CONTENTS
Monday, March 20, 1995
Bill C-262. Consideration resumed of motion fo second reading 10689
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 31; Nays, 91. 10696
(Motion deemed withdrawn.) 10705
Bill C-73. Report stage. 10705
Motion for concurrence 10705
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 93; Nays, 52 10705
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10706
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10709
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10711
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10711
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10713
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10713
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10713
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10714
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10715
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10716
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 10716
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 10716
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10717
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10720
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10721
Bill C-76. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10722
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10722
Bill C-317. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10724
Bill C-73. Motion for third reading 10725
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10738
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10740
10689
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 20, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in light of the very serious rail strike that is currently
tying up the rail system in our country, I seek the unanimous
consent of the House to introduce a bill, notice of which was
given Sunday morning by means of a special Notice Paper,
entitled an act to provide for the maintenance of railway
operations and subsidiary services.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to permit the bill to
be introduced and given first reading at this time.
Mr. Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to inform the House that
in accordance with a representation made by the government,
pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), I have caused to be published
a special Order Paper giving notice of introduction of a
government bill. In just one moment I am going to lay upon the
table the relevant document.
However, I have a point of order from the member for
Kingston and the Islands. Is there any comment? I invite
comment only for the reason that I thought the hon. member for
Laurier-Saint-Marie was rising to his feet before I put the
question. There being no comments, is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Unanimous consent is not given for the
introduction of the bill at this time.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1105 )
[English]
The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-262, an act to provide for the settlement of labour
disputes affecting the export of grain by arbitration and to
amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence
thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour and privilege today to speak to a bill introduced by the
member for Lethbridge. The bill seeks to make it illegal for
anyone, employee or employer, to cause any cessation of work at
any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the
producer of the grain to export.
It should be obvious that the bill would affect a large number
of Canadians, indeed everybody who comes near the grain, from
the farmer who grows the grain to the trains and ships which
carry the grain. It would directly affect my riding of Erie whose
economy includes the entire spectrum from grain production to
the marine industry.
I wish to focus on one aspect of the bill and what it brings to
the labour relations atmosphere with the government's own
employees. That is the provision in the bill which would amend
the Public Service Staff Relations Act by adding new criteria,
limiting the right to strike.
The bill seeks to add to the Public Service Staff Relations Act
in section 2 and subsection 78(1), words which have the effect of
prohibiting employees from engaging in any strike activity in
areas related to ``the orderly progress of grain from the premises
of the producer of the grain to export''.
When the Public Service Staff Relations Act was introduced
almost 30 years ago, legislators included a unique concept to
labour legislation. This was the notion of designating employees
as essential and denying them the right to strike. That is to say
that employees whose duties included functions which were
performed in the interest of the safety and security of the
10690
Canadian public, those employees could not engage in a strike.
If one was to search the Canada Labour Code or other labour
codes, one would not find many examples of such a concept.
In my opinion, this is a good, reasonable and justifiable
concept. Employees of the federal government and numerous
other federal institutions should not be in a position to withdraw
services which would cause harm to the safety or security of
Canadians.
This provision has stood the test of time. When public
servants engage in strike activity, a number of their colleagues
continue to work and provide essential services to the public.
The last public service strike provided us with many examples
of this provision.
Both air and marine search and rescue operations continued.
Ice breaking continued. Mariner's charts and maps continued to
be produced and updated, and the all important function of
providing notices to shipping carried on. As well, the fisheries
patrols were maintained and employees involved in this
function continued to provide a service to the public.
Air operations continued and airport facilities were
maintained. Weather observations continued. Forecast were
prepared and communicated to users. Of great comfort,
notification bulletins affecting aviation safety continued to be
produced and disseminated.
Naturally prison guards and correctional services are deemed
an essential service and continued to perform their tasks. All
those employees, including those who provide care and security
for inmates, medical care, food, heating and all those functions
necessary to maintain the system, continued to perform their
duties.
Health care was maintained by designated employees in such
areas as poison control, hazardous product identification,
medical support at federal hospitals, ambulance drivers and
dental and chronic care in isolated areas. Also designated were
some employees who were involved in research related to health
care which used laboratory animals.
Essential to Canadians, income security programs such as UI,
family allowance and the Canada pension plan continued. This
included the processing of new claims as well as issuance of
benefits.
Employees involved in customs and immigration control
remained on the job. Included among these essential jobs were
employees responsible for the primary inspection of meat and
fish products imported to Canada.
Not surprisingly, the provisions of the Public Service Staff
Relations Act also preluded those involved with national
security from striking. Included among these were the civilian
and federal employees who provide support to RCMP
operations.
Of interest to members, parliamentarian operations were
designated an essential service. Hansard continued to be
printed, along with commission reports and other parliamentary
publications. As well, simultaneous translation services
continued to be offered.
These are some of the examples of services considered
essential for the safety and security of the public, and for which
the public service employees could not withdraw services.
The central theme throughout this list is: these services are
essential for the safety and security of the Canadian public. It is
evident that the current provisions of the Public Service Staff
Relations Act have by and large served the Canadian public
well. By tinkering with these provisions and including the
notion of economic hardship in the grain industry, are we trying
to fix what is not broken?
It is an unfortunate but accepted reality that strikes will cause
inconvenience and maybe even economic hardship to some. If
we are to accept that employees have the right to strike to put
pressure on their employer, then we must accept the results. If it
is our view that strikes should not cause hardship to anyone, then
it is my suggestion that all strikes be declared illegal.
(1110 )
This bill starts along this road. It is heading toward a
destination that can only bring grief to employer-employee
relations in the country. I would not argue that the movement of
grain is not important to Canadians. Obviously it is. However, I
do not believe that the production or movement of grain is
essential for the security of the public. The movement of grain
is, like many other commercial activities, an important
economic activity in the country.
If we were to introduce the idea that there can be no strikes or
lockouts in the grain industry which sector would be next? Is it
the auto industry? Is it the shipping industry? How about
forestry services? In certain sections of the country ore
production is extremely important. Should we consider banning
work stoppages there? If we are to use economic criteria I am
confident that every member of the House could cite an
enterprise worthy of consideration for a bill such as this.
I would like to remind members that in many jurisdictions
police are given the opportunity to withdraw from their jobs.
Medical practitioners and teachers also have this ability.
As I mentioned, if we accept that employees have the right to
strike and to exert pressure on their employer, then they must be
permitted to do so. The introduction of a provision in the Public
Service Staff Relations Act prohibiting strikes in one specific
area, be it grain handling or some other industry, begins to erode
this right. Employees either have the right to strike or they do
not.
10691
The provision restricting the right to strike in the federal
public service to those performing services essential for the
safety and security of the public is a restriction but I think it
can be reasonably argued. In addition, this provision has been
in place for almost 30 years and still allows the public service
employees to withdraw services. As we saw during the last
public service strike, employees still have the ability to exert
considerable pressure on the employer.
Seeking to expand restrictions to cover economically
important services, first one and then many other industries or
activities, will ultimately remove the right to strike effectively.
I can envisage the time when any strike which puts any
pressure on any employer or others will then be proposed for
exclusion under public service staff relations and the Canada
Labour Code. Legislators will slowly and painfully remove the
right to strike from any employee as a means of exerting any
pressure at all. Is this what our country has to offer its workers
and its representatives? I think not.
The introduction of further restrictions to the right to strike
will, without any doubt whatsoever, worsen labour relations in
the country. As we all know, these relations are already strained.
It is my personal belief that after a number of years of difficulty
it is time for all parties to labour relations to bring a positive and
constructive approach to them for the future.
Times are changing and everybody must change with them. I
do not feel that the way to begin a positive and co-operative
renewal of labour relations is by introducing legislation which
begins to erode what labour considers a basic right. If we are
going to give labour the right to withdraw services in order to
exert pressure in collective bargaining, then we must allow this
withdrawal of service to have some effect. We either fish or cut
bait. To carry the analogy further, we cannot tell employees that
they can fish but they cannot have worms.
I am sure the member for Lethbridge did not intend anything
sinister but was simply advancing a proposal which would
protect the interests of the grain industry and this is to be
commended. However, I believe the results of considering this
bill cannot but lead to other interested parties looking to protect
another and then another and no doubt an important industry
through labour legislation. While the reasons for desiring
protection from strikes or lockouts are noble in themselves, we
must look at how we propose to do this and the results such a
proposal would bring.
In conclusion, while I agree with the member that the grain
industry is important to Canada, as are many other industries
and activities, I cannot accept the notion that Parliament
legislates protection at the expense of the rights of other
Canadian citizens. Despite what I believe are good intentions,
the results would be inappropriate and I cannot support the bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say,
and I realize that the grain industry is very important to the
Canadian economy and to western Canada in particular. But I
would like to say that grain is surely not more important than the
lives and health of our fellow countrymen.
(1115)
But people's lives and health, and these are under provincial
jurisdiction, can also be affected by a labour dispute. What was
the best solution found after a lot of research and trial and error?
In order to strike a balance between the right of workers to strike
and the priority right of individuals to health and safety, it was
determined that the best solution was to establish the principle
of essential services. Essential service does not mean the right to
strike is taken away.
Those who dream of the day there will be no more strikes
should realize that taking away the right to strike does not
guarantee there will be no more strikes. In fact, history has
shown that before the right to strike existed, there were many,
extremely rough strikes, for the simple reason that there was no
legislation. The strikes were there before the right to strike. If
we want labour relations to be more harmonious, if we want
grain and health to be priorities, we must ensure that labour
relations are more conducive to dispute settlement.
We must not forget that, especially at a time when for more
than ten years, in many cases, workers have had to tighten their
belts, make all kinds of concessions and pay more and more
taxes, when the economy starts picking up, these workers would
like to have their modest share, at least. We must not forget that
in this country, we see executives of private companies getting
outrageously high salaries and benefits, although they are
hardly as productive as Japanese companies. In Japan, the gap
between the salaries or incomes of executives and employees is
much narrower than in this country.
We cannot afford an economic model where executives can
earn whatever they please and workers will just have to tighten
their belts and watch others take their share of the profits. We
must not forget why we have labour legislation. We have labour
legislation because we had to deal with the flagrant injustice that
existed at the time. And if we think that bringing all this back
will lead to prosperity and harmonious labour relations in this
country, I have got news for you. It will not happen.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Kilgour): As we are at the
beginning of the week, I would ask each of you, in so far as you
can, to co-operate and always address your remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. Lalonde: Clearly, I could not use these words in
reference to you. This is not news for you, because you already
know full well that this sort of unfair situation cannot be allowed
10692
to develop so blatantly on the assumption that the workers alone
will always be asked to contribute an ever increasing share.
Today, tomorrow and in the coming days, we will be talking
about railway workers. We will see that they too, with each
successive collective agreement, have had to forgo working
conditions they previously enjoyed. This is the truth. They have
done so in order to take refuge in what they considered essential
in a time of unemployment-a sort of job guarantee.
(1120)
And now, because the employer is not budging-and we will
have to see what the government does in this-we are about to
see these workers as well lose some of their working conditions.
As regards this particular bill, I understand and I share the
desire for harmonious labour relations. However, when it is
unreasonably assumed that the right to strike may be withdrawn
without provision being made for sufficient means to settle
working conditions, I do not expect grain transportation to be
harmonious and secure. This will not be the case. History has
shown us that this has not been the case in the past; it will most
likely not be the case in the future.
I would add, particularly since the government has not seen fit
yet to propose anti-strikebreaking legislation, which would
allow re-establishment of a balance of power. If we want to
establish labour relations, and in the area of essential services as
well, which permit a balance-and not only the appearance of a
balance but real healthy labour relations-attention must be
paid as well to the balance of power. Many provinces have a
provision for this, and it has proved its worth.
As for our case, the work that remains to be done at the federal
level to ensure labour relations that permit public enjoyment of
the services they are entitled to, but without the cost of the cuts
we must face being passed on to the workers concerned, will
involve paying greater attention to finding this balance. This is
the only way to ensure that the same protection accorded to grain
in Canada is accorded to health and life in the provinces.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): To meet the test of
fairness and the spirit of fairness I must humbly submit that I
failed to recognize the proper sequence of speakers, not having
taken into account all the speakers who spoke previously in this
debate.
For the next two interventions I will go to the Reform Party if
there are two speakers. Then I will be back on track.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today,
March 20, 1995, marks a very troublesome day for those who
depend on the railways and for those who must use the port of
Montreal to get their products to customers.
Canadians are feeling the full effects of strikes and lockouts,
and back to work legislation for the railways is in the works. We
have been in this situation before. Last Wednesday we sat late
debating Bill C-74, back to work legislation to settle the labour
dispute on the west coast.
A little over a year ago we also debated back to work
legislation with Bill C-10 to handle a similar dispute which
lasted for 12 days.
Unfortunately these are not isolated incidents. Canadians
have felt the effects of similar disruptions many times. I believe
13 have ended with back to work legislation in the past 30 years.
Unless both sides in the CP Rail dispute can reach an
agreement some time very soon, we will be debating back to
work legislation again today, tomorrow or soon.
I find it ironic that components of the grain handling and
transportation system are consistently treated as essential
services when work stoppages occur. I am here today to ask the
government not to provide essential service legislation. I am
asking the government to carefully consider the very positive
impact of Bill C-262; the impact it would have in ameliorating
recurring problems between labour and management.
(1125)
Currently there is no effective collective bargaining taking
place between labour and management. Both sides know they
can depend on government to legislate them back to work. Let us
not pretend we have productive collective bargaining taking
place right now. We do not. Let us end the charade and do what
Reformers called for in last year's emergency debate and what
the hon. member for Lethbridge is currently calling for in his
private member's bill, Bill C-262.
Bill C-262 provides a tool for both labour and management to
prevent these disruptive and expensive work stoppages which
affect people all across the country when they occur. The current
work stoppage at CP Rail and at the Montreal port would not
have happened if Bill C-262 were in place. These disruptions in
grain handling and grain movement and in the movement of
other goods must not be allowed to continue.
The collective bargaining process must be allowed to work
where it can work. In the vast majority of cases, in situations
between labour and management, they do reach agreement and
the process works fairly well. In other cases the process does not
work well. When this happens labour and management both
lose. Unless an agreement is reached the operations will close
down.
The case of grain handling and shipping is unique. It is unique
because the cost of a disruption can and will be borne by farmers
in three ways. First, added costs cannot be passed on to the
consumer because farmers are price takers in a very competitive
marketplace. Second, there is a loss of revenue in present sales
10693
and, more important, in future sales through the loss of long
term customers. Third, farmers have no real alternative. They
have no way to get around the system. They must ship through
the rail transportation and grain handling systems currently in
place. They cannot choose to use another system which is
offered by someone else because it does not exist.
That is why work stoppages should not be allowed in the grain
handling system. I hope the hon. member for Mercier will now
understand why stoppages in the grain handling system are so
important and why they are every bit as important as the welfare
and health of members of labour unions. The welfare and health
of farmers is directly affected by these work stoppages. This is
coming from someone who has lived and worked in agricultural
communities through these disruptions over the years.
The extra stress caused by farmers being deprived of income
makes one of the most dangerous businesses in the country
today even more dangerous. By allowing these disruptions to
happen continually farmers' health and welfare is affected every
bit as much as members of the labour unions. I hope the member
will now understand that the concerns of farmers and the stress
and the danger to their health are every bit as important as that of
labour union members.
How do we deal with the situation in a way that is fair to
labour, to management, to the all too forgotten party, grain
farmers, and alfalfa shippers and other shippers? Bill C-262
provides a solution through final offer selection arbitration.
This process is triggered upon request by one party if the parties
concerned are unable to reach an agreement through the
collective bargaining process. The key features of this process
as outlined in Bill C-262 are as follows.
The trade union and employer are requested to provide the
minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as
arbitrator. The trade union and employer are required to submit
to the arbitrator a list of matters agreed on and a list of matters
still under dispute. For disputed issues each party is required to
submit a final offer for settlement.
(1130 )
The arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by
the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. In
the event that one party does not submit a final offer, the other
party's offer is automatically accepted. The arbitrator's decision
is binding on both parties.
As you can see, final offer selection arbitration does not
prevent the collective bargaining process from following
through to a conclusion. It simply speeds the process up.
However, it does prevent the very few from doing unacceptable
damage to so many.
There are the other workers and the loss of work and income
for the other workers shut down by the stoppage. There are the
other businesses involved in grain handling and movement.
There is the damage done to business enterprises and Canada's
now faltering reputation as a reliable grain exporter. There are
the farmers who must shoulder most of the costs for short and
long term damage resulting from lost markets. They have no
way of passing those costs on to the consumer or of recouping
those losses.
Legislation that provides a long term solution to this problem
should have been passed years ago. In this regard I would like to
pledge continued leadership by Reform members of Parliament
in continuing to press for long term solutions to this and similar
problems in the grain handling system.
We cannot afford to have disruptions continue in the grain
handling and transportation systems. I am asking for support for
Bill C-262. Indeed in the past, several members of the
government side and others have provided support for final offer
selection arbitration.
I do not have time to read all the quotes, but these quotes are
from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself, and
the Minister of Human Resources Development, and from the
chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Lorne Hehn.
He stated that the grain industry cannot afford any more strikes
and lockouts and said: ``We cannot afford to shut down a
multibillion dollar industry for the sake of a few people. I think
that we have to do something about this situation''.
Mr. Hehn went on to state that he would favour a first offer
selection. ``If an agreement could not be reached through the
collective bargaining process,'' he said, ``I think that would
bring people to the table in a more honest fashion. We could
settle these things without shutting the system down''. I believe
this first offer arbitration is much like the final selection process
we are proposing here today.
The senior grain transportation committee voted on October
14, 1994 to support a system of final offer arbitration. It is down
in black and white from members of this government.
The most effective way I can present the importance of
stopping these disruptions in the future comes from farmers. My
father lived through these disruptions in his farming career and
each time I saw the stress and the pain. I know the hurt that
caused him and his neighbours. As for myself, in my farming
career I have lived through several of these disruptions. I know
the pain and the loss these have caused my neighbours and
myself.
Finally, I would like to stress that it is not only labour unions
that are being tough on this issue. Farmers have threatened in the
past-and there could come a time when this will happen-to
take over the process of grain movement in any way they can on
their own. Farmers will not let these disruptions continue
indefinitely. They must stop. I encourage this government to
10694
support Bill C-262 to ensure this is the end of these disruptions
in grain handling and grain movement.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud and honoured today to rise in this
House and give my full support to Bill C-262 which was
presented by the hon. member for Lethbridge.
The timing of this particular debate in the House is absolutely
perfect. We are sandwiched between back to work legislation
which occurred last Wednesday and certainly the potential of
another forthcoming round of back to work legislation in the rail
industry. We could not have asked for a better time to talk about
this ongoing problem which has occurred many times in the
history of western Canada as far as the agriculture business
goes.
(1135 )
Today I would like to do something just a little bit different.
Rather than dwell on how the innocent third party is affected by
this proposed legislation, I would like to look at all aspects. I
would like to look at how this would affect labour and
management and also of course, how it would affect the third
party, in this case, the shipper.
I want to talk about how this would affect the shipper in this
case. In my position I am most familiar with how it would affect
the agriculture industry in Saskatchewan particularly in Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre.
I want to look back at the labour dispute in Vancouver a little
over a year ago. We looked at something like 11 days of tie ups.
The grain industry never recovered all summer from that labour
dispute. I know that firsthand. I live about two and a half miles
from the grain elevators in my home town and our community
never recovered and Saskatchewan never recovered from that
short labour tie up.
I also looked at some of the evidence I received in the last few
days. There is a statement from Mr. Blair Wright of Olds,
Alberta, an alfalfa dehydrator. He said that his company was just
beginning to make inroads to Japan. He estimated that he lost
$500,000 in revenue during that shut down in Vancouver last
year.
He also said that the Japanese businessmen he deals with
stated they cannot understand why Canada allows such
destruction of its export business. Mr. Wright is obviously
concerned that he will lose his Asian markets entirely for this
emerging product. He also stated that the American ports on the
west coast are actively promoting their continuous delivery to
Asian markets. The port of Vancouver has the potential to lose
major customers if this government does not take legal means to
prevent further labour disruption.
I also talked to alfalfa dehydrators in Saskatchewan last week.
They told me that a labour dispute of one week is an annoyance.
A labour dispute of two weeks inflicts serious pain on their
industry. Anything longer than a two week labour dispute is a
complete disaster to the industry.
With regard to things like canola prices, although they may
not be directly affected, on Monday, March 13 the price of
canola was $9.44 in my hometown. By Wednesday morning it
had dropped to $9.20, a drop of some 24 cents. Is that directly
related to labour problems? Perhaps some of it could be related.
Having said that, I look at the innocent third party, the
shipper. I know this piece of legislation would do the job to
alleviate those types of problems and frustrations. I look at
labour and the unions. There have been arguments in this House
that it is not fair to labour to have final offer selection. I do not
agree with that. I see what long term labour disputes do to
labour. I have seen it in my home area of Moose Jaw.
There have been two major strikes at Moose Jaw Sash and
Door. The people were on strike or locked out for more than
three years. The company ended up closing its doors. Did that
help labour? No.
Moose Jaw meat packers were on strike for some 18 months
recently. I had the opportunity to drive by their strike location
many times. These people were playing horseshoes and cards
because there was no work to do. Did that help those people? No.
The labour dispute did not solve one thing for labour in that
instance. I talked to many people on the line. They were willing
to go back to work. They wanted to go back to work, to some real
work. There is no way in the world they could ever hope to
recoup any of the financial loss they faced by being out on strike
for so long.
Looking at that, labour is in a no win situation. In a discussion
paper written by Mr. Errol Black and Mr. Jim Silver, they quote
the idea of final offer selection. They say: ``The fact is that final
offer selection is aimed at a real need, namely, the problems of
workers in weak bargaining units''.
(1140 )
They go on to say: ``Final offer selection provides such
workers with an alternative to strikes which they have little
chance of winning. Any repeal of final offer selection'', which
by the way is in place in Manitoba, ``and this
problem-unionizing and winning gains for workers in weak
bargaining positions-will remain''. This is more evidence that
long labour tie ups have a harmful negative effect on workers.
I want to talk about management, or the businesses and
companies. When they face long term labour disputes either by
strike or lockout it really disrupts the orderly flow of any
product. Again, in this case I look at agriculture products from
Saskatchewan to either Vancouver or Thunder Bay. When we see
10695
a tie up like that, there is no way in the world to recoup
financially those losses faced in a very short period of time.
I look back to last year's labour dispute and remember talking
to people in the grain industry. They said there was no way in the
world they could catch up to what they had lost in a very short
time. Those effects are felt immediately.
I spoke earlier about the labour dispute at Moose Jaw Sash and
Door. That company was locked out and on strike for so long that
it closed its doors. The company is no longer in existence. Did
that solve any problems for the good of business? I do not think
so. That is why we have to look at some alternative to bring this
thing together so that we do not have these problems as time
goes on.
If we talked to all three parties we could sell them on the idea
for final offer selection and for this bill. In my mind, as a farmer
from central Saskatchewan, as my colleague mentioned before,
I have seen the effects firsthand of these types of labour
disputes. We never recover from them.
My colleague across the way said we cannot call this an
essential service. I am not calling it an essential service, but it is
essential to the livelihood and future of those people in my
province. Their financial lives, perhaps not their physical lives,
depend on getting their products from their farm gate to the port.
That is the way we do business in Saskatchewan. That is the way
we make our living. If that is interrupted then it is essential in
my mind because it has a very far ranging, serious effect on my
livelihood.
In conclusion, again I would urge all members of this House
to support this legislation. It is the first real positive step I have
seen since I have been in this House to eliminate a big, broad
problem with a wide ranging approach, a fair approach and an
approach that makes a lot of common sense to me.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to rise this morning and
speak on Bill C-262 which is before the House. As a former
member of a trade union for many years, I find it interesting that
this bill would be put forward at this time, although the issues
before us are very serious.
The bill calls for amendments to some sections of the Canada
Labour Code which impact labour dispute settlement
mechanisms. Specifically, the title of the bill states that it is
intended to provide for the settlement of labour disputes
affecting the export of grain by arbitration and to amend the
Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.
I strongly suggest the bill is not appropriate both in the
legislation and in its timing as it would introduce an unfortunate
mechanism. The government is currently in the process of
making unprecedented changes to the grain transportation
system which will have far reaching effects, rather than
bringing yet another complex mix and not bringing about the
change we are looking for.
(1145 )
This is not the way we want to solve the problems we are
experiencing in the grain handling system. It is important to
note that we already have the means to alleviate the problems.
Recently introduced legislation meant that dock workers had to
return to their jobs in Vancouver and grain and other shipments
were moving.
The issue demands more than just a temporary measure. The
labour minister has introduced a commission to study labour
relations at established ports. The commission will look into the
long term solutions to this dispute and similar ones in the future.
The commission, I should add, is only part of the government's
ongoing efforts to streamline Canada's grain handling system.
These problems do not go unnoticed. As a result the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food on May 16 gathered a group
together to examine many of the issues. The group was formed
to look at short term grain movement, the problems of long term
resolution and of recurring difficulties. It included labour
unions representing the grain handling and transportation
system.
The movement of grain is not done in isolation by any one
collective workers group. That is why the team approach has to
be taken. For further proof we need only to look at the records or
the grain shipments to many terminals in this crop year.
We recognize that we have had labour problems in the past
with grain handling. I believe the way to resolve the problems is
not by providing arbitration to prevent strikes and lockouts.
Rather labour must be productive and constructive and become a
partner in developing an effective process for the movement of
grain.
There is no doubt that it is a serious problem. We are prepared
to respect the collective bargaining process to promote
co-operation between the parties in a dispute either through
mediation or conciliation.
My colleagues at human resources development have
indicated that 90 per cent of collective agreements referred to
conciliation are resolved without a work stoppage. In instances
that result in negative impacts on entire sectors the government
has demonstrated as recently as in the past week it is prepared to
step in and break deadlocks. As such there is no need to
introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code. If we look at
the experiences of countries in which compulsory arbitration is
widely practised we see that strikes continue to occur.
10696
Grain transportation is a very large and very complex
industry involving numerous trades. For instance, 12
companies are operating terminal elevators, 14 companies are
operating transfer elevators and 19 elevator companies are in
the prairies. In addition we must add the two major railways
that move our grain products by vessel to the Great Lakes and
to our external ports.
Are we prepared to remove the collective bargaining rights of
all these people? There is an enormous degree of complexity and
we understand the concerns of all. To single out one group of
men and women, the vast majority of whom have never had an
industrial dispute through Parliament, strikes me as less than
fair. Co-operation is the way to establishing partnerships
fundamental to the economy and the well-being of society.
The adoption of Bill C-262 is not likely to produce results
even close to what is desired. Rather I would suggest members
support the efforts currently under way to reduce problems in
our grain transportation system.
It is fundamental that changes have to take place in the
western grain transportation system. These changes were
recently introduced in the federal budget. They will create a less
rigid and more responsive operating environment in which a
faster, lower cost and more efficient system may evolve, the
benefits of which will be shared by all.
Therefore, for all these reasons I do not feel I could support
introduction of new legislation at this time.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me start by pointing out that I think it is important to put into
context the whole debate about back to work legislation, the
shutdown of the railway system and best offer arbitration.
Let me do so by pointing out that Canadian farmers are
probably the best farmers in the world. They are the most
productive and the most efficient. If it were just on that basis
they had to make their living everything would be fine; they
would be extremely prosperous and the country would benefit as
a whole. However there are all kinds of other issues that raise
their head and stand in the way of farmers actually being able to
earn a proper living.
One of them is the trade war that seems to be ongoing with the
U.S. and Europe. At the same time we have huge government
debts and deficits that contribute to high input costs, high taxes
and high interest rates which all conspire to make it very
difficult for Canadian farmers to compete particularly against
Americans.
Meanwhile we have farm institutions like the Canadian
Wheat Board and the transportation system that are in desperate
need of reform. There is tremendous pressure on the wheat
board to change, not only from Americans, our competitors, but
from inside, from people who actually support the wheat board.
They want to see change. The hon. member for Vegreville has
been at the forefront of pushing for a democratic wheat board
elected by farmers and with farmers on the board. That makes
sense to me.
I want to talk for a moment about the history of the
transportation system in Canada. Even when it is not shut down
by a strike it is at best inefficient and slow. I do not know how
many calls I have received over the last year and a half from
people asking: ``Why are there no cars at my elevator? What
happened to my grain as it disappeared down the track?''
We need Bill C-262. There is no question in my mind. It is one
thing the government can do to bring to an end the problem we
face today. As fate would have it, we are debating Bill C-262 on
a day when we have a rail strike in the country. It will also
provide a long term solution.
I encourage the government across the way to set aside
partisan differences, to consider what is for the greater good and
to consider farmers across the country. Actually the unions and
the employers will benefit by this type of legislation, by best
offer selection arbitration. We encourage the government to set
that aside and to join with Reform today, the hon. member for
Lethbridge, to bring the whole issue to an end by supporting Bill
C-262 and by bringing some sanity back into the transportation
system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 11.53 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has
expired. Accordingly the question is on second reading and
reference of Bill C-262. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
10697
(Division No. 169)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Forseth
Frazer
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Thompson
Williams-31
NAYS
Members
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fillion
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Irwin
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Landry
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
McKinnon
McWhinney
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Parrish
Paré
Peters
Phinney
Pillitteri
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wood
Young -91
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Easter
Fry
Jackson
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
MacLaren
Peric
Simmons
Szabo
Tobin
Ur
Volpe
de Savoye
(1220)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived.
_____________________________________________
10697
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the paralyzing effect of the national railway strike
requires urgent action by Parliament. Pursuant to Standing
Order 53, I move the following:
[Translation]
That the forty-eight hours' notice be waived in order to permit the Minister of
Labour to introduce immediately a bill entitled an act to provide for the
maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services; and
That the House not adjourn this day except pursuant to a motion by a minister
of the Crown.
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Debate is allowed for a
period of not exceeding one hour.
[Translation]
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give members
of this House the background which I feel is important regarding
the negotiations in the railway labour dispute. As you know,
most of the collective agreements, with very few exceptions,
expired on December 31, 1993. Therefore, we have been without
collective agreements per se since December 31, 1993, and
negotiations have been ongoing.
We have tried to help the parties to find a solution. First, a
conciliator was appointed, and then, in November 1994, my
predecessor, the Minister of Human Resources Development,
appointed a conciliation commissioner, Mr. Hope, to work out a
solution with the parties. He submitted his report to the parties
in February 1995.
(1230)
Since then, negotiations have continued, but they have been
strained, and, as you know, the unions decided to concentrate
their efforts on pressuring Canadian Pacific. Fortunately, last
week, three unions, representing approximately 3,000 people,
reached an agreement in principle and Canadian Pacific was
able to continue all of its other activities.
Unfortunately, last Saturday, there was a full work stoppage at
Canadian National and VIA Rail. Following this work stoppage,
I called all of the parties, that is the three companies and the
union representatives from these companies, to a meeting. I met
with them yesterday afternoon and I asked them to resolve all of
the issues in dispute, or, at the very least, to reach an agreement
10698
on the process which will lead to a solution to the dispute, which
will be binding on the two parties.
I told them that the current government has faith in the
collective bargaining process and, therefore, that we would
regret being obliged to step in if the parties were unable to reach
an agreement. I even advised them that it would be in the best
interest of both parties, as much the companies as the unions, to
agree at the very least on the process to be used to resolve the
dispute, which would be binding on both of them.
Unfortunately, the parties did not come to an agreement, so
that we find ourselves in this House at 12.30 p.m. on a Monday
without any CN or VIA Rail services in operation as we speak,
although some operations are still under way at CP. Even though
some operations are affected, some others are still being carried
out.
What is the impact of a complete work stoppage as we speak?
Let us first look at the VIA Rail situation. The impact on the
majority of passengers using VIA Rail services is, I think, quite
obvious. I would remind the members of this House that VIA
Rail serves at least 500 communities from coast to coast, which
means that all its passengers have been paying the price since
Saturday, especially those who commute to work by train. This
morning, we witnessed the possible consequences for the
population, especially in densely populated urban areas.
True, there are other means of transportation but when we
look at what is happening, for example, around Toronto and
Montreal, it is clear that not all passengers can be
accommodated by public bus or even private car transportation.
On this Monday morning, all these passengers, all these people
were penalized by the work stoppage. I think that we should
allow VIA Rail workers to go back to work as soon as possible,
so that these people are no longer penalized.
(1235)
It is true that the situation is different at CP Rail. Canadian
National is not an operation serving the public but rather
providing transportation services essential to the Canadian
economy.
Needless to say this will have tremendous financial
implications for the various train transportation users and
industries that ship their goods by train. Many Canadian
industries depend on the railway system. The impact of this
withdrawal of transportation services may vary from industry to
industry depending on the availability of alternate means of
transportation.
Of course, bulk commodity shippers in
general-commodities such as sulphur, potash and grain as well
as mining companies, major electrical household appliance
manufacturers and car manufacturers-are the main users of the
train system. Many transport companies and associations,
including the Canadian Industrial Transportation League, the
Canadian Wheat Board and several car manufacturers, have
indicated that a prolonged work stoppage would be extremely
prejudicial to their operations.
It is clear that at the industry level, in various sectors like
Western grain, this work stoppage may have a very major
economic impact. As we speak, we are told that Canadian
National is losing between $9 million and $10 million per day.
We can see right away how serious the situation is and how it
can compromise this country's credibility as a reliable supplier,
even on the export market. The impacts are tremendous. On the
one hand, you have impacts affecting the public at VIA Rail and,
on the other hand, economic impacts for several industries.
While we regret having to bring in back-to-work
legislation-I repeat, regret, because we continue to believe that
a negotiated settlement would be better-the government must
assume its responsibilities and take action. That is why I hope
that the opposition parties will realize what is at stake and give
consent so that we can debate this bill today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I simply want to clarify a
point. Pursuant to Standing Order 53, the debate may not exceed
one hour. No member may speak more than once, nor longer
than ten minutes.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois is opposed to passing that legislation today. We
are aware of the impact of a work stoppage in a sector such as
railway operations. The minister said that Canada must be a
reliable supplier and she also pointed out the economic
consequences of such a conflict. However, she did not say
anything about the plight of those who-and they did not do it
for the fun of it-had to walk out under very unpleasant
conditions.
(1240)
As far as I know, Canada has a labour code. If back-to-work
legislation is tabled every time the Labour Code is invoked by
workers who have no other means to negotiate a settlement, this
means that the mechanisms required to ensure strict and fair
labour relations do not exist.
What this bill really does is prove the employers right. I wish
that were not the case, but just take a look at the newspapers and
read the recommendations made by commissioner Hope, who
reviewed the issue. He says that the employers were very
uncompromising and that, in fact, the unions' demands were
never taken into consideration.
It is very easy to speak against a given union or union
member. However, let us not forget that company managers and
10699
executives often enjoy personal benefits, salaries, bonuses and
stocks which do not make any sense and which do not exist in
other countries. I always think of Japan, where the gap between
employers and employees' salaries is much narrower than it is
here.
Canadian workers are in a difficult situation. No one mentions
the fact that, over the years, they waived many rights to preserve
a single one: the right to a job. It is important that these workers
can tell all Canadians that they made concessions, but that they
are not prepared to lose the essential in an industry which needs
skilled workers.
It is important to remember, although this is not necessarily
popular, that workers have acquired certain rights and that, at
the very least, they have the right to exercise this kind of
pressure-not an easy thing to do-to show that they exist and to
avoid being crushed by the system.
I would have liked to hear the minister talk about people. If
the government decided to intervene every time certain
behaviours were found to be harmful to the economy, it would
often have cause to do so, not only in labour disputes. It would
intervene in the case of companies whose practices do not
promote productivity. Workers are not pawns, they are people. If
a company is to be productive, workers must have working
conditions that reflect a minimum of fairness, otherwise the cost
will be far greater than that of a strike that does neither party any
good.
(1245)
Yes, some workers are on strike, but others have been locked
out. And others were swept along because they refused to cross
picket lines. All things considered, we are not very happy about
the situation.
However, this does not mean we should deny these workers
their rights. Canadians should at least be told about the
conditions they gave up for the sake of one, and that these
workers should have access to a fair and equitable settlement.
Today, we should confirm their right to use pressure to defend
their position and to engage in free collective bargaining.
Otherwise, if employers can always count on the government to
deal with their problems, they will never agree to a fair
settlement.
Sure, they have certain constraints. Sure, these constraints are
genuine. But in a situation like this, there are always two parties,
and employers cannot take the position that only their interests
should guide Parliament and the government. For these reasons,
because we want to encourage free collective bargaining,
because we want workers to be able to stand up for their rights
and because we want Parliament to respect its own
legislation-I am referring to the Canada Labour Code-we will
not agree to fast tracking this legislation today.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak today. The whole transportation system in
Canada being tied up is a matter of pressing concern.
These services are never considered to be essential until after
the services are withdrawn. We are not talking strictly about a
strike. We are talking about a work stoppage. A work stoppage
can be brought about whether it is a strike or a lockout.
Whenever I refer to this situation I am talking about the work
stoppage. People will understand we have work stoppages
taking place in two separate areas. One is the withdrawal of
services and the other is an area where the people are actually
locked out.
These work stoppages result in a lot of lost jobs. My friends in
the government party have campaigned vigorously on restoring
jobs. This is certainly an opportunity for them to put up in this
case, put their best foot forward and come up with legislation
that will put these people back to work.
This is a stop gap measure. This is not a solution for the long
haul. My party has been encouraging the government to come up
with some long term solutions. For labour and management to
have the possibility of back to work legislation constantly a
threat they do not exactly sharpen their pencils and come to their
best position. A case in point is where we have these contracts
expiring up to 27 months before the actual work stoppage takes
place. That is not collective bargaining at its best. That is not the
process working.
In the House on March 3 I asked the minister what she was
prepared to do in order to come up with some long term
solutions. I was assured the collective bargaining process was
working wonderfully and could expect it to work that way in the
future.
(1250 )
Obviously it has not. Here we are once again trying to get
unanimous consent from the House. I hope we do so we can get
the parties back to the table, the rolling stock moving on the rails
again, the passenger trains running again and the freight moving
to its customers. That is of utmost importance. It is not just that
we are looking at losses to farmers. We are looking at losses to
farmers, huge losses, but there is a great spinoff of lost jobs as
well.
Once these jobs are lost it will be impossible to get them back.
Once the buyers of our services and our goods have decided they
can get them from other sources it will take a lot of negotiation
and a lot of proving that we will not put up with this kind of
labour disruption in the future to prove to them that we are a
reliable supplier of goods and services.
10700
The people in the Bloc seem not to support the notion of
introducing this legislation. It is of utmost importance to
introduce this legislation today. I call on my colleagues from the
Bloc to give their consent to this legislation so that we can
debate it properly and get the parties back to the table and the
freight moving again. To do otherwise is partisan politics at its
worst, not looking at Canada's overall benefit.
Our colleagues in the Bloc could easily dismiss this as one of
Canada's problems. After all, their ultimate goal is to separate
from Canada. They could implement any kind of labour
legislation they like. I would plead with them to support the
introduction of this legislation today.
I assume me colleagues in the NDP will not support the
introduction of this bill today. It would be extremely difficult
for them to justify to their constituents how they could hold up a
bill for another 48 hours which would effectively bring to the
market the goods their constituents are producing. This is an
extremely costly situation. It is not just the direct jobs, but the
spinoff jobs. The long term effect of this has not been addressed.
Many customers of Canada's goods in the past have put up
with disruptions of this type and are counting on back to work
legislation. If this is not dealt with, to get these people back to
the table and to get these parties talking again and the stock
moving at a reasonable pace, our customers will say this is the
last time they are prepared to put up with this kind of here today,
gone tomorrow freight service. They will start looking for
alternate routes to ship their goods.
Mr. Lorne Hehn, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat
Board, said we cannot afford to shut down a multibillion dollar
industry for the sake of a few people. These services are never
considered essential until after they have been withdrawn.
Suddenly these are essential services.
When will this government come up with legislation to deal
with these problems over the big picture, rather than this crisis
management attitude?
(1255 )
At the moment crisis management is something we must
consider in order to get us over this hump. I implore the
government to come up with similar legislation to what it so
very efficiently defeated here, presented by my colleague in Bill
C-262.
The senior grain transportation committee voted on October
14, 1994 to support a system of final offer arbitration for all
labour negotiations affecting grain movement. I have heard
some of my colleagues in the Bloc say this effectively bans the
collective agreement process. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is
an augmentation to the collective bargaining process. This is not
something imposed on the partners in the collective bargaining
process from on high. It is something either one of the parties
can invite.
It induces those parties to come up with a reasonable offer,
their best offer to begin with. Instead of having negotiations
or pseudo negotiations for 27 months, as in the case of one
union, they could get their heads together and figure out their
final position and present that position to begin with, rather
than to parley back and forth for 27 months without getting
anywhere.
This is a controversial bill and some of my colleagues in the
House are philosophically opposed to having this bill presented.
I implore them to allow it to be presented. I passionately ask
they allow first reading of the bill so we can at least debate it and
get it on the floor of the House where it belongs and to do what
we can to begin to replenish or regain our reputation as a
reputable supplier of goods.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
first like to thank the Reform Party members who have already
indicated they would further support this bill. I would ask the
Bloc Quebecois members to think a bit before maintaining the
position they have taken.
I could talk to you today of the disastrous effects this crisis is
having on large businesses such as General Motors, Hoechst
Canada, Canadian Celanese, Ford and others, but who in this
House is speaking on behalf of all Canadians, not just those in
my own riding, who have no means of defence?
As we talk, Canadian National is, to all intents and purposes,
closed down; so is VIA. Canadian Pacific is operating at barely
85 per cent capacity.
With each hour we waste, the impact grows more serious.
Certain grain exports have frozen. Last week, the minister
tabled a bill for a return to work in the port of Vancouver. It
seems to me that the political stand taken by the Bloc Quebecois
members will hamper the settlement of this dispute and an
eventual return to work.
With the tabling of the budget, last week, I got barely one
phone call in my riding. With this dispute, however, which has
gone on for months already, I have received calls from all sorts
of people, including ordinary businessmen and businesswomen
who are unable to go and collect the raw materials they need and
whose business, therefore, could well close tomorrow, because
the production line is stopped. It seems to me the problem is
serious, serious enough for us to give thought to it and to put an
end to the dispute.
(1300)
Bloc Quebecois members accuse us of robbing these people of
the right to negotiate. The bill that we are introducing today does
not, as they claim, violate their freedom to resolve this dispute,
when we consider that they have been trying to work their
problems out for fifteen months now. It is true that they were
10701
unsuccessful, however, this bill does not rob the various parties
concerned of their freedom to go back to the bargaining table.
The minister herself made many personal attempts. Last
night, she met with the three unions. Last night, the three parties
admitted themselves to the media that they have come to a dead
end. Is it advisable to wait another day or two? Is it advisable, as
the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois advocate, to vote
against this bill simply in order to forestall the inevitable?
[English]
I would like to speak for the average Canadian who is
affected, whether as a commuter on the Rigaud line or the Deux
Montagnes line to Montreal, who relies on the rail service to get
to work every day and who does not have the benefit of a second
or a third car. Who speaks for them? Who speaks for the small
entrepreneurs who are trying to get their imported goods off the
docks in Montreal?
It is very easy to convene a press conference when you are
General Motors or Ford Motor company. It is for those small
business people that I feel we have to solve this problem.
It is true this has a tremendous economic impact, not only for
the large rail companies but for the local economy in the
Montreal area for which I speak with great vigour. The port of
Montreal has paralysed shipments and the railway has paralysed
shipments across Canada. I take my hat off to the Minister of
Labour who has only been here a short while but has certainly
been indoctrinated very quickly. She has done an excellent job
and has introduced two very difficult measures.
As the minister said in her preamble, as a government we
would have preferred not to introduce back to work legislation.
It is always more desirable when both parties can agree. But
both parties have not been able to agree. They have been trying
for almost 15 months.
I would like to quote a report in this morning's Gazette by the
federal conciliator, Mr. Allan Hope, who is quoted as saying:
``All three railways have tabled extremely controversial and
provocative demands that they see essential to their financial
health and viability''. He wrote in February: ``It would be
difficult to conceive of an bargaining initiative more likely to
provoke an impasse''. The parties have tried. Right now we are
at a standstill. It is not going to get any better.
From talking to various people and watching television
reports yesterday with stranded commuters about the threat of
the possible shutdown of suburban railways, people will have
more difficulty getting to work. I would ask all members on both
sides of the House to support legislation so we can adopt it as
quickly as possible.
It may not solve the deep rooted, underlying problems in the
railway industry which we have discussed before. But I hope
that despite this return to work legislation that all parties on both
sides will continue to try to solve the long lasting dispute, put
aside their differences for the betterment of the country, for the
establishment of a reliable service that Canadians, importers
and exporters, that small as well as large businesses can rely on.
We do not have a law-
[Translation]
-like we have in Quebec, an act on essential services. It would
be ideal if the federal government had similar legislation, but it
does not.
(1305)
For example, when there are municipal disputes, basic
services still have to be provided.
[English]
In this case we cannot provide a reliable service where there is
ongoing, continual labour conflicts. It puts in jeopardy not only
the economic viability of the country but the local economy as
well. The local economy in Montreal has suffered enormously.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to ask my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois to reconsider the impact which this dispute has
already had and will continue to have on the province of Quebec
and on the Montreal region especially and perhaps decide to
vote in favour of this bill.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to register my objection to the process that is
unfolding here this morning. I do so on the basis of the fact that
the government has had an alternative in this regard for some
time, ever since its election in October 1993. The government
could have been moving on the policy front toward a
transportation system or policy which would have reassured
people working in the railways that there is a future for them and
the railways in this country.
If rail workers had that assurance and did not feel that in some
ways the rail industry was not targeted for total extinction or
anything quite like that, but nevertheless not being enhanced by
the appropriate policy decisions and therefore suffering over
time continuous decline, then perhaps rail workers would feel
more confident in their negotiations with the company in the
context of negotiations about job security and employment
security and a variety of other things. Because they feel that one
decision after another seems to point to an increasing
downsizing and diminishing of the role of rail transport in our
overall transportation policy they are obviously not willing to
accept that when push comes to shove it is their particular
economic self-interest that has to be sacrificed.
10702
I will go back to something I said last week when we were
debating back to work legislation. If there was a capital strike in
this country, as there sometimes is in various ways, would we
have an emergency debate? Would we have an emergency
motion? Would we have long and sober debates on trying to
make capital pay attention to the national interest and to the
needs of the Canadian economy? It would be quite the contrary.
We are forever exalting such decisions as good business
decisions that we have to somehow appease, the decisions that
investors make, money speculators make, currency traders
make or others make when they do not take the national interest
into account and when they do things that destabilize the
economy, put people out of work or advocate a high real interest
rate policy that maybe causes people to lose their homes. All
kinds of things happen because of the decisions that other people
make in their economic self-interest and we simply say: ``That
is the way it is. That is the marketplace. That is life so get used to
it. Let us see if we cannot do something to give these people
what they want so they will not make these kinds of decisions''.
When working people strike we see how important they are to
the economy, do we not? The whole thing depends on day after
day people getting up and doing their jobs, whether it is running
trains, maintaining the tracks or whatever the case may be. But
when working people strike all of a sudden the full force of the
law is brought to bear on them.
(1310 )
Opposition members of Parliament are expected to walk
freely into the tent, consult with the government and then do
whatever the government wants them to do. Two weeks ago if I
had had an opinion on railway concerns I might as well have
spoken it into the great white telephone, for all the attention I
would have received from the government.
Now the government wants me to agree. Now it wants workers
to agree. In the meantime it has no qualms about getting rid of
the Crow rate, or deregulating, or privatizing CN or doing all
kinds of things like that. That is okay.
It is in protest of that and not just on some kind of a principle
having to do with back to work legislation that I object to the
process this morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since I am
a former FTQ trade unionist, I must rise to tell you that
compulsory back-to-work legislation does not solve the
problems. I was active in the FTQ for 19 years. Despite the many
laws passed at both the provincial and federal levels, the
problems continue to exist and sometimes even get worse,
because this is not the way to resolve labour relations problems,
especially since this goes against the principles adopted by the
government and supported by both union and management.
The right to negotiate, which has been recognized by the
International Labour Organization, the Government of Canada,
the provincial governments, the employers and the unions, must
be fully exercised. I think that until now, the unions did not
have the opportunity to negotiate with the employers. I think
that the companies have acted in bad faith toward the
employees in these negotiations. The companies have tried to
dictate the issues to be negotiated, to impose their strength and
arrogance on the unions. The unions are not responsible for the
negotiations dragging on, because it is the companies that want
to go against the basic principle of job security.
No union or employee in the world can say yes to employers
who want to cut thousands and thousands of jobs in an attempt to
make mobility one of their labour relations goals. Workers want
a certain level of job security and some protection with regard to
their job descriptions. Of course, all strikes present
disadvantages, but the right to strike is a universal right which is
exercised in every country, including the U.S.
Disadvantages are part of the rules of the game which, again,
have been recognized by international organizations, the
employers, the government and the unions. I was surprised that
the minister would make a speech on her bill but not say a word
about the workers' legitimate demands or to condemn
companies for trying to impose their views knowing that the
government will protect them, this Liberal government is
behind them.
We want these 7,000 workers on strike or lockout to also be
afforded representation, to have someone speak on their behalf
in Parliament. That is what we, the Bloc Quebecois, are doing
and we do not want to debate this back-to-work legislation
today. Even Commissioner Hope said, in his report, that the
companies did not bargain in good faith. He did not use these
very words but when he said that the companies are trying to
impose their own agenda and ignore union demands, that is what
he meant.
(1315)
I am surprised that the hon. minister did not say a word about
labour relations in the rail transportation industry, not
mentioning that problems exist and that the government has
neglected to deal with them because the collective agreements
expired on December 31, 1993. That is why I fully support the
remarks made by our critic in this area, the hon. member for
Mercier.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to stand in support of the government on this measure.
10703
It is very interesting that we should get this impassioned
defence.
An hon. member: Why did you not vote on the other bill?
Ms. Clancy: I did not vote for that bill because this is a much
better bill. If the member will read them both, he will see it.
Perhaps that may be a difficulty for him.
At any rate, with regard to this legislation and the response of
the official opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, may I
say that it is very interesting. I stand here as the member for
Halifax, the city with the great port which needs the railway to
ensure that the port continues to bring prosperity to the people of
the metropolitan Halifax area, to Nova Scotia and to Atlantic
Canada.
It is very interesting that we hear from the members of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition all this rant about the workers. The
hon. member for Bourassa who just spoke chose to come to this
country and we are so glad he did. While we are glad he chose to
come here in one way or another, the answer too is that he
obviously chose Canada because of the way we do protect
workers but we protect the peace, order and good government of
this country as well.
A rail strike such as this is not the kind of protection or the
kind of activity that means this country will continue to be
prosperous. Look at a few of the things that are taking place
because of this industrial action.
There is the loss of $10 million per day to Canadian National
alone, a permanent loss of rail traffic to truck, therefore sapping
the financial viability of our rail system. As one of the members
opposite actually said-and I agree, do not faint-once these
jobs are gone, it is very difficult to get them back. There is also
the adverse image of Canada as a reliable supplier to world
markets, Japan, for example.
As I said before, the problems of the ports and most
particularly the port of Halifax in my estimation is something
we could no longer let go by the boards.
May I offer my congratulations to the Minister of Labour who
has certainly come through in an amazing way. She has had her
baptism by fire as a new member in this House. We on this side
are very proud of the minister. We want to congratulate her. I
certainly want to congratulate her on behalf of my constituents
and the people of Nova Scotia.
She has been a lucid voice in an otherwise overly emotional
debate. The minister stood up this weekend and prior to it and
asked people to do the right thing, to think of the country as a
whole and to come back to the table. Only when all else failed
did she say that the answer was back to work legislation.
The minister met with representatives of all companies and
unions to urge them to resolve their disputes, or at least to agree
on a binding process to resolve their disputes. When the parties
reported that they were unable to reach such an understanding,
when they reported that collective bargaining negotiations had
reached an impasse, she knew that nothing could be gained by
further delay.
Most of these collective agreements expired on December 31,
1993, well over a year ago. For some others it was as long ago as
December 31, 1991. Extensive federal assistance has been
provided to the parties including the assistance of conciliation
officers and a conciliation commissioner. The process has been
going on for well over a year.
(1320 )
This government acted and will continue to act in the best
interests of the people of Canada. It does not act with a hidden or
secret agenda. It is absolutely necessary that the railway
business continues, that it goes on for the proper commercial
work to be done in this country. Whether one lives in my riding
of Halifax with a port, or anywhere across this great country, the
railway has been and will continue to be an absolutely essential
link in the commerce of Canada.
To do this is not in any way, shape or form-as has been
suggested in a manner I find distasteful-contrary to the
interests over the long term of Canadian workers. It is not so and
cannot even for a moment be considered to be so because the
health and prosperity of this country is the first and foremost
concern of this government, beginning with the Prime Minister
and working down to everyone who sits on this side of the
House.
Action on the railway bill is absolutely urgent because CN is
shut down, VIA is shut down, and CP is operating at 85 per cent
capacity or less. The impact grows with every day and every
hour. That impact is bad for every Canadian from coast to coast.
Grain shipments are compromised. Auto plants depend on just
in time deliveries that will not make it. Layoffs can be expected
to start today. That is not very good for the workers of Canada. I
would like to know what my hon. friend on the other side would
say to that.
Raw materials movement will be minimal while this goes on.
As I said before, our reputation as an exporter is at stake. That is
certainly not good for anyone who works in this country, be it
someone who labours in the particular field or be it a member of
Parliament. People are affected, especially commuters around
Toronto and Montreal. With 50,000 who use commuter rail
every day, the result is traffic chaos in two of our major cities.
Is there any value to waiting any longer? The process between
the parties is at an impasse. Negotiations, as I have said, have
gone on in the shortest of cases for over a year, in the longest for
over three years. There have been conciliation officers and a
conciliation commissioner. The minister has listened and has
10704
made a decision. The government and members on this side of
the House support her decision and we will continue to do so.
This is an absolute necessity for the people of Canada, for the
health of this country. I am proud to stand and support this
legislation, to support this government, and most particularly to
support our newest Minister of Labour.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed by the hon. member's
comments to the effect that the member for Bourassa was not
born here, but came to Canada later. She wondered if he was
aware of the working conditions here.
I believe he was very aware of those conditions; in fact, he
probably knows them better than she does. It is deplorable that
such a distinction be made by a member of this House.
As regards the port of Halifax, I want to point out that the Bloc
Quebecois took the same stand in the case of both Vancouver and
Montreal harbours. I did not hear the hon. member allude to the
port of Montreal, where a lockout has been in effect for some ten
days now. Is this because it was just fine with the people in
Halifax? Some of her Liberal colleagues told me: the strike or
lockout in the port of Montreal can go on because, in the
meantime, Halifax is doing very well. Things were going well,
but this is no longer the case.
In Montreal, the union proposed to go back to work if a
mediator was appointed. Last Wednesday, the labour minister
promised that such a mediator would be appointed, but she has
not done so yet. Part of the problem in Montreal is that one
employer, Calmar, which belongs to CP, refuses to let normal
activities resume in the port of Montreal.
An hon. member: Is that so?
(1325)
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, they are opposed to the resumption of
normal activities in the port, something the longshoremen are
prepared to do with a mediator. It has been 20 years since there
was a labour dispute in the port of Montreal. A tradition of good
bargaining. At Canadian Pacific, the current attitude to labour
relations has been to take a hard line and let labour disputes
fester without resolution and then ask for special legislation.
I heard the chairman of the Quebec Liberal Caucus say
earlier: ``But there are no essential services''. And why not? Do
you know why? Because there is no anti-scab legislation. There
are no anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code. This
government came to power a year ago. It promised to introduce
legislation but it never did. It was in favour of such provisions
when it was in the opposition but not any more. We have seen
nothing so far. Sure, a working paper was distributed with
several proposals for anti-scab legislation where it would take
60 per cent and scabs would become legal. Quite something.
They call it anti-scab legislation, but they would allow scabs
under this proposal.
One last comment, since my time is almost up. I agree there
may be emergencies and I agree that from time to time we may
have to consider legislating workers back to work. But after 15
hours, in one case, and 24 hours, in the other? Let us get this
straight: Either they have the right to strike or they do not. If
we want no more strikes, we should pass legislation
accordingly, but we should not give the parties the impression
that this right exists-if they have that right, they should
exercise it-while resorting to special legislation. We cannot
have it both ways. Either the right to strike exists and it may
be exercised, or it does not. Let us stop resorting to special
legislation. Let us put our cards on the table and be logical
instead of pretending to support public service employees
during the election campaign and then doing what they are
doing now.
This party talks like the New Democratic Party during the
election campaign and acts like the Progressive Conservative
Party once it is in power. That is the Liberals for you.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not proposing to take part in this debate.
However, since there is time, I am quite happy to say something
in response to the ridiculous comments we have heard from
opposition members as to their excuse for not supporting this
urgent and important legislation that really should be dealt with
in this House.
Many of my constituents are gravely inconvenienced by this
strike. They are more than just inconvenienced. The question
which arises in respect of this strike is the economic loss to our
country as a result of the failure to ship the things that have to
get to port to be exported from Canada. This country is going
through an export boom. To have a serious disruptive strike,
whatever the problems that may have arisen to cause it and
whatever the reason, is a serious economic loss to Canada at this
stage in our economic cycle.
The Minister of Finance recently tabled a budget. Clearly, the
success of that budget depends in part on the export growth that
is booming in Canada today and which should be supported by
every member of this House. We have an obligation to see to it
that Canada's prosperity is not obstructed by some serious work
stoppage which is preventing one of the most important things in
our country, that is, exports which are going on at this moment
and every hour of every day. They are being blocked because the
opposition is unwilling to bring an end to this strike through
some lawful means.
10705
We proposed a fair solution to it. Members may not like it but
it is a fair solution. Opposition members know that perfectly
well, yet they persist in obduracy and say they will not allow us
to change the rules in respect of this bill. They allowed the rules
to be changed last week and I grant that, but they will not do so
with respect to this bill to ensure that these people are put back
to work so that jobs are not lost to Canadians.
We believe in creating jobs in this country. That is part of the
philosophy of the Liberal government. I am surprised the
opposition does not share that philosophy. One of the ways we
create jobs is by exports. This strike is stopping exports. It is
costing Canadians jobs. We should end it right away and the
faster the better. The opposition knows it perfectly well.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 53, the period of one hour has expired.
It is now my duty to ask all members who object to the motion
to rise.
And more than 10 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Ten or more members
having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 53, the motion is
deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion deemed withdrawn.)
* * *
(1330)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-73, an act
to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on
April 1, 1995, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Finance and
Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred
in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 170)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
Ouellet
Parrish
Peters
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robillard
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Vanclief
Walker
Wood
Young -93
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
10706
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Thompson
Venne
Williams-52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Easter
Fry
Jackson
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
MacLaren
Peric
Simmons
Szabo
Tobin
Ur
Volpe
de Savoye
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall the
bill be read a third time? Later this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you would find unanimous consent to call it two o'clock,
thereby allowing for 15 minutes for statements under Standing
Order 31 and continuing with the question period for 45 minutes
so that no time is lost for either statements or questions.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31, with the proviso that question
period will end at approximately 3.08.
_____________________________________________
10706
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, March 20, is the Journée internationale de la
Francophonie.
Moreover, this year is the 25th anniversary of this celebration
of French culture and language, which was marked by the
creation of the Cultural and Technical Co-operation Agency.
The Francophonie, which unites 47 countries, can be
described as the community of peoples who speak French to
varying degrees.
Since 1970, Canada has played a leading role in the
development of the Francophonie. Through its membership in
the Francophonie, Canada shares with the rest of the world our
physiognomical traits and gives French speaking Canadians,
who number 8.5 million, access to the world and development
possibilities in a wide range of countries located in all parts of
the world.
I would like to wish all francophones and francophiles in
Canada a happy Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
francophones the world over celebrate the Journée
internationale de la Francophonie. On this day, we must reflect
on the future of the Francophonie in light of the social and
cultural changes shaping our societies.
Despite the fact that parliamentarians observe this day each
year, Bloc Quebecois members deplore the omission of any
mention of the Francophonie's flag in the Minister of Canadian
Heritage's document entitled: ``Canadian Flag, Flag Etiquette in
Canada''. However it does describe the flags of three important
international organizations, the United Nations, NATO and the
Commonwealth, of which Canada is a member.
The Francophonie, must we remind the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, is celebrated in all countries of the world, starting with
Canada.
We send our best wishes to francophones the world over.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate four young people from my riding and home town
of Camrose, Alberta, on their outstanding performances at the
Canada Winter Games recently held in Grand Prairie, Alberta.
All are members of the Camrose Composite High School ski
club. They competed in the biathlon, the same sport in which
Canada won a gold medal at the 1994 Winter Olympics.
10707
Seventeen-year old Kristine Saugen won three gold medals.
Amy Ford, 18 years old, won a gold, silver and bronze medal,
while 18-year old Erin Phillips placed fourth in the
10-kilometre individual race and received a gold and silver
medal. Finally 19-year old Carlos Settle won a bronze medal in
the 15-kilometre individual race while placing fourth in the
10-kilometre sprint.
Congratulations to Kristine, Amy, Erin and Carlos. They are
all true champions and fine athletes.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I ask the House to imagine how different the situation might be
today if the government had kept its promises to abandon the
Mulroney agenda.
Imagine if instead of announcing the privatization of CN it
had announced new investment. Imagine if instead of
abandoning the Crow benefit it had stood up for the necessity of
rail subsidies. Imagine if instead of continuing with
deregulation and commercialization in the transport sector it
had reregulated in favour of rail, an environmentally superior
form of transport. Imagine if instead of keeping and adding to
the cuts at VIA Rail it had finally made the investment promised
for so many years by so many governments in passenger rail.
Maybe railroaders would have a different attitude today and
certainly less anxiety about job security.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, St.
Catharines' polka king, Walter Ostanek, has made us proud once
again.
Earlier this month he was honoured with his third consecutive
Grammy award at this year's 37th annual award ceremony in
Los Angeles.
Walter Ostanek won his award in the polka album category for
his recording called ``Music and Friends''. This is his 46th
recording and his 7th time to be nominated for a Grammy award.
While many other talented Canadians were nominated for
awards, the polka king was the only Canadian to be chosen for a
Grammy.
Congratulations to Walter Ostanek. Our hats are off to him for
his continued excellence in music.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am wearing a pin on behalf of the Learning
Disabilities Association of Nova Scotia to commemorate
Learning Disabilities Month.
Across Canada learning disabilities associations and schools
perform vital work. Without their success in generating greater
public awareness and without their preventive efforts to
diagnose and assist those with learning disabilities, school
dropout rates would dramatically increase. The number of
juvenile offenders would be on the rise and the long term costs
of Canada's social programs would spiral.
I offer my support particularly to the Learning Disabilities
Association of Nova Scotia. The many hours offered by
committed volunteers and staff have made a tremendous
difference in the lives of those who live with learning
disabilities.
I urge all members of the House to promote the valuable role
played by these voluntary organizations in communities across
our country. Their efforts are truly making a difference.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in support of Kids Help Phone. This non-profit service
was started by the Canadian Children's Foundation back in
1989. Since then Kids Help Phone, which offers 24-hour
bilingual counselling service to troubled youth, has grown
tremendously. Kids Help Phone receives over 3,000 calls a day
from frightened, lonely and often abused children.
Just last month Kids Help Phone received an astonishing
2,041 calls from troubled youth in my home town of Hamilton.
Unfortunately, however, Kids Help Phone only has enough staff
and telephone lines to handle about one-quarter of the calls.
Who knows what kind of a crisis each one of those unaddressed
calls for help might entail on a daily basis?
Although Kids Help Phone does not solicit government
funding, I call upon my colleagues in the House to lend their
support and raise awareness of the Kids Help Phone line
1-800-668-6868. After all, helping a young person in trouble
can make a difference that will last a lifetime.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Innu held a protest on Parliament Hill last Saturday to
denounce the recommendations of the environmental
assessment panel reviewing low level flights in Labrador and
Northern Quebec.
(1415)
The Bloc Quebecois joins the Innu in denouncing the
contradictory recommendations of the panel who admits in its
report the need for further study of the impacts on the health of
human and animal populations, yet recommends that twice as
many
10708
flights be allowed, thereby jeopardizing the fragile balance of
the Arctic environment.
This review offhandedly casts aside the legitimate concerns
of those who face daily the stress caused by such flights. Under
these circumstances, the Canadian government must flatly
reject this report and start a new scientific process which, this
time, will take into account the demands of the
environmentalists and the local people.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
recently released a report stating the Canadian banking industry
has a bias against women entrepreneurs because women had a 20
per cent higher refusal rate than men on commercial loans and
paid 1 per cent more than male entrepreneurs on average.
It could be argued the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business is wrong. A Statistics Canada national survey of small
business in November 1994 said the difference was 6 per
cent-18 per cent for males, 24 per cent for women-and the
difference may be reflective of industry preference and not
gender bias. In August 1994 an Industry Canada report
concluded that gender did not influence interest rates charged on
commercial loans.
We should be careful not to create problems. We have enough
as it is. Engendering a victim mentality based on gender will do
nothing to inspire men or women to become entrepreneurs.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from March 7 to 9 the permanent joint board on defence between
Canada and the United States had its 195th meeting.
The permanent joint board dates back to a 1940 agreement
between Canada and the U.S. to share common security interests
and to co-ordinate joint defence. Composed of both civilian and
military officials, the 195th board discussed security in the
western hemisphere and NATO's infrastructure and possible
expansion.
The Americans had the opportunity to study our government's
white paper on defence and foreign policy statement while
Canadians had the opportunity to review the U.S. national
military strategy.
Mr. Dwight Mason, the American co-chair, and I as the
Canadian co-chair were both impressed with the depth of
discussion and strongly encourage continuing support for these
meetings.
Managing one of the world's largest defence arrangements
requires close co-operation between Canada and the United
States. The permanent joint board on defence is an excellent
vehicle to help administer this important relationship.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, spring, which came to our west coast in January, has
now officially reached the rest of Canada.
B.C. citizens, radio station CKNW, home of Rafe Mair and
Bill Good, Lumberland and General Paint offer each MP today a
token of the new season of hope and renewal. In the poet's
words:
Daffodils
That come before the swallow dares and take
The winds of March with beauty.
They remind us of the infinite beauty of our country, but also
of its fragility.
Canadians have led the world in building the strong new
international law on conservation and sustainable development
of the earth's dwindling natural resources, including fisheries,
as the common heritage of all mankind.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my good
friend and buddy Beryl Gaffney is currently undergoing surgery
in London, Ontario. I wish her well and want her to know she is
in our thoughts and prayers.
Beryl, your energy and drive can be a lesson to us all. I know
you have the spirit and strength to see yourself through the days
and weeks ahead. After all, as a friend and neighbour you put up
with so many of us for so many years.
I know you will be back in your seat in the House very soon.
On behalf of all of my colleagues, I wish you a quick and easy
recovery. We miss you and look forward to your return soon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister stated in Saskatoon Wednesday that the founda-
10709
tions of the Canada Health Act were not negotiable. As it turns
out however, the national forum on health, chaired by the Prime
Minister himself, has a mandate to review this act without the
full participation of the provinces.
(1420)
The only legitimate players in the health field, namely the
provinces, have been excluded from this process. The true
meaning of the Prime Minister's ``not negotiable'' therefore
becomes apparent.
Moreover, the last federal budget called for major budget cuts
in transfer payments to the provinces. Again, this is not
negotiable.
Are we to understand that this so-called flexible federalism
means that nothing is negotiable? Transfer payments are cut, yet
the provinces must comply with standards dictated by Ottawa.
Now, they are being excluded from the national forum on health.
And that is not negotiable either.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
used to pay a penny for our thoughts, but thanks to an artist in
Halifax we are now paying a nickel.
The artist, Stephen Ellwood, is an American who came to
Canada because we give more money to artists than do our
southern neighbours. Today Mr. Ellwood will be throwing away
$300 in nickels-6,000 nickels-some off a building, others
discarded on the street, to make a politically artistic statement.
All of this money is at the expense of the Canada taxpayer
thanks to the Canada Council.
I believe in the freedom of expression in Canada. I do not
believe Canadian taxpayers should be left on the hook for every
political and artistic problem we have. The Canada Council
needs to overhaul its granting practices to ensure greater
accountability as to how funds are distributed. It is time we
looked at the current structure of the Canada Council and ask
how it can continue to exist as we know it today.
Thanks to the Canada Council the Liberal government is not
the only one throwing money away. Mr. Ellwood is so good at it
he deserves a seat at the cabinet table as well.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
last week marked the third anniversary of the end of apartheid in
South Africa.
Tomorrow around the world people will commemorate the
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
raising awareness that racism still exists in our communities and
that we must work toward its complete elimination.
In Canada equality is the law but is not always the reality,
as many people must be bear the burden of racial
discrimination. It is everyone's responsibility to acknowledge
and address racism and its presence in employment, social life,
housing and the justice system.
Through education true respect and equality can be achieved.
By sharing the differences in our heritage and increasing
awareness of each other's struggles and strengths we will end
much of the discrimination that plagues our society.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, following the statement made by the
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du
Canada in support of the no side in the referendum, the Bloc
Quebecois' reaction was swift: mind your own business.
One wonders who, in the opinion of the Bloc and the Parti
Quebecois, can speak freely about the referendum. Last week,
the Bloc questioned the right of the FCFA to express its opinion.
Less than a month ago, the Bloc also questioned the right to vote
of those who are not old stock Quebecers, to quote the
expression used by one of its members. Shortly before that, a
senior PQ advisor questioned the right of English-speaking
Quebecers to vote in the referendum.
Back in May 1994, the Bloc told one of its own advisors to
keep quiet on that issue. The message sent by the Bloc and the
Parti Quebecois is clear: Only those who share their views can
speak about the referendum.
The Speaker: My colleagues, since it is now 2.24 p.m.,
question period will end at 3.09 p.m.
_____________________________________________
10709
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, CN, CP and VIA Rail management responded to
the strike called by rail unions on Saturday by locking out over
10,000 workers, thus paralysing the whole Canadian
transportation network. According to Commissioner Hope's
February 6 report, these three employers have refused to back
down from any of their demands as employers.
Given the employers' attitude, how does the Minister of
Labour explain that, in the night between Saturday and Sunday,
barely 12 hours after the dispute started, she prepared, at the
10710
employers' request, to legislate employees back to work and to
make arbitration compulsory?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my first reaction to the work stoppage at CN and VIA
Rail was to meet with the parties, that is, the three companies
and all the unions, yesterday at 3 p.m. in Montreal, to try to
convince them to settle the dispute themselves by telling them
very clearly that it would be much better for them to solve the
problem themselves than to let the government legislate.
We still believe that it would be much better for both the
employers and the unions to find their own solution to the
problem, and I hope that they still have time to do so before we
legislate.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments are very enlightening; she
has delivered an ode to free collective bargaining, after giving
notice at 9.04 a.m. on Sunday, about 12 hours after the dispute
started, that she would break up the strike.
How can the minister explain that, over a month before the
dispute started, Commissioner Hope recommended
back-to-work legislation although, according to his own report,
the current stalemate results from the intransigence of the
employers, who are trying to impose ``extremely controversial
and provocative'' demands?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we have to bring a back-to-work bill before the
members of this House, it is because the impact of this work
stoppage requires the government to take action.
There is first of all an impact on all the people who use VIA
Rail services. All the passengers faced a significant problem
this morning. As far as the rail transportation network is
concerned, this strike also affects an important part of the
Canadian economy, not only rail companies but also all the other
companies that depend on this form of transportation to speed up
their operations.
Therefore, I think that it is in the public interest for the
government to take action in this matter.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister, we must conclude
right away that there is really only one fundamental question:
Does the right to strike still exist in Canada? If it must be taken
away, a bill to that effect should be introduced and debated.
If this right to strike still exists, and it does, why does the
minister refuse to consider a back-to-work bill that would
provide for mediation instead of imposing work conditions and
that we would support?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the right to strike and to lock out workers still exists
under the Canada Labour Code. In fact, over 60 per cent of
labour disputes are settled without government or departmental
intervention. Over 90 per cent of cases referred to the Minister
of Labour are settled without strikes or lockouts. Our current
system is very effective, except in emergency situations with a
major impact on the economy or the population, as is now the
case. We must strive to achieve results.
Unfortunately, the parties have been negotiating for months
without reaching an agreement. The time has come to achieve
results in this dispute.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The port of
Montreal has been paralysed for thirteen days. Last week, the
minister announced that she intended to appoint a mediator to
help settle the dispute.
Could the minister explain why she was in such a hurry to pass
back-to-work legislation only a few hours after a lockout was
declared in the railway transportation industry, but has yet to
appoint the mediator requested by the workers to help settle the
dispute at the port of Montreal?
(1430)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, action has already been taken. I met both parties, the
employers and the union, this morning. I asked them to go back
to work immediately and to resume negotiations. I also
appointed a mediator who is to report to me in ten days' time.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad that the minister has finally responded to the wishes of the
union, which has been asking for a mediator for quite some time,
because previously, labour relations have been excellent. What
is needed is a permanent solution to the dispute.
Why did she not take similar action in the case of the railway
transportation dispute?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, each situation must be considered separately,
especially where labour relations are concerned, and I think the
hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois will agree that no two
situations are alike.
In the case of the port of Montreal, no conciliation
commissioner had been appointed. There had been only one
conciliation phase, so this is entirely different from the situation
at the railways, where we had another very long phase, from
November 1994 until February 1995, when a conciliation
commissioner intervened.
So I assume the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois is quite
satisfied with the decision I made today.
10711
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, for weeks a rail strike was expected. Now, after
millions of dollars in lost wages and profit, and aggravating
delays for commuters, farmers, and exporters, the Liberal
government is finally ready to heed Reform's call for back to
work legislation.
The Bloc and the NDP are holding up speedy passage of the
legislation, adding to the loss of Canadian jobs and exports. It
should not have come to this and it need not, had the government
acted.
Since Reform knew weeks ago that legislation would be
necessary to end this dispute, since the unions knew it, CN-CP
knew it and the government knew it, why did the government not
act sooner to avert this costly rail strike?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government still believes in collective bargaining.
It still believes that the best solution is when the parties
involved reach an agreement. And in every situation, we will do
the impossible, before we consider legislating.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately millions of Canadians are held
hostage by this work stoppage and they need to be heard as well.
It is the government's shortsightedness and bumbling that is to
blame for the rail stoppage.
Thirty-six hundred people in Montreal and Toronto are
stranded because of the government. Farmers cannot get their
grain to market because of the government. Manufacturers are
shutting down production and workers are being laid off because
of the government.
What is the government planning to do to ensure rail
stoppages will be a thing of the past?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very much aware of the economic impact of a
work stoppage. However, one of the principles of good
government is that a way must always be found to establish a
balance between the forces involved. It is certainly not the intent
of this Liberal government to side against the workers, as the
Reform Party is doing. We want collective bargaining that is fair
to both parties in the majority of cases.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, if the government was serious about preventing
future transportation stoppages, it would have supported
Reform's private member's bill this morning.
The Minister of Labour floated the idea of binding arbitration
last night. If she had really believed what she was saying, the
minister would have stood in her place and voted for the best
offer selection bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge.
I ask the Minister of Labour this. What steps will the
government take to prevent future rail disputes? Please, no
speeches and no lectures about the collective bargaining
process. It rings pretty hollow to 45,000 public servants.
(1435)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, most disputes are resolved without government
intervention. We must be aware of this. Secondly, when the
government does intervene, most disputes are resolved without
a strike or a lockout. We therefore have a very good system.
There is always room for improvement, but we are not going to
change it 150 per cent as the hon. member for the Reform Party
would have us do.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Alain
Pineault, vice-president of CBC planning and regulations said
that the future of CBC regional TV stations had become
uncertain following the funding cuts announced in the last
federal budget.
Since the CBC decided against asking the CRTC to renew its
regional stations' broadcasting licences because of the
uncertainty created by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, can
the minister confirm or deny once and for all today-and could
he please be clear-that the CBC is facing cuts of $44 million,
$96 million and $165 million over the next three years, as Mr.
Manera was told by his deputy minister?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that the budget is clear with respect
to the figures available concerning the CBC. I have already
covered this ground and I have nothing to add.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
budget calls for $40 million in cuts next year. That much we
know and is clear. But does the minister not realize that
Radio-Canada has announced that more than 750 positions will
disappear in the next few years, and now that the entire regional
network will disappear as well? Does he? And having
undertaken to provide multi-year funding to this crown
corporation, does he not think that his first duty today is to make
things clear, to put things plainly and honestly to the CBC, to
allow for sound financial planning?
The Speaker: My colleagues, again, the honesty of the
answers must never be called into question. All the hon.
members always answer honestly.
10712
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague just made reference to
decisions announced by the CBC. I assume that his sources are
the press and certain statements made by a vice-president of the
CBC's French network. I would like to quote what she said with
respect to the number of job cuts. She said that it was ``an
estimate, not a firm figure''. She also said that this estimate will
have to be approved by a board of directors. That is exactly what
I said last week.
I said that there were, of course, dealings between the
vice-president and her staff, but that no decision had been made.
I said so last week and I repeat it today, supported by a quote
from the source herself.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday
the Prime Minister told the House that he would not undertake
an investigation into the Perez affair. On Friday, however, the
Solicitor General admitted that the minister of public works was
conducting his own investigation into the incident.
What type of investigation is this? What assurances will the
minister give the House that the investigation will be open and
non-partisan?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
inform the hon. member that I am monitoring the situation and
reviewing a number of allegations that have been made.
This event occurred well before our mandate commenced. It
was back in 1991. It is the subject of litigation. A number of
accusations have been made by a variety of different parties. In
fact the CBC had made an allegation against two of the
individuals.
(1440)
For the benefit of all members, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
read the retraction which was published: ``Last week the CBC
broadcast a story which implied payments had been made to
Senator Pierre DeBane and to Canada Post Corporation
President, Georges Clermont, in connection with the awarding
of a contract for construction by Perez Construction of the new
headquarters building of Canada Post in Ottawa. On
investigation, CBC has determined that that story was false and
unjustified. CBC retracts the story and apologizes to Senator
DeBané, Georges Clermont, José Perez and the Canada Post
Corporation for any embarrassment caused by the erroneous
report''.
I anticipate that additional allegations will come forward.
Until such time as the litigation comes to a close, we will
continue to monitor the situation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this event
sounds an awful lot like the Pearson airport deal which was also
started by the previous administration.
I would like to ask the minister for some clarification on
behalf of Canadian taxpayers. Will he, when he conducts his
investigation, also make public to the Canadian taxpayers who
are footing the bill the terms and conditions of the lease
agreement?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can well
understand the desire of the hon. member to try to raise some
public attention.
I want to share with him that the Auditor General, in March
1994, in a special examination of the Canada Post Real Estate
Group said he ``was satisfied with the decision making process
throughout the project. The process provided for many counter
checks of information, ensuring that cost effective alternatives
were well identified and documented''.
Furthermore the Auditor General went on to note: ``Therefore
it was found that the facility planning process as it affects cost
controls issues for the corporation-(were) based on sound
information and realistic market assumptions''.
I will provide the information to him at the most appropriate
time but I would hope that the hon. member could allow this
litigation process to come to a conclusion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Income Security recently
highlighted the negative effects of the Liberal government's
cuts to the unemployment insurance system. One of them was
that, as a direct result of the cuts to unemployment insurance,
between 6,000 and 8,000 households in Quebec will be forced to
join the welfare lines each month.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he confirm
that the additional $2.4 billion in cuts to the unemployment
insurance fund, of which $700 million is for Quebec alone, will
only increase the number of families collecting unemployment
insurance which have to switch over to welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be very helpful to
point out to the hon. member who asked the question what I
think is the
10713
most important statistic from last year. If we look at the
question of those people who exhausted their UI benefits, the
number dropped by more than 86,000 over the year before.
There was a very substantial gain of employment in Quebec
which enabled far fewer people to reach a stage where they had
to exhaust their UI benefits.
That is the real statistic the hon. member and the hon. minister
for Quebec should be looking at. We are creating jobs in Quebec.
People will be able to stay at work longer and not have to
exhaust their UI benefits as a result.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the only statistic that people are going to remember is
that, last year, the government implemented $675 million in cuts
to the unemployment insurance fund, that this year's cuts
amount to $2.4 billion and that it plans to cut $3.5 billion in the
next. That is what people are going to remember.
My second question is also for the Minister of Finance. Will
he admit that he is condemning thousands of families to despair
by denying them unemployment insurance benefits and is once
again offloading his financial problems onto the provinces by
forcing them to spend larger amounts on welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member
simply does not know what he is talking about.
As a result of the unemployment insurance changes, close to
200,000 Canadian families receive the additional benefit of 60
per cent which adds, on average, an additional $1,000 of revenue
for those low income families with dependants.
(1445 )
As a result of UI changes and the direction we are going in
which is to give differential benefits to those most in need, we
are able to provide substantial new income for 200,000
Canadian families.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has
spent over $75 million modernizing our fleet of CF-5 fighters.
We are now spending more millions of dollars even though the
fleet is grounded and up for sale. The last time we tried to sell
fighter planes we ended up giving away 39 of them to Turkey.
What assurances can the minister give us that the Canadian
taxpayers will not again get a bad deal and be up for another
financial loss?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the CF-5s were bought
some years ago as the main fighter and were superseded by the
CF-18. As he also knows, the CF-5 fleet is being retired as a
result of the white paper on defence and policy review. The
intent is to sell them to another country, if possible.
Some countries have indicated some interest, but there is one
country in particular where we believe there is a good
opportunity to sell the CF-5s. The negotiations are continuing
and we hope to have positive results in the near future.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
Minister of Foreign Affairs would agree that the most likely
candidate to buy the CF-5 fighters is the Turkish government.
The foreign affairs minister has condemned Turkey for bombing
civilians. Given these concerns, what reassurances can the
minister give us to ensure that these fighters will never be used
to bomb civilian populations?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. Turkey is the country we
are negotiating with. The sale of these aircraft to Turkey or to
any other country will be subject to the strict rules and
regulations that are applied by the Department of Foreign
Affairs and other controls that Canada has which preclude the
sort of thing the member is concerned about from happening.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
We learned today that the chairman of the National Capital
Commission, Mr. Marcel Beaudry, was honourary president at a
fund raising dinner held last Saturday in the riding of Chapleau
by the Quebec Liberal Party.
How can the minister explain that a senior official of his
department can get actively involved in Quebec matters, given
the discretion normally expected from public servants at that
level?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the National Capital
Commission is not an official of my department. He presides
over a fully independent government agency, which operates at
arm's length. Consequently, I have no authority over that
official, since he is not a member of my department. I should
also add that this person is free to use his leisure time as he
pleases.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that the National Capital Commission is a
10714
crown corporation accountable to the Department of Canadian
Heritage. There are all kinds of leisure activities in life.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not agree that this
case should be reviewed by the ethics commissioner, so that we
know to what extent such leisure activities, as the minister calls
them, are acceptable, based on the ethics rules mentioned at
length in the red book?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Beaudry is a very respectable person
who does not engage in activities without first making sure that
they are compatible with his duties.
I am surprised to hear members opposite criticize federal
public servants and agencies, considering that they encourage
Quebec public servants to actively participate in the referendum
campaign.
* * *
(1450)
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the Minister of Foreign Affairs will attend
the next Francophone Summit to be held in Benin, Africa.
Can the minister tell us what the government's priorities are
with respect to the French-speaking countries of the world?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question on this
Journée nationale et internationale de la Francophonie.
Indeed, on the initiative on the French minister, Mr. Jacques
Toubon, ministers of French-speaking countries will be meeting
next week in Paris to discuss ways to better prepare themselves
for the Francophone Summit that will take place later this year,
in Cotonou, Benin. This summit will bring together the heads of
state of member countries of the Francophonie.
Over and above the efforts made in terms of cultural and
technical co-operation, we want the Francophonie to play a
broader political role in the promotion of human rights,
democracy, equality for women and child welfare.
We think the Francophonie has an important part to play in the
attainment of these objectives.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, CBC Newsworld broadcast a
segment on Fernand Auger. We heard about Auger picking up a
14-year old prostitute in Toronto 10 years ago, putting a gun to
her head, threatening to kill her and then raping and sodomizing
her.
The program then had an employee of Correctional Service
Canada state that Auger's convictions were not viewed as being
violent because the victims were prostitutes and this implied
a level of consent.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Are these comments
reflective of the position of Correctional Service Canada and
this government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have not seen the program. I am going to get the text
and review it. We consider this a very serious and tragic
situation. Those comments, if accurately stated, do not reflect
the position of this government.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on June 10, 1994 while responding to a
question of mine concerning a similar situation that occurred
with Clifford Olson, the Minister of Justice stated that he hoped
the allegations of crime are investigated, prosecuted and
punished without reference to the lifestyle of the victim.
I ask the Solicitor General, what steps will you be taking to
ensure that the attitudes of Correctional Service Canada are
consistent with the government's policies and positions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again as I have said, I will check into the matter. If what
is stated with respect to this broadcast is correct, I will make
sure that the operations of the officials in question are consistent
with government policy. I thank the hon. member for raising this
matter with me.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I would encourage you always
to address your questions through the Speaker.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Not satisfied with a decision made by the CRTC concerning
satellite-based broadcasting, the government decided to create
a three-person committee to establish behind closed doors its
policy on satellite direct distribution.
How can Quebecers affected by this policy trust the
recommendations of this committee when the president of the
committee, Gordon Ritchie, was among those who stated last
week in Toronto that the federal government should penalize
Quebecers on the eve of the referendum?
10715
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us not confuse the public. Mr. Ritchie
was appointed to submit a report. He is assisted by two
distinguished and widely known individuals. We will judge the
report when we read it.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, rather
than give the mandate to a small group of government's friends
who will work on the sly, if the minister was not satisfied with
the work of the CRTC and wanted an objective opinion on the
question, why did he not ask for public and open consultations
where interested parties in Quebec and in Canada could have
been heard?
(1455)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reassure our colleague. This
group's report will be made public. The documents it receives
will be made public. The CRTC is already holding very
extensive public consultations on related subjects. Thus, there is
nothing mysterious or hidden in this process.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with the conclusion of the final court martial on the
Somalia issue, I presume that the Minister of National Defence
will shortly be announcing the composition of the board of
inquiry to consider the issues before the deployment, during the
deployment and after.
My concern is with the minister's decision to hold the inquiry
under the National Defence Act. The perception will be that the
Department of National Defence is investigating the
Department of National Defence. Would the minister reconsider
and hold the inquiry under the Inquiries Act?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this important
question. The minister will be back in the House tomorrow and
will address that question himself.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my concern with the minister's decision to use the
National Defence Act is that first of all, there are 306 sections in
it which will require that some legal advice be given which
might be taken as directing by the military. The second one is
that not all the members who have appropriate testimony are
subject to the National Defence Act. It would be much better if
the minister were to consider using the Inquiries Act.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe that was the question and my answer is
still the same. The Minister of National Defence will return and
address that question tomorrow or later this week.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
A recent report of the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business shows that banks have a double standard when lending
money to businesswomen. It suggests higher loan refusal,
higher interest rates and less financing available to women
entrepreneurs.
Will the minister investigate this apparent discrimination
when in fact women entrepreneurs have a higher success rate
than do men?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the questioner points out, it is a very important fact
that women entrepreneurs do have a very high success rate.
Their efforts are contributing significantly to the creation of
jobs in Canada. Their success in small business is an important
component of the overall development of jobs within the
country.
The question also reflects the suggestion in the CFIB study
that perhaps women have a more difficult time obtaining
financing than do men. I know members of the Reform Party do
not agree with that as they have already spoken on it. Those facts
are open for review.
However job creation by entrepreneurs of either gender is
going to happen best when the banks come to the table and
answer the needs of small business. The government is going to
be working very hard with the banks and the industry committee
to see to it that we establish benchmarks that are usable and
useful in measuring the success of the banks in responding to
these needs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry and concerns a project of
which he is aware in the Eastern Townships. The project, called
ZEROPLUS Inc., is a very important project since it could
create 150 jobs in the industrial sector.
The promoters of the project are still waiting for an answer
from the federal government, the provincial government having
already made a commitment in this regard. Since there are short
term elements involved in this project, time is of the essence and
if the government does not give its answer soon, the whole
project could be in jeopardy.
10716
Can the minister give us a progress report on this matter?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for giving me
advance notice of his question.
As he certainly knows and as was announced in last month's
budget, this program on environmental technologies is being
reviewed by the departments involved and we will not, at this
time, make new commitments with regard to this program.
* * *
(1500 )
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the fact
that we have heard a lot last week and this week surrounding the
back to work legislation about the national interest.
Given the fact that we now glorify an international economic
order in which notions of national interest are seen to be
romantic, why do we bring the full force of law to bear on
workers who are seen to be not acting in the national interest, or
so the argument goes, when we do not take any legislative action
either nationally or internationally with respect to currency
traders, money changers, multinational corporations or others
that act against the national interest?
Given the sort of moral anarchy that reigns in the world today,
will the Minister of Finance and the Canadian government, with
respect to the G-7 summit, be taking some leadership in
bringing in a new Bretton Woods agreement for the 21st
century?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just as the
government has consistently put the national interest first in its
dealings and in its legislation within the country, so has the
Prime Minister in his public statements in terms of the
international financial community.
The world ought to be quite happy that Canada will be the host
of the G-7 meeting and that the Prime Minister will be there
because he will very clearly put on the agenda the necessity of
making sure the world deals with its finances in a safe and
reasonable manner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
It was announced in the budget that the air navigation system,
or ANS, would be privatized this year. The minister went as
far as to say that negotiations are well under way with a non
profit group made up of representatives of the air transport
industry, and that an agreement could be announced shortly.
Can the minister confirm that stringent requirements will be
set so that the new operators of ANS will provide quality
French-language service throughout Quebec, Acadia, and in all
regions with a significant number of French-speaking
Canadians?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already examined the issue raised by my hon.
colleague. In all negotiations, we want to make sure that the
requirements he described are met and that services in French
will be available where they are needed, particularly in Quebec
and in French-speaking regions of Canada.
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
Can the minister give us guarantees to the effect that the
present regional operations of ANS will be maintained, and
more particularly area control centres?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the main reasons for proceeding to the
commercialization of the air navigation system in Canada is to
provide the users of the service, the airlines, the pilots and so
forth, along with the deliverers of the service, the air traffic
controllers, the radio operators and so forth, input into the
decisions required to make the air navigation system in Canada
effective and affordable.
To the extent that both those who use the service and those
who deliver the service will want to act in the best interest of
everyone involved in the process, I am sure all those decisions
will be made in the very best interest of everyone concerned.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has waffled long enough on to whom the Crow
benefit should be paid. Farmers need clarification from the
agriculture minister now.
I ask the minister this very simple question: Is the final Crow
payment intended to benefit the landowner or the actual
producer?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will
know, the freight rate in western Canada has in one form or
another been subsidized or kept at an artificially low rate for the
better part of 100 years. When that occurs for that long period of
10717
time the value of the freight rate becomes capitalized into the
value of the farm land.
(1505)
For example, when the capital gains tax valuation day came
around in 1971 the value of the farm land was higher than it
otherwise would have been because the produce off that farm
land had been subsidized for a long period of time by means of
the predecessors to the WGTA. The value of the farm land was
higher because of the subsidy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Goodale: You asked the question; wait for the answer.
When the subsidy is removed and the freight rate goes up,
obviously there will be an impact upon farm land and it is that
impact toward which the payment is directed.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
heard from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human
Resources Development, the Minister of Transport and now the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and from our different
ministers we have had four different answers.
I would like an answer, please. Will this payment absolutely,
for sure, be made to the landowner or as some of the other
ministers have said possibly to the renters or lessors?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget documents and all
the answers offered by various ministers of the government have
indicated the payment being directed toward the landowner.
A number of farm organizations in western Canada have
asked for the opportunity to provide advice to the government
with respect to the administrative arrangements surrounding
that payment so that we could ensure as far as is humanly
possible that the benefit from the payment is spread as broadly
as possible and as fairly as possible in good common sense.
Despite the representations of the Reform Party, I intend to
listen as closely as I can to the advice from farm organizations
and take their representations into account.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Spring has sprung and with it the job search for Canadian
university and high school students has begun. Summer
employment provides work experience along with funds needed
to continue their education.
What assurance can the minister give Canadian students that
the government puts a high priority on their summer
employment needs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday we announced a
new summer youth employment program that will provide
employment for close to 45,000 students this summer across
Canada.
I would like to mention a few very important features. One is
that we will be providing a wage subsidy to businesses and
organizations that are prepared to provide career development
for students so that the summer work actually adds to their
vocational development.
Second, there will be major business loans for students who
want to start their own businesses. There will be an extension of
the youth service corps for summer programs for young people
in which we will have full partnership of the Canadian
Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, educational groups,
Indian bands and aboriginal groups.
It demonstrates that we are working in partnership across the
country to help our young people.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
year the environment minister stated that a project, namely
Sunshine Development, which had environmental assessments,
was fully reviewed by Parks Canada and designated as
environmentally sound, would be subject to more review
because of her government's reliance on special interests.
If the minister is so concerned about the environment, why is
her department sitting idle while clear-cutting of old growth is
taking place on lands in which the federal government has an
interest?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all the preface
to the hon. member's question is absolutely false.
In fact the panel that was struck specifically relating to the ski
hill in question was called by the minister responsible for Parks
Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Thompson: That is a good answer for nothing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. We have
10718
discovered from reading the budget that the government is
proposing to require the provinces pay for environmental
assessments undertaken by the federal government.
Not only is this government persisting in maintaining costly
duplications, it is adding more this time by asking Quebec to pay
for services it does not need, because it already has its own,
equally effective tools.
(1510)
Does the Minister of the Environment not realize that, by
asking the provinces and other interested parties to assume the
costs of environmental assessments, she is forcing Quebec
taxpayers to pay the federal government for a service they have
already paid the Government of Quebec for?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has
taken the time to read the documents, she will have seen that the
federal government requires payment for those under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the federal environment service. Those
under the BAPE will be covered by provincial laws.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Stavros Kambelis, General
Secretary for the Island of Crete, Greece.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of four of the five recipients of the Queen
Elizabeth Silver Jubilee endowment fund for second language
education award program.
I will read the four names and then we will recognize them.
Miss Genevieve Currie, Miss Christine Desmarais, Miss
Echelle Kerr and Mr. David Matte.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
10718
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
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
37 petitions.
* * *
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in 1990 the 47 countries and governments of
the francophone community declared March 20 the Journée
internationale de la Francophonie. It was on March 20, 1970 that
the Agence de coopération culturelle et technique (ACCT) was
founded in Niamey, Niger. This year, the Journée internationale
de la Francophonie marks the 25th anniversary of the ACCT,
which, as it happens, is directed by a Canadian, Jean-Louis Roy.
It is interesting to remember that the first secretary general of
that organization, Jean-Marc Léger, was also a Canadian.
Today, I would like to pay tribute to the visionaries of the
Francophonie, men like Senghor, Diori and Bourguiba from
newly independent countries who dreamed of an assembly that
would establish new lines of dialogue, co-operation and
solidarity between French-speaking nations. Madam Speaker,
let me quote Léopold Senghor, who attributed to the
Francophonie ``an all-encompassing humanism that encircles
the planet''. Today more than ever, we must be guided by this
humanism if the Francophonie is to become an even more
dynamic forum.
The recent tragic events in French-speaking countries
concern us directly, indeed command our attention. The
Francophonie is being called upon to take a stand and I give my
word in this House that Canada will support it in its efforts.
(1515)
Next week, as I said in reply to a question from a colleague in
this House during question period, I will have the honour of
meeting my colleagues from French-speaking nations around
the world. Together we will discuss ways of strengthening
French-speaking institutions in preparation for the next Summit
of heads of state and government in Cotonou, Benin.
These summits provide an opportunity to promote common
objectives. Canada plays an important role at the summits,
represented by the Canadian government, and also of course by
the governments of Quebec and New Brunswick, who play a
very important and useful role there.
This felicitous formula, which led to harmonious relations
between France, Canada and Quebec, was the result of lengthy
negotiations by intelligent, resourceful people respectful of the
interests of the parties concerned.
Because he is here with us in this House, I would like to
mention the exceptional contribution of one of the great archi-
10719
tects of this historic success, the present Leader of the
Opposition, who as Canadian ambassador at the time, did an
outstanding job of resolving this matter satisfactorily in the
interest not only of Canada but also in the interest of Quebec
and of the good relations we have always had and wish to
maintain with France.
This felicitous formula enabled all speakers of French in
Canada, and especially in Quebec, to play a role internationally.
This formula still allows Quebec to play an important and vital
role within the Francophonie.
We will continue to promote, within the Francophonie, the
basic values which are so dear to our fellow citizens. Earlier, in
answer to a question in the House, I mentioned the values of
democracy, human rights, equality for women, child welfare and
education.
To mark this important day, we had the pleasure to participate
in a ceremony where we unveiled, along with officials from
member countries of the Francophonie, their ambassadors and
several fellow citizens who are active in that field, a postage
stamp commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Canadian
Technical and Cultural Co-operation Agency.
I also had the pleasure of handing out Francophonie awards to
deserving students and teachers from across Canada. This
initiative is a reminder that the vitality of our linguistic and
cultural heritage was, and remain, essential to our unity, our
specificity and our existence as an independent entity.
Canada is well aware that the Francophonie is not a territorial
issue. The greatest lesson we learned is that Francophonie
knows no boundaries: It is a universal reality. The Francophonie
in Canada, which thrives in Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario,
Manitoba and other regions, and which I salute, must of course
rely on a strong, dynamic and credible worldwide francophone
movement.
Let us not forget that over eight million Canadians can speak
French. This number includes of course close to 75 per cent of
Quebecers, but also over 25 per cent of the other Canadians,
including close to 1.2 million in Ontario, half a million in
western Canada, and some 400,000 in the Maritimes.
(1520)
In closing, today, we celebrate the Francophonie and a
language which is so dear to us. The French language spread
throughout the world and is enriched by the different accents
from various islands, plains, ricefields and bushes, where it is
thriving.
I invite all members in this House and in other Canadian
legislative assemblies to celebrate together this Journée de la
Francophonie internationale, which marks the beginning of a
week dedicated to the Francophonie in Canada.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): On behalf of all my
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois I am especially proud today
to mark the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
On this day, it is fitting to point out that Quebec's opening up
to the world has been nowhere more evident than in its
participation in the international francophone community. Since
the early sixties, Quebec has been forging special bilateral links
with France. This intense co-operation between Quebec and
France has contributed significantly to the strengthening of
multilateral contacts with francophone communities, resulting
in numerous exchanges between Quebec and its main
francophone partners, especially Europe and Africa, in many
areas such as culture, education, scientific development, high
technology and industry.
The Journée internationale de la Francophonie is especially
significant this year as it happens to be the 25th anniversary of
the founding of the Agence de coopération culturelle et
technique. In the early seventies, the agency provided the focus
for the development of the international francophone
community. Quebec's right to formally participate in the
agency's proceedings was quickly recognized, as was its right to
sit as a participating government in the francophone summit.
There is no doubt that Quebec's participation in the
international francophone community is vital to its opening onto
the world. Moreover, rediscovering the way to a vibrant
solidarity with francophone and Acadian communities in
Canada, Quebec will be able to play a central role in building a
francophone space in North America.
Last May, while making public the Bloc's commitment to the
American francophone community, the Leader of the
Opposition rightly pointed out that by building bridges between
francophone communities in North America and the rest of the
world, Quebec will be able to help make the voices of
francophone and Acadian communities in Canada heard in the
concert of nations, and will be thus in a better position to
promote their cause.
Francophones in America have a common future and, when
Quebec becomes a full partner on the international scene, freed
from the constraints of being a mere province, it will be able to
play this role fully. We are eagerly looking forward to that day.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as critic of the Reform Party for official languages, I
am pleased to commemorate this Journée internationale de la
francophonie.
The Reform Party recognizes how much the French-speaking
population has contributed to the development of our great
country, which continues to be enriched by them. Conscious of
that fact, the Reform Party supports the principle of using
English and French within key federal institutions such as
Parliament and the Supreme Court. We also support the right of
10720
all Canadians to speak in either of these two beautiful
languages.
By being part of an organization like the Francophonie,
Canada maintains relations with 46 other member states having
a combined population of 400 million people. As a member of
this organization, Canada can play an active role at the
international level, whether it is in technological and medical
breakthroughs in some African countries or in promoting
democracy in certain Caribbean states such as Haiti.
(1525)
Although this international co-operation offers limitless
opportunities, we must remain conscious of our responsibilities
towards taxpayers.
In this regard, most Canadians support our efforts to restore
democracy in Haiti. However, there are those who question the
$9 million spent by the Agence de coopération culturelle et
technique in French-speaking countries, as well as the $7
million allocated to the implementation of projects and
development activities agreed upon at the Francophonie
summits.
What we have to do, in fact, is balance our responsibilities
towards our partners in French speaking countries and those
towards Canadian taxpayers. This is a difficult exercise which
warrants special attention. On behalf of the Reform Party, I
congratulate francophones all over Canada and around the world
on this day celebrating the Francophonie. I would also like to
take this opportunity to challenge the government: Let us hope
that it will be bold enough to ensure some balance between its
commitments to this alliance and its responsibilities towards
taxpayers.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, today marks the beginning of la Semaine nationale de
la Francophonie, and this year's theme is ethno-cultural
diversity. One of the awards this morning was made in
recognition of a multicultural and anti-racist educational
project called Leadership Camp.
Tomorrow, March 21, we celebrate the International Day for
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
These two events will be an opportunity to celebrate the rich
diversity of this country.
The Prime Minister of Canada has often said that the unity of
our country is based on diversity, and that diversity is also our
strength. It is, in fact, the fundamental characteristic of our
nation. A country based on diversity cannot afford to let racism,
hatred and intolerance to take root in its soil.
[English]
To do otherwise would be to jeopardize a social peace for
which Canada is envied around the world. Social peace does not
come from wishing it. It comes from hard work and from
vigilance. The duty to be vigilant carries with it the
responsibility to address racism by public response or by force
of law.
The greatest asset of any country is its people. The challenge
is not to assimilate this diversity into a simple mould, but to
weave its many varied strands into a distinctive national culture.
Canadian culture is much more than the sum of its many parts.
From a global perspective Canada is seen as a role model, a
country united through common values based on fairness,
equity, democracy and respect for human rights.
While racial, religious and ethnocultural discrimination have
helped to make the 20th century a byword for inhumanity and
violence, Canada is exceptionally fortunate in the extent to
which it has been spared the worst of these excesses.
We must do more than trust our luck. We must work very hard
to make sure our country is not open to racist sentiments,
whatever their form and whatever their source.
(1530 )
It is in this context that I hope all members will see the March
21 campaign on their screens and in their movie theatres. It will
be a campaign asking Canadians to stop and think about the
harm that racism does to others and to society. Understanding is
the key to eliminating racism.
What better way to encourage Canadians to think about the
effects of racism than to put themselves in the other person's
shoes. Mettez-vous dans la peau des autres. Only then can we
learn what it means to live in a society of mutual
interdependence. Sometimes we need to be reminded of what we
so often take for granted.
Such a reminder came very recently from President Bill
Clinton of the United States who in addressing the House lauded
our nation: ``as a model of how people of different cultures can
live and work together in peace, prosperity and understanding''.
The message of the March 21 campaign embodies the
sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister of Canada,
reinforced by the President of the United States.
I urge all members to join with me in carrying this message to
the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker,
tomorrow, March 21, 1995, Canadians and Quebecers celebrate
the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination. As pointed out by the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, this event coincides
with la Semaine internationale de la Francophonie.
10721
It is therefore a time to think about this social and cultural
dimension of our individual and collective lives. Quebec and
Canada are societies in a state of flux that are facing many
challenges. One that is of particular interest to us in this House
is the contribution of immigrants and their participation in the
development of our social fabric.
However, there are two visions of Canadian society: The
Canadian vision that favours unity in diversity, and the Quebec
vision that favours integration while respecting cultural
differences. These two opposing social concepts are based on
two different political visions of our world. In Quebec, since the
initial Quebec-Canada agreements on immigration, the
linguistic and economic integration of newcomers in the host
society has been an imperative for the development and growth
of the majority culture, in other words, the French-speaking
majority. The very survival of our culture, the cultural heritage
we received from our ancestors, is at stake.
In Canada, multiculturalism has been repeatedly analysed,
criticized and challenged, especially in recent years. I may
recall that this policy, which was intended to impose a political
vision of Canada instead of reflecting the place that cultural
communities occupy in Canada, was developed at a time when
Quebec nationalism had reached a decisive turning point in its
history.
It was an attempt to diminish the position of Quebec within
Canada by relegating to the past the concept of two founding
peoples and two dominant cultures. That is why
multiculturalism never took root in Quebec, despite the claims
of the present federal government and its Prime Minister.
We could quote, on this point, a letter by the former Premier
of Quebec, Mr. Robert Bourassa, who said in 1971, replying to
Mr. Trudeau on the question of multiculturalism: ``The
document tabled in the House dissociates culture and
language-Quebec does not agree with your government's
approach on the concept of multiculturalism. That notion hardly
seems compatible with Quebec's reality where there is one
predominant presence of a French language and French culture
majority and an important minority of English language and
culture among many other minorities''.
Mr. Bourassa ended his letter by stressing the fact that the role
of the Premier of Quebec was to ensure that the French culture
would radiate within North America and that he intended to go
on doing just that, with all he had available to him, while
respecting others.
(1535)
However, we do believe that the integration of communities
into the common public culture of Quebec does have a positive
impact on racism and intolerance.
This position was supported in Quebec yesterday during the
opening ceremony for the Semaine de la Francophonie, when
the president of the Maison internationale de Québec, Mr.
Augustin Raharolahy, who immigrated to Quebec 20 years ago,
said: ``Mastering a language is central to the integration process
and is a prerequisite for a full participation in the economical,
social and political life. Furthermore, it also gives a feeling of
ownership in our society. Mastering the French language as a
common language is fundamental, but it does not mean
linguistic and cultural assimilation''. He then concluded by
saying that: ``A common language, the French language,
solidarity, and the pride of being a Quebecer are the strengths
with which we can build a country, a modern society''.
One can hardly find a better description for Quebec's policy
and reality. However, like all other nations, Quebecers and
Canadians must increase their efforts in order to fight against
racial intolerance and all the prejudices that invariably come
with it.
The fight is a constant one, but a victory against racism would
result in a better quality of life for future generations.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to rise and speak in
acknowledgement of the International Day for the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination which takes place tomorrow.
Recently I had occasion to speak in Kingston, Ontario to a
group of seniors about my vision for Canada. I received from
one of those who was in the audience that day a most remarkable
letter. She called it ``Acceptable Behaviour in a Global
Village''. I would very much like to share it with members
because it gives expression to what we are addressing today and
tomorrow.
She writes:
The world of human beings has grown smaller and populations all over the
world have become so mixed that we have to learn to get along peacefully with
each other. The global village is no longer somewhere else. It is here and all of
us are mixed in with it. It does not matter whether someone of a different race or
nation lives next door or down the street or in a different part of town or half
way around the world, we have to learn to live peacefully with all of those
peoples whose racial or national origins are different from our own. To do
otherwise is to bring about an end to our world. The intolerance, conflicts,
fighting and wars between peoples will bring an end to our civilization and the
earth as a planet much quicker than any pollution or natural disaster.
All peoples have some members who are great people, who have accomplished
things which are beneficial for all humankind. All peoples have some members
who are difficult people who make life miserable for those around them. No one is
perfect. Most people of all races are a mixture of good and bad. It is necessary to
recognize the best and the positive in others regardless of what they look like, what
language they speak or where they have come from. The positive values of honesty,
integrity, the ability to do the job required of them, the ability to care for family and
10722
other people, and the ability to live peacefully together with others; all provide the
basis for a good and worthwhile society.
Every race and nation of people has those individuals whose performance is
excellent in all of those values. Every race and nation has many who fail to uphold
those positive values. We need to change our attitudes to become more objective
and non-judgmental. We need to become more accepting of all people.
The woman concludes her letter with the thought that:
This is not an easy thing to do but if enough of us who feel this necessity start to
put these attitudes into our own lives and encourage others to also do so, we will
have a better world.
These are the sentiments of an ordinary Canadian with some
considerable life experience. Her words echo not only my
thoughts but also those of all of us here in the House who have
given expression to our basic belief in human dignity and the
equality of others.
* * *
(1540 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-76, an Act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 27, 1995.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if you would ask the House if there would be consent to
introduce the bill, of which I sought introduction this morning,
to order the resumption of railway operations in Canada, in light
of the very serious strike that is ongoing.
I know the Minister of Labour is anxious to bring the bill
before Parliament. With the consent of the House we could give
it first reading this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We do not have
unanimous consent.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions; actually I have five but four of them relate to
the same thing.
The first petition calls on Parliament to enact legislation that
re-evaluates and amends the Canadian justice system providing
protection to and giving precedence to victims' rights, stricter
sentencing guidelines, stronger penalties for all major crimes,
immediate deportation of convicted non-Canadians with all
appeal costs financed by the accused, all juveniles charged with
major crimes be tried in adult court and all violent criminals to
serve their full sentences.
This petition comes from the Canmore, Exshaw and Banff
district.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): I have four other
petitions, Madam Speaker, that call on Parliament to oppose any
amendments to legislation that would provide for the inclusion
of sexual orientation.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The
first two request that the government not include the phrase
sexual orientation in any of its upcoming bills.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the second petition requests that
Parliament convene a public inquiry that supersedes any that
may be operating at present and to investigate and report on all
matters affecting the armed forces of Canada in its operations,
tasking its resource allocation and affecting its morale and
welfare.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): My third petition, Madam Speaker, calls on Parliament to
reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to allow
extreme intoxication as a defence for sexual assault or physical
assault.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise again to present another petition in this course of
action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the
early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have two petitions to present.
The first petition calls on Parliament to condemn the actions
of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to request that in
accordance with its responsibilities as the national broadcaster,
the CBC withdraw its application to televise the Paul Bernardo
case.
10723
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition calls on Parliament to request that the
government disallow the defence of extreme intoxication as
used in the Daviault case and amend the Criminal Code
accordingly.
(1545)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of 27 Albertans, I am
honoured to present a petition organized by Rose Hornsberger,
one of my constituents.
These petitioners 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 homosexuality, including
amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of
sexual orientation.
Not only am I pleased to present this petition but to endorse it
as well.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(1), it is my pleasure to present a
petition with 269 names from petitioners in the
Kitchener-Waterloo area on behalf of my colleague from
Kitchener.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker. I have several petitions to table today. I understand
there are several petitions being presented that equal
approximately 64,000 names dealing with the Young Offenders
Act and changes to toughen it up. This petition bears 73
signatures from people in my riding and nearby.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I also have two petitions bearing 115 names. The
petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241
of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow
assisted suicide, euthanasia.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have four petitions bearing 423 names. The
petitioners 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 sexual orientation which I do not
concur with but I will present and table.
The petitioners 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. It bears 39 names.
Madam Speaker, I have another petition on sexual orientation
bearing 62 names. 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 human rights act to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, this petition is on gun control and bears 119 names. The
petitioners support the laws which severely punish all violent
criminals who use weapons in the commission of crime and
support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which
recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens.
Madam Speaker, may I continue?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Perhaps somebody else
should be given a chance. If we have time, I will come back to
you.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions to present.
One of the petitions contains signatures collected at the
Waterloo Pentecostal Assembly. It draws the attention of the
House to the following: That incidents of child poverty are
becoming more and more frequent; that each incident of child
poverty harms the public; that there would be fewer such
incidents if certain legislative measures were taken. Therefore,
your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to help
alleviate child poverty by ensuring that child support orders are
enforced and by removing the income taxes on those child
support payments received by the custodial parent.
10724
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 30 people and deals with the CRTC.
It calls on Parliament to request the CRTC to review and hold
hearings on cable industry regulations in order to protect the
interests of the Canadian public from unfair marketing practices
such as negative option billing in so far as tied selling is a
reviewable practice under the Competition Act.
(1550 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The
first calls upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms which provides for the inclusion of the phrase
``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition asks that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is a
petition of 25 names from B.C. asking Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the other is a petition of a few hundred names
asking Parliament to reduce government spending instead of
increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to
limit federal spending.
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have a petition in which some constituents are
asking that Parliament punish violent offenders who use a
firearm in the commission of a crime, and to protect the rights of
responsible gun owners and improve gun control legislation to
make it more effective and efficient.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, as a member of Parliament it is my duty to present a
petition which opposes including the phrase ``sexual
orientation'' on various pieces of federal legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have a few minutes
left. I will return to the member for Calgary Northeast. May I
remind members once again that if you are saying you support
the petition, it is going into debate. Would you please just state
the matter the petitioners wish Parliament to consider.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, my final petition is on immigration. The petitioners
humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reduce immigration to
the previous average level of one-half of one 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. They
request that our refugee acceptance rate be brought into line
with the average for other asylum destination countries. This
petition bears 42 names.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just
want to make it clear that when the request was made for
unanimous consent to introduce the back to work legislation and
the opposition did not permit that to occur, it was not the Reform
members. The Reform members did concur. It was the Bloc and
the NDP.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to seek
unanimous consent of the House to return to introduction of
private members' bills if I may.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada
Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs
and essential services).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to move, on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, an anti-scab bill. This bill would prohibit
the hiring of scabs by employers under federal jurisdiction, by
crown corporations or by the Canadian public service and would
also legislate on the maintenance of essential services during a
strike or a lockout within the public service or crown
corporations.
10725
This bill is to allow for labour relations to take place in a
civilized context so that, in many cases, social peace can be
restored.
(1555)
It is inconceivable that the federal government has not yet
passed such a legislation when more than 70 per cent of
Canadian workers are already protected against scabs, that is in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. The lack of a federal
anti-scab legislation is often the cause of the worsening of
labour-management negotiations. During negotiations, the
equity of pressure tactics amounts to the respect of the parties.
An anti-scab legislation means the respect and dignity of
workers.
It is high time that the federal government take some
measures to put an end to labour disputes such as the one at
Ogilvie Mills of Montreal, which have been on strike for nine
months now.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
26 minutes.
_____________________________________________
10725
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance and
Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved that Bill C-73, an act to
provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on
April 1, 1995, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is for me a great pleasure to
give today my support to Bill C-73, the Borrowing Authority
Act, which has reached the third reading and final concurrence
stage in this House.
This bill is in fact an internal economy measure which is
introduced once a year to allow for the continuation of the
permanent operations of the government. This does not mean
that the government does not consider this measure seriously,
quite the contrary.
This bill follows the presentation by the Minister of Finance
last month of the most important and significant budget for the
future of this country since the Post-War years.
This budget brought in-depth changes to the nature of federal
spending. Its provisions were adopted because the need for a
sound administration has become incompatible with a growing
national debt that has a destructive impact nation-wide.
This bill provides for a borrowing authority of up to $29
billion. A large portion of this amount accounts for the appalling
and unacceptable gap that has developed between projected
federal expenditures and revenues.
Canadians are well aware of the situation. They understand
that the cost of outrageous deficits means higher taxes and
interest rates and less economic growth in the future.
(1600)
These same reasons explain why the 1995 budget and its harsh
measures have had so much support from the people.
In the 1994 budget, we undertook to keep the deficit under
$32.7 billion in 1995-96 and to reduce it even further to 3 per
cent of the GDP, that is $24.3 billion in 1996-97.
This budget contains harsh measures that will make sure we
reach those goals despite higher interest rates than expected.
However, this budget goes much further than the goals set for
the next two years. Our reforms will continue to be productive in
the following years and will allow us to go on and hit the final
target of this government, that is a balanced budget.
We will be able to claim that our mission has been achieved
the day this kind of bill is no longer necessary.
[English]
To hit our deficit targets we are implementing cumulative
savings over the next three years of $29 billion. This is the
largest set of actions in any budget since the demobilization
after World War II.
These actions mean changing the size and shape of
government. By 1996-97 program spending will fall from $120
billion last year to just under $108 billion this year. The
structural changes we are making will ensure significant deficit
reduction continues in 1997-98 and beyond. The bottom line
benefits of this will be dramatic
The deficit will fall to $32.7 billion in 1995-96 and to $24.3
billion the year after, as we promised. With the deficit in 1996 at
3 per cent of GDP, this will be the lowest level since 1974-75.
By that time our financial requirements, the new money we
have to borrow from the markets, will drop to $13.7 billion. That
will be just 1.7 per cent of GDP, lower than any currently
forecast for any other G-7 nation. We are again backing up our
prudent economic assumptions with substantial contingency
reserves; $2.5 billion in 1995-96 and $3 billion the year after.
This means we can still come in on target next year, even if
interest rates are 1 per cent higher and growth half a per cent
lower than our forecast.
10726
Our contingency reserve can do more than protect our target.
If it is not needed it will not be spent. It will go to reducing the
deficit even further. This underscores another benefit our
prudent planning could deliver.
If interest rates and growth do better than are forecast and just
conform to the private sector averages, the 1996-97 deficit
could drop below $19 billion. That is $5.5 billion less than this
budget projects. That would bring our deficit down to 2.3 per
cent of GDP.
Even if we do no better than our projected targets, 1996-97
will be an important milestone since the debt will no longer be
growing faster than the economy. The debt to GDP ratio will
have begun to decline at last. That is the key to fiscal
sustainability, to put our debt ratio on a permanent downward
track.
I need not go on summarizing our budget plans and the
promise they carry. The House has heard days and days of
budget debate. The court of public and market opinion has ruled
strongly in favour of our courageous strategy.
Let me turn briefly to the thrust of Bill C-73. I again ask the
House to support and speedily pass this bill.
(1605)
If borrowing authority is not in place early in the new fiscal
year there will be severe constraints placed on the government's
financing program. Without passage it could lead to a situation
in which no government bonds could be issued except to fund
maturing issues. The bottom line here could be increased costs
to taxpayers because it would expose the government to the
additional interest rate charges and risks implied by increased
short term funding.
Bill C-73 contains three basic elements: authority to cover
financial requirements for 1995-96; a provision for exchange
fund account profits; the renewal of a non-lapsing amount. In
total we are requesting authority to borrow $28.9 billion for the
1995-96 fiscal year.
The largest element is the provision for $24.9 billion of
borrowing to meet the net financial requirements as set out in
the budget. There is a provision to cover $1 billion of exchange
fund account earnings, earnings which would make necessary
additional Canadian dollar borrowing requirements. These
earnings, although reported as budgetary revenues, are retained
in the exchange fund account. They are not available to finance
ongoing operations of the government.
There is the well established, over the last seven years, $3
billion non-lapsing amount. This sum can either be used during
the course of the year to manage contingencies such as the
unexpected foreign exchange requirements or it can be carried
forward into the next fiscal year.
There are some technical provisions in Bill C-73 that more
clearly link fiscal year borrowing authority with fiscal year
borrowing requirements.
For example, one provision provides that the 1995-96
borrowing authority may only be used after the new fiscal year
begins. Another provision stipulates that for the purpose of
calculating borrowing authority usage the effective date is April
1.
Until the bill is passed the government may continue to use
the $3 billion non-lapsing amount provided for in last year's
Borrowing Authority Act. Any portion of this non-lapsing
amount used will be deducted from the basic amount of
borrowing authority being sought today. This prevents the
non-lapsing amount from effectively adding to the borrowing
authority next year. Once it is passed, this bill will also cancel
all borrowing authority remaining from fiscal 1994-95.
This bill is a regular feature of each year's legislative agenda.
It contains no remarkable or unexpected provisions. Its
supporting background was fully documented in the budget, the
main estimates and related documents.
However, what is remarkable in both senses of the term is the
clear, courageous and concrete action the Minister of Finance
set out to set the federal deficit on the fast track. By doing so, our
government is laying the foundations for continued national
economic renewal and restored national unity.
I therefore encourage the House to approve Bill C-73 post
haste so the new borrowing authority will be in place at the
beginning of the new fiscal year, 11 days from now.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I participate in the third reading
debate on Bill C-73, concerning the federal government's
borrowing authority.
From the outset, we must say that the official opposition is
against this bill. We are opposed to it because it flows from the
last budget presented by the Minister of Finance of Canada.
So, logically, we are against the borrowing authority because
we were opposed to the finance minister's budget. It is with
great pleasure that, during the next few minutes, I will remind
you of why we are opposed to the bill and of why we were so
opposed to the finance minister's budget.
First of all, I would like to make it clear that we have never
been against putting the fiscal house in order, on the contrary.
(1610)
If you have an opportunity of rereading the Hansard for the
last year, you will see that every time we had a chance to do so
we asked the finance minister to have an item by item review, in
10727
the normal course of activities of a parliamentary committee
made up of parliamentarians, not of experts nor officials
working on the sly, of all the federal budgetary expenditures,
including tax expenditures, that is the various provisions of the
Canadian tax legislation that allow certain individuals or
corporations to avoid paying income tax.
That is absolutely not what we are challenging in the last
budget, nor therefore in Bill C-73. We are against two specific
elements of the budget. First, we oppose the means to be used to
stabilize public finances, because we cannot agree with them.
Those means include a downright offloading of the federal
government's deficit problems onto the provinces, and also a
downright offloading of the federal public financing problems
for the unemployment insurance account, because year after
year billions of dollars are taken off the UI account in order to
address the public finance problem, and also budget cuts made
at the expense of the neediest members of society, that is cuts in
the transfer payments for social assistance and post-secondary
education.
The second element of the federal budget we cannot agree to,
and the second reason why we therefore cannot agree with Bill
C-73 providing borrowing authority, is related to the fact that
the real problem of Canadian public finances is hidden from the
people of Quebec and Canada, and that is the explosive problem
of chronic and massive debt, a problem that is likely to stay with
us for the next few years.
If I may, I will take the next few minutes to review our major
objections to the budget, and therefore to Bill C-73. As I said
earlier, the first of these budgets over the next three years will
offload the federal government's deficit onto the backs of the
provinces. For the government of Quebec alone, this represents
over the next three years a shortfall of almost $3 billion. In
addition, not content with cutting transfers, the federal
government is still attempting, even though it can no longer
afford to do so, to impose its view of things on the provincial
governments and on the government of Quebec in particular by
imposing standards in all the areas where it has made cuts and
where it is going to continue to cut in the coming years. These
areas would include health, post-secondary education and
social assistance, as I mentioned.
Just as he did last year, the Minister of Finance again this year
went after the unemployed. Over the next two years, he will cut
$7.5 billion in the unemployment insurance fund. Out of this
fund, to which the federal government no longer even
contributes, he will take $7.5 billion. What is this if not an
indirect tax, because only employers and employees contribute
to this unemployment insurance fund. And for three years now,
the federal government has been merrily dipping into this fund,
although it should not be doing so.
I would remind you that $7.5 billion in cuts represents 120
times what is being asked of the banks over the coming years.
They are being asked to cough up $100 million as an additional,
temporary tax over the next two years. The government is
laughing in our faces when they leave the banks intact in this
cost-cutting exercise and ask the unemployed, who did not
make a profit of $5 billion last year, to contribute $7.5 billion to
social assistance programs. This is how this government defines
social justice and fairness.
These cuts are part of a vision of economic and social
development that does not correspond with Quebecers' view of
society. I would remind the Secretary of State, who said earlier
that everyone was happy with the budget, that that is not the
case. In Quebec, 58 per cent of Quebecers have just said that
they are against this budget, that they are not confident that this
budget can even begin to bring about job creation. So he should
check his polls and he should also verify elsewhere than in
financial circles the reaction to this budget.
(1615)
I would remind you that, in the last budget, this government
had so few concerns regarding jobs and unemployment that, for
the only program of any interest-the infrastructure program-,
it found a way to cut $200 million from this fund which had been
set aside for investment in infrastructures across Canada.
I would also remind you that, in terms of employment, more
than 800,000 jobs still need to be created, with all the jobs we
have lost since the big recession in the first quarter of 1990. For
this government, unemployment is not a problem, as the
Minister of Finance indicated in his budget speech, but jobs are
not a priority either.
We oppose Bill C-73, since, as it stems from the budget, it
does not directly attack the duplication that is costing taxpayers
billions of dollars. Moreover, as we have said in recent weeks,
this duplication and overlap will continue. Members opposite
who say this is not the case should have a look at the budget and
note that nothing has changed in terms of expenditures or tax
revenues.
They should also look at all of the departments. Not one
department has been cut. Not one. If duplication and overlap
were being eliminated, departments would be cut, because
expenditures are being cut, and 45,000 people are being laid off.
Where is the big machine being restructured? It is not. It
remains intact and will continue to generate billions of dollars in
wastage paid for with the income and other taxes of Quebec and
Canadian taxpayers. This is the fine way the Liberal government
manages public finances.
We oppose Bill C-73, because the budget is silent on one
serious problem in the Canadian tax system: the many tax
inequities. The budget contains no tax reform that would allow
for a reduction in government borrowing on the capital markets.
It contains only taxation measures and measures that will
perpetuate the wastage, as well.
10728
The Minister of Finance is not going after the tens of
thousands of companies that pay no income tax. We have been
drawing this problem to his attention for months. We have been
saying for months that some 70,000 profitable companies in
Canada do not pay income tax. The minister has done nothing to
correct this tax inequity, this preferential tax treatment given
business.
Neither does the budget contain any provision concerning 16
tax conventions entered into between the federal government
and countries considered as tax havens for hundreds of millions
of unpaid corporate taxes. In the end, the budget offers only
superficial changes aimed at hiding the $7 billion cut in
transfers to the provinces.
For instance, while the government announces that it will
make permanent cuts to the unemployment insurance program,
it is increasing, on a temporary basis, for two years only, the
capital tax imposed on banks, which will raise approximately
$100 million. This represents a fortieth of the profits made by
Canadian banks as a whole, in 1994-95. Imagine the fiscal effort
required of banks. Imagine the fiscal effort required of the Royal
Bank, for instance, which last year recorded profits of $1.2
billion.
As far as family trusts are concerned, we are told that the very
rich who, in Canada, do not have to pay any capital gains tax, for
a maximum period of 80 years, on assets worth hundreds of
millions of dollars held in family trusts, will see their benefits
diminish slightly.
In his budget speech, the finance minister told us: ``Do not
worry. We will eliminate the undue benefits available to the very
rich in Canada''. He gives them four years to dismantle their
family trusts, put their wealth somewhere else, and ensure that
for the next four years they will not pay their rightful share of
federal tax. This is a reflection of the inability and lack of
political will on the part of the federal government to close the
tax loopholes which benefit very high income earners, and
explains the financial predicament it is in.
(1620)
We oppose Bill C-73, which is a spin-off from the budget,
because Canada still operates its farming sector with a double
standard. To compensate western farmers for abolishing the
western grain transportation subsidy, which enriched Prairie
farmers by $560 million, they offer a direct subsidy of $1.6
billion to offset the decline in land values.
When a ways and means motion was introduced last week
concerning the Crow's Nest Pass agreement, it was a replay of
the problem we had in 1982 when another Liberal government
attempted to abolish the same agreement and to compensate
western grain producers without compensating those in the east,
in particular in Quebec. They want to base compensation to
western producers on cultivated acreage, not on whether
producers exported their grain in the past and even benefited
from the Crow rate. They want to compensate all western
producers based on cultivated acreage.
On top of the $1.6 billion, western farmers will receive
another $1 billion in loan guarantees and $300 million
specifically earmarked for diversification. They are subsidizing
the diversification of western farm products outright. These
products will directly compete with Quebec products and this is
what makes no sense: that close to $3 billion, of which 25 per
cent comes from Quebec, will be dedicated to the cause of
diversifying the economy in the west, which will eventually
impinge on Quebec's share of the market.
An hon. member: We should give ourselves a good swift kick
in the behind.
Mr. Loubier: That is the idea. And that is what the federal
government is doing when it cuts some advantages and
compensates one part of the country more than it should in a
budget, while another region must content itself not only with a
neutral budgetary position but must also assume some budget
cuts without any compensation, as has happened to it time and
time again. For example, the 30 per cent cut in dairy subsidies
will hit Quebec the hardest. Why the hardest? Since about 50 per
cent of dairy products, including cheese, yogurt and ice cream,
are processed in Quebec, a large proportion of dairy producers
live in that province. So let me tell you that the federal
government's $35 million cut to dairy subsidies over the next
two years is hitting Quebec hard.
It could even be said that this is a special measure against
Quebec and its dairy producers. Where is the compensation for
this $35 million cut? Do you know what this represents, Madam
Speaker? In Quebec, this represents dairy production losses of
around $4,500 per farm on average. In ridings with many dairy
farms, like my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, this
represents losses of about $8,000 per farm.
With annual net revenues of $25,000 per farm at the end of the
fiscal year, you can say that this federal measure without any
compensation, unlike what is being done in Western Canada,
reduces Quebec dairy farmers' net revenues by about 25 per cent
to 30 per cent. That is the federal budget for you, and that is why
we are opposing it, Madam Speaker.
An hon. member: Shame!
Mr. Loubier: Yes, it is a shame, because they tell us we must
tighten our belts, while cutting $560 million in Western Canada
but compensating by injecting $3 billion in that region. This
does not make any sense.
We are also opposed to the proposed measures related to
international aid. They are cutting the international aid budget
by $532 million, thus placing Canada, which already ranked
pretty low in terms of the assistance provided to the millions of
children who starve to death every year, at the bottom of the list
of donor countries. When I see that, despite Canada's tradition
of compassion, the federal government is maintaining until
1997 the $1.5 billion in direct subsidies to business while
10729
cutting by $532 million the budget to help reduce child mortality
around the world, I find this simply revolting.
We oppose Bill C-73 resulting from the last budget because
this budget forgets a fundamental consideration: the federal
government's chronic debt problem.
(1625)
With the national debt currently standing at $548 billion, the
federal government is responsible for over 70 per cent of the
public debt burden in Canada. In terms of the size of the overall
public debt, the debt of all levels of government put together,
Canada ranks first among G-7 countries. Not a very enviable
position.
Just at the federal level, the debt is so huge that debt charges
alone presently account for more than one third of the taxes paid
by Quebecers and Canadians. In the case of Quebec, for
example, this means that of the total amount paid by the people
of Quebec in taxes of all sort, which is about $30 billion, $10
billion goes to pay debt charges, that is to say the interest on this
huge debt.
The last budget does not provide any relief, none at all. To the
point that, next year, the portion of the taxes paid by all the
taxpayers in Quebec and Canada that will be required to service
the debt, just to pay the interests on the federal debt, will be
more than 37 per cent, or a 4 per cent increase in just one year.
Before you know it, in four or five years, nearly half of the taxes
paid by the taxpayers in Quebec and Canada will go to servicing
the debt. If you extrapolate these figures, five or six years from
now, the federal debt, which will have increased steadily since
the Minister of Finance tabled this budget, will be between $750
and $800 billion.
If the federal debt is already a huge problem at $548 billion,
you can imagine what a problem it will be at $800 billion. It will
be a nightmare in terms of public financial management. It will
be such a nightmare that the Minister of Finance tried-we can
talk about the response of the financial markets-to do some
window-dressing. He does not talk about the debt any more. He
does not talk about it. But based on the assumptions and growth
rates contained in his budget, you get this $800 billion figure.
This is not a figment of our imagination: it is reality.
Similarly, using the Minister of Finance's own calculations
and the same growth rates, we arrived at the following
conclusion: in five years, the percentage will be 50 per cent. In
other words, the proportion of tax revenues allocated to federal
programs, including transfers to provinces and individuals, and
the proportion used to pay the interest on the debt will be the
same. One year later, the tax revenues used to pay the interest on
the debt will be greater than those allocated to federal transfers
to provinces and individuals.
In the private sector, if we had a product to sell and if interest
costs related to that product were greater than its value, we
would have declared bankruptcy a long time ago, we would have
gone belly up as they say. That will happen in five or six years,
and this is what the Minister of Finance tried to hide from
Canadians and Quebecers.
There are two major reasons for this enormous, chronic and
inescapable federal debt. First, the federal system is obsolete. It
can no longer meet the challenges of the nineties and of the year
2000; it does nothing to help the country adjust to the new
international economy by being productive and competitive, by
having the best possible products and skilled workers, and by
striving to provide humane conditions in this new competitive
environment. Such support is greatly lacking in Canada right
now, but we hope to find in Quebec.
The second main reason why we have such an enormous debt
is what is called the structural deficit. We are not making that
up: it is mentioned in the Minister of Finance's documents and it
has been for about seven years in the documents released by his
department. What do these documents say?
(1630)
The Canadian economy does not generate enough jobs. Since
the unemployment level for the next three years is expected to
reach 9.5 per cent in Canada and about 12 per cent in Quebec, it
is obvious that we have a problem here. The annual deficit and
the debt increase are caused by the fact that the people who do
not work do not pay taxes, which means a loss in tax revenues.
This loss of revenues is reflected in the deficit and then in the
debt. This is the structural component of our deficit and our
debt.
What does it do? It creates a spiral: we have foregone tax
revenues, a higher deficit, a steadily increasing debt, higher
interest rates following incursion into the capital markets and
foreign borrowing, investors demanding incentives because our
debt in not under control, which means we pay more interest and
our debt service costs are on the rise.
Our debt service costs are rising, which entails another
increase in interest rates, the expected investments are not
forthcoming and all the jobs that we were promised and that we
need-we are 800,000 jobs short-will not be created. This is
the structural component of our deficit and our debt, and it never
changes.
Why? Because there is no major change to this structural
component in what was tabled by the finance minister. It
remains with all the duplications, overlapping, federal
interference and, now that the federal government can no longer
live beyond its means, it is reducing its vision to its means. It
goes after the provinces, imposing national standards and
pretending
10730
to have the right to do so for ever and ever. That is what flexible
federalism is all about.
For all these reasons, the official opposition will reject Bill
C-73 at third reading. This bill to provide borrowing authority
stems directly from the budget. We, and Quebecers with us, have
enough reasons to reject this bill. I remind you that 58 per cent
of Quebecers are against this budget. They are convinced that it
undermines job creation and economic recovery and that it does
nothing to solve the basic debt problem, as I just explained.
Therefore, we will reject it.
I would like to send a message to my fellow Quebecers. I
would like to ask them what they want for the years to come. Do
they want to continue to live in a system which will at best make
decisions they will not necessarily agree with, because the Bloc
represents only 25 per cent of the votes in this Parliament?
Twenty-five per cent of a board of trustees, that is not much.
Do they want to go on within a system which has nothing to do
any more with the image we have of a government of the 90s and
beyond, with how we have been been percieving our society for
the last 30 years? An image that we have tried to fashion through
various constitutional conferences, through various
negotiations, through various submissions in the history of
Quebec?
Quebecers have been very patient. One could hardly be more
patient than we have been over the past 30 years, trying to
change the system a little so as to better reflect a reality that we
have wanted to see reflected since 1867, that is the reality of two
founding nations with some kind of recognition of Quebecers'
legitimate aspirations.
Finally, we have two choices. We can stay in a system that is
sinking-a big boat that is taking in water on all sides-a system
that neither the federal government nor English Canada want to
reform. This system may be satisfactory for English Canada, but
it cannot be satisfactory for Quebecers with their particular
aspirations.
Do we want to stay in this system or seize the opportunity that
is offered to us this year to leave it voluntarily, maintaining the
peace of mind that has motivated us over the last seven years
since the failure of the Meech Lake Accord?
(1635)
Would it not be preferable to get out of this system in a
democratic way and to envision a less morose future than what
we have had for several years with a system that is continually
slowing down and that is becoming a burden, a ball and chain for
Quebec and Canada's economic advancement?
I would say that if my fellow citizens get out of this system,
they must do so by ignoring the fear-mongering campaigns and
also ignoring the distorted analyses based on dubious
methodologies and often containing a web of untruth.
Last week-end, I had the opportunity to take a look at one of
these truncated analyses, one that distorts reality. I am talking
here about the analysis made by Mr. Marcel Côté, from SECOR,
and contained in a book entitled Le rêve de la Terre promise ou le
coût de l'indépendance. That gives me an opportunity to digress
somewhat, using the distorted elements of this analysis. Mr.
Côté presents 15 questions on sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Peters: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the
hon. member wishes to send a message to his constituents, he
could probably use the post office or Statements by Members
and not when commenting on a borrowing bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but that is a
point of debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, I fully intend to prove that
what I am saying is relevant to the budget.
I will not deal with all fifteen points raised and agreed by Mr.
Côté. One is entitled to query these, however. I did select five
which deserve a somewhat different treatment based on facts, on
the truth, on genuine scientific methods and not on political bias
and the kind of methods for which Mr. Côté is unique or
occasionally, on a tissue of lies.
I will address point six in Mr. Côté's document.
Madam Speaker, since you asked the hon. member to sit down
and show respect for the official opposition, I think he should
show some respect for your decision as well.
Point six. Mr. Côté wonders what was the net benefit to
Quebecers from the federal budget. You know what he said?
Three billion. In other words, Quebecers get three billion more
from the federal government than they contribute to the federal
treasury. I say that is not true and is not borne out by the facts.
In 1991, when the Bélanger-Campeau Commission
conducted its hearings, even André Raynauld, who is not known
for his sovereignist views, concluded on the basis of a genuine
analysis of public finances in Quebec and Canada that at the
time, we were receiving more or less what we were paying to the
federal government. In other words, the taxes we as Quebecers
paid into the federal treasury and the transfer payments made by
the federal government amounted to about the same, until 1988.
Subsequently, we started getting less. And now, after the last
two budgets and especially the last one, we see that, according to
the experts where there used to be a surplus, there is now a
deficit.
10731
Take the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There is no surplus
over what employers and employees in Quebec pay in to the
fund. There is now a potential loss of $118 million. In other
words, what the federal government pays in the form of
unemployment insurance benefits in Quebec will be $118
million less than was contributed by Quebec employers and
employees. The same applies to transfer payments. Mr. Côté is
definitely out to lunch.
(1640)
Federal transfer payments to Quebec were cut by 32 per cent
for the three year period from 1994 to 1997. Therefore, in my
opinion, Quebecers are currently in a deficit position when we
compare the amount of taxes and income taxes that they pay to
federal coffers with what the federal government spends and
invests in the province of Quebec.
So, why did Mr. Côté say what he did? Do you know why?
Because he took federal spending as a whole and divided it by
the population. This methodology is not only dubious, it is also
dishonest. As an economist, Mr. Côté has no right to make such a
calculation. He does not have the right and, what makes it worse,
he knows it. He knows, for example, that Quebec never gets one
quarter of research and development spending or agricultural
spending, and that, from 1984 to 1993, the federal government
only spent 16 per cent of its total investments in Canada in the
province of Quebec, although Quebec accounts for one quarter
of the population. He knows this but it did not stop him from
saying such rubbish.
I am happy to see that I have a few minutes more. I will go on
to point 7. What does Mr. Côté say a sovereign Quebec could
hope to save by eliminating overlap? No more than $500
million.
How did Mr. Côté arrive at his figures? I am going to let you in
on it. I would like to say, though, that I am almost ashamed to
tell you because it puts economists in such a bad light. He took
10 per cent of the federal government's operating budget, so 10
per cent of $18 billion is $1.8 billion, and he multiplied it by 25
per cent, which is the population of Quebec, and he got $500
million. Just imagine, Madam Speaker! I have never seen such
an analysis, except the utterly preposterous one which the Royal
Bank delivered during the Charlottetown debate, according to
which almost one half of Canada's population would flee to the
United States. Mr. Côté's calculations are not any better.
In 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which used
exact and scientific sector analysis methods, calculated that, for
three items of expenditure alone, Quebec would save $800
million: $289 million in tax and income tax administration;
$233 million in the communication and transportation sectors;
$275 million in the job training sector (this figure was issued by
Gil Rémillard and Marcel Bourbeau).
Using a ludicrous methodology, Mr. Côté says that we will be
lucky if we save $500 million overall.
When we speak of duplication and overlap, we are not just
speaking of administrative expenses. We are speaking of
inconsistent policies, manpower policies that have the federal
government going in one direction and the government of
Quebec going in another, with the result that at a certain point no
one knows what anyone else is doing and there is no more
sustainable job creation. These are more of the costs of
duplication and overlap.
The endless negotiations on regional development are another
example of costly duplication and overlap. They go on for years
and years, while entire regions are left hanging. This is the cost
of duplication and overlap, not just ordinary administrative
costs, especially according to the arbitrary and completely
ridiculous method used by Mr. Côté.
Mr. Côté's eighth question was what percentage of the debt
would Quebec inherit? He starts out by saying that it will be
according to population, therefore 25 per cent. Why would we
pay more than our share of the debt today? Why, when
Quebecers are covering 23 per cent of the cost of servicing the
debt now through the taxes they pay, would they take on 25 per
cent the day after sovereignty? Here, already, Mr. Côté seems
intent on artificially inflating the figures he is presenting. We
are paying 23 per cent of the cost of servicing the debt at the
present time and it is too much.
Why is it too much? Because our assets in Quebec do not
justify our paying 23 per cent annually to help service the debt.
And the Bélanger-Campeau Commission made it very clear,
with three international observers who confirmed the
commission's calculations. The proportion of assets in Quebec
is 18.5 per cent, and it is therefore 18.5 per cent of the debt that
the government of Quebec would inherit, with sovereignty.
(1645)
So, why did Marcel Côté ignore this fact? Why did Mr. Côté,
who has a degree in economy, choose to ignore a basic fact,
unless he has forgotten what he learned in his economics
classes, in which case he can no longer claim to be an economics
expert or write books on the costs of sovereignty with titles such
as Le rêve de la Terre promise.
One last thing. I would like, at this stage, to say that this man
really talked through his hat. He does not know the first thing
about the subject and it shows. Third, Mr. Côté wonders if
Quebec dairy producers could continue to sell their products to
Canada at twice the world price and expect to receive what
amounts to several millions in subsidy from Canadian
consumers every year.
10732
Three things are incorrect in this short statement. First, it is
incorrect to say that the price of dairy products in Canada and
Quebec is twice the price on the international market. It is not
true. Second, dairy production, which is subject to
interprovincial distribution through quotas, is centred on
processing milk to make cheese, yogurt, ice cream, mozzarella
and what not. This is the part to which an act of Parliament and a
federal milk subsidy apply.
If our products in Quebec were not competitive, if they were
not competitive in price and quality, they would not sell on the
Quebec market, they would not sell on the Ontarian market or
even in some specific segments of the American market. They
would not anywhere. The fact is that Quebec's milk production
is quite competitive and if 50 per cent of all the industrial milk
produced in Canada is currently produced in Quebec, it is
because we have great producers in Quebec. We have the best,
and I dare you to compare the productivity of Quebec milk
producers with that of American producers.
What we have been presented with is basically a tissue of
fabrications, as a scare tactic, and let me tell you that while
cut-throat competition may have characterized international
trade before 1947, it is no longer the case. It is no longer a free
for all. There are specific rules, the GATT rules or the rules of
the World Trade Organization. According to these rules, no
GATT member, whether it is Canada, Quebec or the United
States, regardless of its size or importance, can block the export
of dairy or other products to its territory, for reasons of politics
or resentment following a democratic vote by Quebecers in
favour of sovereignty. So, Mr. Côté can go back to the drawing
board.
As regards the issue being debated here, the official
opposition will oppose Bill C-73, which provides borrowing
authority to the government, since it is the direct consequence of
the Minister of Finance's budget, which is fundamentally
unacceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Sherbrooke-Stay in School Program.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a privilege and probably an honour to stand in the
House and speak to this borrowing bill.
I have heard a number of comments from the Liberal side and
also from the hon. Bloc people. During my speech I will point
out that sometimes we in the west also feel that we are
mistreated and we have some reasons to gripe about things.
By now we are probably all aware that Liberal governments of
the past owned the patent on borrowing. It has become clear that
they know how to borrow and they love to borrow.
My brother who is a medical doctor always tells me that when
you have a problem with a patient and you cannot pinpoint what
exactly his ailment is you should look back into the medical
history of that person, a generation or two, and see what the
family history tells of their previous problems. After looking at
the Liberal government we start to realize that it has a borrowing
problem, probably called spendingitis. It seems to be more or
less the system that it used during the seventies and early
eighties.
(1650)
I would like to go back to a few comments on Liberal
governments of the past so that we can put into context why we
are having this problem.
When I came home from the Soviet Union in 1981, where I
saw my $3.50 wheat was being sold for $20 a bushel to the
citizens there so they could keep their livestock alive, it
bothered me. What bothered me more was seeing in the local
paper shortly after I got back that the Soviets were applying for
credit from the western nations to a tune of $40 billion for a
period of 30 years at 4 per cent.
I thought that sounded interesting. The Liberal government at
that time in 1981 were trying to bring down inflation and we
were saddled with 24 per cent interest rates in the farming
community. I wondered how the Soviets could try to coerce us
into borrowing money at that rate.
I thought it might be interesting to read through Hansard and
see what really happened with that request. This is what I found.
This is the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboia speaking on
Bill C-130, an act to authorize continual financial assistance to
be provided to certain international financial institutions. This
is from Hansard, so it is recorded in history and will probably
stay there for all time. It states: ``I have considerable experience
with CIDA and foreign aid going back to 1975 when the Liberal
government tried to conceal information regarding loans to
Cuba. It provided public information that the loans were being
made at an interest rate of 6 per cent and higher.
However, I obtained internal documents which showed that it
was concealing the interest rate being charged on loans to Cuba
which was zero and 3 per cent. Also we are well aware of the low
interest rate loans to the Russians for the building of a gas
pipeline.
The Liberal government is borrowing money at 17 and 18 per
cent and lending it to the Russians at 12 per cent. This is a great
loss to the Canadian people. In addition loans are being made for
the building of statues in other countries.
10733
In 1975 I presented a motion to the Standing Committee on
External Affairs and and National Defence calling for a full
scale investigation into foreign aid. I did this because of all the
secret documentation which had come into my hands with
regard to hidden loans, hidden percentages with regard to Cuba.
This of course was defeated by the Liberal members on the
committee. The last thing they wanted was an investigation into
CIDA. I certainly commend you, Mr. Speaker, because you were
the lone Liberal to vote with the Conservatives in the committee
calling for a full scale investigation into CIDA''.
Does that not remind us all of what we have been hearing in
the House the last while? Spend more, borrow more, try to
justify it by covering it up a bit.
When I hear the Bloc members today complaining about the
bad treatment they have had in the east, I would like to remind
them that during the Liberal regime of the seventies, which was
called the just society, we very quickly learned in the west that it
meant just the east, not the west. One hundred billion dollars of
national energy money was siphoned from the west into the east.
If that is mistreating the east, I cannot really say where that
theory came from.
(1655)
Not only was the Liberal government not too concerned about
the west, but to give us a goodbye it aimed its guns at the Crow
and killed it dead. However it felt a little regret so it gave us the
WGTA, which I consider as the Liberal vulture of this century.
What did this Liberal vulture do for us? It gave us subsidies that
guaranteed railways a return on investment and also a return on
operations, no matter how efficient they were. That is why today
we have strikes like the one presently going on.
During this era the railways siphoned off $7 billion in
subsidies. These subsidies did not go into the pockets of
farmers. They probably went toward purchasing rail lines in the
U.S. Today they own more track in the U.S. than they do in
Canada. The CN and the CP can deliver grain on their tracks all
the way to Mexico.
The WGTA allowed the railways to enter into contracts with
its workers where after eight years of work for the railway there
was a lifetime guarantee of a job and pay. I wonder where the
farmer has been considered and where these subsidies have
gone.
During all these years of Liberal and Conservative
governments, we borrowed and borrowed. That is what we are
debating again today. As farmers in the west we had to contend
with the dusty red grain beetle. Today another insect has entered
our grain bins. I want to call it the red book worm.
This red book worm is not just eating up the grain, it has taken
our bins, our machinery and our land. How we are going to
exterminate it, I do not know. I do know we have to put up with it
for at least another three years.
In 1984 when the Liberals turned their patent on borrowing
over to the Conservatives, the national debt was $200 billion.
During the nine years of Conservative government, it was
increased to $450 billion.
It is interesting. I do not think the Liberal members in the
House did too bad at that time. For their troubles and their
efforts in the House, they somehow continued to build up MP
pensions which today are worth $120 million, according to the
National Citizens' Coalition.
Is it any wonder that we have to borrow and borrow instead of
paying some back? It makes me wonder when the taxpayer is
finally going to stand up and say: ``This is enough''. We heard
quite a bit of that recently. Maybe it is sometimes wise to let a
symptom grow until it finally busts a vein or kills the whole
system. That is probably what we will experience in the next
Parliament.
Last session this Parliament was controlled by a party that can
now get into a Honda Civic. Soon we may have another one that
only needs a table for one. It is almost enlightening to witness
that.
(1700)
During 1993 we in the west heard so much about this
tremendous Liberal machine, this red book machine that was
going to change things around just like the Mulroney
government was going to do. The Liberals claimed they had the
people, they had the plan: jobs, jobs, jobs. I wonder what those
at the research station in Morden say after losing 40 per cent of
their jobs and PSAC losing 45,000. The plan got sidetracked a
little bit.
The Liberal ticket in 1993 was to jump on board; get on the
Liberal train. ``This is the train that is going to board at the land
of opportunity and take you to the promised land of milk and
honey,'' as the Quebec members would say. After two budgets, I
think we should rename the train the Liberal train to ruination.
Board at Fantasyland; pass through Hooterville and Never
Never Land; final destination: Poverty Point, the land without
milk, bread or money.
I had the pleasant experience of getting a phone call just
before the break from the Manitoba dairy farmers and milk
producers. They wanted to talk to me all of a sudden. During the
election all I heard was to vote everything else but Reform. All
of a sudden, these people wanted to talk to me.
I made the effort and said I would talk. I appreciate visiting. I
asked them what was the concern. They said that during the
election they heard the Liberals promising how they would
10734
protect article XI and how they would support the dairy farmer,
and how they would make this thing as golden as they could for
all the dairy producers. I was told that the Liberal dairy policy
kicked the farmer's milk bucket over into the gutter.
They have lost 30 per cent of their subsidies. That is
protecting the dairy farmer. They told me I had warned them that
subsidies would have go to, that they would have to go
tariffication. It makes me feel pretty good that once in a while I
do seem to side with the right people. It is not very often when
you are a farmer, but in this instance I was right.
What the dairymen told me was astounding. They said they
did not mind losing 30 per cent of their subsidies but the Liberal
dairy policy took its dirty ugly tail and hit them another swipe
right in the eyes. The Liberals did away with the funding for the
genetic recording and milk allocation programs, while the
United States increased the program by $600 million. This is the
level playing ground that the Liberals are giving to the dairy
policy.
I can assure you I think these people will make an x twice
before the Liberals in the next election, striking out the name
and not voting for it.
Mr. Crawford: Never.
Mr. Hoeppner: We will see. I think there will be some
changes made. Who knows what can happen?
I would like to clear up a few misconceptions this
afternoon-if I have the time but it could take more than I
have-that farmers have been getting all these transportation
subsidies. I have learned a few things since I have come to sit on
the transportation committee. I hope the hon. members from
Quebec are listening.
(1705 )
I really love Thunder Bay port because while I was farming,
every time I turned on the combine it went on strike. You can see
my love for that nice little port. In testimony before us at
Thunder Bay, as the witnesses came before us, I was astounded I
had never heard about some of these things.
Do you know that a pilot who gets on a ship at Montreal and
takes that ship through the locks and the lakes up to Thunder Bay
charges just approximately $2.65 a tonne for his services? This
is 15 per cent of the total freight cost from Thunder Bay to
northern Europe. These pilots-I call them pirates, not
pilots-charge a range of from $3,800 to $5,000 a day. That is
where grain transportation subsidies are going. No farmer, no
manufacturer, no producer or processor ever can expect wages
like that. That is not the whole side of that story.
This pilot association is run by a federal crown corporation
which over the last 20 years has cost the taxpayer $50 million.
This year, that corporation is going to be in debt to the tune of $5
to $7 million. Are you surprised why we have to continue
borrowing? This borrowing disease, this spending-itis is going
to bankrupt this country one of these days. I am wondering what
labour unions will say then.
Another few interesting facts I found out, usually when we
talk of $500 million in transportation subsidies to farmers, that
is all somewhere in the farmer's pocket or bankbook. I will
throw in a few more figures and tell you what fair treatment we
do get by some of our terminals.
In Thunder Bay, Cargill Grain pays $1.002 million in property
taxes. A couple of hundred kilometres down the road at Duluth,
$64,000 is paid. Then we wonder why farmers are looking south
of the border to try to move some grain.
I will give some stats I received at these hearings. They are
based on tonnages of storage and property tax per tonne. At
Vancouver it costs $6.27 per tonne of storage for property taxes.
At Thunder Bay it costs $8.03 per tonne of storage for a
terminal. At Duluth it costs the American farmer 27 cents. AGP,
Inc., another grain terminal, is paying 15 cents. And we as
farmers are being accused of taking subsidies. These subsidies
are going to taxes that have been developed by overspending,
mismanagement and corruption.
I want to tell the Liberal members from the west coast when
the transport minister talks of becoming a market economy and
becoming more efficient, the farmers with some government
help did build the Prince Rupert high throughput elevator so that
we could move grain faster. But what has happened there?
Because we can move it faster than Vancouver, we are not
paying $6.27 per tonne. We are paying $16.43 per tonne for
property taxes. Now tell me, how do you think the producer can
stay alive with those types of inconsistencies and
discrimination?
The story does not end at Thunder Bay. Manitoba Pool
Elevators testified and pointed out that for the same type of
operation in Thunder Bay, it also paid $110,196 in corporation
taxes. In British Columbia $18,615 was paid for the same
amount of operations.
(1710)
After hearing these figures when the labour unions came
before us I could hardly sit still. I told those gentlemen that I
knew a lot of times we in the west were being downtrodden but I
never thought it was that bad. I said that when I went home I
would tell every grain farmer not to ship one more bushel of
grain through Thunder Bay because I am fed up with it. If I have
to, I will take every bushel of grain to Churchill by dogsled
before I will ship a bushel to Thunder Bay. Something people
have to start realizing is that things have to change or there will
be no producers left.
If they want to realize why we have to borrow because of this
WGTA, which I called the vulture, in testimony before the
standing committee on agriculture Ted Allen said that they have
not rationalized the rail system or the elevator system in a very
significant way or as significantly as they should have for about
10735
10 years because the Western Grain Transportation Act
encouraged them not to make those changes.
Now we have a system that is 10 years behind the American
system. This Liberal government is throwing the whole mess on
the farmers' backs saying: ``Fix it. We got you into the mess.
Here it is. Help yourselves''. It astounds me that politicians
cannot see that if they do not have producers or manufacturers
they do not need a rail system. One of these days we will smarten
up and realize that.
How inefficient is this system? I would like to read a few
statements made by Ted Allen. Last summer he said: ``We
moved two vessels seven times to different terminals for a load
of barley. It took a long time. Every time one of these vessels
moved one way, it cost $18,000''. Now you are trying to tell me
that is the farmers' way of doing business?
A 25,000 tonne vessel went to Mexico in November 1994 on
which there was loaded 9,000 tonnes of No. 1 Red, 5,000 tonnes
of No. 2 Red and the balance, less than half, was No. 3 Red. Who
do you think paid for that? The western farmer.
This government tries to tell us that Mexico is dictating to us
telling us to take the subsidies off grain transportation or it will
not buy. Something is wrong in this country when a government
that has a $2.5 billion trade surplus with us tells us what we have
to do.
I have raised four children and four grandsons. When I see my
wife giving an equal number of crayons to the youngsters to play
with and one of them says: ``My colour is not right, I want
yours,'' and the other child does not ask for one in return, very
soon one of the kids is without crayons. That is exactly what has
happened to our agriculture policy. Everybody has taken our
crayons and now we have nothing left to colour with. It is sad but
it is a fact.
There are a few other statements I would like to read. I was
pleased last December when the transport minister
acknowledged that labour on the Canadian railways was 64 per
cent as efficient as the U.S. We were losing about 40 per cent
efficiency in the labour force on the train system.
Using simple mathematics, I have used 50 per cent, giving
them the benefit of the doubt. If 50 per cent of the labour costs
are wasted, out of the 22 million tonnes of grain we export and
the $10 million we ship internally farmers lose $220 million.
That sounds as if the farmers are getting rich on transportation
subsidies.
(1715)
Not only that, there is good reason to wonder why the grain
elevator system tariffs are as high as they are. When we compare
the results of shipping through the U.S. on terminal and primary
elevator tariffs, we lose roughly another $360 million. There is
over $500 million gone right there. Where are farmers putting
the money into their pockets? I hope someday we become honest
enough to look at these problems and address them so we can
resolve them.
It is always encouraging to see some people trying to solve
these problems. I am impressed with some of the statements we
have heard from members on the opposite side. I think if they
would really buckle down and do what they are saying, a lot of
things would get resolved.
Verbal agreements or promotions of some things are not as
good as the real thing. I was not surprised by some of the
statistics in the papers when Team Canada went off to Europe. It
was to really promote some industries and get some extra
business for this country.
I could not believe some of the results that came back from
that meeting. I had been talking in the House about the
agriculture subsidies, the boneless beef coming into Canada and
how the GATT had more or less set quotas of 75,000 tonnes.
Then I saw the trade minister in Australia and New Zealand
promoting more offshore beef into this country while we were
being told at the same time to diversify by increasing beef and
pork production.
I have seen them over import 30-some thousand tonnes of
boneless beef which was more than the GATT organizations had
set for a quota; 30,000 tonnes went straight from Canada into the
U.S. It reminds me very much of the cap that was put on our
wheat because of our wheat board and grain companies dumping
grain.
The problem here again is that Australia and New Zealand
have a $300 million trade surplus with us. We are borrowing this
money. What are we paying for interest? What is it costing us for
jobs? Five jobs are lost for every boner cow exported to the U.S.
instead of doing it ourselves. Is this job creation?
It really took the cake when Xcan, which I imagine was a
member of the Team Canada approach, went to China and
probably started looking at investment opportunities. There was
a news release on March 2. This astounds me: ``Pools pull out of
China project''.
(1720 )
The three prairie wheat pools have decided to drop out of a
malting barley plant development in China. The pools, along
with the ITI world investment group, were negotiating with the
Chinese to build a $58.8 million malting plant in Quingdao,
China. Barley would be sourced in Canada and Chinese beer
would be brought back into this country. That is diversification.
That is the type of support we get from our own agriculture
community. Where do we go next?
I would like to dwell for a few minutes on an issue that has
been very near and dear to my heart, the inquiry I asked the
justice minister to make into the dumping of Canadian wheat
into the U.S. I provided the facts I had from farmers who had
taken samples and had given me the information. I acquired the
documents from the U.S. customs people on what had happened.
When I found out that $3.50 a bushel of wheat was being
exported into the U.S. by Sask-Pool at $2.02 to $2.05, I could
not believe it. For every bushel of grain that we are exporting at
10736
that price into the U.S. we are hurting our own economy because
we are losing millions of dollars that could be running our
country and promoting more industry.
When this hit the news the co-operator phoned Lorne Hehn,
the chief commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr.
Hehn said: ``Sales of 1992 wheat to American companies could
have lowered prices or plugged individual elevators, but I don't
believe our sales into those areas really impacted on the price in
a negative way''. One can dump grain at lower prices and plug
elevators and it is still not impacting in a negative way. This is
his reason: ``We were very careful about that factor. Prices for
feed wheat rose during the year, while large Canadian sales were
being made so that proves that price pressure was not there''.
When in an up market we can dump grain into the U.S. at half
price and the market continues to go up, how is that helping our
country? Can members see why American farmers are furious? I
do not blame them one bit. It is unbelievable but those are the
words of Mr. Hehn.
What do we do about it? I have waited for two months now to
see what is going to happen and so far nothing has happened. I
made a challenge under that news release on behalf of the pasta
producers in western Canada. They came to see me around the
middle of November, claiming this heavily subsidized pasta
from Italy was coming into our country and they could not afford
to process at that price any more.
When I showed my facts and figures to the prairie pools which
were a little upset about my claims, I do not know what
happened. They all of a sudden sat back and had no answers.
This is what is happening in our pasta industry today.
We sell durum wheat to the Americans for the pasta industry.
We sell it to the Italians. The Americans bring back into this
country on a yearly basis about 40.896 million kilograms of
pasta for a value of $84 million. This pasta is costing us about $2
per kilogram. The Italians ship in 17 million kilograms of pasta
at $19 million, about half the price the Americans are putting
their pasta into this country for.
(1725)
I asked representatives at the prairie pools if they could
explain how we can sell durum wheat to Italy, ship it over there,
have it manufactured and bring it back into this country for half
the price. It is not subsidized. They just shook their heads and
said they have no explanation.
Do we know what that means in Canadian dollars? I wish
somebody would figure it out. Italy has a $982 million trade
surplus with Canada. We are borrowing almost a billion dollars
to have the Italians process pasta and then ship it back into our
country and we pay the interest. That is supposed to build a
country? That is supposed to help us diversify? I wonder how. I
hope somebody can explain that to me.
We have heard so much about R and D, about where the money
is really coming from. The Reform Party has said time and time
again that R and D is one of the most important things and we
will never cut that back.
Here is a statement a Liberal member made in Manitoba. I feel
these people do have a grip on things but they are afraid to stand
up for what they believe in. The government member needs to
focus on the fact that dollars spent on research and development
are returned 10:1 in the livestock field and 40:1 in grain. He said
currently only 17 per cent of government spending on
agriculture goes to R and D. What an enlightening statement
from an hon. Liberal member.
I will point out what the government has done for R and D.
While a budget background document cites a 11 per cent cut to
agriculture research, almost half the total, 2,069, job cuts came
in research; 779 research scientists will retire or join the UI
fleet; 138 vacancies will not be filled. While the white coats may
have been hit hard by the budget, the white collars survived
relatively unscathed; 149 full time positions were removed from
the corporate services. The fat in Ottawa continues while people
in the rest of the country get cut.
I encourage members to not only stand up and make
comments but provide action. History will record it, no matter
how we joke about it. When I read in Hansard about what took
place in the 1970s and 1980s, it is there forever, and that is
exactly what is going to happen here.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to remind the
House that we are now starting the five hours of debate. Each
speaker will have 20 minutes followed by a 10 minute period for
questions and comments.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with my hon. colleague for Waterloo. I have
been listening to my fellow colleagues from the Bloc and the
Reform. I felt very depressed when they talked about history and
all the things that have gone wrong in the country.
(1730)
The reality is we have a very good and very strong country
with a bright future. It is five years before the 21st century and it
10737
is time to focus on how we need to change. We have had a good
history together but there are things that have to change in the
country. That is what the budget and the borrowing authority are
linked together to do.
My colleagues have possibly missed the real point of the
budget. I became involved in politics and came to the House for
some of the very fundamental reasons we are discussing today. I
was very concerned about where our country was going
economically.
I can see where we have overborrowed and where we have
made lots of mistakes. We made genuine mistakes because we
wanted to do the right things. In some ways they went askew but
we are learning the process of government. The budget is an
attempt to address how we will change. I would like to deal with
the basic concept of how the budget is about change and about a
new future for Canada.
I took the time to go to my riding where I conducted a number
of tax forums with the professional community and lay people.
While there were some exceptions to parts of the budget, they
were all very supportive. They said that it was about time a
government had taken leadership to try to move us away from
our debt and deficit problems to a new tomorrow. The younger
generations were concerned that they would never have better
incomes or a better way of life than their parents. These negative
aspects existed prior to the budget. The country feels a lot better
today because of the actions of the Minister of Finance.
In what ways are we changing? We could talk about the
history of the country which is good. I am a great believer in
history. The lessons of the past teach us a lot about the future.
Also some of the things we did in the past have not worked very
well.
Basically the budget is about seeing government a little
differently than we possibly have in the past. We see
government today as being a referee of the country, a referee
between business groups and individuals, making certain that
people disenfranchised by the system become part of the system
and making certain that the wealthy do not abuse their power.
Some things in the budget try to strike a path toward the 21st
century in which all Canadians can share.
How is the budget different? I do not remember a government
bringing in a budget like the one for this fiscal year which was
$2 billion lower than projected. I do not remember that in my
lifetime. We have developed a whole culture of assuming that
every time a government brings down a budget it will overshoot
it. The government did just the reverse and the people of Canada
are happy about it.
How are some of the things we have done in the past being
addressed in the budget? We have a bloated civil service. It is
not the fault of people in the civil service. Nor is it the fault of
anyone in particular. It just happened. It happened in all other
governmental administrations in the western world.
Technology has caught up to Canada. Sometimes it caught up
with us a lot faster than we wanted it to. In some ways people are
having problems with job security because the country is being
pushed into a technological framework with which we have to
deal. It is global. It not only affects Canada. It affects all
countries of the world. We will either be part of it or we will be
washed up on the shores of disaster by not taking it into account.
We need to restructure the civil service in fundamental ways.
Not only do we need to reduce some of the numbers within the
civil service. We need to do it equitably as well.
(1735)
There is a human side to the downsizing buzzword. There are
real people involved. The government is committed to finding
approaches to retraining and to finding new entrepreneurial
skills so people will be able to share in the massive expansion of
our labour market which saw over 422,000 new jobs created last
year.
By restructuring the civil service we are also talking about a
new way of government. We want the civil service to be more
responsive to the needs and the desires not only of government
but of the people generally. It should be responsive to the needs
of the community. We need more quantifiable measurement
tools to remunerate people and progress them based on their
success. This is healthy for government and for the civil service
because it gives them a future and it gives them a challenge.
After all, that is what most human animals really want.
What other areas do we need to change? The government has
come to the conclusion that it cannot be an interventionist in the
economy any more. In past times it has worked; new industries
and so forth have been created. Today we simply cannot afford it
and it has not been very efficient. I think governments are
realizing that business can run business a lot better than they
can. That does not mean we give a total licence to business. It
means that we temper it and recognize the rights of citizens. At
the same time we realize that governments should simply
govern and business should do business.
How is this affected by the last budget? Clearly privatization
of CN is one such aspect. Another one is the possible sell off of
Petro-Canada. In a number of other areas the government will
gradually withdraw and allow the private sector to make up the
difference. It is good for the economy and it is good for the
taxpayers of Canada.
That came through loud and clear before the budget, indeed in
the last two or three years. Canadians feel overtaxed. They do
not think they are getting value for their tax dollars. They want
us to be more efficient. That is what the budget was all about.
We are downsizing. We are also cutting out subsidies to
industry. Different types of people are living off the
governmental system. One is industry living on subsidies and
getting grants. These things will be curtailed. Most people in
the
10738
business community recognize that it is no way to run a
business.
I referred to subsidies. We talked about rail subsidies with
which I will deal in a minute. There are also grain subsidies. The
first intentions of a subsidy program are usually good. We want
to encourage some kind of action. Unfortunately what
invariably happens-and history has told us-is that it becomes
a dependency. It distorts trade.
We have heard from many members about grain travelling all
the way to Thunder Bay when it is on its way to California from
Regina. These are some of the ridiculous aspects of
subsidization. We need to create value added products in Canada
and I believe by reducing subsidies we will do just that.
Industrial milk production is another area that will be
curtailed by subsidy programs. We need to become more
competitive. GATT has told us that we will have to be part of an
international marketplace. Gradually reducing tariffs is a way to
make the Canadian economy much more efficient.
The rail industry is on our mind these days. Much like
government it has some prehistoric systems within its
employment structure. Some of the contracts entered into
hearken back over 100 years to a guild system. I understand
there are still blacksmiths in some machine shops in Toronto.
We pay people to be blacksmiths even though the whole industry
has disappeared. We must revisit the contracts that people have
with the government through crown corporations. We cannot let
job security ruin the security of the whole country.
(1740 )
We have to revisit these matters. We have to retool the
country. We have to make it whole again. That is what the budget
was all about. It was positive in terms of change for Canada and
for the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I listened with great interest to my colleague from the
government party. It is quite surprising since on the front page
of this morning's Le Droit, a veteran of this party is described as
a lion that turned into a mouse.
How things change. When the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell sat on this side, he was a member
of the so-called ``rat pack''. He was a very dedicated member,
especially for his constituents, including the many farmers in
his riding. The article says that the hon. member ``was
uncompromising on agricultural issues, denouncing all the
measures likely to affect the farmers making up a large part of
his constituency. Today he never opens his mouth''.
My colleague from the Liberal Party has 1,001 good things to
say about the budget tabled a few weeks ago, for which we now
have to provide borrowing authority. He is currently sitting on
the government side. In four or eight years at the most, he will
find himself on this side of the House, or elsewhere looking for
employment. However, with some members of his party finding
themselves again on the opposition side, he will rediscover his
old rhetoric as a member of the opposition. I ask him whether he
is really sincere in listing all the good things about the budget?
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, the hon. member of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is still very much a lion in the
House. I have heard him at various times assaulting the policies
of the member's party and I think he does it quite well.
Talking about absenteeism, we have in our minds how much
space we will have on this side of the House at the end of June.
We are certainly looking forward to it. I could certainly use a lot
more space when I conduct my business. I would be happy to
observe that when we come back.
It is a borrowing bill. I would be happy to stand in the House
some year when there is no borrowing bill. That is where the
budget is taking the country. It will reduce the need to borrow on
the market and hopefully get the country in the position where it
can actually calculate surpluses.
That is what this is all about. I am sorry if my colleague has
missed that.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-73
and to express my thoughts on the budget delivered by the
finance minister on February 27.
I will make a short response to the comments made by the
Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party in debate. It is worth
recalling the climate or the mood in the country before the
budget was brought down on February 27 and the political
instability posed by the possibility of Quebec separation, which
continues to be a problem.
The BQ complains that we cut too much and that we singled
out Quebec for the cuts. The Reform Party claims we did not cut
enough and that we were unfair to western Canada. If Bob Rae,
the New Democratic premier of Ontario, had his say, he would
tell us the budget was unfair to Ontario.
(1745)
These three groups were disappointed by what happened in
the budget. The BQ is disappointed because the budget is no help
to it in the upcoming referendum, where it will destroy Canada
as we know it, as well as the economy of Quebec. The Reform
Party found that its tax revolt did not materialize. The Reform
Party has been doing its best to add a couple of percentage points
10739
to borrowing costs by forever preaching that our fiscal situation
is not sound. As for Bob Rae, he is also disappointed because he
does not have a launching pad for the election in Ontario.
The finance minister is putting Canada's fiscal house in order.
The budget outlines concrete measures for real deficit reduction
and fulfils commitments made by the Liberal Party during the
election campaign. The government had to make difficult
decisions in the budget process. The Kitchener-Waterloo
Record from my community said the budget showed how tough
it is to eliminate the deficit. The budget is tough but it is also
fair. Everyone must share the burden of deficit reduction.
The Minister of Finance has worked hard to ensure that
spending reductions are balanced evenly in all regions. The
government's deficit targets are reasonable and achievable. The
Reform Party should learn from the lessons of previous
governments. We cannot balance the budget with unrealistic
deficit targets.
Over the last few months I have spoken to many constituents
about what they wanted in the budget. They wanted the
government to reduce the deficit through spending cuts and not
through tax increases to the average citizen; do not tax health or
dental plan benefits; do not tax RRSP contributions; increase
taxes on large and profitable corporations; make the public
service more efficient and effective; eliminate the waste of hard
earned tax dollars.
The budget shows the government has listened to the concerns
of ordinary citizens. The Minister of Finance has focused his
efforts on spending cuts. He recognizes the heavy tax burden
borne by average Canadians. The minister has not raised
personal income tax rates and has not taxed health or dental plan
benefits. For most Canadians the RRSP contribution limit has
not changed. The budget also makes taxation more equitable.
Large corporations will pay their fair share of taxes. The
profitable banks will pay a new temporary tax. The taxation of
family trusts will be tightened. Individuals will no longer be
able to defer tax on business or professional income.
The Minister of Finance has also made a commitment to
reduce the size of government and eliminate unnecessary
expenditures. The minister has said a basic philosophy of
program review was the federal government should not be doing
what someone else can do better.
I urge the government to stop the military's rip off of
taxpayers' dollars by inefficient management of government
moves. The government should implement its own reports and
contract out move management, as was recommended by so
many of the government's committees.
The government has consolidated its transfers to the
provinces for health, post-secondary education and social
assistance. The new Canada social transfers will be more
effective and more sustainable than the old program funding.
The CST will mean a drop of about 3 per cent of provincial
revenues. However, it will also give the provinces more
flexibility to structure and innovate their social programs.
This small change in funding to the provinces will not affect
medicare. The federal government will still enforce national
standards for health care. Medicare will continue to be
universal, comprehensive, portable and accessible.
The government has protected the average senior citizen with
full indexation to protect them from inflation and old age
security on the basis of family income.
Education is an important concern to my constituents. The
riding of Waterloo includes the campus of Conestoga College
and two of Canada's leading universities, the University of
Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University. The concentration of
post-secondary students in the Waterloo region is the highest in
the country.
Post-secondary institutions have played a crucial role in my
community's economy. The residence of the Waterloo riding are
proud of Canada's record of excellence in post-secondary
education. They also know our education system must continue
to develop in order to meet the challenges of the next century.
(1750 )
I am pleased the government has reaffirmed its commitment
to our internationally renowned system of higher education. We
need to ensure our post-secondary institutions are accessible to
our youth who must compete in the international marketplace.
We must maintain accessibility through the income contingent
loan repayment scheme.
The University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University
are renowned for excellence in research. Because of their efforts
the Waterloo area has become a breeding ground for
entrepreneurs and information technology.
Waterloo riding is home to 125 export oriented information
technology companies. These companies have revenues of more
than $600 million annually and employ 5,500 people in
knowledge based jobs. By the year 2000 they project that 25,000
to 30,000 people in the Waterloo region will be working in the
area of information technology.
It is imperative when we talk about wealth generation that we
recognize our post-secondary institutions are vital to this effort.
The government must make a strategic long term investment in
wealth creation through research funding. The government has
worked hard to limit the cuts to research and development. This
is not enough. I encourage the Minister of Finance to do
everything possible in these difficult times to continue to fund
vital research that will help us compete in the next century.
10740
My constituents and all Canadians demanded a fair and
equitable budget. This is what the government has delivered.
There is an area in the budget on which I must express a bit of
personal disappointment, the budget of the Solicitor General.
That is one area which was not cut. There was a slight increase.
I am concerned that there is more and more push in the climate
of the House for longer sentences and putting more people in
jail. This is a waste of resources. It costs much more to keep
somebody in a federal penitentiary than to put somebody
through a Ph.D. program. There are far too many people serving
time in jail for non-violent crimes.
There are much better ways of dealing with that. I hope in this
session we will start working toward that and start
implementing some programs we have talked about in the House
such as crime prevention and community safety. We know every
dollar we spend on prevention results in savings of $5 to $6 at
the end of the line and we are not wasting the money on
penitentiaries.
Last year Canada once again was declared the best country in
the world in which to live. The job we in the House have, not just
the Liberals but all parties, is to make sure Canadians from coast
to coast and in every province enjoy that kind of lifestyle in the
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague. I will
especially dwell on his two or three first sentences. He said
without any distinction that the current instability in Canada
was the result of the actions of the Bloc Quebecois here, in this
House. I am sorry but I think that all the Bloc Quebecois has
done since its advent has been to inform Canadians of the
position they are really in.
I say that the political instability in Canada only reflects the
situation of the federal system. I do not want to address again
here all the issues that we raised, but I will simply go back to the
theme of the debt.
The debt has become so huge that the federal government is
forced to borrow overseas to meet its commitments. It is as if
one of my constituents visited his or her bank manager each and
every year to ask for a loan to be able to keep afloat and assume
his or her family obligations.
The instability also stems from the written word, from the
daily newspaper reports.
(1755)
Instability was created, in January 1995, when the Wall Street
Journal, New York's main financial newspaper which investors
from all over the world refer to, compared Canada to a third
world country. It openly evoked the possibility that Canada
could go bankrupt. The Bloc Quebecois did not bring Canada to
that level. No.
My question is this: It is easy to see that, due to the budget,
Canadians are now taxed more, $2.2 billion more. One cannot
deny that, or that cuts of $13.4 billion will be made over two
years. This is not the work of the Bloc Quebecois. Cuts will be
made, but not in the right places.
The government also offloaded some expenditures onto the
provinces, so it taxed, cut and transferred other things, raising
the debt by 17.4 per cent over three years. So much for putting
our financial house in order according to the current
government. Is this the direction in which the federalism will
go? If so, the solution we have in Quebec is to become
sovereign.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend
for his question. There is no question there is instability when
we are talking about the political liability of Canada.
Let me refer to something which appeared in the Globe and
Mail today: ``Quebec's economy would collapse like a house of
cards after a yes vote in the referendum, and Canada's would not
fare much better, a respected economist predicts in a new book.
Marcel Côté, a senior partner with Groupe Sécor and a former
economic adviser to Canadian Prime Ministers and Quebec
premiers, writes that a sovereign Quebec would be pummelled
by an unprecedented convergence of negative economic
factors''. Of course it would not help Canada either.
We have some negative forces, one being separation. It hurts
the average citizen who tries to borrow money. It hurts
government but it hurts the person who has a $100,000 mortgage
and has to pay a higher premium. It is not assisted any by the
Reform Party which is trying to say our economy is unstable.
We are not a third world country. The member is gravely
misinformed if he believes we are. We are a country that was
judged by the United Nations for the second time as the best
country in the world in which to live. That is what Canada is.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Madam Speaker, one
thing we have to realize, when we talk about a bill to provide
borrowing authority to the government, is that the borrowed
money will be used to implement the measures announced in the
government's budget. So, you will understand why most of my
comments will focus on the budget that was tabled in this House
by the finance minister and that has been the topic of a lot of our
discussions these last few weeks. It is important to demystify a
few things, because Canadians no longer know what to think
about the budget that was tabled.
10741
First, I want to make my position very clear: The Minister of
Finance has not reduced the annual deficit enough to deal with
the public debt. I will elaborate on this a little later on. In order
to reduce the annual deficit, the finance minister offloaded the
federal expenditures onto the provinces, which does not do a
thing to improve the debt situation of the Canadian people.
Thirdly, the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government
have cut federal expenditures, but for the most part, they did not
cut in the right place. I will show in which areas the members of
the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, would have liked
the government and the finance minister to cut.
(1800)
Lastly, the Minister of Finance missed a really good
opportunity not to increase the tax revenues from large
corporations in a way that would have protected the average
citizens, the middle class and the underprivileged in our society
who, unfortunately, have always borne the brunt of the decisions
made by the various finance ministers over the years.
Let us go back to the deficit issue. I said earlier that we think
the Minister of Finance did not reduce the deficit enough. If we
use the federal finance minister's own figures, we can see that,
by the year 2000, Canada's total debt, including the present debt
and the annual deficits forecast by the minister, will have
reached a staggering $800 billion.
It must be understood that this $800 billion represents an
increase compared to the recent estimate of the debt at $300
billion. So an extra $300 billion will be added to the debt
between now and the year 2000, plus annual interest payments
of, say, 8 per cent on this $300 billion, which is a rather
conservative assumption.
It is not difficult to understand why anybody in Canada and
elsewhere in the world-my colleague from Chicoutimi
mentioned the Wall Street Journal a while ago-who watches
closely what is going on on the public scene can see that, under
the existing structure, Canada's uncontrolled and almost
uncontrollable debt will become such a heavy burden that it will
gobble up most of the money we hope will be generated by
economic growth, money that would normally be used to create
jobs, to stimulate research and development, to promote
economic development and to provide services to Canadians.
According to the finance minister's own figures, the federal debt
will reach $800 billion, which is beyond comprehension at this
point in time. So that is one problem.
Interestingly enough, the Minister of Finance did manage to
reduce to $25 billion an astronomical deficit of some $38 or $40
billion. That target is commendable and worthwhile. Yes, this is
interesting; and no, it is not an easy task. But he may have been
prevented from doing even better by the sheer weight of the
federal system. Or his efforts may have been thwarted, as I am
trying to demonstrate, by the government's refusal to really deal
with the ills that are eroding our financial situation in Canada.
Because of that, the debt burden will grow heavier as years go by
and will soon become unbearable.
I said at the outset that, when the government reduced its
deficit, it did not go about it the right way. In fact, the most
important and significant move of the Minister of Finance and
his government to reduce the deficit was to transfer to provincial
governments expenses of some $7 billion that will no longer be
met by the federal government. But the Canadian government
will still set national standards, shift its own responsibilities to
provinces, cut their funding and leave them scrambling to deal
with that $7 billion loss.
(1805)
What a lack of courage on the part of both the minister and the
government. Instead of taking the drastic measures that are
needed to reduce the costs of its own administration, the
government simply decided-this was really too easy-to
reduce funding by $7 billion and shift the burden to the
provinces. It leaves that problem in the hands of provincial
governments which will have to do what it did not have the guts
to do.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister know
perfectly well that, this year and more particularly next year,
provincial governments will have to do the work the government
of Canada refused and did not have the courage to do.
Just imagine the reaction of the citizens listening to us when
the Canadian Minister of Finance tells them there will be $7
billion less spending in the federal budget and that he feels the
government has done its job.
As for the ineffable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he
simply stated on one of his visits to Quebec City: ``We have done
our job; now it is up to the provinces to do theirs. Our clean-up
job is done''. Can you imagine: ``Our clean-up job is done. We
swept the dust into the neighbour's apartment''. That is the
original way the federal government has found to reduce its
deficit: offloading it onto the provinces.
What is the difference, as far as the citizen of Quebec, for
example, or of any other province is concerned? Deficits are run
up at both the provincial and the federal levels, and they add up
to a deficit he still has to pay in full. Just imagine that citizen
today when the Canadian Minister of Finance tells him:
``Rejoice, my dear fellow citizen, we reduced our share of the
deficit''. He should continue, saying: ``Sorry, my dear fellow
citizen, I just shifted that share to the provincial government, in
your name''. What a great operation. It reflects an unspeakable
lack of courage.
Furthermore, for the last 15 months, the opposition has been
constantly asking the government to take the drastic measures
needed to reduce this tremendous deficit. We have constantly
asked the government to sit down with members from all parties
to set up a working committee to undertake an item by item
review of all government expenditures. One has only to look at
the Auditor General's report to notice the wasting of tens of
10742
millions of dollars through mismanagement. The government
never took any heed of that suggestion.
Instead, it is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who
took charge of the exercise and ended up finding some things to
cut here and there. He finally decided to cut 45,000 civil
servants, and this was the biggest part of the budget. The federal
government will lay off 45,000 civil servants.
What it forgot to ensure is how the work will be done after
these 45,000 civil servants have been laid off. The government
will do what it has always done, that is turn to contractors in
order to do the job usually done by regular employees. What will
be the result of these cuts? The savings made by the left hand
will be spent by the right hand a few months later.
How do you want the people who are watching us, who are fed
up with these hollow words, not to get worried when they see
this government bragging about the fact that it has succeeded in
reducing the size of the public service, and know that it will
probably rehire as contractors friends of the regime to do the
same job.
(1810)
In reducing the public service, the government should have
met the following conditions: first, that it be done after a large
consensus had been reached in society as a whole, including the
unions concerned by this operation. The unions can also
understand that the government has objectives to reach. And I
believe that we could have formed, in a common effort with
employers and unions as well as representatives of the
government and the opposition, a discussion group which would
have taken on the task not of eliminating a certain number of
civil servants to be replaced by an equivalent number of
contractors, but of eliminating unnecessary government
activities.
Government employees are aware of dozens and dozens of
areas where the government is literally wasting taxpayers'
money through duplications and by putting in place a process so
cumbersome and so complex that it is a waste of efforts and
money. Instead, we should have worked with all those concerned
to scrutinize government spending in order to find waste and
mismanagement within the huge federal government machinery.
Unfortunately, the government is saying: ``We are going to
put 45,000 civil servants out of work. Give us the credit. We
have done our job''. And the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs adds: ``We did our job and now the provinces have to do
theirs''.
Frankly, one must know nothing about public administration
to address problems in such a casual manner and to make
speeches in order to put forward great principles like those
which make nice headlines but which, in fact, do not bring any
solutions.
Let us look at another area where the government has decided
to make cutbacks. I was saying that the government had made
cutbacks in the wrong areas. What was its main target in the last
budget and the previous one? The unemployed, the most
vulnerable members of our society were the most affected. And I
challenge all the Liberals opposite to tell us that the unemployed
were not the main victims of this government in the last two
budgets.
I remember quite well Liberal Party speeches, and letters
signed by the present Prime Minister, who was then Leader of
the Opposition, where unemployment insurance cuts,
implemented by the Tories, were condemned in no uncertain
terms. The Liberals said they were outraged to see the Tories so
lacking in imagination that they found no other way to solve the
fiscal problems of the country but to pick on the have-nots of
our society.
In my region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, I remember the
member for Jonquière almost left the Conservative caucus
because he disagreed so earnestly with the proposals of his
party. The Liberals disagreed with these proposals and
denounced them. They made several promises to the Canadians
during the last election campaign.
And, in their last two budgets, the one group they treated most
harshly were not the civil servants, not the banks, not the rich
families who profit from the family trusts, and not the
businesses which often pay no taxes at all, but the unemployed
Canadians.
Allow me to say, since there is so little imagination on the
other side, that the Minister of Finance seems very proud of the
cuts he made in some government expenditures. Why did he not
cut in the army reserve force when we all know it is the second
most expensive in the world? It is very simple, we have the most
expensive reserve after Switzerland, an extremely wealthy
country compared to Canada. The Canadian reserve is the most
expensive; it costs nearly one billion dollars, and that amount is
spent very inefficiently.
Why? Instead of taking $700 million away from the
unemployed, why did we not think about the Canadian reserve?
Why did we not try to get 300 or 400 million dollars out of a
reserve force which is totally inefficient, according to the
Auditor General and the observers?
(1815)
Why not? God only knows. The Minister of Finance's
conscience is clear. He did his job of making cuts. However, we
keep saying he cut in the wrong place. How do you explain the
10743
Auditor General's criticism, month after month, year after year,
that it is impossible to establish with certainty which native
populations are receiving fairly major funding through
agreements with the federal government for native businesses?
Everyone is wondering why the federal government does not
take an exact census with native bands before transferring the
money.
Nothing has been done. What effort have you seen the
government make to try at least to ensure that this money is
properly spent, that the native people are receiving their due and
that the money is being given on a basis that is really fair for all
other Canadians? None, none. This sort of thing is of no interest
to the Minister of Finance. I must also tell you that, in addition
to insufficiently cutting his deficit, in addition to doing it
wrong, by dumping it in the laps of the provinces, in addition to
cutting expenses for the wrong people and in the wrong place,
the Minister of Finance and his government refused to increase
revenues where money was to be found.
This is a fine state of affairs. You tell me who feeds me,
Madam Speaker, and I will tell you who gets my loyalty. How is
it that this government and this Minister of Finance were so
timid in setting up measures to obtain money that might have
helped Canada through its difficulties? Why were the
banks-which, by the way, made together some $4 billion in
profits-asked to make a temporary effort of $100 million?
Just imagine how much money is available there. These
corporations are saving a lot in taxes. Considering the
circumstances, they are fabulously rich. They are getting richer
and richer while most Canadians are getting poorer. In a context
of justice and equitable sharing, should not a responsible
government distribute fairly fiscal funds? I conclude since I see
my time is up. It is unfortunate because I still have a lot of
recommendations to make to the government. Why did the
government spare banks and large corporations from paying
their share of taxes? Why did it give family trust holders four
years to stash their money elsewhere? This is outrageous.
In concluding, I will simply state that the two Canadas did not
see the budget the same way. As for the rest of Canada, opinion
polls indicate that 60 per cent of Atlantic Canadians think it is a
good budget, as well as 55 per cent of Ontarians, 54 per cent of
Prairie residents and 51 per cent of British Columbia residents,
whereas in Quebec, 57 per cent think it is not.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask my colleague from Roberval a number of
questions. He mentioned he was not good at numbers and I
would have to agree with him.
He talked about the deficit climbing up to $800 billion. What
he seems to ignore is we have a thing in this economy called
growth. Canada is one of the fastest growing economies in the
western world right now. If he actually applied an element of
growth he would see that deficit start reducing under the finance
minister's plan.
He also talked about his great imagination. It is very true. He
does have a terrific imagination. The federal government
basically collects money on behalf of the provinces. That is part
of the constitutionality of this country.
Everyone realizes all governments are in this together and we
have to reduce spending. This argument has been going on in
Ontario for years. We keep blaming each other. Someone else is
always responsible.
The taxpayer is not fooled. In Ontario people are fully
cognizant that the province has to reduce spending. We have
reduced the transfer payments to the provinces far less than we
reduced our own expenditures.
(1820)
I do not think you can fool the people of Quebec. They know
governments have to reduce spending. This includes Quebec,
which to this day has a $70 billion deficit. It is not doing
anything about it. The leader of Quebec is running around with a
referendum or something but he is not dealing with the
economic problems of that province. Blaming all the problems
on the federal government is not going to wash. I do not think it
is going to wash in Quebec either.
Everybody shared in the budget. We did increase taxation on
some of our largest banks. Some things are not told. The Royal
Bank had a billion dollar profit. What some do not understand is
it had losses year after year before that.
Far be it from me to defend the banks, but I am telling the
reality of it. Sometimes a billion dollars sounds like a lot but
$125 billion worth of assets is not a very good return, especially
considering losses in the previous year.
Blaming everything on the banks is not going to cut it. We all
have to do something to get our costs of government down. That
is what the budget does. It does it from the federal perspective
and will do it for the provinces. I would like to have my hon.
colleague address that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, what compassion for those
poor banks which made profits of only $4 billion last year. I
would have liked my hon. colleague to show the same kind of
compassion for the unemployed in Canada, who do not count
their benefits in billions, and made no profit last year, but have
registered losses, year after year.
I would have believed that my colleague was better informed
when he talked about the tax points used by the federal
government and the fact that it gives money back to the
provinces. Listening to the advocates of federalism, one has the
feeling that it is a fantastic gift the provinces receive. The
federal government generously redistributes among its poor
little provinces its
10744
God-given tax money. What are they complaining about? These
are minor cuts.
Madam Speaker, I will simply say this: The federal
government, which then was not allowed to collect taxes, asked
for tax points to support its war effort and, later on, refused to
give them back to the provinces, saying that the money they
provided was going to be redistributed among the provinces to
help them accomplish certain things.
One has to admit that there is a problem somewhere when one
knows what the situation is, and that the Prime Minister has
decided to keep on collecting taxes, which originally belonged
to the provinces-check your history books-and to give them
only half of what it collects. This is what is wrong with
federalism. I do agree that the system does not make any sense.
No wonder the provinces and the federal government are
bickering. Besides, we have a very clear, very precise solution to
that. We are the only ones to have one. No one else has one in
this country.
In conclusion, when one talks about the necessity for the
provinces to put their house in order, I will tell my hon. friend
that I was a member of the Government of Quebec when we
asked the public service to make enormous sacrifices and when
we streamlined the administration. On a Canadian scale, the
Quebec deficit would have been the equivalent of $10 billion a
year. If the administration of the Government of Quebec had
been as poor as the administration of the federal government,
Quebec would be running a deficit of $10 billion a year.
Since 1985-86, the federal government's deficit has been
close to $40 billion, whereas the annual deficit of Quebec has
been roughly $3 billion, $5 billion last year. The generally good
management of Canadian provinces is in no way comparable to
the administrative mess at the federal level, as well as to the
disproportionate debt of the federal government which,
proportionally, beats all records of any developed country, with
the exception of Italy.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, a
quick question for the hon. member. It really gets tiring hearing
this blah, blah, blah about a wonderful budget that is not going to
do what those members claim. I get frightened when the
opposition wants to do something even worse. It does not want
to address the serious problem.
(1825 )
Regarding the corporations, if we get more taxation out of the
corporations, who ultimately pays the bill and what does the
member think caused a lot of the corporations to go south of the
border previously if not taxation? Is he trying to chase
everybody out of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we know the opinions of the
Reform Party. They presented them in this House and they
condemned the budget. Here is the result of this condemnation
by the Reform Party: in the West, their stronghold, 54 per cent of
their constituents, 60 per cent in British Columbia, think it is a
good budget.
I would simply say to my friends in the Reform Party that
their speeches do no fool anyone anymore. We know that they
want to abolish social programs, everything having to do with
individuals, all transfers to the neediest. We know that
according to them corporations, banks, large companies should
not pay tax. We can see what their choice of society is. However,
they cannot even convince their own constituents with whom
they are supposed to communicate so much.
[English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to share my time tonight with the member for
Hamilton West.
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-73. I want to take this
opportunity to offer my support to the budget tabled by the
Minister of Finance last month. It truly is a budget that reflects
the principles and priorities of Canadians.
Our challenge was to balance the needs of our nation with the
fiscal realities of today. Canadians asked us clearly to focus on
cutting spending, not raising taxes, spending dollars more
carefully on the priorities of people and ensuring fairness among
individuals and regions. I believe the budget respects and
reflects those principles.
Following the budget I wanted to see how the residents of
Edmonton East felt about the budget, to hear their ideas,
suggestions, their comments and concerns. On the evening of
the budget we held an informal budget forum with
representatives of the Edmonton East community. There were
small business owners, students, teachers, seniors, new
Canadians and representatives from community groups and
agencies in attendance.
Our group came to the Edmonton East riding office to watch a
tape of the budget speech and participate in short group
discussions on the budget. Following that round table, I called
from the office in Ottawa and we held a conference call on the
budget and its impact on our riding. To determine the collective
wisdom of Edmonton East on the budget, I asked our diverse
group a series of questions to gauge their opinions and reactions.
I asked what their gut feeling was. The one phrase that was
consistently repeated as each participant voiced his or her
opinion was it was tough and fair. They felt the budget protected
our core Canadian values and programs. Specifically they were
10745
relieved that seniors benefits were not drastically cut and they
were delighted, actually ecstatic, that the Minister of Finance
declared the government's support for the principles of the
Canada Health Act and that we maintained funding levels for
justice programs.
Several of the participants appreciated the manner in which
the program cuts were made. They liked that spending
reductions were done carefully by department and not in an
across the board manner. It is important the group expressed this
particular reaction to budgetary spending because it showed
support for the program review approach we undertook in our
process.
Albertans, like all Canadians, deserve and expect good
government. Good government is simply delivering efficient,
cost effective programs Canadians need and want and are
willing to pay for in defence, in industry, in human resource
development, in transportation, in justice and in heritage.
Residents of my riding and across the province are firm
believers in the concept of value for money. They want
government programs and services that bring them good value
for their tax dollars.
(1830)
Therefore, when we initiate expenditure reduction it is
important that we evaluate government departments on a
program by program basis. That requires a careful and
thoughtful review of all government programs. This is one area
where we can see a fundamental difference between the
approach of the government and of the Reform Party. It proposes
across the board departmental cuts without little regard for any
consequences, fiscal or social, with no regard for the impact
such cuts would have on other levels of government and with no
calculation of value for money.
We took the tougher, more effective approach in program
review, eliminating programs that are not working and
streamlining others. The government's approach to the
reduction of the public service is one of right sizing. Simply,
right sizing promotes a careful and strategic approach to
removing waste and duplication from organizations. We must
work hard and co-operatively to find ways for departments and
organizations to operate with a maximum of efficiency and
effectiveness while maintaining high standards of service and
program delivery.
Slashing and cutting with any organization or business merely
for the sake of downsizing without clear direction or strategy is
clearly irresponsible.
The small business representatives on our panel agreed with
the continued support the government has given to this
important sector of our economy. In the budget we recognized
there are times and places where government can and should
assist the private sector in today's fast changing global
environment. For example, the government will continue
supporting exports for companies in the sectors facing intense
international competition. This is especially important in my
province which has seen an incredible growth in the export
trade.
The government will also be working with Canada's banks
between now and the fall to determine meaningful benchmarks
for small business lending. Small business owners in Alberta
share the national problem of securing capital for businesses.
Since we came to office we have implemented several
initiatives which small business owners indicate will help
improve their ability to do business: the reduction of regulations
and paperwork; the introduction of single window business
service centres; and the reduction of unemployment insurance
premiums. These are all commitments to reduce the deficit
which will help small business.
Participants in the budget discussions all indicated their
approval of the tax fairness measures implemented in the
budget. This theme of fairness was also present at my social
security forum where participants suggested that the
government supplement its social program reforms with
taxation reforms.
In the budget there are several measures to promote equity in
the tax system. Equity starts by ensuring that taxes owing are
taxes paid. The government implemented rules to ensure that the
construction industry, where the underground economy thrives,
complies with tax laws. There will be no tax deferral advantages
for investment income earned by private holding companies. All
tax advantages flowing from family trusts have been eliminated.
There are several more. We have raised the corporate surtax on
profits from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. We have added a temporary
tax on the large deposit taking institutions, including the banks.
Participants at my forum expressed support for the fact that
the government dealt with deficit reduction primarily through
expenditures. We have taken the right path at the right pace. In
fact over the next three years spending reductions will total
$25.3 billion against $3.7 billion in revenue actions. That is
almost $7 in spending cuts for each $1 in new tax revenue.
During our conference call I asked the participants what
issues arising from the budget are important to our riding so we
can follow them up for future action. The reaction of the group
assembled was that the budget presents them with an
opportunity to act in co-operation with the provinces and with
the federal government in the development of a shared set of
principles and objectives that will underlie the new Canada
social transfer. This way we can ensure that our core Canadian
values and priorities are maintained in our social programs.
Participants were heartened by the loud and clear message in
the budget that the principles of the Canada Health Act will
continue to be enforced. Albertans, like all Canadians, want
their social security programs to be more efficiently delivered.
They want to reduce overlap and duplication. However, they are
10746
concerned about the potential impact of increased provincial
flexibility on their province, considering the lack of care and
concern the current provincial government has shown toward
social programs. All participants agreed that we need to
maintain key principles in our social system so that we can
continue to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
(1835)
At this forum and others held on social security review there
was widespread support for our social programs. While
everyone agreed that there was a need for reform-people
wanted to see programs such as the UI maintained-there was
no support for the dismantling of the system which is implied in
the Reform Party's registered personal security plan.
Another concern of people in my riding is that the rising cost
of the public pension system is placing their pensions at risk.
The government is committed to providing a fair and reliable
system of protection for seniors but this requires action to
ensure the pension system is sustainable in the long term. Later
this year the Minister of Human Resources Development, in
collaboration with the finance minister, will release a paper
dealing with the changes required in the public pension system
to ensure its affordability. The budget states what the basic
principles for the reform will be, and that is what we will work
co-operatively with. The review is another area in which
residents, particularly seniors, can participate.
Some might say that the budget did not cut enough, that it
could have been tougher. However, a budget is not just about
balancing books; it is about balancing the needs of the nation.
We have a fiscal responsibility to do that.
Also some could complain we did not set longer deficit
reduction targets. However two years of rolling targets keep our
feet to the fire, making it impossible to postpone spending
reductions and other actions to reduce the deficit. Past
governments have made long term plans but always ended up
pushing necessary action further and further into the future. The
short term targets we have set make sure we act to reduce the
deficit, keeping our feet to the fire.
In conclusion, there is general agreement in Edmonton East
that the 1995 budget takes far-reaching action to restore the
fiscal health that supports a strong and growing economy. The
residents of my riding found many things in the budget they like.
They also identified the Canada social transfer and the
retirement income review as issues for future focus. I look
forward to working with them and with the government on these
issues as we continue the government's progress on program and
service improvements.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to point out to my colleague that she did not consider
the consequences of our very large debt on investment and
employment in Canada.
This debt has a very negative impact on job creation. To
finance our debt-I already said, but it is worth repeating-we
are forced to offer a premium to foreign investors. This premium
increases as the debt grows, which means that the Canadian
taxpayer cannot consume as he or she should. The consequences
of that is that there is less and less work, and more and more
people on unemployment insurance.
Now, because of new eligibility criteria they must rely on
welfare. Therefore, the impact is very negative. Here is my
question: The present federal system offers only status quo,
which means compromises, clumsy compromises between two
groups. In our area, we call that endless complaining. The status
quo means eternal resignation to a dreary existence. Is it what
you are going to offer to the upcoming generation? This status
quo is simply jiggery-pokery and fiddling.
(1840 )
[English]
Ms. Bethel: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from
the Bloc. Federalism is as important to those of us who live in
Alberta as it is to those of us who live in Quebec.
I understand the analogies of the family and fighting and
feuding, but healthy families work out their differences. There
is a kind of evolution, not a revolution, in the way we do
business. I truly appreciate that there is getting to be a less
centralist feeling to government these days. What we are seeing
more of is the ability for the provinces to determine their own
needs and to work on their own solutions. That is how I see this
unfolding. It is very beneficial for Quebec, it is beneficial for
the maritimes, it is beneficial for every part of our country;
working together to solve our common problems.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Madam Speaker, I
was interested in the hon. member's remarks about how her
constituents reacted.
I refer her to an announcement made by her government last
year with respect to the stay in school program, which addresses
itself directly to the issue of dropouts and potential dropouts.
Her government announced funding for the program last year
and I understand from the wording of the release at that time that
the government spoke very positively about how important the
issue is for Canada. I wonder whether she has any news on
whether this program should continue.
10747
Ms. Bethel: Madam Speaker, that is a very specific question
and I am not prepared at this time to answer it. I am not aware of
the press release or the program. My apologies to the hon.
member.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have quite a number of questions but in the interests of brevity I
will limit them to one or two.
The hon. member for Edmonton East put a lot of emphasis on
fairness in transfers to the provinces and individuals as part of
the government's responsibility of ensuring they have a
standard of living we can respect.
One of the biggest transfers we now have is the $50 billion we
transfer to lenders; not to poor people, not to old people, not to
young people, not to those who need an education, but to rich
lenders around the world. In a survey 41 per cent of Canadians
said the deficit was not being cut fast enough in order to
eliminate the growth in that transfer so that money is available
to Canadians.
What does the member propose since the Minister of Finance
has been far too slow in getting the deficit down?
Ms. Bethel: Madam Speaker, there are two plans of action we
are taking, one on a short rolling, two-year target. They are
extremely important so that we do not put off what we need to
do. In order to get the deficit down it is important to have short
term targets. I will leave it at that.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is a privilege and an honour on behalf of the constituents of
Hamilton West to speak on Bill C-73, an act to provide
borrowing authority for the upcoming fiscal year, and by logical
extension the firm but fair budget tabled on February 27 by my
hon. colleague the Minister of Finance.
In keeping with the principles of fairness as promised in the
1995 budget, it reflects the government's desire to cut the deficit
primarily through spending cuts rather than massive tax
increases, as suggested by the third party. This is substantiated
by the fact that over the next three years there will be $7 in
spending cuts for every dollar in new tax increases.
Consequently the budget will have an enormous impact on
Canada's ongoing economic recovery.
(1845 )
It should also be noted that in the process of creating the 1995
budget, the minister took care to obtain the input of Canadians
right across this country. This was done by means of the
prebudget hearings conducted by the Standing Committee on
Finance.
These hearings were held in cities throughout Canada,
including my hometown of Hamilton. I am proud to say that
almost 90 per cent of the recommendations of the finance
committee were accepted by the Minister of Finance and are
reflected in the 1995 budget.
As chairperson of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Transport, I should also mention that our
committee is currently assisting the Minister of Transport with a
comprehensive marine review. As indicated in a recent
post-budget document released by Transport Canada,
``Transport Canada's New Direction and the 1995 Budget'', the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport is
holding extensive consultations on the future of Canada's
marine sector. It plans to submit a report of recommendations by
the end of April.
The review focuses on identifying inefficiencies in the
Canadian marine system and eliminating unnecessary and
counterproductive waste and mismanagement in the marine
sector. This will also help eliminate unnecessary federal
government expenditures by examining ways to provide
competitive and efficient marine services as part of an
integrated transportation system.
The finance minister went to great lengths to accommodate
the opinions expressed to him directly and indirectly by his
parliamentary colleagues as well.
On January 6, I issued an open letter to the Minister of
Finance on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West
imploring him not to increase personal income tax. Prior to the
tabling of the budget we were on a break. When walking through
the malls, on the streets or stopping in a coffee shop, my
constituents told me that increasing personal income tax would
impose an insurmountable burden on many low to middle
income families. They also said it could have an adverse effect
on federal revenue targets by creating an added incentive for
underground economic activity.
Clearly, the Minister of Finance listened to Canadians as far
as personal income tax is concerned. We did not see a hike in
personal income tax in this budget. This budget is firm in its
commitment to cutting government fat, but fair in sparing the
flesh of essential government initiatives designed to stimulate
economic growth and job creation in this country.
The notion of budget fairness is reflected in the minister's
willingness to address the historically lopsided personal income
tax contributions made by individual tax paying Canadians
versus the amount contributed by large profitable corporations.
In the last three decades the corporate share of total taxes
collected by government has fallen while the share collected
from individual taxpayers has almost doubled. In light of that
fact, the 1995 federal budget also includes key measures
designed to establish a fair and balanced system of taxation.
For example, there will be an increase in the corporate surtax
from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, as well as a 12.5 per cent increase
in the large corporations tax. Furthermore, in a year when major
Canadian banks reported record profits in the billions, the 1995
budget imposes an immediate increase in the existing tax on
capital of banks and other large deposit taking institutions.
10748
For the edification of the naysayers across the way, it is
worthwhile to consider the opinions expressed by various
reputable organizations and individuals across the nation who
have expressed their support for the measures announced in the
1995 budget.
Let us go to the editorial in the Wall Street Journal:
``Canada's bold budget ought to be an inspiration to other
countries struggling with overextended governments''. This is
for the naysayers across. We have been listening to the Reform
Party go on and on about how terrible this budget is, how awful
this government is and how we do not know what we are doing.
All that is outweighed by the people who do know a little
something about economics and I am sure they are not
Reformers. An editorial in the Financial Times of the U.K. says:
``The Canadian budget announced on Monday brings the
country back from the brink of fiscal disaster. Mr. Paul Martin,
the finance minister, appears to have achieved a skilful balance
between the increasingly onerous demands of investors and
those of his constituents''.
(1850 )
An excerpt from a Reuters AFP news report in The Strait
Times, Singapore's most widely read daily, states: ``Economists
praised the government's efforts generally, saying it was
perhaps the first serious attempt by a Canadian government to
get a handle on spending''. I know that one-half of the former
Tory government who is sitting in the House today would
appreciate a remark like that.
How about William Dudley, an economist with Goldman
Sachs, who stated on CBC Radio: ``In the end you would have to
say that the government has definitely gotten the message that
this consolidation is required and the financial markets, I think,
have to reward Canada for that''. That is pretty good stuff for the
government.
If that were not enough, the budget has also been endorsed by
the Chartered Accountants of Canada, an organization
representing 55,000 chartered accountants. It seems reasonable
to assume that these people would know a thing or two about
getting one's fiscal house in order. What are they saying? The
Chartered Accountants, the 55,000 represented, state: ``We are
pleased that finance minister Paul Martin has cut spending in
significant ways. In particular, the seven to one ratio of cuts in
spending to taxes should signal to investors that government is
addressing our fiscal situation''.
Here is the one I like: ``We are very pleased to note the
government has not taken any drastic measures to impede the
ability of Canadians to save for their own retirements. The
budget brought down challenges Canadians to continue to seek
to redefine the appropriate role and scope of governments as
essential steps toward fiscal stability''.
That is something we can be proud of. Despite the previously
stated, let us say, expert opinions in the province of Ontario,
Premier Bob Rae has been playing Chicken Little with the
federal budget. According to that premier, the sky has been
falling in Canada since February 27 when the federal budget was
tabled in this House.
In response to this government's attempt to finally get this
nation's fiscal house in order, Rae states that the budget will
bring about ``a historic change that literally ends the Canada that
we have known and sets us on a much meaner course''. This
comes from a man who clearly knows little or nothing about
managing public funds.
It is worth noting that in 1991 Ontario's accumulated
provincial debt was 15.5 per cent of Ontario's GDP. This spring,
Ontario's debt is expected to balloon to almost 30.5 per cent of
provincial GDP. Clearly if the sky is falling, it is falling on the
provincial NDP government in Ontario.
In closing, for all the doom and gloom of those who may be
questioning the character of the Liberal government and in fact
Liberalism itself, I quote a great Canadian and a former Prime
Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who once
said: ``I am a Liberal. I am one of these who thinks that
everywhere in human terms there are abuses to be reformed, new
horizons to be opened up, and new forces to be developed''.
I am proud to say that this government is holding true to that
enlightened Liberal vision.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have one simple question. We always hear the Liberals talk
about the budget and how many cuts they have made, but they
have not cut anything. They have transferred. They have not cut
$7 for every $1 increase in taxes. Money that was going to
programs to help Canadians has been transferred as interest to
the lenders.
When will this government recognize that the spending of this
government has not gone down? There have not been any cuts. It
has only transferred money from Canadians who need it to
lenders who did not need the money in the first place.
Mr. Keyes: Madam Speaker, I am not sure of the hon.
member's background. Do not take my word for it; let us go to
the experts.
How about Fred Ketchen, chairman of the board of the
Toronto Stock Exchange who states: ``It seems to me that the
fellas at Moody's and the other bond rating services will be
encouraged by what they heard the finance minister say today in
what I would assess as being a responsible, a fair, a realistic, and
even a humane budget''.
10749
(1855 )
Let us go back to the chartered accountants, the group that
represents the chartered accountants of Canada, the 55,000
accountants. They support the restructuring of transfer
payments to the provinces and the decision to build more
flexibility into Canada's educational and social program
transfers to provinces with the creation of the Canada social
transfer program. This is precisely what this member has been
concerned about.
The Reform Party in its questions talks status quo. Before the
budget it came out with this ridiculous plan to cut everything;
gone in two years: ``We are going to put them in sleeping bags in
the streets across Canada, but we are going to get that budget
deficit down to zero''. That is not the way it is going to be with
the government. The government does it fairly and equitably
and it is going to work. With our two-year rolling plan the House
is going to be full of Liberals after the next federal election.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will recognize the hon.
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, but he has
only 30 seconds left for questions or comments.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Madam Speaker,
as vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, I
would like to put a short question to the chairman of the
committee.
Since he mentioned that he tends to go to coffee shops and
shopping malls where he has a chance to talk about the budget, I
would like to know whether be brought this up with his
constituents in Hamilton West. One of the provisions of the
budget provides for commercializing the St. Lawrence Seaway,
but if this does not work and the Seaway is closed, how would
the people of Hamilton react and how would they get their iron
ore pellets from Quebec's North Shore?
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Madam Speaker, that is an appropriate question
and I thank the hon. member for it. Coming from Hamilton,
Stelco and Dofasco are two very familiar names. The lifeline of
the steel industry in my home town and the rest of the
communities along that Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway is
that seaway.
If we leave it the way it is the hon. member knows full well it
will collapse on itself and we will not have a seaway. The status
quo does not work. We have to find a new way. We have to find a
way to make that system stand on its own feet and be
competitive in a global economy and give the stakeholders of
that system the opportunity to play a greater role in how that
system works.
10749
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Madam Speaker, I
rise today on a very important issue that came to my attention
after the budget. It is a very negative piece of news. It is a
situation that needs to be clarified on the government benches. I
asked that it be put on tonight so the government could tell us
what happened to the stay in school program.
Canada has one of the highest drop out rates in the world
among industrialized countries for people in high school.
Furthermore, Canada is in a situation in which the skills
required to enter the labour market have also increased radically
over the last few years.
I can borrow from a document known as the red book. On page
32 there is a graph of rising education and training requirements
that seems to indicate that people with less than 12 years of
education made up about 45 per cent of the jobs available in
1986. In the years from 1986 until 2000 that will drop to 32 per
cent.
Then it goes on to state that people who have 12 years of
education make up 10 per cent of the jobs. It will be 2.9 per cent
by the year 2000; 13 to 16 years of education will go from 22 per
cent to 15 per cent, and 17 years or more, 22.4 per cent in 1986 to
48.8 per cent. This graph says that close to half of the jobs
available in Canada by the turn of the century will require 17
years of education or more.
(1900 )
For a country that has one of the highest dropout rates in the
world among the industrialized countries, one would think we
would want to do something about it. We did. In 1990 we
announced the stay in school initiative that addressed itself to
communities, to enticing different partners in the community
including the private sector to get involved with the issue. It was
also co-ordinated with the provinces.
It may be of interest for the House to know that the present
Leader of the Official Opposition supported the program even
though some people will say that it is in the area of provincial
jurisdiction which, if taken literally, is a false statement. To
pretend that the dropout problem is only related to the education
system is false. It is a broad social program that needs to be
addressed.
My disappointment lies in the fact that the government
apparently ran on investing in people according to the red book.
It said in that document:
10750
Jobs and growth depend upon making the necessary investments in ourselves
and our children. Consequently, we will better prepare for the transition from
school to the workplace; provide a constructive outlet for the skills and the talents
of younger Canadians, the innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession.
The innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession had the
program cut. The government refused to continue the program
which is recognized as a success. Who says that? On April 15,
1994 the government announced, according to a press release,
that it would continue to put $30 million in the program. What
did it have to say about the program only a year ago? It said that
there was a proven link between low levels of education and
high levels of youth unemployment and that continued action on
the high school dropout issue was therefore crucial to ensuring
that the school to work transition was an avenue of opportunity
for young people.
It is scandalous that the government would cut the program.
When does the government intend to take up the issue so that we
can attend to the problem of young Canadian men and women
who need to finish high school and need an opportunity to get an
education, find a job and participate in Canadian society?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I paid attention to what the hon. member stated in
reference to the stay in school initiative to provide the tools to
motivate the key stakeholders in the community to engage in the
process of outlining and telling young Canadians that it is very
important to stay in school as a vehicle to achieving a job and to
acquiring the life skills required to remain competitive in a very
competitive marketplace.
Obviously the hon. member missed the announcement the
government made last Friday. There has been some redirection
of funding. The government announced a summer job action
plan, a package of six job creation elements for secondary and
post-secondary education students which will result in the
direct creation of approximately 44,500 jobs. In addition,
Canada employment centres for students will once again be in
operation across the country.
Last year close to 200,000 job vacancies were filled and over
141,000 young people participated in group information
sessions. The number is expected to surpass last year's budget
for students. The $8.6 million will be increased to $10.4 million.
It is also important to note that the budget of the youth
internship program has increased from $25 million in 1994-95
to $118 million in 1995-96.
Even though we are living through difficult fiscal times our
commitment to young people speaks to two realities: the fact
that we believe it is a priority and that we want to engage in
effective partnerships at the community level. The
announcement last Friday achieved both.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)