CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 7, 1995
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9242
Motion for concurrence in 57th report. 9249
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9251
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 9253
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9256
Division on motion deferred 9267
Bill C-65. Motion for second reading 9267
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 9274
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 9275
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9275
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9276
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9276
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9276
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9276
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9277
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9277
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9277
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9277
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9278
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9278
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9278
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9279
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9279
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9279
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9279
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9279
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9280
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9281
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9281
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9281
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9281
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9281
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9281
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9281
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9282
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9282
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9283
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9283
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9284
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 9284
Government business Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 18 andPrivate Members' Business No. 19 9293
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of motion 9293
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 9296
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.56 p.m.) 9299
The House resumed at 5.00 p.m. 9299
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9299
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 9307
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 84 9307
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 9308
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of motion. 9308
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9311
Bill C-282. Motion for second reading 9311
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9319
9237
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 7, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to comment on the
matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands on December 7 and 8, 1994.
The hon. member explained that a serious omission had been
found in a publication entitled ``The Prime Ministers of Canada,
1867 to 1994'', a document prepared jointly by the House of
Commons and the National Archives. Subsequently, other errors
and inconsistencies were discovered and communicated to me.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was justifiably
upset by the omission of references to Kingston and the entry for
Sir John A. Macdonald and was absolutely correct when he
pointed out that all Canadians associate our first Prime Minister
with the limestone city, and in case some of you did not know
that is Kingston.
All members and their constituents recognize the importance
a member's riding and its history play in a member's political
identification. Some of the errors and omissions in this
publication concerning members' constituencies may be the
result of editorial decisions designed to simplify the rather
complex evolution of our political and electoral systems.
[Translation]
For example, at times in our history, certain constituencies
have returned two members of Parliament in an election, or a
member appointed to the ministry would have to resign his seat
and seek re-election as a minister. Members were permitted to
be candidates in, and be elected in more than one riding at a
time, although these members ultimately would have to choose
which riding to represent.
Regrettably, other difficulties with this publication seem to
have been the result of an apparent misunderstanding between
the House and the National Archives when the publication was
edited.
[English]
An erratum has been prepared for the first edition and will be
attached to all remaining copies of the book. A revised second
edition is currently under production by the National Archives
and members will receive their copies when it is available.
I believe that these measures will rectify the situation and I
thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for bringing
this matter to the attention of the House.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
19 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the government's response to
the recommendations of the special joint committee reviewing
Canadian foreign policy.
Mr. Speaker, the first paper, which is the government's
response, will be followed by the policy statement that the
government intends to table in this House.
9238
(1005)
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House today to
table the government response to the report of the special joint
committee reviewing Canadian foreign policy.
My duty as foreign affairs minister has given me many
opportunities to observe the role that our country plays in the
world. It has been said in some quarters that our privileged
position on the world stage would be called into question by the
end of the cold war.
On the contrary, I am proud to note that our country continues
to play an important role and that the international community's
expectations of us have not diminished. Canada occupies a
position of leadership among the open advanced countries
which are becoming increasingly influential as world power is
dispersing and becoming more defined in economic terms.
Canada' geographic location gives it an important advantage
as new poles of political and economic powers emerge in the
Pacific and Latin America. Canada's cultural heritage gives it
privileged access to the anglophone and francophone worlds as
well as to the homelands of Canadians drawn from every part of
the globe who make up its multicultural personality.
Canada can further its global interests better than any other
country through its active membership in key international
groupings, for example hosting the G-7 summit this year and the
Asia-Pacific economic co-operation forum summit in 1997.
Canada's history as a non-colonizing power, champion of
constructive multilateralism and effective international
mediator underpins an important and distinctive role among
nations as they seek to build a new and better order.
[Translation]
Canada, thus, is in a privileged position to influence change
and to benefit from opportunities as we move toward the end of
the 20th century. The government will exercise that influence
responsibly to protect and promote Canada's values and
interests in the world.
The committee faced an enormous task, and I congratulate all
of its members, in particular the two co-chairmen, Senator
MacEachen and Senator Gauthier, who was then a member of
this House and co-chair of this committee.
I think that the government's response had to reflect the depth
and quality of the work done by all committee members from
both sides of the House.
The government has kept the promise contained in the red
book. It has made the development of Canadian foreign policy a
democratic process by seeking the participation of Canadians
and their members of Parliament. Both the joint committee and
the government recognize that changes on the international
scene will speed up rather than slow down. Unfortunately, the
financial constraints that we face are not likely to go away in a
hurry.
A responsible government must thus constantly re-evaluate
its strategies openly and clearly, to reflect the interests and
concerns of Canadian men and women more effectively.
(1010)
Canadians are increasingly aware that their actions, both
individual and collective, have international consequences. The
once-clear distinction between national and international
affairs is quickly becoming blurred, forcing us to take a broader
view of things. The number of stakeholders in foreign policy
continues to grow.
In short, international relations are no longer the concern of
governments alone, but of all Canadian men and women who
work in non-governmental organizations and play a very
important role in representing one aspect of our foreign policy.
The government is committed to continuing consultation and
to giving members of Parliament and NGO officials a vital role
in developing our foreign policy. Thus, in March 1994, the
government invited Canadians from various walks of life to take
part in the first national forum on Canada's international
relations.
I wish to confirm today that we intend to make this forum an
annual event. Since our term of office began, we have held five
parliamentary debates on key foreign policy issues. I can assure
you that Canadian foreign policy will no longer be developed
behind closed doors; all Canadians and especially all members
of Parliament will be involved.
With my colleagues, the two Secretaries of State and the
Minister for International Trade, I held a series of consultations
and round tables across Canada. I can tell you that we will
continue these consultations throughout our term of office.
Based on these consultations and the report of the joint
committee, and recognizing the need for a flexible and effective
foreign policy, the government has identified three key
objectives that will guide its activities on the international scene
in the years to come.
These objectives are: first, to promote jobs and prosperity;
second, to promote our security in a stable international
framework; and third, to share our values and our culture. These
objectives complement one another and reflect the
government's national priorities.
9239
With regard to our first objective, I would like to begin by
saying that the government is committed to implementing a
foreign policy that promotes access of Canadian goods and
services to foreign markets. The objective could not be clearer:
to defend and increase Canada's prosperity, and to promote jobs
and growth by diversifying our economic and trade relations.
The Government recognizes the growing importance of the
major international financial institutions and firmly intends to
discuss this with its foreign parthers during the G-7 Summit in
Halifax in June. I shall leave the task of providing a more
detailed explanation of our objectives in this area to my
colleague, the Minister for International Trade.
I shall now discuss the second objective, an equally important
aspect or our foreign policy: promoting our security in a stable
international framework. The hostile environment of the Cold
War kept us from concentrating our efforts on combatting other
threats no less real.
While the geopolitical upheavals of recent years have greatly
reduced the immediate threats to our security, we must now,
paradoxically, expand our definition of this concept.
(1015)
Today, security is no longer defined in terms of ideologies or
boundaries. Environmental deterioration, massive,
uncontrolled migrations, international crime, drug trafficking,
AIDS, overpopulation and underdevelopment are the names of
today's threats. Our security requires a deeper awareness of
these new threats. The threat of war and armed conflicts may
have diminished, but the modern world is just as threatened by
the new problems that face people in every part of the world.
It is therefore essential that we, Canadians, in seeking to
protect ourselves, do our best to help resolve these problems, in
the interest not only of the security of those who are facing them,
but also of our own. I think that we can say, and everybody will
agree, that Canadians are proud of their country's unique
contribution to UN peacekeeping operation. Canada will
continue to participate in these missions.
But our decisions will be subject to specific criteria, as the
committee recommended. As the UN and the regional security
organizations have served us well, Canada will continue to serve
them well. But to serve well also means identifying the
structural problems, weaknesses and shortcomings of these
organisations, and working relentlessly toward correcting them.
As I announced last September, Canada is working diligently
toward improving the efficiency of the United Nations. With
this in mind, we are preparing, among other things, a study on
the rapid reaction capability of the UN, which we will table in
September at the next General Assembly in New York.
The third objective of our foreign policy is to promote our
values and our culture abroad. A country that isolates itself and
fails to project its identity and values beyond its boundaries is
doomed to anonymity and loss of influence. Our writers, artists,
academics and researchers are the best ambassadors of our
identity in all its diversity. They convey the creativity and
knowledge essential to the prosperity, development and health
of our country.
I can assure you that the restructuring and staff redeployment
within the department will emphasize this third major aspect of
our foreign policy. Like our entrepreneurs, those involved in the
cultural and educational sectors have a product to sell. Like our
exporters, they have a market to conquer. And like our business
people, they are known for the excellence of their product. For
them too, internationalization is essential to success and
competitiveness.
The influence of the cultural and educational sectors on our
economy is profound, as we can see. These sectors hold a good
deal of potential for Canada, a potential that we must use wisely.
The Government is committed to defending the competitiveness
of our cultural industries and of the educational products and
services of our universities and colleges, and to helping our
artists penetrate foreign markets. To say that we have limited
resources is no excuse for abdicating our responsibilities.
(1020)
On the contrary, it is an opportunity to consolidate our efforts
and work with the departments and agencies concerned, and also
with the provinces, to promote our culture and knowledge
abroad.
Vitality in our cultural, academic and scientific interchange is
essential to our success in the new knowledge based world
economy. It is also essential to our growth, prosperity and
success nationally.
In order to remain competitive, our institutions of higher
learning, our students, our future workers need to adapt to a
profoundly and constantly changing international labour
market, to expose themselves to the new technologies, and to
master new knowledge.
Canadians know that our problems are insignificant compared
to the intolerable situation in which too many of the world's
people still live. Official development aid is another important
and integral part of our foreign policy, for it strikes at the very
roots of conflict and of threats to security. Aid reflects the
values of Canadians, values of compassion, co-operation and
generosity.
In the statement we are tabling today, the government firmly
intends to clarify the mandate of the Canadian International
Development Agency, in order to give it a solid objective and
clear priorities that will dictate the action it takes.
9240
These priorities are six in number: first, to address basic
human needs; second, to support the participation of women in
sustainable economic development; third, to develop in these
countries the infrastructure services essential to a sound
economic upswing; fourth, to defend human rights; fifth, to
encourage the private sector in these countries, which need to
prosper and take their place on the leading edge of the global
evolution; and finally, a responsibility from which no one is
exempt and which is fundamental to our collective future, and
that is to protect our environment.
It is clear that these objectives support the three main
principles of foreign policy that I have just announced: first, the
promotion of prosperity; second, the promotion of security; and
finally, the promotion of our values and our culture.
The government will encourage and help Canadians to
participate and to continue to participate in co-operative
development and will take measures to improve the
effectiveness of the official development aid program.
[English]
In closing let me say that our country's foreign policy is a
source of pride for all Canadians. Our foreign policy aims to
bring people together to dialogue, to build bridges and to form
ties. We must involve the people of Canada, including obviously
their members of Parliament, non-governmental organizations,
universities, provinces, cultural groups and those who are
involved in the development of what we believe should be a
good, proud, effective foreign policy.
(1025 )
Indeed we ought to meet expectations because it is quite clear
as we travel throughout the world that other people expect a lot
from Canada. They count on us to be a partner, to be friends and
allies in their efforts to strive in a new world of peace and
security and prosperity for their populations.
The policy I am presenting today takes this into account. It is
innovative in its openness to input from Canadians and from
Parliament and it depends on continued support from Canadians
to make it an effective foreign policy. It is innovative in its
objectives which are more sharply focused than ever before.
Economic and trade factors have a primary place in it. Risks
to security are looked at in a broad perspective, something that
has never been done before. It has been more or less focused
exclusively on military dimensions. For the first time we now
have something much wider and which takes into account the
reality of today in dealings and in trying to strive for a security
policy that corresponds to our objectives and needs, but it is very
much in line with the tremendous changes which have occurred
in the world in recent years.
Finally, it also clearly sets out the particular importance given
to the promotion of Canadian culture and values and the
importance of working hard with others to ensure that the
freedoms, the democratic system, the respect for human rights,
and the promotion of individuals as we know in Canada will
continue to make progress in many parts of the world where
Canadians are asked to participate and influence the decision
making process. Certainly that third dimension which deals with
our values will be one on which we will work as hard as we are
working on the two other dimensions of our foreign policy.
I conclude by thanking all the members of the joint committee
for their excellent work, with the hope that the already
well-established dialogue among governments, the people of
Canada and Parliament will continue to bear fruit.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to discuss the policy statement tabled in this House
by the government. The numerous upheavals which occurred on
the international scene over the last few years have made it more
urgent than ever for Canada to review its position and to define
what its new role should be.
This morning, the government finally released the new
objectives of Canada's foreign policy. Bloc Quebecois members
played an active role in the work of the special joint committee
reviewing Canadian foreign policy. Canada's participation in
UN peacekeeping missions, its development assistance, as well
as its efforts to promote human and democratic rights explain to
a large extent our country's international reputation.
Bloc Quebecois members hope that this will continue to be the
case, and it is with that in mind that they took part in the work of
the committee.
However, I wish to remind the minister that the Bloc
Quebecois felt it had to express a dissenting opinion regarding
certain recommendations contained in the majority report.
Indeed, we felt that these recommendations were not likely to
promote major changes in Canadian foreign policy.
Consequently, we made recommendations to the government,
based on what we feel is a more adequate reflection of the notion
which Quebecers, among others, have of the world surrounding
them.
(1030)
We sought to propose to the government another foreign
policy which would reflect our abilities, serve our real interests,
and which would be based on our experience. It is obvious, when
you look at the policy statement released today, that the
government missed the boat. There is virtually no concrete
commitment in that statement, except for a confirmation of the
about-face made by the government, which is resolutely turning
its back on the promotion of human and democratic rights, thus
9241
relinquishing its historic responsibilities. I will get back to this
later on.
Let me take a few moments to discuss the key objectives
which, from now on, will guide the government on the
international scene. The hon. member for Verchères will deal
more specifically with the government's first objective, which
is to promote prosperity and employment, while I will mainly
discuss the second and third ones, which are the promotion of
security and of Canadian values and culture.
First, as regards the issue of security, it is clear that the
intentions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs are not supported
by concrete action. Indeed, in spite of his being in favour of UN
reform, which the minister feels is a pressing issue, he has no
immediate steps to propose. Instead of immediately announcing
the gist of the reforms this government will propose on the
occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the UN, the minister has
indicated he will wait until then to announce Canada's position
on possible reforms.
Meanwhile, the UN remains incapable of taking effective
action in the field, to prevent tragedies like those we have
witnessed in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, the Sudan, and the
list goes on. The minister does not seem to realize that reforms
are urgently needed at the UN. The minister has been musing
about this for more than fifteen months, but when will we see
some concrete decisions? In fact, the minister is postponing
decisions that should be made today.
What the minister had to say about some very important
matters like the Arctic and non-proliferation of nuclear arms
also merits careful scrutiny. The Arctic, the scene of constantly
escalating militarism during the Cold War, should be given more
serious consideration than what transpired from the minister's
proposals. Instead of coming out in favour of a military
withdrawal, pure and simple, from this territory, the minister
proposes a plan for sustainable development to be implemented
by the countries that share this immense territory.
What is the use of supporting this kind of scheme, attractive
though it may be, if it is not supported by a firm Canadian
position on the demilitarization of the area? Canada's firm
position is reflected in a decision to spend $1 billion on
submarines, as provided in the latest white paper on Canada's
defence policy. Is that what the minister means by sustainable
development in the Arctic? Would it not be preferable to start
discussions on this very worthwhile objective now with our
partners the United States, Russia and the Scandinavian
countries?
The non-proliferation of nuclear arms is another case of the
government not practising what it preaches. How can we expect
Canada to have any credibility, when our position is in no way
reflected in concrete policies? Would the minister not have done
better to make exercising real control over our exports of
nuclear products part of the government's trade policy?
As a world leader in the production of these strategic
commodities, Canada undeniably has sufficient clout among the
nations that buy our products. Here again, the minister prefers to
take refuge in comments that seldom have much more than a
cosmetic impact. It is really too bad the Minister of Foreign
Affairs obviously was not listening to the many
recommendations made by a host of witnesses who appeared
before the joint committees on foreign affairs and defence.
Since it was elected, this government has constantly used
consultations as an excuse, consultations that, unfortunately, are
useless since the government lacks the political will to defend
the convictions shared by Canadians and Quebecers.
(1035)
With respect to the government's third objective, culture, the
spearhead of Canadian foreign policy, I would like to point out
right off that, once again, the Government of Canada is refusing
to acknowledge and to address the problem of Canada's two
constituent nations.
In their dissenting report, Bloc Quebecois members
acknowledged that Canada needed anchoring against the
overpowering culture of the United States. The government's
approach in cultural matters, however, is based on the false
premise that this is one nation with a single culture, a so-called
Canadian culture. What is this Canadian culture, exactly?
Clearly Canada is having great difficulty defining itself. Its
existential problem is that it is being torn apart by a double
identity. The government's only response to this difficulty was
to introduce the policy of multiculturalism. The minister is
doubtless aware, as a Quebecer, that this policy is based not so
much on a sociological analysis of the place of ethnic groups
within Canada as on a desire to impose a single and common
vision of Canada.
In our opinion, however, any policy intended to project the
image of a homogeneous and unified Canada abroad can only
lead to a denial of Quebec's culture. What the federal
government is trying to do, in fact, is to use culture as a tool
abroad to further marginalize and downplay Quebec's identity.
Quebecers see through its scheme.
Before broaching the subject of international aid, I would like
to consider for a few moments the issue of human rights. In his
policy statement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated, and
I quote, ``Human rights will remain a priority in the area of
international aid''. And later on, ``The government will give
priority to supporting democracy throughout the world in the
years to come''. In fact there is nothing concrete to support this
wishful thinking on the part of the government.
9242
What aspect of the policy statement released today
establishes democracy and human rights as fundamental
elements of Canada's foreign policy? Could the minister tell
us this? What are the fundamental elements of foreign policy?
The government simply dismissed this role, which suits its
purposes, all the while refusing to truly entrench it as one of
the basic principles of its foreign policy. It does nevertheless
include some of the values shared by Canadians and Quebecers
as a whole.
Canada's foreign policy should instead demonstrate unfailing
consistency and openness in this regard if it wishes to maintain
the wealth of respect and prestige acquired by Canada and which
a sovereign Quebec nation would like to perpetuate.
The government quite simply lacked the will to ensure that the
key elements of its foreign policy in respect of democracy and
human rights be made into guidelines by the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade and by CIDA. The
government could have done this with the collaboration of
non-governmental agencies and commercial corporations.
Such guidelines might have included a compulsory schedule
for analyzing situations involving systematic and flagrant
violations of human rights and could have been developed
quickly. Instead, the government is satisfied with a statement
that is meaningless since it suggests no concrete action.
Regarding international aid, the government has once again
missed the opportunity to be innovative in the renewal of its
foreign policy. While, as we know, CIDA is being submitted to
all kinds of pressures, preventing the agency from meeting its
main objectives, the government failed to give it a constituent
act clearly defining its powers and mandate. Currently, too
many commercial considerations enter into some of the projets
funded by CIDA.
From now on, international aid will have to serve Canadian
commercial interests first and foremost. The government made
itself very clear on that. We believe, on the contrary, that the
main objective of aid should be to provide the poorest nations of
the world with the tools necessary to develop at a sustainable
pace.
(1040)
What kind of mechanism is the government putting in place to
ensure that public aid to development is only used to this end?
No matter how hard we look, we cannot find any. Instead, the
fact that priority will be given to commercial interests will
result in cancelling the benefits of the Canadian public program
of aid to development and contribute to widening the gap
between rich and poor nations. The Quebec association of
international co-operation agencies had also pointed this out to
the governement.
As far as enhancing the role of NGOs in the delivery of aid
programs, the government is saying no. The Bloc Quebecois'
dissenting report and the committee's majority report agreed,
however, on this issue: NGOs should have been granted a larger
percentage of official development assistance.
In conclusion, I am inclined to say that the Minister of
Foreign Affairs would have benefitted from attentively reading
and taking into consideration the recommendations made by the
official opposition in its dissenting report.
The government preferred not to respond to the observations
and recommendations made by the official opposition in its
dissenting report; this did not enhance democracy.
Unfortunately, the policy statement issued by the minister this
morning gives very few specifics. It is incoherent and
short-sighted and is another demonstration of the federal
government's inability to respond to the vision that Quebecers
have of the world that surrounds them.
It is more important than ever that Quebec finally be able to be
fully active on the international scene, to express its own hopes
and to defend its own interests.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to address the government's response to the report of
the special joint committee reviewing Canada's foreign affairs.
This review and the work with the committee was certainly
rewarding and enjoyable for the most part, but when it comes to
the minister's response I am somewhat disappointed.
I was very interested in looking at the government's response
to the Reform Party's dissenting opinion in the final report. In
this dissenting opinion Reform raised many important issues
and areas of concern. We also made several constructive
recommendations specifically intended to assist the minister in
developing his program review. In other words, the Reform
members of the special joint committee participated actively
through eight months of meetings in the hope the minister would
care about what we had to say.
Our dissenting report represented the issues and ideas we felt
had to be addressed by the government, but to my very great
surprise the government report has no section on our concerns.
In short, our views were totally ignored.
When the final report was released we were suspicious when
our dissenting paper and that of the BQ were included in a
separate volume along with the lowly appendices. The
government vehemently denied it was trying to marginalize our
views and it claimed it was simply easier to include our paper in
a second document because it was cheaper and easier to print
two small documents rather than one large one.
9243
What seemed to be a lame excuse at the time now seems
somewhat more sinister. Clearly our views were not important
enough for the government to consider and this document
proves it.
Realizing there was no section on Reform's views
specifically, I checked to see how the government was dealing
with the recommendations we believed to be of particular
importance. Again we were very disappointed.
In the area of fiscal responsibility, which was our number one
priority, I could not find a single spending cut or suggestion of
cuts. While there was some acknowledgement that Canada faces
tough economic times, there were simply no cuts, period. Even
worse, there was a commitment to eventually increase our aid
budget to 0.7 per cent of GNP, although the Liberals do not say
when. This is misleading to NGOs, foreign governments and
Canadians, and just impossible to achieve so why say it. If we
were to do this today it would mean spending a couple of
additional billions of dollars of borrowed money each year to
finance this scheme. As Canada's economy grows and our GNP
gets bigger, the target will only continue to get higher and higher
as the years pass. Clearly this is not a realistic goal given
Canada's $40 billion deficit and $550 billion federal debt. The
taxpayers expect more accountability from the government than
ever before.
(1045)
Another issue Reform very much hoped to see addressed
involves CIDA. Reform and many Canadians want to give CIDA
a true legislative mandate to increase its efficiency,
accountability and transparency. A definite selling job has to be
done to the Canadian public if we are going to continue to
promote the ideas of CIDA. Unfortunately the government
report rejects even the watered down recommendation in the
special joint committee's report.
The main problem with the true legislative mandate is that the
government would no longer be able to use CIDA's $2 billion
budget as a slush fund into which the minister or Prime Minister
can dip their fingers when it is time to dole out goodies to the
international community. Heaven forbid that the minister
should go to a country in Africa, Latin America or the Middle
East without having some multimillion dollar gift from the
Canadian taxpayer to herald his arrival. That apparently is one
diplomatic tradition the government is intent on keeping.
In the government's response to the chapter on culture we
were again surprised that the government, in a time of fiscal
restraint, was willing to dole out cultural export subsidies to
promote Canada's culture abroad. I guess this should not have
come as too big a surprise, considering some of the recent grants
doled out by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
It strikes me as highly ironic that a government which has, to
its credit, pursued freer trade world-wide and called for the
reduction of other types of subsidies, would then go on to
support cultural subsidies. Not to mention that when we are
cutting back on social programs here, does it really make sense
to be spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to, for
example, send the National Arts Centre orchestra to Europe so
that, to quote the minister: ``European audiences will again have
an opportunity to experience the creativity and quality of its
music''. It does not seem to make sense.
Reform would have much preferred to see a creative, modern
partnership develop between the business community and the
arts, facilitated by the government. In this way the strength of
Canadian culture could be promoted to the fullest. How much
better this would have been than the Liberal solution of big
government.
As an aside, if the government does as good a job of
promoting Canadian culture as it has done with our economy,
then the musicians and artists of Canada had been look out.
Last, the government report makes a lot of hay about how
great its consultation process has been. It claims to want to have
real consultation with Parliament and parliamentary
committees. What does the record show? I remember in the fall
when parliamentarians were called for a special parliamentary
debate on peacekeeping in Haiti. The government wanted to
know what to do. Or did it really want to know what to do?
The main problem with the government's consultation was
that I had already read the government's firm plans in the
morning paper. So much for the consultation process. We can go
through the former Yugoslavian debate, through peacekeeping.
The announcements are made prior to us even debating in the
House, so what validity do they have?
The report also goes on to indicate that the government will
have future forums to help Canada's foreign policy to
continually evolve, once again through consultation. While this
sounds very nice on the surface, the Reform Party's concern is
that only university professors, the friends of the Liberal Party
and other elite will ever get invited to these. While we would
love to be proven wrong, we will wait and see what happens to
ordinary Canadians.
I suppose the way this whole process started is an indication
of that. If we take a look at who was at the Congress Centre, I
think it proves my point. If the government is really serious
about continuing the consultation process, then I hope it will
invite the Canadian grassroots. Maybe then it would find out
what the people really want. If it did this then maybe it will also
consider drafting a new government report, one that address the
specific concerns of ordinary Canadians, a report that is up front
about what will be funded and what will be cut.
9244
(1050 )
I feel the government is as out of touch as it was in 1992 with
the referendum and with many other issues that occur today. The
report should give specific plans which the government will
implement in a timely manner, not when economic conditions
permit or any other such nonsense. Finally, the report should
deal with the issues of greater efficiency, accountability and
transparency for the good of all Canadians.
Mr. Robinson: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if
I might seek the consent of the House to respond briefly on
behalf of the New Democratic Party to the statement of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry we do not
have unanimous consent. I recognize the Minister for
International Trade.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, a year ago I rose in the House during the
debate that launched the foreign policy review. Today we
conclude the first and most important cycle on what must be an
ongoing, continuing process of creative adjustment to a trading
world always on the move.
Yet at least one element remains constant. A year ago I began
my speech by quoting from Lester Pearson's 1957 Nobel Peace
Prize speech in which he wisely focused on the central role of
free trade in achieving the intimately connected objectives of
peace and prosperity. Today, one year later, the results of the
foreign policy review reaffirm the enduring strength of that
vision.
Trade creates jobs and growth. Trade, investment and
technology flows do not comprise a zero sum game that
produces as many or more losers than winners. Rather, trade,
investment and technology together comprise a creative,
dynamic process that encourages innovation and provides
opportunities for those wise enough to seize them.
Trade rules, if carefully crafted, do not detract from
sovereignty but rather add to it. International trade and
investment rules extend abroad the rule of law. Rules inhibit the
ability of those countries with the greatest market power to
exercise that power unilaterally for their own narrower benefit.
Rules provide greater certainty for producers, encouraging
greater innovation and longer term planning rather than
speculative activity. A rules based system permits a unified
Canada to occupy a central place in shaping the outcome of that
trade system's continuing evolution.
The foreign policy review which we are discussing today
drew on the views of many individual Canadians,
non-governmental organizations, the private sector,
parliamentarians. In the mid-1990s there is a broad recognition
that something fundamental has happened to the global
economy. Something is different in our global neighbourhood.
There is greater consensus on economic fundamentals; greater
competition for market share and quality investment; greater
interest in freeing markets through rules based systems, whether
regionally or multilaterally; and greater diversity in the
partnerships that we can and should use in order to shape the
rules to reflect Canadian interests.
The foreign policy review before us identifies two main
objectives for Canada's trade policy. First, Canadians expect us
to attract long term investments while eliminating barriers to
our exports of goods and services. In this regard our objective
will be to seek the further liberalization of trade and services
and the removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, on a reciprocal
basis, for all manufactured and resource based products.
At the same time, we shall work for further liberalization of
trade in agricultural products, including the elimination of
barriers to our important agricultural exports and a prohibition
of export subsidies. The era of the tariff is finally coming to an
end. We must increasingly address other, more pressing and
difficult issues that distort business decisions about where and
how to invest to the detriment of smaller economies such as that
of Canada.
(1055)
Second, Canadians expect us to work closely with business
and workers, not only to ensure that the rules we are negotiating
underpin growth and job creation, but also to encourage our
transformation from being a trading nation into a country that
can proudly and fairly portray itself as a nation of traders. The
government has re-evaluated in depth its trade development
programs with a view to increasing significantly their impact
and relevance. I shall return to that point in a moment.
Let me first briefly outline how the government intends to
move forward these two objectives: the removal of barriers, the
attraction of investment and the further promotion of an export
commitment among Canadians.
First, we plan to work with our trading partners to deepen the
international rules governing trade, investment and technology,
to discipline practices that disadvantage Canada.
Foremost in this regard we must continue to manage
effectively the Canada-United States economic relationship. A
united Canada has done well in opening the U.S. market while
protecting Canadian sensitivities in such areas as cultural
industries and agricultural products. The ongoing, effective
management of this special relationship requires vigilance and
national teamwork to ensure that Canadian interests are
defended whenever U.S. regulators or special interest groups
attempt to bend the rules of either NAFTA or the new World
Trade Organization.
9245
We shall pursue reforms that reduce the possibility of
disputes with the United States concerning the issues of
subsidies, dumping and the total operation of trade remedy
laws. We shall seek better access to U.S. government
procurement contracts and greater opportunities to compete
with regard to financial services.
Multilaterally, we shall remain in the forefront of the work
under way to ensure that the World Trade Organization becomes
a dynamic force for extending rule making beyond the level
achieved last year in the Uruguay round. The new World Trade
Organization has an ambitious agenda of negotiations already
under way in such areas as financial services, maritime transport
and government procurement. There is also considerable
unfinished business with regard to trade distorting agricultural
subsidies. These are all important issues for Canada.
Moreover, past and present rule making and the increasing
internationalization of markets are continually expanding the
scope of domestic practices that require the attention of policy
makers internationally to ensure that market access gains are not
undermined by the use of new instruments to achieve old
protectionist ends.
The new agenda of rule making will encompass such areas as
product standards; anti-trust policies and the relationship with
anti-dumping reform; the link between environmental and
labour standards and trade; and the use of massive subsidies that
distort decisions about where companies locate their
investments to the detriment of countries such as Canada.
Second, we propose to widen our network of free trade
partners to improve market access for Canadian exporters. Over
the past year we have encouraged the expansion of NAFTA in
order to ensure that this agreement is an outward looking,
dynamic instrument.
Last December the first stage of our efforts was crowned with
success when the Prime Minister joined the Presidents of United
States, Mexico and Chile in announcing the beginning of the
process that should see Chile become a full member of NAFTA
by late this year or early next year.
(1100)
Accession to NAFTA requires a consensus among current
members. Canada worked hard to achieve that consensus on
Chile. We also intend to build on this success to meet the
challenge identified in the Miami summit of the Americas, of
constructing a western hemisphere free trade area encompassing
the whole of the western hemisphere no later than the year 2005.
During last month's visit to South America the Prime
Minister launched the process of consultations that will take us
farther in that direction by proposing the initiation of
discussions with the Mercosur countries, the countries of the
southern cone of Latin America, with a view to integrating
Mercosur and NAFTA.
We intend to build realistically and vigorously from this
starting point. We shall also pursue the widening of free trade
through encouraging and participating in negotiations leading to
accession to the World Trade Organization by several major
economies that currently operate on the margins of the
international rules based trading system.
These economies are important players in the global
marketplace. They include China, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
Taiwan. Moreover, we shall seek further commitments across
the Pacific with our partners in the Asia Pacific economic
co-operation forum, or APEC as it is more familiarly known.
These economies provide excellent markets for Canadian
exporters. They are the source of much of the dynamism driving
world growth today. Yet their commitment to the international
trading system as measured by their level of acceptance of the
obligations of that system is not yet commensurate with the
benefits they derive from it. This must change.
Canada for its part will work actively to encourage the
necessary commitment, including pursuing actively the free
trade commitment made by APEC's leaders during their summit
last November in Indonesia.
Then there is Europe. Although our ties of trade are
proportionately somewhat less than a generation ago, they
remain of the greatest importance. We also enjoy stronger than
ever investment links across the Atlantic.
How then do we re-energize the transatlantic economic
relationship, building on progress in regional agreements to
maintain the dynamic of global trade liberalization? This is a
question well worth pursuing whatever the precise answer or
mechanism eventually developed to recharge our European
links in the post cold war world.
While I have briefly outlined several of the key elements
comprising our government's commitment to widening and
deepening our network of rules based freer trade, this effort will
have a considerably diminished impact for Canada unless
Canadians take full advantage of the access secured through our
international negotiations.
Rules help to open the door to prosperity and to keep it open.
However, rules do not trade. It is companies that trade.
Consequently, the government's third trade related objective is
to rationalize and energize our international business
development programs in light of the foreign policy review and
extensive public consultation with both the private sector and
the provinces over the past year.
We shall for our part redouble our efforts abroad to ensure that
all our firms receive timely, relevant, accurate market
information, access to foreign decision makers and the effective
defence of their interest when authorities in other countries do
not comply with their international trade obligations.
9246
Domestically we are committed to extending the Team
Canada concept to include a more coherent, integrated approach
toward co-operation with the provinces in order to help
increase the export readiness of Canadian firms. We are also
refocussing federal government assistance to encourage job
rich, small and medium size companies to enter export markets
while improving their access to export financing by launching
greater collaboration between the private banks and by our
Export Development Corporation.
(1105 )
To facilitate Canada's full involvement in the global,
increasingly knowledge intensive economy the government will
also foster the acquisition and development of technology by
Canadian businesses, in part through their greater participation
in international research and development alliances. We shall
also vigorously promote increased awareness among foreign
investors of Canada's science and technology strengths.
Finally, we shall also focus more human resources on
developing high growth markets in Asia Pacific and Latin
America while targeting our efforts in western Europe more
sharply on investment technology and strategic alliances.
Widening the reach of our free trade partnerships abroad,
deepening the international rules consistent with Canadian
interests and renewing and recharging our partnerships with
business, large and small, and with the provinces, this is the
government's basic trade agenda. It provides the basis for
sustaining growth and for job creation at home in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased today to be involved in the conclusion of a project to
which my colleagues and I devoted considerable time in the
course of 1994.
To their credit, the Liberal government's policies tabled today
differ significantly from those of previous governments and
take a somewhat new approach in terms of international trade.
The need to tighten spending probably forced the government to
make choices in its international trade promotion programs. The
policies being presented today, however, are being presented as
well thought out and considered.
The government's approach differs from that of its
predecessor in that it is proposing diversification of markets
outside North America and would appear to be dismissing or
even denying the phenomenon of continentalization.
Furthermore, it is proposing a vigorous strategy to promote free
trade through multilateral organizations such as the WTO,
regional organizations such as APEC, the North and South
America free trade area and a still theoretical European and
American free trade area.
Finally, the minister is initiating a series of measures to try to
contain American unilateralism, which is viewed as a threat to
Canada's commercial development.
This is, in fact, one of the most striking elements of the speech
by the Minister for International Trade and of the statement of
policy tabled today. With your permission, I would like to
comment briefly on it. I will say right off that we reject the
one-dimensional image of our trading partner being painted for
us. Once again, the minister has described the United States to
us as some sort of elephant to be constrained or a geopolitical
and commercial problem to be managed, to use the minister's
wording.
Given this analysis of Canadian-American relations, one can
see why the minister seems to have had difficulty in developing
a strategy consisting of anything more than, in a manner of
speaking, aiming to contain, restrict, neutralize and indeed limit
our relations with the United States. How can such an attitude be
justified in view of the enormous market located just across the
border whose influence will make or break our economic
prosperity?
The minister translates his vision into policies with a similar
perspective on the United States. He does in fact mention
``taking a united stand'', ``protecting'' ourselves and ``assuming
a defensive position''. These overly cautious and defensive
policies are born of this fearful attitude towards the United
States and of a siege mentality.
Some people, I am sure, would tell me that the United States
have not always fully respected the principles of free trade. I
would gladly agree. In this regard, I would even add that the
Bloc Quebecois and I have not hesitated to criticize in no
uncertain terms the unspeakable attitude of our neighbours to
the south in regard to steel, wheat, timber, beer, uranium and,
most recently, agricultural products subject to supply
management as well as cultural products.
In fact, that is the reason why we strongly support this
government's desire to work towards an international system
based on respect of the shared rules of the game by all parties,
even commercial giants.
(1110)
We support the initiatives presented to the World Trade
Organization, which must now prove itself and study crucially
important issues such as rules on dumping and subsidies.
We also support the government's wish to open NAFTA up to
new players and to give us more weight against the United
States.
9247
Furthermore, we support the trilateral discussions being held
between the United States and Mexico in order to reach an
agreement on dumping and subsidies before the end of the year.
We expect a lot from the Prime Minister's campaign promise
on this issue. However, this undue wariness, this near mental
blocking of the United States troubles us, because it blinds the
government to business opportunities and to the huge potential
the American market holds, especially for our small and
medium size businesses.
Too preoccupied with the relative importance of the United
States in our trade structure, the government refuses to see that
we still have not exploited all of the potential there.
Nevertheless, each year hundreds of small and medium size
businesses baptize their export operations by naturally turning
to the commercial entity which is geographically closest, where
language is not a barrier, the culture is similar and, of course,
where free trade rules apply.
In fact, for the vast majority of small and medium size
businesses, the United States is the export market of choice.
As a consequence, the government should perceive the action
plan for small and medium size businesses on the American
market more in terms of development, exploitation and
conquest of a new market. Policies on the promotion of
international trade and the allotment of resources should take
into consideration and reflect this inevitable reality.
Need I remind members that economic growth in Canada is
closely linked to our businesses' exports to the United States?
One has but to consider the extraordinary increase of 19.8 per
cent in Canadian exports to the American market, and the
increase of close to 30 per cent for Quebec in 1993. Growth in
that area was almost six times greater than growth in our exports
to Asia.
For the nine first months of 1994, our exports to the United
States increased again, from 19.8 per cent to 21 per cent. These
figures clearly show that our post-recession economic growth is
not due solely to the new developing markets of Japan, China
and other Asian countries, far from it.
Despite what the Liberal government may think or wish,
Canada is part of the increasingly integrated North American
market. Trying to diversify our markets is one thing, but
ignoring Canada's inevitable economic and trade integration
with the rest of North America is another.
This analysis brings me to the conclusion that we are now
witnessing a re-emergence of the third option favoured by
Liberals in the 1970s, namely replacing Europe with Asia as our
main market.
This ambitious but rather ineffective, not to say unproductive,
policy overshadows once again the government's statements
and options, something that we find quite alarming.
Government efforts to target geographic markets are generally
not effective. Only businesses are in a position to identify their
markets of choice, and the government must adjust to their
choices. Eighty per cent of Canadian businesses want to do
business in the U.S. If some of them feel up to exploring less
accessible markets, all the better. We welcome their success,
which creates jobs and generates wealth.
However, we cannot agree with efforts to redirect artificially,
so to speak, Canadian trade toward other markets by
unjustifiably neglecting to look forward with enthusiasm to the
development of our full trade potential in the U.S. This would be
a major strategic mistake.
Allow me to quote from our dissenting report remarks that
appear to be more appropriate than ever:
However, it would be irresponsible to overlook the proximity of Europe and
the enormous potential of this continent, particulary where Quebec is concerned.
Is the St. Lawrence River not the most direct point of entry of Europe into the
North American continent? Nor should we lose sight of the undeniable political
advantages that Quebec enjoys because of its French and British roots.
-the European continent, reconciled from West to East, with a population of
close to 600 million consumers, flush with capital and cutting edge
technological and industrial expertise, is not a player to be dismissed lightly.
As Canada stands poised to redefine its relations with the world, it must
rediscover the old continent from which it split and structure its foreign policy
on the European axis, the counterpart of the American and Asian axes.
(1115)
In closing, I would like to touch on a number of concepts that
have been incorporated in the governmental strategy before us.
First, the government proposes the Team Canada concept. In
clear terms, this means an Ottawa-based centralized approach
to international trade. It may suit certain provinces, as is
apparently the case of Ontario, who signed with the federal
government a coordination agreement that could not be imposed
upon any other province, especially not Quebec. Quebec has
developed an extensive international trade representation
network that is proven-I repeat, proven-and that it certainly
has no intention of doing away with.
The Team Canada approach ignores the economic and cultural
reality of Canadian regions. It would be incorrect to consider
this country as one, single, homogenous market. Canada is made
up of several regions, each of which has its unique
characteristics and its own primary markets, industrial fabric,
strong sectors and geographic and cultural ties. Nowhere in this
policy does the government take this into account, let alone in
this great levelling whole that Team Canada is.
9248
On the other hand, the government tells us in this policy
statement that it intends to cut administration expenses and
restructure international trade development programs. These
good intentions are truly commendable and we are looking
forward to seeing what will come of these good intentions, in
concrete terms, in the upcoming budget. Moreover, we feel that
the government's emphasis on small and medium size
businesses is the obvious thing to do, since the current fiscal
situation does not leave any other option and that big
corporations need government support the least.
We also think that the government's intention to allow federal
and provincial civil servants, as well as private sector people,
take courses at the Canadian foreign service institute is an
excellent idea, as well as a step towards greater utilization of
government services.
It is also interesting to see that Canada is reviewing its
political approach in Washington, given the new realities, and
particularly the emergence of a strong U.S. Congress, more
powerful than ever. We hope for concrete steps in support of this
new approach.
In conclusion, we will ensure that the government implements
the policies and programs which best serve the interests of all
Canadians and Quebecers. We will continue to take a hard look
at the controlling approach of that government. In order to
ensure the prosperity and development of our businesses and
communities, the vital importance of the American market must
be recognized.
Moreover, that recognition must come before a necessary
acceptance of that reality and a strong will to fully develop that
potential.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is gratifying for me to see that a little over a year has just passed
and we have had a foreign policy review in Canada and we have
had a response to the foreign policy review by this government.
I was a part of that foreign policy review as well as my other
colleagues on this side of the House and enjoyed the process
very much. I enjoyed getting to meet the members of the
standing committee who were involved and hearing the
concerns of Canadians about where our foreign policy should be
heading in the future. To a large extent this time around I believe
foreign policy was driven by economic and trade policy.
It is a pity the government's response to this policy arrived on
my desk about 20 minutes before I came into this House at 10
o'clock. It is very difficult for me to have an adequate response.
I have to take this government to task for an ongoing series of
short notices on these kinds of matters. What is there to hide
here? I would have liked to have had adequate time to prepare
my response and I simply did not have it. I must say I did get a
fax of the minister's speech overnight and I do appreciate that.
By necessity then I will be keeping my comments short.
(1120)
My colleagues and I believe in trade liberalization and we
believe in it wholeheartedly. We have viewed with great
satisfaction the tremendous transformation as well of the
government on this issue. We recall that not too long ago we had
a Prime Minister who was denouncing freer trade with the
Americans. Now we witness him trotting around the globe
promoting trade as the granddaddy of free trade. We welcome
that.
I would like to begin my response by taking the trade minister
to task on his statement in the report. I quote him in saying that
the era of tariffs is finally over. I wish that were true. I find his
statement even more ludicrous because he ties it to a desire to
eliminate trade barriers to export of our agriculture products.
How can the minister say the era of tariffs is over when we
have tariffs of over 300 per cent on our supply managed
products? They are coming down at a very slow rate. In fact,
they are coming down by an average of 36 per cent over the next
six years. However if you take into account that we have a
minimum tariff reduction of 15 per cent on all tariffs plus a 51
per cent on minimum access, in fact the true figure would be
more like a 16 per cent tariff reduction in supply managed
products.
Therefore we will not see any free trade in agriculture
products under the supply managed sectors during our time in
this Parliament unless something is changed. They are still very
high. I believe the government has to take some leadership in
this issue of supply management, be honest with Canadian
producers and tell them there is a real world out there that they
have to adjust to. We have been saying this all along.
We are going to have retaliation from the Americans. It is
starting to happen in this area. They are taking exception to our
high tariffs in the supply managed sectors. They are looking for
ways of retaliating. We have seen retaliation in the area of
wheat. We see retaliation in the area of setting high tariffs on
sugar products. Of course now we are going to have the cultural
industries that are going to be hit.
We have to show leadership in this area and help our
producers to make this adjustment. It is our view that the supply
managed sectors should be given 10 years to move to zero tariffs
so that they do not interfere with other aspects of our trading
relationships, particularly with the United States. The
government should sit down with this industry and try to work
out a plan to make this happen. It should show some leadership.
The minister says that the government ``must continue to
manage effectively the Canada-U.S. economic relationship''.
We all know that the Americans are tough negotiators and they
have the economic clout to carry through with their threats. I
9249
ask: What is the point of not dealing decisively with these trade
irritants that we have caused ourselves?
I will move to a second aspect of the government's response to
the foreign policy review. On page three of the response the
government states that it rejects the committee's proposal to
establish a joint public and private consortium to assist in
international business development. I am sorry to see that is the
case.
This proposal would not entail any new government
expenditures. In fact it would put into private hands some of the
functions that government now performs thereby saving the
government money. When we have a $40 billion deficit I would
expect that we would be looking for ways to do that. Trade
promotion is one that could fall well within that category and
this recommendation should have been adopted.
I would like to see the government devolve wherever possible
tasks to the private sector that it can do better. This is one area I
believe there is room to do something in terms of trade
promotion.
The final point I would like to make is with a statement that
appeared on the very first page of Canada's foreign policy
report. The statement reads as follows: ``Many witnesses
stressed the importance of Canadians getting their own house in
order in terms of fiscal management, making the economic
adjustments necessary''. I could not agree more.
We are going to be going through a process within a few weeks
in this very House that has to deal very aggressively with
Canada's debt problem. That is also causing a lot of problems
for Canadian business. The high cost of doing business in this
country is not allowing Canadian business the opportunity to
take full advantage of the trade deals that have been made. We
have the World Trade Organization, we have the signing of the
GATT, we have a North American free trade deal and we have
the Prime Minister and the trade minister trying to broker some
other deals together. I think that is excellent.
(1125)
What we are missing here is a very important element. That
element is that we have to concentrate on lowering the cost of
doing business in this country. We have to get rid of internal
trade barriers that are inhibiting our businesses, our opportunity
to do business better. The concentration for the next while has to
be here at home to resolve some of those problems; otherwise we
are misleading our Canadian business people about the
opportunities that are out there because we will not be able to
take advantage of them.
We all know that when we have trade liberalization it is a
double edged sword. I would like to see the government take a
stronger approach to informing, to making our business people
aware of what opportunities are out there, but also what they are
going to be facing in terms of competition here at home.
In the past we have had barriers to trade within Canada, such
as tariff barriers that have given our Canadian business people
an opportunity to have all of the Canadian market or most of the
Canadian market to themselves. That is no longer going to be the
case. We are going to be facing increased competition at home
and it is important that our business people realize that so that
they can start to deal with this very important issue.
Only when our companies are competitive at home can we be
truly competitive in the international sphere. I believe the trade
deals we have signed are going to drag us kicking and screaming
into the 21st century but it is a good thing we have done it.
Our party of course has issued a dissenting report the aspects
on which it is based are: we have to have fiscal responsibility
here at home; we have to tighten up in the area of the cost of
doing business to our companies; we have to get our own house
in order. We believe that trade promotion should be an aspect of
business as well as government. We also believe that the cultural
industries should be regarded as businesses in themselves.
We hear that the government in responding to the
recommendations that it be involved in promotion, development
and distribution of culture wants to pursue that. I believe that is
a mistake. We also hear that some American distribution
companies will not carry our cultural industries. I believe they
are producing a good product. They will be carried in the same
way that any other product is carried.
I do not think the government has a role in the area of culture.
This should be left to the business sector or those sectors in the
cultural industry that can do it for themselves. I believe they can
compete very effectively.
With that, I welcome this response. I would like to have an
opportunity to finish reading it. I have not had the time to do that
with this short notice. I would ask that from here on in we be
given ample opportunity to look at these issues with enough
time to respond properly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifty-seventh report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the membership of committees.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
this report later this day.
9250
[English]
Madam Speaker, I think you would find the consent of the
House to dispense with the reading of the 57th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I think you will also find consent for the following motion. I
move that the 57th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this
day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the parliamentary
secretary have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1130 )
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I asked the page for yesterday's
Hansard in which I did
table petitions and noticed
Hansard reads Monday, January 6,
1995. I know the House will correct this
Hansard.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Hansard will be
corrected. I thank the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present three petitions signed
by over 700 people from several communities in the
constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
My constituents feel that existing controls on law-abiding,
responsible firearms owners are more than enough to ensure
public safety and therefore call upon Parliament to support laws
which will severely punish all violent criminals who use
weapons in the commission of a crime, to support new Criminal
Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect
the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms, to support legislation which will repeal or modify
existing gun control laws that have not improved public safety
or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be
overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
a petition on behalf of the constituents of Victoria-Haliburton
who are vehemently opposed to the importation of serial killer
cards.
This petition adds to the growing list of Canadians who are
opposed to the killer cards which glorify serial killers and send a
negative, violent message to the youth of our country.
This petition calls upon Parliament to amend the laws of
Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and
manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of
killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be
seized and destroyed.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today which
have been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
These two petitions deal with common sense of the common
people. The first petition deals with the repeal of section 745 of
the Criminal Code which allows persons convicted of murder
who were sentenced to life in prison, which is 25 years in this
country, the ability to apply for a review after just 15 years of
their sentence.
The petitioners are requesting the repeal of section 745;
common sense of the common people.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the second petition adds to the growing number
of Canadians, particularly in my riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, concerned about the
proposed additional gun legislation.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to oppose further
legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and to
provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for use or
possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
There are 42 names on this petition which, added to the other
petitions received in my riding, adds up to 1,314 people. The
common sense of the common people is clearly saying they fear
a government that will not listen to the people more than they
fear a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by more than
90 per cent of the people of
Saint-Clément-de-Rivière-du-Loup, in which the undersigned
call upon the Parliament of Canada to do what is necessary to
ensure that the Canada Post Corporation re-opens the post office
in Saint-Clément, which
9251
was closed in December 1992, so that the community will again
enjoy the kind of service the crown corporation is supposed to
provide.
I would like to remind the House that the Canadian
government's moratorium on closing post offices came as a
result of the efforts of the people of Saint-Clément and that a
number of members here, including the members for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Rosemont, went to support
the people of Saint-Clément in their struggle. Paradoxically,
today we have a situation where many post offices across
Canada were saved thanks to the action taken by the people of
Saint-Clément. Unfortunately, the people of Saint-Clément
were not covered by the moratorium, and now they are asking to
have this omission corrected. That is my purpose in tabling their
petition.
(1135 )
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to present to Parliament a petition signed
by over 400 constituents of my Red Deer riding.
With respect to the petition, the citizens express their
concerns that the rights of repeat sex offenders are given
precedent over the rights of innocent children as in the case of
Sarah Kelly of The Pas, Manitoba.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and request that
Parliament enact legislation making the safety of our children a
priority and request that changes be made to the Charter or
Rights and Freedoms to enable residents to be notified when
repeat sex offenders are released in the community.
I concur with this and present this on behalf of my
constituents.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting
a petition today signed by 400 residents of my constituency of
Dauphin-Swan River.
The petitioners believe that the proposed changes to Canada's
existing gun laws are unfair to law-abiding gun owners. They
believe the changes will have a detrimental effect on specialized
business, will impose unrealistic restrictions on responsible,
recreational firearms use and will have no effect in reducing the
criminal use of firearms.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from passing
any changes and amendments that further restrict the
law-abiding gun owner.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have several petitions to table today.
The first two, bearing 101 signatures, deal with sexual
orientation. The petitioners 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 Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
I concur with these two petitions.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with firearms.
The petitioners, 515 in total, request that Parliament support
laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use
weapons in the commission of a crime, support new Criminal
Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect
the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms, and support legislation which will repeal and modify
existing gun control laws which have not improved public
safety, have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be
overly complex so as to be ineffective and unenforceable.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two additional petitions on pro-life.
Petitioners, 126 in total, pray that Parliament act immediately
to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the
Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition on immigration. The undersigned
petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reduce
immigration to the previous average level of one-half of 1 per
cent of the population, or about 150,000 per year, with a basic
intake of not less than 50 per cent of the total composed of
carefully selected, skilled workers required by the Canadian
economy and that our refugee acceptance rate be brought into
line with the average of other asylum destination countries.
I concur with this petition.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, there are 750 names on a petition dealing with
euthanasia.
The petitioners pray that Parliament will ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
9252
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.
I concur with all of these petitions.
(1140 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of
petitions. The first petition is signed by a number of residents of
Toronto, Ottawa and my own constituency of
Burnaby-Kingsway. It notes that acts of discrimination against
lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians are an every day reality in
all regions of Canada. It goes on to document some of the forms
that discrimination takes in Canada.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to act quickly
to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all
necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex
relationships in federal law.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents of a
number of communities in Ontario, Manitoba and in the
province of British Columbia.
It notes that the current Criminal Code denies people who are
suffering from terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness
the right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with
the assistance of a physician.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the
code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by
allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating
illness the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their
lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict safeguards to
prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is free, informed,
competent and voluntary.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions
signed by residents of Kingston.
The first petition calls upon Parliament not to amend the
human rights code or 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.
The second petition calls upon Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I am pleased to table both these petitions, although
conflicting, in the House today.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
111 and 127.
[Text]
Question No. 111-Ms. Beaumier:
When will the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health seek the
co-operation of provincial governments to enforce the post-sentence detention
of child sex offenders who are likely to re-offend upon release, through
provincial mental health legislation and what is the timetable for having the
necessary agreements in place?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Federal/provincial/territorial ministers responsible for justice
will be meeting with a delegation of ministers responsible for
health in the latter part of January or early February, 1995. The
report of a federal/provincial/territorial task force respecting
dangerous offenders will be a topic of discussion on the agenda
and the use of provincial mental health legislation to effect civil
commitment will be an option among those discussions. The
degree of consensus we can achieve at that meeting will largely
determine the speed with which we can proceed.
Bill C-45 is currently before the House and contains
amendments permitting the National Parole Board to detain
persons with a high risk of offending against children until their
warrant expiry date.
While legislative amendments and
federal/provincial/territorial agreements/protocols will go
some way to providing better tools to deal with offenders of this
sort, it is doubtful that any failsafe mechanism can be found to
eliminate all risk. Prudent attention to crime prevention
behaviours will always be required by careful citizens.
Question No. 127-Mr. Simmons:
What action will the government take in reference to the claim made by the
Auditor General in his 1994 report that ``Health Canada cannot ensure that the
food related and safety provisions of the Food and Drugs Act are applied fully
and effectively to all food produced domestically or imported for sale in
Canada,'' and what specific measures are being developed to deal with the gaps
in information received from the provinces on ``the nature, extent, timing and
results of food safety inspections they undertake''?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Health
Canada recently initiated a food safety audit of inspection
programs of the other federal departments dealing with food
namely Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans. Specific programs being audited
include those for imported foods, shellfish inspection and food
container integrity. The first phase of the audit, which is in
9253
process, will assess the suitability of these programs. A second
phase of the audit, to be completed in the next fiscal year, will
look at the application of these programs. Comprehensive
standards for the inspection of domestic plants producing a
variety of foods have also been developed.
With respect to provincial issues, the responsibility for the
inspection of food which is produced and sold within a province
is the responsibility of that province. The only food inspection
activities that are conducted by the provinces for which the
federal government is currently responsible are those activities
conducted by the provinces on behalf of the federal government.
Health Canada is presently considering how the food safety
audit program could be extended to cover these areas. This is
being dealt with in the context of the recent Canadian food
inspection system initiative to more fully integrate the various
food inspection systems within Canada at the federal and
provincial level.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask if you would be so kind to call Starred
Question No. 95.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that Starred
Question No. 95 be deemed to have been made an Order for
Return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 95-Mrs. Lalonde:
What have been the monthly unemployment rates from September 1993 to
October 1994 in each of Canada's 295 federal constituencies?
(Return tabled.)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The questions as
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I therefore table the return
and would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the
ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended by
one hour and 20 minutes.
9253
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and
the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to
the Customs Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this
debate on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and
the Citizenship Act.
Many of my constituents have expressed concerns regarding
immigration and I welcomed the minister this past September in
Guelph where he spoke to us about this important issue.
Guelph-Wellington has welcomed immigrants in the past
and it wants to welcome immigrants in the future. According to
the last census our community is made up of new immigrants
from Great Britain, Central and South America, India, various
parts of Europe and parts of the Caribbean and Asia.
Guelph-Wellington residents speak Italian, Portuguese,
Spanish, German, Armenian and a host of other languages in
their homes. Italians, Ukrainians, Germans, Austrians and other
ethnic groups have associations where children learn about their
heritage and people come together with others from their native
lands to celebrate what they have in common.
Each one of these individuals no matter what their country of
birth or their language has a desire to live here in Canada. Their
Canadian citizenship is the tie that unifies and joins them all
with us.
(1145 )
There is no doubt that Canada is the best country in the world.
It is then obvious that people from every part of the globe would
want to share our abundance and come to communities like
Guelph-Wellington to begin to live new lives in freedom and
with the hope of prosperity.
We have been generous as a people and a government,
however my constituents have asked me to review the
immigration system in order to ensure that our generosity is not
abused. This bill is long overdue. It is necessary if we are going
to restore integrity to a system that has been damaged by those
who reject our generosity, ignore our laws, and fail not only
every Canadian but everyone who wishes to immigrate to
Canada.
Our immigration system has been built on the same elements
that have made our country great. Determination, respect for
each other and for our laws, hard work, and dedication to self
and family have been the hallmarks of Canadians born here and
elsewhere.
9254
Guelph-Wellington's workforce is well respected because
of its people. They have a tradition of excellence learned from
their parents and grandparents who brought with them from
foreign lands the desire to work hard and build products that
are durable and of excellent quality. We have had the lowest
unemployment in the country because of these qualities. Our
business leaders have names like Samuelson, McCarthy,
Briestensky, Sleeman, Youngman and Hasenfratz. By working
together, old Canadians and new, natives and immigrants have
built Guelph-Wellington into one of the finest communities
in Canada.
This bill recognizes that abuses have occurred and places our
generosity on notice. This bill attempts to address the concerns
of the people of Guelph-Wellington and elsewhere all through
the country who have witnessed a desire for fairness being
questioned and challenged by individuals who have no respect
for our laws. We are doing something about those who fail to
recognize that our society does not tolerate criminals and
criminal acts.
Bill C-44 is another example of a government that listens.
Canadians have expressed legitimate concerns about current
abuses. Every member in this House has heard them. This
legislation is intended to help police forces do their jobs more
effectively. I recently met with police in Guelph-Wellington
who are frustrated by obstacles that hamper their important
work.
We have listened and we are acting now. My constituents have
demanded that serious criminals who are a danger to the public
not be allowed to claim refugee status as a means of delaying
their removal from Canada. This bill ensures that a refugee
application is not a tactic for stalling.
My constituents have asked the government to eliminate the
opportunity for one person to have several refugee claims
processed at the same time. This bill answers those concerns.
My constituents have also asked that persons with summary
convictions, whether obtained here or abroad, not be allowed to
enter this country. This bill responds to that concern as well.
My constituents agree that refugees should be welcome to
Canada under certain circumstances. They have watched the
horror and famine in Somalia, the destruction caused by the war
in Bosnia, and the plight of children in Romania. They want to
share their abundance and protect genuine refugees, but they
will no longer tolerate those who use the refugee system to hide
behind criminal convictions and avoid deportation.
My community has examples of refugees who have been
forced to flee from their countries of birth and have made
successful lives in Canada. Sadly this is not always the case.
Guelph-Wellington residents are tired of those who abuse our
system. They are disappointed that their concern and care have
been rejected by those who have no respect for their generosity.
I welcome the amendments that have been brought forward by
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. These
amendments clarify the definition of criminality and improve
the enforcement package that was put forward by the minister.
(1150)
These amendments also clarify timeframes and various
technical points. All members of Parliament should be proud
that the work of our committees and the work of the immigration
committee is finally coming to fruition in this legislation. This
is what our constituents have been asking us to do.
Bill C-44 gives the minister and senior immigration officials
the tools to deal effectively with the concerns raised by my
constituents and millions of other Canadians. This legislation,
together with the immigration package recently announced by
the minister, increases the credibility of our immigration
system.
Canadians and those applying for immigration status at
embassies and consulates at every corner of the world want a
system that is fair, balanced and credible. Constituents who visit
my office daily or write to me with immigration application
concerns want fairness. They know there are the few who make
it even more difficult for their children, their spouses, their
parents and siblings to make application and be accepted into
this country. They want fairness too. Those who abuse make it
difficult for those who want to come to Canada to be reunited
with their families and contribute to our society.
Bill C-44 prevents exploitation of our generosity. It speaks to
fairness and attempts to end abuse. Who in this House would not
want that? The bill recognizes the hard work and contribution of
immigrants, while realizing that Canadians no longer accept
criminal acts by bogus individuals or those who attempt to come
to or remain in Canada to perpetuate their criminal lives. They
will not stand for it.
Liberals have a long history of tolerance and fairness. We
helped build Canada with people of every race, from every part
of this world. Tough times have made us question our ability to
welcome new immigrants.
It is my belief that we can encourage new Canadians to
become active participants in our great society, while
recognizing the legitimate concerns of our citizens, many of
whom are first or second generation Canadians themselves. This
legislation informs those who question our generosity that we
will no longer allow abuse.
Our country can be shared, but with those who respect our
laws and want to contribute to make this nation great. My
9255
constituents have demanded no less. For them this legislation,
Bill C-44, deserves every member's support.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate that the member has clearly outlined the
concerns of her constituents. Those concerns have been
expressed right across this country as Reformers have brought
these matters to the attention of this House and forced this
debate.
I would like to point out to the member she was not present
when any of the witnesses stood forward at the standing
committee and testified to their concerns about this bill.
Since the member has chosen to debate the matter, what does
she intend to advise the government, or how will she express her
concern when it comes to matters of insufficient numbers of
people on the front line to enforce any provisions of this act and
the present act? Many of those provisions are already there.
There are insufficient numbers at the front line. There are
insufficient numbers in the enforcement agency of immigration
itself to carry out deportation warrants. The detention centres
are already overcrowded because of lengthy hearings and
removal processes that are literally hindering efficiency.
What does the member intends to do to direct her government
to address those problems? They are there whether Bill C-44
exists or not.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I would certainly like
to respond to the comments that Reformers have brought this
issue to debate. That is not so at all. Every single Liberal
member here has brought the same concerns forward from
across this country. We, the Liberals, have brought this bill
forward in conjunction with a committee report.
(1155)
As I stated in my speech, I think every member should be
proud to support this bill. It is a very real mistake if people do
not support it. As the hon. member has said, I think he will find
his constituents will not be happy if he does not support a bill
that will address such things as refugee claimants who have
committed serious crimes being denied access to Canada.
The member keeps calling out to me to answer the question.
The question I think he put to me is how will we enforce it. Let
me assure the member we will enforce it. We believe in it, and
this government is not about to make legislation it cannot
enforce.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I do
not share the views expressed by the member for
Guelph-Wellington. I think that this bill tends to add fuel to a
climate of hostility and even panic among immigrant
communities in Canada.
This morning, I received a call from Toronto's Latin
American community. Several Argentinians have been detained.
They are in a jail near the airport. Children have been taken out
of school to be deported. People do not want to go to Our Lady of
Guadaloupe, a Latin American church in Toronto, because they
are afraid of being arrested. They are not criminals.
I will tell you about the case of Taramatie Seeratan
Kamsubhag, a woman from Trinidad and Tobago. She will be
deported in the next few days but her husband, who assaulted
her, will stay here because he is remarried to a Canadian woman,
and has thus acquired permananent resident status. Is this the
kind of tolerance toward immigrants and refugees that the
Liberal Party of Canada is talking about?
In September 1993, in Montreal, the Deputy Prime Minister
promised that no female victim of violence would be deported if
the Liberals were elected. Fourteen women are being deported.
What are you doing to prevent these women from being
unjustifiably deported? I repeat, they are not criminals. These
women have children, some of whom were born here in Canada,
and they are now being deported.
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, the member is bringing
up specific cases. It is most difficult to comment on particular
cases when I do not know the facts about those cases, but first I
would say we have the fairest system in the world.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The most liberal system in
the world.
Mrs. Chamberlain: You are right, it is a liberal system. You
are absolutely right and we are proud of it.
The second point is the fact our ministers are prepared to
examine individual cases, and will act on those individual cases.
We have to have trust and faith in the process if we put the right
legislation in place. Bill C-44 will speak to the abuses in the
system.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is now February 7 and the Liberals have been
in power since October 26, 1993. There are existing provisions
in the Immigration Act dealing with refugees and the
enforcement of these provisions to deal with people who come
into Canada and commit crimes, and people who come into
Canada through the use of devious means. These provisions
have been in existence since the Liberals were elected in 1993.
The Liberal member for Guelph-Wellington is saying to us and
to the Canadian people: ``Now that we have Bill C-44, now that
we are going to get this bill passed''-they have the numbers,
unfortunately-``we are going to start to deal with this thing''.
9256
(1200)
My colleague from Calgary Northeast asked the question:
``Why aren't you using the existing provisions of the
Immigration Act, existing provisions that are already in force?''
That is the question Canadians have been asking for the last year
and one-half. We see these criminals running around our
country laughing at our laws, laughing at the fact that the
immigration department is powerless and have no people on the
front lines to enforce the act.
This is a haven for criminals who cannot get along in their
own countries. They come to Canada because they know that
governments like this current Liberal government support this
bleeding heart, liberalized legislation.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I am shocked. It is easy
to stand up and refute everything. That is the basis they start
from across the way. The reality is looking at what the bill does.
The hon. member asked why we do not use the laws we have. We
are, but we are also improving them. There is nothing wrong
with improvement.
The world goes on and the world changes. As it does the
government will look at each individual case, as the Bloc
member mentioned. It will also continue to pass legislation that
will address current concerns that my constituents have talked
about.
I am sure the member from the Reform Party has had
constituents asking him about some of these various things. Can
the member say to me that his constituents would not be happy
to see any refugee that has had two summary convictions not
allowed in Canada? Would the member say that if a refugee
claimant has committed a serious crime, he should not be denied
access to Canada? These are things that I am sure this member's
constituents want too.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is really a pleasure to talk to this bill today. I like the
way the Liberals take credit for all of this immigration change
we are talking about. As we have said, the majority of these
changes have already been enacted. However, any change that
has moved the government off its position has come from our
critic from Calgary Northeast. He should be congratulated.
The folks over there have not gone far enough. I am going to
talk from personal experience, from my time in immigration
hearings and refugee board hearings out of necessity and out of
requests from people in my constituency. They are requests
from victims. That is who we are talking about.
I really take exception when the Liberal government starts
talking about the vast majority of people saying that we are only
talking about a very small minority. That is true, but it is not a
small minority when we count all the victims that lie in the wake
of some of these creeps it is allowing in.
Let us make one thing very clear and concise on this whole
issue. It really does not matter what all of the rules are from the
day a person comes into the country until he or she leaves the
country. What really matters is whether they can leave the
country on demand from Canada. That is where the fault lies
with the philosophy that is expounded over there. I am going to
demonstrate that with letters I have from the minister.
One might ask: ``Is there not something that will work in the
bill?'' That may be. There may be some things that work in some
aspects of these changes. The Liberals have had an opportunity
until now to undertake the actions that are outlined in the act.
They have not taken them. In many cases they will not get these
people out even if they say they are going to deport them.
(1205)
I discussed a recent case with immigration officials who, by
the way are very frustrated at the inaction of this government.
They say that Bill C-44 will not work. People on the task forces
talk to us rather than these people because they know that at least
we understand what the position is.
What about the 10 Vietnamese fellows arrested and on
deportation orders by a task force? All have been released
because they could not get travel documents. A travel document
is necessary if we are to send these people back to Vietnam. If
Vietnam is not going to take them back, then they do not go.
What happened? They brought these 10 scum in off the streets
and then let them out again. These Vietnamese are walking
around Vancouver. If the Liberals think we like these kinds of
people, let us talk about the young man who shot a kid in the face
in Vancouver; another one who has been charged with sexual
assault with a weapon; another one B and Es and is a member of
a gang; another one has robbery, assault, trafficking times four
in heroin. He is out on the streets again. Another one who must
have been his buddy has trafficking times four in heroin. They
probably have a company going.
Liberal members are talking about all of the rules up to the
point of getting them out of our country. However when it comes
time to boot them out they let them out on the streets because
they cannot get a travel warrant. That is not addressed in Bill
C-44.
There was another fellow I was contacted about by
immigration. This guy was ordered deported. He lost his
deportation appeal. He cannot get a travel warrant. They have
been trying for a travel warrant since September 1993. They
cannot get him out of the country no matter what rules we are
applying in Bill C-44. He must be a harmless guy. Why not let
him out on the streets? They did. In 1990 he had a sexual assault
conviction. He has two
9257
outstanding criminal charges. He ripped up a government office
in British Columbia and he is on welfare.
The Liberal government sanctimoniously talks about how
well it is doing and how it is going to get these people out of the
country. It is false. It is all rhetoric. It is rhetoric like half a
dozen other bills it has put through the House. We are sick and
tired of it.
I wrote to the minister in July. When he announced the task
force to move these people out I suggested to him that since he
has this task force and he is trying to oust these animals, why
could I not give him some names to put on his list, the list that he
said he had. I did. I gave him the name, José Salinas Mendoza,
from my area. The minister stood up in the House and said:
``That's an isolated case. You are making the whole system look
bad because of José Salinas Mendoza''. He has only 12 criminal
convictions.
I gave him another name, another isolated case in my
community, Karel Kral. I talked a bit about good old Karel who
has been in this country for 17 years, 14 of which he has been
behind bars for so many convictions we lost count.
Then I wrote the minister a letter about Charles Dennis Martin
who has only been ordered deported and escorted out of Canada
nine times. Wow, what a track record the government has.
I received a letter back from the minister which stated:
``While I appreciate your interest in these matters, the Privacy
Act prohibits the release of information on our clients''. They
are clients. Because of the Privacy Act I cannot find anything
out about these guys.
(1210 )
I said: ``Gee, am I exempted?'' ``Oh yes, except to members
of Parliament and Senators who are seeking to assist the client in
solving the problem''. I am not the least bit interested in
assisting the client to solve a problem. I am really interested in
getting some of these creeps out of the country, which is directly
opposite to what the government is attempting to do.
``In the case of Karel Kral'' the minister says, ``you state that
he is currently awaiting trial on a sexual assault charge. The
conclusion of the criminal proceedings and the serving of any
prison sentence supersedes any action by immigration
officials''. I am going to get back to that in a minute.
Lots of problems have not been addressed. In this bill the
government has not addressed removing these people from our
country. It has not addressed the major understaffing at our
borders with our enforcement people, at detention centres. If
members took the time to talk to their own employees in
immigration and on these task forces they would tell them so.
The immigration officers do not really have the authority of
arrest of the police. You would expect them to go to approach
some of these creeps, heroin and narcotics dealers. Some of
them are murderers. Does you expect them to go to them and
say: ``I am from immigration. How would you like to be
arrested today? Do not use the Uzi in your back pocket''.
They have to be given some authority. They have been asking
for this and they have been denied it. The Liberals have in no
way addressed those inept individuals on parole boards and on
the refugee boards. I am going to talk about a few of those.
Actually the member did address one, Marcelle Brisson, who
actually gave a decision in 15 minutes on Bounjan Inthavong
who I am going to talk about. The member addressed her all
right. She got another three year agreement to stay on. None of
that is addressed in here. That is what really counts. That is the
meat of the issue. The government is not addressing what is
important.
Let us talk about my three favourite buddies in my riding.
What an interesting chap is Karel Kral. He has been in this
country for 17 years. Why would I bother addressing Karel as a
refugee, as an immigrant, whichever he came in on. I am not
sure of that. Why would I bother?
He has been in and out of prison for 14 years of that time, not
at one time. He has so many records against him that it is a real
shame. I was asked by Joan to give her some moral support, go to
the sentencing, go to the court case and see what goes on with
good old Karel.
Karel sexually assaulted Joan in my riding. Joan is 63 years
old and good old Karel attacked her with a needle full of
cocaine. He got his due, did he not? He was sent up for four
years. He is getting out after the sentence. He was sentenced in
November. He will be out on an unescorted day pass in May.
I was told that the privacy laws prohibit me from getting his
record. Fortunately we have some responsible people within the
system who got me the record anyway.
An hon. member: The Liberals would fire those guys.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Yes, Liberals fire people
like that. We thank them.
In the sentencing the judge says this. This is a first. ``In view
of the elite circumstances surrounding this offence and the
reasonable and realistic fears of the victim relating to possible
actions of the accused upon his release, deportation be effective
prior to the accused's release from prison to protect this and any
other victim''.
That really does not happen in the courts today and we made
the point of saying: ``We have to get this guy out''. He actually
had deportation orders twice before he sexually assaulted Joan.
That is kind of sad.
9258
(1215)
A letter from Joan to the hon. minister says that she was the
assault victim. Let me give a couple of words from her letter:
``He has a long criminal record and has spent 14 of his past 22
years or so behind bars in Canada''. It was 22 years. ``As a
taxpayer I find this intolerable. Many years ago I became a
landed immigrant in the United States in order to be able to work
there while my husband was attending university. I can recall
that the American immigration authorities made it abundantly
clear to us that if either of us committed a criminal act or became
a charge on the state in any way we would be immediately
deported''.
What does that say for Canada? What does that say for Bill
C-44?
Joan wrote again to the minister: ``I have not had any response
to my letter of September 30''. That is not all that uncommon.
``One statement your assistant made struck me as being quite
absurd. I asked her what Canada's position would be vis-à-vis
the Czech republic if the Czechs refused to take back Mr. Kral.
In other words, how does Canada retaliate? Your assistant said
that she could not answer that and that I should call the foreign
office. I said surely your department is in touch with the foreign
office on this matter, and she indicated that she could not answer
this''.
By the way, she said in her letter: ``Mr. Kral's GST refund
cheque came back to our address recently. Is he allowed to
receive this while he is in prison?''. Just ask this group across
the way.
There is a letter here from the minister which reads: ``The
Hon. Sergio Marchi, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
asked that I respond to your transmissions of September and
October. While we appreciate your interest in this matter
Canada's Privacy Act prohibits us from releasing information
on an individual's case without his or her written consent''.
Can you imagine good old Kral saying ``Give it to them. They
want to move me out of the country''.
The letter continued: ``As a result I am unable to discuss the
details of Mr. Kral's situation, other than to confirm that he was
made the subject of a deportation order some time ago and to say
that the order will be carried out in due course''.
That is a load of hogwash because it has not been done.
I wrote to the chief crown prosecutor because I was trying to
find out what Kral was all about, to see how bad he was. I wrote
to her, Wendy Young, and I said that I found it incomprehensible
that an MP is not allowed access to the public decisions of our
country's courts and that neither her office nor the RCMP nor
the Matsqui police would provide the criminal record of Mr.
Kral.
The answer was predictable: ``The disclosure of criminal
records is governed by either the provincial Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act or the federal Privacy
Act which limit the circumstances in which such records can be
disclosed and provided for the method of making requests for
such information. It would be a breach of law to furnish you with
Mr. Kral's record''.
It is really interesting how on the one hand they come up with
all of these nice rules to remove people but in the final analysis
they are not going to do it.
I got a letter from the manager of hearings and appeals. I do
not think this was the guy who was promoted, since he bungled
up José Mendoza's problem, but it is one of them. The letter
read: ``As you have observed, Mr. Kral was ordered deported on
March 29, 1994 as a consequence of a lengthy criminal record.
We intend to remove Mr. Kral to the country of his formal
nationality as soon as possible. However'', and this is the
critical aspect, ``he must first obtain a travel document''. We
will not get that because Czechoslovakia will say: ``Why do we
want this guy back? You keep him''. All of the frills up front on
this thing are just rhetoric. You know it will not work and the
minister knows it will not work.
(1220)
Let us talk about Inthavong Bounjan. This fellow came to us
from Thailand at the age of 14 as a landed immigrant. He has not
had a bad record, mischief, theft under $1,000, assault with a
weapon, failure to comply with a disposition as a young
offender. I believe he is 23 now.
Good old Inthavong at a shopping centre beat young Kirby
Martin over the head with a bat in front of 100 witnesses until he
was laying on the street.
This guy was supposed to get five years. He got out in less
than three. He is on the streets. He had a deportation order. The
deportation was appealed. The appeal took two years. He has
been on the streets all that time. To protect him from getting
deported his legal aid lawyer went to the refugee board. The
incompetence on that board gave him refugee status in 50
minutes. That was used in his favour in the deportation appeal.
We asked for a fast decision on it, but of course it has not come
yet.
He must be a good guy. He was actually chumming, he said,
with the countess group. The countess group is a gang. It is not a
group. When asked what he does with the countess group at
night he said they sit around, talk and have coffee. I would say in
someone else's house after they broke down the door and ripped
the furniture apart.
This is what you are keeping in this country. You are not going
to remove these people. That is the fallacy in Bill C-44. You
know it and we know it. All of the stuff in between counts for
nothing.
9259
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
yesterday when you were in the Chair it was incumbent upon
me to explain due process. Today I guess it is going to be
incumbent upon me to explain some of the amendments to the
bill.
The hon. member opposite talked about unescorted day passes
in his speech. With the greatest of respect I would like to let him
know that there is an amendment, which I presume he has read,
preventing the release on day parole and unescorted temporary
absences of inmates who have been ordered removed and who
are the subject of an immigration detention order pending their
removal from Canada. That seeks to minimize the risk of escape
so as to ensure that criminals will be deported at the end of their
sentences.
There are a number of things that the member has brought to
our attention here this morning that have been problems in a
very small but nonetheless serious number of cases. It is a big
country guys.
At this point I can only say to the empty barrels on the other
side that what they really need to do is read the bill. I find it very
interesting that the hon. member who just spoke did not know
about the amendment to clause 20 which changes the day parole
problem.
I wonder if thus there are other things in the bill that the hon.
member has not read and therefore does not support. Certainly
his party is not supporting this. I would like to echo the words of
the member for Guelph-Wellington who said she was pretty
sure that there were members on the other side who had
constituents who would support this bill very strongly.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question and he
certainly will have a chance to respond. I wonder if the hon.
member has read the 11 amendments which came through at
report stage and if he has read the bill.
(1225 )
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I have
read the bill. I suspect I know it as well or better than the hon.
member. I suspect I have a little more experience at some of the
creepy crawlers in our country.
What is wrong here is that if they will not enforce these laws
then nothing matters. I would like one of these people across the
way to address whether they will have travel documents or
travel warrants to remove these people because everything else
in between is really a bit of waste now, is it not, if we cannot get
them out. They know darn well they cannot remove them.
We know with the experience of the front row here already,
with the failures in the fisheries department, with the failures of
the human resources programs, with the failures of public works
building the $3 million tunnel down the road, all of these
failures here, there is no exception with the minister of
immigration. This is rhetoric. People out there who believe that
they are actually doing good in immigration are getting the
blindfolds put over them again. This is rhetoric. You not have
one clue how to effect deportation-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, order. I am sorry
to interrupt the hon. member. Would you please address your
comments through the Chair.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, through
you to them, in three years from now when the hon. member for
Calgary Northeast is immigration minister we will work out the
flaws in Bill C-44. We will have to balance the books too but
that is okay. We will have to fix up the problems in HRD that
they have now blown out the door. However, the important part
here is we will effect deportation, they will not. Regardless of all
the rules they put in they will not effect deportation, mark our
words and read our lips.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make a preliminary comment. We are told that
there are several Canadian criminals abroad, especially in Latin
America, an area that I know quite well. There are Canadians in
jail in Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica. Would
you like them to be treated the way you want to treat foreigners
in this country? I do not think so. However, what I observed in
Latin America is that all Canadians are welcome. The fact that a
small number of Canadians are occasionally involved in drug
trafficking does not reflect on the way other Canadians are
treated. People make a clear distinction between this small
group and the vast majority of Canadians.
Here is my question: Yesterday, the hon. member, who is
immigration and citizenship critic for the Reform Party, said
that we must reduce immigration to solve this problem. By
extrapolating this simplistic reasoning, we could say that if we
did away completely with immigration we would no longer have
any foreign criminals. However, it is impossible.
How do you explain that last year you were asking for a
maximum of 250,000 immigrants, this year 200,000 and in the
future even less? Considering that the birth rate is very low in
Canada, what are you going to do? How are you going to cope
with an aging population, a very serious situation in Canada and
all industrialized countries? How are you going to fulfil
Canada's international obligations in the area of political
asylum? Canada signed a convention. Do you think that we can
refuse to receive refugees in order to do away with immigration
or criminality problems? How are you going to solve the
problem? Are you going to keep on lowering the number of
immigrants you accept, while the birth rate continues to go
down? In the next century, our population will start to decrease
if we no longer accept immigrants. How are you going to solve
that problem?
9260
(1230)
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, it is ironic
that comes from one of the separatists from Quebec. I am not too
sure whether the proportionate share of immigrants and refugees
is quite received in Quebec as it is elsewhere.
We said that we should reduce the level of immigration. We
acknowledge there is a need for immigration but we do not
acknowledge the high levels. We acknowledge the need for
genuine refugees on a humanitarian basis. That is not what this
discussion is about.
Regardless of how many people come into the country, a
proportion will be criminals. We acknowledge that. We know
that of the citizens within this country a certain number are
criminals. There is no question about that. We have to
acknowledge that those people coming in who do not abide by
the laws, who terrorize innocent victims in Canada should not be
allowed to stay. That is what C-44 is trying to address.
My whole theme on this discussion is the fact that we cannot
necessarily get travel warrants to remove them from the country.
The minister told me that yesterday. Therefore what is being put
into C-44 and what is actually going to be achieved at the end
are two different things.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I did read the hon.
member's lips when he was debating this topic. I heard from
those lips the words ``these animals''.
I have been in this House for 11 years now but I have not heard
any member refer to a group of people as ``these animals''. They
may have committed crimes, some very serious, but they are
still people. They are still human beings. They are not animals.
I did not raise this on a point of order because I think the table
will find it is parliamentary and acceptable language. However I
am giving the hon. member this opportunity to withdraw the
words ``these animals''.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, my
reference was clearly to some of these people trafficking times
four in heroine, robbery, assault, sexual assault, rape. I cannot
refer in a kind way to a person like José Salinas Mendoza who
had 12 criminal convictions, one a sexual assault of a young lady
and another sexual assault charge where he got out of the
country, in the trunk of his car I presume. I cannot refer to that
person as a nice individual. How would the hon. member like me
to refer to him?
Ms. Clancy: People.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I do not think the victims
would agree.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am most pleased to speak on Bill C-44 now before the
House.
All of us have heard countless stories of successful
immigrants to Canada. As representatives of the Canadian
people we know in each of our ridings the stories of people who
have chosen Canada.
Even before there was a Canada, waves of immigrants, many
penniless, swept ashore to scratch out a life in this new country
full of promise. Thousands were escaping famine, grinding
poverty, religious persecution and other horrors too awful to
mention.
Today despite the progress the world has made, immigrants
still wash up on our shores escaping the same horrors, the same
persecutions and the same unimaginable poverty. Some still
climb blinking and stunned into the sunshine of a Canadian
dockside after a perilous trip by ship. More step fearfully off an
aircraft at one of our airports.
However, each immigrant has the same questions and the
same fears as the immigrants of 150, 200 or even 50 years ago
had: Will this country allow me to live here? Can I work to make
a better life for my family in this place?
(1235 )
This bill marks a progression in the approach of this
government and this country in the respect we accord people
from around the world who come here. It also marks a step
forward in the way we see Canada's role as a protector of
individuals who are refugees from oppression.
The reasons for this improvement are numerous. They are not
comforting reasons at first glance, but when we take away the
rhetoric and the posturing the reasons for this progression are
abundantly clear.
Since the very first immigrants came to this country a very
minuscule number of newcomers have entered this country as
criminals, liars, thieves, murderers and opportunists who seek
to prey upon newcomers and citizens alike. One would suspect
that even the earliest Vikings who settled and explored this land
had their share of people with less than honourable intentions.
It is an immutable law of the human condition that there has
always been and will always be those who are bad people. It is
also an immutable law of the human condition that the vast
majority of immigrants to any country are hard working, honest,
loyal and very grateful to the country that opened its doors and
its heart to the newcomer.
This is true of Canada. It has been true in the past. It will
continue to be true in the future. However, we have before us a
collection of amendments to the Immigration Act that seek to
change Canada's response to this law of the human condition.
9261
Bill C-44 may become very popular with the racist element
of this country. Some may point to this bill as proof that all
immigrants are crooks and dangerous to this country but they
are wrong.
Bill C-44 is designed to honour the hard working immigrants
to this country. Immigrant gangs and criminals grab more
headlines and take up more air time than stories about
immigrants who have contributed to the growth of Canada. As a
result, the public has a false perception of our immigrant
community.
Statistically, new Canadians are less of a burden on the public
purse than natural born Canadians. They are less likely to
commit crimes, steal, cheat, rob and murder, and they only want
that which our own forebears wanted when they came to Canada:
to be left in peace to make their way in this land of opportunity.
Bill C-44 promises to play a pivotal role in removing the
minuscule percentage of the immigrant population who seek to
steal, deal, intimidate, extort, rob, injure and even murder.
This may seem like using the heavy hand of legislation to
solve a small problem, putting out a candle on a birthday cake
with a fire hose if you like. However, the confidence of the
Canadian people in our immigration system has been dealt many
sensational and disheartening blows through the evil actions of a
very few. Therefore, we will make it easier for all of us,
descendants of immigrants, old immigrants and relative
newcomers, to remove the bad apples from our country. We will
do this with the provisions of Bill C-44 and the Immigration
Act.
These conditions will demonstrate to Canadians that we will
act vigorously with the full force of the law. The naysayers will
have no response. Canadians of all walks of life will continue to
respond generously to newcomers, secure in the knowledge that
the new Canadian down the street, across the hall or in the next
seat on the bus is a person worthy of the privilege of Canadian
citizenship.
Canadians have demanded that their immigration and refugee
systems not only be fair and effective but efficient and well
managed. Bill C-44 represents a careful, reasoned approach to
the principles of fairness and tolerance with the balance of the
respect of the rule of law.
Bill C-44 closes loopholes that unscrupulous people have
exploited. It gives the enforcement authorities the means to
remove the thugs who would abuse our society, abuse our people
and dishonour the name of new Canadians everywhere.
At the same time, we will honour the millions of new
Canadians who over the years have built this country. We will
honour our ancestors by forcing those who choose lawlessness
to pay for their actions.
We will not open our doors and hearts to those who have little
interest in contributing to our country's society in a positive
way. We will not open our doors and hearts to those who seek to
manipulate and pervert the refugee system.
We will do this because our newcomers deserve no less from
us than that we as people of Canada expect of ourselves.
(1240 )
Canada does not tolerate lawlessness. That is our collective
word. We will demonstrate that our sentiment about freedom,
rights, tolerance, openness, and generosity are not merely words
but ironclad pillars of character.
In closing, Bill C-44 is not about punishment. It is about
standing by our word. It is about delivering on the promises that
every Canadian and every immigrant to this country has ever
made. We owe our new Canadians no less than we owe
ourselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the speech of my colleague. I agree
with several paragraphs in that speech, but the problem is in
reconciling a compassionate speech with a bill that is not
compassionate at all. It is very regressive and unworthy of a
democratic society such as Canada.
Unfortunately, my colleague did not take part in the meetings
of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. She
would have been able to hear testimonies of people coming from
Ontario, Quebec or other provinces. They all criticized this bill
very severely. Some even asked for its withdrawal; they were
lawyers, legal experts and even members of the Canadian
Ethnocultural Council, that is of ethnic communities in Canada.
Not a single ethnic community came to say: Yes, we agree with
this bill; go ahead with it. They all said no or showed a great
reluctance toward the bill.
For instance, someone who has lived here for 40 or 50 years,
who is still a permanent resident and has never become a
Canadian citizen will be able to be deported because they have
committed a crime punishable by 10 years or more. In fact, they
were only sentenced to two years in prison or a fine or a
probation period. The bill will allow these inequities.
There are people who came to Canada at a very young age,
children who never became Canadian citizens for whatever
reason. They could be deported, yet they are the product of this
society. They were educated here. They were influenced by this
society.
These inequities will be allowed if this bill is passed. I would
ask my colleague to give us her response on that.
[English]
Ms. Minna: Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that
the bill is not dealing with people who have come to this country
and have abided by the laws of this country, have respected the
laws of this country and have tried to become productive
9262
citizens of this country. It is talking to people who have tried to
subvert the system in one way or another.
The hon. member mentioned an area on which I must say I
agree and on which I have some concerns myself, that is, those
individuals who have come here at a young age. To me, they are
the product of our society and that is an area we must address
and look at. That is an area I have had some difficulty with for
some time because young people who come here at the age of
four or five or whatever the age-I came here myself at the age
of nine-once they have been here for 20 or 30 years they are
products of our society. We need to take responsibility for that.
Apart from that, the rest deals very effectively with the
problem that we have with people who come in and out of this
country. Some of them have been deported and have come back
in again and we do not even know they are in the country. We
need to address those kinds of problems and make sure that once
and for all individuals who refuse to abide by Canadian laws and
who do not respect Canadian citizens are not allowed to stay in
this country.
I do not see that as being draconian or unacceptable. It is the
normal way any society should proceed. It should make sure that
those immigrants who come into this country who are law
abiding, who come here to improve their lives and to participate
in and contribute to Canadian society are freed from the
oppression sometimes that these individuals put on them in their
own communities.
The bill speaks very clearly to this issue. It is important to
make sure that when a country has open doors and open hearts
the way we have that we also deal with the reality of some of the
bad apples that do come in. They are a very small minority. I do
not ascribe what the Reform Party has been doing over the past
six months where we seem to be looking at the immigrant
criminal of the day every single day. We need to deal with the
issue, so let us get on with it.
(1245)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to address this bill.
I find myself in an interesting position on this bill as I am
Canadian born and raised and obviously a white male. I think
one would say I am probably not the individual who might be the
most experienced on an immigration bill, even though members
of my own family came to this country as immigrants and settled
in a rural location. They went through bankruptcy, drought and
picked themselves up and success ensued.
Since I recognize my own inadequacies in this area and stand
here as someone who was raised in Canada and has not
experienced the hardship of immigration, I asked immigrants
for their advice and help so I could better understand their
circumstances.
Since I have been in Ottawa the immigrants I have been able
to query the best and get the best advice from are the taxi
drivers. I would like to title my little discourse here today as,
``taxi tales''. I have talked with taxi drivers from a number of
different countries such as Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan in the
last week.
The member opposite says they are Canadians. They are
recent, hard working immigrants. They are individuals whose
opinions I value, although it is possible the member opposite
would not.
I speak with them and ask their opinion of Canada as a place
for immigrants to come. They speak glowingly of Canada. They
speak of Canada as a place they value that gives them
opportunities they did not have in their home countries. They
speak of opportunities to work hard to advance and improve
their lot, and give their children the opportunity to improve and
use the educational opportunities Canada provides.
As recent immigrants to Canada, they tell me there are
problems with our immigration system. I would ask members
opposite to listen to what they say and not to what I say. As I
have already said, I have not had those personal experiences.
A young man from Iran told me he came to Canada to work
and he immediately looked for a job. He was told not to worry
too much about finding a job because he could collect welfare.
He said he did not come to Canada to collect welfare, but to find
work immediately. He thinks Canadians are very foolish to very
visibly offer the opportunity to go on welfare as soon as
immigrants arrive here.
A fellow from Afghanistan who left a country in turmoil told
me immigration must be acceptable to Canadians or
immigration will fail. He made comments about those
individuals breaking the rules who Bill C-44 is trying to go
after.
Yesterday the minister said Canada wants to keep the porch
light on. I agree. The porch light for immigration should be
glowing bright and attracting immigrants to our country.
Bill C-44 is going after a very small group of people in our
society. It is going after those individuals who have broken the
rules.
(1250)
Reformers say over and over again the whole premise of Bill
C-44 will break down unless we have the ability to hold back
those individuals coming in who are known criminals, or
remove them if they have committed crimes. I am trying to say
in the most reasoned way I can if we cannot deport it is no good
to have a deportation order. If we cannot send those individuals
9263
home there is no point in putting a flag up and saying
deportation will happen.
Bill C-44 says a person who commits a serious crime will be
deported after he or she is sentenced, but I say good luck. I have
watched the task force the minister set up for this very purpose.
He identified some 1,800 serious criminals in Canada who had
deportation orders and his task force was designed to pursue and
remove those individuals. The information I have is that 30
people have been deported from Canada through that task force.
These criminals have not done insignificant crimes; they have
committed major crimes.
Who do they seem to be able to deport? In my own riding a
woman from the Philippines came here and married a Canadian
farmer. Before she was able to process her documents to become
a Canadian the farmer died. Because she did not understand and
could not speak English very well she went over the time limit to
report her husband's demise. She was deported. A
self-supporting, law abiding, clean living, perfect immigrant
was sent down the road back home. What do we do with those
individuals who slit people from stem to stern? We cannot get a
travel document so we keep them in Canada. Bill C-44 does not
do what it was intended to do.
We say literature that could be used by individuals trying to
stay in Canada inappropriately will be intercepted at the border.
I say fat chance. One of my confreres went to the border not so
long ago and sat with the border guards. He had not sat there
very long when he saw seven transport trucks go by without
stopping at the border. He asked why they had not stopped and
was told the guards take down their licence numbers and put
them into the computer because they do not have the people to
enforce Canadian laws. So now we are going to intercept
literature at the border and stop these inappropriate passports. I
say fat chance.
We are going to prevent day parole. I listened to a member
opposite say day parole for criminals would no longer be
possible. That is a good step, but at the end of their sentences
what do we do with them? We put them back out on the street.
We cannot get travel documents.
Has anybody figured out we should be paying more attention
to getting travel documents for deported criminals rather than
looking for other rules to put another bunch of deportees on our
streets? We line them up one after another and end up with
thousands more who cannot be deported. Does anybody think it
would be more sensible to find travel documents? It is a simple
solution. We have had lots of discussion on this topic and I do
not think it is being heard.
I want to turn the focus a little. Reformers say it will not work
if we continue to have an overflow of these individuals who
should be deported. We think there should be a mechanism to
actually deport if they are deportable. But at the other end with
the open tap, what are we doing in our country? I want to switch
focus by saying we are bringing in another group of individuals
as immigrants and refugees who I do not think should come to
Canada.
(1255)
One example comes from a recent CBC radio article and
involves a lesbian woman from Costa Rica whose sole reason for
admission to Canada is the fact she is gay. I am sure Canadians
sitting in lines waiting for social services would be interested in
knowing that is one of the criteria that allows an individual to
come into Canada as a refugee. She was being discriminated
against in Costa Rica because of her sexual preference.
Another example is an HIV positive Polish refugee who is 25
years of age. His reason for admission into Canada was that he
was being persecuted because of this HIV positive status. He
was present in Canada for three years and living in Montreal on
welfare of $670 per month. He could not work initially because
his English was not up to par. His health now prevents him from
working and he has no incentive to work. He does not feel good
enough. His drug costs of $200 per month are free because he is
on welfare.
I went over the transcript of why he came to Canada. ``So you
came here mostly to get proper medical care?'' ``Yes, quite
right. In Canada they have proper medicine available ''. ``Do
you think a lot of Canadians or many Canadians hearing your
story might be angry? What would you say to Canadians who
would say, `Why should we have to pay through our taxes for the
medical care of all the people in the world who are HIV positive
and come from countries where the health system is not
prepared or equipped to deal with these cases?'' The answer
was: ``It is a serious problem''.
I thought this must be a very unusual case. Surely we cannot
be accepting HIV positive people into Canada with that as the
criteria. Surely that cannot not be true. I found out that one
refugee advocate has had 30 cases exactly like this in the last
two years. Three quarters of them were allowed to come into
Canada.
What do the Canadian people think when they line up for our
social services? What do the students in Canada think when they
line up and cannot get into university? What do the individuals
here think who have HIV positive problems and line up unable to
access services? Do they think we should take on all the
problems of the other countries of this world?
The member for Calgary Northeast put a bill in front of this
House not so long ago suggesting HIV positivity would disallow
admission to Canada along with tuberculosis, parasites, leprosy
and the other reasons we say people should not come into
Canada if it would add to our Canadian medical burdens. What
happened to that bill? It was shot down in flames by the two
9264
other parties in this House who told their constituents we have
lots of resources in Canada so we can accept these people.
I am sorry. We should look after our own people first. As our
resources shrink and we cannot look after our own, these
individuals opposite will have to face that music.
Immigration is good for Canada when immigrants are skilled
and able to converse and fit into our Canadian job situation
quickly. When refugees come along we treat them with all the
compassion we can muster.
(1300 )
Numbers must be flexible. Immigration cannot be static.
When our economy does wonderfully well, the immigration
numbers should rise. When our economy is struggling,
immigration numbers should fall. Members who ask the taxi
drivers who are recent immigrants those questions will hear
them say: ``I agree''. I challenge them to do that. Talk to the
recent immigrants. Ask them that question.
Members of the Bloc say they disagree with this bill on the
other end of the scale and I say we have a great lesson to learn
from those Quebec members.
Quebec has taken immigration and put it into a much clearer
frame of reference than the rest of Canada has. Quebec has said
that immigration must have specific goals for Quebec.
Interestingly enough Quebec accepts fewer immigrants than the
rest of Canada does. It puts criteria on those immigrants for
language ability, for employability and those criteria allow them
to be far more flexible as they look at Bill C-44.
I admire what those members have done. They are right in
what they have done, 100 per cent on. Not everything that Bloc
members say do I agree with, but the reason they are able to say
this I agree with.
I repeat that immigration is important for Canada. It is a
significant improvement for Canada. Bill C-44 starts out in all
the right directions. However it misses the mark completely
because we cannot remove those individuals who have done
wrong here. We cannot send them where they belong. It is for
that reason, and I cannot say it strongly enough, that Reformers
will not support this.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was interested in the comments of my colleague just a minute
ago. I want just by way of comment to expand on them a bit and
then get his response.
It is rather interesting that in the last election in the wisdom of
the voters of Ontario they elected 98 out of 99 members to this
House from the Liberal Party, but I wonder who really speaks for
the people of Ontario. The reason I ask that question and wonder
why this issue has remained dormant as far as the follow-up
from the members from Ontario is that with respect to what my
colleague was just saying, there is federal funding to help with
immigration settlement.
I am working from documents provided by the government
which show that $90 million goes to the province of Quebec to
help with the settlement of immigrants. There is $110 million
that goes to the province of Ontario.
It is relevant to note the proposed immigration levels for
1995. In Canada the total immigrant and refugee intake is
proposed to be 190,000 to 215,000 of which Quebec is only
going to take 40,000. That is relatively interesting because if I
divide 40,000 into 200,000 for a percentage it comes out to
significantly smaller than the number that were accepted.
With respect to immigration by metro area in 1993, Toronto
alone accepted 28.3 per cent of the immigrants coming to
Canada which equalled 71,964 people. Why there are no Liberal
members speaking up on this particular issue is beyond my
comprehension. Clearly the Reform Party has to do it for them.
(1305 )
I do not really understand how they can take the figure from
1993 of Toronto accepting 71,964 immigrants and Quebec only
accepting 40,000 in 1995, not quite half, and Quebec is
guaranteed $90 million for the settlement of immigrants,
whereas the entire province of Ontario only gets $110 million.
There is obviously a lack of voice for the people of Ontario in
this Chamber, particularly in the area respecting immigration.
I wonder if my colleague has any further comments he would
like to give on this.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, it would be very easy to
use this issue and say we could somehow be divisive about it.
I simply say that I believe those individuals from Quebec who
are making the decisions are on the right track. We are talking
now that there must be some benefit both to the immigrants and
to Canada in immigration. In my view Quebecers have figured
out that there is a balance. They have looked very specifically at
what their needs are and I believe they are trying to meet those
needs.
I would encourage those members opposite to think very
carefully about that. Is there in fact an imbalance? I will leave
that up to the colleagues on either side to think of very carefully.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
thank my colleague for his remarks. He made a few references to
the situation in Quebec. We are very proud, in Quebec, of having
a Department of Cultural Communities and Immigration,
something you will not find anywhere else in Canada.
9265
I do not understand why there is no department of
immigration in Ontario, with the most immigrants, or in British
Columbia, the province with the most immigrants in Canada
on a per capita basis.
Quebec signed agreements with the federal government and
receives transfer payments, because Quebec subsidizes COFIs,
which offer French courses to new arrivals and help them get
settled, find work, housing and so on.
The federal government and the provinces share jurisdiction
for immigration. But English speaking provinces are at fault for
never taking on any responsibility for immigration. Why? The
constitution is very clear on this point: the jurisdiction is shared.
Quebec is expecting 40,000 immigrants this year; 42,000,
next year; 44,000 the following year, because we have the power
to decide on and set our own immigration quotas. I invite people
from the English speaking provinces to put pressure on their
individual governments to sign agreements with the federal
government. This way, some of the problems can be resolved.
Mr. Hill: Madam Speaker, Quebec's approach is the answer
for everyone in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, like many of us here on all sides of the House I
was not born in Canada, I am an immigrant myself. Many of us
here are immigrants. I think it would be fair to say that
immigration has provided Canada with many blessings.
The collective contribution of immigrants to Canada has been
immense. We have built our farms, we have built our cities, we
have built our quality of life, we have built our railways on the
work, on the toil and on the immense sacrifices of the immigrant
community.
We have to recognize that immigration has been to us a great
benefit, a blessing. At the same time, we must live in the reality
of our world today. I was interested in listening to my colleague
from Bourassa. I must commend him for the way in which he
approached the debate in measured tones and a constructive
spirit. I appreciate this.
(1310)
The hon. member says that we are going far too far, that the
government's legislation is very regressive. On the other side of
the House colleagues from the Reform Party are saying that the
government has not gone far enough, that this legislation will
not serve its purpose.
We stand in the middle of what may be two positions at either
end of the spectrum. We say that today the reality in Canada is
that a tiny minority-I think we all agree it is a tiny
minority-abuses the system.
What we want to do is to say that if you are a legitimate
immigrant, if you live by the rule book, by the law of Canada,
then you are most welcome. The hospitality we give will be the
hospitality that you have always received here. At the same
time, if you breach our laws, if you use unfair or criminal
methods to jump the queue, if you use fraudulent means to come
into Canada or if when you are here you abuse the system in such
a way that you prejudice the rest of us new and older immigrants
and natural born Canadians, then there is a price to pay.
What this bill says in effect is that we will reward and will
recognize the legitimate, the fair immigrant. At the same time
we will say to the immigrants who take advantage of our system
that enough is enough and they cannot do it.
Mr. Abbott: Then he will just say: ``I am a refugee''.
Mr. Lincoln: I gave you your chance to speak. Give me my
chance to speak. Be courteous at least.
This bill wants to give certain powers to the immigration
ministry and the immigration minister so that certain cases of
extreme abuse are rectified.
[Translation]
The legislation will give the minister the power to intervene
to prevent appeals against deportation where the deportee has
been convicted of serious criminal offenses. The legislation will
give us the authority to interrupt the process of Canadian
citizenship acquisition when the applicant's claims are being
investigated. This will make it possible to declare non eligible
for immigration the persons convicted on summary proceedings
in Canada or abroad.
[English]
We propose to remove the right of appeal for all persons
involved in crimes of violence, involved in crimes involving
weapons, sexual assault or drug offences, those crimes that have
been punishable with sentences of 10 years or more. I do not
think this is extreme. I do not think this is abusive.
I find it sad. I must join my seatmate here to say that I found it
sad, that I felt the member for Fraser Valley West lowered the
standard of debate in referring to animals, creeps and creepy
crawlers.
His colleague from Macleod gave him a very good example.
We can debate. We can differ. At the same time, we can use
language that is measured in tone, that is constructive, that
makes a point. You convince people far more readily that way
than by using abusive terms such as animals, creeps and creepy
crawlers. I do not think this kind of language helps the debate. It
certainly does not raise the standard and it convinces very few
people.
9266
(1315)
My hon. colleague from Kootenay East raised the question of
statistics between Quebec and Ontario, whether it should be $90
million to Quebec, $110 million to Ontario, and dividing and
adding and multiplying. When I listened to him in this debate I
thought to myself what about human beings? What about
people? People are not statistics. Human beings are not
statistics.
We should all remember back to our First Nations, to our
aboriginal people who have been there for thousands of years.
All of us, regardless of our political stripes, regardless of the
colour of our skin, regardless of our faith, regardless of whether
we are young or old, are all immigrants. They have accepted us
here, sometimes not willingly, but today with great calm, with
great patience and fortitude.
We have to remember that all of us, whether we were born
here or not, were immigrants too. We have to give a chance to
the others who want to join with us. At the same time that we
give them a chance we want to make it a fair game and say
``Those of you who want to make a contribution, those of you
who want to be true Canadians, we will help you, we will support
you, we will give you all the blessing of our hospitality and
welcome. At the same time, those of you who do not want to play
the game, who want to abuse the system, there will be a law, a
fair law to use in cases of abuse''. That is the reason I support
Bill C-44.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
continuing with the parliamentary secretary in this debate I
believe the issue is for the people, particularly of the Toronto
area, who presently under the current socialist government in
Ontario have seen their taxes increase very significantly. As
revenue critic we are frequently bringing up the issue that
probably this federal government is going to be increasing
taxes. They see their municipal taxes increasing and then at the
same time they see that another jurisdiction, the Quebec
jurisdiction as opposed to the Ontario jurisdiction, is given
approximately twice as much money for the immigration
settlement.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might not agree that if
we are attempting to create an environment in which people are
not going to be hostile toward legitimate immigrants coming
in-I agree with him, building Canada but I cannot help but
wonder when there is this imbalance that the Liberal members
from Ontario and particularly Toronto are not raising this
particular issue. Would he not agree that with this imbalance,
where Quebec has taken its affairs into its own hands and has
said that it can afford to assimilate 40,000 people, whereas the
federal government seems to be imposing much larger numbers
on Ontario, particularly on the Toronto area, and the practical
fact that people are seeing their dollars going further and further
awry, that this is part of the reason for the hostility, some of it
founded, some of it unfounded, nonetheless this does contribute
to the problem.
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, the answer is very clear and
simple. Are Quebecers agreed under flexible federalism, under
federalism that works, that shows that it works, to share
immigration duties with Canada? It provides all kinds of
services to new immigrants that the federal government
transfers money for.
It is perfectly legitimate. If tomorrow Ontario chose to do the
same and take over a lot of these duties that would be worth
compensation.
(1320 )
I think this is really fair under the system of federalism. If
there is one example that is so clear of federalism at its best, it is
the immigration system which is in use in Quebec.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wanted to address the matter to this member
regarding the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada
as far as immigration policy is concerned.
Reform has been saying for some time that all we want is a
similar type of agreement for the rest of Canada as what Quebec
now enjoys and really prospers under. That is the only thing we
are saying. Quebec's numbers and levels are very satisfactory
given the economic situation of the country. Quebec also cited
for low immigration levels, the reason it had decided to go lower
on its immigration levels, was economic problems within the
province.
Does the member not think there is an economic problem in
the rest of Canada too when he sort of favours the view that
Quebec has taken on this immigration debate? It really is not
part of the debate. It already has the matter settled in its own
province.
The member basically accuses Reform of belittling the
parliamentary process by so-called name calling and the like in
the immigration debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been much more
cutting in her viewpoints of Reform and the position we have
had. This parliamentary secretary has said absolutely nothing.
I would suggest the parliamentary secretary look to his own
party and perhaps attempt to assist it in being more diplomatic in
its viewpoints.
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I have never liked
to wear Paris hats, Quebec versus Ontario, Ontario versus
British Columbia. I have never been that kind of person. I am a
Canadian. I believe in the Canadian state.
At the same time, fair is fair. The immigration system as it is
today allows all the provinces to enter the same kinds of
agreements that Quebec has entered.
9267
There are negotiations going on now with other provinces.
If a province wants to take over the immigration there are
negotiations going on now with the provinces. To introduce
Quebec and this other debate is not very constructive. I will not
get into this game at all.
It is important to make sure that people always come first,
regardless of whether they immigrate to British Columbia,
Newfoundland, Quebec or Ontario.
With regard to the tone of the debate I will mention what I
heard today. I heard one member speak about animals, about
creeps, about creepy crawlers and I said that does not raise the
tone of the debate. That detracts from it and that really makes it
very unfortunate because it does not convince anybody. That is
all I said.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis
for his speech. I think it was a good speech, although I do not
agree with its substance. As he stated, he is a Canadian federalist
and I am a sovereignist.
Nevertheless, I should like to pay tribute to the English
speaking community in Quebec for its interest, support and
financial contributions in the areas of immigration and refugees,
especially the Jewish community, which is heavily involved
with refugee matters in Montreal and other cities. Having
experienced hardship, I believe they never forget it, just as I
never lose sight of my immigrant origin.
But I would put the following matter to my fellow member. It
is difficult to accept that in regard to international mail, for
example, an immigration officer may open and seize
international mail if he believes that it may contain identity
papers or passports which might be used for fraudulent
purposes.
(1325)
To my knowledge, no democratic country in the world gives
civil servants the authority to open mail. It is always up to the
judge to do so once reasonable grounds have been established to
believe that a crime has been committed or is in the process of
being committed.
The other part of my question pertains to senior immigration
officers who are entrusted with several new powers.
Immigration officers will for instance be authorized to issue
warrants for arrest. In all democratic societies, a judge would
normally do this, but this bill allows it. What do you say to that?
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, unlike my hon. colleague, I
did not get the chance to participate in the parliamentary
committee as I am not a member. However, my colleagues who
took part told me that there were numerous representations.
There were representations from the Canadian Bar Association
and other very credible institutions, who said that the bill was
valid, that the principle of the bill was sound. This is not a
stand-alone bill; it is part of a 10-year immigration reform. It
must be seen as part of a whole package.
We took into account the representations made by these
credible institutions and made 11 amendments. In today's
context, I think that this bill makes sense. There will be a debate
here in this House and I think that the bill in its present form is
worth supporting. I hope that you will think it through and that
we can count on your contribution and support.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): As I see no other
members rising, is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by the chief government
whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until 6 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members
will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain
federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
9268
He said: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today
to take part in the debate on Bill C-65, an Act to reorganize
and dissolve certain federal agencies, and to explain to hon.
members the substance of the bill and announce certain
measures for public service renewal.
(1330)
Bill C-65 is part of a concerted effort to act on our
commitment to government renewal, as part of our promise to
give Canadians good government and restore public confidence
in government. The purpose of this bill and other measures we
are taking, which I will describe briefly today, is to usher in a
new kind of federal government, a government that is less costly
and more efficient and that concentrates on its fundamental
roles and responsibilities, in order to give Canadians
government services better suited to their needs.
[English]
As we said in our red book, the most important asset of
government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it
is accountable.
During the last election, and since then, the people of Canada
have spoken. Their message was loud and clear. They are tired of
large government. They have entrusted us with the task of
ensuring the careful management of public funds. They want
honesty and integrity restored to their federal institutions.
The previous government made a process of selecting friends
when making appointments to the many agencies, boards and
commissions that cabinet is required by law to carry out.
Madam Speaker, you may recall that in the last budget the
Minister of Finance announced that we would have a full scale
review to examine the size and relevance of existing boards,
agencies, commissions and advisory bodies in order to both
achieve cost savings by shrinking the size of some boards and
commissions and by eliminating those that no longer play a
useful role.
Over the last year we have listened to Canadians and taken
action. An obvious measure of the importance that we attributed
to the renewal and downsizing of the federal government was
the Prime Minister's decision to ask me to assume responsibility
for public service renewal. In this capacity the government has
moved simultaneously on three fronts which will lead to a
leaner, more cost effective and efficient government.
Bill C-65 will bring into force some decisions taken last July
to reduce the numbers of, the size of, and otherwise streamline
the operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions
where this is in the interest of Canadians.
As hon. members will recall, on July 8 of last year I issued an
interim report on progress to date. With the co-operation of my
cabinet colleagues I was able to report that decisions had been
taken affecting 41 agencies in nine different portfolios.
The legislation before the House today will place into law
those decisions requiring legislative action.
[Translation]
More specifically, this bill will make it possible to abolish, or
significantly streamline, 22 agencies and advisory bodies. As a
result, we will be able to eliminate 150 positions staffed by the
Governor in Council. In concrete terms, this will mean an annual
savings to taxpayers of $1.5 million, and this is only the first set
of such measures.
I am sure you realize, Mr. Speaker, that it would take too long
to mention all these measures individually. However, perhaps a
few examples will serve to illustrate how proper planning can
yield major dividends.
The Board of Directors of Petro-Canada Limited, which now
has 15 members, will be reduced to three members. This agency
has no employees, its sole function being to manage the
remaining accounts receivable of Petro-Canada, which was
privatized in 1991. By reducing the number of members on the
board and replacing them with employees of the Department of
Finance, the government will be able to achieve a substantial
savings.
(1335)
The Canadian Saltfish Corporation, which was created almost
25 years ago, is being abolished because there is no longer any
need for it. When it closes, 24 positions filled by governor in
council appointees will disappear.
The staff of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board will
shrink from 18 to 7, which will allow it to rationalize its
activities in Cape Breton and enlist more help from Enterprise
Cape Breton to implement more effective programs in that
region. Seven positions will disappear when the board of
trustees is abolished for the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian fund to
aid in research on the diseases of children. In the future, the
Medical Research Council will administer this fund.
This is a very good example of what I mean when I say that
good planning pays dividends. Continuing to study childhood
diseases is essential. However, since the government supplies
the funds but does not carry out the research, it is illogical in
these times of fiscal restraint to keep paying for a board that
only administers the fund.
By being more pragmatic and logical, we tried to expose areas
of overlap and to see if we could merge or group together certain
functions. This is what we did for the Fund to aid in research on
the diseases of children. We managed to save the fund by having
it administered more effectively by the existing Medical
Research Council of Canada.
Another example of this kind of amalgamation was the
elimination of Emergency Preparedness Canada as a separate
agency. Emergency preparedness remains necessary and Canada
will be well served in that area, except that this function will
now be performed by DND.
The functions of each agency were also reviewed for
relevancy, to see if they were still useful or had become
redundant.
9269
Where it was determined that we had to keep the agency, we then
looked at its structure with a view, if at all possible, to fulfilling
its role with fewer people, less money and, perhaps, more
efficiency.
Some agencies had very large staffs. Given the present
financial situation, that seemed difficult to justify.
Internal structure is also an important criterion and one that
we have taken into account. For example, at the National Capital
Commission, it is essential that adequate regional
representation be maintained on the board.
[English]
Similar criteria of course apply to many types of boards and
we have been careful to maintain appropriate representation of
the boards that we will be reducing in size.
Over a dozen organizations will have their number of board
members reduced, resulting in significant savings. Just to
mention but a few in this group are the Canada Council, the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Arts Centre
and the boards of four of Canada's national museums.
I believe that hon. members will agree that this demonstrates,
as I said last summer, we want to ensure that federal agencies
continue to be relevant and that they are serving Canadians as
effectively as possible. Bill C-65 will give effect to our
objective which is the identification of sensible and practical
actions to eliminate overlap and duplication and simplify
government wherever possible.
Program review and efficiency of the federation: As I have
already mentioned the review of agencies, boards and
commissions is one aspect of the government's overall approach
to streamlining and restructuring government.
(1340 )
The program review and our work in improving the efficiency
of the federation are two additional initiatives. The efficiency of
the federation initiative has allowed us to work jointly with the
provinces in reducing overlap and duplication. With nine of the
provinces and with two of the territories we have signed action
plans which deal with specific sectoral issues where overlap and
duplication can be reduced or eliminated within specific time
frames.
I will soon report on the progress that we have made in this
important area which will result in more effective and less
costly government for all Canadians.
The program review is the other very significant initiative
that will give the government a new look, a substantially
different government which focuses on its core roles and
responsibilities. The government is at one in understanding the
absolute necessity for the government to renew itself, to
restructure itself to better meet the evolving needs of our society
during the next century.
As members know, the full details of the results of the
program review will be announced by the Minister of Finance
when he tables his budget.
[Translation]
Third, there is no such thing as the status quo; the federal
system is evolving. What I have just described to you is but one
example of this evolution in government. If we are able to take
the steps I just referred to, it is because our system is flexible,
adaptable and capable of meeting the changing needs of our
society and our country.
Similarly, federalism is a form of government characterized
by the capability of adjusting. Our history demonstrates the
extreme flexibility of our government system.
[English]
Madam Speaker, if I can refer to my opening remarks of a few
moments ago, where I mentioned the wishes of the Canadian
people, I am certain that you and all colleagues in the House will
agree that the government is taking the measures that will meet
these expectations. Perhaps more than anything else, Canadians
expect and want their government to be more responsive. A
more responsive government will result from the efforts I have
outlined here today.
[Translation]
To conclude, I invite all the hon. members to support Bill
C-65. It is with legislation like this that we can give you a
modern and efficient government. In closing, I would like to
advise the hon. members that we will be introducing in a little
while another omnibus bill to finish the job started with Bill
C-65.
By the time our review is over, we will have dissolved many
other agencies, boards and commissions; eliminated more than
600 positions and effected savings of over $10 million a year for
the taxpayers. I cannot wait to be done with this review.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise following the speech made here this afternoon on
Bill C-65 by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. In the context
of that legislation, the minister is also acting as President of the
Privy Council.
Bill C-65 is a measure to reorganize and dissolve certain
federal agencies. The bill amends and reorganizes 15 federal
agencies by reducing the number of their members. It also
dismantles seven other federal organizations. I say dismantle
because, in some cases, the mandate of these agencies is
transferred to the sector department or is merged with that of
another body.
9270
For several months now, the minister has been making a lot
of statements regarding his reorganization of the federal public
service.
(1345)
Let us take a closer look at the effect of these cuts in the
context of the public service taken as a whole. In its current
form, Bill C-65 seeks to restructure the boards of 15 federal
organizations and reduce the number of their members. As the
minister said himself, the changes proposed in that legislation
would result in the elimination of 150 positions held by
governor-in-council appointees, as well as in savings of about
one million dollars.
At the same time, the government is about to eliminate 45,000
jobs in the federal public service. If we estimate the average cost
of these positions to be $40,000, a figure which includes the
salary and the fringe benefits, these cuts could result in savings
of $1.8 billion for the government. Compared to these drastic
cuts and their impact on the government's budget, the changes
proposed in Bill C-65 seem very minor indeed. They look more
like a device to attract the public's attention than like a real
change in the government's way of managing.
The savings which would result from the minister's piece of
legislation represent merely one eighteenth of one per cent of
the savings related to the anticipated elimination of the 45,000
jobs mentioned earlier. As you can imagine, the minister's
interest in such cuts is great, given their impact on the budget;
on the other hand, the savings resulting from the reorganization
and elimination of some federal agencies, which amount to a
million dollars per year, seem minor.
The fact is that all this publicity about savings of one million
dollars is designed to prepare the ground and show that the
government is setting an example. The aim is to show that
political positions are being cut, before public service positions.
Let us not forget that most of these political positions are
part-time positions, and the people in them usually have another
income. This is not the case for public servants, who work only
for the government.
A bill, in proper form, to save one million dollars is far too
little, when public service positions are about to be slashed. This
is not good enough. In many cases, the savings will not be real.
Costs will simply be transferred to the public service. The
government wants us to believe the bill will reduce waste in
public spending. What we need are fewer political positions,
that is appointments by the Privy Council, in other words, by the
Prime Minister himself. This bill is simply a smoke screen.
Saturday's Globe and Mail made it very clear that there was
no shortage of political appointments under the Liberals. The
article is headed: ``It pays to be a Liberal'' and goes on to list 84
Liberals who have been appointed by the government. Certain
well-known Liberals were named to important positions. Some
of them had supported the Prime Minister at the leadership
convention; others had lost out in the October 1993 elections
and others were longtime Liberal supporters.
This omnibus bill creates the illusion of government
transparency. The red book makes the following promise: ``A
Liberal government will review the appointment process to
ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of
competence. Persons appointed by a Liberal government will
better represent women, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples,
and people with disabilities''. Are the 84 appointments listed in
last Saturday's Globe and Mail based on the red book's criteria?
Or are there double standards? I shall let you judge for
yourselves. We heard one speech during the election campaign,
but, having been elected, they are singing a different song now.
The same Liberal credo as usual.
The elimination in the bill of all legal references to
commissions and advisory boards leads us to doubt that the
Liberals are seriously committed to transparency in government
operations. Will Parliament and elected members have the right
to examine appointments to such advisory boards, which in fact
will no longer be legally constituted?
These agencies will no longer be required to submit annual
reports to Parliament. The expected savings may be quite
minimal and government appointments may become even more
concentrated in the hands of the executive. Is this the
transparency that the Liberals promised us during the last
election campaign in October 1993?
(1350)
They have also been silent on the issue of consultation with
the provinces. Is that the flexible federalism promised by the
Liberals? At the National Capital Commission, the legal
obligation to have a member representing each province has
been lifted in favour of local representation, that means
representation for the city of Hull and for the city of Ottawa.
And the government is still wondering why Westerners feel
alienated? Why do Canadians from the west feel they are getting
less than Ontarians and why was the government unable to have
a majority of members of Parliament elected in the west of the
country?
The North Pacific Fisheries Convention Act will be revoked
and the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission will
be created. Was the Government of British Columbia consulted
during this process and on the changes proposed by this act?
Again, the minister remains silent.
The Canadian Saltfish Corporation is being dissolved, says
the minister, and the Saltfish Act, revoked. There is no more
saltfish to sell anyway. The corporation was already inactive.
Why has the government sat 15 months in office without acting?
9271
Dissolving this corporation was not the decision of the century,
you will agree.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act is being
amended. Have the governments of the four maritime provinces
been privy to discussions leading up to this decision? Have they
been included? Once again, we are in the dark.
There will no longer be representatives of the armed forces on
the National Film Board. The government finally recognizes
that the NFB is not a propaganda machine. Does it also
recognize that Canadian taxpayers should not be helping to pay
for partisan propaganda? Is the government prepared to stop
funding the Council for Canadian Unity and let pressure groups
from the no side in the next Quebec referendum pick up the
slack?
The government says it wants to put an end to political
appointments and senseless references to advisers. Seven
advisory councils have been abolished. This is all very fine and
well, but the directors of agencies can still call on the services of
these people for advice of all sorts. The same group of friends of
the regime will therefore continue to hover around government
agencies, but more informally, less visibly than before.
The government plans to table a second omnibus bill, the
minister tells us, after bringing down the budget, while an
examination of all federal bodies continues under the
responsibility of the minister himself.
All in all, the two bills will affect fewer than 300 positions,
the majority of them part time, and will save one million dollars
at best.
As we mentioned, the reorganization of these 15 federal
bodies and the winding-up of seven others provided for in Bill
C-65 will abolish a total of 150 political positions. This
initiative should be pursued, although it still strikes us as much
too timid.
The government should be directing its attention to the
process of appointing people to these organizations. This is the
sore point. The existing appointment process leaves the door
open to taxpayers' money being used to reward friends of the
party in power. There will be fewer of these political appointees,
I agree, but they will still be Liberals.
What has changed? Let us look more closely at the nature of
this administrative reorganization by the Minister responsible
for Public Service Renewal. The number of members of the
Canada Council has dropped from 21 to 11. The position of
assistant director is no longer mentioned in the bill's provisions.
The Council could, however, create such a position without any
other approval. Parliament is losing control. The position of
secretary of the Canadian Film Development Corporation,
Telefilm Canada, is in fact no longer mentioned in the bill. The
creation of such a position will therefore be up to the
corporation in the future.
The Minister of National Defence is henceforth responsible
for emergency preparedness, the organization formerly presided
over by the minister, but under the direction of the executive
director.
(1355)
Emergency Preparedness Canada is no longer required to
submit an annual report on its operations. Of course, the risk of
politicizing emergency preparedness for partisan purposes is
still there and we must remain very vigilant in this regard. It is a
matter of government openness and parliamentary control.
The established policy of no longer requiring departments to
submit annual reports is part of the cheeseparing economies this
government is trying to achieve, when its mismanagement in all
areas is costing us billions of dollars.
A one-point hike in interest rates increases the deficit by $1.7
billion, which is close to the $1.8 billion to be gained by
eliminating the 45,000 public service jobs targeted by the
government.
The abolition of the National Advisory Council on Fitness and
Amateur Sport was already announced in the 1993 budget of the
Conservative government. Are the Liberals taking credit for
these savings or are they using the same data a second time?
Any legal reference to the National Archives of Canada
Advisory Board and the National Library Advisory Board is
eliminated. Management at the National Archives and National
Library will thus be free to set up an informal advisory
committee that will be beyond control.
The minister said that other changes would be implemented as
part of the reorganization through separate legislation,
orders-in-council or administrative measures. These additional
measures will eliminate 125 governor in council appointments
and save $4 million. Did you notice that this government's
estimated future savings are always much bigger than the
savings generated by these concrete measures?
Bill C-65 and the second omnibus bill that will be introduced
after the budget is tabled will eliminate 300 jobs and save $1
million, while future measures will cut 125 jobs and save $4
million. This second series of measures to be implemented in
the coming year will thus save four times as much. The jobs that
will be cut must pay much better than those already abolished.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
9272
9272
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
International Development Week. As we focus on our own
problems, we Canadians must also remind ourselves from time
to time that the vast majority of humankind is not as well off as
we are. We must also recognize that our own interests and values
require that we aid others in development.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning, aid for
development attacks the threats to our own security that are
posed by over-population, poverty, disease and conflicts in
other countries. It also allows us to share our Canadian values of
tolerance and pluralism; aid women in development; encourage
the establishment of a vibrant private sector in developing
economies; and help others create the foundations for
democratic government that make this country so great.
In this development week we salute the non-governmental
organizations, churches and other Canadian institutions, and the
millions of individual Canadians who make such a tremendous
contribution to others in the world, while enriching us all in the
process.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this government is contemplating raising to 30 per cent of
income the rent geared to income in low cost and co-op housing,
in order to save on social housing and apply these savings to
reducing the federal deficit.
We recognize in this measure the unimaginative, heartless
ways of the Liberals, and particularly their lack of vision. What
this raise means, in real terms, is a 20 percent per year rent
increase for the 110,000 Quebec families in social housing.
Given an average income of $10,000, these tenants will have
to pay $500 more in annual rent, or $40 to $50 more per month.
Instead of going after the undue privileges of the rich-family
trusts, tax loopholes and unpaid taxes-the federal government
argues: let us make the poor pay.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on January 27, I participated in a debate at the
University of Manitoba entitled ``Generation X-Inheriting the
Debt''.
I sat in utter astonishment as I listened to the Liberal member
from St. Boniface say to these students whose futures are in
jeopardy because of decades of Liberal and Tory overspending
that continued deficits have been worth it because ``look at all
the good things we have''.
My astonishment turned to utter disbelief when the same
Liberal member from St. Boniface stated that all the talk about
MPs' pensions being so rich is just a crock. As this member and
other Liberal trough feeders continue to extol the virtues of
deficit spending and point to the frugality of their pension plans,
one can be sure that the Canadian taxpayers recognizes that this
Liberal defence in fact is just a crock.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for 15 months now Canadians have
supported the federal government's policy of deficit reduction
and job development. We are all acutely aware of the impact
these policies will have on the economic development of
Canada.
Now with the impending budget Canadians are getting
nervous because deficit reduction targets will not be met. They
are nervous because of strong rumours of proposed tax increases
in the budget.
Low and middle income Canadians have been taxed enough.
They have been burdened by government mismanagement and
excessive spending for too long.
I have proposed a solution to the Minister of Finance, a
solution that every low and middle income earner in Canada will
support. The solution is to designate 1995 a tax freeze year for
low and middle income earning Canadians. It is time for the
federal government to show leadership on this matter.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week members of the Chinese Canadian community
celebrated the beginning of the Chinese New Year, the year of
the boar.
In Vancouver the Chinese community celebrated all week. I
had the privilege to participate in many of the festivities
ushering in the new year.
9273
Parades, lion dances, colourful fairs and rich banquets
brought Vancouver East to life. Even the dragon made an
appearance.
The Chinese Canadian community is a great asset to our
Canadian mosaic. Dedicated members of their community,
Chinese Canadians are a good example of Canadian citizenship.
Their will to generously share their traditions and culture with
the rest of Canada is but another contribution of this great
community to the building of a multicultural country.
They once again proved that the values they hold so dear are
the values of many other communities: family, respect,
friendship, work, hospitality. The Chinese Canadian community
also enjoys, as do many other communities, good food, good fun
and a great love for celebration.
Let me wish everybody Happy New Year, Kung Hey Fat Choy.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the Prime Minister for success in forging new
trading relationships with the far east, the Americas and eastern
Europe.
My riding of Oxford has many industries that want to benefit
from these new trading opportunities. This was demonstrated by
representatives from many sectors of my ridings' economy,
including food processing, agri-business, manufacturing and
education who met with representatives of the Canada-Ukraine
Chamber of Commerce this past December in Woodstock.
At this meeting business people learned about the developing
Ukrainian economy and the opportunities it presents to
Canadian business.
The attitude of the people present was one of confidence in the
skills and products they had to offer and willingness to
investigate joint ventures and exchanges.
I can assure the Prime Minister and this House that Oxford
will be doing its part in creating new jobs and new opportunities
for all Canadians through increased trade.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I urge the government to move on its promise of MP
pension reform.
(1405 )
The Minister of Finance will deliver a tough budget at the end
of this month. Canadians understand the difficult financial
challenges facing our country.
Canadians want a budget that is fair and equitable, that
ensures that those who do not pay their fair share do so and the
things Canadians value the post are protected, our health, our
children and our natural environment.
However, to be fair and equitable we must put our own House
in order first. I campaigned on pension reform. I urge the
government to act now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
social program reform gives the federal government an
opportunity to treat young people like second class citizens.
At a time when young people must build a future in extremely
difficult conditions, given the problems of unemployment and
government debt, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, with the support of the Liberal majority within
the committee, jeopardizes their ability to get university and
post-secondary education by triggering a significant rise in
tuition fees. Moreover, the minister and the Liberal majority
want to make it more difficult for young people to get UI
benefits.
Because of such measures, which show contempt and a lack of
understanding, the federal government fully justifies the
dissatisfaction and resentment young Quebecers and Canadians
feel toward leaders who do not care at all about their future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last November I rose in this House to share the
concerns my constituents and I have over the Liberal's inaction
in dealing with excessive MP pensions.
Today I rise again on the same subject. Almost three months
have passed since trough day, the day 52 members of the House
became members of the pay cheque for life club, courtesy of the
extravagant MP pension plan. This government is famous for
putting off major decisions. Meanwhile the cheques keep
flowing from Ottawa and Canadians keep demanding an
overhaul.
In a recent Cariboo-Chilcotin householder survey over one
quarter of all responses voluntarily singled out the MP pension
plan as an area to be cut. My constituents are angry that this
government has done nothing.
Reformers stand with all Canadians in demanding MP
pensions be brought into line with those seen in the private
sector. It is time the Liberals live up to their promises. Stop
wavering on
9274
the issue and bring forward an affordable pension plan for the
members of this House.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today joining us in the House of Commons are some 40
students from Concordia University who represent the views of
Concordia students, faculty and staff in strongly opposing the
changes in post-secondary education funding proposed by this
government.
I join in condemning these unfair measures and call on the
government to stop fighting the deficit on the backs of students
and workers, particularly women, people with disabilities and
visible minorities, and instead close tax loopholes for the
wealthy and corporations, lower interest rates and put people
back to work.
The Minister of Finance can set a personal example by
ensuring that CSL Steamship Lines Inc. hires Canadian
mariners with Canadian standards to crew vessels built in
Canada and subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. Instead, six of
these vessels are registered in the Bahamas using cheap labour
and substandard conditions.
Finally, let us make sure that we fully fund post-secondary
education in this country and strengthen social programs, not
weaken and attack them.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in recognizing the principle of no new taxes, we should
also recognize that continued investment in advanced scientific
and technological research, oriented toward industrial
production and export abroad, particularly in information
science and biotechnology in which Canada is a world leader
today, is one of the keys to improving Canada's revenues and
trade balance, thus increasing employment and reducing the
deficit.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have received hundreds of letters from
concerned constituents of Bramalea-Gore-Malton, all
demanding no new taxes.
My constituents want the government to reduce the deficit
and eliminate duplication of services. People want the
government to create a climate beneficial to economic growth.
They want more support for small business.
Ordinary Canadians would like tax loopholes to be closed,
government spending reduced, and MPs' pensions brought into
line.
(1410 )
I urge my fellow members to support the government in these
worthwhile objectives.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we may be living in a selfish world, but a ray of hope
shone over my riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul during the
Christmas recess.
I refer to a local hero, Douglas Warnock, and I do not use the
term lightly. On January 8, Mr. Warnock dove into the icy waters
of the St. Lawrence River to haul a young mother and her
daughter back to safety. When he got out of the water, he was
told about another young girl, unconscious and floating
downstream. He dove back in and brought her to shore.
Shivering and freezing, Mr. Warnock went back to the Verdun
yacht club to warm up, leaving the victims to be cared for by
others in the crowd that had gathered. Today, that mother, her
daughter and her friend are alive thanks to this man's bravery.
[English]
I ask all Canadians to join me in thanking Mr. Warnock for
giving us hope by demonstrating that there are still people who
care enough for others.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
March 1994, the Federal Court's Appeal Division ruled that by
refusing to pay members of the RCMP a bilingualism bonus
since 1977, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police had acted unlawfully.
In other words, the commissioner had been acting unlawfully
for more than 17 years. Today, members of the RCMP
demonstrated on Parliament Hill to claim a fundamental right
already enjoyed by other employees in the federal public
service: the right to form a union. Members of provincial and
city police forces already have that right.
Members of the RCMP see this as a way to stop this abuse of
power by the RCMP commissioner, who is their employer and,
as far as their grievances are concerned, is both judge and jury. It
would be in the best interests of Canada to have an open RCMP,
where police officers can do a good job and enjoy full
recognition of their basic rights.
9275
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to give fair warning to the
government in anticipation of its pending budget.
Canadians have been contacting Reform Party members of
Parliament to express their rage about any possible taxation of
dental benefits and RRSPs by the Liberal government. We have
received thousands of calls, letters and petitions.
The Reform Party opposes any increase in the general tax
burden imposed on Canadians. The budget must be balanced,
but through expenditure reductions rather than tax increases.
Does this government not understand that Canadians want a
reduction in the burden of government? In my riding over the
last three weeks my constituents have made it perfectly clear:
reduce the deficit without increasing taxes. Our voices of protest
must stop the Liberals from making any tax grab.
I give fair warning to the government: do not tax dental
benefits or RRSPs, do not raise any taxes, reduce spending.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
comments made by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands
denying any racism in the video depicting the conduct of some
members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment indicate how
difficult it is to understand racism.
In the video a black paratrooper, like his white colleagues,
was personally humiliated but in addition he was challenged and
degraded at a second level. In the video his captors wrote on his
back with excrement ``I love the KKK''. Had they written that
message on a white recruit the meaning would have been lost. Its
intended effect was only achieved because its host was black. In
this case the individual was humiliated but as well all members
of his race were implicated and humiliated.
This is racism in its simplest form; so simple that it can
become systemic in our society.
We can say and be proud that Canada is not a racist nation.
However, if we do not recognize racism when it exists and when
it occurs I am afraid that our protestations may become hollow
and untrue.
(1415 )
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, economic development, growth and jobs are the
priorities of the government. I encourage the Prime Minister and
the government to continue with this agenda during 1995.
During the past year this government has created an economy
and the confidence to enable thousands of permanent jobs to be
created across Canada. As a matter of fact, our country is a
leader in growth among all G-7 nations.
This agenda is working. We are on the road to recovery and
Canadians have renewed pride and confidence in our country
and in our economy. Atlantic Canadians have a goal of
self-sufficiency and the jobs and growth agenda is an important
part of the future achievement of this goal.
We must continue with our agenda for jobs and growth to
build and even stronger economic climate that will provide the
opportunity for employment for all Canadians.
_____________________________________________
9275
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, now that the financial community is becoming
increasingly sceptical about the government's willingness to
deal with the deficit, the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance have refused to promise not to raise taxes in the next
budget. Once again, the government is about to attack the
middle class, which is already heavily taxed.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can the
Prime Minister claim that, three weeks before the budget, he
still does not know whether the government will raise taxes and,
above all, how can he renege with such impunity on a campaign
promise that he would not raise taxes during the first two years
of his mandate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the final decisions concerning the budget have yet to be
made, so it would be premature for me to say anything definitive
on certain aspects of the budget.
What we have to do is not an easy job. Decisions are in the
process of being made, but they are not final. As soon as we have
finished the job, the Minister of Finance will be able to
announce the budget date, and members will get their answers
on the night the budget is brought down.
9276
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as far as I know, the Prime Minister's arguments do
not release him from his commitments. He was elected on the
basis that he would not increase taxes during the first two years
of his mandate.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that during
the past year, his government's failure to cut spending was
mainly responsible for increasing mortgage costs by up to $200
per month for the same taxpayers who would be affected by his
surtax.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again, a budget will
be brought down in the House a few weeks from now. I want to
point to hon. member that Canada's economic performance has
been exceptional.
We have achieved higher growth objectives than any other
western country. We have had a year with zero inflation. For the
first time in a very long while, the forecasts of the Minister of
Finance with respect to the deficit have been reached. This will
be explained in the budget.
Our performance was excellent, and we intend to keep it that
way. And when the Minister of Finance rises in the House to
propose budget cuts, I will be delighted to see the hon. member
supporting those cuts.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if we are in such good shape, why not promise not to
raise taxes? Why this reluctance to make certain decisions,
when the government is prepared to make decisions like the one
I am about to mention?
Considering the present state of our public finances, how can
the Prime Minister justify a decision to give away $2 billion in
tax credits to the wealthiest taxpayers in this country who can
afford a vacation home in the United States?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
ought to know that what this means is, that we negotiated an
agreement with the United States to avoid double taxation of
Canadians.
(1420)
Formerly, a Canadian who had a residence in the United States
had to pay taxes unless he had a tax credit, and the same applied
to an American who had a residence here. Since many
Americans have residences in this country, what we did was to
protect Canada's tax base.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Just yesterday, the Minister of Finance asked the official
opposition to make suggestions for reducing expenditures. Yet
on December 15 in this House, he denounced proposals made by
the Bloc Quebecois and denounced the fact that they would only
amount to a reduction of $5 billion.
Rather than contemplating another tax increase for the middle
class, why does the government refuse to act on the suggestions
made by the official opposition, such as collecting $6 billion in
unpaid taxes, eliminating duplication which costs $3 billion in
Quebec alone, scrapping over $1 billion in unproductive
subsidies to companies, cutting the defence budget-
The Speaker: Order, please. I remind hon. members that they
should ask questions and not give little speeches. I would ask the
hon. member to state his question immediately.
Mr. Brien: What a shame, Mr. Speaker, I still had a few
hundred million dollars earmarked for the Minister of Finance.
Why is he considering raising taxes for the middle class
instead of following the suggestions made by the Bloc
Quebecois?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only
suggestions offered by the Bloc Quebecois were the same ones
as the Auditor General made. In congratulating us, the Auditor
General also congratulated the Minister of National Revenue on
his efforts in this regard. There is nothing new in their
suggestions.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to act on the warning
against increasing taxes given him by the business council on
national issues, which said that the overall tax burden in Canada
is already too high, jeopardizing investment projects and, more
seriously, hampering efforts to reduce unemployment faster?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said
repeatedly that we intend primarily to cut government spending.
As to specific decisions, we will have to wait for the budget.
I find it somewhat of a paradox, however, with the whip of the
Bloc Quebecois having just suggested that we should pay no
attention to business leaders, to have the member for
Temiscamingue ask us now to listen to what the business leaders
have to say. There seems to be a bit of a lack of consistency here.
9277
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the finance minister said it would be fruitless
for Reformers to ask questions about the budget because he
would not under any circumstances get into specifics. Yet
representatives of the financial institutions seem to be learning a
great deal about the budget from off the record conversations
with government insiders. For example, Sherry Cooper, chief
economist of Nesbitt Burns says that those in the know tell her
the government will save $5.25 billion in spending reductions
next year and $7 billion in 1996-97.
Will the minister provide the House with the list of
institutions and others who have been provided with this type of
information about the forthcoming budget and will he explain
why he is not willing to provide the same details to this House
and the Canadian people?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the
leader of the third party that no such information has been
provided to any financial institutions and therefore he has his
answer.
I did participate in a telephone conference call with Sherry
Cooper along with 50 or 60 others, including a full
representation from the financial press.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I can understand why the finance minister wants to try
to con the markets and outline his budget strategy to financial
analysts. They are uncertain and worried about the
government's fiscal direction. The Canadian people are also
uncertain and worried about the government's fiscal direction
and they need some reassurances.
(1425)
How is it that the government can find ways to reassure
financial analysts on the size of the budget deficit and spending
cuts, but will not tell the Canadian people anything about
pending tax increases? Why the double standard? It is their
money.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been able
to reassure financial markets because we have been able to say
that this year, as the Prime Minister has said, for the first time in
a long, long time the Canadian government is going to hit its
deficit targets. We have also been able to reassure financial
markets because we have said that in the years to come we are
going to continue to hit those targets.
We have been able to reassure the Canadian people and those
who are in need when we have said that we will not engage in the
kind of fiscal savagery recommended by the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if you set your targets low enough, even the
Conservatives can hit them.
The government seems to be finding ways of getting
information to the money markets about the budget in order to
prepare their reaction and calm their fears, but it is unprepared
to provide the same information to this House and the Canadian
people who have an even greater stake in the budget.
I am wondering whether the Prime Minister condones this
double standard or whether he is willing to be as frank with the
Canadian people as his finance minister is apparently willing to
be frank with financial analysts.
Is the Prime Minister willing to tell the Canadian people
today, yes or no, whether the government intends to increase
taxes in the forthcoming budget? Be as frank with them as the
minister is with the analysts.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, you will have to be patient because we will be asked
that question every day until the day of the budget. Everybody
knows we cannot reveal the contents of the budget before budget
night. We will respect the rule that has existed for a long time.
One thing is clear. This government has said to the Canadian
public and the business community that we would meet our
targets and the targets will be met.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development. Of all the recommendations made in
the Liberals' majority report on social program reform, one is
particularly heinous since it aims to require that young people
work more weeks than the rest of the population in order to
qualify for unemployment insurance, even though young people
already have a hard time finding stable jobs.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development endorse
the recommendation made by his Liberal colleagues, which, in
an underhanded and discriminatory way, sets up a two-tiered
unemployment insurance system with the lower level of
coverage going to young people?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first if I might I would like
to take the opportunity to thank all members of the committee on
9278
human resources who completed their work in sometimes
somewhat trying circumstances. I want to tell them I appreciate
very much the way in which they made a real effort to reflect the
views of Canadians.
As far as the specific recommendations are concerned, we
will be looking at all the views and recommendations contained
in the committee report submitted, both the majority and
minority reports. We will be looking at them very carefully as
we go about preparing government programs for the reform of
our social institutions.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that, during the consultation
process, not one of the witnesses told us that a system penalizing
young people was needed.
How can the minister justify his government's determination
to make young people second class citizens, by forcing them to
increase the debt load they accumulate during their studies and
by restricting their access to unemployment insurance, even
though they often hold unstable jobs?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just explained a
committee report is not a government policy. It is very
important that we clarify the distinction.
On the other hand, I would say that having read the majority
report very carefully, I was very impressed by the number of
recommendations made concerning the way in which we could
begin to target more assistance directly to young people to help
them get into the job market.
It seems to me that one of the most important initiatives or
directions the committee majority report recommends is that we
devote far more resources to things like internship programs,
transitions between school and work, helping students get better
aid and assistance to go back to school.
Providing positive programming is really the direction we
have to go in. That was certainly the spirit in which the majority
committee report was expressed.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Reform candidate for Ottawa-Vanier said that the
soon to be appointed Governor General should be required to
pay his fair share of taxes. I and I am sure every other Canadian
wholeheartedly agree. Now that the Queen pays income tax, why
should her representative in Canada not pay?
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he send a positive
signal to Canadian taxpayers by asking the new Governor
General to voluntarily pay income taxes like the rest of us?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to begin with, the Governor General has voluntarily
returned his pension to the crown. He was not obliged to do that.
There was no obligation at all, yet he accepted to do that.
This legislation has been in existence for a long time. Perhaps
we might have to review it and adjust the circumstances to that
reality, but this is the way governors general have been treated in
Canada since 1867.
We will look into that and see if we can do something. At the
same time we have to treat this Governor General the same way
we treated the governors general in the past.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of
course the Queen set the precedent in 1993 when she offered
voluntarily to pay income taxes.
Things are different now from what they were in 1867. With
today's harsh economic climate when Canadians are being
forced to make do with less from sea to sea, a $95,000 salary tax
free plus benefits does seem a little steep.
The government has talked a lot in the last few weeks about
making the taxation system fairer. Why not start at the top with
the Governor General? Equal means equal.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not necessary to tell the House that the Governor
General on his private income, if he has other income, is paying
his taxes. It is exactly what the Queen has offered to do in
England if I am well informed. She is paying taxes on her private
income, not on her public income.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its
policy statement on foreign affairs and international trade tabled
today, the government expresses its firm intention to diversify
our trade relations with Asia since, in its opinion, Canadian
trade is too focused on the U.S. market.
Nowhere in its statement does this government describe the
U.S. as a strategic market for Canadian exporters. It sounds like
an updated version of the famous third option favoured by the
Liberals in the 1970s.
9279
Does the Minister for International Trade intend to cut human
and financial resources allocated to the promotion of trade with
the U.S. and reduce the number of trade commissioners, as
suggested by Liberal senators and members of Parliament on
the special joint committee?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in Canada's search for additional
international markets it is not in any way our intention to play
down opportunities in the United States. They are real, they are
tangible and of course they represent the greatest part of our
foreign trade.
Our programs of support range across a whole spectrum.
Some relate to the border states for example. Some relate to
small and medium sized enterprises entering the export world
for the first time, principally in the United States. It is our
intention to continue to support those programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister claims that he cares about human rights; why in that
case did he not see fit to raise this issue during his meeting with
Central American leaders, including the President of
Guatemala, a country denounced by Amnesty International for
its systematic violation of human rights?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I raised this kind of issue several times whenever
circumstances allowed it. In fact, I raised this very issue, in the
presence of the President of Guatemala, at the breakfast meeting
we had with the six Central American government leaders.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the report tabled by the human resources
development committee offered the curious vision that social
programs are working brilliantly yet they are desperately in
need of reform.
Almost all of the recommendations are based on three false
assumptions: that governments create jobs through ever
increasing public spending; that a government monopoly is the
best means of caring for those in need; and that ever increasing
government debts and deficits are justifiable if they are spent on
government run, make work projects and social programs.
Last week the Minister of Human Resources Development
told the news media that deficit reduction had overtaken social
program reform as the top priority. Can the minister tell
Canadians if he will proceed with social program reform only if
he can spend more money and control program delivery?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon.
member was so busy reading his own minority report that he did
not bother to look carefully at the majority report.
It very directly says we must put social reform in the context
of a stable fiscal economic system because we have to build
upon that base of stability. This is something we are certainly
favouring because we do believe that part of social reform is to
have a well functioning economy which is not subject to the kind
of vulnerabilities and volatility we are now receiving in the
international finance market.
Beyond that it said it is very important to look at many of the
existing programs and shift resources for those programs to
much more active employment development so that we can get
people back to work. After all, the ultimate strength of our
economy is to have more Canadians going back to work. That is
how we will build this country, by investing in people.
The Speaker: Once again colleagues, it is early in the year
but I would appeal to you to make the questions brief and the
answers brief.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the government would get its fiscal house in order
there would be a lot less need for social programs.
I travelled with the Commons committee for five weeks.
Many ordinary Canadians I heard were not saying the things that
are in this report. It is obvious the government is paralysed
because it has spent too much time listening to government
funded special interest groups.
Can the minister tell us, is his government going to continue
the Liberal tradition of social programs dominated by decisions
made in Ottawa and make promises it cannot keep and add to the
worry of average Canadians because of its lack of vision?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the vision we put forward
in the social paper was to ensure that a wide range of Canadians
would be able to fully participate in the process.
I am glad to report that well over 100,000 Canadians
participated mainly through the efforts of members of
Parliament who held town hall meetings, through the work of
the committee itself and through the effective work of the
department in getting out workbook questionnaires. It probably
has been the largest exercise of public involvement in any
decision on public policy.
9280
I go back to what the member's hon. leader said during the
election, that we must listen to the judgment of the people. This
exercise is listening to the judgment of the people and that is
the best vision to have.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in
this House, the Prime Minister continued to maintain, after
checking with the Privy Council, that there are federal public
servants who are paid to sit around and do nothing. And again,
yesterday, he was contradicted by his President of the Treasury
Board, who said that he was aware of no one being paid to stay at
home and do nothing.
The Prime Minister must have made further inquiries since
yesterday. Can he tell us now how many public servants, in the
Privy Council's estimation, are being paid to do nothing and
where they can be found?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no discrepancy with respect to the remarks that
have been made in this matter.
We are heading toward the budget and the downsizing that is
going to occur in the public service as a result of the program
review exercise. We are concerned about being able to deal
fairly and reasonably with our employees so that we will not
have anybody staying at home collecting money and not
working. We simply will not tolerate that circumstance.
However, in the course of dealing with our employees we will
deal with them fairly and reasonably.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, both
statements cannot be true. How can the President of the Treasury
Board stand up and say that no public servants are being paid to
do nothing when his Prime Minister said exactly the opposite?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no discrepancy between the Prime Minister or
myself on this matter.
I indicated that I was not aware of this matter. That is not to
say that there were not people involved in the past. What we are
saying as we get into this exercise of downsizing is that we
simply cannot tolerate that if there is no work there can be no
pay. That is what both of us have very clearly said to the people
of this country.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The biggest concern in my riding of Halifax West is with jobs
and the economy. The Prime Minister recently led a trade
mission to Latin America with 200 Canadian companies.
Can the minister tell the House what this mission
accomplished in terms of jobs and the economy?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the basic purpose of the trip was of course
just that, to create jobs and increase prosperity in Canada.
In the case of Argentina, the mission led by the Prime
Minister signed some $400 million in contracts; in the case of
Brazil, some $600 million; and in the case of Chile, some $1.7
billion.
The Prime Minister was also able to assist Chile in furthering
the accession of that country to NAFTA. Elsewhere in South
America he was able to to give greater reality to our
commitment to free trade throughout the western hemisphere.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On January 1, the CRTC forced the country music television
network off Canadian cable systems. As a result CMT has shut
Canadian country artists out of a global audience estimated at 32
million world-wide.
Yesterday the United States government announced it was
considering further retaliatory measures against the Canadian
broadcast industry, placing our trading relationship with that
country in jeopardy. The minister is moving down the dangerous
path of cultural protectionism.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize he is
harming Canadian culture and Canadian artists by sanctioning
the CRTC decision?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision taken by the CRTC is precisely
designed to protect Canadian artists and the Canadian cultural
industry.
CMT, which is owned by The Nashville Network, was
informed by the CRTC when it scheduled in Canada that if there
was another channel opened by Canadians it would have to move
out. There is no surprise there. The CRTC has taken its decision
with full regard to the trade obligations entered into by Canada.
9281
(1445 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a completely unacceptable answer in this day when
technology is being over-ridden by outdated regulations which
do not serve our Canadian artists. This is cultural exploitation at
its extreme.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Why is
he putting up roadblocks for our very fine Canadian artists? Our
cultural industries are among the best in the world. We need
liberalization in order to compete more effectively instead of
trying to restrict our artists from developing in the international
economy.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, far from putting up roadblocks, we are
opening an information and cultural highway for them with
great success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We have learned that not only did the CBC chairman meet the
federal Liberal caucus in Toronto to discuss the budget of the
corporation, but that he also had a meeting with the members of
the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party to discuss coverage
of the referendum campaign by the CBC.
How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that Mr. Manera
participated in a second meeting which only involved federal
Liberal members from Quebec and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, specifically to discuss coverage of the referendum
campaign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason is that the Liberal caucus is very large.
Consequently, the CBC chairman first met Ontario members,
and then Quebec members, the next day, after they had arrived.
In fact, the chairman had sent an invitation to meet Bloc
Quebecois members, but the hon. member was not in her office
to find out what was going on.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Oh! What a terrible thing to do, Mr. Speaker. For your
information, the letter arrived on February 3 and I came back to
my office on the sixth. My supplementary is for the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
Following his blunder with the CRTC, and given his
ministerial responsibility, how can the minister justify
participating in a meeting on the CBC's coverage of the
referendum campaign, thus directly jeopardizing the autonomy
of a crown corporation of which he is supposed to be the
guardian?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that members
of Parliament attend caucus meetings. However, she forgot to
mention that the Premier of Quebec has also asked for the
resignation of the heritage minister, but I will provide an
explanation. The reason is that the Premier is so desperate to
find a Quebec minister of culture that he is now turning to
Ottawa; however, I have no intention of doing him that favour.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a brief question for the Prime Minister.
The chairman of the Prime Minister's leadership campaign in
Newfoundland in 1984 and a failed Liberal candidate on
numerous occasions since 1972 was sworn into the CRTC last
Monday.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to enlighten us as to
whether or not there were any other candidates for the job or just
a Liberal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, people are appointed regularly to boards. We look for
competent people. It just so happens that because more people
belong to the Liberal Party than any other party, we have to pick
one once in a while. Last week, in order for the Globe and Mail
to write these articles it had to rely on the chief patronage officer
of the previous government who is an expert.
I have been in this party for 32 years and in all the lists I saw in
the Globe and Mail on Saturday, I did not know more than 60
people personally. There are a lot of people who have worked in
Canada in different functions. If the hon. member can prove that
the person is incompetent we will not give him or her that job.
However, he has to prove other candidates are competent which
is exactly what we are looking for, good, competent people who
have good judgment.
(1450 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): You would
have to go a long way to find a Liberal in my riding, so I do not
know where you are coming from.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to always address
the Chair, please.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister would have to go a long way to find a Liberal in my
riding.
The Prime Minister's appointments director, who happens to
be the wife of the Minister of National Defence-if you can
figure that out-says that ability, merit, integrity and honesty
would be the criteria for job handouts. Charles Roth was
9282
appointed as a director of the Mint after contributing to the
Liberal Party. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: If you
donate to the Liberals does that give you a licence to print
money or just a job at the Mint?
The Speaker: I am not sure that the question relates directly
to the administration of government. However, if the right hon.
Prime Minister would like to answer it, I give him the floor.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Callahan has been a journalist all his life. He has
been the editor for many years for newspapers in St. John's,
Newfoundland. It would be very difficult to find someone better
qualified to serve in information services like the CRTC than a
person who has worked all his life as a journalist.
I would like to say to the hon. member who talked about
political parties that I remember some months ago members of
the Reform Party asking us to call byelections. There will be
three byelections on Monday. We will see how much support
they get.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
small and medium sized businesses are struggling for funding
from Canadian banks. Time after time business people in my
riding of St. Catharines tell me the same story: they have a good
business, they create jobs and they are the engine of the
economy. However Canadian banks are forcing these businesses
out of business.
When will the Minister of Industry follow the
recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the key recommendations was the appointment
of a financial institutions' ombudsman.
The member of Parliament for St. Catharines who posed the
question has used his office in an extremely effective way on
behalf of his small business constituents, working effectively as
an ombudsman to help solve their problems with the banks. He
has set an example for other members of Parliament on how they
can make a difference.
We are going to reply to the report of the industry committee
in the required time. Since the committee reported, the Canadian
banks have put out a code of conduct. They have also proposed
an alternative dispute resolution system.
I would like the members of the industry committee to look at
those proposals and to give us their views on how far they go in
solving some of the important problems that small business has
with the banks.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Canadian
Synchronized Swimming Federation is still refusing to explain
the real reasons why it chose Edmonton instead of Montreal as
training site for the olympic team in preparation for the 1996
games in Atlanta.
With more than half of the athletes in this discipline probably
coming from Montreal, it seems that this decision is politically
motivated.
Can the minister explain why Synchro Canada-
(1455 )
[English]
The Speaker: As much as possible we should not in our
questions impugn motives of any kind as to why decisions are
taken.
[Translation]
I will invite the member to proceed with his question.
Mr. Sauvageau: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to
impugn motives. I was just telling the truth. Can the minister
explain why Synchro Canada is unable to demonstrate clearly
that Edmonton's bid is better than Montreal's?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member would like me to make a
commitment and start interfering in the operation of national
sports organizations. I will not do so because they have the right
to their autonomy. However, I have asked for further
information regarding this decision.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is
the Minister of Canadian Heritage committing himself to
disclosing the information he has asked for?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I will have some
information for the member and that he will not be left dangling
over an empty swimming pool.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is now committed to increasing spending on aid to
0.7 per cent of GNP when the Canadian fiscal situation permits
it. To accomplish this taxpayers would have to spend billions
more on aid every year.
9283
Given Canada's $550 billion debt, impending cuts to social
programs and possible tax increases, will the government
please tell Canadians why we are committed to increasing our
aid spending?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is able to read as well as all of us
the document that was tabled today. It is quite clear that the
Liberal Party of Canada, which now is the government, is
committed to a long term goal of 0.7 per cent. In fact it was a
recommendation of the parliamentary committee and we stand
firm on this long term commitment.
In the meantime it is false, as the hon. member is trying to
pretend, that we will put additional expenditures to the
taxpayers. Obviously the budget will give more detail about this
but it is absolutely incorrect for the hon. member to come to the
conclusion that he is making by reading the document that has
been tabled today.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the foreign
affairs minister has surprisingly announced spending of 5.6
million tax dollars on public service reforms and tax reform in
Lebanon.
With cuts and tax hikes on the way for Canadians, what are the
government priorities, higher taxes to Canadians to pay for tax
reform in Lebanon?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Canadians who listen to the hon.
member, and know how important our aid program is to many
people throughout the world, will understand the total lack of
generosity on the part of the member and his party.
The budget of CIDA is a known budget. The amount of money
that has been committed to this project is within the budget
allocated. There is no additional amount in it.
I can assure the hon. member that this investment in allowing
a country like Lebanon, which has gone through 15 years of war,
to be able to become again a prosperous country which will deal
and do business with Canada is a-
* * *
(1500)
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last year the government undertook the social security
review, and based on a document put out by the Minister of
Human Resources Development, Canadians from across the
country gave their time and energy to comment on those
proposals.
It now seems all of that was in vain because the government is
now clearly contemplating something that was not in those
proposals at all; that is, a transfer to the provinces and territories
of block funding for social programs, health and post-secondary
education.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister directly, is it his
government's intention to adapt the Reform Party's policy of
abandoning national programs in health care, social programs
and in post-secondary education?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be very helpful if
the hon. member would take the time to read the report that was
just tabled yesterday by the majority of the House of Commons
committee. It clearly points out that the proposal for block
grants, which was part of the green paper proposal and clearly
part of the set of ideas we presented to Canadians, was put
forward as a way of also looking at how we can ensure a sense of
national equity and fairness across the country.
Many of the existing transfer programs have no conditionality
whatsoever attached to them and therefore national standards
and principles are not being recognized right now.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the member's attention the
presence in the gallery of a former colleague of ours in the
House of Commons, and now the Lieutenant-Governor of
Alberta, the Hon. Gordon Towers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of statements by
ministers this morning.
The hon. member for Peace River in his presentation
remarked that he had not received certain copies of government
documents from the Minister for International Trade until 20
minutes before he made his remarks in the House.
I want to point out first of all he admitted he received a copy
of the minister's speech. I am also informed that at 5.45 p.m.
yesterday the minister's staff attempted to deliver copies of the
two documents that were tabled this morning at ten o'clock to
the member's office but it was closed. They were taken to the
post office and put in his post box at that time.
I am further advised that copies of the same documents were
delivered to the hon. member for Red Deer through the Reform
9284
House leader's office and were therefore available to him as a
co-member of his committee.
I can only say that if the hon. members opposite do not share
the information they receive in order to make intelligent
comments in the House the government cannot be responsible
for that.
The Speaker: I do not know if that was a point of order.
Perhaps it was a point of clarification.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the kind
of partisan comment we just heard is quite uncalled for. I had to
make phone calls from 4.00 p.m. until 6.30 p.m. to get those
documents.
The Speaker: As I mentioned to the hon. member, I do not
feel this was a point of order. We are clearly now getting into
debate.
I accept that all hon. members are very busy. We all do our
jobs as best we can. I am sure all hon. members know that
sometimes papers do not arrive on time or they are occupied
otherwise and that should be taken as an explanation.
_____________________________________________
9284
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I am not mistaken, the
hon. member for La Prairie still had a few minutes left.
Therefore, he has the floor.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why did
we not abolish these positions first, since every million dollars
saved has an impact on the deficit?
The Auditor General certainly made the point in his 1993
annual report. A few billion more in spending increase the
deficit and, in less than a decade, inflate the accumulated debt
tens of billions of dollars because of compounded interests.
In his July 8 press release the minister said that he had
undertaken a thorough review of the 350 agencies and advisory
boards, hoping to find reasonable and practical ways to
eliminate overlapping and duplication, and to streamline in the
best possible way government operations.
The minister did not say whether he consulted his provincial
counterparts. Is he really going not only to reduce overlapping
and duplication within the federal system, but also streamline
management of the public sector in Canada, considering that
there is only one taxpayer, at the federal and provincial levels?
It is so true that the main brokerage firms and credit rating
agencies are talking more and more about the public sector debt
in Canada.
The increased pressure resulting from public borrowing
reduces the taxpayers' capacity to pay. Streamlining public
administration requires agreement between the federal and
provincial levels of government, and the minister did not seek
the agreement of his provincial counterparts.
The most tragic in all this is that in the time it took the
minister to deliver his speech, the debt of the federal
government increased by $1,3 million, while the whole bill will
produce less than one million dollars in savings. In the time it
took me to deliver my response to the minister's speech, the debt
went up two million.
In his July 8 press release, the minister said that he does not
have a set objective as to the number of agencies which will be
affected or the savings which could result. He added that it was
the government's aim to identify the logical and practical
changes to be made to improve the workings of government.
The minister does not appear to have a structured or well
defined approach. He has no specific streamlining objective in
mind. This does not come from me, or the Bloc Quebecois or the
Reform Party, but from the actual press release issued by the
minister's office.
The President of the Privy Council, who should be providing
the coordination, leadership and training needed to make the
project a success is leaving most of the responsibility for
recommending changes within their portfolios to the ministers
themselves. How can the ministers do the job? There is no
objective, no plan, no decision-making criteria or parameters
and no decision grid for either the departments or the ministers
involved.
Are the decisions made by guess and by gosh? Is this a
rigorous approach? The poor results show how poorly the thing
was thought out.
All of this upheaval, this whole game of musical chairs in
political appointments for a saving of less than a million dollars,
which we are not even sure about, since a number of jobs have
been transferred to the public service.
On the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, five advisory bodies will be eliminated because they are
no longer active, we are told. It is only normal, in our opinion, to
abolish them. What do they advise on, when there are hardly any
more fish to be caught on the east coast.
The minister's press release of December 21 promises that a
total of 72 agencies will be abolished and 16 others will be
restructured.
(1510)
This in fact represents only 25 per cent of all federal agencies.
We are told that this should result in the elimination of 589
9285
positions, the incumbents of which are appointed by the
governor in council. The total savings should amount to four
million dollars. When will we see a piece of legislation enacting
these promises?
Each press release from the minister's office mentions old
measures to which some new ones are added, every time, to
reach the magic four million number, but we are still waiting for
a piece of legislation enacting these measures.
In our view, Bill C-65 does not go far enough in the present
context. Eliminating 150 positions, adding up to a real saving of
less than one million dollars, is not enough when the federal
debt is growing at a rate of more than 100 million dollars a day.
We should, instead, review federal advisory bodies in the
context of the fiscal restraints we are facing currently. First of
all, the government must maintain the integrity of its tax base. It
must recover the $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes, deal with tax
evasion, tax havens and family trusts as well as the underground
economy, all of which the Bloc Quebecois has denounced on
several occasions. Taxes must not be increased. The middle
class is paying enough as it is. We must fight resolutely and
unwavingly on all fronts to wipe out the deficit.
Bill C-65 only skims the surface and shows a lack of
determination and political will on the part of the government.
We must first and foremost reduce the deficit and this will
demand steps much more significant and substantial than those
the minister is suggesting in the bill before us today.
All this will only amount to savings of four million dollars, of
which more than three have not materialized yet. I will admit
that the original idea was good, but in the end the objective is not
bold enough. We must act much faster and go much further. In
view of the huge deficit, Bill C-65 seems like a drop in the
bucket of necessary reforms which can no longer be avoided.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to rise in the House today to add yet another perspective to what
is happening here today with Bill C-65.
The government has undertaken to reduce the membership on
some of the boards. It has even undertaken to eliminate some of
the boards and direct their activities to other government
departments or agencies. My first response is to give a mild
cheer because this is definitely going in the right direction.
I cannot help but relate an analogy that came to my mind. I
remember when I was a very young lad on the farm in
Saskatchewan before we used tractors exclusively. For a while
we had tractors as well as horses. I remember on one occasion
the tractor got stuck and we had to use the horses to pull it out of
the ditch. My dad hooked up the horses and lined them up
perfectly in the right direction. Then he said `chlick, chlick',
because that was how one got the horses to go, but they just
tightened up the traces. They did not make any great effort. So
my father again went `chlick, chlick' and still nothing happened.
The tractor would not move. Then very unexpectedly he hauled
out, brought down his hand on the rump of one of the horses in
the team and gave a yell like I had never heard my father give
before. The horses leaped forward and pulled the tractor out of
the ditch.
I want to applaud the Liberals because I think they have the
horses lined up. The problem is we need to give them a yell; we
need to give them a motivation. I will not use the one we used on
the horses but we need to get them going. We need to get them
moving. While they are headed in the right direction, they have
not yet begun to move.
One might say that cannot be because we are going to reduce
costs here and this is really significant. We are going to cut
government expenditures and help balance the budget. Yes, that
is true. As I am going to show in a few minutes, the direction is
correct but unfortunately, all we have done is just barely
tightened up on the traces. We have not yet begun to pull the
tractor out of the mud. It is still firmly bogged down.
(1515)
This act has a lot of potential to look good in the press. There
is a possibility here of some good symbolism, because as I said,
it is moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, I do not
believe it has enough substance. It is not substantive enough to
do anything real and tangible. As a matter of fact, it will be very
interesting to see whether there actually are savings that result
in basically terminating the employment of a number of board
members in these different agencies; then turning around and
hiring a bunch of them back.
Undoubtedly these different departments and components of
government need leadership. However, the real problem is not
so much how many people are giving that leadership as how
much money those departments and different agencies are
spending. I briefly looked at the list of organizations that are
being revised.
In the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act the number
of board members is being decreased from 18 to 7. Yet, we know
the proportion of money spent in the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency Act is very small with respect to the
board members as opposed to the money they are giving away.
Perhaps we ought to look much more seriously at how they are
spending their money and how that can be reduced instead of
reducing simply the number of people that are, shall we say,
trying to manage the affairs.
9286
In the Broadcasting Act the number of members is decreasing
from 15 to 12. In the Canada Council Act the number is
decreasing from 19 to 9. I could keep on going all the way down
the list.
The National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport
is being dissolved. That is a very wise decision in the sense that
nowadays there is so much awareness already of the need for
physical fitness that individuals should be taking the initiative
on their own. We do not really need a government bureaucracy
that is taking taxpayers' money in order to try to promote this.
One of the items I noted in the minister's statement was that
there was a full review of all of the agencies. That too is good. I
am one who is much in favour of looking at a problem, analysing
it, trying to break it down into smaller pieces if possible.
Identify the problems. Identify all of the possible solutions.
Choose from the better solutions and eventually nail it down to
those solutions which will work.
Presumably that is what this review was all about. However, it
is not possible for us to get a copy of the review. I find that rather
distressing. As members of Parliament who have input into
whether or not this act will pass and whether it is good, we will
be dealing only with the issues the government has decided to
bring forward. The whole review is in fact being kept under
wraps.
This is a violation of a principle of democracy as well as being
a substantial violation and a breaking of a promise of the
government members when they were running for election.
They promised more openness and accountability. We are not
receiving that in this particular process because of the fact that
the total report of the review is not being made available. We are
told succinctly that it is not available to us.
Why does the government not release these findings? Why is
the government keeping it a secret? Speculation is all I can do
because I do not have the report. Perhaps the reason might be
that there were more cuts identified by the review than the
Liberals are prepared to go ahead with.
(1520)
Consequently they choose the few they want. Really what
they have here are a few cosmetic changes, minor reductions in
the number of board members but no substantial cuts in terms of
total cost and the total efficiency of these organizations and
groups.
Some of these reductions appear suspect in any case. The way
the act is written is rather interesting. It says that all of the
members will cease their employment, but then when that takes
place the government will be ready to reappoint new members.
It does occur to me that perhaps one reason we have the
legislation that way is because a number of the members of these
boards are probably carry overs from a previous government of a
party which essentially no longer exists. There is now an
opportunity to replace the members of the board from those old
appointments with brand new appointments where the
government so chooses.
Frankly, this adds to my cynicism and the cynicism of
Canadians who are observing this. We all ought to look at that
type of activity very carefully. Again I am speculating. We will
be watching with interest to see what happens when this bill is
passed. I am certain it will; it is a government bill. The Liberals
have the majority. We will speak and will show the obvious
shortcomings of it, but in the end it will pass because of the
majority and because of the rule of voting with the party.
Consequently, it will pass and then we will watch to see how
many of the new appointees have Liberal connections.
I would also like to speak very briefly about the need to go
beyond reducing. I guess this is the part of getting the horses
moving. We are going in the right direction when we say: ``Here
is a department or an agency and we need to cut back''.
However, perhaps what we ought to do is to start pulling
Canada's fiscal tractor out of the mud by getting the horses
moving.
That might involve complete elimination of a number of these
agencies. Instead of reducing from 15 board members to nine
perhaps we ought to be reducing from 15 to zero and winding up
the agencies and what they do. We do not as taxpayers save
money if all we are doing is taking the money spending function
of these people and moving it to another government agency.
The money is still going to be flowing through. We need to do
some hard work to eliminate the deficit. That can only happen if
we reduce spending. We can only reduce spending by
eliminating programs which are no longer needed and which are
at the lower end of the priority level.
I am going to say again what I say in probably every speech I
make here. Even just a few minutes ago there was an innuendo
from the member for Yukon who said that the government might
want to take the Reform Party tactics and eliminate health care
and education. That is wrong. That is not our policy. We have
said it, we have written it, and we will just keep on repeating it
and hammering it until members opposite hear.
Our members and the citizens of this country we represent
have told us very clearly that health care and education are of a
top priority. That is why we want government costs and
expenditures reduced and the budget balanced, so that we can
continue to provide the things which Canadians have placed at a
high priority.
They are empty promises to say we will keep those programs
if we lose our ability to deliver them. That is very important to
us. We need to reduce the programs that Canadians do not want.
In that regard I want to talk about one program specifically.
One agency which is being affected here is the National Capital
9287
Commission. There are many others and probably some of my
colleagues will speak about those. I want to talk a little about the
National Capital Commission. I want to speak to this from the
perspective of a person who lives some distance from Ottawa.
(1525 )
As a matter of fact, until just three or four months before the
election I had never been to Ottawa, being way out in the west
and never having the financial means to take the huge trip out to
the east. I would always have liked to but we were not able to do
that within the confines of our family budget. Of course since
the election, I have had the privilege of spending a lot of time in
Ottawa.
One thing impressed me and that was the tonnes, the
truckloads of money Canadians have poured into this region. I
suppose there is nothing wrong with saying that this is Canada's
national capital. Surely in this part of the country, in this city
which houses our capital, we can do some special things to make
it good, to make it attractive, to make it a tourist centre, to make
it fun for citizens to visit and to see more than just the workings
of government.
It is quite evident that after the dog and pony show of question
period is over most citizens find this not that interesting. The
galleries are mostly empty now and I admire those who are still
here listening to this. They come to Ottawa and after question
period they want to go and visit some other things.
We have museums, we have parks, we have all sorts of things.
However this being the seat of government, by that token it
attracts tourists here, other Canadians and indeed people from
around the world. Would it not then be reasonable to ask the city
of Ottawa to capitalize on that and as every other city in Canada
needs to do, have it look after making other attractions in the
city that will attract and help entertain the people who come
here?
That happens in every city in Canada except this one. This city
alone receives this huge input of government money, which
translates into taxpayers' money from across the country, in
order to provide these nice things. I am not speaking against
what is being provided. I am saying that the money ought to be
provided in a much more efficient way, managed by private
enterprise primarily but also with some involvement by the city
itself.
The National Capital Commission is not accountable. It is
another one of those places where the taxpayers are being
coerced into sending their money to Ottawa. As I said, we send it
here in truckloads. At the same time, there are many areas of
government where we taxpayers do not have any say on how the
money is spent. We can each legitimately ask the question: What
value is this expenditure to me as an individual living in a part of
the country away from Ottawa, or indeed what value is it in
terms of the country itself?
It is unfortunate that the National Capital Commission has
decided to hold all its meetings in camera. When suggested that
those meetings should be made public it said: ``No, this is the
same as any other crown corporation. We are not required to and
therefore we will not''. I do not think that is acceptable. I know it
is not acceptable.
People complain to me about the high level of taxation just
about every day. Those people are very upset when their money
goes into a black hole, a dark sinkhole somewhere and there is
no accountability on how it is spent. We do not know how much
is given to certain individuals. We do not know how contracts
are let. We do not know whose friends are getting paid what.
Again, it is innuendo that could be so easily solved by just
doing what the Liberals said they would do, that is, having open
government: openness and accountability. If there is nothing to
hide, why would you be afraid of having someone look at what is
happening? If you have something to hide then you will hide it.
If you simply hide it, then the conclusion on the part of many
Canadians is that there must be something to hide.
Right now it is winter. People back in my riding who happen
to be watching this are enjoying today, a plus one day, but right
here right now we are feeling the brunt of winter. In Ottawa
these days, we have a little thing called Winterlude, a wonderful
cultural event. Last year it cost just under $264,000. We are told
that it is time to restrain ourselves, to reduce our spending and to
look after the mounting debt. What is the response of this
unaccountable capital commission with the Winterlude concert?
The best information I have is that instead of spending
$264,000, as it did last year, it is spending $383,000.
(1530)
I know $383,000 is not much in terms of total government
spending, but when a citizen is having trouble making ends meet
and is being asked to pay $800 or $900 a month in taxes, seeing
one-third of a million dollars being spent here, to him it is a
huge amount of money. That lack of accountability is something
we need to really address.
I believe we need to look very seriously at disbanding the
National Capital Commission. The parts that pertain to the
Canadian government could easily be transferred to public
works and government services. Yes, we want to keep the
grounds nice. We want to keep the buildings in repair. We need
to occasionally undertake to build a monument or something
like that. It could be done under the aegis of the minister, with
accountability to the people via Parliament instead of just being
done by an unaccountable, appointed group.
9288
Canadians universally will be upset when they hear me say
that the National Capital Commission bought new office
furniture for around $2 million, selling their old stuff for
$50,000. I do not know how old and how decrepit it was. Maybe
it really was down to the place where when it was sat on the
chairs collapsed. That is possible but I doubt it. If that were
the case I do not know how it received $50,000 for the used
stuff.
In these times of restraint it would be totally appropriate to
say, okay, it would be nice to have $2 million worth of new
furniture, but perhaps in deference to the taxpayer we should not
spend it. Perhaps we ought to be under budget instead of
working so hard to spend every penny that is allocated in the
budget.
The NCC now has a new building that occupies 11 floors. It is
larger than most city halls. We have an organization just in this
city, aside from the city hall organization, occupying 11 floors
in a building with $2 million worth of new furniture. I am upset
with that. I represent all of the citizens in Elk Island and I
believe most people across the country would agree when I say
that is an obscenity which has to be stopped.
I know it is nice to have a beautiful family rendezvous centre
on Sussex Drive for $250,000, but when we cannot afford it that
is when you say it is a lower level of priority.
I would like to point out to the members here and to all
Canadian citizens that when I say we need to get the horse
moving it is not just rhetoric. It is not just trying to make a point.
There have been some accusations even today about the Reform
Party trying to gain popularity by making the tax revolt thing.
We did not cause it. We were talking to citizens who were telling
us increasingly that the deficit must be brought under control.
What is the government's plan? I will round off the numbers
so I do not have to read them all. The income of government is
around $120 billion per year. It spends $160 billion; hence it
needs to borrow $40 billion. As a result of this bill and the
savings that are promoted by it, which I cannot really figure out,
when I add up the numbers in the document that we were given
they come to $5.9 million. I believe the minister said the savings
would be $15 million. The member for the Bloc said it was going
to save $1 million. I guess at this stage we do not have any solid
accounting for how much it will save. However, if we take the
safe number of $15 million how big a dent does that make in the
deficit? Instead of having to borrow $40 billion we now have to
borrow $39,985,000,000. Big deal. It is almost insignificant.
(1535)
I was a math teacher in my previous life. I taught for 31 years.
Let us look at this as if it were proportioned down to a family.
Let us say that a family has an income of $48,000. If it was
patterned along the Canadian government that family would be
spending $64,000 a year. With a family income of $48,000 it has
to borrow every year $16,000 in order to keep going with its
spending patterns which it is not willing to give up.
That family would have to reduce spending or get more
income. If more income was not available it would have to
reduce its spending by $16,000 a year in order not to go further
into debt.
It is illustrative to look at the Liberals' projection and their
goals. We hear so often-and this is wonderful-the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance saying, ``We will meet our
goals''. The minister was very clear. That is great.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Epp: Go ahead and applaud. It is a wonderful goal.
Again, if you look at the goal in terms of the family, it would
bring its borrowing down to $10,000 per year from $16,000.
That is the goal. In other words, it is still going into debt $10,000
per year.
What does this bill do to reduce the deficit? For this family,
which is spending $64,000 a year and borrowing $16,000, it
reduces its annual spending by $6,000.
Yes, it is important. But I am saying let us get the horses
moving. It is good to save $6, but we need to save $16,000. That
is the proportion that this bill proposes to save in our budget. I
am appealing to hon. members in the government who have the
responsibility, who have the power to do something about it: Let
us get with it. The longer we wait the harder it gets. While this is
good, we are wasting a whole day talking about pennies when we
should be talking about the billions that are threatening the
well-being of all of our citizens and, indeed, this whole country.
I am very pleased the government is heading in this direction.
But from all of the information and all of the input that I get, not
only from residents in the Elk Island constituency but from right
across the country who write to us in huge volumes, it is
becoming very urgent that we reduce our deficit. Let us get on
with it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now proceed to
the next stage of the debate where members will have up to a
maximum of 20-minute interventions, subject to 10 minutes of
questions or comments.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.
I would like to respond before I begin debate on this bill to the
points raised by the hon. member for Elk Island. One of his
specific remarks was when he talked about the agency review
being conducted in secrecy. In fact, there will be a report on the
process which will explain what the process was, how it was
9289
carried out and what the results will be. That report will be
appearing very shortly.
Second, he talked about his early days with his father on the
farm and about a tractor and a horse. He suggested that in the
case of the Liberal government we have the horses tugging at the
tractor but it is not yet out of the mud. In fact, if you look at the
details of what we have done-and this touches on some
questions which were posed earlier today-I think the hon.
member will agree that the tractor is out of the mud and is
moving fairly briskly.
We have eliminated 589 governor in council positions,
agencies close to the type we talked about. I accept the
congratulations that he offered to the government for what we
have achieved. In fact, we have made only 700 appointments to
agencies, boards and commissions. Despite what the hon.
member suggested, some of these boards and commissions such
as the National Archives Advisory Board are essential to the
operation of the government. It brings to government the advice
of ordinary citizens of the type we hear of so often from
members of the Reform Party, and rightly so in that respect.
(1540)
Even the Globe and Mail, when trying to find information on
this particular matter, could identify only 80 of the 700
appointments we have made with the Liberal Party. To give
members an idea of how the tractor is moving very quickly, in
the period November 4, 1991 to February 3, 1993, the previous
government, the Conservatives-and I recognize that the hon.
member was not a part of that government-made 1,819
appointments. In summary, the Liberal Party has abolished 589
of these positions and has appointed only 700. The previous
government in exactly the same number of days appointed
almost four times as many as the number we did. That is not
quite the right math, but it is close enough for my friend who was
a mathematics teacher.
Having made these comments it is my pleasure to begin
debate on Bill C-65. This bill, as the minister indicated earlier,
amends the statutes that established 15 federal boards, agencies
or commissions in order to reorganize the boards or reduce the
number of members and to dissolve seven other federal
organizations. The passage of the bill will eliminate and
streamline the operations of these federal agencies and will
improve their efficiency and their service to Canadians.
Why are we doing this? We are doing this because we know
that the world is changing rapidly and government must as well.
In order to remain a strong competitor in the marketplace, as a
country we need to adapt to the new challenges we face in the
global environment. To remain competitive we know that we
must, as the private sector has, undergo an unprecedented period
of change and restructuring. We recognize the inevitability of
change and we are committed to bringing good and efficient
government to Canadians. In managing this change we wish to
do it in a fashion that is fair, careful and never casual.
Earlier the hon. member for Elk Island talked about the
possibility of abolishing certain boards quickly. We have carried
out a careful process that looks at what the boards do. I would
suggest that if members look at the list of boards they will find
many with whose functions they agree in their entirety. They
will also find many boards that are carrying out functions that
are essential to the operation of government.
The danger, as the member for Carleton-Charlotte said to
me, to make an analogy to another animal, the cow, the Reform
Party cow if you like, may give a good pail of milk but it will
then kick the pail over. We do not want to do that. We want to
look at the agencies that work and many of them are working
very well.
The Public Service of Canada is an effective and efficient
public service by any measure internationally and it has over the
past provided Canadians with services of the highest quality.
Where services are duplicated, and they are, they will be merged
and streamlined. Where agencies and boards are obsolete they
must be eliminated. In other words, the government must
continue to serve our taxpayers effectively but it must do so in
alignment with their needs and with less resources.
We promised Canadians in the red book that we would renew
government and reduce its size and unnecessary cost. As part of
the initiative, the finance minister announced in his budget last
year that a review of all federal agencies would take place. That
review has been conducted under the leadership of the Minister
responsible for Public Service Renewal. The objective, as it was
set out in that review, was to eliminate unnecessary or inactive
organizations, streamline operations by examining the size of
boards and the remuneration of members; ensure that the role of
these bodies was geared to meet the challenges of today and the
demands of the years ahead. Those were the criteria for the
decisions made about these boards.
The first decisions were announced in July of last year by the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. These announcements
reflected the recommendations given to the minister by the
individual ministers responsible for agencies. They included the
Ministers of Canadian Heritage, Finance, Fisheries and Oceans,
Health and National Defence as well as the Minister responsible
for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
(1545 )
This bill then is the first of two omnibus bills to implement
through legislation the streamlining measures for agencies and
boards announced since this government took office. It also
allows for the streamlining of the operations of a number of
agencies, boards and commissions by reducing the number of
board members, as has been done with the boards of the Canada
Council and Petro-Canada, folding one organization into
another, as in the case of Emergency Preparedness Canada
which was
9290
folded into the Department of National Defence, the kind of
approach the member recommended earlier, or combining
functions of organizations such as merging the Procurement
Review Board of Canada with the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal.
When these decisions were announced the Ottawa Citizen
wrote an editorial congratulating the government: ``Yuletide is a
traditional season of political patronage appointments with a
generous distribution of partisan favours at public expense, so it
is especially happy news that 314 patronage positions have just
been abolished by the Chrétien government''.
It goes on to point out that not all these boards are bad and that
patronage sometimes serves a good purpose: ``Boards and
commissions can do work beyond the competence of the public
service sometimes and patronage in its place can allow a
government to choose the people it wants to execute policies it
was elected to advance. Jean Chrétien's ministers are right to
scrutinize these governor in council positions, all 3,000 or them,
one by one'', which is what we are doing. ``If patronage
appointments are not doing something essential to the public
interest or doing it better than public servants could, the
positions should be eliminated''.
That is the criterion we have employed.
In conclusion, the agency review was conducted in
conjunction with a number of other reviews, including the
program review which has examined federal programs and
services as well as policy reviews.
This process of examination will not come to an end with the
formal completion of the agency review but will, members have
suggested earlier, continue as an integral part of providing
Canadian taxpayers with value for their money.
We know the importance of meeting our commitment to
provide Canadians with good government. Improving how our
nation is governed remains a priority with this government.
The bill before us makes sensible changes in a reasonable way
while ensuring national interest is served. It will result in
administrative savings and increased efficiency and delivery of
government. I would urge hon. members to ensure speedy
passage of this legislation because it is the kind of bill that all
members can support. The Ottawa Citizen said in December:
``Marcel Massé is on the right side. He is on the side of fairness,
flexibility and efficiency in government''.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Kitchener for his very well reasoned, prepared
speech. It was well delivered.
I want to say something about this farm analogy which
occurred to me the instant he said it. He indicated that he thought
Reformers, after the pail was full of milk, would then kick over
the pail-not so. We are more committed than anybody around
here to very carefully carrying that pail because it is not our
milk. It belongs to the taxpayers.
Also, the thought occurred to me that before they kneel down
on the stool beside the cow, they are forgetting to check whether
the pail has a bottom. Theirs does not. When putting $120
billion a year into the government coffers as Canadian taxpayers
are and there is $160 billion coming out of the bottom, we know
the hole at the bottom is larger than the input at the top. That is
an item of great concern.
I want to ask the member to respond to a question having to do
with the urgency of reducing the deficit. Does he
acknowledge-I know he cannot speak for the other members of
his party-that the leadership of that party is an item of great
concern to thinking Canadians because of the rapidly growing
debt? Even if they are on target they are going to be adding
roughly $80 billion to $100 billion to the debt before this
Parliament is finished. Even very modest interest rates of 5 per
cent indicate an additional cost of $5 billion per year. Just
having the debt grow at this rate adds basically one-eighth to
our present deficit without any additional programs being
financed.
(1550 )
What I would like to hear just one Liberal member say is it is
time they attack this, attack it vigorously and quickly and very
effectively to get government spending down.
Mr. English: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the member
when he sees the budget when it is produced probably later this
month will see that this government is serious about the deficit.
We have given every indication in public statements by the
Prime Minister, in statements by the Minister of Finance who
has engaged in a very long process of consultation, longer than
any other consultation by previous finance ministers. He has
done so with a commitment to fighting this deficit and of course
by implication the debt.
In terms of the debate about various animals there is a
difficulty with the Reform Party's approach to government and
we can talk about Animal Farm. There is a slogan in that book:
``Two legs good, four legs bad''. What I find troubling, with
respect, about the criticisms of agencies which I heard from the
hon. member for Elk Island is that all the agencies were lumped
together.
If we actually look at the list of agencies affected by this
legislation we see that some of them are essential. As I said
before the National Archives of Canada advisory board decides
independently apart from the bureaucracy what documents must
9291
be kept. I am certain the hon. member would not want to entrust
to the public service the decision on which documents generated
by bureaucrats should be kept. Obviously it has to be private
citizens with some knowledge of the subject.
The Canadian cultural properties export review board looks at
the value of properties that are exported in terms of their value
as part of our national heritage. These are essential boards with
activities that are best done by private citizens appointed to
these boards.
In terms of appointments we can see that these boards are
being reduced in size. We are eliminating positions where they
are not necessary. It seems to me that anyone would agree a lot
of these agencies are essential.
[Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like, first of all, to thank the parliamentary secretary for
sharing his time with me.
I should say from the start that I am very proud to be able to
contribute to the efforts made by the minister in charge and the
government in general.
Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal
agencies, is a piece of legislation that fits into what we could
call changing times. It is no secret that governments the world
over are facing dramatic changes. Canada is embarking on a
significant economic realignment. The same is happening in
Europe and in many other areas of the world. Free trade zones
which will define our future and create the jobs of tomorrow are
being created everywhere.
When I talk of major realignment, I am thinking of the major
changes that are taking place, changes that we must accept in
Canada and to which we must adapt. To face these changes, we,
the Canadian government, must essentially rethink the role of
the state. Speaking of reforming and rethinking the
government's role, you will remember that when the current
government came to power in 1993, the Prime Minister declared
in this House that we would be proceeding with four major
reforms, which essentially aim to rethink government's role in
order to better serve the interests of taxpayers as a whole. That is
our role as the government, and that is our task as elected
representatives.
Speaking of four reforms, I think I should take the time to list
them. These four reforms are the cornerstones of the
government's policy.
(1555)
There is the reform of Canada's economic structure, which
will now lead the government to concentrate its efforts on small
and medium size businesses, which, as we know, create 85 per
cent of all jobs in the country.
There is also the reform of taxation. The parliamentary
secretary stressed earlier that we will obviously have a clear
idea of what the current government means by tax reform when
it tables its budget at the end of the month. Let us also talk about
a major reform, a most comprehensive reform, on which a
partial report was tabled yesterday: the reform of social
programs. These programs make us the envy of many countries
around the world and ensure that we Canadians have in common
the values of co-operation, sharing and tolerance. And lastly,
there is the fourth reform we are dealing with today, the reform
of the government machine.
I am proud to support this bill because of its intrinsically very
modern and dynamic vision of what the government should
resemble in 1995. The objective of this bill is to reorganize 22
government agencies. Of these 22 agencies, 15 will be
completely dissolved. As a result, firstly, approximately $1.5
million will be saved annually. But given the vision of the
present government, the machinery of government will be much
more flexible, much lighter, closer to the population and,
obviously, will be called upon to deliver much more appropriate
service. This is our role in government, as parliamentarians, and
I am proud because that is the desired objective of this bill.
You know that Bill C-65 represents a continuation of the
government's policy of reforming the government machinery
since the minister has already taken certain other steps in this
regard and, in sum, there are presently 119 agencies in Canada
which have been reorganized, some of which have of course
been dissolved.
Reorganizing the machinery of government also involves new
policies. People are looking for clear and straightforward
policies, with government structures existing solely to serve the
public. And when we speak of streamlining the machinery of
government, which this bill addresses, we are meeting the needs
of the people as a whole in this regard, too.
When the Conservatives were in power, from November 1991
to February 1993, they appointed a total of 1,819 of their friends
to these quasi-governmental agencies; these 1,819 partisan
appointments did not in any way serve the interests of the
taxpayer. So there you have Liberal government policy, a policy
issued by a government which regards itself as, and indeed is,
very progressive.
This bill of ours is indeed a dynamic one. It shows the
commitment of the government to tackling the real problems. It
also shows that our government is a responsible government,
and fiscally responsible as well. That is what the Canadian
people as a whole expect.
Of course, on the subject of responsible government, I must
admit that, if you compare what is being accomplished in this
House to what the separatist government is doing in Quebec, the
contrast is quite striking.
(1600)
While we, in Ottawa, are downsizing, trying to have a system
that will serve the people better, the separatist government in
Quebec wastes public money, as you know, on the famous
commission on the future of Quebec, a regional commission that
9292
will cost at the very least between $5 and $6 million to the
Quebec taxpayers. And this commission will deal with a biased
bill in which only one option is considered, it being, of course,
the separation of Quebec, the option advocated by the Parti
Quebecois as well as all the members of the Bloc Quebecois in
this place.
The problem with these people is that, basically,
fundamentally, they are not there to serve the interests of the
taxpayers and the people of Quebec, but the very narrow
interests of a group of people with one political purpose in mind,
namely the separation of Quebec.
I for one am convinced that the step we are taking with this
bill, the policies put forward by this government, will show the
people of Canada and Quebec that you can go a long way with a
government who has vision, a government intent on building. In
that context, I am convinced that, in the referendum, the people
of Quebec will tell the separatists that they have had enough of
this squandering of public funds and, from now on, that they
want their political leaders to deal with real problems and help
improve the standard of living in Quebec and build a better
Quebec as part of what I might call the Canadian coalition, as
part of the Canadian federation.
Coalitions, huge trade zones are the way of the future, and
Quebec wants to be a part of this. The people of Quebec are very
broad-minded. They will never stand for the narrow and obtuse
view represented by separation, because it is not in their
interests.
This being said, let me tell you again, Mr. Speaker, how proud
I am to join in the minister's efforts in support of this bill which
is basically aimed at the renewal of federal administration and
government.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised but when we know how the member
who spoke before me is out of touch with Quebec reality, his
vision of things should not come as a big surprise.
I wish to remind him that the government which, according to
him, does not meet people's expectations was elected by 45 per
cent of voters on September 12, 1994, that it was committed to
holding a referendum on sovereignty and that even the Prime
Minister wanted this referendum to be held as soon as possible.
Of course, when we look at the democratic process under way
in Quebec from his perspective, no nation in the world is
currently undergoing such a process in order to define itself, to
say how it wants to prepare for the 21st century. Of course, that
is not consistent with the centralizing vision of the government,
which thinks that the truth can be found only in Ottawa, and we
can see the results.
These results include the Axworthy reform, which required a
five-week tour of Canada so that people could say time and
again to the Liberal majority that a two-level UI system did not
make sense. This required five weeks of consultations across
Canada. I think that people throughout Quebec should have their
say on how Quebec should define itself as a country. People are
currently participating in all the different commissions.
People are flocking to say what kind of Quebec they want, to
express their agreement with the bill tabled by the Quebec
government, to say that Quebec belongs to them and that they
have the right to define it as they see fit.
As for his opinion that coalitions are the way of the future, he
should keep in mind that 28 new countries have joined the UN in
the last 10 years and that, with free trade, it is no longer
necessary to be a large political entity to reach major markets.
(1605)
Small countries can have access to large economic markets
and do very well on international markets.
It is not true that countries must be very big to hold their own
in the new global economy. This theory is not consistent with
current reality.
If, instead of holding a forum on health care without inviting
the provinces, instead of using their majority to set aside a
proposal to hear provincial authorities during the Axworthy
reform hearings, the Liberal government had decided to hold
real consultations while respecting the structure and jurisdiction
of each level of government, we would have ended up with a
much more democratic process, as the Quebec government's
current process will be.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the
remarks of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois do not
surprise me either. He says that I am out of touch with reality.
The members of the Bloc are welcome to look at my schedule to
see who spent the most time in Quebec.
I can assure you that no member of the Bloc Quebecois was
more present in Quebec than I was during the past year.
My honourable colleague from the Bloc wants to teach me a
thing or two about democracy. He should start by looking at the
actions of the Parizeau government in Quebec to see how
democracy can be distorted, to see the shameful things that are
taking place in Quebec as we speak. A democracy in shackles,
Mr. Speaker!
In order to present the whole picture, Mr. Johnson's party
asked for permission to distribute information pamphlets using
government facilities. It was refused. And they call this
democracy, they who use their majority to go ahead with
commissions, the sole purpose of which is to secure Quebec's
separation, by
9293
any means possible. They are afraid of finding out what
Quebecers really think, and this is the reason for this tainted
process.
What is taking place in Quebec is shameful, truly shameful.
There is much we could say about what is going on there. Take
Mr. Parizeau's trips abroad. I regularly have the opportunity to
travel abroad as a French speaking Quebecer, as a member of
Parliament, and I am proud to be from Quebec, when I find
myself in another country, and to be able to negotiate with other
countries as an equal. But when I see Mr. Parizeau seeking the
blessing of other nations, seeking their views on whether or not
to go the independence route, I am no longer proud. I feel almost
like some poor colonial when I see their cap in hand behaviour
on the international scene.
Quebec is greater than that. It is a great province, great on its
own merits. It has made its mark within Canada and we will
continue to build this wonderful country with Quebec's best
interests at heart.
[English]
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I really
hesitate to do this on a point of order, but Standing Order 11(2)
clearly indicates this thing called relevance. I think we have
strayed significantly from Bill C-65.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member's time has
lapsed and we will now resume debate.
_____________________________________________
9293
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt this lively debate but I have a
couple of consent motions I think the House will agree to at this
point.
[Translation]
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to
Montreal, Quebec City, Mont-Joli, Vancouver, Hamilton, Thunder Bay, St.
John's, Charlottetown, Halifax and St. John, from February 6 to March 17,
1995, for the purpose of holding hearings in relation to the Committee's
consideration of marine policy, and that the necessary staff do accompany the
Committee.
(1610)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there
unanimous consent?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification of whether
there is a limit to the amount of money allocated for this travel.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the motion itself does not limit
the amount. In accordance with normal practice the transport
committee has sought and obtained the consent of the liaison
committee through the subcommittee on budget. Naturally they
applied for and received a budget allocation for this trip.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I know we discussed it in a House
leaders meeting, but I do not know why there is reluctance to
mention the amount.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, it is just not normal to review all
those facts in the presentation of these motions. The motion is to
authorize travel. There is an amount fixed for the travel in
accordance with the decision of the subcommittee on budget,
which was made yesterday.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will also find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That items standing on the Order Paper under Government Business, Nos. 14,
15, 16 and 18 be withdrawn, and further that item No. 19 on today's Order Paper
under Private Members' Business, a motion standing in the name of the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell be also withdrawn.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
9293
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, that Bill
C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-65, the purpose of
which is to reorganize a number of federal agencies. I must say I
was surprised to hear the minister refer to this bill as an example
of renewed federalism, as an indication that the government is
proceeding in a constructive manner and is adjusting to change.
Earlier, I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Outremont
referring to Bill C-65 as though the changes that were taking
place were truly impressive. He used any number of adjectives
to drive the point home that this bill is a major change for the
Liberal Party and a sign of the progressive and dynamic
initiatives being taken by the government.
9294
Well, if we take a close look at this bill, if this is supposed
to be renewed federalism, it is not moving very fast. As the hon.
member for the Reform Party said earlier, it may be the right
direction but progress is slow.
The hon. member for Outremont has the audacity to criticize
Quebecers with regard to the proposed commission on the future
of Quebec and to accuse us of not being democratic in our
approach. He prefers the kind of back room democracy that
assumes that voters, all these people who are listening, will
believe anything.
To claim that Bill C-65 marks an impressive change is to
assume that people do not know enough to tell the difference
between a thunder clap and a fart.
(1615)
Because when all is said and done, what the government has
produced with Bill C-65 is a mere fart, a fart they are trying to
disguise as an impressive roll of thunder, a portent of
fundamental changes to the government's apparatus. But under
all the rhetoric it is just a fart, and one has to call it that because
this lingering odour of-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was not listening to the
interpretation. I do not know how it was translated. However, I
would like to ask all members to co-operate by using the most
appropriate wording possible.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, to use a more stylish
expression, let us say that there is a significant gap between
reality and what is being proposed. If we put things in
perspective, we realize that the federal Liberal government is
making fun of people, as did the hon. member for Outremont
when he exaggerated with a little smile on his face.
Bill C-65 does provide for the reorganization of certain
agencies and commissions. The number of members of some 15
boards is reduced from 12 to nine, while other agencies are
dissolved. For example, the Canadian saltfish corporation is
abolished, and it is not too soon. After all, it has been a long time
since there was any saltfish to sell; yet, that corporation is still
in existence. Such a measure is obviously appropriate, as are all
the other changes proposed in Bill C-65. These changes
obviously make a lot of sense.
I could mention other examples. In the past, there were such
excesses that the least we can do is to make these cuts; in fact,
we should go even farther. Indeed, this is the problem with this
bill: the government barely cuts into the fat because, once again,
there is the issue of patronage, of appointments made by the
government to reward long time members and friends of the
party, as well as those who helped get the Prime Minister
elected. All in all, some 125 patronage positions, out of a total of
close to 3,000, are being abolished. This is a small step in the
right direction, and we are told that it will result in savings of
about one million dollars. This is said to be a very important
saving for the government.
To put this in perspective, I would like to remind you that
while eliminating a few patronage appointments will apparently
lead to one million dollars in savings, the government has
already taken a few billion dollars from the unemployed in
Canada and is constantly finding all kinds of ways to attack the
poor. For example, with regard to public housing, 110,000
Quebec households will soon see their rent increased by about
30 per cent. These 110,000 households who live in low cost or
co-operative housing are among the poorest in our society.
Their average income is about $10,000 a year.
(1620)
The government drags its heels when it comes to making
significant cuts in patronage appointments, and yet it does not
hesitate to take $500 more a year from the poor, who earn just
$10,000 a year, in order to recover $26 million. This is only in
Quebec, but it has already happened in other provinces. The
government has already succeeded in increasing the rent in most
provinces.
The government is giving the impression that it is cutting the
fat, but it is really keeping the patronage system in place and
making marginal cuts while increasing the burden that the
poorest people in our society must bear.
So I am extremely disappointed when I see Liberal members
rise in this House to say that Bill C-65 represents an important
shift in the Liberal policy. People should understand that Bill
C-65 brings only minor changes.
The elimination of 125 to 150 patronage appointments out of a
total of nearly 3,000 is obviously a good thing; I cannot say that
it is bad. The government is cutting some fat, but if it could
eliminate half of these appointments, it would really show its
willingness to reduce patronage, as it promised to do in the red
book during the election campaign.
The current prime minister had indeed said that he would
change the patronage appointment process and abolish or at
least reduce such appointments. Now, with this decision, the
government is reducing a number of patronage appointments,
without however changing the whole system; the patronage
appointment system remains the same. This is only the Liberal
version of what went on these last eight or nine years under the
Conservatives. The same type of patronage goes on, despite all
the promises to get rid of it.
The director of Liberal appointments, Penny Collenette, the
spouse of our Minister of National Defence, said in 1993, not
long after the election of the Liberal Party, that the selection
criteria for these appointments would rather be based on
capacity, merit, integrity, honesty, and community service. In
fact, Mrs. Collenette was only trying to reiterate to Canadians
and convince them that things were about to change.
9295
But of course, her statement was refuted by Liberal Senator
Rizzuto, a Quebec Liberal organizer, who promised in October
1993 to find jobs for every defeated Liberal candidate. And
indeed, he did it. In fact, a list was published recently in the
Globe and Mail, containing around a hundred political
appointments to various boards, associations, and
commissions.
(1625)
Under the title ``It pays to be a Liberal'', the Globe and Mail
published a whole page giving a list of people for whom it really
paid to be Liberals, people like Richard Croft, director, National
Research Council, former Liberal fund-raiser and key
leadership organizer for the present Prime Minister; Patrick
Lavelle, chairman, Federal Business Development Bank,
Ontario chairman of the present Prime Minister's leadership
campaigns in 1984 and 1990; Jack Reid, Governor General of
Saskatchewan, chairman of the present Prime Minister's
leadership campaign; John Cordeau, director, Petro-Canada,
Manitoba campaign chairman for the present Prime Minister;
David McLain, chairman, CNRail, fund-raiser in the leadership
campaign of the present Prime Minister. I could go on.
That is an impressive list. Interestingly enough, the Ottawa
newspaper Le Droit indicates that in the 25 most important
patronage appointments by the Liberal Party, in that long list,
only three go to Quebecers. That does not mean there were no
patronage appointments in Quebec. There have been many. The
list contains the names of Benoît Choquette, Auguste
Choquette, Margo Brousseau, a defeated candidate in
Louis-Hébert who was appointed director of the Quebec Port
Corporation, and many more.
For the sake of its squeaky clean image, this Liberal
government has established new procedures to select political
nominees. Some people can be fooled into believing that justice
will prevail, and that administrative procedures will secure the
appointment of the most qualified candidate, even if he or she
has no political affiliation.
A certain Mr. Hall quickly came back to reality, as did many
others when they lost potential jobs to the hands of candidates
who had chosen the political path and who obtained the
positions without even going through an interview.
The Prime Minister, who knows the answers to all questions,
says he cannot eliminate the 65 per cent portion of the
population who has the good sense to support the Liberals. He
will not punish people who vote the right way. According to him,
nominations are made on the basis of skills and competence, and
that cannot be determined unless he knows the person. What an
unshakable logic! According to that way of thinking, no one in
the world would ever get a job unless he or she personally knows
the boss. Goodbye personnel manager, hello contacts.
How strange that this government can maintain its popularity
in spite of its inaction and its outrageous patronage. Just think,
more than 100 Liberals profited from political nominations. I
even read some editorials that claim that the figure is closer to
400. What is the exact number? In any case, over a period of
fifteen months, it represents more than one nomination a week.
Why were Canadians and Quebecers so deeply shocked when the
Tories practised patronage if they can now accept the Liberal
nominations with such lack of concern?
Whatever the reason, this government is well aware of its
failsafe popularity and uses it shamelessly to its advantage.
Whereas tories would place one friend in a position and
everyone would shout murder, nowadays the Liberals make just
as many nominations, if not more given the present pace, and all
agree wholeheartedly that, after all, the candidate was the most
competent one for the job. What hypocrisy on the part of the
Liberals who, when on this side, denounced all Conservative
patronage appointments and called them a form of political
corruption, but now that they are in office, they ostentatiously
play the same game, saying: See how good our judgment is, see
how competent our candidate is. Is it not incredible how
transparent we can be in politics?''
The prime minister should read his speeches anew. Here is
what he said during the election: ``I warn all my colleagues that
they get into politics not to help themselves but to serve the
Canadian people.'' They now realize that charity begins at
home.
(1630)
The Ottawa Citizen recently contained the following:
[English]
``The Chrétien campaign promise was emphatic and
unequivocal. The Liberals would end nine years of Conservative
misrule and the squalid patronage that went with it. In the
Liberal red book's own words, a Liberal government will review
the appointment process to ensure that necessary appointments
are made on the basis of competence. That was the promise and a
good one it was. Only a restoration of integrity could dispel
public cynicism and replenish the strength of the government
itself. But as it turned out, the Liberals have taken up the
patronage trade with a Tory like enthusiasm''. That is from the
Ottawa Citizen.
[Translation]
Also, there was a general outcry concerning the Liberal
patronage appointment process. Here is what a well-known
individual said: ``When appointing faithful slaves to various
positions, the Liberal government has its nose in the trough, is
bringing the cause of federalism into disrepute and is giving the
rest of the world the impression that the Canadian political
system is based on stupidity''.
9296
I will make no secret of the fact that these comments are from
the leader of the Reform Party who is right for once. The
government's shameless patronage appointment process
undermines the integrity of the Canadian system and the image
of federalism and reinforces the people's perception that the
system is corrupt.
In fact, when a government is elected by making promises that
it will not keep, when a government promises to reduce
patronage but does not do it, and when it tries to reduce its debt
on the back of the destitute, it is time that such a government be
removed by the Quebec people. I think Quebecers now
understand they will be better served by a sovereign government
in Quebec.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened amusedly to the hon.
member's remarks. He talked about loyal slaves and described
political appointments as a shameful practice showing how
corrupt the Canadian political system is.
I would like to know if he has a list of the political
appointments made by the Parizeau government and a list of the
Quebec senior government officials who have been dismissed
when Parizeau was elected.
Just in the past four months, there has been a spectacular
political appointment in Quebec that made the headlines: that of
the president of Radio-Québec. Now the Bloc member comes
and tells us that political appointments are used to reward loyal
slaves and that the people of Quebec find it shameful.
I think that when the hon. member has the chance to get out of
here and take a good, hard look at himself in the mirror, he will
figure out whether his approach makes sense or not. He will see
that we are a little bit all over the place today.
(1635)
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I must inform my hon.
colleaque that it was the leader of the Reform Party who spoke
of loyal slaves. And he was right, because he was referring to the
appointment of the governor general and the appointment of
certain Liberals to the upper House, the other place, the Senate,
which is perhaps the highest patronage appointment of all in the
federal system.
Bill C-65, in essence, may be showing only a small part of the
big picture of patronage in the federal system. It does not tell the
whole story about the huge amounts wasted on all those
appointments that are made-nearly 3,000 patronage
positions-not including all the squandering going on regarding
the other place. Here we have 102 extremely well paid
individuals who may or may not be doing much to further the
cause or the well-being of ordinary people. It is the highest body
of patronage and it is a part of the federal system.
At present, the federal system is so mismanaged and is
plagued with so much patronage and squandering that we are
stuck with this incredibly huge debt, a $600 billion debt that is
extremely difficult to reduce. Again, I think that the people of
Quebec are getting the picture and I am sure that they are
looking forward to the referendum to cast aside this system that
no longer serves their interests.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, I can see that the hon. member was
unable to answer my questions on political patronage in the
Parizeau government. Perhaps I could also point out to our
colleague from the Bloc, when he talks about the other place, at
a time when-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Charlevoix, on a point of order.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Québec-Est
was engaged in a debate. The hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria rose during the period for questions and
comments. The hon. member for Québec-Est should be the one
who concludes the debate. This is turning into a debate between
two members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Obviously, if,
during the ten minute period for questions and comments, other
members had indicated an intention to ask questions to the hon.
member for Québec-Est, who had the floor, I would have
recognized them. I asked if there were any questions or
comments. I looked around and the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria was the only to rise. Consequently, she
still has the floor.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for
recognizing me. The Bloc member answered my question by
alluding to the other place. However, I can tell him that it is his
supporters, the separatist PQ party in Quebec, who formally
opposed any change to the Senate during the last national
referendum on the Constitution. Come on, be serious!
The hon. member should look at what goes on in his own party
before commenting on what takes place within other parties.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still does not
realize that we are not interested in changing the way the other
place operates. We just want to get rid of it. We want to get rid of
the other place because it is just a waste of money, like most
patronage appointments in the federal system.
If the federal government, if the Liberal Party really wanted to
improve the system to reduce the debt, it could have used this
bill to reduce the number of agencies without reducing
efficiency. It could have used it to really reduce the number of
members of boards of directors and committees.
9297
(1640)
In fact, the government could have introduced all these
measures in one fell swoop, if it had been so inclined. Not so.
They are doing this piecemeal to give us the impression they are
working very hard. There will be subsequent legislation to
implement another 125 cuts in a matter of weeks or months. Just
to give the impression that, my goodness, this government is
really working, although the fact is they are not doing much to
reduce patronage. Instead, they are doing everything they can to
get money out of the pockets of the needy, those who have no
resources at all, like the people in substandard housing and the
unemployed. These people are being hit, but careful how you
treat the friends of the party. Once again, I want to make it clear
to the hon. member that as far as the other place is concerned, we
do not want to change it. We just want to get rid of it.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member was
saying, and I must say that the hon. member has a very short
memory. As a professed separatist although he is a
Franco-Ontarian, he probably remembers Denis de Belleval
who was a well-known PQ minister but nevertheless accepted
the offer of an order in council appointment from his good friend
Brian- we all know who that is-to the board of directors of
VIA Rail. I wonder whether the hon. member remembers those
appointments.
Perhaps he also remembers, and I am sure the name will ring a
bell, a woman in North Bay who had been appointed to the board
of directors of CN Rail. When her appointment was announced,
the North Bay Nugget interviewed her and asked:
[English]
``Madam, why do you think you were chosen as a member of the
board of CN Rail?''. She answered: ``I come from North Bay, a
railroad town, and my grandfather was a well known railroader
in the maritimes''. The individual's name was Marie Marchand
of North Bay.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as Mr. de Belleval is
concerned, I cannot speak for him, since this was one of the
appointments that were made under Mr. Mulroney's
Conservative government.
It all goes to show that following the example of the
Conservatives is not necessarily the best way for the Liberals to
improve things in this country, and in fact, if we look at what the
government is doing now, the Prime Minister is about to go
further than the former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr.
Mulroney, ever did. That is the problem. Meanwhile, they are
making all these cosmetic changes but people are not easily
fooled. They realize that the Liberal government is doing
exactly what the Conservative Party used to do.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Fraser Valley West-the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to address the matter of the second reading of an
omnibus bill concerning the elimination and streamlining of
federal agencies.
In July of last year the Minister for Public Service Renewal
announced the decision to eliminate 21 agencies, boards and
advisory bodies and 275 governor in council and ministerial
appointments.
The bill before members today is part of that initiative to
eliminate and streamline 15 agencies and 150 governor in
council appointments.
The July announcement represents a partnership initiative
among federal ministers involving the ministers of finance,
fisheries and oceans, government services, health, industry,
national defence, national revenue and public works.
As we headed into the last election the Liberal Party of
Canada recognized that one simple question stood out in the
minds of Canadians: What kind of a country do we want for
ourselves and for our children?
(1645 )
Among the qualities we identified, we recognize that we want
a country whose governments are efficient, innovative and
co-operative, not only with each other but with other sectors as
well.
The red book states that as a government we have premised
our agenda on an integrated and coherent approach to economic,
social, environmental and foreign policy. As a government we
want to explore innovative and creative solutions to old
problems, looking at them from a new perspective. And as a
government we know that it is necessary to tend to one's own
housekeeping.
We have therefore chosen a plan of action that will help us
streamline government activities, make government less
cumbersome and therefore develop better government and to
adapt the structure of government to provide improved services
to the public. To do this, we have to determine whether specific
government programs, agencies, boards and advisory bodies
actually deliver results over time.
The omnibus bill which is before the House for second
reading today is an important and progressive part of that
process. Our aim is to establish better, more efficient and more
effective government. The passage of this bill will bring us
closer to that goal.
Today's climate is one of change. Canada as a nation, the
federal department, the agencies and crown corporations for the
9298
Department of Canadian Heritage and the myriad components of
government cannot escape this one inevitability, change. Three
factors contribute to this atmosphere of change.
First, fiscal restraint is forcing us to rethink the way that
governments do business. The reduction of the deficit is in the
interest of all Canadians and constitutes a priority of our
government.
Second, the global village of which Marshall McLuhan wrote
so prophetically in 1962 has become a reality. In particular, the
globalization of world markets creates a new context for
business and trade, a context which is increasingly important to
Canada which is becoming more and more dependent on
exports. This context demands that the machinery of
government be up to date, finely honed and highly effective,
capable of responding to an international economic
environment in which transactions take place instantaneously.
Finally, the relentless evolution of new technologies impels
us to revisit the means by which we distribute products and
services among the population. Canada, which has repeatedly
overcome challenges of geography and climate, particularly
today, is no stranger to revolutions in communications.
The red book has articulated our commitment to simplify
public sector structures and streamline operations wherever
possible to respond to today's changing environment. We also
want to encourage creativity and innovation in meeting
challenges, not as problems but as opportunities.
Toward these ends, my colleague the minister has undertaken
this exercise which promises to bring efficiency gains. It is an
exercise that will maximize the opportunity for the good
governance of the work that agencies, boards and advisory
boards do.
Our goal is clear: to modernize the machinery of state with a
view to rendering government more efficient and more
responsive to the needs of the citizens which it serves.
The Department of Canadian Heritage along with the agencies
and crown corporations of the Canadian heritage portfolio
participated in this renewal exercise. As a result it was a very
collaborative, open process. There was a collegial tone to the
consultations with full agreement achieved so that the boards
could continue their work efficiently, effectively and with
smaller numbers.
A November 26 article in the Montreal Gazette asked the
following question: When governments are strapped for cash
can they afford to support culture? I can assure this House that
culture is one of our strongest allies in building a stronger and
more unified nation.
As the red book states, culture is the very essence of national
identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride.
At a time when globalization and the information and
communications revolutions are erasing national borders,
Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural
development.
The government's intention has not been to weaken Canada's
national cultural institutions but to streamline them and to make
them more effective and efficient. I support the July initiative to
eliminate and streamline agencies in an equitable fashion and
support the continued development of culture in Canada.
(1650)
The government's initiative to eliminate and streamline
agencies underscores the reality that better more effective
government does not necessarily mean more government, or
that this concept is incompatible with the need to work with less.
We can work with less without affecting quality. Canadians have
proved that throughout our history.
Our intention is clear: to modernize the machinery of
government. That means reducing the parts to streamline our
activities where applicable and thereby optimize the success of
board appointments. This provides some assurance to Canadians
by placing the onus on governments to make good
appointments, appointments that are necessary and that are
made on the basis of competence.
As a result in the area of Canadian heritage I support such
measures as reducing the size of the Canada Council, as well as
the boards of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the
federal museums and the National Film Board to name a few.
Together these reductions will account for 85 government in
council positions and 10 ministerial appointments.
This process of streamlining will not adversely affect the
development, support of, or dissemination of Canadian cultural
expression. Culture is not simply an expression of the
artistically inclined or spiritual abstract. Culture infuses every
dimension of society. There is an inextricable connection
between the cultural sector and its contribution to the economy.
I am among those who cannot imagine a society, a viable and
vibrant society, without culture. Our challenge goes beyond that
of mere economic stability. Our challenge is to protect the sector
whose role and vocation is to give a sense of what it is to be
Canadian, to be a witness to our collective consciousness. In
fact, I am among those who believe that as a society it will be our
culture that will affirm our position and strength in the
community of nations in today's global village.
It is incumbent upon us therefore to go forward to maintain
the gains that we have made as a nation. We must adapt to the
new realities that confront and challenge us and move forward
on a solid foundation of effective and responsive government.
9299
This is our most profound challenge. I believe that our
government is helping to position Canada and Canadians not
just to meet that challenge but to surpass it.
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?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, am I not going to have an opportunity to speak this
afternoon?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a member who is
seeking unanimous consent to revert to the bill that has now just
been called for the vote.
Perhaps the House would agree to suspend for two or three
minutes while party members negotiate this issue. Perhaps we
could come back at exactly 5 p.m. with a recommendation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I wonder if the
House would be disposed to give unanimous consent? In all
truthfulness, I will also take those few moments to consult with
the table officers further.
Is there unanimous consent to suspend the sitting for four or
five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.56 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 5 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that the House not see the question as having been put
some moments ago and we simply resume the debate on the bill
that was before the House until the question was put.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do thank all of my colleagues in the House for their indulgence. I
am embarrassed and will continue.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an omnibus bill designed to
streamline or eliminate a number of federal agencies. This bill
legislatively dissolves seven agencies that have outlived their
purposes and purports to restructure the boards of 15 other
agencies or commissions.
As per its normal course of action, the party in power has done
nothing more than mount a finely orchestrated public relations
campaign. It is highly rhetorical, evidencing little substance.
This bill fails to take into account the dismal fiscal realities
we live in. It fails to address the issue of accountability, making
the activities of these boards and agencies open and accountable
to the Canadian taxpayer. On this issue of our dismal fiscal
reality we are now hearing what Canadians want and most
certainly what they do not want.
People in this country are outraged that our government has
been in an out of control spending mode for two decades. Our
nation is like a Hollywood front, all glitter and glass purchased
on borrowed money with nothing of substance holding it up.
It is a stunning picture of the reality of this House that
Parliament has not directly acted to cut expenditures since the
minority Parliament of 1972-74. Even in that situation where
the government lacked a controlling majority, the House of
Commons achieved only two small cuts amounting in total to
$20,000.
To give a sense of proportion, since the current procedure for
committee review of estimates was initiated in 1969, Parliament
has authorized about $2 trillion worth of expenditures. This
means Parliament has made cuts that represent only
one-millionth of one per cent of total expenditures it had
approved.
I oppose this bill, however I have to acknowledge the
miserable attempt to legislatively eliminate seven already
defunct federal organizations. I understand more agencies will
be dissolved and I look forward to seeing those changes
implemented.
What truly concerns me about this bill is the lack of
commitment by the government to really effect change in those
boards that remain functioning. Its downsizing efforts are
encouraging, but I believe any comprehensive review of these
boards must include a review of how appointments to those
boards and agencies are made, and a complete review of their
budgets and spending.
According to the government's own figures this bill will
eliminate a mere 150 GIC appointments and save a paltry $1
million.
(1705)
Surely this bill could have aspired to embrace more
significant change. This whole exercise becomes a waste of time
when other appointments are springing up as these are
disappearing. A case in point is the new tourism commission
with a new budget of $50 million and no agenda. It is brand new
and has no agenda.
Rather than merely changing the title of chairman to
chairperson of each board, I believe the minister for public
service renewal should have included clauses in this bill to make
these boards and agencies open, accountable and responsible.
Criteria should be developed and implemented to prevent the
patronage process from taking over future GIC appointments.
To demonstrate the changes necessary, let us briefly look at the
current state of the councils and agencies affected by this bill.
The Canada Council had a $100 million dollar budget last
year. Do we know if this money was well spent? Is the council
being held accountable? We have no idea regarding the effec-
9300
tiveness of the council. It was not part of the government's
review, but it should have been.
It is even more interesting that the current chairman of the
council appointed in May 1994 is Donna Scott, a former
provincial Liberal candidate in Ontario. Is she the best candidate
for the job? I do not know. We do not know.
As Susan Delacourt of the Globe and Mail recently
discovered, it seems the Liberals have a two-tiered process for
appointments. There is one for qualified candidates and one for
faithful Liberals.
Patronage is not only limited to the Canada Council. Several
other agencies in this bill have been affected. Let us look at the
National Capital Commission.
The NCC's decisions are mired in secrecy and there seems to
be universal demand that it be more open. Yet the current
Minister of Canadian Heritage has no plans to enforce
significant change at the NCC. He is reported to have said, and
one wonders where his brain was when he said this: ``On
accountability for the NCC it is a bit more tricky because it is not
an elected body''. It is spending my tax dollars and those of the
other members.
It should be noted that one of the NCC's members is Pierre
Isabelle, the son of a former Liberal MP from Hull. The list
continues. Andrew Ogarcenko, the director of the National Arts
Centre is a well known Winnipeg Liberal supporter.
The Cultural Property Export Review Board appointed a new
chairman in November 1994. Mr. Ian Christie Clark was the
special adviser to a Liberal Secretary of State who founded the
CPERB. He was also its founding chairperson in the late 1970s.
He lost that position under the Tories, but like a proverbial
yo-yo, Mr. Clark has returned to the post he created for himself.
The National Film Board is in dire need of change. Michael
Spencer, a respected National Film Board executive from 1946
to 1967 and the founding boss of what is now Telefilm Canada
has advocated chopping the NFB's annual $80 million budget in
half. To date this government's response to the ongoing problem
at the NFB has been to decrease the number of NFB board
members by two. Those are earth shattering reforms indeed.
How can the government hope to effect real change in the
public service without addressing these concerns? In this era of
fiscal restraint, the Canadian taxpayer has to be assured the
advisory boards and councils are being held accountable for the
money they spend.
They need ironclad guarantees that these organizations will
not be subject to patronage appointments but are staffed with the
most qualified people available. Unfortunately, Bill C-65 does
not provide the Canadian taxpayer with these guarantees.
(1710 )
Liberal loyalty in this country is rewarded with jobs, jobs,
jobs, and all of them are patronage based appointments. Stay
tuned, Canada, because even now the turnover in our legal
community, which is another patronage based organization, is
beginning to rattle through the provinces. Liberal linked
lawyers and not Conservatives are now being chosen to act as
agents for federal cases in provincial courts.
Legal agents, as I understand it, are the law firms that receive
work, parcelled out by the government, and mostly handle drug
prosecutions. In 1993-94 about 600 firms were legal agents and
billed Ottawa for nearly $45 million. The system has been a
traditional form of patronage.
Legal patronage has not been a flawless process for our Prime
Minister's government. The Progressive Conservative
appointees who have been tossed out are now suing prominent
Liberals and making the issue public.
Some Liberals resent that party loyalists have not been
appointed faster. That is scandalous.
Historically, new governments lost no time dropping
hundreds of agents and replacing them with party loyalists. Our
justice minister, to his credit, has tried to proceed more slowly.
He wants to overhaul the system by replacing the number of
agents and introducing guidelines. Wanting to is very different
from acting, and we are waiting.
Some Liberals feel our justice minister made them lose face
by failing to provide patronage plums fast enough to supporters.
They believe competent candidates should not be discarded
because they are Liberals. At the same time, talk of reform has
set high expectations so replacing any Conservative lawyers
would make the government look hypocritical.
This is the cynical and corrupt face of patronage, no matter
where it exists at any level of government today. I hear hon.
members of this House smacking one another on the side of the
head because they have this patronage in the Liberal
government. Then we have Mr. Parizeau's government involved
and they smack them up a little. What we are looking at is a
corrupt system and that has to change.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in my closing comments, where is the
accountability to the Canadian people? Where is our
responsibility as elected representatives to the Canadian
people? Where is the consistency of members of Parliament so
we truly represent one another and ensure that these councils,
boards, agencies and commissions are truly open to the
Canadian people?
So much for the Liberal red book promises of a fair system.
9301
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to make a few comments on this bill. I have
spent some time in opposition myself, both here in this
Chamber and in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, and I
see that the members of the opposition have recognized this bill
for what it is, in part, and that is an opportunity for the
opposition to have some fun with a number of issues.
Mr. Cummins: It is serious business.
Mr. Simmons: I will talk about the serious business of this
bill, but first, why should my hon. friend from Delta deny me
some of the fun?
I notice my hon. friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin trotted out
his tractor anecdote once again today. I missed part of it so I do
not know what colour the tractor was today. Was it green or blue
like the last time? I say to him that some time he should tell us
about the cow that having given the full pail of milk, good
wholesome milk, was manoeuvred into kicking over the pail. I
am not suggesting of course that my friend from
Cariboo-Chilcotin or his colleagues are a bunch of cows. They
are not that at all. Some could accuse them of being the people
trying to manoeuvre the productive cow into wasting something
that has been produced.
(1715)
I digress. I say to my friend from Lotbinière that I notice that
patronage is getting a fairly full workout here this afternoon,
and so it should. Patronage has always been with us and always
will be, and so it should.
Mr. Speaker, I say through you to my friend from Calgary
North, hear it in context. I said patronage has always been with
us, always will be, and so it should. Before she gets too
disbelieving I invite her to hear it in context. I was about to say
that members of this Chamber practise patronage in your
families on a regular basis, in your church and your community
organizations. You regularly reach out to those people you know
or can trust. That is not to imply that all the people you do not
know you cannot trust. It is just that you do not know whether
you can trust them because you have not yet met them.
What is so surprising if in that church group, community
group, that municipal council or whatever the group may be, you
reach out to somebody whose credentials you know, whose
people skills you know when you want a job done. I repeat, that
is not to suggest that all the people you do not know in this world
are not to be trusted.
It is no accident that if a Liberal government is in power a
number of the appointments will be people who are known
Liberals. It would be no accident that if a Reform government
were in power some of the appointments would be Reform
appointments. The law of averages alone takes care of that. If we
had to exclude all the people who either voted Liberal or were
active in the Liberal cause over the years, we would virtually
exclude the entire population of Canada.
Is anybody suggesting that the label itself ought to be a
disincentive? There is more to it than that. Let me construct an
example for members. If I am an employer and have an opening
and there are two applicants for a particular position, both of
whom have equal credentials, equal qualifications, equal
experience and I know one and I do not know the other, I am
going to hire the one I know. The principle stands that the devil
you know is better than the devil you do not know, to put it in the
vernacular. More generically, the person you know is better than
the person you do not know. By definition if you do not know the
second person there may be something about that second person,
which despite the paper qualifications, despite the experience,
has something less to commend him or her to the job. In its
purest form that is patronage.
I believe what my friends are talking about is something
different altogether. They may not have the courage to put the
term on it. I think what they are talking about is corrupt
patronage.
I return to my example. I the employer have two people in
front of me applying for a position. The person I know does not
know a row of beans about the job. The second person, whom I
do not know, has good credentials, commends himself or herself
to the job in every way, comes through well in the interview.
Despite all that I hire the person I know. That is the beginning of
corrupt patronage. That is the tail wagging the dog. That is the
employer in the example using something other than his head.
That example itself may not be corrupt but it is certainly stupid
to rush out and hire the person because you know him rather than
the person who can do the job. However, that is the beginning of
corrupt patronage.
(1720)
Governments over the years, Tory governments, have
practised some corrupt patronage and Liberals have practised
corrupt patronage but that does not make it right. I submit that
we cannot go back and undo the elections of many years past
with the people who sat in Liberal cabinets or Liberal
governments or headed Liberal governments and Tory
governments over the years. I mention those two parties because
they are the only two strains we have had at the federal level. I
could go to the provincial level and talk about governments of
other stripes, including Social Credit and NDP. We all know the
range of governments we have had in Canada heading provincial
and federal administrations. There was the Union Nationale in
the province of Quebec and other governments. We cannot go
back and rerun those elections.
Therefore I submit that the only credentials we can examine
now are the credentials of the present administration which is
the administration which will be accountable in the next
election. Before we are all tarred with the same brush, hear some
of
9302
the facts. Has this government appointed Liberals? Yes, it has
and I can give this House a good list of them. Has it appointed
people of other stripes? Yes, and I can give this House a good list
of those as well. However, that ought not to be the governing
criterion as to what the person's party label was.
I will return to my example again. If that minister is selecting
a person for a board only on the basis of his label or on the basis
of who he knows versus who he does not know rather than on the
basis of the competence of that person to do that job, that is
where it becomes corrupt patronage. I do not agree with that and
I will give notice that when I see it and as I see it I will do my bit
to blow the whistle.
However, do not ask me to subscribe to a dictum that says all
persons of the same party label as the party in power are hereby
disqualified for appointment however qualified. That makes no
sense. Nobody in this House in their right mind would subscribe
to that kind of dictum. It would be unfair. As much to the point it
would be counterproductive because we would be robbing
ourselves of the opportunity to appoint some competent people.
Let us look at something off the record. This is not
particularly an attack on the Tories. There are no Tories left
around here to attack. I want to draw a couple of recent example
and it just so happens that the last government that was in power
in this country federally was the Tory government. Let us have a
look at comparable periods.
The big bad Liberals, I will pick two equivalent periods, from
November 4, 1994 to February 3, 1995 in the one case and an
earlier set of years in another case. In the first case, the present
case, the big bad patronage infested Liberals over a 15-month
period from November 4, 1993 until February 3, 1995 have
made 700 appointments. The Globe and Mail with a research
team looking into this for days and weeks, we saw the article last
weekend, managed to identify that fewer than 80 of those
appointed had Liberal connections. That is only 80 out of 700. I
have to talk to the Prime Minister. That is discrimination. The
balance ought to be a bit more than that.
(1725)
I say to my friend from Delta when he was a card carrying
Liberal he would not have stood for that kind of unfairness.
Let us look at the period November 4, 1991 until February 3,
1993. These are not conveniently chosen dates. They are the last
dates I could choose within the mandate of the last government
that would parallel the 15-month period we are talking about
and that is why I chose that period. In that 15-month period the
Conservatives made 1,819 appointments, about two and a half
times as many as had been made in this period.
One of the realities of being in government is that there are
agencies, there are boards that need to have personnel appointed
to them. We cannot ignore that. This government under the
minister responsible did undertake a review. As a result we have
made a lot fewer appointments but some of them have to be
made.
The very people who stand in this House and decry
appointments have themselves been patronage appointments in
past times. I will not follow in the footsteps of someone else who
spoke earlier and name names. I do not believe that is fair in
terms of making the case. It is half fair in the sense that the
individuals whose names I have there are now members of this
Chamber and would have an opportunity to respond. However,
others were mentioned today who have never sat in this
Chamber and more to the point do not sit here presently and have
no recourse and cannot protect themselves.
I submit to my friends who were dragging out names today
that we can make the point that somebody may be the grandson
or the son or whatever relation. I did not have any say who my
grandparents were. I did not have much say who my parents
were. Should it disqualify me because my dad was a humble
carpenter, because my mother came from a family of
shipbuilders and worked as a domestic before her marriage?
Does that disqualify me? Should I carry those labels and
somebody should decide that I have to be pegged here because
my mother was a domestic and my father was a carpenter? How
far do we carry this thing in order to make some point about
patronage?
I guess my last sermonette could have been entitled ``people
who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'' because some
of them sitting in this Chamber right now had patronage
appointments from the former Tory administration.
There is one other issue that I would like to talk about. I am
not referring to the gentlemen from Charlevoix,
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, Elk Island, Red Deer, Fraser
Valley East, Calgary North, Port Moody-Coquitlam or Delta,
nor to the members for St. Boniface, Parry Sound-Muskoka,
Kitchener, London West and Oxford, not to mention the
members for Niagara Falls and Stormont-Dundas. Are there
other offers-or the member for Louis-Hébert. Just to pull
together what I have said on that issue, if there is something
wrong with the patronage system, it is the system that is wrong.
(1730)
There is no need to make scapegoats of individuals to make
one's point about what needs to be done with the system. That is
the only point I am making. I give notice. I have in front of me
the names of present members of this House but unless I
eliminate everybody and by extrapolation name the person, I
cannot go any further.
9303
In fairness to the people who asked me the question, they did
not need to ask the question. They would know full well if they
had been appointed. If they had been appointed they would not
be so loud in their protests that I inject a disclaimer on their
behalf.
If the member for Delta did not exist, we would have to create
him. He is such a delight. The members of the Reform Party
might have some say in that matter. There is one other item that I
want to go on to.
This bill is umbrella legislation. In many respects, it is what
we used to call comma legislation. It is not of any particular
consequence but it tidies up some things. It needs to be done. I
am not dismissing its importance but it is probably not going to
create a lot of jobs. Indeed it is cutting out quite a few, for
example ACOA.
I see I have my two minute signal so I had better say this very
quickly. I want to spend most of my time on ACOA, an
instrument of regional development very dear to my heart
because I have seen the good it has done in my own riding.
I can talk to members about an agriculture operation in Bay
St. George where 35 or 40 people are full time employees thanks
to some initiative from that agency. I can talk to members about
the salmon operation in Bay d'Espoir which employs 80 people
full time where we fly salmon on a daily basis to San Francisco
and Toronto and so on. It is a good producing industry that has
been going on now for 10 years.
I could talk to members about people who sit in Milltown, 35
of them, and do computer inputing for companies in Germany,
England and Australia on contract as a result of a little SEED
money they got five or six years ago from ACOA.
I see as I look around that the transition to the new economy,
the high tech part of it but agriculture in our case in
Newfoundland, the transition to a new set of endeavours in
Newfoundland is fully aided by that kind of agency. I sought to
speak in this debate particularly to give support to it. I would be
glad to invite any member of the House to go with me to my
riding so I could show members some of those success stories
that are the result of ACOA money.
The member has had an invitation that he has not yet taken me
up on. The invitation still stands. I see my time is up.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have just one
very quick comment. Perhaps the member for Burin-St.
George's will respond to it. Of all the agencies mentioned in Bill
C-65, almost all of them have a little clause that reads
something like this.
It says that on the day when this bill is proclaimed all people
who are on the commission prior to that will cease to be on the
commission. That unfortunately raises the sinister question,
why would we have to eliminate all present members of the
present board? Is it because the present government wants to be
able to appoint new people, displacing the patronage
appointments of the past?
(1735 )
We will be watching all of those agencies very closely and
noting the people who are dropped. We know they will all be
dropped if this legislation is passed; we expect with a majority
of Liberals it will be. Then we will be watching very carefully to
see who is put back on to the boards even though it is in reduced
numbers.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend for Elk Island,
he should be very watchful. That is what makes good
government, when we have people in the opposition and in the
government benches who monitor those situations.
To the first part of his question, although it is a question better
answered by the minister responsible, I would fully assume that
if one is going to alter the mandate of an organization, one might
want to start afresh. People who were put there, given the former
mandate, may or may not be qualified or as qualified to pursue
the new mandate. That is just an answer off the top of my head.
It is not uncommon when winding up and redefining an
organization to replenish its membership. The litmus test is the
one he put his finger on. The litmus test is whether any
hanky-panky-he did not say this, but I will say it for
him-goes on. If there are 10 people on the board with four
Liberals and six Tories or whatever, they will all be shoved
aside. If when the board comes back the next day the four
Liberals remain and the six Tories have all been replaced for no
better reason than they had different labels when it comes to
parties, then that is hanky-panky. I would be there with him
when he raises the point.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the hon. member on his excellent speech and his
very shrewd and wise comments about patronage. I wonder
whether he realizes that many of the positions we have abolished
were vacant. The government had the opportunity to fill them
but chose not to do so.
I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on the
contrast with patronage practices of the past. He has been a
member for a considerable period of time. Could he make a
comment on that fact?
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Kitchener on
his first point, I tried to get the figure, but I did not get it in time.
There are many hundreds of vacancies on government boards
now because we wanted to do the review before we began
appointing people to agencies that we either no longer need in
9304
terms of the government's policy thrust, or did not need in such
numbers.
For example, the ACOA board is going to be reduced from 18
members to 7. There were vacancies on that board, but it would
have been foolhardy for the minister responsible, my friend
from Cape Breton-East Richmond, to rush in and appoint those
people, knowing full well it was the government's intention to
reduce the size of the board.
As far as the second part of his question is concerned I say to
my friend from Kitchener that I think I alluded to that in my
speech when I said that both Liberal and Conservative
governments over the past have been guilty of what I
described-what I defined first but then described in the
context-as corrupt patronage, where you appoint people of a
particular party label for that reason alone, not because of their
competence to do the job.
A party label ought not to be the reason for the appointment,
but it should not exclude one from receiving such an
appointment. That was my point. A fair amount of it has gone on
in the past. What is more to the point is that since the
government took office I believe it has been fairly diligent. It
has had 150 backbenchers keeping an eye on it, as well as the
opposition. It has been fairly diligent on this matter. I do not
honestly believe that one can make much of a case that there has
been an orgy of patronage under this administration.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to congratulate my colleague for his very
interesting remarks and ask him to share his experience with us
on this point.
All too often in my view we have heard-as he said in his
remarks-names put forward that because there is some sort of
party connection, that person should somehow be disqualified.
Does the member in his experience feel that when a person
levels that sort of a charge, there should be an onus on that
person to show the individual appointed is in fact unqualified for
the position? To do otherwise is just to smear people who may
have this or that political affiliation, if that is the sole reason. It
is my view that the onus should be on the accuser to put the case
when they make the accusation.
(1740)
I wonder if the member would share his experience and his
point of view on that idea.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I do not get my jollies by
smearing people and I do not think that sets me above anybody
in the Chamber. I do not think anybody in the Chamber really
gets their jollies out of it. Sometimes we fall into the trap of
doing it. I have fallen into that trap over the years myself, but
that does not make it right.
Just now when I singled out an example of an earlier speaker
in this debate-not only one speaker, two or three speakers-I
did not name names. That would have defeated the point I was
making that one smear does not justify a second smear because
the thing just grows.
It seems to me, and I think I said it in my speech, that if people
have concerns about the system and document those
concerns-I recognize that some arithmetic has to be
done-then those people have this label or those people do not
have those qualifications. I submit that can be done without
naming names and make the same point.
I would submit that the law of averages says that of all the
people appointed, I dare say some of the 700 I mentioned just
now cannot do their jobs. Of the 295 members of Parliament,
probably some of them cannot do their job either. The law of
averages takes care of those. Nobody is going to suggest that
every one of the 700 appointments is absolutely brilliant. Some
of them were, I would guess, clumsy, stunned appointments.
But that is different than saying that somebody is sitting here
full time asking: ``How can we warp the system so that only
incompetent Liberals get all the jobs and nobody else will get
any''? Well, if that is the thesis, prove it but do not smear people
along the way.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate. I have just a
couple of comments on the previous speaker's comments on
patronage.
First I refer to the picture he has of the cow. I remember from
history class another famous cartoon of a cow. Perhaps some
other time he would like to comment on it. It is a picture of a cow
kind of straddling the Canadian map. It is foraging on the east
coast, being milked dry in Ottawa and its rear end is pointed
toward the west. That is a famous cartoon. It is kind of humorous
but sometimes I think there is an element of truth in it too.
On the definition of patronage, what causes concern for many
of us on this side of the House is that the Liberals campaigned so
hard against it. The red book comments on patronage. The
definition of a patron includes someone who is a former owner
of a slave. I guess depending on how you think their
commitment is to the party that appointed them, a patronage
appointment has a negative side to it.
I rise today to speak to this latest legislative initiative of the
government, Bill C-65, which gives legal force to an
announcement made by the the Minister of Public Service
Renewal on the day that he announced the downsizing of a
number of federal government boards eliminating 150
patronage positions. I assume he thinks that is a good thing. I
certainly do. He even announced the abolition of seven councils
and advisory boards.
9305
Like so many other Liberal initiatives this legislation is a
half-hearted attempt to placate voters rather than a fundamental
change in the way government works. There is much talk about
what is wrong with the system and the systemic change that is
required. He is very accurate. I do not see that this legislation
changes any system at all.
The Liberal government does not move quickly and
decisively to resolve the problems that the electorate is angry
about. It moves cautiously and slowly, inching far behind the
will of the people.
(1745 )
On this side of the House we often wonder why. Why does the
government drag its feet? It drags its feet because the
government is elected, operated and sustained by a coterie of
political friends. The way Liberal politics has always operated
in this country is to weld together an extraordinary network of
friends, often through the dispensation of favours.
The cabinet puts hundreds of old Liberals horses out to
pasture. Three hundred and fifty government boards, councils
and commissions liberally water these Liberal pack ponies until
the next election comes along. Every four years a very long list
of names builds up, very personal and private promises are made
and if the government delivers it can be assured of continued
support.
I want the House to know that the people who support the
Reform Party now and in the future do so because they want
good government, not because they have any chance of political
patronage plums.
Even during the last election when Reform had relatively
little chance of actually forming a government, they worked
their hearts out. That is because Reformers believe that there is a
different way to govern in Canada, that there is something called
merit that overrides patronage concerns, that there is such a
thing as pure political motivation where people get together and
become politically motivated because they love their country
rather than their salaries.
I am not saying that Liberals or even Liberal appointees do not
love the country. I am saying that their love for Canada and their
love of service to its people are sullied, are mixed, are mingled
with the motivation of private gain in the minds of some Liberal
appointees. When the collective will of the government,
operated by thousands of Liberal friends in key posts, is
expressed we are not surprised to find that any change from the
status quo is slow and tortuous.
Over a period of many years, even in a time of financial crisis
such as we are experiencing today, real change is agonisingly
slow, even when the public demands it. The movement of the
government is hindered by the collective will of people who are
gaining handsomely from the old way of doing politics.
The old ways are passing. We are entering a new political time
in Canada. Reformers foresee a government that is elected
through the public demonstration of its value, its ability to act
and react with speed and firmness to meet the real needs of the
country, not the perceived needs of friends, of special interest
groups, elite politicians and a few radical intellectuals.
The Reform Party of Canada was elected. It has support across
the country because Canadians are sick of the old ways
governments operate. In the last few weeks I have attended
meeting after meeting in my constituency. I have talked with
hundreds of constituents and they are very angry in my riding.
They are fed up. They are sick to death of the old ways and the
old spending, the old taxation and the old ways in which their
will is reinterpreted by the government.
The Liberal government seems to have some kind of a hearing
problem. When the people say no tax increases, the government
hears them say readjust the tax system. That is just another way
of saying there will be tax increases. When the people shout at
the government that they are sick of patronage, the government
hears them whisper they want to reduce patronage a little.
The government is hard of hearing. It does not understand
what the people want. Canadians want a different way, a
systemic change if you will, of appointing people to our boards,
our commissions and our advisory bodies. The people do not
want a little less of the same old thing, they want real change.
The Liberals cannot seem to hear what the people are actually
saying. When the people say that they want a smaller, less
intrusive government, the government repeats it in a different
way. The government says ``We understand. You want us to
eliminate a few advisory boards that did very little in the first
place. You want us to get rid of a few commissions that do not sit
anyway''. No, that is not what the people are saying.
The people are saying loud and clear-I hear it every day in
my office-that they want to get rid of government agencies that
look busy, agencies that are doing too many things right now.
They want to get government out of their lives. They want to
reduce the number of things that government does.
That is the difference between the Reform agenda and the
Liberal agenda. In every way the Liberal government attempts
to preserve the aging status quo.
(1750 )
The Liberals want window dressing. Reformers are window
cleaners. The Liberals want theatre. The Reform Party of
Canada wants real life. The Liberals want to throw today's hot
potatoes into the laps of the next generation and let it pay for it.
Reformers want to solve the difficult problems created by this
generation in this generation.
9306
That is why I oppose this legislation. Although it eliminates
a few useless boards and commissions, it does not bite into the
functions of government or into the systemic change that the
hon. member across the way was mentioning earlier. Although
it downsizes a few boards and eliminates a little patronage, it
leaves the patronage system entirely intact. If it is left intact
it must roll again.
Even this morning when I sat on the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons the last item
on the agenda was order in council appointments. There were
not many of them, just four, but nobody knows who these people
are. There is no way one can stop these appointments. Even the
other Liberal members on the committee did not know what it
was about. They asked if this was a rubber stamp and the word
came back from the clerk that yes, it was a rubber stamp. That is
why, as I mentioned earlier, if there is no systemic change I will
oppose this legislation.
Allow me to read the following. Some of it has been read
before but I think it should be read into the record again. It is a
list of patronage appointments being carried by the Globe and
Mail. It is ironic that the list was compiled by a senator who used
to work in Prime Minister Mulroney's office and today enjoys
the rich patronage fruits of the old Conservative regime.
If the listener can get over the nauseating hypocrisy of this
particular pot calling the kettle black, I will get on with the
business of reading a short part of this list. Just to get your blood
boiling listen to a few appointments that the Liberals have made.
Don Johnston, former Liberal Party president to the OECD. It
cost $100,000 just to win enough favour to get him. Richard
Kroft, director of the CNR. Jack Wiebe, the
Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia Liberal
fundraiser Robert Pace has somehow become a director of
Canadian National and his partner in Nova Scotia, Mervyn
Russell, is now chair of Halifax Port Corporation.
Robert Wright, a negotiator for the Pearson Development
Consortium, did a really good job. I think he pretty nearly has
the government into court now for a few hundred million
dollars. Anyway, he was the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser
for his leadership campaign and his services now cost us $1,000
per day. The whole Pearson deal was a Tory patronage
boondoggle in the first place and the Liberals won the election
partly by denouncing Tory patronage. I guess it is only fitting
that one be appointed to investigate it.
I am sure all Canadians are happy that the Prime Minister's
friend is benefiting from the old Tory patronage scheme in the
same sort of a Liberal way I guess.
I will resume my list. Jean Cordeau, chief aboriginal
organizer for the Prime Minister, is now director of
Petro-Canada. That obviously tied together. David Maclean, a
fundraiser for the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, is now
chairman of CN Rail. Gary McCauley, a former Liberal MP, is
now on the Immigration and Refugee Board, one of my
favourites. He makes about $85,000 a year. Congratulations,
Gary. Former Liberal candidate Bill Code somehow found his
way to the NAFTA disputes panel. Yves Caron, a former Liberal
MP, is now commissioner of the Canadian pension commission.
Michael McDonald, the financial agent for the minister of
public works, is now a director at Enterprise Cape Breton. The
minister of goodies is still at it. Andrew Ogarcenko, a well
known Liberal from Winnipeg-not to me-is now the director
of the National Arts Centre. He is the director of the National
Arts Centre which is a great job. Perhaps that is why in Question
Period today the Minister of Canadian Heritage mentioned that
the Liberal Party is doing an excellent job of promoting culture
in Canada. Of course a Liberal would be able to do that at the arts
centre.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health had a
very good campaign manager in the last election and he has
received his award. Ron Longstaffe is now chair of the
Vancouver Port Corporation.
Inderjit Bal was a member of the Immigration and Refugee
Board for a while. He received his reward after organizing
delegates for the Prime Minister and, who else, the Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration. Unfortunately, Mr. Bal had to
resign after it was found that he had entered Canada illegally
himself. Otherwise, he was very well qualified in all Liberal
aspects.
(1755 )
Richard Campbell is another campaign manager, this one for
the Secretary of State for Veterans. He is now director of Marine
Atlantic. We also have a judge or two. Judge Thomas Lofchik
was with the Ontario Court of Appeal, a prominent Liberal
organizer in Hamilton. I am sure that his appointment and his
political involvements are just a coincidence. We have another
judge, Federal Court Trial Judge Jean Richard. What was his
connection? He was a partner of the Prime Minister in his old
law firm. How about James Langston, former Liberal fund raiser
and organizer, now on the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
The taxpayers will be happy to see that the totally pure system
of justice is being used in this way. I could go on and on and on.
We have directors at the Bank of Canada, a host of appointees
to powerful quasi-judicial panels and boards of large
corporations. Patronage, I am sad to say, has even reached as
high as the highest appointment in the land, that of the Governor
General of Canada. He will be installed tomorrow, God bless
him. On this side of the House we wish him well.
9307
All of this is to say that we need a different, more objective
way of doing appointments. We need to find a way to select
the best, the brightest, the people who will help Canada to get
ahead in the world. To cut out the motivation of money would
do a lot of good for public bodies in this country or for political
favours cut out that motivation as well. We might have fewer
people helping out in political campaigns but the ones who do
so might be motivated with a higher and more noble purpose,
the ambition of the public interest unsullied by the hope of
personal gain.
Big government is also a problem. For instance, we should not
be reducing the board of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency. The board should disappear altogether along with the
political machine that funds it.
The board of the Canada Council should not be made smaller.
It should be wiped off the face of the earth, along with its
funding of radical and violent groups like Buddies in Bad Times
Theatre in Toronto, an organization which wrote a play
suggesting that an editorialist who penned an negative column
about its pseudo-masochistic seminars should be raped. That is
good stuff. We have to keep it around. The Canada Council funds
this group to the tune of $60,000 a year. I believe that any
council with that kind of discretion is a danger to the public
interest.
There are other boards, institutions and activities which
government should no longer be involved in. This noble bill
even goes so far as to create a new board called the Canadian
cultural properties export review board with up 12 new members
on it, 4 of whom have to have been art collectors or antique
dealers. I can hardly believe it. Even when the government is
downsizing, it is upsizing.
Patronage and big government are problems, big problems,
and these are just two of the reasons why I cannot support this
bill.
There are one or two things that it does eliminate which I wish
the government would have left in. For example, there is now no
minister required to table an annual report on emergency
preparedness. I guess Canada will never have an emergency.
Again, it is a small thing but why eliminate that board and keep
these other ones in place?
Another one that comes to mind, again an accountability
thing, a small thing, is the National Library of Canada, an
important federal institution. The archivist now is allowed to
destroy material without checking with anyone whether the
material should or should not be saved. I would suggest in this
day and age of political revisionists I seem to run into from time
to time that there should be a check and balance on the powers of
the national archivist. It is a small thing, an accountability thing,
but I think that accountability should have been left in place.
Finally, I believe sunset clauses should be included on each of
the boards so that legislation would not be required every time
we wish to wind down the operation of a government body. On
the less important agencies we could include a clause that would
require the minister to close the operations of the board at a
certain definable point. Perhaps a timeframe would be suitable
of five years for most boards. After five years the board would
automatically dissolve unless the government renewed it
through legislation.
Requiring legislation to renew mandates would make it harder
for these boards to be perpetuated long after their useful life is
gone. It would require the government to justify their continued
existence in the House of Commons and in the public. Of course
it would reduce the Liberal pastureland, so to speak. It could do
the taxpayer good and would make the government generally
more efficient.
We cannot support this legislation. This legislation is not
worthy of support. Let us see some changes in the process, some
real changes in the way we do government. As soon as the
government quits it showpiece legislation and comes up with
something concrete I will be applauding it, not from the front
row but from the fourth row. The Reform Party of Canada will
indeed support concrete solid measures.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship
Act, and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs
Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6 p.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on the motion at third reading stage on
Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the
Citizenship Act, and to make a consequential amendment to the
Customs Act.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 157)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
9308
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-152
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Chatters
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-84
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Canuel
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Dingwall
McTeague
(1830)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. We have
approximately 20 minutes left on Government Orders, so we
will continue with the debate on Bill C-65.
Those of you who have other commitments will please leave
the Chamber so we may continue with the business of Bill C-65.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to stand in the House today to address this particular
bill. Before I begin I need to make a few comments with respect
to the previous speaker, a colleague from the Reform Party who
did
9309
not stay around to handle questions. He was probably frightened
to do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know sometimes
it is difficult when a debate is split, in this case by a vote. I think
we all realize the commitments each and every one of us has to
fulfil at times.
We should not reflect on the absence of any member from the
Chamber at any time. I think it is a good practice and one we
should maintain.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I do want to add something else
that has nothing to do with presence or absence. Mr. Speaker,
have you ever envisioned that when Reformers speak a halo
suddenly starts to appear around their heads? They come across
as pure, white fallen snow. It is quite incredible. I am delighted
to be a Liberal, because I am an ordinary human being who has
strengths and weaknesses, unlike them.
Today gross exaggerations that I want to address were made
by a member of the Reform Party, but they have not fooled
anyone, and certainly not Canadians. Reform Party polls in the
whole of Canada are lower than the Bloc's in the whole of
Canada, and it is trying to tear the country apart.
Stay tuned. One of these days one of those Reformers will trip
and the halo will fall down and crack. We will find out that the
freshly fallen white snow is rather darkened and blemished. We
will shortly see whether or not Reformers sin.
I want to get to this important piece of legislation.
[Translation]
It deals with the reorganization and dissolution of certain
federal agencies.
What we are talking about today is a bill aimed at renewing
government and restoring confidence in it. That is what this bill
is about. It is a new type of government. A less cumbersome one.
A government aimed at increased efficiency. A government that
is responsive to the needs of Canadians throughout the country.
(1835)
A government concerned with increasing government
efficiency.
[English]
I want to quote this because it appears to be the only safe way
to not be misquoted by certain members of this House. The red
book says, ``The most important asset of government is the
confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable''.
That has been extremely important to this government.
We know that Canadians are tired of large government. They
have entrusted this particular party with the task of ensuring the
careful management of public funds. They want honesty and
integrity restored to their federal institutions. That is exactly
what is happening in spite of the Reform rhetoric.
Some of my colleagues on the other side have a lot of
difficulty listening to the truth. They jump and fidget and writhe
whenever the truth is spoken.
Mr. Abbott: I will let you know if we hear some.
Mr. Duhamel: In fact some of them have to rise from their
seats because they cannot stand the heat. They are probably
hungry too.
Mr. Speaker, you may recall that during the last budget the
Minister of Finance announced that we would have a full-scale
review to examine the size and relevance of existing agencies,
boards, commissions and advisory bodies in order to achieve
cost savings and ensure that if they were no longer needed or no
longer played a useful role they would be taken out. That is what
this bill is all about as well. The government has moved
simultaneously on three fronts, which will lead to a leaner, more
cost effective and efficient government.
Bill C-65 will bring into force decisions taken last July to
reduce the numbers, and streamline or reduce the size of
operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions where
there is an interest to do so, when they are no longer as relevant
or as important to Canadians, and where we can perhaps do
without them.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on July 8, 1994 the minister
responsible for this particular initiative issued an interim report
on the progress to date with the co-operation of his cabinet
colleagues. He was able to report that decisions had been taken
affecting 41 agencies and 9 different portfolios. Some people
will scoff at that, but I assure you it is a major initiative and has
been a successful one.
The legislation before the House today will place into law
those decisions requiring legislative action, as necessary.
[Translation]
What I wanted to stress more is that we are abolishing and
streamlining 22 government agencies. We are eliminating 150
positions filled by governor in council appointments. This is a
lot; it is concrete, a success for this government. In concrete
terms it means an annual saving of $1.5 million for taxpayers.
This is only the first round of measures.
I am going to give you a few examples of how thorough
planning pays big dividends. This is planning that the minister
initiated with his colleagues. He then began a long process of
consultation which ended in success, as in the case of
Petro-Canada with a reduction of its board of directors from the
current 15 to three. This is a major reduction.
I will give a few other examples quickly: the Canadian
Saltfish Corporation, created 25 years ago, will lose 24 posi-
9310
tions; the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will now have
seven board members instead of 18. Another major reduction.
Seven positions will disappear with the abolition of the board of
trustees of the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian research fund,
which manages funds intended for research on children's
diseases.
(1840)
But the interesting point is that this agency will no longer
exist to manage the funds, yet research will be carried on and
will from now on be performed by the Canadian Medical
Research Council. That is good planning.
I can give the House another example of amalgamation of this
type, namely the elimination of Emergency Preparedness
Canada as a separate body. The protection it provided will not
disappear, will always be necessary and Canada will continue to
be well served in this regard, but this role will be taken on by
National Defence and that makes sense. There is another
example.
We tried to establish whether certain roles were still relevant,
still served their purpose or had become superfluous. If they
were found no longer to be relevant, had become superfluous,
we eliminated them.
In cases in which it proved necessary to retain an agency, we
attempted to determine whether its role could be carried out with
fewer people, at a lower cost and perhaps more effectively.
[English]
Over a dozen organizations will have the number of their
board members reduced resulting in significant savings. A few
of those included in this group are, for example, the Canada
Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National
Arts Centre and the boards of four of Canada's national
museums.
Bill C-65 will give effect to the government's objective of
identifying sensible and practical actions to eliminate overlap
and duplication, and simplify government wherever possible.
As I have already mentioned, the review of agencies, boards
and commissions is but one aspect of our government's overall
approach to streamlining, restructuring and reorganizing
government. The program review and the work in improving the
efficiency of the federation are two additional initiatives which
attempt to reach similar objectives.
For example, the government has signed action plans that deal
with specific sectoral issues where overlap and duplication can
be reduced or eliminated within specific timeframes. That has
been done, if my memory serves me correctly, with nine
provincial governments and two of the territories. That is
important progress.
The program review is the other very significant initiative
that will give the government a new look. It will result in a
substantially different government, which focuses on core roles
and responsibilities. It is very important to focus on what can be
done and what we can afford to do.
There will be more announcements made with respect to those
initiatives very shortly.
[Translation]
I would also like to mention, and I believe this is a point we
should emphasize, the status quo does not exist, federalism is
evolving. It is a system, not because of its ability to evolve but
rather because of its ability to change and respond to changing
needs and always be aware of the needs of its population.
Our ability to embark upon the measures which I have just
mentioned is a function of a body, a system which is flexible,
adaptable and able to respond to the needs of our society and our
country.
By the same token, federalism is a form of government
characterized by its adaptability. Our entire history illustrates
the extreme flexibility of our system of government.
[English]
This point needs to be accentuated time and time again. Some
people like to pretend government and its institutions have not
changed, but this is blatantly false. Government continues to
change. Those who will not admit it have not taken the time to
look at it, study it, and really get into government to understand
the profound changes that are occurring.
Perhaps more than anything else, Canadians want their
government to be more responsive. They want governments to
listen to the people.
(1845 )
I understand that all MPs want to suggest they hold the truth,
that they listen to their constituents and that they should be
listened to. I believe that collectively somewhere lies the truth. I
have never believed that there is necessarily one answer to one
problem, particularly in today's society. I have never believed
that one member or one party holds all of the truths. I wish all of
us could think about that.
[Translation]
By the end of this program review, we will, as government,
have dissolved many other agencies, boards and commissions;
eliminated more than 600 positions and effected savings of over
$6 million a year for the taxpayers. In my book, this is an
enormous success.
To sum up, there are three points I would like to stress. First,
we have just reduced duplication and overlap in government.
Positive progress has been reported but, more importantly, work
will continue in that area.
In addition, agreements were signed with the provinces and
territories to ensure that every level of government can deliver
the services it is responsible for. What we want to do, above all,
it to ensure the efficiency of government operations, so that
9311
goods and services are delivered as efficiently and economically
as possible.
This work must and will continue because it is through such
initiatives, bringing about improvements on a daily basis, that
we will eventually have a better government in Canada. We
already have a very efficient government, but there is still room
for improvement. No organization can claim that it could not be
better.
I can see one of my colleagues from the Reform Party smiling.
I think that, in all honesty, he should answer the following
question. When I mentioned that the government we have is
already a good one, but that it is trying to be better, it made him
laugh. I have challenge for this person, a person who I am
unfortunately not at liberty of naming, although I would love to
and am tempted to do so, but I will not. He belongs to a political
party. Does he think that everything is perfect with his party?
Does he think that it cannot be improved in any way? Does he
think that his political party has all the answers?
I would like to hear what he may have to respond honestly to
these questions I have just put to him.
These are my comments for the moment.
[English]
As I have indicated, the government should be lauded for
these initiatives. They will bring about a more effective, leaner
government but not a meaner one. It is one that will attempt to
respond to Canadians' needs, in fact one that will continue to
respond to Canadians' needs and one that recognizes that we
need to continue to improve in order to get even better than we
are.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before recognizing the
member for Fraser Valley West, I just want to make the House
aware that at 6.50 p.m. we will move to Private Members'
Business. With the two minutes remaining I will split the time
evenly between the question and the answer. The hon. member
for Fraser Valley West.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess that means I cannot speak to this today. That is too bad.
I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. First of
all the assumption that this Liberal government already is an
efficient government is not only suspect, it is a ridiculous
comment. I do not think many Canadians would agree with that.
If it is so efficient I would like the member to tell us why all of
these charades are going across the country trying to get input
into major changes. We just saw the human resources failure to
prove that.
Since the member has said there has been good planning here
and the government has cut the number of board members, I
would like him to tell us how many boards are actually going to
be reduced. Never mind the board members, there are only a
few. Tell us how many boards are going to be reduced.
(1850 )
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says there is an
assumption that we are a good government. What I said was that
we were doing a reasonable job, in fact a very good job in certain
sectors and we are going to get better. The polls would confirm
that. Check our polls against Reform's which are lower than
those of the Bloc Quebecois and it is trying to tear this country
apart.
With respect to travelling around the country and calling it a
charade, let the record show that the Reform Party said
consultation was a charade. What a shocking statement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.50 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9311
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-282, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (medical
expenses-disabled senior citizens) be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is very dear to my
heart. I know so many disabled seniors who are in a terrible
financial bind because of the cost of dealing with their
disability, the medication, the equipment and so on.
At the same time, I cannot claim to be the first person to raise
this issue in the House. Indeed a committee of the House, the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of
Disabled Persons made recommendations to the House in March
1993. One of the recommendations was the very one that is in
effect embodied in this bill, that the taxes that people with
disabilities pay should be reduced by measures that offset their
disability related costs. That is the spirit of this bill as members
will see as I proceed.
The proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act is designed
to give tax assistance to disabled seniors with out of pocket
medical expenses.
The medical expenses tax is a non-refundable tax credit as
members know, meaning that eligible medical expenses are
added to other personal amounts. They are multiplied by 17 per
cent, the result being deducted from federal income tax
otherwise payable.
In less jargon let me put it this way. At present, expenditures
on eligible goods and services required for medical reasons in
excess of the lesser of 3 per cent of net income or $1,614 may be
used in calculating the medical expenses tax credit. To say it yet
9312
differently, you have to have $1,614 of medical expenses before
you can have a tax benefit.
That is not particularly a problem if you are hale and hearty
and earn $50,000 or $100,000 a year. However if for example
you are a disabled woman of 70 years of age living alone on an
income of $12,000 then $1,614 represents essentially
one-eighth of your income. Fully 12 or 13 per cent of that
woman's income is being spent to buy her required medications.
This bill is intended to address that issue.
The amendment I am proposing here would remove the
minimum threshold for tax filers age 65 and over and eligible to
claim the disability credit. They would be able to claim all
medical expenses from the first dollar, provided of course they
are in the category of being disabled and senior.
I submit that the proposal is very justified by the
disproportionate burden borne by disabled seniors with respect
to medical expenses. For example in 1991 the average
deductible medical expense for all taxpayers was $1,580. For
disabled seniors it was $2,716.
Disabled seniors thus pay considerably more in medical
expenses than the average person, while enjoying an income
markedly lower than average. They are therefore prime
candidates for tax relief with respect to medical expenses.
(1855)
This is a time of cost consciousness and of deficit reduction.
One question we should put on the table quickly is, how much
would this proposal cost? The answer applied in 1991 terms is
that across the country it would cost $2.7 million to implement
this provision in the bill. Let us say in round figures, in today's
terms, $3 million.
Who would it benefit? At the moment about 170,000 seniors
who are disabled and poor. The statistics on disabled seniors are
mind boggling. They are absolutely horrendous and they cry out
for a bit of justice here. Let me show you what I mean.
Of people in this country aged 65 years and over, 46 per cent
or 1,222,000 have some form of disability. Over 81 per cent of
disabled seniors have a mobility or agility disability.
Approximately 20,540 individuals or 8 per cent of the disabled
seniors in households who require mobility aids do not have
them. There are approximately 82,000 who require hearing
devices and another 23,000 who require visual aids who do not
have them.
Another statistic: Women with disabilities are four times
more likely to be widowed than men. It is 56 per cent compared
to 13 per cent. Another thing: Approximately 45 per cent of
disabled males compared with approximately 72 per cent of
disabled females report incomes under $10,000 a year. Nearly
half the disabled senior males and three-quarters of the females
had incomes under $10,000. That is the target group we would
seek to help here.
Unfortunately this is not a votable item but that is the luck of
the draw. I do not quibble with that. It is part of our procedure,
but I do wish it had been votable. I know that all members of this
Chamber would dearly love to have the opportunity to be
identified with this particular measure. There is however
another way. The government could introduce the measure as
government policy.
I can tell the House that I spoke several weeks ago with the
Minister of Finance on this issue. At that time he was quite
favourably disposed to the suggestion which we discussed in
some detail. I intend to pursue it with him and I invite other
members of the House to do so as well.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to you privately earlier, while I am
entitled to 20 minutes as the lead speaker in this debate, I prefer
to split my time with my colleague for
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. That will enable more
members to speak to this particular issue during the hour we
have assigned for this debate.
In conclusion, I say to all members that this issue of allowing
disabled senior citizens to claim the first dollar of expenditure
for tax credit purposes is an issue of compassion. It certainly is
that, an issue of compassion. I do not think I need to elaborate
for any members in this Chamber on what I mean. We can ease
some of the pain for those people who are hurting on that
particular issue.
Finally, it is also a dignity issue. These people have the double
whammy of poverty and disability. In many cases the poverty is
the result of dealing with the disability. Therefore in the name of
dignity, in the name of compassion and some fairness I would
appeal to all members of the House and the government to get
behind this issue.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support my hon. colleague
from Burin-St. George's on this proposed piece of legislation.
I think it is an excellent initiative and I support the proposal he
has made without hesitation.
I do not think there is a member of Parliament in this Chamber
who at some time or another early in the game has not heard
from a disabled senior citizen who has not been able to find the
financial means to survive like other members of our society.
(1900 )
Speaking of seniors in general, we have a large number of
seniors in Canada and it is continuing to grow. In 1971, 8 per
cent of our population consisted of senior citizens. In 1991 the
census figures showed 12 per cent of Canadians were senior
citizens.
9313
The growth is very rapid. The latest figures I have seen show
that by the year 2036 we expect to have somewhere in the
vicinity of 25 per cent of Canadians as senior citizens. This I
believe gives even more impetus to the suggestion the hon.
member has made.
To recap, I will use some of the figures that may be slightly
different from his, however the point is still the same. The
purpose of the bill essentially is to make it more fair for disabled
seniors, quite a few in Canada. Specifically, it removes the
requirement for seniors to have to pay, to have to reach a
threshold or to have spent a total of $1,614 or 3 per cent of their
income, whichever is the lesser-it is usually the lesser based on
the 3 per cent-before they can deduct the 17 per cent of their
medical expenses; in other words, to get some return for an
expense on necessity.
Why would we make this proposal? Yes, it is out of
compassion and it is out of dignity. However, there are some
figures that support the reason we should be proposing and
supporting this. First, disabled seniors make less and pay more
for medical expenses. The figures quoted by my hon. colleague
are accurate. The average income tax return in 1991, the year for
which the figures are solid, was $25,639. That was the average
income for those people who filed taxes. The average income for
a disabled senior was $23,069. That is 10 per cent less than the
average income filed.
The average expense for medical deduction was $1,580,
whereas the average expense for a disabled senior was almost
twice that amount, $2,716. There is one reason we should seek
compassion and consideration for disabled seniors.
The second reason is that not only is their income lower, the
income is based on the average, but the median income, the
income that is the most recurring, not necessarily the average,
the one that is basically what most of the disabled seniors earn or
make, is closer to a low income level.
I agree with the figures suggested by my hon. colleague. The
last time I checked the figures of the 21,000 disabled seniors in
the province of Newfoundland whom I represent, 18 per cent are
from low income families.
We have a group of people who deserve compassion, dignity
and to be given some more hope than the average person who is
not disabled or senior who can perhaps more afford to absorb the
expense.
I am very conscious that I am part of a government in which
the hon. Minister of Finance is trying to scrape the barrel to find
every cent he can. I think every member in this House is
conscious of that no matter where we stand on the issue of the
budget and how it is executed.
The fact of the matter remains that for the number of disabled
seniors this would help, we are looking at a sum of less than $3
million. Three million dollars is a lot of money to you, Mr.
Speaker, and it is a lot of money to me. What is it in the overall
expenditure of things considering the target and the group of
people we are looking at?
Consider that we give in the vicinity of $5 billion to business
and it says it does not really need it and does not use it well.
(1905 )
There are a lot of loopholes that have been discussed in this
House tonight, yesterday and before the Christmas recess. It is
the subject of many recurring media reports.
Against that backdrop $2.7 million is not a great deal of
money.
I have talked about the seniors we have. I also have to remind
members that of the seniors in our country, 46 per cent have
some kind of a disability. Of that percentage of 46, 84 per cent
live in households. In other words, they do not live in
institutions where medical care, wheelchairs, hearing aids and
visual aids are available to them.
Specifically, of those who live in households, 20,000-plus or
8 per cent need mobility assistance and cannot get it. Thirty-one
per cent need hearing assistance and cannot get it. Ten per cent
need visual assistance and cannot get it. Why?-it is not because
it is not available, it is because they cannot afford it.
I would suggest if this private member's bill were passed it
would certainly ease the burden on that group of Canadians
which is least able to afford the expense to basically enjoy the
necessities of life.
There is another statistic that I did not recall from my hon.
colleague. I was also told that of the expenses that seniors who
are disabled spend out of pocket, 20 per cent is for prescription
and non-prescription drugs. That is one-fifth of their out of
pocket expenditure. That also gives some indication of the
magnitude and the importance of this particular bill.
I am like most other members in this House. I have 72 seniors
groups in my riding. I have visited practically all of them. I have
never visited one from which I have not come away inspired;
inspired by the leadership they provide their community in
helping themselves, in providing activities and staying very
much alive.
I also find they are a great inspiration to the younger members
of the community, showing them how to live by providing
examples of life as it can be lived and, perhaps more than
anything, showing all the communities I represent and which
other members of this House represent the whole idea of picking
themselves up by their boot straps and moving together in
co-operation so that the synergism of the groups and the
individuals in the groups amounts to more than the sum of the
separate individual members. In my riding the largest group has
9314
about 80 members and the smaller groups in some of the smaller
communities sometimes have ten members, sometimes less.
My point is yes, dignity; yes, compassion, but also hope. This
measure would indicate to the seniors that kind of compassion
that Canadians from all sides of this House have for them and for
their well-being.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to support Bill C-282 proposed by my
colleague from Burin-St-Georges.
The main purpose of Bill C-282 is to amend the Income Tax
Act in order to exempt taxpayers aged 65 and over who qualify
for the disability credit from the provision that only expenses
exceeding the lesser of 3 per cent of net income or $1,614 are
included in the calculation of the allowable amount.
In other words, this amendment will allow handicapped
people over 65 to deduct from their income the cost of drugs and
other medical expenses. This amendment changes the definition
of formula symbol ``C'' in subsection 118.2(1) of the Income
Tax Act.
The main effect of this bill will be to alleviate the
disproportionate burden that medical expenses represent for
handicapped seniors.
(1910)
We all know that our old people spend a larger proportion of
their income on health care than other taxpayers.
Some parts of subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act in its
present form give us food for thought. For instance, we know
that the medical expense credit and the disability credit are
designed to alleviate the tax burden of eligible people.
Subsection 118.2(1) contradicts this principle by taxing eligible
people for up to 3 per cent of their income spent on health care.
Subsection 118.2(1) clearly violates the tax principles
currently recognized in the Income Tax Act, thus requiring
handicapped people to spend more.
According to a report by the National Advisory Council on
Aging, seniors are twice as likely as the Canadian population as
a whole to suffer from various diseases and health problems
such as arthritis, high blood pressure, heart problems and
respiratory disorders. They are also the most affected by
physical and mental disabilities.
Again, according to the National Advisory Council on Aging,
44 per cent of men and 47 per cent of women in that age group
suffer from various health problems. Seniors should get all the
attention they deserve.
When the last budget was tabled in February 1994, the Bloc
Quebecois denounced the fact that the tax credits available to
our seniors were cut by $500 million. The Bloc Quebecois has
always asked this government to restore equity. So the $2.7
million that this bill will give back to handicapped seniors is
very little compensation.
I might add that just as the federal government was cutting tax
credits for seniors, we learned that the largest proportion of
seniors living in poverty was found in Quebec.
Bill C-282 is aimed at restoring a tax loophole. True, Canada
is facing a major financial crisis and must put its fiscal house in
order. This is why it is appropriate, just a few weeks before the
next budget is tabled, to mention once again that the Bloc
Quebecois asked for a thorough review of the tax system, so as
to eliminate the loopholes used by high income earners and
major corporations.
The Bloc also proposed efficient measures to reduce the
deficit and control government finances without targeting the
poor. These proposals, ten of them, were listed in the Bloc
Quebecois's minority report on the pre-budget consultations,
which was tabled in December.
As the Official Opposition critic on health, it goes without
saying that I look at poverty with the issue of health in mind.
Poverty affects 4.2 million people in Quebec and in Canada.
There are 1.2 million children who live in poverty. A large
majority of single mothers, women who are single parents, and
seniors live in poverty.
The link between poverty and health was clearly established
in several studies. Low income people, such as seniors, are more
frequently ill, use more medication and require greater medical
attention. Poverty among the elderly has increased
tremendously over the last several years.
According to a study conducted by Santé Québec, almost all
of the 25 most common health problems in Quebec are more
prevalent among low income people than among those who are
better off.
To better control the general state of health of Quebecers and
Canadians, and thereby control health costs, we must first work
relentlessly to solve the issue of poverty. By refusing to
acknowledge the link between poverty and health problems, the
federal government compromises the efficiency of our health
system, thereby jeopardizing the health of a large number of
Quebecers and Canadians who live below the poverty level.
(1915)
If we look past the numbers and the statistics, we see real
people, people who are suffering, people who are sick and are
hungry, people who are waiting for the government to assume its
responsibilities and to propose long-term solutions.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it has been proven
without a doubt that the health of Quebecers and Canadians is
closely linked to the endemic poverty that has swept across the
country during the last recessions. Since it is well-known that
this state of poverty, which affects too large a segment of the
population that we represent, has a big impact on the cost of the
9315
public health care system, we feel that we must urgently attack
the problem at its root, which is poverty.
We should also remember that the men and women who are
now seniors, only yesterday, blazed the trail and built with their
own hands, their efforts and their lives, the Quebec and the
Canada we live in today. Thanks to them, our society offers us a
certain quality of life and certain values, because all through
their lives, they worked to implant and strengthen them.
Today, these builders are taking a well-deserved rest. They
have passed the torch on to us, and it is important, even our duty,
to ensure that they be treated with respect during this period of
rest to which they are entitled. Bill C-282 faithfully provides
this respect. I have explained to you why I approve of Bill
C-282.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before
I begin my comments on Bill C-282, I would like to preface my
remarks by putting this in its proper context.
It was interesting when the member for St. Boniface was
making comments in regular House business, he was saying that
Reform members think they have haloes. No, we do not think we
have haloes, not at all.
We do look at some of the actions of the government. We do
look at some of the things it is doing, particularly when we look
at the plight of seniors in our nation and how they will be
potentially impacted positively, I might say, by Bill C-282. All
of these things have to be put into context.
I draw to the attention of the House the Ottawa Citizen of
yesterday which states: ``Treasury Board president had met
bitter caucus resistance to serious pension reforms'', that is
from the Liberals, ``in December. He said he could only promise
the government will fulfil vows made during the 1993 election
campaign''.
The issue in Bill C-282 is particularly near and dear to the
people. They see the Liberals incapable of coming to a
consensus on something very simple and straightforward.
Return MPs' pensions to normal industry standards. What is
complex about that? I do not find anything complex about it. I
realize I should not imply or impugn values, so I would not use
the word hypocrisy in that context.
I am also interested in some of the actions of the government.
The Calgary Sun on the weekend noted that in the past year
Ottawa has announced a $50 million anti-smoking campaign
while at the same time giving away $400 million of taxes
because it was unwilling to enforce the laws of the land as they
stood. It established a new $30 million anti-racism committee
and will spend $1 million to celebrate the 30th anniversary of
the Canadian flag.
I have had the good fortune of being able to travel offshore as
a tourist from time to time. I am very proud of the Canadian flag,
wear it on my apparel, have it on my suitcase. It stands for the
great nation that we are. But to be putting out $1 million at this
time for a 30th anniversary when we are talking about the
enactment of Bill C-282 being a potential cost of $3 million to
the treasury, the numbers just do not add up.
(1920)
While I do not see in any way the concept of Reform members
feeling that they have haloes, on the other side of the coin I can
see why Canadians might say to themselves: ``I do not
understand a party where there are such willy-nilly things all
over the place that just do not seem to make any sense''.
Before I begin my comments on this bill I would also like to
say that I really applaud and salute the member for Burin-St.
George's for his initiative on this. His intent is very laudable.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-282, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act on medical expenses for disabled senior citizens. As has
already been recited, the purpose of this bill is to lower the
threshold for deductibles of seniors for the medical expenses tax
credit. It lowers the threshold by altering the formula for
determining the medical tax credit for disabled seniors by means
of rewording item (c) of subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax
Act.
Under the current law the first $1,614 dollars, or 3 per cent of
net income, is required to be spent before it can be taken into
account for income tax purposes. The bill would make it
possible for all eligible medical expenses from the very first
dollar to, in effect, be income deductible for senior citizens.
The reason for targeting disabled seniors for redress is
because their higher medical expenses and lower incomes leave
them with a disproportionately high relative cost from the
limited deductibility. It is estimated that the average deductible
medical expense for disabled seniors is twice as high as that for
all other tax filers.
The proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act could result
in a potential revenue loss of approximately $3 million.
Certainly not a huge amount in light of the numbers we were just
talking about; a $400 million giveaway for taxes on cigarettes
no longer collected. Actually I understand from other sources
that it will be $800 million and $50 million for an anti-smoking
campaign to counteract that. It seems to me we are getting close
to a billion dollars when we add on the $30 million plus the $1
million I was talking about. Therefore, $3 million certainly is
not a huge amount.
On the face of it, the bill seems fair and equitable. By altering
part of a formula for the purpose of allowing disabled seniors
9316
more deductions for medical expenses is part of horizontal
equity. In my judgement the current rumours very rampant
around the country that the government is going to be taxing
medical and dental benefits would all be part of this whole thing.
I see the bill as an attempt to square a circle, the circle being
the targeting of disadvantaged seniors inadvertently targeted by
an aberration in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the bill itself is
not disturbing. As a matter of fact, I would probably as revenue
critic for my party recommend that we seriously consider
supporting it if it was votable.
What is disturbing is discovered by attempting to determine
the effects of the bill. The bill amends subsection 118.2(1) of the
Income Tax Act. In that subsection is a formula for the medical
expense credit. Let us look at just this little snapshot of some of
the complications in the Income Tax Act.
I have to read this. The formula is a(b) minus c (minus d)
where a is the appropriate percentage for the year; b is the total
medical expenses of the individual; c is presently the lesser of
$1,614 and 3 per cent of the individual's income for the year; d
concerns the income of dependants and spouses as claimed by
the person filing for the medical expense tax credit. Part c of the
formula is altered by this bill by adding (a) an amount under
section 118.3. Section 118.3 deals with a tax credit for mental or
physical impairment and (b) an amount under subsection
118(2), in which case C is equal to zero.
(1925)
That is really terrific. Therefore we have before us in this
simple one-page bill which touches the medical expense credit,
the tax credit for medical or physical impairment and the age
credit, a bit of an idea why Canada's Income Tax Act is over
2,000 pages long. One can see how it got to be that big. That is a
matter of philosophy. Let me describe the philosophy that leads
to an ever-growing act and a constantly increasing tax burden on
Canadians.
There is perceived a need or deficiency encountered by
certain individuals such as, for example, mental or physical
impairment. I really admire the work of the member from
Newfoundland but he believes that the government is to be used
as an instrument of action that enacts or changes legislation to
address this need.
I certainly accept that this was done with the best of intentions
by well-meaning individuals, as was the case with this bill.
What happens when the government acts to address the needs of
only one group of people? Other groups and individuals seek to
address their problems through government action. That is how
we ended up with age credits, medical expense credits, GST
credits, charitable donation credits, political donation credits.
The list goes on endlessly.
The Income Tax Act quickly changes from being
straightforward legislation which sets rates of taxation and
strictly defines taxable income into an amalgamation of credits,
write-offs, grants seeking to redress or placate every group in
Canadian society. This is the snowball effect where the small
snowball starts at the top of the hill and picks up speed on the
way down the hill.
What the Liberals fail to ignore or to understand is that the
fiscal crisis we are currently in is not a result of a few years of
unbalanced books. It is a result of a conscious decision in the
1960s and the 1970s of the government to involve itself in the
lives of its citizens to an unprecedented degree. The
involvement of the government into the lives of citizens, once
begun, is very hard to slow down, to stop and even harder to
reverse. What we see in this band-aid legislative proposal is that
a band-aid would not stop the Titanic from sinking.
It further complicates an overwhelmingly loaded, confusing
and complex collection system. Combined with the Liberal's
blind homage to the outdated concept of big brother knows best,
Canadians lack real hope of reform.
As I mentioned, if this was a votable bill, I would be
recommending to my caucus that we support it for all the good
reasons that will be expounded. But the real reason in my
judgment for this bill to even have to be in place is the
complexity of the Income Tax Act that the government refuses
to do anything about.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few
moments tonight addressing the House on the benefits of Bill
C-282 and to congratulate my hon. colleague from Burin-St.
George's for his initiative and work since 1993 on this valuable
legislation.
No doubt every member's riding, the same as mine in
Cumberland-Colchester, is comprised of large numbers of
senior citizens, many of whom are disabled. Most members,
including myself, have parents whom this bill would potentially
affect. In fact, it is the disabled parents and grandparents of this
nation to which this bill is addressed and not just a change in the
Income Tax Act. It is a statement of principle, namely Liberal
principles, of how the government views and treats our rich
resource of knowledge and wisdom, our human resource, our
seniors, particularly our disabled seniors.
These are men and women who have worked hard all their
lives and have jumped one of the last hurdles toward retirement
only to find themselves struck with the financial burden along
the way having become disabled and not able to enjoy the fruits
of their life.
(1930 )
Unfortunately, though, we helplessly watch as they grow
older, the ravages of time and disease claiming their strength
and vitality. They often require extra support from the medical
community which in many cases was neither expected nor
9317
accounted for. This can easily drain their retirement savings, if
they have any, and as a result many seniors end up being the
responsibility of the other spouse or some overworked social
worker.
For many seniors as they go beyond the 65 year mark their
medical expenses in ratio to their income rises far beyond their
ability to maintain anything human in lifestyle.
It is inevitable that all people will eventually need some form
of medical attention as they grow older. However, when the cost
of this required attention becomes so burdensome that their
overall financial freedom and quality of life are reduced, the
so-called golden years become bitter tears.
Added to this indignity, the Income Tax Act in its present
form drops an extra load on them by not allowing adequate
concession to deduct their medical expenses.
As has been stated by my hon. colleagues, the allowable limit
on the medical exemption tax credit is the lesser of either 3 per
cent of net income or $1,614. This means that the cash outlay for
seniors up to this amount is taxed as part of their incomes.
This should not be. We should be giving every consideration
to retired Canadians, especially those who have had the
misfortune of falling prey to a disability.
Technology kept in its rightful place is a wonderful thing. It
has allowed individuals to progress from caster boards to
modern electric wheelchairs. Microelectronics now allow
hearing impaired individuals to do away with listening horns
and progress to highly advanced optometry. All of these aids
cost money. One of the beneficiaries of this great technology is
the disabled senior but as it presently stands many cannot afford
these technology products.
A Statistics Canada survey on senior's health and limitations
says that 8 per cent of disabled seniors who require mobility aids
do not have them, 31 per cent who require hearing aids do not
have them, 10 per cent of those requiring visual devices do not
have them. The reason is financial cost.
The income of many disabled seniors is low. Sixty per cent of
seniors with disabilities have an average income of less than
$10,000. Many simply do not have the money for medical
prescriptions or appliances for their needs.
We must remember that these people are the ones who built
this country with their ingenuity and labour, who fought our
wars and who endured hardships in the darkest times. They are
parents, school teachers, doctors and neighbours.
Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, defined
the quality of a nation: ``A strong nation, like a strong person,
can afford to be gentle, firm, thoughtful and restrained''.
There have been many comments from Canadians in recent
years over the faceless and heartless form of government. We
have been accepting of the norm and we are tolerant. I do not
wish to see this Liberal government remembered as a faceless or
heartless government. We must move back toward the gentler,
thoughtful and restrained days of the Government of Canada
they have known before these present years. Our firmness will
not be lost. We are a strong a nation. We can afford to show our
elderly consideration.
What this bill is about is the cost of taxation that is too high to
a particular sector of society which has a low ability to pay. This
is inequitable. It is also very unfair. What this bill is about is
putting fairness in the Income Tax Act for our disabled seniors.
What this amendment does is allow all medical expenses to be
deductible for disabled seniors.
Recently I received a letter from a couple in my riding who are
in the position of many disabled seniors across this country.
They wrote to me and I telephoned them to get permission to
read a little of their letter:
Dear Mrs. Brushett,
I am writing on behalf of my husband and myself to express our concern for
the government's proposed changes to social programs such as old age
assistance. Our concern is for people like ourselves who are trying to live on
fixed incomes, pay our usual living expenses, buy prescription drugs, walkers,
wheelchairs and special devices, some of which we pay taxes on when
purchased.
While we realize something must be done about the deficit, the answer is not
with people who don't have much of a chance of helping themselves.
When we talked to Mr. and Mrs. Tower of Amherst, Nova
Scotia, they said ``We are getting by. We are able to make do. We
do not have much left but we are able to make do''.
(1935)
This bill would allow eligible medical expenses from the first
dollar to be effectively income tax deductible. This bill would
help people like the Towers of Amherst, Nova Scotia.
We have the opportunity as a government to exhibit strength
of character and to make adjustments for those in this country
who need it most. We cannot let this issue die only to be brought
forward again in the future by those who may not see
particularly as clearly as we do today.
Finally, I wish to re-emphasize that Bill C-282 is going to
effect the people who need it most. It will not be a set of
statistical data sitting on a storage shelf collecting dust. It will
not help the research notes of political science students. It will
9318
help living, breathing human beings who need help most in our
communities today.
In the spirit of the words once spoken by the Right Hon. W.E.
Gladstone I would affirm: ``Show me the manner in which a
nation cares for its elderly and I will measure with mathematical
exactness the tender sympathies of its people, their respect for
the laws of the land and their loyalties to high ideals''.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if adopted, Bill C-282 would amend the Income Tax
Act to remove, for taxpayers aged 65 and over and eligible to
claim the disability credit, the requirement that only
expenditures on goods and services required for medical reasons
in excess of the lesser of 3 per cent of net income or $1614 may
be used in calculating the medical expenses tax credit.
We in the Bloc Quebecois support this proposal, since all
medical expenses would be fully deductible from the income of
disabled seniors. This change in the system would be made by
changing the definition of formula symbol ``C'' in subsection
118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Disabled seniors have substantial medical expenses that are
often higher than those of other tax filers. The 1993 national
advisory council on seniors sketched the following picture of
the health of seniors in Canada: About 80 per cent of seniors
aged 65 and over said they were suffering from one or several
chronic conditions, while only 20 per cent said their activities
were restricted to the point where they required assistance in
getting on with their daily lives-this according to statistics
compiled in 1991.
It is clear that limited deductibility represents an enormous
expense for disabled seniors, considering their many medical
expenses and low incomes. These people pay taxes on amounts
that may represent up to 3 per cent of their income, which is not
in accordance with currently recognized tax principles.
The proposed amendment would only provide tax relief in
terms of expenses actually incurred. It would not change the
provisions on production of receipts, which are already included
in the Income Tax Act. The 1993 national advisory council on
seniors also described the health problems of seniors, saying
that seniors aged 65 and over were twice as likely as the rest of
the population to report respiratory problems, arthritis and
hypertension, and three times as likely to report cardiovascular
problems.
Among seniors, the percentage of mentally or physically
disabled in 1987 was 47 per cent for women and 44 per cent for
men. These ratios, together with the rate of multiple disabilities,
tend to increase with age. During the 1991 tax year, the latest
year for which data are available, 153,490 tax filers aged 65 and
over claimed the disability credit.
(1940)
Of this number, 91,050 had taxable income. This is the group
for which the proposed amendment could represent an
additional cost to the federal tax system. Of the 153,490 filers,
18,380 claimed medical expenses greater than the deduction
limit.
Basically, if the amendment were passed, all these taxpayers
could see their medical expense credit increase by three per cent
of their net income, that is to say by the amount they used to
have to subtract on their return.
On the other hand, this amendment affects a larger group:
taxpayers with medical expenses lower than the deduction limit,
often under $200, who would also be claiming the medical
expense tax credit.
The approximate figure of 91,050 disabled senior citizens
with a taxable income is indicative of the potential number of
claimants. If you subtract those who are already claiming the
medical expense credit, the total number of persons affected is
80,000.
Combined tax expenditures in terms of basic federal income
tax on both groups, the old and new medical expense credit
claimants, for 1991 are about $2.6 million, without the federal
surtax which, if it were added on, would bring the grand total to
about $2.7 million. This amendment to the Income Tax Act is
needed to improve the quality of life for handicapped seniors.
A Canadian Press article published in the January 26 edition
of Le Droit quotes a just released study by the national advisory
council on aging as saying that Quebec seniors are the poorest in
Canada and that Quebec holds the dubious record of the highest
poverty rate among people aged 65 and over in Canada.
According to the council, despite some improvement in their
economic situation, many seniors, especially those living alone,
live in poverty. The council also found that women aged 65 and
over have less money than their male counterparts, a gap which
increases after 75.
Old age security is still the main source of income for seniors,
especially women. People aged 65 and over get over 50 per cent
of their income from government programs.
The study shows that in 1992, the percentage of people
making less than $15,000 increased with age, especially among
women.
A Canadian Press article published in the January 21, 1995
edition of Le Droit stated that middle-class workers would not
be able to spend their old age in comfort and that, according to
the Canadian institute of actuaries, taxing RRSPs would have
disastrous consequences. The institute feels that this measure
would lower the savings rate in Canada and increase public
9319
expenditures in the long term, when the baby boom generation
reaches retirement age.
In the future, the challenge for individuals and decision
makers will be to balance the various sources of retirement
income, so as to ensure that private and public retirement funds,
along with personal savings, will be such that the largest
possible number of Canadians and Quebecers can enjoy an
adequate standard of living in their retirement years.
It is essential for the government to realize that it must not cut
into social programs and thus reduce the quality of life of our
seniors. Rather, it must cut into the family trusts of rich
Canadian families, since assets held in these trusts are not
subject to capital gains tax for several years.
(1945)
These trusts allow rich families to protect part of their family
assets from generation to generation. Family trusts, which were
introduced in 1972 by the Trudeau government, required a
deemed disposal of assets in trust after 21 years, that is in 1993
for trusts set up before 1973.
The Bloc Quebecois has nothing against family trusts;
however, it does object to their use as tax loopholes. For
example, the Bloc is against the deferral, to the next generation,
of the tax payable on capital gains. We also ask the government
to release the figures on the value of assets held in family trusts
and on the loss of tax revenue resulting from the deferral of the
tax payable on capital gains.
The Income Tax Act should also be amended to prevent
Canadian companies with subsidiaries abroad from using the
fiscal losses of these subsidiaries to reduce their taxable income
in Canada.
Bill C-282 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act so as to
eliminate, for taxpayers aged 65 and over who are eligible to the
credit for disability, the applicable reserve. This bill is
acceptable, since disabled senior citizens are often among the
poorest people in our society.
As spokesperson for Canadian associations and organizations
representing seniors, I once again pledge to ensure that this
social program review does not become a mere exercise to cut
into programs which protect the poor, and particularly the
elderly.
I have always been firmly opposed to letting the federal
government reduce the deficit at the expense of our seniors, who
have worked all their life and who deserve a decent standard of
living.
We support this measure because all the medical costs would
be deductible from the income of disabled seniors, and we feel
that this amendment is essential.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to be able to reply to Bill
C-282, moved by the member for Burin-St. George's, a most
beautiful peace of the rock.
I commend the hon. member for his initiative. I only wish it
were a votable item. I find there are a growing number of seniors
moving into my riding of Victoria-Haliburton. As the
population in my area grows, this bill will be a great asset to the
people in my riding. In other words, all eligible medical
expenses will effectively be income deductible for disabled
seniors.
Elimination of the burden borne by disabled seniors with
respect to medical expenses is indeed something to be
commended. Disabled adults over the age of 65 have the highest
medical expenses of any group in our society.
This bill, moved by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's
will provide relief for over 170,000 seniors who qualify because
of low income, and the number of those in that age bracket is
growing every year.
The bill targets a very deserving group in our society and is
designed to address the need for fairness in the Income Tax Act.
Three million dollars will be available for 170,000 poor,
disabled, deserving people who are seniors. Who could question
this motivation? Fifty-six per cent of the group are women.
I commend the member. I promise to bring my concerns and
the concerns of other members to the minister, and work for
disabled seniors not only in Victoria-Haliburton but in all of
Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9319
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to once again pose a question I posed to the minister
responsible for ACOA. I posed this question on December 8 and
I do not believe I received a satisfactory answer. Therefore, I
would like to raise it again.
When I do get the answer this time I would rather not go into
the rhetoric of regional development grants. I would like to get
9320
an answer to the question. With all due respect I am trying to
determine whether or not this Liberal government can assess
what is productive in regional development grants.
I want to read the question I raised: Does this minister know
the difference between a grant and a loan that is not repaid at
taxpayers' expense? The reason I asked this was that when the
minister was in Atlantic Canada he suggested that ACOA was no
longer going to give grants, it was going to be dealing in
repayable loans.
In 1992-93 ACOA wrote off $50 million in loans. I guess
what this government has to understand is that a loan that is
written off is no different from a grant because the individual is
really not accountable for the loans.
If ACOA is now exclusively involved in the loan business, the
question I posed to the minister was relevant to the FBDB which
is actually the arm that provides venture capital to business on
loans.
I would like to pose the question again in a simpler way. If the
government is taking grants away from ACOA and ACOA is
now one of the institutions responsible for venture capital or
repayable loans, why not close down ACOA and let the FBDB
take its place? That would save some money on the operations of
ACOA and still would provide venture capital to Atlantic
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. parliamentary
secretary. I would also like to mention that she is the member for
Halifax.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, and I am a
proud maritimer who did not go down the road.
It gives me great joy to respond to the hon. member for Fraser
Valley West and to remind him that on December 7, 1994 the
minister for ACOA delivered an address which charted a new
course for regional development in Atlantic Canada. That was
the outlining of the Team Atlantic approach to private sector job
creation and an end to grants to business.
He said that within a couple of months ACOA would be
releasing the policy and hey, guess what? February 7, two
months to the day later, ACOA released the new policy this
afternoon to make direct assistance to business repayable. I do
not know when members opposite will learn that when this
minister says he is doing something he does it.
This new direction for ACOA will make 100 per cent of direct
assistance to business under the action program fully repayable
on a fixed timetable. This new policy was established in
consultation with provincial governments and business which
support complete repayability.
ACOA will continue to make unsecured risk capital available
for small and medium sized enterprises, SMEs. We have heard
the concerns of SMEs which stated that access to capital is the
key to success. This patient capital allows business to become
successful before repayment is required.
I was glad to hear that the leader of the Reform Party supports
the government's direction in this matter as he stated on the
CTV news in December 1994 that it was a step in the right
direction. However, it is unfortunate that the member continues
to spuriously attack the only agency of government devoted
exclusively to the needs of Atlantic Canadian business. This
must reflect some underlying attitude.
I say we should stand and congratulate the minister for the
constructive solutions he is offering to the problems confronting
the region. We know what the problems are. We know that
ACOA, not FBDB, is the answer to those problems and we are
going to get on with the job.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.54 p.m.)