective in eliminating the
so-called year end spending binge or whether it needs to be
increased to 5 per cent. I am confident that the President of the
Treasury Board will advise us of the results of this study in due
course.
Departments and agencies that are closely located are starting
to share common services like meeting rooms, libraries, internal
mail distribution, to free resources that have been used in this
kind of duplicative and costly overhead. To date there are over
200 such initiatives being discussed or implemented in every
province across the country.
We are streamlining and updating our payments and
procurement processes through the use of modern technology.
This will have tremendous benefits both in terms of cost
avoidance and in terms of better service to those firms that want
to sell goods and services to the government.
In conclusion, let me assure hon. members of this House that
the government intends to keep its pledge to deliver the services
Canadians want and need in an affordable and efficient manner.
I have talked today about a number of management initiatives
the government is pursuing. The list is just a start. It is just a
beginning. As we look at how we are serving Canadians and
delivering our programs, as we continually strive to learn and
improve, other such initiatives will follow.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to my colleague's comments. I would like to ask a
question related to the infrastructure program.
Canadians will remember that recently the United Nations
had a study which said that Canada was number one in the world
to live. However, if you looked more closely at that study, when
the status of women in Canada was factored in Canada dropped
to ninth place of the most favourable to live in the world. The
same study also cited that women's net income is 51.5 per cent
of that of men in Canada which is one of the reasons that we
scored so low in terms of the status of women in Canada.
(2110)
The infrastructure program was certainly in our jobs plan. The
New Democratic Party supported having an infrastructure
program. We think it is very important.
It is true however that the majority of jobs in that
infrastructure plan will provide jobs for men. I think this is
good. I am not suggesting that we should not be doing that but I
would like to ask the member if in his government's plans, in his
own looking into the infrastructure program or other
employment programs, he would both support and perhaps give
some examples of how the Liberal government has directly
decided to address the very serious issue of poverty among
women and increasing unem-
5045
ployment among women which is reducing the standard of
living for women in Canada.
Mr. Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question. I certainly concur that we are very committed to
helping the status of women and certainly through a number of
initiatives that we have come forward with we will certainly be
doing that.
I have gone into my riding and talked on many occasions in
high schools, encouraging young women to get involved in
science and technology programs, indicating to them that this is
the future. We need to rely on training and providing incentives
to women to participate in science and technology and certainly
to give them opportunities both in the private and public sector
to display the skills they have.
Certainly the Liberal government is committed to providing
opportunities for women both through this infrastructure and in
all other areas.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, there are two different kinds
of infrastructure. One is the physical infrastructure of roads and
sewerage systems and so on which are very important to the
development of Canada. There is another kind of infrastructure
program and that is our social infrastructure.
I would like to ask the member about that aspect of
infrastructure because his government said in its election
promises that when growth in the economy reached 3 per cent it
would institute a national child care program.
This would provide I am sure quality child care for many
children who are without it in Canada. It would also provide a
number of jobs for people working in that sector. Can the
member comment on that given that growth in the economy is
now projected to be over 3 per cent in this year.
Mr. Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the hon.
member has read the red book and has read our commitments.
Certainly as a Liberal Party we are going to meet our
commitments.
The national child care program we are certainly committed
to is outlined in the red book and that would be once the
economy reaches 3 per cent. I understand that we would actually
be initiating that one year after the growth in the economy.
We certainly do support the national child care program and
we would be implementing this program one year after the
economy reaches that 3 per cent growth.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of members
still want to speak on several of these items that are left and that
the time for debate will end in one hour. Therefore I would like
to see if there is unanimous consent to cut the speeches to
10 minutes with no questions or comments from anyone, thus
permitting more members on all sides of the House equally as
per usual formula to get on.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to put that proposition to the House and
seek such consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the government deputy whip. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
(2115 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We are resuming debate
on the amendment by the member for Fraser Valley West to
Motion No. 2.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured today to speak on full supply for the
1994-95 main estimates.
Many of us are participating in the consideration of the main
estimates which are prepared in support of the government's
appropriation bill for the first time. I would like to take this
opportunity to summarize for members the significant features
of the 1994-95 main estimates and to describe the relationship
between these estimates and the government's expenditure plan
which was presented in the February 1994 budget.
The 1994-95 main estimates set out details of $160.7 billion
of planned government spending. This represents a decrease of
0.2 per cent over the 1993-94 main estimates. It is important to
note that almost 70 per cent of the $160.7 billion has been
authorized by Parliament through substantive legislation. These
statutory expenditures in the amount of $112.2 billion include
the following: major federal government social transfers to
Canadians, including old age security, guaranteed income
supplements, spouse's allowance and unemployment insurance
benefits, transfers to provinces under the fiscal equalization
program, transfers to the provinces for health, post-secondary
education and social assistance and public debt charges.
Therefore through these estimates the government is seeking
Parliament's approval to spend $48.6 billion for those programs
which rely on annual appropriations. Planned expenditures for
these voted programs represent a decrease of $330 million or 0.7
per cent from 1993-94.
What is the relationship between these main estimates in the
amount of $160.7 billion and the total budgetary expenditure
forecast in the amount of $163.6 billion projected in the
February 1994 budget? Allow me first to identify those items
which
5046
are included, followed by a description of items we were unable
to include for various reasons.
As the member for Dauphin-Swan River, I am pleased to
note that the 1994-95 main estimates incorporate a number of
significant expenditures reductions set out in the February 1994
budget which amount to $1.2 billion. These savings are
comprised of reductions in areas such as operating budgets,
$400 million; ministerial offices, $13 million; defence, $350
million; cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter program, $395
million; and international assistance, $91 million.
These reductions clearly demonstrate the government's
ability to follow through on its plans and policies to restore
fiscal responsibility. We are keeping our word.
Items not included which total $2.9 billion essentially fall
into three categories: adjustments, reserves and allowances for
lapses. With reference to adjustments, some elements of the
planned spending could not be incorporated in the main
estimates because of the timing of the budget decisions or
because they depend on the passage of separate legislation.
However, let me reaffirm the government's intention to
deliver on the fundamental policy reforms and expenditure
reduction measures involved. Major items in this category, all of
which are decreases, announced in the February 1994 budget
and not reflected in the 1994-95 main estimates include:
changes to the unemployment insurance program, $725 million;
reductions in subsidies to businesses, $117 million; reductions
in non-statutory grants and contributions, $45 million;
suspension of annual salary increments for public service
employees, $50 million; and a reduction in the House of
Commons budget, $5 million. The total savings anticipated
from these adjustments in 1994 are $942 million.
(2120)
The second item which was provided for in the expenditure
plan of the Minister of Finance but not included in the main
estimates is reserves. Reserves are excluded from the main
estimates because they are used to meet spending requirements
which cannot be detailed but are likely to arise during the year
and appear as supplementary estimates.
Supplementary estimates A, which were tabled in the House
of Commons on May 27, 1994, are an example of the use of
reserves, in this case to allow the government to deliver the
Atlantic groundfish strategy. Reserves in the 1994-95 estimates
amount to $4.7 billion.
The third and final item which was included in the total
budgetary expenditure forecast presented by the Minister of
Finance but not included in these estimates is the provision for
an anticipated lapse of $875 million in spending authority; that
is, spending authority that will not be exercised by departments
and agencies.
Lapses can occur due to many factors which are difficult to
predict, ranging from contractual delays with outside parties to
weather induced delays on construction projects.
Thus far in discussing these main estimates I have focused
entirely on the significant features of the government's planned
spending and direct budgetary action to reduce expenditures. In
addition, I would draw members' attention to the fact that main
estimates documents also contain information on numerous
initiatives which the government has under way to improve
service delivery to Canadians and to make government more
efficient. Highlights of these initiatives are provided in part I,
chapter 5 of the main estimates.
Improving service delivery to Canadians can be accomplished
without increasing expenditures through greater co-operation
with other levels of government, redesigning service delivery
mechanisms and establishing a regulatory regime that
encourages competitiveness and economic growth.
For example, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal is
co-ordinating and steering a process to examine overlap and
duplication and to clarify federal-provincial roles and
responsibilities through co-operative intergovernmental
arrangements.
The federal government has invited the provinces to examine
such areas as securities regulations, environmental assessment
regulations, food inspection, access to government business
programs and services, student aid administration, drug
prosecutions, social housing and labour market programs.
Another initiative designed to improve service delivery to
Canadians is the establishment of Canada business service
centres. CBSCs provide a comprehensive access point for
information, assistance and referrals on all government
programs and service to businesses. CBSCs are also intended to
improve co-ordination and co-operation among federal
departments and agencies that offer programs and services that
interest or effect the business community. Aside from start-up
funding to offset technology investments, CBSCs are being
established without new operating resources.
In conclusion, as the member for Dauphin-Swan River, I
would note that the 1994-95 main estimates reflect the
government's resolve to implement measures which it believes
are necessary to restore fiscal responsibility while remaining
responsive and innovative to ensure quality and efficiency in
public services.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On a point of order, the
hon. government deputy whip.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there have been further
consultations among the parties in the House and I think if you
were to seek it you might find that there is unanimous consent to
have 10-minute speeches and five minutes questions and
comments starting right now so that we could accommodate
more members on both sides of the House to participate in this
important debate.
5047
(2125 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion, the suggestion by the government deputy
whip. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I listened
closely to my colleague's comments on the main estimates.
[Translation]
I would like to ask her a question about the cuts in the budget,
and especially in the social programs envelope. As the hon.
member said, the budget contains a number of cuts, especially in
unemployment insurance, and in fact more than 50 per cent of
the cuts in the budget affect social programs.
Does the hon. member agree with these cuts in social
programs, especially when they attack the unemployed instead
of attacking unemployment?
[English]
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question.
I should remind the hon. member that we are going through a
process of review for the social security programs and it will be
up to the people of this country to make that decision. We are
listening through that consultation process and I am assured that
the people of Canada will tell us what they believe is the right
thing to do with respect to social programs.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
to my colleague from Dauphin-Swan River, I am very much
interested in issues that relate to the expenditures in the
estimates and the budget.
Mr. Speaker, you will understand this being of the same bent,
in the old hockey days I used to play in Dauphin. Dauphin is a
small community very much the same as Kenora and places in
my riding like Kenora, Dryden and Fort Frances. The thing that
impressed me the most was the agricultural land that was
available for production.
One thing in this budget the member could fill us in on is the
issue of whether the government is listening regarding farmers.
Farmers have had a very difficult time in the last few years. As I
do not have a large agricultural sector and am not well versed in
agricultural issues, I would like to know if she could tell me if
we are on the right track as it relates to agricultural issues. Are
there initiatives in the budget that she thinks are going to help
the farmers in her area and across the west?
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his question with respect to agriculture.
I want to assure the hon. member that for those of us who
come to this House from a farming background, we have a
number of issues around agriculture that are going to keep farm
families in this country alive and well. I would like to mention a
few of those.
One is the whole farm support program. I believe that the hon.
minister of agriculture should be congratulated for taking the
incentive to listen to farm families through a consultation
process again and bringing forward those issues which are dear
and near to the hearts of farm families.
(2130 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate tonight and
to make a few comments, a few well-researched comments I
might add. I have had a lot of time to prepare.
I listened with interest to a number of members who spoke
earlier this evening. I was particularly concerned and tried to
respond earlier in the form of a question and comment to Reform
Party members who had been talking in the context of their
remarks about the confidence convention in the House. I am
very glad to have this opportunity to pick up where I left off at
one point earlier.
I wanted to say and had an opportunity to partially say to
Reform Party members that they should be a bit more humble
about the whole tradition of advocating more free votes, less
party discipline and less respect for the confidence convention
in this House. I ask them to be cognizant of the fact that the
special committee on reform of the House of Commons which
was struck after the 1984 election and which was chaired by the
Hon. Jim McGrath made a number of recommendations along
the very lines the Reform Party members are in the habit of
getting up and suggesting to the House.
I would suggest to my Reform Party colleagues that they read
the McGrath report, if they have not already. Maybe some of
them have. In there they will find recommendations about the
confidence convention, about party discipline, about free votes.
What they will find is a recommendation that there be a wider
range of issues on which members of Parliament should feel
freer to vote their conscience, or that of their constituents, or
whatever they want to do, but that they not be bound by party
discipline.
We received a lot of advice at that time from eminent
constitutional and parliamentary scholars, like the late Eugene
Forsey and others, that the confidence convention is given far
too much weight in the Canadian political tradition. Even in the
mother of Parliaments at Westminster will be found many more
examples of backbench members of Parliament on the govern-
5048
ment side for instance, voting against government measures. It
means that the cabinet and the Prime Minister have to be much
more sensitive to backbench opinion and that is a good thing.
I also want to say to Reform Party members that with respect
to the rules of the House there is nothing more left to be done. As
a result of the McGrath committee report all the technical
language of confidence was taken out of the standing orders.
Prior to 1985, the word ``confidence'' did appear in the
standing orders with respect to allotted days, supply days, et
cetera. What that committee recommended was that all the
language of confidence be taken out of the standing orders so
that from that day forward nothing would be technically or
procedurally a matter of confidence. The only things that would
be matters of confidence would be things that were declared at
the political level by the government to be matters of
confidence.
There is nothing in the rules of the House of Commons at this
point that prevents the government or any other political party
from having free votes. It is all a matter of the culture of the
particular government or the political party. As members will
have noticed even among themselves this is a difficult thing to
overcome.
As far as I know even the Reform Party itself has tended to
vote as a party. You tend to have similar positions, but when you
do not there should be the freedom to express the variety of
opinion that exists within the caucus, particularly on the
government side. I say that because it is harder on the
government. There is no reason on earth why government should
regard everything as a matter of confidence.
What the McGrath committee recommended was that unless
the government explicitly declares something to be a matter of
confidence, it is not. It is a matter of political culture in the final
analysis. It is not a matter of procedure. It is not a matter of
rules. It is related to the media and how they treat division
within parties, et cetera. It is a question of trying to change our
attitude around here. Procedurally we can lead the horse to water
but we cannot make it drink. It has to drink by itself.
The government has to drink from the river of diversity within
its own ranks, just as other political parties do, and that takes
courage. It takes courage on the part of political leaders and it
takes courage on the part of political backbenchers no matter
what party they belong to.
In the final analysis, there is not a member of Parliament here
who is not free to get up and vote differently than his party or his
leader, or her party or her leader, any time they want.
(2135 )
Therefore I think there is a mistake in approach on the part of
my Reform colleagues who keep insisting there is something the
government must do. There is nothing the government could do.
All the government needs to do is to set its own members free.
There is nothing procedurally or legislatively or anything like
that that needs to be done.
It is not clear when they are speaking. I am not making this up.
Their argument sounds as if there is something the government
should be doing. The thing they could do best, if they are really
serious about this, is to demonstrate it in their own practices.
I just wanted Reformers to know that this call for less party
discipline, for more distance from the confidence convention
and for less domination by parties in the House of Commons
precedes their arrival. I am sure it goes back a long time. It goes
back to the non-partisan movements of the 1920s and 1930s to
the Progressive Party and various other things. But its most
recent incarnation here happened in the 1980s as a result of the
McGrath committee report. Even before that there was the
Lefebvre committee which was chaired by the late Senator Tom
Lefebvre when he was a member of this House. That committee
made recommendations on this.
There has been progress. When you come here as a member,
you think things as they are are the way they have always been,
but prior to 1985 we could not even vote on private members'
bills unless there was unanimous consent. There are a variety of
other ways in which individual members have been given more
power to express themselves as individuals, not just in private
members' business but in committees.
Prior to 1985 a committee could only study what the
government asked it to study. Committees had no independent
power to decide to study this or that. If I had the time I could go
on and list a number of other things. I just say this because there
is, I would say, a certain kind of hubris on the part of my Reform
colleagues that there were no parliamentary reformers before
they arrived.
There have been reforms and there have been a lot of us who
have been advocating these kinds of reforms partially
successfully and partially without success. Let us carry on, but
let us not act as if nothing happened before we got here.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona's comments with interest and I agreed with very
much of what he said. In fact his own party was born from a
reform tradition. We in the Reform Party have made many
comments about Canada's reform tradition not only in western
Canada but in the province of Quebec, at that time it was Upper
Canada.
5049
Even in Atlantic Canada there were some Reform movements
that have sprung up.
The problem is not the fact of understanding what reform is
all about and the changes that need to be made. I think we all
understand that. We even understand, in spite of what the hon.
member said, that some changes have been proposed and
adopted by this House that would relax the confidence
convention. However, the Prime Minister has not seemed to
relay that message to his caucus and that is what concerns us.
We have seen the same problem in provincial legislatures. In
fact, provincial legislatures which are governed by the hon.
member's party, the NDP, exercise extremely strict party
discipline.
One other matter that needs to be clear, and I would like to get
the hon. member's comment on, is that we are not talking about
free votes as being free spirited endeavours on behalf of
individual members. We are talking about the members'
freedom to vote the wishes of their constituents. There is quite a
difference between voting how I might feel I should vote as an
individual and in fact voting the wishes of my constituents.
We in Reform have not come here and promoted just a bunch
of free spirits voting however they please on every issue. We
have been talking about difficult or divisive issues where in fact
the party's position may differ from that of a member's
constituents. I am sure it happens on the government side where
the government has proposed legislation which individual
member's constituents are definitely opposed to.
We know what happened in the last House with the GST where
members were told not to support the GST and they came into
this House and stood with the government on the GST. Through
their hands they said to their constituents: ``You don't count. We
don't care what you say. We have to vote with the government'',
even though these reforms apparently were in place.
(2140 )
The matter is not that the reforms are not there to be used. The
problem is in acting them out in this House. I would ask the hon.
member to respond to that and in fact even with regard to the
provincial legislature where his party is the governing party.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I said that I thought Canadian
politics was dominated too much by party discipline. I mean that
as an across the board comment.
I would point out to the member that there is a free vote in the
Ontario legislature tonight sponsored by an NDP government. It
is a counter example to what the member is saying. But I agree.
When the McGrath committee recommended that there be a
broader range of issues on which people should feel free of party
discipline it meant that for all parties. When I signed that report
I meant that for all parties.
With respect to the other issue the member raised-I see you
rising, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the House would just allow me to
respond to the final point about what is the role of members of
Parliament when we are freed up from party discipline. Are we
then freed up from party discipline to vote our conscience, or to
vote with the majority of our constituents, or perhaps they might
overlap, or perhaps they might be in conflict.
It is a much more complicated matter than what Reform
members tend to argue is the case because they argue that it is a
question of respecting the majority view of their constituents.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret the hon.
member's time of five minutes for questions and comments has
expired. Is the hon. member asking for unanimous consent? Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today the division on the
question now before the House stands deferred until later this
day at 10 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will
be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-5,
an act to incorporate the Canadian Association of Lutheran
Congregations, to which the concurrence of this House is
desired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 135(2) the bill is deemed to have
been read the first time and ordered for second reading at the
next sitting of the House.
5050
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $330,938,000 under the heading
Transport-Payments to Via Rail Canada Inc., in the main estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1995 (less the amount voted in interim supply), be
concurred in.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the opposition has raised
this matter for debate. As all members know there are many
pressing issues facing the railway industry and Canada is at a
crossroads with respect to the industry's future.
Before dealing specifically with VIA I would like to put the
rail passenger services into the larger context of the national
transportation system. The hon. Minister of Transport set out a
clear vision for the government's national transportation policy
on June 3 in Thunder Bay.
Obviously transportation is as important now as it was in the
past. We need a realistic achievable vision, and new
partnerships to move the Canadian transportation system into
the 21st century. We should respect the past but by doing so we
must meet the challenges of the future.
We believe that the role and structure of crown corporations
such as VIA Rail and CN must be reviewed. Because of the
current uncertainty in the rail sector and concerns over its long
term viability, the Minister of Transport intends to convene a
meeting of industry leaders to discuss the problems railroads are
facing and to search for solutions.
(2145)
We must be pragmatic and focus on what will work. We must
ensure that the common sense realistic needs and affordability
are among the criteria driving Canadian transportation policy of
the future. Passengers must have a multimodal transportation
system that is safe, reliable and affordable. VIA has a role to
play as we put the system in place.
Because of the need to reduce the government expenditures
VIA has been required to operate within lower funding levels.
Notwithstanding the fact that the funding to VIA has been
reduced and its network restructured in 1990 we now have a
streamlined and more efficient rail passenger carrier. The
corporation has been able to complete cost studies of its
operations that show where opportunities exist to make cost
effective changes. Identification of such opportunities
prompted VIA for example to introduce new service frequencies
in the Montreal-Ottawa triangle while reducing further its
requirements for government subsidies.
The government is pleased with what the corporation has been
able to accomplish with the introduction of its silver and blue
service on the western transcontinental trains. Public response
has been outstanding. With both revenue and traffic increasing,
on time performance is now at 90 per cent.
VIA has demonstrated that it is capable of meeting the
challenge of subsidy reductions. That has been accomplished
with the use of better equipment, improved productivity and a
quality of on board services.
Recent years have seen VIA management exercising greater
flexibility and control over the planning, development and
operation of rail passenger services. With our government that
trend will continue.
The 1993 budget reduced VIA funding over a three year
period beginning in 1994-95 from $343.4 million to
$235 million in 1996-97. The recent budget exercise further
reduced annual funding over the next five years by a total of
$9.6 million.
As my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has already told the
House, Canada has been building up a mountain of debt. We
simply cannot allow this trend to continue. This was the reason
behind our decision to confirm the VIA funding levels
announced in the 1993 budget. VIA has met its challenges in
moving to a more efficient customer oriented company.
This government is now asking the corporation to assist the
government in reducing our national deficit. VIA's ability to
meet this challenge is fundamental to its long term viability. The
government's decision to confirm VIA's reduced funding was a
necessary one and the right one for Canada. We cannot put the
decision aside and look to the past. In my opinion that would be
the wrong course. Rather we must now look to the future and
forward building on VIA's successes.
There has been much discussion concerning the level of
government subsidy to passenger rail service. In particular
comparisons have been made with other modes of public
transportation in Canada: buses, aeroplanes and the automobile.
While the automobile and air modes have received more funding
overall, each passenger on the rail mode receives a far greater
subsidy than any other mode of transport.
Since its creation in 1977 the government has spent more than
$7 billion on VIA's operating and capital expenditures. Despite
these government subsidies rail passenger service retains only 1
per cent of the total Canadian intercity passenger traffic. In
comparison the air mode has a market share of 6 per cent. The
automobile enjoys the lion's share of the market at 89 per cent.
Even the bus mode enjoys a greater share of the market at 4 per
cent.
These figures reveal that Canadians have a definite preference
for passenger modes other than rail and they have sent a clear
signal of that preference.
5051
Like all Canadians we must ask ourselves what is it that we
can afford. We must make choices based upon utility and value.
We cannot say to Canadians: ``You must continue to pay more
and more for something you rarely use''.
I would encourage the opposition to recognize that we must
face the reality of our economy, of our modes of travel, in
particular the cost and benefits of rail passenger service.
If I may, I would like now to address the issue of where VIA is
today. At the outset it would be helpful to briefly review some of
the facts on VIA's performances in 1992. For the system as a
whole the operating subsidy was $332 million. This translates
into an average total subsidy of $92 per passenger. For the
corridor, the most heavily travelled segment of the network, the
operating subsidy was $171.8 million for an average subsidy of
$56 per passenger.
(2150)
As we move to the other categories of service we see that the
level of subsidy rises dramatically. For example, it rises from an
average of $254 per passenger for Trent Continental service to
$454 per passenger for services to the remote communities.
It is also interesting to look at the level of cost recovery. It
ranges from a high of 38 per cent on the corridor to a low of only
8 per cent on the remote routes. Nevertheless, VIA has not stood
still since the 1993 budget announcement. To help meet the
funding targets it embarked on a major restructuring of its
corporate and management expenses last November. We as a
government must respect the taxpayers' ability to pay. That is an
important first step.
Unfortunately, with even bigger streamlining and a pared
down corporate structure VIA cannot achieve viability unless at
the same time it addresses its cost base. For example, labour
costs represent approximately 46 per cent of the corporation's
operating costs. These are in fact the largest single cost items in
VIA's budget.
The decisions facing both VIA and its labour unions in the
current contract negotiations will be difficult. At the same time
it will be necessary for them to work together to find a resolution
of their differences which is within the final financial
constraints.
VIA is currently evaluating the effect on its operations of the
budget funding cuts. As well, the negotiations between VIA and
its employees will have a significant impact on future levels of
service.
In addition, the corporation is reviewing every aspect of its
operations to maximize all expenditures which do not impact
directly on services to the travelling public.
In conclusion, I believe it is important to tell this House and
Canadian taxpayers, who are in fact funding VIA to the tune of
$323 million this year, that a resolution and a solution can be
found. It lies within VIA itself coming up with some additional
efficiency gains and the workers and labour components of VIA
working co-operatively with the company to ensure greater
efficiencies. Passengers and the travelling public who have a
great desire for using passenger rail service-at least that is
what they tell us-at the same time jump in their cars and drive
down the 401. Ninety per cent of passengers do that.
I think the solution for passenger rail service, and there is no
doubt that there is one in this country, lies with the passengers
utilizing VIA more, the labour component part helping, and VIA
looking for greater efficiencies. We believe that we can have a
viable affordable passenger rail service in this country.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the member and his comments on the importance
of rail and the decreased utilization of rail in this country.
I think we should put this into perspective. Following the
changes to the rail system, to VIA Rail, we cannot on the one
hand chastise people for not using rail when in fact the service
and the funding to that service have been radically decreased
and the quality of the service not upgraded. Certainly the
proposals that have been around for quite some time on a
high-speed train in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor
clearly would serve a very important transportation service both
for passengers and produce.
I was recently in Japan. While I realize there is a much larger
population there, their high speed trains are utilized fully
because it is a good service.
Certainly the whole question of transportation is a major one.
One of the debates during the Canada-U.S. and NAFTA free
trade agreements was the impact on transportation, a further
north-south investment into transportation routes of all kinds as
opposed to the east-west links which had provided to the regions
of this country, our farming communities and communities in
the maritimes and Newfoundland, a substantial part of the
development of this country.
(2155 )
I appreciate the member's comments specific to VIA Rail as it
is now, but would it not make more sense from the
environmental and utilization of best technology points of view
to look seriously at a high speed-train in large quarters with
large population?
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the question is very appropriate.
The member will know that the three governments, the federal
government, the province of Ontario and the province of
Quebec, have spent $6 million on a further study of the
high-speed proposal. That high speed proposal will come before
the House and before the government some time this summer, at
which point the House and the government will have an
opportunity to
5052
look at the viability of high-speed trains through the corridor
from Windsor to Quebec and Montreal.
We believe there could be a future for high-speed trains in the
country provided there is a willingness for the partners to work
toward that resolution, the partners being the provinces,
communities, other modes of travel and the private sector
investing greatly in infrastructure which may cost somewhere
between $8 billion and $10 billion.
The member is right that the European communities and
Japan have decided to go the route of high-speed trains. We
believe this country should look at those opportunities, but we
will have to await the report for that to happen.
Let me say another thing about VIA. The member is right that
the Conservative government slashed services some three years
ago but the ridership has come back. I can only say that it is not a
question of whether we will have VIA in the future but what it is
we can afford. I will give one example. A person can purchase a
ticket from VIA for $78 to go between Jasper and Prince Rupert.
The subsidy for that one passenger for that one trip is $701 to the
Canadian taxpayer.
We believe we can have a viable passenger rail service, but we
need to look to the communities, to passengers, to the labour and
to VIA to come up with a viable and affordable system.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, this is a very
historic evening. Twenty years ago the House decided that it
would change an estimate, and it changed two estimates. One
was with regard to the Department of Labour wherein it cut
$19,000. The other was a $1,000 cut to the president of the CBC.
Those two cuts were accepted by the House at that time.
Based on that I should like to move an amendment before the
House based on the same principle. If we can repeat history
tonight I think we will have achieved success. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the amount $330,938,000 and
substituting $330,918,000.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the proposer of
the amendment. We acknowledge that VIA has done its part, but
I am not sure how the member came up with this magic $20,000.
Is he suggesting that we cut service to his riding or any
particular riding? Is that the contribution the Reform Party
wishes to make to the subsidy? If that is what the Reform Party
stands for, less passenger rail service in this country, perhaps the
member can explain that.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, in response to the
hon. member, I think he understands. He has been long enough
in this Parliament to understand that is not the kind of rationale,
the reason put in place by people who are responsible members
of Parliament. That kind of argument is for people who want to
argue in the gutter, who want to debate the issue outside the
House in an arena that does not earn the respect of this
Parliament.
It is very unfortunate what the hon. member has just done. If it
takes a reduction in some expenditure in the constituency of
Lethbridge of $20,000 to symbolize a very important change
where we are going to reduce the budget, then the people of
Lethbridge would be willing to accept that responsibility.
I know this member will not be making that decision. I know
the members of this government, the Prime Minister, the Deputy
Prime Minister, would make a rational, reasonable, priority,
responsible decision on a matter such as that and it would not be
done in a crass manner. That is why I can accept that
responsibility on behalf of my constituents.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 10 p.m. it is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the business of supply.
The House will now proceed to the division on Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 52)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
5053
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-139
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asseline
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-93
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Adams
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Gerrard
Jacob
Marchi
Rock
Stewart (Northumberland)
de Jong
(2240)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 2.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 53)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneauult
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
5054
Dingwall
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-191
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Addams
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Gerrard
Jacob
Marchi
Rock
Stewart (Northumberland)
de Jong
(2250 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
negatived. The next question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
the amendment to Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
unanimous consent to apply the results of the last vote on this
motion in reverse.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify with the
government whip. Is he sure he means in reverse? It is the
motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West with respect
to Parliament. Now it is the motion of the hon. member for
Lethbridge with respect to VIA Rail. My understanding is that
we would want the same vote. Am I mistaken? It is not in
reverse.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the
negotiations we had that the vote we were to take is on the
amendment to the motion. Therefore the government side is
voting against the amendment. That is why I said in reverse of
the vote that we took before. If I made a mistake at this hour,
maybe there is confusion. Maybe we should take the vote.
Some hon. members: No.
(2255 )
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, to avoid confusion I think you
would find there is unanimous consent to apply the second vote
that was taken, that is, the vote on the previous amendment to a
motion, not on a main motion, to this particular vote on this
particular amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next vote is on
Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
5055
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Let us try
again and maybe this time we will get it straight.
I believe and I would like to ask my colleagues to check their
voting lists, that the results of the vote on the first motion, the
first vote we took that now because of the results of the vote we
could apply the first vote to all the remaining concurrence
motions, second reading of the bill, concurrence and report
stage, third reading of the bill and all the clauses of the
committee of the whole should be adopted on division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sorry but
that was not my understanding. I was waiting for the whip to get
up after this particular motion. If we were to do what he
suggests, we would end up voting in a way we do not wish to
vote, so I cannot agree.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I understand
what the hon. member is saying. What happened was that on the
first vote the Reform did not vote the way we were told they
would vote. That is why we could apply the first vote to the other
five votes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I think we could apply the results
of the first vote to this one, and the hon. member could apply the
same reasoning to the two votes on which they want to vote
differently from the series of votes on which we will vote. Our
agreement still stands, provided he makes it clear that a negative
vote on the fifth vote applies to all votes except two. If he says
which two, there is no problem.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to have been able
to predict what the Reform Party would do, or for that matter the
government whip.
Whatever is going on here, Mr. Speaker, I just want it to be
absolutely clear that the NDP caucus wants to support the
motion of the Treasury Board allocating money to VIA Rail and
to Industry grants. Then we want to be recorded as voting
against the main estimates in their entirety.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The votes described by
the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona will be recorded
according to his statement.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 53.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 54)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-143
5056
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-89
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Adams
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Gerrard
Jacob
Marchi
Rock
Stewart (Northumberland)
de Jong
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $729,747,000 under the heading
Industry-Industry and Science Development Program-Grants and
Contributions, in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995
be concurred in.
(The House divided on Vote 10, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 52.]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved:
That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, except any
vote disposed of earlier today and less the amounts voted in interim supply be
concurred in.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 52]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved:
That the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal period ending March 31,
1995 be concurred in.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 52.]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved that Bill
C-39, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money
for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending
March 31, 1995 be read the first time.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know,
as is usually done in these proceedings, whether the bill is in the
usual form.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the form of this bill is the same as
has been in past and previous years.
(Bill deemed read the first time.)
(Bill deemed read the second time, deemed considered in
committee, deemed reported, deemed read the third time and
passed.)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 52.]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the
record that the Reform Party was indeed opposed to all the
estimates because we believe fiscal spending by the government
has to be brought under control.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 11.03 p.m. this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.03 p.m.)