CONTENTS
Thursday, April 6, 1995
Bill C-82. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 11571
Motion for concurrence moved and agreed to 11571
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11572
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11572
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11572
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11572
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11573
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 11574
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 11579
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 11581
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 11593
Division on motion deferred 11596
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 11596
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11596
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11605
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 11606
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 11608
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11609
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11609
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11609
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11609
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11609
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11610
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11610
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11610
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11610
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11611
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11611
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11612
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11613
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11613
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11614
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11616
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 11617
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11617
(Motion agreed to.) 11619
(Motion agreed to.) 11619
(Motion agreed to.) 11619
(Motion agreed to.) 11619
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of motion 11620
(Motion withdrawn.) 11633
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 11634
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 11635
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 11635
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 11636
11571
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 6, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to draw to the attention of the House a remark I made in
Hansard yesterday. I had a wrong number and I want to correct
the mistake on page 11553.
I said that we are going to be spending $9 billion on interest
payments for every dollar that is cut. What I meant to say was,
for the $9 billion in cuts that were made, we will be spending
about $9 billion in interest as well. For every dollar cut, there
will be an extra dollar in interest payments on the deficit.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period
I indicated that a charge had been laid in the Stoney matter. This
was based on information that I had received. In fact, the charge
has not been laid at this stage. It would be inappropriate for me
to indicate if and when the RCMP is laying the charge. That
information would better come from the RCMP itself.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table in both official languages the government's response to 44
petitions.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 72nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of standing committees.
[Translation]
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
the 72nd report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 72nd
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions from constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni.
The first petition contains 607 signatures and deals with
section 241 of the Criminal Code. Section 241 makes aiding,
abetting or counselling a person to commit suicide an indictable
11572
offence. The petitioners request that Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to
uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30,
1993 to disallow assisted suicide euthanasia.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the second petition containing 303 signatures, the petitioners
request that Parliament hold a national binding referendum on
capital punishment.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I have the honour on behalf of some
constituents of the Vegreville constituency to table a petition in
the House today. The 26 petitioners are requesting Parliament to
continue to give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in
marketing wheat and barley for export.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am
presenting a petition signed by petitioners in the
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville area. These petitioners
call on Parliament to reduce the deficit by cutting wastage and
reducing the overall expense of every government department
by at least 5 per cent.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition signed by more
than 400 constituents in a very rural and remote area on the
westerly side of Miramichi. They feel they are being
discriminated against by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(1015 )
They petition Parliament to reform the UI boundaries, which
affect their remote and isolated communities in a negative way.
They believe they are not being treated fairly under that
commission.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I also rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a number of
petitions from constituents in my riding who have concerns
about the present firearms legislation.
These constituents call on the government to support laws that
will severely punish violent criminals, which of course the
minister has, but to also support legislation that will repeal and
modify existing gun control laws, which have not improved
public safety or have not proven to be cost effective.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too would like to present
petitions. One is from the constituents of Beaver River,
Redwater, Thorhild, Radway, and the Waskatenau area, who are
calling upon Parliament to be very careful about the Canadian
Human Rights Act, to make sure there is not the inclusion of
sexual orientation.
They are saying that because the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act would provide
certain groups with special status, rights and privileges and that
they would be granted solely on the basis of sexual behaviour,
that inclusion would infringe on the historic rights of Canadians,
such as the freedom of religion, conscience, expression and
association.
These people are humbly calling upon Parliament to oppose
any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provide for the inclusion of
the phrase ``sexual orientation''.
I present those with pride as the member for Beaver River.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present in the
House today four petitions from my riding.
The first petition deals with a request for the Government of
Canada not to amend the Human Rights Act to include the
undefined phrase ``sexual orientation''. Refusing to define this
statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very
dangerous precedent to set. Parliament has a responsibility to
Canadians to ensure that legislation cannot be misinterpreted.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is on the subject of Bill C-68, the gun control
bill. The petitioners believe the target for all gun control laws in
the Criminal Code of Canada must be the criminals who are a
danger to the public safety, not law-abiding, responsible
firearm owners.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is on the subject of child care. The petitioners
believe current federal government child care policies are
intrusive and discriminate against many families. They believe
parents should have the freedom to make the choices about what
type of child care is best for their families.
The petitioners request Parliament to oppose any legislation
that will increase child care expenditures.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition is on the subject of drinking and violence. The
petitioners were shocked by the recent Supreme Court decision,
and
11573
they believe all individuals must be held fully responsible for
their actions, even while under the influence of alcohol.
I concur with these petitions.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition signed by over 800 people in my
riding of Red Deer. The citizens express their concern that they
are already overburdened with taxation due to high government
spending. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and request
that Parliament reduce government spending instead of
increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to
limit federal spending.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did
not want to take too much time. We do have 15 minutes. I have a
couple of other petitions. One is on the Young Offenders Act,
signed by a number of people from St. Paul, Saddle Lake, St.
Vincent, and a number of other places across Beaver River. They
want an act that is serious enough to deter young people from
committing crimes and tough enough to provide real justice.
The Young Offenders Act in its current form is not meeting
the objectives. These people are calling upon Parliament to
make sure we have a really forceful Young Offenders Act, in
addition to the Criminal Code.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have a petition on CBC programming. The petitioners are
concerned about Canadian broadcasting, that the CBC is playing
programs like ``Kids in the Hall''. They do not fulfil CBC's
mandate. These people are concerned about this particular
program, as well as others. They are saying that these kinds of
incidents in programs are becoming more and more frequent.
They are asking Parliament to enact legislation that would
provide very specific standards of acceptable conduct and
content for CBC television programs.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The
petitioners point out that many violent offenders and sex
offenders are being paroled prematurely or are being released
without proper treatment and rehabilitation. They believe that
those people convicted of dangerous and sexual offences ought
to remain incarcerated until they have successfully undergone
treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have
been completely rehabilitated. They are asking that the
government take whatever steps are necessary to assure this.
(1020)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No.
102.
[Text]
Question No. 102-Mr. Breitkreuz:
For each federal riding, what has been the total amount of financial
assistance provided by the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
from October 25, 1993, to date?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Contributions approved under
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
programming for the period October 25, 1993 to November 1,
1994 inclusively are listed on the following chart.
It does not include any contributions made under the
federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure works program and
the industrial and tourism agreements, which fall under the
purview of other federal departments.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to popular demand, if Question Nos. 83 and
91, one standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint John,
who has been protesting the delay in getting the answer, could be
made Orders for Returns, I would be pleased to table those
returns immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 83-Mr. Cummins:
With respect to the Early Stuart and Early Summer sockeye migrations and
the Steveston Field Unit of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and each
of the other such Field Units on the Fraser River system and the area covered
by each such unit, for the years 1993 and 1994, (a) what were the staffing
levels at each such unit and what were the staffing levels during weekends and
statutory holidays during these migrations, (b) did staffing levels allow staff
to be on the fishing grounds to conduct complete pre-fishing opening and
post fishery clean-up patrols, (c) did staffing levels allow for pro-active
patrols on a regular basis and full coverage of the native fishery during the
open times, (d) what level of fishing occurred prior to the opening and the
closing of the fishery, (e) what was the nature of the monitoring of the
mandatory landing sites, were the mandatory landing sites monitored at all
times during fishery openings on a regular basis, were there occasions when
fishermen desired to land fish at a site but there were no monitored landing
sites available, (f) did the monitors at the landing sites count the fish as
stipulated in the Aboriginal Fisheries Agreements, (g) what was the level of
catch monitoring and enforcement for Ceremonial Licences, (h) what was the
level of night fishing and the level and consistency of the monitoring of such
fishing and (i) what was the number of persons charged with infractions of
fisheries regulations?
Return tabled.
Question No. 91-Mrs. Wayne:
For each federal riding, what has been the total amount of financial
assistance provided by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency from
November 4, 1993 to date?
Return tabled.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, in addressing the issue of the budget, I would like to
address it with specific reference to fish. I know that hon.
members will be relieved to hear that the issue of fish in the
budget will be addressed this morning.
11575
Spending on fish will decline appreciably over the next three
years. In fact, it will decline by $211 million in the next budget.
Our party believes that government spending is out of control
and that serious cuts should be made. That being said, our party
recognizes that there are certain responsibilities the government
has, including a constitutional responsibility to manage
Canada's fisheries resource in a responsible and reasonable
manner.
We should not simply go into the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and willy-nilly cut the budget. We have to do it with
great care and caution to ensure that this valuable resource, a
resource that could in fact be the engine of the economy on both
coasts of our country, is protected.
To begin with, I would like to look at a couple of points in the
budget and discuss the impact they will have on the fisheries.
The budget indicates that the government will negotiate with
the provinces to transfer authorities for freshwater habitat
management and other related inland responsibilities. In other
words, the government's objective is to transfer its
constitutional responsibility for the inland fisheries resource to
the provinces. At the outset, that may seem like a reasonable
objective. The fact of the matter is, it denies a very critical
problem in the country, that is, the difficulty that is faced by
many resource-based communities in our country, communities
where the resource extraction may be seasonal, where
populations are growing, and where transportation routes are
very difficult. That is a problem that we must address as a
nation. It is a problem that exists not only in the more remote
northern regions of the prairie provinces, but it is also a problem
that is becoming more and more evident in the province of
Newfoundland, for example.
Last spring, in the standing committee hearings on problems
in Newfoundland, the same types of social problems that we
have heard about for years, which are occurring and have
occurred in the northern communities, in prairie provinces and
in the territories, are appearing now in Newfoundland because
of the loss of a very valuable fisheries resource.
(1025 )
The federal government, in trying to sidestep its
responsibilities in this area, will help no one.
Another issue in the budget states: ``to integrate the
operations and fleet of the Canadian Coast Guard with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans in order to increase
efficiency''. We are all for increasing efficiency. The issue that
must be determined is if we downsize both fleets and use one
smaller fleet to cover both objectives, what will be the priority
of that fleet? If the priority is maintaining navigation aids when
there is an ongoing fishery, what happens to the enforcement in
the fisheries resource? By the same token, if the coast guard
vessels are going to be diverted to the fishery, what happens to
the aids to navigation?
We have to look at combining these two operations, but we
must make sure that our priorities and responsibilities are
maintained. Simply cutting back on the number of vessels and
personnel available is not going to do the job.
This government fell down badly on this point in this past
salmon season. In the past the coast guard was given the
authority on the west coast to enforce fishery law. This did not
happen in the 1994 season.
One instance was reported to me where a coast guard vessel
was returning from an operational patrol of Vancouver Island. It
was called to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal by the B.C. Ferry
Corporation because of illegal fishing activity by Americans in
Canadian waters. When the coast guard vessel arrived it did not
have the authority to arrest those vessels. All it could do was
advise them to leave Canadian waters. They tried to contact the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but no one was available.
At that hour of the day the offices were closed and the only
contact they had was with a fisheries officer far up river who
said: ``I'm monitoring a fishery up here, there is nothing I can
do''.
We must make sure that our priorities are clearly established
if we are going to follow the route the government proposes.
There is a proposal to rationalize commercial fishing
harbours, including implementing higher fees for use. I have
nothing against paying our own way. My party strongly supports
that principle. The last thing we want to do is impose fees on
people when they are on their knees. That is the case on both
coasts. It is an inappropriate time to increase taxes on the fishing
industry when it is hardly able to make a living.
Much of the responsibility for that falls not only on this
government, of course, but on previous governments.
The government also seeks to enter into partnerships with the
fishing industry and others in the management of capacity,
licensing and compliance, and it says it looks to industry to pay
more for access privileges, contribute toward the cost of
managing the fishery and pay higher fees for services. Again,
this comes at a time when mismanagement by the federal
government has seriously weakened the ability of the fishing
industry to pay, not only on the east coast but also on the west
coast.
The collapse of the fishery in 1994 was the direct
responsibility and directly attributable to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. It was a devastation, the effect of which
will take probably 12 years from which to recover on the west
coast for that cycle of fish. Yet we are expecting fishermen to
pay higher licensing fees when it will be very difficult for them
to maintain payments on their boats, let alone absorb higher
licensing fees.
11576
The same can be said, of course, for the problems on the east
coast.
The cut of $211 million from the budget of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans is something that must be done very
carefully, as I suggested earlier.
(1030 )
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has experienced
serious budget cuts over the last two or three years. The effects
of those cuts, particularly on the west coast, have been dramatic.
I want to quote the concerns expressed by fisheries officers to
the minister on November 2, 1994. The fisheries officers were
pointing out the difficulties they have experienced because of
budget cuts. They suggested that budget allocations did not
provide for the successful delivery of programs and untrained
staff members were not able to carry out enforcement controls.
The monitoring of the catch was affected and so on.
Three months before the opening of the 1994 fishery season,
senior fisheries officials on the west coast were warning of a
disaster if the level of enforcement was further downgraded. I
will quote from a report by R.K. Carson, area manager, Fraser
River division. He says:
The impact of a further-cut will have significant ramifications on the
success of the implementation of the AFS agreements along the Fraser River.
The reduced level of fishery officers and fishery guardians-will result in
non-compliance with terms and conditions of agreements, licences,
regulations and loss of control of this fishery. The resource will suffer and we
could have another repeat of the `missing sockeye' problems that occurred in
the 1992 season.
That is exactly what happened.
In a report by D. Aurel, chief, conservation and protection,
New Westminster, it was noted as well that budget cuts would
reduce the free trade officer's allotment in the fisheries. He
points out that:
-a 1993 investigation into the illegal export of two million pounds of
chum salmon has resulted in 15 charges pending against one fish processing
company. These types of serious FTA violations cannot be investigated by one
officer alone.
The list goes on. However, when we cut in a department like
fisheries we must do it with care.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak this morning to the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. This debate on Bill C-76, on
provisions to implement certain changes in the 1995-96 Budget
that will affect transfers to the provinces, concerns all
Canadians and Quebecers.
I would like to start with a short summary of the major
changes introduced by the 1995-96 Budget, after which, as the
official opposition's representative for seniors organizations, I
will try to show what the federal government has in mind with its
plan to reduce old age pensions in 1997.
Transfers to the provinces are not changed by the 1995-96
budget. Today, there are three main transfer programs:
Established Programs Financing, $21.73 billion; equalization,
$8.87 billion; and the Canada Assistance Plan, $7.95 billion.
The federal budget did not make any changes in the equalization
program but it has extended the ceiling provision for
equalization for a period of five years.
Section 48 in Bill C-76 will deprive Quebec of $650 million
in 1996-97. Bill C-76 proposes new national standards for
health care and provides for establishing new national standards
for social assistance and post-secondary education. This new
federalism does not decentralize at all. These national standards
will restrict the autonomy of the provinces in their own
jurisdictions.
The government is trying to minimize the significance of
these cuts, although they are in fact devastating for the
provincial governments, especially for Quebec. The
government includes tax point transfers in its figures on cuts in
transfer payments to the provinces. The federal government has
no control over tax transfers paid to the provinces under its main
transfer programs.
(1035)
In fact, all financial transfers, cash transfers paid to the
Government of Quebec, will be reduced by 32 per cent between
1994-95 and 1997-98, as a result of cuts in transfers to the
provinces.
A sovereign Quebec would lose federal transfer payments but
recover the $30 billion in taxes Quebecers are now paying to the
federal government.
The latest budget cuts implemented by Bill C-76 will hit the
most vulnerable in our society. The Quebec Minister of Finance
estimates that these cuts and transfers to the provinces will
reduce the federal contribution to social programs funding from
37.8 per cent to 28.5 per cent between 1994-95 and 1997-98.
The federal government is intervening in areas that are under
provincial jurisdiction and may make additional cuts in the cash
portion of transfers to the provinces.
As the official opposition's representative for seniors
organizations, I am very concerned about the old age pension
reform announced by the government, which will become
effective in 1997. In 1994, they said a document would be tabled
very shortly, but the government has delayed production of this
document, preferring to wait until after the referendum in
Quebec.
In fact the government announced that the most
disadvantaged seniors will not lose any protection. This means
that the pensions of those defined as having high incomes will be
reduced and that the reductions in their pensions will not go to
raising the pensions of low income seniors, who have only the
11577
assurance that their pensions will not be cut. So, some will have
their benefits reduced and no one will receive an increase.
Another important point has to do with family income
determining pension eligibility. This measure is unacceptable,
since women have fought for financial independence for
decades.
It is not a new measure. The government was preparing
similar changes to the unemployment insurance plan as part of
the social program reform. Given women's general opposition
to the idea, the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development did not recommend linking
benefit levels to family income levels. This is in the report by
the committee on social program reform.
It is noteworthy that old age pensions have already been
reduced for seniors with an income over $53,000. The Liberals
decided, in the last budget, to reduce the tax credit for seniors
with an income over $25,000. The federal government is
continuing to go after the incomes of seniors, particularly those
in the middle class.
Old age pensions are a major source of revenue for seniors.
Federal government documents indicate that old age security
and guaranteed income supplements accounted for 28.9 per cent
of the income of single men; 41.3 per cent of the income of
single women and 25.9 per cent of the income of couples, in
1989.
The government announced a review of the Canada pension
plan, the CPP, for the fall. The federal and provincial finance
ministers are scheduled to meet as part of the five-year review
of the Canada pension plan. They will use this opportunity to
claim that a review of old age pensions is mandatory.
(1040)
The federal government does not have to change the old age
pension system unless, that is, it wants to cut the budget at the
expense of seniors.
Quebec seniors had the opportunity to state their opinions on
their future at hearings of the seniors' commission on the future
of Quebec. The chairperson of the committee was a minister in
the former Conservative government, Monique Vézina. This
consultation has shown that seniors across the country have
similar concerns, mostly about their social and economic
situation.
Quebec is going through a difficult economic period. Some of
the witnesses at the hearings told of the problems they are
having with unemployment or poverty because of the constant
threat of cuts to social programs and the health care system.
Representatives of the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens
(QFSC) told the commission that their organizations were
fighting the four main problems affecting seniors: the feeling of
uselessness, inactivity, insecurity and isolation. Almost
everywhere people are lobbying for society to guarantee seniors
their rightful place. Seniors want nothing more than to use their
experience for the good of the society they will leave behind for
their grandchildren. It is clear that the universality of old age
pensions should not be tampered with.
Lucien Bouchard, the Leader of the Official Opposition,
recently shared with Quebecers his party's reaction to the
federal government's position on pensioners. He said:
After hitting pensioners with annual incomes of more than $26,000 with a
tax last year, the federal government has continued to go after them. The
Minister of Finance has made it very clear that the universality of old age
pensions is definitely a thing of the past, since in the future, pension benefits
will be based on combined family income, and this will result in the loss of
financial independence for thousands of women. By waiting until after the
referendum to cut into social security, the federal Liberals are hiding the
negative ramifications of their cuts from Quebecers. Be assured, Mr. Speaker,
that the Bloc Quebecois will do its utmost to prevent the government from
making the needed spending cuts at the expense of seniors, the unemployed
and people who are most in need of health care, post-secondary education and
social assistance.
The federal government should cut $2.85 billion more from
the Department of National Defence's budget for the next three
years instead of looking to seniors' programs next autumn to
reduce its deficit.
You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that, as the official opposition
critic for seniors' issues, I pledge to fight any proposal the
federal government might make to reduce its deficit at the
expense of seniors.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot tabled in this House an
amendment that I am happy to support.
Bill C-76 is inconsistent and the Minister of Finance should
go back to the drawing board and introduce in this Chamber a
bill that truly reflects what Canadians want, which is to see more
fairness in the government's handling of its fiscal
responsibilities.
The absence, or in some cases, the weakness of certain
measures in this bill are of particular concern to me. I would like
to speak about two of them. First of all, there is the
government's science and technology strategy. In his last report,
the auditor general deplored the lack of a government strategy
with respect to science and technology. He stressed the
importance of such a strategy, in light of the liberalization of
trade and the new technological era we would be entering in the
21st century.
(1045)
The government must demonstrate strong leadership in this
area, so that Canada can continue to develop technologically and
to maintain its competitiveness on international markets. The
standard of living of Canadians and Quebecers depends on it.
There must be some sign of this leadership in the government's
budget. It is the cornerstone of any strategy to put Canadians
back to work. Unfortunately, there is not a trace in this budget of
11578
any strategic planning with regard to research, science and
technology. Worse yet, the cuts are in the areas of highest
performance.
I will give some examples of cuts in the funds made available
to granting councils. The minister told us in his 1994 budget that
he would not touch the money set aside for granting councils,
because of the importance the federal government attached to
research and development activities. But now, in a complete
about-face, the Minister of Finance is cutting the councils'
funding by more than 10 per cent, despite what he announced in
the 1994 budget.
In order to better understand the impact of such a decision, let
us look at Canada's situation with respect to science and
technology. Canada ranks sixth among the G-7 countries, just
above Italy, when the size of its budget is considered as a
percentage of the gross domestic product. On the other hand,
according to the relevant trade journals, given the quality and
use of research and the size of its population, Canada ranks
second among the G-7 countries, after the United States.
This situation is primarily due to the fact that granting
councils award funds to our universities and industries on the
basis of merit. And yet, in his report, the auditor general has
pointed out the sorry state of our science and technology
strategy for the last thirty years. This is not a recent
development. For thirty years now the auditor general has
criticized this lack of strategy. He recommends that the
government focus mainly on the most successful research
activities which, in our case, are those financed by granting
councils.
It is important to point out that most of the stakeholders
consulted by the government, that is, the experts who testified
during the consultations held on this issue, stressed that the
budgets of granting councils should be maintained. These highly
qualified consultants said that if research budgets had to be cut,
the government should at least keep at the same level the funds
allocated to the granting councils, given the effectiveness and
quality of the research projects they accept, and cut elsewhere in
the budget.
The government ignored these consultants'
recommendations. Not only did it cut the budgets of granting
councils and the research budgets of all government
departments and agencies, but it has the nerve to continue giving
$1 billion in R&D tax incentives to business, arguing that the
consultation process is still under way. This clearly shows, once
again, that government is holding consultations just for show
and to smooth the way for the blind cuts it intends to implement
in its budget.
This is not a consultation process, my dear colleagues across
the way. This is a case of manipulating public opinion, which
really shows this government's deep contempt for the Canadian
population. I also want to talk about the inequities in federal
spending. The Bloc Quebecois has always deplored the federal
government's flagrant inequity in its R&D spending.
(1050)
In 1990-91, Ontario received a 53 per cent share of federal
spending, while Quebec received only a 19.5 per cent share.
The government figures I received this morning show that,
since 1985-86, if we exclude the National Capital Region,
Ontario has received about 22 per cent or 23 per cent of all
federal science and technology research funds every year, while
Quebec receives only 17 per cent. If we include the National
Capital Region, we realize that Ontario has received 27.9 per
cent, almost 30 per cent, every year since 1985-86, while
Quebec receives only 3.1 per cent. That is government equity for
you.
If we compare what the federal government spends on natural
sciences in Ontario and Quebec, we see that Ontario gets
between 24 per cent and 26 per cent of federal spending each and
every year, while Quebec's share, if we exclude the National
Capital Region, is 19.9 per cent. There is still a 6 per cent
difference.
Now, if we look at what has been done in the National Capital
Region in terms of natural sciences research, the Ontario side of
the NCR gets 26.6 per cent while the Quebec side receives 1 per
cent.
It does not take a PhD to figure out that 26 less 1 equals a 25
per cent difference. That is what the government calls budget
equity.
Mr. Nunez: It is inequitable.
Mr. Laurin: The quality of Quebec's industrial structure
cannot justify the low level of federal investment in research
and development. Especially since Quebec runs off with more
than 30 per cent of grants awarded on merit, which clearly shows
Quebec's competitiveness. When our projects are assessed on
their merits, we qualify for 30 per cent of the grants, but when
the award is motivated by favouritism, Quebec is always
outpointed by Ontario, the other most powerful province.
Some hon. members: Patronage.
Mr. Laurin: Such an imbalance maintains provincial
disparity in research and development funding. And the
statistics are not mine, but the government's own. This
imbalance has a direct impact on the provinces' rate of growth.
In other words, this harmful policy has been operating for years.
With this policy, some provinces get R and D funding, while
others, like Quebec, get UI funds.
And it goes on and on, year after year, and the government
keeps doing nothing about it. We have been denouncing this
kind of thing for 15 years now.
11579
Certainly cuts could have been made in other areas. Let me set
aside my prepared speech to give you statistics I just received
this morning.
Where could more cuts have been made? We, Bloc members,
often suggested National Defence. In DND estimates,
astronomical amounts could have been saved in forecasting
errors alone. For example, $2.8 billion are supposed to be cut
over the next three years. Our estimation was that $5 billion
could be cut, but DND said this was impossible. The fact is that
these forecasts were wrong, and here is why.
Take the closure of the base in Portage la Prairie for example.
Savings of $411 million were expected, when in actual fact only
$170 million was saved. A $241 million shortfall.
With respect to space training, we were told that the cost of
basic training was $200,000 per student, when the actual cost is
$700,000, or $500,000 more per student. They make this kind of
forecasting errors and come and tell us that they will be able to
save $2.8 billion. We cannot be sure of that, Mr. Speaker. There
will be more unforeseen deficits.
Improving housekeeping in DND and several other
departments would be one way of making funds available for
research, research being the seed of successful new products
that would promote rapid growth.
We will have a chance to pursue this at a later time.
(1055)
For now, I suggest that these new statistics should give both
the department and the government food for thought. The
minister should go back to his drawing board, his operation
table, his computations and come back with another set of
estimates. This way, perhaps we will be able to see more eye to
eye with the government in a few months.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-76, the budget
implementation act.
My Reform colleagues have already addressed the various
components of the bill. I would like to broaden the focus and
look at the budget as a whole. I want to go through the Liberal
government's what I call smoke and mirrors show or budget and
show Canadians exactly what was cut in the budget and where it
was cut.
Members of the government are misleading the people of
Canada in several very important aspects. They are being
dishonest in selling the budget. To date they have got away with
it. Unfortunately Canadians have not recognized what has
happened.
Today I will expose two blatant mistruths I believe are in the
Liberal budget and have not been clearly defined to Canadians.
Canadians have been led to believe this was a tough budget
which cut spending some $25 billion and that provinces got off
easy relative to the cuts the government made in its own
backyard.
Reform announced its plan to balance the budget by 1998. We
told Canadians in order to do this we would have to reduce
spending by some $25 billion, $15 billion of which would come
from social program spending.
What was the Liberal reaction to this? The Prime Minister
said such a plan would throw Canadians into a deep recession or
perhaps a depression. The finance minister called it fiscal
savagery and said our plan would gut the nation's social
programs. The Minister of Human Resources Development said
we would be blow torching the poor.
One week later the Liberals released their budget. On page 65
it says expenditure reductions due specifically to the actions in
the budget total $4.1 billion in 1995-96, $9.3 billion in 1996-97
and $11.9 billion in 1997-98. In other words, $25.3 billion
would be in spending cuts.
Clearly there is some double talk. When Reform proposes $25
billion in fiscal spending cuts it is fiscal savagery which will
hurl the country into depression and throw widows and orphans
out on the streets. When the government makes the same
proposal it is acting in the best interest of Canadians. It is acting
in the best interest of the country. It is being tough but it is being
fair. Cutting the deficit is said to increase economic growth in
the long run.
The government is not completely hypocritical when it is
doing this. It does not actually cut $25.3 billion. It wants the
financial markets to believe this, especially Moody's which is
still trying to decide whether to downgrade Canada's credit
rating.
The truth is these are $25 billion in what I call make believe
cuts. They are cuts to money that was never spent and will not be
spent. The Liberal budget makes real spending cuts of only $15
billion. This explains why Reform Party's $25 billion in cuts in
the taxpayers' budget will eliminate the deficit in three years
and why the Liberal budget will leave us with $24 billion of
deficit. Clearly the budget was not as tough as the government
would have us believe it was.
(1100)
The second mistruth is that government cuts in its own
backyard first and does not offload its deficit problems on to the
provinces. Is that true or not? Let us look at it.
It says this on page 65 of the Budget Plan:
The expenditure cuts fall primarily on federal government operations,
rather than transfers to provinces or to households-demonstrating that the
government's priority has been to get its own house in order first.
Let us look at that statement. Is this true? Do the provinces get
off lightly in comparison to other cuts in the budget? The answer
11580
is no and I would like to explain why. Let us look at how much
was really cut from the provincial transfers.
On page 51 of the Budget Plan, it shows total transfers falling
from $37 billion in 1994-95 to some $34 billion in 19997-98,
for a reduction of approximately 4 per cent. This is less than cuts
to other areas of spending, which are reduced by some 7 or 8 per
cent.
What is hidden in these numbers is the fact that tax point
transfers were included in the calculation of the value of the
transfer. This is completely misleading to Canadians and is a
misleading statement in the budget.
These tax points were given to provinces in 1977. In that year,
the measure affected the budgetary position by creating a
one-time reduction in revenues. Since that time, these tax points
have not added one cent to the annual deficit. They ceased being
a budgetary item.
If one looks at the 1994 budget, one will not see any mention
of tax points. Indeed, one will not see them in any other budget
since 1977. They were included this year solely to confuse
Canadians so that they would not realize the magnitude of the
cuts that were being made.
Since we have peeled off this tax point veneer, what lies
underneath? What is the real truth? Total cash transfers to
provinces, which include payments for equalization, health,
post-secondary education and welfare will be reduced from $25
billion in 1994-95 to $20 billion in 1997-98.
This is a reduction of $5 billion or 20 per cent. Compare this
to cuts being made in two other major areas of spending. The
$38 billion in transfers to persons were virtually untouched
being reduced by only $500 million, a minor amount.
The $52 billion in departmental spending, which fell under
what is called government's program review, will be reduced by
a little less than $10 billion or 18 per cent. Clearly the provinces
did not get off easy in the budget. They were the biggest victims
of the budgetary cuts. They took the major hit.
What is even more amazing is how much was cut specifically
from health, education and welfare, the three programs that have
been folded into what is now called Canada health and social
transfer. Cash transfers for these three programs will fall from
$17 billion this year to $10 billion in 1997-98. There will be a
reduction of some $7 billion. This represents a major reduction,
a 40 per cent reduction in federal cash transfers for health,
education and welfare.
Can members imagine what the Liberal opposition would say
about a Reform government if it attempted to slash medicare by
40 per cent? This is what the Liberals have done and nobody has
picked up on it. The Liberals will still paint the Reformers as
fiscal savages. They should look at the brush themselves.
(1105 )
In closing, let me clarify the purpose of my remarks. My
intention is not to say that deep spending cuts were
inappropriate. To the contrary, the government's budget did not
go far enough. There will still be a $25 billion deficit when this
party leaves office. In other words, more remains to be done.
It is my sincere hope that once Canadians get beyond the
government's smoke and mirrors, we will be able to begin a very
serious dialogue with regard to fiscal policy. I hope over the next
two to three years people will look at our taxpayers' budget and
at the Liberal's budget and debate the strengths and weaknesses
of both.
If that can be accomplished, if we can elevate the national
debate, the country will be much better off.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
discuss Bill C-76, which seeks to implement the 1995-96
budget, as well as the amendment tabled on March 30 by the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, an amendment
which I support.
The amendment proposes that the bill be read a second time
only in six months. In other words, it asks the Minister of
Finance to go back to the drawing board, because this is the
worse possible budget for poor and ordinary people. However, it
is an excellent budget for rich people, banks and major
corporations.
I already had the opportunity to denounce this budget, which
is tough for the provinces, particularly Quebec, as well as for
workers, immigrants and refugees, public servants and poor
people.
This budget provides no measures to stimulate employment or
economic growth. Its main objective is to cut everywhere,
particularly in social programs, unemployment insurance and
international assistance. It only targets the poor. This so-called
Liberal government is in fact the most conservative government
in Canada's history.
Both the government and the Liberal Party are making a sharp
turn to the right. This is incredible. For example, over the next
three years, the government will reduce by $307 million the
money allocated to the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. Yet, social housing is in great need, both in Quebec
and in Canada, and particularly in my riding of Bourassa, in
Montréal-Nord, where many welfare recipients live and where
there is a shortage of such units for them.
I want to briefly comment on the report which was just
released by the National Council of Welfare. According to that
document, 20.7 per cent of Quebecers live in poverty. Between
1992 and 1993, the number of people living in poverty increased
everywhere in Canada. At the national level, the percentage of
those living in poverty went up from 16.1 per cent, in 1992, to
11581
17.4 per cent, in 1993. This is a dramatic increase in just one
year.
More importantly, child poverty reached a 14-year high by
climbing up to 20.8 per cent. In 1993, there were 1,415,000 poor
children in Canada. These children are poor because their
parents are poor. And the parents are poor because there are not
enough jobs in this country. Generally speaking, women are
poorer than men. This is shameful.
(1110 )
[English]
Nearly half a million more Canadians became poor in 1993.
The number of poor grew to nearly 4.8 million Canadians, from
4.3 million the previous year. Half a million more poor people in
Canada. It is a tragic situation.
[Translation]
This is shocking. The government should analyse this report
carefully and act on it. I ask the government to table a plan to
fight poverty in Canada, and I hope more members will express
their outrage about this situation: one half million new poor.
Significantly, 50 per cent of these people are working poor. In
other words, they are forced to accept unusually low wages. In
fact, the minimum wage is a scandal, both federally and
provincially.
Although Alberta is one of the richest provinces, it has one of
the lowest minimum wages in Canada: $5 an hour. Our
colleagues opposite often say we live in Canada, the best
country in the world. I think that with these figures, Canada is
hardly the wonderful country they say it is.
I said that this government and the Liberal Party are leaning
increasingly to the right. A few days ago, we saw the passage of
back-to-work legislation in the form of Bill C-77, introduced
by the new Minister of Labour, legislation that is a direct attack
on the unions and denies them the right to strike, just because the
government wants to privatize CN and get even more money for
the Treasury.
With this legislation, the government is trying to break the
unions and federal employees as well, who are very disturbed
about the loss of 45,000 jobs. The government is attacking
social programs and the unemployed, instead of attacking
unemployment.
On the other hand, the government refuses to pass anti-scab
legislation as requested by the unions. Especially in Quebec,
where Ogilvie, for instance, whose employees have been on
strike for months and months, continues to operate because it
hires scabs. Once again, I want to ask the government to
introduce anti-scab legislation.
At the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and I
happen to be the official opposition critic on this matter, in
1995-96, according to the budget, spending will total $592.7
million and the department will have the equivalent of 4,645
full-time employees, including 260 in Canadian missions
abroad.
It is outrageous, and I mentioned this before in the House, that
more than 50 per cent of the department's budget will be
self-financing, in other words, about $300 million will come
from user fees, especially the new tax on immigration. I think
the minister is trying to run his department like a private
company. Today it is self-financing, and later he will probably
want to make a profit as well.
There have been cuts at the IRB, cuts totalling around $500.7
million. From now on, cases will be heard by only one
commissioner, not two. The number of commissioners will be
reduced from 175 to 112.
(1115)
I would like to use the two minutes I have left to say a few
words about international aid.
I condemn most vigorously the cuts made in international
assistance. This country, which used to have a genuine concern
for the problems and well-being of poor countries is no longer
the Canada I knew a number of years ago. There have been
horrendous cuts in Montreal alone, and in the rest of Quebec and
Canada. More than 80 organizations dedicated to promoting
public awareness of international assistance will see their
funding cut by 100 per cent and will disappear. Cuts totalling
$1.3 billion in three years-that is a lot of money. The UN has
asked all industrialized countries to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP
on international assistance. Canada will be left with a rate of 0.3
per cent.
Finally, I would urge the government not to reduce the
programs for older worker adjustment. The unions are very
concerned, and the provinces as well. These agreements must be
renewed, and I hope the government will try to do something for
these workers.
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents
about the federal budget.
My constituents tell me time and time again that they are sick
and tired of paying for federal government programs that they
do not want, they did not ask for and they certainly do not want
to pay for. My constituents stop me and ask about Canada's
official languages policy. Why do we have this program? Why
do we have to pay for it? Today I will confine my budget remarks
to bring forward the concerns of my constituents about official
languages.
I will start by asking the government on behalf of the people
of Yellowhead: Why do we have a Department of Canadian
Heritage? Of all the departments in government, the Department
of Canadian Heritage is one of the most controversial and
11582
disruptive to the people of Canada. It is in this department that
we find huge public funding for highly contentious areas,
including the CBC, multiculturalism and of course, official
bilingualism. I will be direct. The people of Yellowhead have no
use for the Department of Canadian Heritage and its destructive,
divisive programs.
They do not know what possible good can result from the
funding of the bilingual bonus which cost them and their fellow
taxpayers $50 million last year. They do not know what good can
result from funding the language police, the Commissioner of
Official languages, $11.1 million. They do not know what good
can come from funding the Edmonton region of the Alberta
Francophone Association to the tune of $103,000 annually plus
a grant of $12 million to be spent in a riding containing 945
francophones.
The people of Yellowhead are not sure why they are helping to
pay for official languages support, which is projected to cost
$253 million this year, a cool quarter of a billion dollars.
It is not my intention to fan the flames of resentment, only to
question a policy which has done much to tear the social and
linguistic fabric of our nation.
Official bilingualism in Canada is not about promoting the
equality of the French and English languages. It is about the
promotion of minority language rights to the majority of the
population. In fact the Official Languages Act, which
entrenched the notion of coast to coast bilingualism in 1969, has
been abused by federal governments which operated behind the
smoke-screen of keeping Canada together.
The OLA was about appeasement right from the beginning.
There are questions as to how this forced language program was
to be funded, to be paid for. English Canada protested this
imposition and of course it is paying for it.
(1120 )
Pierre Trudeau knew the mathematics involved. He needed to
retain power. He needed to retain his stranglehold on Quebec.
After all, he had no support from the west. Therefore, the OLA
was imposed on all of Canada. Ever since, the Official
Languages Act has been used to put out anti-nationalistic fires
in Quebec but to no avail. The effects of this firefighting have
been severe.
I draw attention to how the Official Languages Act was used
in 1976, at a time when great dissension in the province of
Quebec was reaching its apex, to put out a fire that threatened
national unity. On the eve of the Quebec election, 30,000 federal
employees in Quebec threatened to refuse to serve people in
English unless they received their bonuses for being bilingual,
just like the bonuses bilingual secretaries, stenographers and
typists received.
To pacify the civil servants and keep the separatist Parti
Quebecois from claiming unfair treatment of francophones,
Trudeau caved in and passed the order to pay the bilingual
bonus. To top things off and to add insult to injury, the PQ won
the election.
Ever since, the bilingual bonus has stuck and has even been
extended to bilingual RCMP officers under this Liberal
government. I have little doubt this decision was made to cool
disparaging attacks from the Bloc.
This policy is discriminatory against unilingual anglophones
and francophones. It has created division instead of unity. It is
the opposite of what the OLA intended for Canada. The
disruption of the merit system has a negative impact on morale.
That was not the only time the master social engineer used the
contentious issue of Canada's official languages as an
instrument of appeasement at the expense of the majority of
Canadians. Trudeau implemented affirmative action in the
hiring of public servants.
I draw my colleagues' attention to the Royal Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism. It recommended dividing the
public service into French language units in which all work
would be performed in French, and English language units in
which all work would be performed in English. Under this
system almost all jobs would be open to unilingual speakers.
It is true that at first there might be a swell of unilingual
English jobs, but as anglophone employees retired and
francophones joined the public service French language units
would expand to eventually include a proportion of jobs
equivalent to the French speaking share of the Canadian
population. In essence, there would be equitable representation
without resorting to affirmative action and without claims of
discrimination against either anglophones or francophones. I
think all members would agree that such a scenario seems
reasonable and fair.
Trudeau, because of political considerations, did not adopt
this fair solution. He apparently felt the French language unit
would take too long to implement while the separatist threat was
an immediate problem. As Trudeau said: ``We cannot tell
Quebec: Cool it, fellows, in 40 years we will be able to talk to
you. We might save some money but we would not save the
country''. Well we sure have saved the country.
Today it is the unity of the country which is threatened,
something that should not be happening if the sacred cow known
as official bilingualism had worked, but of course it could not
work. This policy has cost billions of dollars to enforce since its
inception. We see what Canadian taxpayers are getting in return:
among other things, a separatist party as the Official Opposition
in the House of Commons.
11583
If policies of the past do not work, perhaps it is time that we
stopped them and developed a new framework with which we
can all work toward a unified Canada. Canadians resent official
bilingualism as it stands now.
I will close by relating an instance which occurred last
October. The Commissioner of Official Languages, the
language police, visited Jasper National Park to award park
officials for their outstanding promotion of French language in
the park. A closer examination of the demographics shows just
how wasteful the commissioner's junket was. It is illogical to
have bilingual services available in Jasper National Park or any
other place where there is not sufficient demand.
(1125)
Last year over 2.4 million people visited the park. The visitors
to the campgrounds came from the following regions: Alberta,
35 per cent; British Columbia, 15 per cent; California, Ontario,
Washington, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The origin of people
visiting by country was: Canada, 60 per cent; United States, 20
per cent; Germany, 5 per cent; and then England and
Switzerland.
Curiously enough, signs in the campgrounds are in French and
English and most of the campground staff are required to be
bilingual in both official languages. If anything, services should
be offered in English and German according to the statistics. Of
course that would be ludicrous because the majority of Germans
visiting Canada speak English.
Common sense must dictate all government policies. It is
time to end tired, old divisive and expensive policies which not
only add to our debt but which create problems instead of
solving them. The time to end those is now.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
your permission, I will ignore the preceding incendiary remarks
of my colleague. It is certainly not out of pleasure, but rather out
of a sense of duty as an MP, that I rise today to debate Bill C-76,
which concerns certain provisions of the budget tabled on
February 27 and which implements some of the announced
changes in transfers to the provinces.
In fact, this bill is nothing more than the bitter fruit of certain
decisions in the latest federal budget. Bill C-76 clearly
illustrates the federal government's conspiracy against the
provinces. With this bill, the federal government intends
literally to offload $7 billion of its debt onto the provinces. To
this end, it has already made a mockery of one of its three main
programs of transfers to the provinces-the equalization
program. Under this program, the provinces will receive $8.87
billion this fiscal year.
The aim of the program is to redistribute wealth within
Canada by transferring some of the income of the wealthier
provinces to the poorer ones. Since 1982, however, the federal
government has imposed a maximum on transfer payments to
provinces under the equalization program, tying total payments
to growth in Canada's nominal GNP. This capping was renewed
in January 1994 for five years under Bill C-3. With this
measure, the federal government, be it Liberal or Conservative,
has deprived and continues to deprive the provinces of revenues
they would normally be entitled to.
As Quebec is one of the provinces, along with the Atlantic
provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, receiving federal
money through the equalization program, its public finances
will suffer enormously as the result of this measure. In fact,
Quebec's public finances are already suffering because of this
measure. The situation is more difficult for Quebec, because, of
all the provinces benefiting from this program, it benefits the
least per capita.
By tying maximum total payments to growth in the nominal
GNP, the federal government is changing the very nature of the
equalization payments, which serve primarily to redistribute
wealth among the provinces. There is more. Bill C-76, as
announced in the last budget, also provides for the replacement,
in 1996-97, of the two other provincial transfer programs-the
Canada assistance plan, known as the CAP, and established
programs financing-by a new program, the Canada social
transfer.
So far, we might consider this combining of two programs
into a single one, thus streamlining operations, simplifying
structures and so on, to be good news. However, that is the end of
the good news. Because, instead of maintaining or increasing
the level of transfer payments to the provinces, Ottawa is
preparing to cut $2.5 billion in 1996-97 from the budget usually
reserved for these payments.
(1130)
The 1997-98 fiscal year will be even worse, because the
federal government plans to cut transfers to the provinces by
another $4.5 billion. This is yet another face of the flexible
federalism the government is always trying to sell us in this
House.
The problem is that the only thing that the government has
successfully decentralized is its deficit. Obviously, Quebec will
not be spared in the federal government's deficit
decentralization operation. In the 1996-97 fiscal year, Quebec's
transfer payment will be cut by $650 million, thanks to clause 48
of Bill C-76.
For the 1997-98 fiscal year, we are still unsure of how the
federal government intends to determine by how much it will cut
transfer payments to the provinces. If it decides to continue
using the same formula, Quebec's transfer payment will be cut
by $1.2 billion.
11584
Because of the pressure that the richest provinces, like
Ontario, are exerting, it looks like the federal government may
use a new formula based on the proportion of Canada's
population living in each of the provinces.
If the federal government decides to use this formula, Quebec
will lose $1.9 billion instead of $1.2 billion, an additional
shortfall of $700 million. Unfortunately, chances are that it will
use the new formula, because the federal government is not in
the habit of calling into question an established formula if it
does not intend to change it and especially because of the
pressure it is currently getting from the provinces that are better
off.
Therefore, all told, Bill C-76 will probably cost the
Government of Quebec at least $1.85 billion and at the most,
$2.55 billion. As I said before, is this not a fine example of
flexible federalism, cost-effective federalism?
After reading the provisions of Bill C-76, one can only
wonder how competent and responsible the members of the
government really are: they are shirking their responsibility to
manage the public purse wisely. In fact, can anyone in the House
think of anything easier or more convenient than passing the
buck to the provinces, as the Liberal government is currently
doing, especially to Quebec?
This sad chapter in the life of the federal government's
economic and budgetary policy, if indeed it does have one,
shows undeniably just how much of a mess the country's
finances are in. Therefore, not only has the federal government
either put off until later or offloaded onto the provinces the main
deficit reducing measures it announced in the last budget, it also
is doing nothing about the thorny issue of Canada's debt.
We must realize that every deficit incurred by the federal
government simply adds to Canada's humongous debt. The
deficit forecast for 1995-96 is $32.7 billion. Even if the
government brought its deficit down to zero this year, at the cost
of difficult and harrowing sacrifices, the Canadian debt would
continue to grown just the same, inexorably, on account of the
applicable interest charges.
Because the federal debt is growing almost exponentially, the
portion of the budget going to interest payments alone continues
to grow, automatically. This year, the government is facing a
substantial increase in the interests to be paid on the debt, with
interest charges rising from $42 to $50 billion. This means that,
if the government were to simply freeze its spending at the
current level, its deficit would increase substantially anyway,
also adding to the debt.
A government bent on reducing its deficit would therefore
have to cut mercilessly in both spending and programs, if only to
offset the rise in the deficit attributable to interest charges. In
other words, the debt problem would not remain unresolved in
spite of the government's efforts.
As we were able to see earlier, the federal government did not
have the courage to tackle its own deficit, simply shifting the
problem on to the provinces by gradually cutting transfers. To
offset this loss of revenue, the provinces will have to cut
services, rise taxes or pass the buck themselves to the
municipalities.
(1135)
But finally, it is always the same people footing the bill: the
taxpayers.
It was suggested that the Government of Quebec should put its
own fiscal house in order before inviting the people of Quebec to
give a decision on sovereignty. But one must realize that it will
become increasingly difficult for the Quebec government to
make ends meet as tax transfers to the provinces shrink. Let us
also keep in mind that, at the time of the first referendum on
sovereignty, in 1980, the federal debt was $90 billion. It has now
grown to nearly $550 billion and should have passed the $800
billion mark by the year 2000.
In 1980, the federalists doomed Quebecers to Gehenna of hell
if they dared venture onto the road to sovereignty-association.
If Quebec were to become sovereign, these doomwatchers
predicted the dollar would be worth 70 cents, interest rates
would skyrocket and the debt would reach several hundred
billion. But we got all of that while we were within the Canadian
federal system. To top it off, the Canadian Constitution was
patriated without Quebec's consent, and we have the current
Prime Minister of Canada to thank for that.
To conclude, Quebec will not be spared in the federal
government's scheme to shovel the Canadian deficit in the
provinces' backyards or the other sneaky measures contained in
the budget. Today and in the months to come, the people of
Quebec will bear the brunt of this budget, at least until they
decide to pull out from this unfair and inefficient system, which
is moving ever closer to financial disaster, until they decide to
assume responsibility for their own future by going the way of
sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, ``there are times in the progress of a people when
fundamental changes must be faced, fundamental choices made
and a new course charted''. With these words the finance
minister tabled what has been called the most important budget
in Canadian history. He says it is a budget with one objective, to
break the back of the deficit and bring our finances under
control.
Canadians will have to judge by the minister's own criteria.
They will have to judge whether the fundamental challenge of a
deficit elimination been faced. Have fundamental choices been
made to meet that challenge? Has the new course really been
charted toward federal fiscal responsibility? These are
questions I will deal with.
11585
First is the question of whether the deficit elimination
challenge has been faced. In the dying days of the Trudeau
government a budget was tabled with a then unheard of deficit of
over $38 billion.
Michael Wilson six years ago said: ``We have a serious
problem, our large and growing public debt''. The Tories had
nine years to balance the books but failed to do so at each and
every attempt. The closest they came to a balanced budget was
$19 billion.
Now the Liberals are back. The finance minister, as his
predecessors before him, says the time has come to deal with
this deficit crisis. When one looks at his three-year plan, the
final goal is not deficit elimination, it is only modest reduction.
If the challenge is a balanced budget, and it must be, given
today's economic climate, this challenge has not been met.
Second is the question of whether fundamental choices have
been made to meet the deficit challenge. There were clear
decisions to be made: the status quo or new direction, continued
deficit or no deficit, tax hikes or spending cuts.
The bottom line said it all. Program spending has decreased a
mere $5.1 billion out of a total of $163.5 billion. That works out
to only 4 per cent of program spending or a mere 3 per cent of
total spending. These so-called cuts are a drop in the bucket
compared with what must be done to bring our finances under
control.
At the same time, there are new business taxes, gasoline taxes
and new user fees. Clearly the government has not taken
decisive action and has not made the fundamental choices
Canadians have been demanding.
(1140)
Third, regarding the question of whether a new course in
government spending has been charted in the budget, clearly for
the past 20 years federal governments have followed a course
leading from one deficit to the next at an accumulative cost of
over $548 billion.
Since the government came to power it has followed that
exact pattern, predicting deficits past 1997. No new course has
been plotted. It is still business as usual with deficits, deficits,
deficits.
Several months ago I asked Cariboo-Chilcotin constituents
in a householder survey for their thoughts on cutting the deficit.
I placed before them the list of cuts the Reform Party presented
to the finance committee and asked whether they agreed with
this list.
There was overwhelming support for ending regional
development programs, privatizing the CBC, stopping the
funding for crown corporations, ending multiculturalism and
bilingualism funding, immediately stopping support for special
interest groups and downsizing the ministries of agriculture,
industry, natural resources, and fisheries and oceans. These are
the recommendations of my constituents.
Is the budget fair? The finance minister has been quick to
stress the budget spreads the burden. No one escaped the pain,
he stressed, and the burden has been borne equally.
Is it fair to Canadians? Is it fair to our families? Is it fair to our
children? Is it fair to our grandchildren and great grandchildren
and future generations to come? The answer on all counts is
firmly no, it is not. It is not fair to thousands of civil servants
who could lose their jobs based on their race or sex.
According to the minister of intergovernmental affairs cuts
will focus on white males in the civil service despite the fact this
violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Families will be
strained, careers destroyed and the principles of merit ignored,
all for the sake of pacifying radical special interest groups.
It is not fair to the grassroots which will continue to be
shouted down on the national scene. Funding for special
interests, the political fringes of our society, lives on. The
radical agendas will continue to be pushed to centre stage while
views and opinions of ordinary Canadians will once again be
pushed out the exit doors.
It is not fair to young Canadians, our future workers, our
future leaders. For the first time in Canadian history young
Canadians are facing a future that will bring them less
prosperity than their parents or grandparents. It is these young
people and not their parents or grandparents who will eventually
have to begin paying off a debt that now totals $548 billion.
The finance minister has put off any major cuts for some time
in the distant future. It is our children who will have to deal with
his indecisiveness with even higher taxes and fewer social
programs.
I have often said I did not enter politics for myself but for my
children and for their peers across the country. When I graduated
from school the opportunities were virtually limitless. When I
wanted a job, I picked my field. When I wanted more schooling,
admission was both easy and affordable.
I could count on having a good salary to meet my needs and
the needs of my wife and family. All that has changed. Young
people no longer have their pick of jobs. They have to take what
they can get, often piecing together two or three part time jobs to
make ends meet.
Tuitions are rapidly rising, enrolment falling and
opportunities becoming fewer and farther apart. There are many
reasons for these changes such as high payroll taxes, decreasing
funding and economic restructuring but it all comes down to one
thing, the debt.
As our debt increases over the next three years, our economy
will be even more strained to pay ever more interest on our
growing debt, meaning our young people will have even fewer
opportunities in the years to come. For their sake we have to
tackle the deficit now.
11586
The budget has failed on all counts.
(1145)
The challenge of deficit elimination has not been faced. The
fundamental choices Canadians demanded have not been made.
A new course towards fiscal responsibility has not been charted,
and this budget has not been fair, as the minister claimed.
Canadians are not looking for another Michael Wilson or Don
Mazankowski, both of whom drifted from deficit to deficit.
They are looking for decisive action to bring our nation's
finances back into balance. I hope this finance minister will
show more decisiveness next year than he has this year. The
window for opportunity is quickly closing.
I am very pleased that the Reform Party has presented an
alternative budget, which the Liberal Party has been invited to
review, to copy and to use.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the months before this budget was brought
down, the Minister of Finance appeared before the finance
committee and made a number of statements, some of which
were reported on television. One of them was the following, and
I quote: ``The total debt of Canada's public sector has now
reached 100 per cent of the gross domestic product. The interest
alone on this debt exceeded $56 billion last year, close to $39
billion of which were paid by the federal government. This
amount may well top $44 billion this year. We have reached the
point where the interest on the debt is growing faster than the
economy. We are in debt over our heads and this cannot go on.
The situation is untenable from the point of view of the laws of
the financial market and equally untenable under the laws of
compound interest''.
To conclude in the words of the minister: ``It is as if our
country were trying to go up the down escalator''. We have all
seen young boys trying to do this in the subway. They manage
quite nicely, but for the average person, it is not easy. I again
quote the minister: ``The problem is so monumental that we can
no longer rely on economic growth for a solution. Why not?
Because the deficit itself is dragging down growth. As long as it
goes unchecked, too many investments will be stalled at the
planning stage, interest rates will remain high, the rate of
employment will go down, and future generations will pay the
price''.
Canada's debt has become so large that the Canadian
government is now in the position of having to borrow billions
of dollars annually to pay the interest on it. It is no different than
the average person who owes the bank money and who, every
year, has to go deeper into debt just to pay the interest charges.
Clearly, it is a vicious circle.
Canada's debt, which was $90 billion in 1980, will be $548
billion as at March 31, 1995, and it will keep climbing. In 15
years there has been a 509 per cent increase. We know perfectly
well that no ordinary citizen would be able to handle an increase
in debt of this magnitude, just as we know that there is no
company that could either, without soon falling into bankruptcy,
and we are equally well aware that countries are no different. In
January 1995, the Wall Street Journal, one of the most
prestigious newspapers in New York, mentioned that Canada
had now gained third-world-country status in terms of its debt,
and even indicated that there was a real possibility that it might
go bankrupt.
The minister gave us an idea of what that meant, in a
document entitled Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate, which he
released in October 1994. In his presentation, the minister said
that a powerful thrust of the debt is firmly anchored in the
Canadian economy and is hard to correct. As deficits keep
accumulating, interest costs also increase, thus perpetuating the
vicious circle. The deficits which result from the interest
charges on the current debt contribute to increasing that debt,
which continues to grow. For several years now, the Canadian
economy has not been strong enough to make revenues grow
quickly enough to compensate for the rapid increase in interest
charges and, as the minister said, it is not expected that this trend
will change in the predictable future.
Following this analysis, the minister tabled a budget which
seeks to bring the deficit back to 3 per cent of the gross domestic
product, by 1996-97, which means that the deficit would go
down from 39.7 to 25 billion dollars. In order to reach that
target, the minister intends to make cuts of about $13.4 billion,
over the next two years.
(1150)
What does a budget such as this one tell us? First, it tells
ordinary Canadians that the national debt increased, but in an
abstract manner.
Indeed, for ordinary citizens, a debt of 200, 300 or 500 billion
dollars is something abstract if they do not feel it in their pocket
book. However, the major change with this budget is that things
will now become very concrete. Canadians will start paying off
that debt. Massive cuts are anticipated, including in the UI,
welfare and health care programs, and students will have to get
into debt to go to school.
This morning the hon. member sitting next to me even
mentioned that old age pensions are now in jeopardy, this just
after the government announced-and this is no laughing
matter-a substantial increase of $0.78 per month, which is not
even enough to buy a coffee.
The second conclusion to be drawn from this budget is that,
regardless of what we do, as the minister himself told us, the
debt will continue to rise. Consequently, the budget cuts which
11587
will affect social services in a few months can only increase in
the years to come.
The third conclusion essentially applies to Quebec. For the
first time in history, Quebecers will realize just how much it
costs to be part of Canada. This will be costly and painful.
As you will recall, the Prime Minister's advisor himself
recently went to Toronto to tell the Canadian intelligentsia that,
the more Quebec would suffer, the more Quebecers would be
tempted to stay in the Canadian Confederation. I will not
comment on the morality of this statement. I think that it denotes
stupidity more than anything else and that it will have exactly
the opposite effect.
Of course, the argument is still the same: it is Quebec's fault.
If things are going badly in Canada, it is Quebec's fault. The
Prime Minister himself, who did not denounce his special
adviser's remarks, thereby agreeing that Quebec should be made
to suffer, was quoted in the newspapers yesterday or the day
before as saying that if Quebecers rejected sovereignty, interest
rates would drop by a few points. He was immediately
challenged by the real economists in Canada, who found his
comments extremely naive.
I wish to remind the Prime Minister of two little events that
clearly show that there is no relation whatsoever between the
disastrous state of Canadian public finance and Quebec's
political role. At a time of great political stability, in the years
that followed the rejection of Quebec sovereignty in 1980,
Canada experienced the highest interest rates ever, which rose
well beyond 20 per cent. Yet, Quebecers had just said Yes to
Canada.
Hon. members will also remember 1986. Who was in power at
that time? The Quebec Premier was Mr. Bourassa and the
Canadian Prime Minister was Mr. Mulroney. This was, of
course, a few years before the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
failures. The Parti Quebecois was keeping very quiet in its little
corner. Some people were even saying that the PQ was dead. The
Bloc Quebecois did not exist. The dollar fell to 69 cents US. And
it will probably return to that level very soon. I remind hon.
members that there was then no link between the very quiet
political situation in Quebec and the economic problems.
Of course, they have always said that it was Quebec's fault
and they will continue to do so. They are repeating the same
arguments they used in 1980. We remember very clearly what
Mr. Trudeau told us: ``We are putting our seats on the line in
Canada. We are putting our seats on the line at the political level
so that changes can be made''. There was the patriation in 1982,
which was never accepted by Quebecers, followed by the Meech
Lake and Charlottetown failures.
They also tried to scare Quebecers-now they want to hurt us,
but back then they wanted to scare us-by telling them that if
they chose sovereignty, they would be up to their necks in debt,
unemployment and taxes. We said Yes to Canada at that time and
since then the debt has risen from $90 billion to $548 billion, the
unemployment rate has gone from 7.5 per cent to almost 10 per
cent, the number of welfare recipients has nearly doubled, and
taxes have never been so high. And that is only the beginning.
(1155)
In the end, by staying in the Canadian Confederation, we have
experienced all the problems we were afraid would occur if we
became a country. And things will get worse. Let me remind the
House that the Wall Street Journal said that Canada was heading
toward bankruptcy.
We recently held regional commissions on sovereignty, which
attracted a large number of participants throughout Quebec.
Quebecers submitted numerous briefs saying that they had two
options: staying in the Canadian Confederation or making
Quebec a country. They mostly said that they wanted more
information.
In closing, I think that we should give Quebecers much more
information on sovereignty issues, let the Canadian budget
produce its effect and reveal exactly how much it costs to be part
of Canada. I sincerely believe that when the right time comes,
Quebecers will end up choosing the only possible option:
making Quebec a country.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take a few moments to talk about the impact of
the budget on my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, and I would
also like to talk a bit about agriculture.
We have heard over the last few days statements made by
members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and members of the
Reform Party in terms of fairness in the budget. They are trying
to suggest that in agriculture the cuts seem to be either in
Quebec or in western Canada and that they are not spread fairly
across the country.
When the Minister of Finance set out his budget proposals,
and when the debates, negotiations and discussions with various
groups were occurring beforehand, within this caucus and in
talking to constituents in my riding, understanding the
significance of the debt and the deficit and the problems we have
there, what has been emphasized is the fact that there needs to be
fairness. People across the country are prepared to do whatever
is necessary to deal with the government's finances, as long as it
is shown that what the government does, it does fairly across the
country.
Let us take a look at agriculture. There were three significant
areas that were cut in agriculture. The dairy subsidy was reduced
by 30 per cent over a two-year period, the WGTA was cut, but,
11588
significantly, there was the centralization of research and
development projects.
In terms of the dairy subsidy, obviously, given what is
happening with the GATT and given the changes within supply
management that are required, all dairy farmers realize that
there will be changes and that within the next 20 years they will
have to develop ways to compete internationally and not only
within the Canadian market. This dairy subsidy reduction of 30
per cent is going to be a hit on dairy farmers. Certainly, dairy
farmers will have to do their share in bringing down the deficit.
When I talk to the farmers in my riding, and in fact across
Canada, most of them are willing to make that sacrifice to help
reduce the debt and the deficit. However, they want to make sure
that the sacrifice is also being made by other Canadians.
They speak particularly about social policy reform. They
want to ensure that our social policy programs are doing what
they need to be doing, that they are doing it efficiently, and that
they are not just leaving a whole class of people relying on
government handouts. They also talk in terms of trying to cut
back on some of the spending we do in that area. I think if they
see a firm commitment from the minister and the government,
they will be more than willing to take a cut in what they are
receiving.
(1200 )
We have seen somewhat of a hiatus there. The minister has
indicated we will probably come back sometime in the fall when
some of the necessary changes will be made.
I had a very big meeting in my riding with a number of
concerned people on the whole question of social policy reform.
I received a lot of good ideas. I am sure many members on all
sides of the House also held these forums. I know my colleague
across the way always likes to hold these open public forums.
They are a good thing for members of Parliament to do because
they give us an opportunity to hear from our constituents on very
important subjects with a wide range of diverse ideas.
A lot of dairy farmers who were in attendance were telling me
they understood what the government did. They were not
particularly happy that it came out of their pockets but they were
prepared to take it as long as they saw the government making
firm commitments in other areas.
The Reform Party throughout our earlier discussions on the
WGTA gave us an indication it wanted us to scrap it. We wanted
to make sure, given some of our GATT commitments, there was
adjustment available for those farmers and that the system
would still work.
I have a number of concerns in that area as chair of the
standing committee on agriculture. We got together with all
parties. We decided there should be a subcommittee on
transportation to look at these issues. Farmers in western
Canada and people who rely on the St. Lawrence seaway have a
number of concerns. Hopefully the members of Parliament on
the subcommittee, chaired by the hon. member for Malpeque,
will be able to do something in that area to make sure the
concerns of these farmers are taken into consideration and that
the minister of agriculture and the Prime Minister hear first
hand some of these concerns.
The $1.6 billion payment, essentially a payment over a two or
three-year period, is an adjustment period. The farmers I have
been talking to are not very happy it is coming out of their area
but they are prepared, as are farmers in other parts of the country
and all Canadians, to do their share in terms of bringing down
the debt and deficit.
That theme was pretty much what I heard in my riding of
Haldimand-Norfolk after I went back after the budget and
talked to my constituents. Normally after a budget, even as an
opposition member, one should receive about 20 or 30 calls.
After this budget I received three calls from constituents. I felt
this was an acceptance of the fairness of the budget.
After the budget, as I went around to the different events in
my riding I began to learn people accepted the budget,
grudgingly granted, but they understood the need to deal with
the debt and deficit and the need for cuts. They were prepared to
go along with it as long as they felt there was to be more and
there was a commitment of fiscal responsibility by the
government.
I have talked to the Minister of Finance in caucus and know
the commitment is there. We have to deal with the fact that 43
per cent or 44 per cent of our debt is controlled outside of the
country and our current account deficit is a problem.
The Minister of Finance indicated he will take the tough steps
necessary to deal with that problem. It is a problem for all
Canadians. It is a problem for my children and children all
across the country. It is something they do not look forward to.
We will deal with that problem. We will deal with the question of
fairness not only in future budgetary expenditures in terms of
the country but also in agriculture as we move along with the
co-operation of the opposition and the third party to help
Canadian farmers in the future deal with the uncertainties of the
new reality in world economic trade.
(1205)
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as we are all aware, on February 27 the finance minister
brought down his second budget. That document showed how
spending is to be reduced by $4 billion, taxes are up by $1.5
billion and the annual projected deficit will be only $32.7
billion; that is, $32 billion deeper in debt.
The document did not show how the government will spend
$50 billion to service the debt this year and how our overall debt
will climb by more than $100 billion over the term of the Liberal
government. Think of it. We are spending $50 billion to service
11589
the debt. How much could we buy in the way of social services
or anything else for $50 billion in a year?
The surprisingly mild public reaction toward the budget
seems to indicate Canadians do not fully understand the full
extent of our financial situation. Do they realize we are $550
billion in debt and by the time the government ends its mandate
we will be $650 billion in debt? I do not think it has quite struck
home yet.
It is therefore our job as a responsible opposition to tell
Canadians all is not well. We must do much more to tackle our
crippling debt and deficit situation. The fact our hon. colleague
across the way from Haldimand-Norfolk only received two
phone calls on this well illustrates this fact. The public is not
aware of the severity of the problem.
What can be done? According to the government it is moving
as fast as it possibly can to solve the problem. However, if we
look closely at this baby step budget we find that is not the case.
More can be done.
Look at my area of responsibility, official languages. I can
very easily demonstrate how we can save money without
sacrificing service to the public. We will look at my little area
but this could be multiplied one dozen or two dozen times by
other areas, thus illustrating we can find the money.
To be fair to the government, it has moved quietly even in the
area of official languages to trim some of the excess spending,
but not enough. The estimates show how approximately $50
million has been taken from official languages spending in the
Department of Canadian Heritage. Likewise, there is a small
reduction in the budget for the commissioner of official
languages.
Again, these are only baby steps in the right direction. There
are many more areas that can be reduced or eliminated. Funding
of special interest groups is a classic example. We are looking at
one little area of detail within overall official languages. This
year Canadian heritage alone will spend $28.5 million. Where
does this money go? About $1 million will go again this year to
Alliance Quebec, a so-called English language rights group in
Quebec. I say so-called because it is difficult to truly believe
this group is doing any meaningful work to preserve English
rights in Quebec.
(1210 )
Earlier this week I stood in the House and asked the
government why it would give Alliance Quebec $1.2 million
when it has been learned $837,000 of that is being spent on
wages, while another $95,000 goes to pay for luxury offices in
downtown Montreal. At the same time its membership has sunk
to an all time low of about 2,500. This figure was disputed on
radio this week by Mr. Hamelin, head of Alliance Quebec, who
said its numbers have risen to 3,700. Even if they have, this is
down from a membership strength of 15,000 or 20,000 some
years ago. What is going on?
The government response to my question on the donation to
Alliance Quebec was: ``It is important the Canadian government
supports minority language groups outside and inside Quebec.
That is what we are doing. That is what we will continue to do''.
If we examine that answer we will quickly discover it does not
make any sense. How can anyone claim that lining the pockets of
a few well heeled Liberal friends in the Montreal area does
anything to support the anglophone community within Quebec?
This group spends 75 per cent of its taxpayer supported budget
on wages and rent. What can it actually be doing to support the
community it purports to represent?
Worse yet, when my office requested this type of financial
information from Alliance Quebec and other similar language
groups throughout Canada, we were told that information was
not public knowledge and therefore was not available to us. We
were told to contact Treasury Board if we wanted information.
Treasury Board then told us it could only provide the overall
grant information which is readily available in public accounts
and therefore of little value. For detailed information we were
told to contact Canadian heritage. It in turn told us in most cases
it did not not have the information and what it had was not
available to us.
I have been fighting this situation for a year and a half in the
House trying to get some facts on spending of the government
and all I get is sandbagging. This is taxpayers money supposedly
being spent for the benefit of all Canadians. The people who
provide the funds are not allowed to know how they are spent.
It is only through the persistence of a reporter at La Presse
that the information on Alliance Quebec was brought to the
attention of the public. It takes a reporter to get it out. This is
unacceptable.
It is also interesting to note that official languages may well
be the only federal program to have totally escaped the scrutiny
of the Auditor General. This program has been in place for a
quarter of a century and has never been fully audited. What is
going on here? Where is this money being spent? What can we
eliminate?
Part V of the 1993-94 public accounts which detail funds for
professional special services shows almost $9 million spent in
the name of official languages. For example, Privy Council,
$900,000; communications, $4 million; transport, $340,000;
energy, mines and resources, $500,000; external affairs,
$255,000; national defence, $1.6 million, to name a few. How
these moneys were spent and for what purpose is a mystery.
Similarly, part VIII of the 1993-94 public accounts shows
$273 million for official languages transfer payments; over
$270 million of that by communications and $2.5 million by
employment and immigration. Again, for what purpose? Only
11590
the people who receive the money know for sure and they are not
willing to say.
Surely it makes sense to do a comprehensive audit to find out
if all these moneys are being spent wisely. The government
lacks the will to do so. It is a sacred cow and it will hang on to it.
If we look closely at the budget we find it simply does not do
the job. We cannot afford to stroll toward a zero deficit target.
The time for serious action is running out. It may be this year.
(1215)
In conclusion, I urge the government to take a serious look at
spending just in my little area alone on official languages in an
effort to get on with the job of deficit elimination, which
Canadians will support.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on the budget.
I am certain 10 minutes will not be enough to cover all the
ground I would like to cover. I will outline in point form some of
the major concerns I have with it.
I have concerns about the fairness of the budget. I would like
to debate at greater length the question of fairness with the
member for Haldimand-Norfolk but I will not have the time to
do that.
One of the reasons the budget has been received as well as it
has is the fact that the government has given the impression
there have been no tax increases. In many respects there were
not the kind of tax increases that had been flagged prior to the
budget. The trick, which is as old as the hills, is to get people
worried about a bunch of measures and then when the measures
are not included in the budget, people are relieved.
The fact is that Canadians will have to fork over more out of
their own pockets in a variety of ways. It may not come through
taxes but it will certainly come from having to spend more
money on services that were previously provided by the
government, whether it is in the form of user fees for national
parks, decreased health care availability or whatever the case
may be. We ought not to be under any illusion that Canadians got
a free lunch out of the budget. Hardly.
I am concerned about a number of things in the budget. First
and foremost in my mind and in the minds of my constituents is
the privatization of the Canadian National Railway. This is
something, given the location of the main repair shops of CNR
in Transcona, in the riding of Winnipeg Transcona, that is of
obvious concern.
It is a measure of how far to the ideological right this
Parliament and the Liberal Party in particular have swung. We
see the Liberal Party bringing in a measure to privatize the CNR
which is something that previously would not only have been
thought out of character for them but which goes against the
promises many Liberal MPs and Liberal candidates made to
railroaders in Winnipeg, and to Manitoba as a province, during
the election of 1993.
Many people were under the illusion-I was not-in 1993,
given some of the things that have been said by the hon. member
for Winnipeg South Centre, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, that if the Liberals were elected the bleeding of
rail jobs away from Winnipeg toward Edmonton and other
places would stop and that Winnipeg would be restored as a
transportation hub.
The very opposite has happened. The Minister of Transport
makes former Tory ministers of transport almost look like
friends of railroaders with some of the things that he has said
about railroaders and certainly the policies that he seems to be
following.
The privatization of CN in the budget is just the final icing on
the cake of the things that have been done to rail by the previous
Tory government and now by this government. It is a betrayal of
Liberal promises and Liberal policy. It shows just how
ideologically bent the Liberals are and how, in spite of
everything they said in opposition, once they got in government
picked up where the Tories left off and accelerated what used to
be known as the Mulroney agenda.
With respect to the Canada social transfer and the block
funding of all social spending, again it is a total betrayal of the
things the Liberal Party has stood for in opposition and
previously in government.
(1220 )
Perhaps the Minister of Finance should have waited until May
8 to have given his budget. Then we could have celebrated the
50th anniversary of the end of the second world war and the end
of post-war Canada the same day.
That is basically what the budget did. It declared an end to the
kind of society we have been able to build up over the last five
decades. It is no coincidence that the end to that era comes at a
time when the NDP is severely weakened in Parliament.
The government has no pressure from the left, no criticism
from the left, no opposition from the left, at least not the kind it
used to have. It gets pushed to the right by my Reform
colleagues here. The Bloc Quebecois is preoccupied with its
own agenda.
The government and the right wing business Liberals who for
so long have had to contend with a left wing contingent in their
own party, and with the NDP on their left flank, now are having a
heyday. The Minister of Finance is one of those right wing
Liberals. He is having his heyday.
11591
I do not know what the Prime Minister is doing. He is letting
the Minister of Finance do whatever he likes. It does not matter
how much it contravenes what the Liberals have said before.
I am particularly concerned about the effect this is going to
have on health care. When does it end? When will the Minister
of Health and the Prime Minister get up and say to Ralph Klein
in Alberta that enough is enough, that the Canada Health Act is
going to be enforced, that we are going to have national
standards in the country, and that all this talk about enforcing the
Canada Health Act flexibly and the other kinds of things that
have been spoken about will come to an end.
It is not going to come to an end. It seems to me that the
Liberals have decided that the Canada Health Act is passe and
that in various ways they are going to allow it to fade away. They
are going to permit provinces to experiment with the
dismantling of medicare.
This is something I predicted in 1984 in my final speech on
the Canada Health Act. I said that if the federal government was
not going to sufficiently fund medicare, sooner or later there
would be pressures both from the public, from provincial
governments and then in turn from the federal government to
dismantle medicare.
Medicare has to be adequately funded if it is going to succeed.
That is an insight which in some ways others have brought to
bear on this debate. It is not just a question of having national
standards. One has to have national standards and appropriate
funding. If there is not the appropriate funding, for one thing the
federal government cannot withdraw that funding in order to
enforce standards, and for another people become disillusioned
about the health care system if they feel that in spite of the
standards it is not the kind of health care system they expect.
With respect to the Crow benefit and its elimination, again it
is another blow not just to railways, farmers and railroaders, it is
another capitulation on the part of the government to the global
opposition to anything that comes in the form of a subsidy. This
ideology against subsidies and against taking into account the
realities of a country like Canada is something that is very
dangerous for us. In many respects, Canada was built along
east-west lines against natural north-south forces. If we are
going to cut all the things that bind us together east and west and
if we are not going to take them into account any more, we are
going to end up with an entirely different country.
Maybe that is what the government wants but that is certainly
not what its members said in opposition. It is something that
they should be held to account for by the Canadian public.
Even in the administration of the elimination of the Crow
benefit, I hope the government will soon tell us how it intends to
make absolutely sure that it is the producers who receive the
money that is going out as compensation for the elimination of
the Crow benefit and not landholders, as may well be the case
given the current state of the legislation.
It is not enough for the government to say that the Farm Credit
Corporation will make sure that producers get it. The
government has to make sure that producers get it, no matter
who they are, no matter who owns the land that they rent.
(1225 )
My final point is with respect to the deficit. I listened to my
Reform colleague talk about the need to get a grip on the deficit
and to take the deficit a lot more seriously than the government
is doing.
What I would like to see both the Reform Party and the Liberal
government take more seriously is the need to address the real
causes of the deficit. In the judgment of NDP members, the real
causes of the deficit go back to the tax loopholes which were
created in the mid-1970s by a Liberal government and to the
high real interest rate policy which has been followed in the
country for the last 15 years. It is a combination of those tax
loopholes and the high interest rate policy that has created the
deficit.
It is not social spending. Social spending has not grown in the
way which some have suggested. It has not been the cause of the
deficit. It may well be that it will have to be part of the solution,
in the sense that it is an obvious area to look at, how we spend the
money and whether we could spend it more wisely. However,
unless we deal with the high real interest rate policy, unless we
deal with monetary policy, unless we deal with how we finance
the debt, we are going to continue to have the problem. We will
continue to pay out $50 billion in interest every year.
If the interest is the problem, let us look at the interest rate
policy which creates the interest we have to pay. Let us look at
the role of the Bank of Canada and ask if there are not ways in
which it could finance a greater portion of the national debt than
it does now in the way that it used to. Let us look at the way
private banks have been allowed to print and lend money to the
government, at a great profit to them and at a great expense to
Canadians, without having to put up the appropriate deposits.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has
expired.
Mr. Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are many other
things I could have talked about, but ten minutes only permits so
much.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this debate is about the implementation of the federal budget.
However I would like to take advantage of the occasion to pick
up on a point made by the hon. member in the closing passage of
his speech and look beyond the budget to examine the whole
question of Canada's national debt; that constantly growing
monster which requires $44 billion annually simply to feed. As
the finance minister stated in the budget, service charges on the
11592
debt will eventually reach $50 billion before the ratio of debt to
gross domestic product starts to improve.
This is a good time, as everyone knows, to talk about the debt
because officials from the Department of Finance have been
meeting with Moody's, the bond rating agency in New York, to
discuss a possible downgrading in Canada's rating. If the talks
go badly and if Moody's ultimately downgrades our credit
worthiness, the cost of borrowing money to service the debt will
be even higher.
As has often been pointed out, the Liberal red book is silent on
two questions: when will we eliminate the deficit and how will
we then deal with the accumulated stock of Canada's debt?
A constituent of Don Valley West, financial analyst Ross
Healy of Strategic Analysis Corporation in Toronto, has
proposed a radical, elegant solution to Canada's debt problem
called the Phoenix Rising Solution. At the heart of his proposal
is an approach which is often used in corporate restructuring,
cleaning up the balance sheet by converting excessive debt to
equity. In this regard the Phoenix solution is conventional and
even commonplace in the private sector, but for government the
solution is unique, daring in the proposed scale of the financial
offering and radical in its drastic alteration of government
finances.
What is proposed is, in Healy's words:
-an equity underwriting of up to $780 billion which will be used to pay
down the indebtedness of the federal and provincial governments. The
`equity' used is a 30 year stream of tax revenues `bundled up' such that there
is sufficient present value to replace the indebtedness of the government. The
new instrument we shall call the Canadian Phoenix Trust. Shares in the
Canadian Phoenix Trust will be exchanged for current government
indebtedness on a dollar for dollar basis. It is therefore a replacement of the
existing debt with equity, as no `new' capital is required for its success.
(1230 )
Here are the details of the proposal. The federal and
provincial governments sell the rights to a future stream of tax
revenue to a tax free trust, the stream being large enough to
create a present value of up to $780 billion, the total of all direct
government federal and provincial indebtedness. Units of the
trust would be swapped for existing debt obligations.
Using a 3.5 per cent nominal growth rate in gross domestic
product and a 4.5 per cent tax free discount rate, it would require
about 4.2 per cent of gross domestic product annually over 30
years to service and retire the $780 billion of equity so created.
The moneys would come from existing tax revenues.
The cost of servicing current and provincial debts is about $60
billion annually and rising. As a result there would be an
immediate saving of roughly 50 per cent in debt service costs.
The moneys paid not only cover service costs but also amortize
the full amount of the debt.
Like a mortgage, the blended annual payments of dividends
and principal are paid every year, and trust income is a flat 4.2
per cent of Canadian gross domestic product for 30 years, the
annual amounts growing in direct relation to the growth of GDP.
Two questions arise immediately. If such a scheme worked,
what would be its advantage? Of course, most importantly,
would such a scheme work?
First the advantages. Economists have calculated that the
current high levels of Canadian government indebtedness
constitute an enormous drag on the Canadian economy by
crowding out private sector borrowers. These economists
estimate Canada's gross domestic product would be between
$110 billion and $140 billion greater per year without the debt.
Eliminating government debt would permanently lower
Canada's interest rates, thereby improving the climate for
innovation, investment and long-term growth.
With the government reducing costs of servicing the debt by
50 per cent, coupled with the existing budgetary measures
proposed in February, Canada's federal deficit would be
eliminated in two years, not simply reduced to 3 per cent of
gross domestic product. The combination of stronger economic
growth and future budgetary surpluses would allow
governments to lower tax rates, thereby encouraging even
stronger economic growth. The Phoenix solution would create a
virtuous economic circle indeed.
The biggest question, of course, is can such a scheme work?
More precisely, will investors buy? Why would investors swap
their holdings of government bonds for Phoenix Trust units on a
sufficient scale to make it worthwhile? In the words of Ross
Healy and his associate, Enrico Sgromo: ``Investors will swap if
they feel that the Phoenix Trust units represent a good
investment and the current Government of Canada bonds
represent increasing risk because of the financial crises that the
government finds itself in''. Well, given the last and recent
gloomy conversations with Moody's, at least the latter half of
this proposition seems reasonable.
The major attraction for foreign investors in the short term is
the very positive impact on the Canadian dollar, which would
gain value immediately. Over the long term the participation in a
growing economy with low interest rates would offer both
foreign and Canadian investors the opportunity for major capital
gains. The beauty of the Phoenix solution is that the better
Canada does economically, the better investors do financially.
When we succeed, they succeed.
11593
I have only sketched the outline of a concept that has been
more fully elaborated elsewhere. My purpose is to test a new
idea and ask for constructive responses from my parliamentary
colleagues and indeed from citizens who may be watching this
program.
I do not claim that the Phoenix solution is perfect, only that it
is better than all other solutions I have heard proposed to date for
solving our debt crisis.
In the end it will be up to members of the international
investment community to decide whether they are interested in
exploring a new investment vehicle. Over the years that
financial community has shown a remarkable capacity for
innovation, sometimes to their cost, as Barings Bank recently
discovered. But I suspect that the prospect of charging even a
modest commission on the conversion of $780 billion from debt
to equity might intrigue even the most jaded spirits on Bay
Street and on Wall Street.
(1235)
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill
C-76 which proposes to implement certain provisions of the
federal budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in February.
Unfortunately, this bill confirms what the official opposition
suspected when the budget was tabled. And how does it confirm
these suspicions?
Since the Liberal government cannot go on adding to the debt,
it has decided to reduce the federal deficit by offloading the
deficit to the provinces. Our Liberal big brother suddenly turned
into an unwilling partner, a most unwilling partner, who decided
unilaterally to reduce transfer payments to the provinces by
more than $7 billion over the next three years.
These cuts will not take effect until 1996, to maintain the
illusion that federalism pays, especially for Quebec. An illusion
that will be particularly useful during the referendum campaign.
But the official opposition is keeping a close watch. This
camouflage operation is despicable. Starting in 1996, Quebec
stands to lose more than $700 million, and in 1997, more than $1
billion. This is intolerable.
What we have here is an irresponsible government that is
trying to make the provinces take care of a situation the
government created. The provinces are stuck with the bill, but
they are not being given new powers. Only the federal debt is
being decentralized, not government.
In the social sector, the long-awaited transfer of jurisdiction
did not take place. Appearances to the contrary, the federal
government insists on interfering in areas over which the
provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. It withdraws but refuses
to allocate an equivalent share of tax points to the provinces. Is
this the much vaunted flexible federalism?
What is so flexible about letting one's so-called partners in
this wonderful federation pay the bill, while imposing
increasingly restrictive national standards in several areas?
Section 48 of this bill confirms that in addition to national
standards for health care, there will be new standards for social
assistance and post-secondary education. And provinces that do
not play by the rules will see their funding cut.
The federal government's response is that these standards will
not come into force before a consensus is reached among the
provinces. Then why this attempt to introduce so-called
national standards before there have been negotiations between
the parties?
I will not dwell on the fact that the provinces were ordered to
mention the Canada Social Transfer in all advertising and
documentation referring to health care services offered by the
provinces. Flexible federalism is dead in the water, long live
imperial federalism.
But the empire is crumbling under its tax burden. In spite of
cuts in social programs and transfer payments, the federal giant
will need even more money to survive during the next three
years.
The Canadian government's revenues will increase from $125
billion in 1994-95 to $137.4 billion in 1996-97. Taxes will
increase by more than $3.5 billion over a period of three years.
In fact, we will be paying more for less.
Need I remind the House that since 1980, the ratio of
government revenues to GDP has increased by 18 per cent?
Since the 1980 referendum in Quebec, taxes in Canada have
increased at twice the average rate for G-7 countries.
It is shocking to see that as it prepares to cut payments to the
provinces and increase taxes, this government refuses to do
anything to stop duplication and the outrageous waste of public
funds.
(1240)
Where are the real measures to eliminate waste and overlap
between levels of government? The answer is obvious. With the
federal system, there will always be two departments of the
environment, two departments of health and two departments of
justice. By nature, the federal system extends its grasp ever
further. The negative effects of the federal budget, renewed in
Bill C-76, will hit all the provinces hard, particularly Quebec.
According to a recent study by Wood Gundy the expenditure
control plan proposed by the federal government to reduce
transfer payments to the provinces and the many changes over
the past decade to established programs financing have
increased provincial deficits.
11594
The Government of Quebec has estimated that the cumulative
effect of these measures from 1982 to 1994 meant a shortfall for
it of $14.3 billion. The federal government's latest budget
confirms that this trend will increase.
Federal money transfers in fact represent an increasingly
smaller portion of Quebec's revenues. I will give you just one
example. In 1983, federal transfers represented almost 29 per
cent of Quebec's revenues. In 1994, they represented 20 per
cent.
Wood Gundy believes that the cost of the federal
government's withdrawal from established programs financing
alone, responsible for 28 per cent of provincial deficits in
1993-94, will grow to 60 per cent of them in 1996-97.
February's budget simply announced a worsening of the
situation.
On the other hand, needs in the areas of post-secondary
education and health care are on the rise. The provincial
governments are faced with an existential dilemma: cut services
or increase their deficit.
The official opposition has no choice but to criticize the
government's lack of vision in reducing the deficit accumulated
over the years. The government should have put its energies into
eliminating useless duplication and overlapping jurisdictions
with the provinces.
It should have trimmed the fat off its still cumbersome and
ever costly structure. The Liberal government could have cut
nearly $3 billion more over three years at the Department of
National Defence alone. It failed to do so.
If it had gotten out of areas of provincial jurisdiction, in
exchange for equivalent compensation in the form of tax point
transfers, it would have created significant savings for both
itself and the provinces. It would have meant savings for the
federal government of nearly $3 billion in health care,
professional training, post-secondary education and all
programs relating to human resources development.
If the federal government withdrew from these areas of
jurisdication, the Government of Quebec could, among other
things, establish a real job creation strategy by tailoring human
resources development and job training programs to key sectors
of the province's economy.
But the federal government's actions tell a different story. The
official opposition feels that this bill will actually impede job
creation, because, instead of withdrawing from labour and
education, which would permit the provinces to get to the heart
of the problem, the federal government's role in these areas is
actually reinforced by this bill.
As for Canada's tax system, the federal government still has
given no real indication that it was serious about thoroughly
revamping it. Some people still have the joy of exploiting tax
havens!
Quebecers will soon have to decide which path to take. On the
one hand, they have the option of taking their own matters in
hand, of being masters of their destiny by founding a country
they can call their own, and investing the imagination, creativity
and constant quest for excellence that they are well known for in
that country.
On the other, they have the option of remaining in a political
and economic system that distinctly refuses to acknowledge
their existence, of sticking with the status quo, which
undoubtedly will lead them nowhere as a people. A stale
political and economic regime crumbling under its own debt,
deficit and taxes, unable to guarantee its citizens an acceptable
standard of living. A political and economic regime which,
without a doubt, is doomed to failure.
(1245)
Sovereignty, admittedly, is not the miracle cure for all of
Quebec's woes, but it will give Quebecers the power to pull the
political and economic levers which will promote Quebec's
growth.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, why is the opposition, through its amendment,
asking the government to redo its homework? Because spending
cuts are often made in the wrong places or simply mishandled.
Let me give you an example. It was decided to eliminate
transportation subsidies in eastern Canada. It is understandable
that, after several years, this program had to be reviewed.
However, according to Transport Canada documents, the
transition fund that will replace these subsidies cannot be used
to help shippers or to invest in roads and other transportation
infrastructures on a cost-shared basis. There may be interesting
projects in the two options offered but what is important in the
region affected is to ensure that the money will be used to
achieve what should be the real objectives: to direct industrial
development and to ensure that the new industrial structure can
handle the challenges of the 21st century.
That is why the opposition is submitting a very constructive
proposal to the government. The opposition is proposing that
this fund-which amounts to $78 million in Quebec, $121
million in New Brunswick, and so on in the other Maritime
Provinces-be used not only for the road infrastructure but also
to establish a business assistance fund that will help develop the
second and third stage processing sector or simply help business
adjust to technological changes. It is important to invest in roads
but they are only one aspect of industrial development.
If we put all our eggs in the same basket, we will end up with a
road network that will have to be maintained over a certain
number of years. The government is experiencing difficulties
that do not augur well for the future but by investing in business,
by establishing a fund from which companies could borrow
money that they would have to repay later, the fund could last for
11595
5, 10, 15 or 20 years and have a permanent impact on economic
restructuring in eastern Canada, especially in eastern Quebec.
Suggestions like this lead us to call on the government to redo
its homework and take a few more months to work through the
bill aimed at making the changes needed to implement the
budget.
Let me give you another example of this type of situation. In
the next few months, we will see what I would call the
automation of Canada Employment Centres. It is rather
paradoxical that, next year, the so-called Human Resources
Development Department will be focusing in a major way on
replacing workers with machines. Computers will be made
available to the jobless in some places. I can clearly detect in
that the approach taken with seniors and voice boxes. But the
people who deal with unemployment centres may not know how
to work automated systems.
Citizens will be further removed from civil servants,
aggravating the problem of individuals becoming file numbers
and having a tendency to abuse the system. So, instead of
striving for realistic goals, this measure will be
counterproductive because machines are replacing people. The
human resources sector differs from the car manufacturing
sector in that robots can be used to build cars but, if you want to
help individuals find work and reenter the workforce, it is
essential that they establish good contacts in terms of
professional counselling and feel that the people they deal with
at the employment centre are able to help them with their
personal circumstances.
(1250)
As I recall, when I was touring with the committee on the
Axworthy reform, someone came to me with a proposal that I
think would have been much more appropriate than these
changes. What of it was now up to the users, the UI recipients, to
evaluate or assess the services they receive? Perhaps that, based
of the information provided by the users, the government would
abandon this reform, or at least make sure that the human
element is not removed, and plans for adding new technologies.
I would also like to list a few areas where we urge the
government to go back to the drawing board. It was decided to
reduce to nil-that is no small cut-funding for agencies
involved with public participation in and awareness of
international development. Every organization with a mandate
to make Quebecers and Canadians aware of the importance of
international co-operation will not be getting a penny more.
This was done in a very cavalier fashion. The organizations were
informed by phone and, in my riding, the CREECQ received
written confirmation after it had taken effect.
It is rather insulting and appalling for organizations dedicated
to ensuring that there is a future for co-operation. On the
downside of this decision is the fact that these organizations also
drew a parallel between poverty in our part of the world and in
the South. It made it clear that everything is interconnected and
that choices made in Northern countries create poverty in the
South. We often have the same attitude towards our
underprivileged as we do towards third world nations.
These organizations made sure people were aware of the
reality. Given the government's current tendency to copy the
American model, which entails the disintegration of the middle
class, it is easy to figure out that it wants to get rid of those who
question its social measures.
This appears to be a very bad decision which will result in
Quebecers and Canadians being less aware of the need to
provide international assistance.
I also want to mention the abolition of the Canadian Advisory
Council on the Status of Women. This is another example of an
unacceptable announcement. No ministerial statement was
made. It was during a debate that we were informed that the
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women would
disappear. This is another case of getting rid of those who
question the government's actions regarding those who are in
difficulty and who need a more flexible society.
The last example which I want to give relates to agriculture.
The subsidy for industrial milk is reduced by 30 per cent. This
means that either producers or consumers will be affected. And
which consumers will be most affected if the price of butter goes
up? It is those who have less disposable income. When the price
of a pound of butter goes up 10 or 15 cents, that increase is not
felt by those who earn $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, but it has a
direct impact on the budget of the poor, who have no choice but
to reduce their spending even more.
All this is to tell you that we kind of wonder why the reaction
to this budget is relatively positive in English-speaking
provinces, while it is negative in Quebec. The media gave us the
answer yesterday. Thanks to the federal system, Quebec is the
province with the highest proportion of poor in the country.
After 125 years, that finding alone would be enough to convince
me that we must change systems and have control over our
development as a whole. This is essential.
Whether in the context of an annual budget such as this one, or
in the context of a more fundamental decision, Quebecers have a
very different vision of development. This is why we want the
federal government to do its job properly, while we are still part
of that system. We are asking it to go back to the drawing board
and to reconsider a number of legislative provisions which will
have to be passed to implement this budget. We also hope that,
when the time comes for Quebecers to make their fundamental
decision, they will realize that a new system is essential for their
development and also to change things which can no longer be
tolerated in Quebec.
11596
(1255)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred until the end of Government Orders on Monday,
April 24, 1995 when the bells will be rung for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of
electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of
electoral boundaries, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 being debated today deals with the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
This bill would certainly improve the current situation. For
one thing, the provincial commissions will now have to hold
hearings before starting their work and will have to produce
three maps for every region covered, that is, three redistribution
proposals. If there is sufficient public demand, the commissions
will have to hold new hearings. We must admit that the process
has been improved compared to the current situation.
The bill also requires the commissions to consider certain
elements in setting satisfactory electoral boundaries. Clause
19(b) of the bill outlines the criteria to be considered: first,
community of interest; second, a manageable geographic size
for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of
the province, and; third, the probability that there will be a
substantial increase in the population of an electoral district in
the province in the next five years.
Finally, clause 19(c) stipulates that the commission shall
recommend changes to existing electoral district boundaries
only where the factors considered above are sufficiently
significant to warrant such a recommendation.
It is interesting to note that the first criterion refers to
community of interest. However, another provision of the bill
specifies that an electoral district cannot vary by more than 25
per cent from the provincial quota. For example, if the electoral
quota for Quebec is 100,000 voters, the commission can
establish ridings that have between 75,000 and 125,000 voters.
The commission can agree that there is a community of
interest but that the number of voters does not meet standards.
(1300)
Take, for instance, the riding of
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine which is now below the
provincial quota but has a vast territory.
The bill does, however, provide that under certain
circumstances, the commissions are not obliged to apply the
25-per cent rule. However, these circumstances are so
restrictive that one wonders in what cases they would actually
apply.
In accordance with subsection 19(3), a commission may
depart from the 25 per cent rule if an electoral district or
territory is geographically isolated from the rest of the province
or is not readily accessible from the rest of the province.
What does geographically isolated mean? Who is going to
define this? The provincial commission? The courts? The bill
gives no indication. To get back to the case of the Magdalen
Islands, they are, of course, geographically isolated. Should the
population rule apply? Residents had their own federal electoral
district until 1968, and to this day, Quebec law has guaranteed
them their own provincial riding. With all due respect for the
work being done by the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, we think it would make
very good sense for the Magdalen Islands, located in the middle
of the ocean, 210 kilometres from the Gaspé coast, to have a
member exclusively for the islands.
It will therefore be up to the residents to make a case that the
islands are geographically isolated. That should not be difficult.
Complying with this initial rule should not be a problem.
Subsequently, they will have to show that the population of the
islands would justify establishing a new riding. Of course, this
11597
would have certain consequences. If the Magdalen Islands are
entitled to have their own member, the riding of Bonaventure
will lose the constituency that would form the new riding on the
islands. So there is still a problem for the Gaspé peninsula.
What happens to the ridings of Gaspé, Matapédia-Matane,
Rimouski-Témiscouata and Bonaventure? What about them?
Does subsection 19(3) provide a way to deal with the problem of
the Gaspé peninsula? Unfortunately, the subsection is not
sufficiently detailed. The Gaspé peninsula is a region with a
decreasing population, where members must cover considerable
territory. They must deal with problems that do not exist, or at
least not in the same way, in the more central areas of the
country or province represented. Members are concerned about
representation in the Gaspé peninsula.
Subsection 19(3) is far too restrictive to be acceptable to us.
We had suggested maintaining in the bill before the House today
the rules now in effect. What are these rules?
At the present time, a provincial commission may depart from
the 25-per cent rule in any case where any special community or
diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the
province appears to render such a departure necessary or
desirable. So in fact, provincial commissions have far more
leeway when they have to deal with specific cases. They have far
more flexibility than they have under this bill.
So a region, like the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé or the
Islands, would have benefitted more under current legislation
than they will under the extremely restrictive legislation they
want us to adopt today.
Clause 19 is for the official opposition a major reason for not
supporting this bill.
Clause 16 is unacceptable as well, both for what it says and for
what it does not say. Its silence speaks volumes. The
government is turning a deaf ear to the traditional request by
Quebecers and their successive governments for minimum
representation in the House of Commons, as enjoyed by some of
the Atlantic provinces.
Representation of the Atlantic provinces is guaranteed, as you
know, by the senatorial clause which dates back to 1915. We
have no argument with this provision.
(1305)
It enables Prince Edward Island, with a population of
120,000, to have four members in this House, because the
senatorial provision specifies that a province may not have
fewer representatives in the House of Commons than it has in
the Senate. Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four seats in the
Senate. The same rule applies to New Brunswick. It has a
guarantee of ten seats in the Senate.
Although its population does not warrant its having ten seats
in the House, New Brunswick is entitled to ten seats. We have no
problem with that. The Terms of Union of Newfoundland with
Canada of 1949 also covered this point and could be used to
guarantee proper representation of Newfoundland in both the
House of Commons and the Senate. This is just what it did; it
guaranteed Newfoundland six seats in the Senate.
If we accept the senatorial clause that guarantees are to be
given to Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland,
why is there such an impediment to giving guarantees to Quebec
on the subject of minimum representation?
Quebec is one of the two founding nations of this country. The
collective memory of Quebecers has not forgotten that, in 1867,
we were one of the two founding peoples. Allow me to remind
you that on June 30, 1867, on the eve of the day the British North
America Act was to come into force, Quebec, then called Lower
Canada, had 65 of the 130 seats in the Parliament of the Province
of Canada, that is half the seats, 50 per cent of the members.
Through its representatives, that is to say those elected to
represent us, Quebec accepted at the time of the British North
America Act to be limited to 65 seats out of 181 in the
Parliament of Canada. This was the agreement reached by the
Fathers of Confederation which was to come into force on July
1, 1867.
There was no referendum at the time. There was no
consultation of the people of Quebec before the decision was
made. It is also important to note that women were not
consulted, since they did not have the right to vote at that time.
There was no constitutional provision for a minimum
representation for Quebec. The only guarantee we got was that
Quebec would have 65 seats, although it did not say out of how
many. On that point, there was nothing in the act.
Then, with the expansion of the Canadian territory and the
inclusion of new provinces in the Confederation, the proportion
of seats held by Quebec in the House of Commons constantly
diminished until, in the last few decades, it stabilized at
somewhere slightly above 25 per cent. Clearly the Fathers of
Confederation erred when they failed to include a clause
guaranteeing Quebec a minimum representation and, at that
time, it should have been 50 per cent.
It is rather difficult to rewrite history and to claim 50 per cent
today. What we are asking for is a guarantee of at least 25 per
cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Should Quebec
participate in the elections for the thirty-sixth Parliament, for
11598
the first time in its history, its representation would fall below
25 per cent, since it would have only 75 seats out of 301.
This explains our proposal which, basically, is the same as the
Liberal proposal of 1992, when they were in opposition. Let us
see what the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and
present Minister of Foreign Affairs was saying at the time. He
was happy to seek for Quebec a guarantee of at least 25 per cent
of the seats, saying that it would be a major gain for Quebec.
Yet, none of the Liberal members who were in this House in
1992 and are still here today supported our motion for a
minimum of 25 per cent. How is it that these members changed
their minds in so short a time? Why do they refuse Quebec
something which is really minimal? Why do they refuse to make
a move in the right direction? Why do they refuse a simple
overture to Quebec? Why do they refuse a small sign of
attachment to Quebec?
(1310)
Why is this government refusing to show that it cares about
Quebec, that it wants it to remain in Canada? Canada has no
interest in having Quebec under-represented or diminished in
the House of Commons. Quebec must keep its representation
because it is a nation. It is one of the founding peoples. As a
founding nation, francophones occupied all of Canada and went
even a little farther, since our territory went as far as Louisiana.
It goes without saying that this request from Quebec must be
supported since the large majority of Quebec members in this
House voted in favour of guaranteeing Quebec a 25 per cent
minimum representation. Daniel Johnson, Leader of the Official
Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly, presented the
following motion: ``That the National Assembly of Quebec
reiterate the goal of maintaining a representation of at least 25
per cent for Quebec in the House of Commons of Canada and
request the Government of Quebec to make representations to
that effect''.
Thus we know that there is a large consensus in Quebec, going
beyond party lines, to claim this minimum guarantee of 25 per
cent. When we see the Progressive Conservative Party, the
official opposition that is the Bloc Quebecois, and the
independent member for Beauce support such a motion to
include in Bill C-69 a guarantee of a 25 per cent representation,
it is obvious that this issue achieves a large consensus in
Quebec.
Needless to say that Senator Rivest also supported this
provision. Even the governments of Quebec which requested
that such a provision be included in our legislation have given it
their unwavering support, and as far as I know, the current
government had never retracted what had previously been
agreed to.
How strange it is indeed to see the government finally recant
on something that it supported in September 1992. This
government reneged on what our Canadian partners had
unanimously accepted. Of course, it was in the context of the
Charlottetown accord. But should Quebec be punished because
the rest of Canada decided that this accord was not to their
advantage?
You will therefore concede that the bill before us today for
third reading is incomplete. Especially when it comes to the
criteria used to determine whether there can be a departure from
the boundaries of a riding or those used to designate special
ridings. It is also incomplete because it fails to deal with the
issue of the representation of one of the country's two founding
peoples. The vote on the amendment proposed by the official
opposition demonstrates without a doubt that the federal
government's failure to guarantee in this bill fair representation
in this House for Quebec was not an innocent oversight: it was
deliberate.
Would Canadians have been against the government finally
recognizing Quebec's distinct society status, status as a
founding people, as a nation on which this country was built? I
am convinced the answer is no. This is the smallest request
Quebec has made over the past 50 years.
I would be helpful to go back to the beginning and to
remember that Canada's history all started with the arrival of
Jacques Cartier in Gaspé, in 1534. Then comes the founding of
Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain in 1608; the founding of
Trois-Rivières and Montreal in the decades that followed and
afterwards, the establishment of the first public government in
New France, as Canada was called then.
Our first public institutions were created in 1663, when the
King of France established the Sovereign Council of New
France. We slowly stopped being French, became Canadians,
then French Canadians and, ultimately, Quebecers.
Meanwhile, in 1774, the Quebec Act restored civil law in
Quebec and allowed us to have an unelected legislative council.
They were afraid to give francophones, who were so peaceful,
democratic institutions, institutions to which Quebecers could
elect their own representatives. And yet, Quebecers, Canadians
of the time, had shown great pacifism and open-mindedness.
Finally, in 1791, thanks to the Constitutional Act, we were
granted the right to elect our own representatives to our very
first national assembly, in Quebec City. In 1791, we gained
partial control over our institutions. Things went fairly fast after
that, except that Canada was divided into Upper and Lower
Canada. The assembly elected by Lower Canada has no
extraterritorial power and cannot legislate on matters
concerning Upper Canada and vice versa.
(1315)
In 1867, the institutions we still have today were created. It
may seem somewhat paradoxical for a sovereignist to rise in this
House to ask for a 25 per cent representation. We have not left
yet. We are still part of Canada. It is our duty and our
responsibility, in accordance with our commitment to defend
Quebec's
11599
interests, to ask all parliamentarians in this House to grant us 25
per cent of the seats.
We were here first, we joined the union in 1840, we decided to
live together. You will lose nothing in giving us 25 per cent of
the seats. It would be a nice gesture toward a nation, a people
you claim you want to keep within your ranks. It seems to me
that if the government wants to give an obvious sign of its love
for Quebec and is serious about keeping us in Canada, it must
guarantee us a 25 per cent representation.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had
a question on the Order Paper for 348 days now and I am starting
to wonder if I will have to wait-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is quite entitled to
raise that point, but he should raise it at a different time. Since
the hon. member will not get a response at this time, I would ask
him to raise that point the next time Questions on the Order
Paper are discussed in the House.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak on the electoral boundaries issue
because it relates to representation by population and, more
importantly, to responsible government.
I would like to point out that the House of Commons is built
on the principle of representation by population. This great
country of Canada came to be not by chance, but rather by strong
convictions that all people could work together for the
betterment of all. Perhaps it was the right man in the right
position in the 1850s and 1860s, or perhaps it was a strong
determination that a dream of federalism could work, but I know
that compromise played an important role in the final decision.
To make responsible government work in the 1850s, before
Confederation, it took a lot of people working together, in
particular the compromise for trade by George Brown, a man
who put his country before himself when he proposed the great
coalition in 1864.
My hon. friend from Chambly spoke the other day of the
French influence and what he felt was a lack of support by
Reform members of this House for the French cause or French
history. I want to assure my friend that Reformers are not so
ignorant as to deny the history of their own country, nor to be
unaware of those who shaped it from its beginnings.
To be honest, I would first have to acknowledge our aboriginal
people, whose beginnings we can trace well back to before
Christ. On the west coast of Canada the use of cedar gives us
many of our time clues. We can actually trace cedar growing on
the west coast of B.C. to at least 3500 B.C.
Later, as Europeans came to our country's shores, they
claimed the land as theirs. Does that not seem odd? So many
others were already in occupation of this land. True, the first
European settlements were French settlements, after Cartier's
visits of 1534 and 1535. Those settlements were along the coast
of Nova Scotia. In the 1604-05 settlements there was severe
hardship. The hardship was due to very cold winters, the lack of
fresh water, and sickness. Those settlements did not remain at
that time.
Later came settlement in Quebec in 1608, as my colleagues
from the Bloc have stated. That, of course, was Champlain's
settlement in Quebec. As I recall, Champlain was very
concerned about those in his small settlement. He wondered how
to keep the morale up. His order of good cheer was to increase
the morale and bring some relief and entertainment to those
inhabitants who were so far from home. It is interesting to
remember that many years later, Voltaire referred to New France
as those few acres of snow.
(1320 )
Meanwhile, some French settlers had returned to the Acadian
shores, and by 1613 these Acadians, peaceful farmers who tilled
and looked after the land, really bothered no one. Yet that did not
prevent the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755. Of course, they
did not swear allegiance to the British crown. When they were
expelled from Grand Pré, it was an injustice; it was cruel.
Does it matter now that the English at the time feared the
unrest to the south in the 13 colonies, which they thought was
about to explode because they knew the Americans in the 1760s
protested against the unjust taxation by the English? I think they
called them the ``intolerable acts''. We are all aware of the
Boston Tea Party. Well, does it matter now? I do not think so.
Reformers are also aware of Longfellow's epic poem,
``Evangeline'', the immortalized young Acadian woman who
spent her life in search of her lost love, only to find him as he lay
dying. Let me assure the Bloc, it is part of our tragic history as
well.
I watched the Anne Murray show last Friday night, dedicated
to the fine music and musicians of Nova Scotia. She spoke with
pride of her Acadian ancestry.
What of the 30 years following 1755? Many English, later
nicknamed loyalists, fled to the 13 colonies, often to escape
being tarred and feathered-peaceful, law-abiding citizens-all
because they wanted to remain obedient to the English crown. Is
that not odd? A few years earlier cruelties had taken place
because Acadians did not want to swear allegiance to the British
crown. Wrongs on both sides.
11600
Many fled persecution by the Americans with only the clothes
on their backs. They trekked for miles through unknown forests,
hostile Indian lands, the same as the Acadians. So many came
here in those years that in 1784 the colony of New Brunswick
was created.
We in this House are well aware that we are talking about over
100,000 loyalists. They came to all parts of Canada, to Nova
Scotia and Quebec-so many came to Quebec that Upper
Canada was created-to P.E.I., to areas of Newfoundland.
By 1791 the Constitution Act became a reality. The Quebec
colony split into Upper and Lower Canada. Upper Canada
contained many of the loyalists. The Constitution Act created
elected assemblies with limited powers. Here again, we have
England in control, so concerned dare she give much authority
to these colonies. She has just seen what happened far to the
south. At least she thought that was the lesson she should take
from all of this. Was she wrong? I think history proves that she
was.
To go back, following the downfall of New France in 1759 and
1760 with Montreal's capitulation, decisions had to be made.
The first two governors, following military rule from 1760 to
1763, were Murray and Carleton. Both these governors tried to
protect the Canadien way of life: Catholic religion, French civil
law, the language, the culture; English criminal law, though.
Hesitation came when Murray did not introduce the elected
assembly. Why did he not introduce the elected assembly? He
had a minority of English people in Montreal scrambling for it.
He was under constant attack. Why did he not do it? He was
trying to protect the majority of French Canadians who at that
time could not be elected to serve. Murray did not introduce it
and the rest is history.
Due to our diverse history our country has many tragedies.
Perhaps there are those who feel they should be divided into
nationalities. I do not. These are the tragedies of our country.
They are our tragedies.
To my friend from Chambly, I acknowledge that there was a
British-French rivalry in the 1600s and 1700s. Of course there
was. The wars continued at that time. Each nation wanted to
control the rich resources of North America. What were those
rich resources? The cod fishing grounds of Newfoundland and
Acadia, the fur trade of the St. Lawrence. But where are they
now? The cod are gone. Do we blame each other?
Does it matter that in the last 20 years our Liberal and
Conservative governments did not care for this vast resource
wisely? In the fur trade, the animals pushed further and further
into the remaining forests and hinterlands.
Have we kept the mighty St. Lawrence free from pollution?
Are the Belugas not being slowly poisoned? What about the
Beluga who pushed her baby toward a boat so scientists could
see her baby's open sores? The scientists in that documentary
honestly felt that the Beluga wanted them to see that. Do the
animals know what we are doing?
(1325 )
The Bloc is arguing for a 25 per cent guarantee. When the city
of Quebec fell in 1759 to the British General Wolfe and later
when Montreal fell in 1760, New France as it had been was gone.
Under the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the proclamation promised
protection for the Canadian way of life, including its traditional
laws and the Roman Catholic religion. That does not mean we
destroy representation by population.
However, I would like to assure the member for Chambly that
Reformers do not think Canadian history began with Reformers,
but rather we are very much aware of the contribution made by
the early French settlers. Representation by population, won by
the population, fairness for all, equality for all-that is where
we are coming from.
However, if we are talking about Reformers, which Reformers
was my hon. friend referring to? The 1800s or the 1900s? I see
my friend over there is laughing again. This always gets a laugh
from him. Well, if he will listen for a little while, I will see if I
can get him to be serious for a moment.
In the 1800s in Upper Canada we had Bidwell, Ryerson,
Mackenzie and Baldwin. Why? We had the hated family
compact, a small group of English gentry, for want of a better
word, who wanted to keep the control in their own hands. The
truth was the majority of Upper Canada's inhabitants were very
poor. Immigrants were encouraged to come to Canada in the
great migration.
I want to share briefly with the House an article I read many,
many times to my students, just to put them in the picture, not of
the French Canadians' plight but in this case the Europeans'
plight when they came to Canada in 1815.
``Most immigrants who came to Canada during the great
migration were very poor, but they could get cheap
transportation to Canada. Passage to Montreal or Quebec by
sailing ship in the 1820s was seven pounds, about two month's
wages for a farm labourer, with meals included. Children
travelled for half fare. These immigrants faced extreme
hardships, both on board ship and in the colonies to which they
travelled. Sicknesses such as cholera were common aboard ship.
Tens of thousands died on their way to North America. The
survivors faced great problems as they tried to find work or to
clear the land for pioneer farms.''
11601
The following description of a plight of an immigrant family
living in a cave in Upper Canada was written in 1821.
``The mother, who continued to shed tears, told me that she
and her family were Irish immigrants. They had been induced by
a series of misfortunes to set sail for Canada, with the intention
of obtaining land, and had, after many difficulties, got thus far in
their voyage. But, being now destitute of money, they were
unable to procure a lodging and knew not where to apply for
work, assistance or information. `A husband and these two
boys', said the woman, `are all who remain to me. My little girl
died on the ship and they threw her into the sea. Aye, sure, that
was the worst of all', continued she in an agony of grief, `poor
babe, she had neither prayers nor a wake'.''
We do not often hear these stories, but let me remind the
House that there are many of them. As a teacher for 30 years, I
have books full of them.
Often, after years of working the land, instead of the promised
land deeds, these new Canadians received a bill for the total
price of the land and of course they did not have the money. The
promises that were made to them were all lies, and many of them
lost their land. They were promised roads, schools and help that
never materialized.
Who were those first Reformers? They were the new Upper
Canadians, who were lied to and could see no way of changing or
of change coming under the existing system. Hardships? Oh yes.
So we had moderate and radical Reformers from 1824 to
1837. I choose those years because that is when it seemed to rise
to a crescendo.
Finally, when peaceful constitutional means did not bring
relief or results, William Lyon Mackenzie King became a
radical Reformer. How many times was he elected to the
legislative assembly? How many times did Bond Head throw
him out? He was re-elected again. Frustration? I guess he was
frustrated.
We are talking here about fair representation; the result, the
rebellion of 1837. What am I saying? Rebellion did not just
happen; it took many years of injustices created by a few at the
top who tried to control others. Reformers came about because
of necessity. Necessity is the mother of invention.
I am well aware that the rebellion in Lower Canada happened
again because of oppression by a small group in control. In this
case again, English Governor Sir Francis Bond Head, in my
opinion, should never have been in the position of power he was
in. In history we often find people who are in positions they
should never be in. He appointed who he wanted to be his
executive and legal counsellors.
In Upper Canada the Anglican Church dominated the scene.
John Strachan, of course, the first Anglican Bishop of Toronto,
wore many hats.
How did the family compact get its name? Well, they
inter-married, many of them, and gave jobs to friends and
relatives. I think we call it patronage, do we not? Is it happening
again today?
(1330)
We are talking here of a privileged class of judges and
magistrates, again family compact connections in a colonial
society, all leaders of Upper Canada, members of the dreaded
family compact and in Lower Canada the Chateau Clique, the
same composition appointed by one governor, Bond Head. He
chose his executive and legislative council from a group of
British merchants. The mandate, what was it in Lower Canada?
It appeared to be to force the Canadian population to adopt the
British way of life.
Louis Papineau emerged as a brilliant orator of the reform
movement in Lower Canada. The frustrations of the Canadiens
were rooted in both of the following: a cultural division between
the French and English in Lower Canada; and the undemocratic
nature of the colonial government. Power was abused. There is
the saying: Absolute power corrupts; power corrupts absolutely.
That is certainly true.
Last night I briefly watched part of a documentary on J. Edgar
Hoover. It was frightening. I think perhaps he epitomizes the
master of civil servant control and how dangerous it can be if it
gets out of hand. Why? It must be that the people who are elected
and can be removed, must be accountable.
What happened to Hoover? We saw people who lost their
lives. Was it justified that they lost their lives? We saw a
president killed. Who killed him? We saw some terrible things
happen and all because power was not placed properly.
Wrongs have happened in our country's history. Reformers
arose in the 1800s out of necessity. In Upper and Lower Canada
again Ryerson, Bidwell, Mackenzie, Papineau, Baldwin, La
Fontaine were all reformers. On the east lawn there are statues
of two reformers: La Fontaine and Baldwin. My friend from
Chambly, these reformers were good men. They were all good
men. Unfortunately when people want change and nothing
happens they become frustrated. Rebellions happen.
What happened to these reformers? Some in positions of
power referred to them as Yankee loving traitors. Does it sound
familiar? How often have we heard this in this House?
Reformers try to talk about reforming health care. We try to talk
about serious things that need to change and are going to have to
change if we retain them. Yet we get accused of being American,
of trying to force American doctrines in this House. I am really
11602
sorry to see debate reduced to these attacks and
misrepresentations. Usually it is to avoid answering a question.
Responsible government. Baldwin and La Fontaine worked
hard for it. How important was it to address the rights of fair
representation, the rights for responsible government? Finally
England faced its responsibilities. When a rebellion happens
you have to see the writing on the wall.
Unfortunately though the colonial secretary, Lord John
Russell, was in no way committed to responsible government. It
was totally unacceptable to him. Although both rebellions
failed, they succeeded. They succeeded because Britain became
alarmed. Sixty years earlier it had lost its 13 colonies. Someone
saw sense.
Lord Durham was sent to Canada. He was nicknamed Radical
Jack, probably because he was a powerful advocate for political
reform in the 1830s in England. He was instrumental in getting
votes on the secret ballot and was also instrumental in getting
the vote for all men. I believe he was probably chosen because of
this. He certainly was a man who would look at the other side of
things. He was a sick man; he was a dying man when he came to
Canada.
Durham's appointment was seen as a welcome change on both
sides of the Atlantic by those wishing for political change. He
arrived in 1838. He was not well, as I said, but he was
determined to do his duty.
Responsible government was suggested to Lord Durham, the
new Governor General, by Robert Baldwin, a reformer for all of
the six British colonies remaining in eastern North America:
Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
P.E.I. and Newfoundland.
Many similarities existed in the injustices in all six, injustices
which led to the American revolution. Robert Baldwin was a
moderate reformer. His proposal for responsible government
appealed to Lord Durham. It was similar to Britain's form of
government.
After the rebellion, Durham had to deal with political
prisoners. His leniency toward the rebels, especially in Lower
Canada angered the English minority in Montreal. Because of
the constant antagonism against him, after five months he
resigned and went back to Britain. He still wrote the Durham
report and the result of that, as we know, was the Act of Union in
1840.
(1335 )
Favouring responsible government, the reaction in the
Canadas for this favour it was now going to receive in Upper
Canada was pretty positive. The Reformers knew political
leaders were to emerge, like Francis Hincks who had been a
newspaper man with the Toronto Examiner, and the Baldwins
again, the people who had waited years for change. In Lower
Canada, Étienne Parent and Louis La Fontaine were also anxious
to see these changes.
Lord Elgin was actually going to be the man who was
instrumental in putting responsible government forward. He
was actually the son-in-law of Lord Durham. He was married to
Mary, Lord Durham's daughter. When he came the instrument
was going to be the rebellion losses bill to make amends to those
people who had lost valuable property.
We know what happened. We received responsible
government. Lord Elgin listened to the people. He gave royal
assent. In 1848, Nova Scotia had it because the Reform
government was in power. In 1849, New Brunswick and the
Canadas had it. In 1851, P.E.I. had it and Newfoundland had it in
1855.
What about the native people in Canada? What about the
genocide committed on the Beothuk Nation in Newfoundland?
We have made so many errors. What about the Japanese? During
the war maybe we had to have security restraints but we did not
have to give away all their property.
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if there would be unanimous
consent to give the member a few more minutes to finish her
talk?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you. What of our errors in the way we
treated our Japanese Canadians? They had a lot of valuable real
estate, especially in British Columbia, which ended up in the
hands of a lot of suspect people. I did not like what happened in
British Columbia. It was wrong.
We have a lot to be ashamed of, but it is all of our shame. It is
our history. It is us. We have to be equal. We have to care
together. To remove and sell off people's possessions is wrong.
Should we visit the sins of the fathers on the sons? I think not.
In my classroom we would often say: ``Yesterday was another
time; tomorrow is the first day of the rest of my life''. That is
where we should be going in Canada today. We had two mothers
in Ireland, one Protestant, one Catholic, who tried to go for
peace, who also used that idea. We have to make it a better
world.
Any electoral changes must be to protect all Canadians
equally, as equally as our Constitution at present will allow. I
hope my friend from Chambly will concede that Reformers
know their history. Perhaps it is with a little different emphasis,
but I hope I respect all cultures in our country: no special
privileges, no special interest groups, all of us working together
in a federal union.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment and a question. We are currently debating the motion
that Quebec should keep at least 25 per cent of the seats in this
House.
11603
I listened carefully to my colleague. After going over 200 to
300 years of history, she said we should forget all that. But she
did not mention the events that have occurred in the last 20
years.
I would like to remind her of the reasons why Quebec is so
distrustful and why it is asking for this protection. As recently as
1980, the federal government defeated the Yes side in the
Quebec referendum after spending hundreds of millions of
dollars. In 1971, for instance-why was it not
mentioned?-Parliament passed the Official Languages Act,
which since then has become the perfect instrument of
assimilation.
(1340)
In 1970, the Canadian government invoked the War Measures
Act in the middle of the night in order to send in the army and
stifle the separatist, the sovereignist movement. They arrested
500 people without warrants. Do you think we will forget this
overnight? No way. One cannot forget those events.
More recently, there was Meech Lake. I will not spend too
much time on this, since a member of this House sitting across
the way, who was then a member of the Manitoba legislature,
prevented debate on this matter, thus killing the accord. No one
seemed to be sorry about the Meech Lake failure, except
Quebecers of course.
Today, the hon. member, who claims to be a good teacher,
would like to wipe the slate clean and forget about those events.
My question is this, Mr. Speaker: Do you think Quebecers can
trust this government to set the record straight regarding those
events?
[English]
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his comments.
First, his history professor feels very strongly, as does he,
about the pain people experience. I understand his pain. I do not
think it can be forgotten. I do not know if anyone could forget the
pain. I do not know if my father could forget everything he saw
in the four wars in which he fought. I do not know if my
grandmother could forget that she lost four sons, 17, 18 and 19
years old. I do not know if people can forget those things. I know
that we had better start looking at making a change. I know that
they are still trying to get reparation.
No one can say that our friends in Quebec have been
assimilated. I do not think that would ever happen. They are very
proud of their culture. They have done a wonderful job in
maintaining their culture. Every year in my classroom I had six
students who came from Quebec. It was a wonderful experience.
There is no danger of our friends in Quebec ever being
assimilated.
However, I am asking them to do something for all Canadians,
as well as for the people of Quebec. We are all one country. It is a
rich country. We can set an example for the world if we are
willing to work together. Please help us make that change.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I heard
him say, referring to the Loyalists, that: ``There were so many in
Quebec that Upper Canada had to be created-To be created out
of what exactly?''
Does this mean that we were confined to a smaller territory;
by ``we'', I mean francophones?
We are reminded of the massive influx of immigrants in 1815.
The hon. member from the Reform Party said: ``Those people
were lied at. They could see no chance, no change coming into
the system''. Have we not been seeing the same thing happen
over and over again for years.
She also said: ``Reformers arose in the 1800s out of
necessity''. Does this statement not also apply to the
sovereignists who have been pursuing their action for 30 years
already and perhaps more?
I would like to leave you with this thought and I would like the
thoughts of my hon. colleague from the Reform Party on this.
``History tends to keep repeating itself mainly because we do not
listen to it''. And that is a question I would like an answer to.
(1345 )
[English]
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would agree with the hon.
member, history does keep repeating itself.
What happened when the Loyalists came there? We know that
in the 1850s there were 400,000 people in Upper Canada. After
the division in Lower Canada there were about 150,000 English
compared to 450,000 French. When we look at that balance it is
a lot of people to govern.
In the wisdom of the people at that time, I would assume it
would only make sense to make a geographic division, the
Ottawa River being the dividing line. That is all I can give the
member in that answer.
Yes, there were reformers in Canada in the 1800s. The
member said that history keeps repeating itself. I must tell the
member that Upper and Lower Canada both had their reformers.
Lafontaine and Baldwin were both recognized by the Canadian
government. History keeps repeating itself. That is why there
are reformers today. If we do not pay attention to history, then
necessity comes again.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I must denounce Bill C-69, which, in my view, is a farce.
11604
The only purpose of this bill is to take away from Quebec its
vested rights as a founding nation. Allow me to explain.
It is essential that the historical number of members
representing Quebec be maintained. Needless to say that, in a
few months, after Quebec has become sovereign, the
Government of Canada will be free to do as it pleases. But for
the time being, we are still here and our job is to look after the
interests of the people of Quebec.
Obviously, the members opposite, the Liberal government,
have a short memory. I will try to connect them to reality by
stating a few historical facts.
Representation and the description of the electoral boundaries
are both calculated according to the rules provided in sections
51 and 51(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and sections 14 and
15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The federal legislation on the readjustment of electoral
boundaries established an electoral boundaries commission for
each province. These commissions are responsible for drawing a
new electoral map, in which the population of each electoral
district will correspond to the electoral quota for the province.
This quota is obtained by dividing the population of the province
by the number of members of the House of commons assigned to
the province.
There is a section of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act that I find fascinating, namely section 15, which states:
``Community of interest, or the specificity of an electoral
district in the province or the historical development thereof,
and a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely
populated, rural or northern regions of the province''.
Last year, when this commission came to Chicoutimi, changes
were proposed. Five of the seven municipalities in the riding of
Chicoutimi were to be assigned to the riding of Jonquière. The
problem with this change is well defined in the section I just
read.
(1350)
First, there is the community of interests. The municipalities
of the Lower Saguenay which would find themselves separated
have always had economic and social ties with La Baie, which is
another major centre of the riding of Chicoutimi. Indeed,
several services located in La Baie are provided to Lower
Saguenay residents, including the Canada employment centre
and the small business development centre.
Second, the area covered by a riding must be taken into
consideration. In order to have access to services in the riding of
Jonquière, residents of Ferland-Boileau-the municipality
closest to the one which was going to be included in the riding of
Jonquière-would have had to travel 45 kilometres. This is a
good example of what the Liberal government planned to do in
my riding last year.
I am convinced that this kind of nonsense would also have
occurred elsewhere than in the Saguenay region. It would be
interesting to check this out for the province as a whole.
However, given the decisions taken every day by this
government, there is no point in doing that. Indeed, the daily
actions of the Liberals speak for themselves, which is more than
enough.
A few days ago, the hon. member for Bellechasse pointed out
that the 1985 legislation on electoral representation was very
clear as regards the number of seats to be allocated to Quebec,
since it stated that, before any new distribution, the chief
returning officer had to ensure that Quebec would get 25 per cent
of the seats.
This is not the first time that Quebec gets taken. This
unfortunate reality is prevalent throughout the history of our
province, which is one of the two founding provinces of Canada.
I could mention the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which imposed
laws written in English, and which prescribed for public office
holders an oath administered under the Test Act, whereby they
gave up their Catholic faith and pledged loyalty to the British
Crown.
I can also think of the Quebec Act of 1774 and the
Constitutional Act of 1791. In a newspaper of the time, it was
said that Lower Canada was much too French to be anglicized by
English-speaking settlers. Referring to Lower Canada, it said:
``This colony is much too French. It must be degallicised. Since
Quebec has fallen, it is time for this province to become
English.'' We simply do not forget episodes like that.
Then came Confederation, which finalized a process which
had started with the Union Act of 1840. After Confederation,
French-Canadians thought they had a treaty between two
peoples, between two distinct societies, between the two
founding nations, but English-Canadians considered the treaty
mostly as a piece of legislation giving the English majority the
right to dominate the minority made up of French-Canadians.
And why not try to make them suffer, to use a fashionable
expression these days. With this bill, the government is trying to
remove our vested right, which is the right for Quebec to elect 25
per cent of the hon. members in this House.
(1355)
As I said earlier, as a matter of good conscience if not of
respect, this bill should not be used to penalize Quebec once
more. Have Quebec and Quebecers not suffered enough from
this domination? As far as I know, Quebecers still account for
more than 25 per cent of the Canadian population. So, do you not
think it is normal that at least 25 per cent of the members in this
House represent Quebec? What is the rest of Canada so afraid of
that it feels it has to try so hard to remove our most legitimate
right to fair representation?
11605
As I said, Quebec has the legitimate and historical right to
preserve a minimal political weight within the Canadian
federation, even more so since we are not getting our fair share
of federal transfers to provinces, whether it is for defence, for
research and development or especially, as everyone knows, for
job creation. Now Quebec could have its representation in the
Canadian Parliament reduced.
Where was the Prime Minister, where was the hon. member
for Papineau-Saint-Michel, where was the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, three outstanding
Quebec citizens, when on a vote on March 28 the House rejected
a motion put forward by my colleague from Bellechasse, which
would have protected, once and for all, Quebec's political
weight within this federation? They were away from the House
at a time when they should have been here to vote with us on this
issue.
The Speaker: My colleague, usually we refrain from
referring to the fact that an hon. member is in the House or not.
The hon. member may wish to rephrase his statement after
question period.
It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
11605
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I extend congratulations to
Measha Gosman on winning the YTV Young Achievers Award
for 1995 in the vocal category.
Measha is a grade 12 student in my riding of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury. She now holds the distinct
position of being only the second of two people from
Fredericton to receive this recognition in the six-year history of
the award.
Constituents, New Brunswickers and her parents are
obviously very proud.
Competition is fierce for the YTV award since only 15 are
presented annually. Categories for the competition range from
dance to entrepreneurship, and more than 1,000 young
Canadians are nominated each year.
I look forward to seeing Measha at the awards ceremony here
at the National Arts Centre tonight. On behalf of the people of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury, I wish her well in her national
television performance.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has
once again shown a lack of consistency and vision when
developing government policies that are supposed to protect
citizens who are treated unfairly.
Last February, he tabled amendments to the Employment
Equity Act. The commission's new responsibilities include
enforcement of the Employment Equity Act, establishing an
employment equity review tribunal and, last but not least,
auditing reports submitted by private sector employers.
According to the Human Rights Commissioner, the commission
would need 15 new officers to carry out these new
responsibilities.
The minister has probably forgotten that he himself closed the
commission's regional offices and cut its budget by more than
$3 million. This makes no sense at all.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to salute the residents of
Salmo, British Columbia. These fine Canadians have decided to
take action on the national debt. They have to because the
Liberals have done nothing to reduce it, in fact they are
increasing it.
The people of Salmo are collecting pennies to send to the debt
reduction fund. While these good Canadians are scraping the
bottom of the barrel, desk drawers and every nook and cranny,
the Grits continue their spending binge.
The Canada Council handed out $88 million in grants last
year. One of the latest handouts is $10,000 for a gay and lesbian
film festival to be staged in Saskatoon this weekend by the
Positively Queer group.
My heart goes out to the residents of Salmo. What will they do
when they realize that they will have to collect one million
pennies to pay for the Liberal government's financial support of
the Positively Queer film festival? That is almost three tonnes of
pennies. The Liberals should be ashamed.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the National Council on Welfare reports that the number of poor
11606
people in Canada has increased dramatically and child poverty
has reached a 14-year high.
For many years, successive Canadian governments have
followed policies designed to reduce the wages of working
Canadians and fatten incentives for wealthy Canadians. The rich
get richer and the poor get poorer, and there are more of both of
them. Middle income Canadians are being driven to extinction.
Deregulation, free trade, privatization, contracting out, and
union busting are driving down the private incomes of working
Canadians. At the same time, their social benefits are being
reduced by cuts in health care and education, justified as a
means to pay off a deficit caused by a high real interest rate
policy and tax loopholes that favoured the rich in the first place.
Children are poor because their parents have no money. Case
in point. Famous Players Theatres, owned by Viacom
Blockbuster, wants its projectionists to take a 60 per cent wage
cut and is using scabs to enforce its will. Government should act
to protect the children of people who are on strike to protect-
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
Christmas, residents of Brant, led by Sheila Enslev and the
Dunsdon Legion organized Operation Home Front to send
support packages to our peacekeepers overseas. This idea was
inspired by a study trip to Bosnia during which Ms. Enslev saw
firsthand the valuable contributions made by our peacekeepers.
The response from the community was overwhelming and 172
packages were sent to Canadian troops stationed in Bosnia. One
soldier wrote back and said: ``You showed me that there are
people who care and know we exist''.
As the Easter season approaches, Operation Home Front will
be extending its services to include our troops in the Golan
Heights and in Haiti.
In light of the negative media that has recently accompanied
our military operations abroad, it is important that Canadians
everywhere recognize and appreciate the good work our
peacekeepers have done and continue to do.
I want to say on behalf of our community, thanks to Sheila and
the members of the Dunsdon Legion, for giving us an
opportunity to say thank you to our peacekeepers.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
hundreds of friends gathered on Monday in Ottawa's St.
Patrick's Basilica to say farewell to a very special lady, Mary
Kennedy.
Mary's work in Canadian politics spanned three decades,
during which the likes of Hugh Faulkner, Ross Milne, Ralph
Ferguson and our colleague from Edmonton North, John Loney,
benefited from her dedication, hard work and principled advice.
I am humbled by the fact that Mary also helped me in the
recent Ottawa-Vanier byelection. Mary was not an armchair
critic. She believed in our political system and acted on that
belief. She epitomizes the kind of Canadian every political party
depends on and to whom we in the House owe tribute.
A passage from one of Irving Layton's poems describes
Mary's spirit very well.
They dance best who dance with desire,
Who lifting feet of fire from fire
Weave before they lie down
A red carpet for the sun.
We will miss you, Mary.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently, Domtar and Mishtuk built a sawmill in
Waswanipi, in northern Quebec, as a joint venture. The new
company is 55 per cent owned by aboriginal people and 45 per
cent by Domtar.
We have here a perfect example of a large corporation
contributing to the self-sufficiency of an aboriginal nation.
Eighty long term jobs will be created for the Cree.
(1405)
This initiative should also be commended for its approach to
sustainable management of our forests. Today I want to pay
tribute to Chief John Kitchen of the Cree Nation and to the
Domtar management team.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two
shocking and extremely dangerous pieces of legislation have
been introduced in the U.S. Congress that could devastate the
Canadian sugar industry.
Senator Jesse Helms and Congressman Dan Burton have each
introduced legislation that would tighten the economic
sanctions against Cuba by imposing sanctions against any
country
11607
that trades with Cuba. This would bar Canadian exports of sugar
and related sugar products and would eliminate over $500
million in exports to the U.S. market.
These bills have been co-sponsored by presidential
candidates Dole and Gramm and Senators D'Amato, Thurmond
and others. Yesterday the Washington Post stated that this bill
enjoys broad bipartisan support and is likely to pass after
hearings this spring.
In the name of Canadian sovereignty, I call on all parties to
continue our work together and support any government
attempts to stop these dangerous pieces of legislation dead in
their tracks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs treated the people working in
organizations promoting awareness of international
development abominably yesterday.
After cutting the funding of these organizations, which
represents only one half of one per cent of the total aid budget,
the minister had the nerve to insult the thousands of volunteers
involved. By saying that if they really felt it was important to
increase public awareness about development aid, they would
do it for free, the minister was distorting the facts. The funds
allocated to these organizations do not go to pay volunteers.
Furthermore, the minister would appear to be unaware of the
incalculable consequences this measure will have on the
network of solidarity and international co-operation. Rather
than insulting everyone, the minister should reconsider this very
hasty decision.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today Monica Rainey, executive director of Citizens
against Child Exploitation will present the Minister of Justice
with the signatures of 42,000 people. Each signature represents
a child who has been sexually abused in Canada.
The message is loud and clear. Elimination of sexual
exploitation of our children must become a priority.
However the government continues to choose political issues
like gun control over critical issues like child sexual abuse,
making this House merely a House of partisan politics.
Unspeakable criminal acts are being committed every day in the
places our children play, learn and most devastatingly, call
home.
I challenge the Liberal government to enact legislation which
will protect our children. Stop the legal system from betraying
them. I ask the Minister of Justice to prove to us that Ottawa is
not merely a place of political opportunism but a place where
justice prevails, where meaningful issues take priority and true
humanitarian acts of government are born.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certain members of the House are calling for an inquiry
into gasoline prices.
With provincial and federal taxes representing about 55 per
cent of the price and refineries averaging about a 4 per cent
return on their investment for the last several years and gas
stations closing because there is no profit, what is left? Might it
be combined federal and provincial taxes, or legislative
demands unilaterally imposed on the industry or high municipal
taxes in cities such as Ottawa?
Clearly any inquiry must start with full examination of the
role of government at all three levels in driving up the cost of
gasoline. Acting otherwise would be closing one's eyes to the
real problem.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 31 the minister of public works announced federal
financial support for the Harbourfront Centre would be $6
million for the current fiscal year. He made no further
commitments for subsequent years. In light of this
announcement the Harbourfront board decided to close the
facility on September 15.
(1410 )
Greater Toronto area MPs met on Tuesday night and
reaffirmed their commitment to the centre, which is a vital
cultural asset benefiting the region.
Area MPs are united in their determination to work for stable,
multi-year base funding or identify alternative funding sources
to secure Harbourfront's future. Area MPs have worked to
obtain a significant level of funding for this year, in spite of tight
fiscal constraints, and we will continue to work for the centre's
future.
We regret the board's decision to close on the 15th. We had
hoped it would have taken more time to explore other funding
sources or secured the participation of new directors prepared to
keep the centre open on a reduced budget.
The people of Canada would be poorer for the demise of
centres like Harbourfront, but the people of Canada have also
demanded that we get our fiscal house in order. Regrettably this
means that Harbourfront and other important institutions and
programs will have to learn to live with less financial support
than in the past.
11608
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Bloc Quebecois member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata stated that Hull was the ugliest city in
the world. What a pleasure it is to hear that the hon. member is
now spreading the message far and wide to the people of Hull
that she is retracting her remarks and that she wants all who will
listen, particularly her new friend the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, to know that she supports Hull's application for Expo
2005.
This means that people from around the world could come and
see the phenomenon of a city transformed into a friendly,
welcoming community in the space of a week, thanks to the Bloc
members. Is this a sign that the separatists have finally chosen a
date for the referendum-2005?
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not share the opinion of
the Minister of Labour when it comes to the announcement,
yesterday, by the Premier of Quebec, that the referendum will
not be held in the spring. The heritage minister confirmed that
he and the Prime Minister did not wish that the referendum be
held before the summer.
However, the labour minister, responsible for the federal
involvement in the referendum battle, said she was surprised
and disappointed that the referendum on Quebec sovereignty
would not be held before the summer. Clearly, cabinet ministers
are divided on the subject. However, they should be reminded
that this decision belongs to the Government of Quebec, and the
Premier is at liberty to set the date when this important
consultation for the future of Quebec and Quebecers will be
held, no matter what the labour minister might think.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Justice, with the support of the Liberal caucus,
demonstrated his blatant disregard for the principles of
democracy that govern this country.
The opposition Liberals ranted and raved when the GST
debates were cut off and the ill-conceived tax was shoved down
the throats of Canadians. Now what did they do? Follow the
Mulroney lead.
First, the Minister of Justice publicly proclaimed that the gun
legislation would not be determined by a head count. Then, on
introducing Bill C-68, he said the consultation process was
over.
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are all aware of the traditions
of the House that we do not refer in any way to a vote that has
been taken in the House. I would hope that the hon. member is
not going in that direction. May I gently caution the hon.
member not to mention any votes, reflect on any votes, or the
way members voted in the House.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that while the
Liberals rammed through the bill-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is estimated that 42,000 Canadian children are sexually
abused annually. Last November the Minister of Justice and the
Solicitor General announced changes to the Canadian Police
Information Centre.
(1415 )
I commend the ministers for their positive improvements.
Unfortunately, even though the database is available, there is no
obligation to access it. At the moment the process is
cumbersome.
Another serious problem is the granting of pardons for those
convicted of sex offences against children. Tens of thousands of
Canadians have signed petitions and letters asking for additional
laws to protect our children. Many of these will be presented
today after question period by Monica Rainey, founder and
executive director of the Citizens Against Child Exploitation.
In light of the urgent plight of Canadian children, I urge the
Minister of Justice to implement a mandatory certificate of
clearance system and immediately investigate the option of
amending the Criminal Records Act to prohibit pardons for
those convicted of sex offences involving children under the age
of 18.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Premier of Quebec officially announced, yesterday, that he was
postponing the referendum until the fall. The leader of the Parti
Quebecois is telling us that he has no use for the report by the
National Commission on Quebec sovereignty which is to be
tabled on April 13.
11609
We all know that millions of dollars have been spent for this
huge consultation operation which was to give the people of
Quebec an opportunity to advise the government on the issue of
Quebec sovereignty.
With yesterday's announcement by the PQ leader, one week
before the tabling of the national commission's report, we have
to conclude that for the PQ government and its friends in the
Bloc, strategy is more important than the opinion of Quebecers.
_____________________________________________
11609
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of Human Resources Development.
In a report released yesterday, the National Council on
Welfare reveals that, in 1993, poverty kept on increasing in
Canada, especially in Quebec where 20.7 per cent of the
population live below the poverty line.
In view of this worsening problem of poverty, how can the
government explain that it has not implemented any job creating
measure and that it has reduced its participation in the
infrastructure program, its only initiative to create jobs since it
came to office?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important for all
members of the House to recognize the seriousness of the
situation as underlined by the National Council of Welfare
report.
The continuing incidence of poverty is something which
requires all of us to make a very serious response. The most
important is to ensure we can create the right climate, the right
framework in which jobs can be created. That is still one of the
most effective ways of alleviating poverty, to get people back to
work.
In this past year we have created over 450,000 jobs. We have
had the highest job growth rate of any industrial country. The
figures used by the National Council of Welfare stop at 1993. We
would certainly hope the very substantial job creation of this
past year would tend to alleviate that problem. However that
certainly is no cause for any kind of complacency.
We must redouble our efforts to get people back to work, to
invest more in the kind of programs and initiatives that will give
people some real opportunity to improve their status. I would
welcome the co-operation of the hon. member and his party as
we go about trying to reform our social system to enable that to
happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
numerous occasions, we offered to co-operate with the
government to create jobs. It brushed aside all our suggestions.
How can the government claim that it is working to create
jobs when it refuses to implement a real defence conversion
strategy, to come to the rescue of the MIL Davie shipyard, and
decides to stick to a monetary policy obsessed by inflation
control instead of job creation?
Will the minister dare say that the laissez-faire attitude of this
government will contribute to job creation?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
very well that most of the jobs in the country must be created
through the activities of the private sector.
If we are in a situation in which interest rates rise at an
unacceptable rate or international capital flows become volatile
and we are vulnerable to them, we pay the price by not being
able to create incentives for job creation.
That is one of the reasons why in the budget we undertook to
stabilize the fiscal situation in the country, to make ourselves
less vulnerable to those international flows of capital, to be able
to stabilize our interest rates and to provide a very effective
framework within which the private sector can go about creating
jobs.
At the same time, we also believe to parallel that we must
invest very seriously in what we call the human deficit, the issue
of making sure people have more choices about improving their
skills and being able to get beyond simply benefit programs and
into active employment programs.
That has been the whole indication and thrust of the reformed
proposals the House of Commons committee considered and the
recommendations we are now considering for action which we
intend to bring in this year.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could it
be that the minister's passionate plea in favour of job creation by
the private sector hides the government's inability to help the
unemployed?
Will the minister recognize that the sad picture in Quebec,
where 21 per cent of the population now live below the poverty
line, the highest rate in Canada, might I add, is the result of
federalism and irrefutable proof of the failure of a system totally
unable to promote economic development in Quebec and
powerless in the face of deepening poverty in Quebec?
11610
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the hon.
member has taken what I think we all see to be a very serious
situation and tried to turn it into some kind of attack against
federalism.
The issue of poverty, especially among our young children
and our families, will require the collaboration and
co-operation of all levels of government, not one party
continually insisting on separation, on breaking the country
apart and fragmenting our efforts at a time when what we need is
collaboration, co-operation and a coming together.
The real issue of attacking poverty is having all Canadians, all
provinces and all regions working ensemble.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In the same report, the National Council of Welfare pointed
out that poverty among young families, mostly among single
parent families headed by a woman, is on the rise. The report
says that children are poor because their parents are poor. And
one of the main causes of this poverty is the shortage of good
jobs.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit
that, far from reducing poverty, the unemployment insurance
cuts for which his government is responsible will actually cause
it to increase because they force tens of thousands of
unemployed on to the welfare rolls each month?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the changes to the
unemployment insurance bill introduced last year in Bill C-17
we introduced a special measure that provided a two tier benefit
support so that we would provide a higher level of benefits for
individuals of very low income who have dependent children so
they would be able to receive 60 per cent of a replaceable
income compared with 55 per cent, the national standard.
(1425 )
Since that time close to 200,000 Canadian families have been
able to take benefit from that second tier of benefits, which
means they have been able to add close to $1,000 of income to
their family resources during the year.
That indicates we took into account, in making changes to the
unemployment insurance program, that there is a special need,
especially for those families which have children. I can assure
the hon. member that as we begin to look at a broader reform of
unemployment insurance the same principle of targeting our
help to those most in need will continue to be our basic
philosophy.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's own budgetary plan says that, as a result of legislative
amendments contained in Bill C-17 which reduced the
maximum number of weeks of entitlement, there has been a 16.2
per cent decrease in the number of recipients.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development
acknowledge that this situation will only continue to deteriorate
in the next three years because of the cuts in transfer payments
and the implementation of the Canada social transfer, which is
nothing less than a veiled attempt to cut federal funding for
social programs even more?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I think that
the new framework for transfers being hammered out between
the federal and provincial governments will be an opportunity
for the governments to develop a co-operative and effective
approach to combatting family and child poverty. I think that it
is an effort to develop a national strategy, a co-operative
strategy which both levels of government will use to solve the
problem, and I hope that the hon. member and her colleagues
will join us in this national effort to fight poverty in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last November the cabinet decided to overrule a CRTC
decision and create a blue ribbon panel to review Canada's
direct to home satellite policy; I should say a red ribbon panel
because it has strong links to the Prime Minister's office.
We understand from leaked reports to our office this back
room, closed door review is now complete. To avoid public
scrutiny the cabinet's decision will be announced after the
House rises for the Easter break.
What decision has the government made with respect to direct
to home satellites and why was it not announced before the
break?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the statements in the member's preamble to her
question are generally incorrect.
11611
The questions referred to the panel were of great importance
both to the information highway initiative and to the satellite
broadcasting system. We announced the review would be
completed in an open way and it was done so. The panellists
were named and received written submissions from all
Canadians interested in the matter. Those submissions were
made public. The public was then given an opportunity to
provide written responses to submissions. Those responses were
made public.
This afternoon the panel will make its recommendation
public. I suggest to the hon. member she might wish to read it
and perhaps then she will have some suggestions of her own.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
The politics of this review has tainted its outcome. The review
was ordered because the original decision went against Power
Corp., a company headed by the Prime Minister's son-in-law.
The review panel included Robert Rabinovitch, who has
personal ties to Power Corp. and the Claridge Group, and Roger
Tassé, a partner in Eddie Goldenberg's former law firm. If that
was not bad enough, the government tried to slip the decision by
the House to avoid public discussion.
Why was the DTH review not conducted as part of the
industry department's information highway hearing or the
CRTC convergence hearings?
(1430)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again we have an example of a shamelessly
irresponsible member of Parliament making unsubstantiated
allegations.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I appeal to members to be very judicious in
your comments when referring to members of Parliament. I ask
you to keep this in mind in your questions and in your answers.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, there is a reason this process was
followed. Very simply, as the hon. member knows, the satellite
broadcasting system, the direct to home system, is one we are
concerned about with regard to the very rapid growth of what is
called the grey market.
It was important the government establish its policy in a very
clear way as quickly as possible and yet attempt to make it as
open as possible. We decided we would appoint a panel. It would
hold the process as I described it in the previous question.
I want to make it clear to the hon. member that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and I received the report only this morning
directly from the chairman of the panel. We will be reviewing it
very carefully. I suggest to her perhaps she might like to. We
have not taken a decision as to whether the recommendations
will be followed.
I would like to hear whether the Reform Party has a position
on this important issue. I would be happy to take it into account
before recommendations are made to cabinet.
The Speaker: I appeal to members to make both the questions
and answers more concise.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is again for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Reform Party has always favoured a review of Canada's
direct to home satellite policy. We do favour competition but it
should be done in a very public forum.
Instead, the government's review was a backroom, closed
door deal to favour a bunch of Liberal bagmen. It is yet another
example of the government's lack of cultural policy.
One day it is restricting competition in favour of Canadian
industries, the next it is swinging the door-
The Speaker: The question please.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Does the government
have a cultural policy or will decisions continue to be made in an
ad hoc way to the benefit of Liberal insiders?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what part of the universe the hon.
member comes from. I do not know whether she knows anything
about satellites at all. She is clearly accustomed to flying in
spacecrafts, though.
In endeavouring to deal with this policy in as rapid a way as
possible we have conducted a process using people whose
reputation is really beyond being impugned, certainly by the
member.
We have appointed a panel of three former deputy ministers,
all of whom served under other governments. These people's
reputations have not been questioned by anyone else, certainly
not by this member outside the House where she might be
subject to legal action. She comes in here and tries to smear
three people who are offering their services to the government.
Perhaps if the member would read the report she would find
her allegations false.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. We have learned that, last
November, the Minister of Justice awarded a $22,500 contract to
Earnscliffe Strategy Group, a communication firm.
11612
(1435)
Under the terms of the contract, this firm had to advise the
minister on the gun control strategy he should adopt in dealing
with his caucus.
How can the minister justify spending $22,500 in public funds
to develop a communication strategy aimed at convincing his
Liberal colleagues to meet their electoral commitment?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contract referred to
was entered into in the ordinary course of business in order to
provide advice of practical assistance in discharging every day
responsibilities. It is perfectly proper. It is money well spent.
I offer the events of yesterday as the most cogent proof of that
investment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us if the practice of using
public funds to develop a communication strategy for the
Liberal caucus is widespread among his cabinet colleagues, and
if it is consistent with government ethics?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
some facts, only some. The balance of her question is a
combination of either invention or wishful thinking.
The funds were spent for the legitimate purpose of seeking the
advice of others as to how best to serve the public interest. This
was not advice on how to deal with caucus. This was advice on
how to deal with issues that confront the Minister of Justice in
relation to performing public responsibilities in the public
interest. That is exactly why the money was spent.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the justice minister said Liberal MPs who express their
opinion and opposition to gun control legislation would not be
punished. That was cool comfort. Already these MPs have been
turfed from their committees.
The Speaker: As I explained earlier, we have a tradition in
the House of not referring to any votes taken in the House or how
members have voted. I ask hon. members to please be cognizant
of this in framing their questions and also in giving their
answers.
Miss Grey: Could the government House leader explain to
the House and to the Canadian public what has happened to the
red book promise of allowing more free votes in the House of
Commons?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, free votes are those designated as such by the
government. We did not designate the vote on second reading of
the gun control bill a free vote.
However, we are keeping our promise each day the House sits
because we treat all private members' business as free votes.
This is certainly a lot more than was done by the previous
government. At the same time, in the way the House voted on the
gun control legislation we are responding freely to the
consensus of the Canadian people.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, MPs
must be allowed to represent their constituents without threats
from the party whip. MPs should be praised for that, not
punished.
Could the justice minister or the government House leader
explain to the House why some Liberal members have been
immediately turfed from their committee duties?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not a matter involving the government as such
but the internal workings of our caucus.
(1440 )
We would be happy when the time comes to go to the
Canadian people as a party, as a caucus and ask for their support
on the basis of the good work we have been doing for the
Canadian people. This is exemplified by our support of the
Minister of Justice's very positive, necessary and constructive
gun control legislation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Last November, the federal government, unhappy with a
CRTC ruling on direct satellite broadcasting, formed a
committee made up of friends of the government so that it could
bypass the CRTC ruling in order to benefit other friends of the
government, including Power Broadcasting.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage give credence to
the report by a panel of so-called experts, when they only met
with the Power Broadcasting project representatives and refused
11613
to meet with their competitors under the pretext that they did not
have enough time?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these allegations are false. I suggest to the hon.
member that she could perhaps take the time to read the report;
she may even agree with the recommendations made by this
panel of experts.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague earlier, the Minister of
Industry said that the government had set up its own committee
in order to get the opinion of experts.
Are we to understand that the minister formed his own
committee because he felt that the CRTC was not able to make
what he sees as an appropriate recommendation and that his own
committee would make a recommendation that would suit him?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no. In fact, the government has not indicated it wants a
particular decision at all. The government has the responsibility
to establish policy in an important area which affects not just the
delivery of program services but indeed has quite a broad effect
on the information highway initiative in general.
The responsibility for making policy is that of the
government. That is why governments are elected. We will
consider the views of the panel of experts which will be
reporting today and we will indicate what policy we believe
should be followed.
The issue of who wins and who loses in these things
frequently is a result of decisions of a regulatory panel, a
tribunal, as in this case the CRTC. Nobody has suggested those
decisions should be made elsewhere.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister of Indian affairs displayed
petulance and obfuscation which has forced him this morning-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to be very
judicious in the words he is going to use from here on in.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this morning the minister of
Indian affairs clarified his conflicting answers on the series of
events on the Stoney Reserve. It is now evident the minister did
not seriously investigate this ongoing situation until after
yesterday's question period.
I have now heard reports that there are five other locations in
Alberta where logging may be exceeding DIAND permits:
Gerard, Sturgeon, Hart Lake, Boyer and Eden Valley. What is
the minister doing about this?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was enlightening
if for no other reason than the member for Kootenay East told
the Vancouver Sun that all the companies were from his riding
and would not name them.
In case the hon. member wants to know where the member for
Kootenay East is, he is about three down and sits in the Reform
Party. If he wants to be helpful, he obviously knows the names of
the companies and he could quietly provide the RCMP with the
information so that charges can be laid.
(1445)
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it would be refreshing to have the minister stop
attacking the Reform Party every time he is asked a question. He
could start being a professional manager.
The minister has given conflicting reports as to when he knew
about the overcutting at Stoney Reserve. Did he know when the
department knew one year ago? If not, why not? If he did, why
did he not do something?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would categorize this as
more of a confession than an attack. I am glad the hon. member
has raised that question because I think it is time to get positive.
What are we going to do about it? I think we could use the help
of the Reform because the National Aboriginal Forestry
Association has proposals for legislation. It represents 120 First
Nations who are involved in forestry, 50 forestry companies,
educational institutes and the Meadow Lake Integrated
Management Program which does training. They have five goals
all of which presumably the Reform will endorse.
If they work through a consultation process, which I think
they will, and if we have legislation-
Mr. Thompson: Useless.
Mr. Irwin: Just relax. I know I get you every time.
The Speaker: I think I will just relax and go on to the next
questioner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
This morning, women representing literally hundreds of
Quebec and Canadian organizations came to Ottawa to protest
against cuts in the Equal Opportunities for Women Program.
They denounced the gradual erosion of federal grants to
11614
women's groups, which have shrunk by over $4 million over the
past six years and are getting smaller every year.
How can the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
justify these new cuts to organizations working with
disadvantaged women when pride and dignity is all her Prime
Minister ever talked about during the last election campaign?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud and confident of our government's unequivocal
commitment to equality for women, period.
I must remind my hon. colleague that we have restored the
Court Challenges Program, are setting up health centers of
excellence for women and are working on sentencing reform,
firearms control, employment equity and small business issues,
all with women in mind. I think this clearly shows our concern
for equality for women.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I have a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for the
Status of Women is said to have informed women's groups
before the budget was tabled that the criteria for grants would be
reviewed by next fall.
Does the hon. secretary of state intend to hold consultations
with these groups in developing these new criteria? If so, how
much weight will she give to the results of these consultations in
making her final decision?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
greatly appreciate the Bloc's concern for the status of Canadian
women. I think this suggests it recognizes that equity and unity
are going strong in Canada.
In this regard, she must recognize that our February budget
did not contain any cuts in grants or contributions to women's
groups. And I told women just that: ``No cuts in grants or
contributions''. I told women and I repeat that the opinion of
women from all regions of Canada will be taken into
consideration when budget adjustments are made. I hope that the
Bloc Quebecois is interested in the well-being of all women in
Canada.
* * *
(1450 )
[English]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the west
island of Montreal, indeed the whole region, was shocked to
learn of the brutal murder of Reverend Frank Toope and his wife,
Jocelyn. Three youths have been charged with the first degree
murder of the retired couple. The victims were battered to death
with a baseball bat.
Can the Minister of Justice assure this House that with the
amendments to the Young Offenders Act currently before the
Senate, young violent offenders will no longer be able to hide
behind the law? Will justice be served for the victims, their
families, the offenders and most of all for society?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the tragic deaths of
Reverend and Mrs. Toope have shocked and saddened the
community of Beaconsfield. All Canadians have been touched
by the senselessness of this brutal crime. As the hon. member
has said, people have been charged and the case is now before
the courts. I will be careful not to comment on the facts of that
case. Let me speak more broadly to the issues the member has
raised.
The government cannot say that merely changing words in a
statute, in a book, is going to prevent tragedies like this from
happening. We know that is not so. A number of things are
required to prevent crime and to get at its causes.
To the extent to which changes in the criminal law and the
Young Offenders Act can deter and properly punish such
misconduct, this government has acted. Bill C-37, which is
through the House, is now before the Senate and I hope it will
receive its prompt attention. As the House knows, that bill
increases penalties for murder. It provides for the transfer to
adult court of certain youths charged with serious violent
crimes. It provides for the sharing of information.
I have also asked for the justice committee to tour the country,
to listen to Canadians, to examine our juvenile justice system
and determine whether other changes are needed. This
government will be responsive to those recommendations. We
are committed to a system that is fair and tough. We will act on
that conviction.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is in regard to the aforementioned horror which took
place in Montreal. Two citizens were brutally, coldly and with
extreme calculation bludgeoned to death by three young
offenders. These murders were coldly planned homicides
without remorse.
Will the justice minister assure the people of Canada by
insisting that the 14 and 15-year old psychopath young
offenders be tried in adult court?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully understand how
Canadians, including members of the House, react to the horror
and tragedy of events such as these.
I do urge the hon. member to bear in mind that the judicial
process must run its course. There are people charged who are
presumed innocent. There will be a trial. The crown will proffer
evidence and a court will decide who is responsible. We must
not prejudice that process.
Let me say in response to the point raised by the hon. member
that any decision on whether or not to seek a transfer to adult
11615
court is for the prosecuting lawyer to make. That person takes
direction from the Attorney General of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have received nearly 50,000 letters and I know the minister has
received the same amount regarding the Young Offenders Act.
We have continually heard from this minister that crime
prevention, assistance for troubled youth at risk will stop these
horrible crimes. It is too late for these two elderly people.
We have been told by provincial agencies that this
government talks about assistance for youth at risk but does
nothing. I ask the minister: When will he become a minister of
action instead of an acting minister?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the record will show
that I have never claimed we are going to be able to stop all
crime. That is not going to happen.
What I have said is that while there is a role for toughening up
the laws and providing better responses and enforcement, that is
not all that is required. A great deal of other things are required
as well and we have to focus on all of them.
(1455)
I respond to the hon. member by saying that we have taken
action by passing Bill C-37. We have taken action by asking the
committee to recommend further changes. We have created the
National Crime Prevention Council. My colleagues in cabinet
are working in a variety of ways to address the underlying social
causes of crime in this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The UN special
envoy to Burundi accused the international community of
pushing that country toward a genocide. Yesterday, in
Bujumbura, that official denounced the international
community's inconsistency and irresponsibility regarding the
crisis in Burundi, where two million people may have to leave
their homes, thus creating the world's largest concentration of
refugees, according to the British Red Cross.
Will the minister once again remain insensitive to the
increasing number of calls for help in Burundi?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me simply remind the hon. member what
Canada has done in recent weeks and months to avoid a crisis
which could reach proportions similar to the one which occurred
in Rwanda.
First, the Secretary of State responsible for Latin America and
Africa personally travelled to Bujumbura to participate in a
meeting to find solutions to the refugee problem.
Second, Canada tabled a resolution which was supported by
all the ministers attending a conference of the Francophonie,
which was held in France, and where it was decided to send a
ministerial delegation to Burundi to try to work out a solution
with local authorities.
Third, the Canadian government is subsidizing NGO's,
particularly the International Red Cross, in their efforts to help
the civilian populations affected by the conflict.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister already told us about his information, his concerns, his
representations and his hopes. However, my question is: How
can Canada remain unconcerned by the plea for help made
yesterday by the UN special envoy in Burundi? What is Canada
waiting for to act, to show some leadership and to help a fellow
member of the Francophonie? After all, Canada has displayed
such leadership in the past.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for recognizing that the
government is already involved. It is not fair to say that we are
unconcerned. On the contrary, the initiatives which I just
mentioned reflect our will to find a solution.
The hon. member would like Canada to be a leader regarding
that issue. We are prepared to take on the role which the parties
involved would like us to assume. Canada cannot impose itself.
However, we have clearly shown that we are willing and
prepared to help the parties involved if it is their wish.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, seven weeks ago the 14-year old daughter of
two constituents of mine moved in with a 26-year old convicted
sex offender. Neither the parents nor the police can do anything
about this because the law states that the age of consent is 14
years.
Does the Minister of Justice see this as a case of child
exploitation, or is the government content to see the situation
continue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of
Justice has under review the whole question of the age of
consent to sexual activity precisely because of our concern for
the young people who might otherwise be victimized.
I do however emphasize that the criminal law is not entirely
silent in this respect. For example, as provided in section 273.1
11616
of the code, there is no consent if the participation of someone
of that age is induced by breach of trust or authority, threat or
fear.
(1500 )
I point out to the hon. member that there may well be
provisions in the code which would deal with this situation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the minister's
attention another instance where for two years 46-year-old
Henry Halm has been in Canada to avoid facing a prison
sentence in New York for sexually abusing four young males,
aged 15 and 16.
A Canadian judge recently ruled that Canada's laws dealing
with the age of consent for sodomy are unconstitutional.
Does the Minister of Justice see this as a case of child
exploitation? Is he prepared to change the law for the age of
consent to see that this is stopped?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue in the case
referred to by the hon. member is just the opposite. It was
alleged in that case that the prohibition of homosexual activity
by those who are under 18 years of age is unconstitutional
because it is inconsistent with the rule otherwise for
heterosexual activity. I believe that case is still before the courts
and I will be careful not to comment further.
I am meeting this afternoon with a group called Citizens
Against Child Exploitation led by a courageous and energetic
woman, Monica Rainey from British Columbia. I am looking
forward to that meeting. I have met with her in the past and I
always learn from my encounters with her. This very subject is
on the agenda. I will express my interest to Ms. Rainey and I will
discuss it with her.
I can assure the hon. member that it is something that we will
consider very carefully.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last fall a group of western MPs consulted with western
Canadians on regional development. Important matters were
recommended to the minister in charge of western
diversification, including export promotion and helping high
growth sectors.
What is the Minister of Western Diversification doing to
implement the recommendations to help strengthen the
economy of western Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member, and especially members of his committee, who
made some very important recommendations.
I am pleased to report to the House that as a result of those
representations and the guidelines set out in the budget that as of
April 1 the Department of Western Economic Diversification
has changed its fundamental approach to funding. We are now
out of the direct lending or contribution business to individual
enterprises. Instead we are now working with financial
institutions to set up a network of investment capital pools
across western Canada.
I can report that the Royal Bank, as it indicated last week
before committee, is now prepared to join with us in setting up a
very large investment capital system for the agriculture
biotechnology industry. We have several other investment pools
ready to be initiated that will provide a whole new system of
investment capital for western Canada which will be the spur for
real growth and real jobs.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw members' attention to the
presence in the gallery of Mrs. Kleveland, Minister of Cultural
Affairs (Culture, Sport and Media) from Norway.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Standing
Order No. 18 states in part:
No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House-
Nowhere in my member's statement did I specifically refer to
a vote in the House nor was I about to.
By cutting me off halfway through my statement, I ask, with
respect, for you to please tell me how my privileges as a member
of this House have not been breached.
The Speaker: Order. There are times in the House, when we
are making statements and asking and answering questions, in
the heat of the debate, sometimes words are used that I interpret
as indications of where a member is going.
(1505 )
In the particular case today, as members know, the Speaker
does not explain his decision. I would be happy to speak to the
hon. member for Crowfoot.
With all respect the hon. member, I would say this. It seemed
to me at the time that the member was going in this direction and
I thought I heard inference to the vote.
11617
I am perfectly willing to review the blues. If, indeed, I made a
mistake, as I will from time to time, because a lot of things
happen at once and I am trying to pay very strict attention to hon.
members when they speak. I will have a look at the blues and if,
indeed, I was in error then I will come back to the House.
Will the hon. member at least give me the time to review the
blues and we will take it from there. I will be happy to speak to
the hon. member in my chambers if he wishes to pursue this.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
the same point of order. I would ask that when you review the
blues and this question, that you give us a little more guidance
on the interpretation of this rule. It seems to me there have been
numerous references during question period to votes that have
taken place in the House.
For instance, the minister of immigration regularly refers to
the vote on Bill C-44. Perhaps you could clarify your
interpretation of that rule.
The Speaker: If it is necessary to come back to the House
with a ruling on this particular subject, your Speaker will take
into account all of the requests that are made to him here in the
House today.
I am going to proceed first to the regular Thursday question.
Then I want to give my ruling on a point of order raised by the
hon. member for Crowfoot.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
incredible as it may sound, I rise to ask the traditional question
for a Thursday, even though today is the last time we meet for
two weeks. I still wish to ask the hon. Leader of the Government
in the House to tell us what is on the agenda for that period of
time.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member wants to know what we are going to
do during the next two weeks. I do not think that comes under the
purview of the House.
However, I will make a statement about what will happen
when the House returns on April 24. As I have said, I will leave
what is to be done by hon. members in the intervening period to
them and their own good judgment, if not their good taste.
When the House returns on April 24, we will be entering the
most intensive part of the parliamentary calendar. I believe,
therefore, it would be useful if I outlined briefly, not only the
business for the next few days we are back but also priorities for
the period between our resumption of sittings and the break in
the month of May.
The business of supply requires many opposition days in this
period, one or two a week. I should like to designate Thursday,
April 27 as one of those opposition days.
Our first priorities when we come back from the Easter break
will be to complete the third reading of Bill C-69 regarding
electoral boundaries, and second reading of Bill C-76
implementing the budget, if these bills have not been completed,
of course, before we adjourn today.
We will then return to report stage of Bill C-43, respecting
lobbyists and to a motion to set up a special joint committee to
develop a code of conduct for members of both Houses of
Parliament.
Our next priority will be second readings of other important
and pressing bills, namely Bill C-75 regarding farm loans; Bill
C-70 regarding income tax; the bill respecting the Mint which
was introduced this morning, and a very limited number of
measures to be introduced later this month on which there are
some time constraints.
We will also give priority to the bills that have already been
considered by parliamentary committees and which have been
reported back to the House and which, therefore, are now in their
final stages of debate in the Chamber. These are Bill C-54
regarding old age security; Bill C-67 respecting veterans
pensions and Bill C-65 concerning government organization.
(1510 )
There is also Bill C-41 regarding sentencing; Bill C-45
respecting conditional release; Bill C-58 regarding the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police; and Bill C-52 respecting the
Department of Public Works and Government Services.
We will then consider other items reported from committee
and any other items on which there is a consensus to move along.
By way of conclusion, I want to say I am providing this
information now so the House leaders of the other parties are
able to assess their positions in order to enable them to join with
me, when the House resumes, in planning a reasonable schedule
for the House in late April and early May which will in turn
make it possible for us to do similar planning for what will be a
very crowded agenda in June.
Having said all that, I wish all members of the House and their
families a happy Easter and a happy Passover.
11618
The Speaker: Colleagues, on March 31, the member for
Crowfoot raised a point of order concerning answers given by
the Minister of Justice in response to questions posed during
question periods on March 27 and March 29. I would like to
thank the hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. Minister of
Justice, the chief government whip and the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster for their contributions to the
discussion.
The hon. member for Crowfoot contended the Minister of
Justice had contravened the sub judice convention by
commenting on a case under appeal in the Alberta courts, and in
so doing could have compromised the outcome of the case.
Making reference to several citations from Beauchesne's sixth
edition and to the case of Regina v. the Atlantic Sugar Refineries
Co. to support his arguments, the hon. member requested that
the Chair review the matter and determine whether or not the
minister had contravened the sub judice convention.
[Translation]
The hon. Minister of Justice responded that nothing he had
said in relation to the case offended the convention, and
maintained that there was a difference between commenting on
the facts of a case while the case was before a court, and stating
the government's opinion about the ruling which had been
rendered by a court.
Under the sub judice convention, it is accepted practice that,
in the interests of justice and fair play, certain restrictions be
placed on the freedom of members of Parliament to make
reference in the course of debate to matters awaiting judicial
decisions. Similarly, it is understood that such matters should
not be the subject of motions or questions in the House.
As I commented last Friday, we use the word ``convention''
when referring to matters which are sub judice (that is, under the
consideration of a judge or court), as no ``rule'' exists to prevent
Parliament from discussing such matters.
[English]
In Canada, the First Report to the House of the Special
Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members, presented on
April 29, 1977, remains the definitive study of the sub judice
convention. This special committee was chaired by Mr. Speaker
James Jerome. In its report, the committee gave a lengthy
explanation of the purpose of the convention. With the
indulgence of the House I would like to quote from the
committee's report, issue No. 1, at page 1:4:
The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a
fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance
of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to
refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they
feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the
aspirations of their constituents. This basic parliamentary freedom is to some
extent limited by the sub judice convention. Under the convention as it has
developed over the years Members are expected to refrain from discussing
matters that are before the courts. No distinction has ever been made in
Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying
the convention. It has also had application to certain tribunals other than
courts of law. The purpose of the convention is to protect the parties in a case
awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the
outcome of a judicial inquiry. It exists to guarantee everyone a fair trial and to
prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision or a report of a
tribunal of inquiry.
(1515)
[Translation]
The sub judice convention itself is poorly defined and its
interpretaton is usually left to the Speaker. The difficulty that I
face as Speaker is that any attempt to determine when a
comment might have a tendency to influence something can be
at best speculative rather than preventative, that is, I cannot
make such a determination until after the comments have been
made. Hence, it has been the approach of most Chair occupants
to discourage all comments on sub judice matters, rather than
allow members to experiment within the limits of the
convention and test the Speaker's discretion.
[English]
As stated in the special committee's report, Issue No. 1, at
page 1:12:
Your Committee is of the opinion that precise regulations concerning the
application of the sub judice convention cannot be evolved and that it would
be unwise to attempt to do so. Your committee recommends that the Speaker
should remain the final arbiter in the matter, that he should retain the
authority to prevent discussion of matters in the House on the ground of sub
judice, but that he should only exercise his discretion in exceptional cases
where it is clear to him that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific
individuals. In exercising this discretion your committee recommends that
when there is a doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in
favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention.
As to the matter raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, I
have reviewed the question period exchanges. I have reviewed
them many times and the points raised by hon. members during
the discussion on the point of order. I cannot conclude the
Minister of Justice contravened the sub judice convention by
stating the federal government disagreed with the decision of a
court and planned to challenge the decision.
[Translation]
Let me make one additional comment. While the ultimate
authority to judge on these matters rests with the Chair, I must
emphasize that All members of the House must share the
responsibility in exercising restraint when it seems called for.
Again, I quote from the special committee's report, issue No. 1,
at page 1:12: ``It is the view of your committee that the
responsibility of the Chair during the question period should be
minimal as regards the sub judice convention, and that the
11619
responsibility should principally rest upon the member who asks
the question and the minister to whom it is addressed.''
[English]
In conclusion, I urge all members and ministers to be prudent
and exercise caution in their choice of words when dealing with
matters that could fall into the difficult area of sub judice.
I want to thank all hon. members for their contributions.
_____________________________________________
11619
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before the debate resumes I have a few motions and I
think you will find unanimous consent for these.
First, I move:
That the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Education, composed of five
members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, be authorized to travel to Sudbury, Manitoulin Island, Sioux
Lookout and Winnipeg from April 22 to 30, 1995 and that a staff of three do
accompany the subcommittee.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second motion is to authorize a committee to travel.
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to hold hearings
and undertake site visits in Iqualuit, Resolute Bay, Cambridge Bay and
Yellowknife between May 1 and 19, 1995.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next I move:
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo and Campbell
River, British Columbia, from April 27 to May 4, 1995 to discuss Pacific
salmon issues, aboriginal fishing strategy, the merger of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the coastguard, and licensing.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry to impose on the House this afternoon;
however, I have one further motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the government may table its
response to the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations no later than June 5, 1995.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, earlier this day a vote was
deferred until our return on Monday, April 24. I ask unanimous
consent to further defer the vote until Tuesday, April 25, at 5.30
p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The hon. member
for Trois-Rivières seeks the unanimous consent of the House to
revert to presentation of petitions. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to submit three petitions all asking the government to
abandon plans for voice mail for seniors.
The first petition is signed by residents of the Mauricie area,
the second one is from constituents in my riding and the third
one is also from my riding, more particularly from members of
the AFEAS of Sainte-Thérèse, in Trois-Rivières, whom I want
to salute.
The petition reads: ``The petitioners call upon Parliament to
ask the government to abandon its plan to install voice mail,
particularly for seniors''.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I support these petitions.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it pleases me to present a petition to the House in
accordance with the standing orders.
11620
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment is an act without
precedent in Canadian history.
(1525)
Therefore they request that Parliament initiate a royal
commission or a wide ranging full public inquiry into the
Canadian Armed Forces, including the reserves, to investigate,
report and make recommendations on all matters affecting
operations, tasking, resources, effectiveness, morale and
welfare.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of our colleague, the member for Nepean, I have the
duty to present a petition from the Sikhs of Canada concerning
the pending extradition of Mahesh Inder Singh.
_____________________________________________
11620
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When we interrupted
debate to go on to question period, the hon. member for
Chicoutimi had about ten minutes left.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
just telling this House that we should at least confirm that
Quebec must be represented by 25 per cent of the members of
the House. I was also wondering why the rest of Canada was so
afraid, why some people are trying to deprive us of the perfectly
legitimate right to equitable representation. Furthermore, on
April 4, the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly of
Quebec, the kid brother of the federal Liberals, presented
exactly the same motion as my colleague from Bellechasse.
I repeat that Quebec has a legitimate and, above all, an
historic right to a minimum of political power in the Canadian
federation. As things stand right now, we do not get our fair
share of federal transfer payments and defence spending and we
have showed this on a number of occasions in this House. Just
this morning, one of my colleagues pointed out that we do not
get our fair share in R&D, nor do we get it in job creation, and
that is hardly all.
Besides this reduction in its representation, Quebec will be
facing other similar inequities in the next few months. I was
wondering: What does the Prime Minister think of that? What do
the hon. members for Gatineau and
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine think of that?
In the last vote on this issue, on March 28, I did not sense
much support on the other side of the House. I can hardly
understand what is going on. Is it not true that, in the political
history of Canada and Quebec, the legislator has often expressed
the will to assure regions, especially remote and rural regions,
of a fair representation in the House of Commons? As long as the
current formula for seat distribution between the territories and
the provinces set out in the Constitution Act, 1867, as amended
in 1915 and in 1976, is not changed and that this Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act remains relatively unchanged, is
it not obvious that the same principles of representation for
remote and rural regions should apply, especially to Quebec?
All members know that until Quebecers make a decision in
favour of Quebec's sovereignty, it is very important that this
province maintain a minimum representation of 25 per cent in
all federal institutions.
(1530)
As surprising as it may seem and in spite of all the
constitutional mechanisms aimed at protecting provinces that
are experiencing a relative population decline, one province has
always had fewer seats than its share of the population ever
since Canada was born 128 years ago. And, of course, some
people will say that the fact that it happens to be Quebec is just a
coincidence.
Even the most densely populated province, Ontario, was
given several extra members at the beginning of the century and
eight extra members after the 1941 census because it was
considered to be experiencing a relative population decline due
to the rapid growth in the western provinces. I will say
however-and this should not come as a surprise to
anyone-that Quebec which, at that time, accounted for 33 per
cent of Canada's total population did not hold 33 per cent of the
seats in this House. And, today, we have trouble holding on to 25
per cent. From 1867 to 1995, we never had extra seats, even
when we could have demanded it. Is this double standard really
acceptable? I submit that it is not and that it should not be.
I strongly believe that the constitution and the elections acts
must reflect the Canadian duality and thus guarantee that
Quebec retain a quarter of the members in the House of
Commons until the people of Quebec decide otherwise. Beyond
party or partisan considerations, this proposal, once again, is
true to the traditional demands of Quebec. I remind you that this
proposal got the support of the Liberal Party of Canada in the
last round of constitutional negotiations. The hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel surely recalls it unless he has a very
short memory.
It would be a lot wiser for the government to wait a few
months before putting this legislation forward or, better still, put
it off indefinitely. Let the government deal with this country's
real problems. Does it not know that Bill C-69 is going to cost
taxpayers an awful lot with its commissions that will have to
11621
travel across Canada? Would that money not be put to a better
use or spent more wisely if it were to go for job creation, for
example, or for a family policy?
As for the Reform Party, it would like to see a decrease in the
number of seats in the House of Commons. The day after the
referendum, their wish will be fulfilled. The Liberal government
claims that this country needs a readjustment of electoral
boundaries. The day after the referendum, their wish will be
fulfilled too. In a few months from now, both the Reformers and
the Liberals will get satisfaction. After the referendum that we
are going to win, do not forget.
(1535)
As a result, there will be fewer members sitting in this House
and Canada will really need a readjustment of electoral
boundaries, since Quebec will be sovereign and will no longer
be part of a country that, historically-and I dealt with the
historical background before question period-has not wanted
it. I stated the relevant facts earlier.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very closely to the comments made by the
hon. member and his proposition for 25 per cent of the members
of this great House.
I wonder if he is seriously looking at the possibility of
forgetting the proposal for separation and instead having a
future as part of this great country of Canada. There is no
question in my mind that Quebec complements and plays a very
important role in the make-up of this whole country.
Is the member now suggesting that the referendum should be
put on the back burner and that in the future Quebec should
continue to be part of this nation and this House of Commons? Is
that why he is putting forward this proposal of 25 per cent? If
that is the case, I think it is wonderful the hon. member is
prepared to come forward with that. It suggests to me that he and
other Bloc members are changing their minds and now realize
what a privilege it is to be part of this great country.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, historical facts from a more recent
past will give us the answer to that question.
In 1965, the War Measures Act was proclaimed in Quebec. In
the middle of the night, the government of Canada invoked the
act. The army, used certain pretexts, supposedly to stop a
separatist movement. Five hundred people were arrested
without warrant. That is the first fact. The second one is even
more recent. It happened in 1981, when the premiers of Canada,
once again in the middle of the night, in Quebec's absence, went
against what they had signed and accepted the unilateral
patriation of the Constitution.
I could also remind the hon. members of the very recent
Meech Lake accord in 1987. Everybody knows that one member
of this House prevented his legislature from discussing the
Meech Lake accord, with the result that everything that had been
provided for in that accord was rejected. That member now sits
on the government benches.
We could also recall the Charlottetown round of discussions
and the way it all ended. It is too bad, but Quebecers will not
forget these facts. Bloc Quebecois members will not abandon
their option, which is to pave the way to Quebec's sovereignty.
Through our efforts here, we will reach that goal.
The only thing we are asking for now, because we are still in
this federation, is the preservation of our rights. It is that simple.
When Quebecers make a decision on Quebec sovereignty, you
will do as you please. When that moment comes, both founding
nations will gain something, in my opinion.
(1540)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleague's speech, I
remembered the mandate we received from the electorate,
which is to defend the interests of Quebecers and at the same
time to promote sovereignty.
Would he not agree that we have before us a very clear
opportunity to fulfil both objectives? By rejecting the
amendment which aims to maintain at 25 per cent the
representation of Quebec in the House of Commons, the
government shows that the Constitution cannot possibly be
renewed. The government has not even given us this basic right.
By negating our status as a people, as one of the founding
nations of this country, is it not the federal government, and
particularly the Liberal members who voted against this
amendment or simply abstained from voting, who will be
blamed for not protecting the interests of Quebec? Will they not
bear the brunt of this decision by the present government, a
decision which is in keeping with the thinking of previous
governments as well as with the logic of the unilateral patriation
of the Constitution in 1982? Is the member not more
comfortable with his position than Liberal members in general
can be?
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, the comment made by my colleague
allows me to demonstrate that despite the past hundred years,
the people of Quebec have matured and are not about to gamble
with their future. They will make a decision based on events
they have witnessed throughout history.
The people of Quebec have reached a point where they will
have to make a decision. Of course, that decision will be to hand
the government of Quebec all political and economic powers to
allow Quebec to govern itself without having to constantly wait
11622
for actions from this Parliament that never materialize, for
instance responsibility transfers that do not come with the
required funds.
There is no doubt that we are now at a crossroad. The decision
will be made. I am convinced that with the debate to be held in
the coming months, a majority of Quebecers will say no to these
fruitless battles we have been involved in for too long.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-69, an act to
provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, at
third and final reading today.
I am pleased to have this opportunity because, although I am
opposed to the way the Liberal government has handled the
issue, the debate which has taken place around the issue of
electoral boundary readjustment has produced some very good
suggestions for change. This debate today gives me a chance to
comment in more detail than I did earlier this year when I spoke
on the concurrence motion that was presented before the House.
Bill C-69 was first tabled in the House of Commons on
February 16, 1995. It has been dealt with in committee and is
now back in the House for third reading. Bill C-69 repeals the
existing Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which has been
in place since 1964.
In early 1994 the commissions established under the 1964
rules and appointed in more recent years began issuing their
proposals for the new electoral boundaries, which they had been
working on for months previous. The proposals generated
considerable concern and debate, especially since the federal
election had just been held and concluded.
(1545 )
In March 1994 the government introduced Bill C-18 to
suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act. As originally drafted, Bill C-18 would have abolished the
11 electoral boundaries commissions and suspended the act
itself for up to two years. Because of concern that this would
unduly delay redistribution-and the Liberal majority in the
House of Commons refused to acknowledge this-the other
place proposed amendments to suspend the act only until June
22, 1995 unless new legislation was put in place before then and
rather than abolish the committees to suspend them until that
time.
The bill in front of us today is meant to address those matters.
The government is doing what it can to ensure it has full passage
before June 22. At the outset, let me say that I will be opposing
the bill when the vote occurs at the conclusion of the debate. I
will do this because I believe the government is interfering with
the independence of what should be a completely non-partisan
arm's length relationship between the people of Canada and its
politicians.
There is a place for politicians to debate process and
procedure and to set rules that will apply in the future. However,
in this case the independent process had begun its course and
was acting according to its existing mandate when the
government unilaterally shut it down and began setting new
rules that would be applied retroactively.
With the passage of this bill the new rules will be in place and
the work of the many existing boundary commissions, much of
it completed after numerous public hearings were held, will be
put on the shelf to gather dust. I expect such will be the case of
the Saskatchewan Boundaries Commission which for all intents
and purposes has completed the work of readjusting the federal
boundaries within my province. Because of the provisions of
this bill, that commission will likely not be reappointed and
Saskatchewan residents will vote within the same boundaries
that were originally set for the 1988 general election when the
next general election is called.
Political constituency boundaries are like provincial and
national boundaries. Despite the fact they are often arbitrarily
drawn, they help to recognize economic, social and geographic
patterns. They are most easily accepted by the public when they
recognize those patterns.
We in Canada have developed a system that is based on a
reference to population and changes in these constituency
boundaries take place when populations shift. I realize that in a
system of representation by population this is an important
consideration. I agree with those who, inside and outside this
Chamber, argue that it makes no sense for one member of
Parliament to represent a constituency populated by 110,000
and another MP to represent a population of 55,000 or less.
Even though each citizen of Canada has one vote in a general
election, the votes when counted are not equal. In the case I just
outlined, those smaller constituencies require only half as many
votes to elect their representative as do those in the larger
constituencies. Those representatives in turn vote on matters of
concern to all the people of Canada in this House on their behalf.
The boundaries commissioners who are appointed to redraw
boundaries when populations change are also charged with
taking into account local trading patterns, communities of
interest, geographical barriers to movement and local economic
conditions. Past experience has shown this has not always been
the case. Therefore, changes in the way we do this stuff is
important.
To a certain extent this bill addresses a few of the problems we
should be looking at for the future. I will address some of those
changes in just a moment. First, I think it is important that we do
11623
not overlook the fact that the system is in much more need of an
overhaul than this bill provides.
There is talk about the need to reduce the number of members
of Parliament. This is a matter I support and one which I think
this Parliament should examine in greater detail. There has been
much talk about building an electoral system around a couple of
different concepts, like proportional representation, or perhaps
a preferential ballot. This is another matter I support, the
discussion of these different systems of elections. We would be
doing ourselves an injustice if we did not pursue that debate as
well.
(1550 )
The House of Commons is only one part of what we call
Parliament. It is impossible and I think irresponsible to reform
one part of this picture without addressing the other. I talked
about the other place in my remarks on the concurrence motion.
I want to stress again that as long as we are hitching our horse
to an electoral system based completely on representation by
population, we must address the problems this creates in
regional fairness. We can best address this by reforming the
second chamber of Parliament. I support the idea of abolishing
the currently unelected and unaccountable Senate and replacing
it with a new elected, accountable and certainly more useful
second chamber that can address more equitably the grievances
of the regions.
These matters are all important to addressing the real
economic and social issues facing all Canadians. The
government should be prepared to take the next step in this
matter as soon as the debate on this bill is complete.
In presenting his report to Parliament the chair of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which by
and large drafted this bill, the member for Kingston and the
Islands suggested that there were a number of problems with the
process of looking at boundary changes. For the most part I
agree with him. Those problems have to be addressed.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said there was a
problem with the beginning of the process. Newly drafted
boundaries maps often appeared to the general public as if by
magic. For most ordinary Canadians the first they knew there
was a boundary change in process was when they saw a redrawn
map published in a local newspaper. The new boundaries
appeared as if they were a fait accompli, a done deal. The work
had been completed. Although public input was sought at this
point, to many Canadians this seemed like a futile gesture. Most
of the work had already been done.
Changes considered and brought forward in this bill now
make the consultation process start earlier. The public will be
notified before the boundaries commissions begin the process of
redrawing the maps. Public input will be considered at that
stage. This is very important and I am pleased to see it included.
So much of the work goes on in that early decision making that
the role of the public must be considered.
At the same time we know today that the existing
commissions are not required to justify their rationale for
making the early decisions, those decisions which determine the
basis for readjusting the boundaries. The new rules will require
the commissions to justify themselves. This is also most
supportable.
In our own case in Saskatchewan, the most recent commission
made its early decision to give our two largest cities, Saskatoon
and Regina, four instead of three seats each. That decision
subsequently affected every other seat in the province since
there were no additional seats to be had in Saskatchewan.
There were 14 seats before redistribution and there were 14
seats after redistribution. When the commission decided to
move two additional seats into the urban environment it meant
that two rural seats would basically disappear. On that point
there was no public input prior to the decision being made.
Subsequently the commission was not asked to justify why the
two urban seats needed more MPs and the rural areas needed
fewer.
In a historical aside, I think it is worth noting that I found in
the history of federal representation in Saskatchewan a very
interesting circumstance. If we look at the historical record we
note that the first federal election in which the newly formed
province of Saskatchewan participated was back in 1907. Ten
federal constituencies were contested. In 1907 Saskatchewan
had 10 seats out of a total of 221 in the House of Commons. That
number fluctuated considerably over the years to a high of 21
seats in the elections of 1924 and 1933 when the House total was
245 seats. Today in a House of Commons of 295 members,
Saskatchewan residents are represented by 14 MPs.
If the House of Commons expands to 301 seats, we will
continue to have the 14 seats for a while but then we will begin to
lose seats, eventually ending up with just 10 again sometime in
the early part of the next century. After 100 years of history we
will be right back to where we started: 10 seats in 1907, 10 seats
in 2003.
(1555 )
I might add that according to Canada's Chief Electoral
Officer, if the government ever addresses the question of a
smaller Parliament, Saskatchewan will again lose more seats. It
will likely end up with no more than eight members of
Parliament representing every citizen within its provincial
borders. This is more than enough reason for Saskatchewan
residents to say that we should make sure that we look beyond
representation by population in the second chamber and develop
a system that will ensure there is fairness in regional
representation.
11624
Going back to the bill, another problem in this mix of existing
rules left any sort of national standards for the basis of decision
making as non-existent. Every boundaries commission made
their own set of rules and set guidelines for how they would
adjust the boundaries within their area of jurisdiction.
As a result, there was no consistency across Canada. Some
constituencies were created under guidelines which took into
account normal local trading, economics, social and even
religious patterns. Others were created for population or even
for political purposes.
This meant that some commissions made changes that were
completely unnecessary. They only did so because they were
given the opportunity to make changes on rules they established
for themselves. The whole matter of unnecessary changes is
crazy. I think the committee has recognized that in proposing
changes in this bill.
The changes proposed in this legislation will now make public
input more useful, consultation more widespread and boundary
changes necessary only when warranted by dramatic population
shifts. These are definitely changes that have to be made.
I agree that the role of the public must be strengthened
because this exercise is ultimately for them. The boundaries on
which MPs are elected have an effect on the type of
representation the people within those boundaries can expect or
should expect. In drawing up those boundaries the needs of
those who will be directly affected must be respected.
I also like the principle of ``least amount of change'' which
this bill proposes, although I do not support its retroactivity. The
principle of least amount of change means that no boundaries
readjustment commission would be appointed when the
population does not warrant it. If there is no substantial
population change, then there is no new commission, no new
work done to adjust boundaries, no public hearings, no new
maps or advertising and with that no new expenditure of public
money to create something that does not need to be changed.
This is a positive element.
For the benefit of my constituents back home in
Saskatchewan, as I mentioned earlier, this likely means that
there will be no new map for Saskatchewan's federal
boundaries. The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency
created for the 1988 election and which was in place for the 1993
election will likely remain in place for the next federal election
whenever that may be.
In conclusion, let me simply say that the changes presented by
Bill C-69 do not justify the suspension of the current process
and the discarding of the work of so many commissions that was
virtually complete. However, the debate has been worthwhile.
The changes will improve the process for the future. At the same
time, let us not forget there is that bigger picture to look at, a
picture that should include a review of the total number of seats
in the House, the concept of proportional representation or
preferential ballot and the concept of a second chamber of
Parliament that is accountable to the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the presentation of our colleague from The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I think that his position was clear
and well put.
I would like to ask him a few questions, perhaps two,
particularly on the issue of an elected Senate. But before I get
into the subject, I would like to justify, just a little, my
participation in the debate.
As a sovereignist member of Parliament from Quebec, it
might seem strange that I would want to get involved in the
representation of Canadians in the House of Commons, but it
should be well understood that constituents gave us the mandate
to be the official opposition in the House. I think that it would
have been inappropriate for us not to deal with this issue
claiming that it does not concern us.
(1600)
It concerns us, first, because of the mandate which we
received, as I just mentioned, and also because, in view of the
association with Canada that we want to promote, it is in our best
interests, as Quebecers, to ensure that Canadian Parliament
works in the best way possible.
I would like to remind my colleague, whom I was interested to
hear mention that the representation of Saskatchewan's
members in Parliament would be reduced in the future, why we,
in the Bloc Quebecois, were moved to present an amendment
which was defeated by the House. The aim of this amendment
was to ensure that, should Quebec remain in Canada, its
representation would never drop below 25 per cent.
Why are we insisting on that figure? I think that this 25 per
cent is very small if we consider what we have been. When you
come into the lobby of the House of Commons, there is the
opposition door and the government door. If you look above the
opposition door, you can see two medallions. In one of them,
there is Louis XIV and in the other, François I.
Above the government door, you notice two English kings.
What does that mean? It means that you can see, carved in stone,
what Canada was when we entered Confederation. By the way,
we entered Confederation on a vote by the Parliament of what
was then Lower Canada. There was no referendum. At the time,
Canada was a duality, what people used to call the French
Canadian people and the English Canadian people. That is how
people saw Canada.
In 1982, Canada changed. Canada was a country with ten
equal provinces, and in those provinces there were citizens who
were all equal, irrespective of their origins, but that is not really
my point. My point is that the nature of the country in which we
live was changed and it was done forcibly, and, I may recall, by
means of a law passed by the Parliament of England. So this is
not exactly conducive to good relations between peoples, and
11625
when I say peoples, I am referring to the people of Quebec and
the people of Canada.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake rose to
complain that Saskatchewan would have fewer members. As
members from Quebec, we also rose to complain about this
eventuality, and the House of Commons ignored our complaint.
We protested on the basis of our historic responsibility as the
homeland of French Canadians. Today, French Canadians call
themselves Quebecers, possibly to the dismay of some people in
English Canada.
And now my question is about the Senate. The hon. member
for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake suggested, to compensate
for the decrease in representation of the provinces, an appointed
or elected Senate that would act as a kind of counterweight to the
fact that the House of Commons would then perhaps represent
more ridings and the Senate would then represent the provinces
and play a kind of protective role.
Considering his experience in the House of Commons-the
hon. member is an experienced member of Parliament who was
here throughout the Mulroney era-does he really believe that
in the present situation, Canada will ever achieve the kind of
constitutional reform that would allow for making changes in its
institutions?
(1605 )
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments
within the member's question to which I would like to respond.
I will start by addressing the question because the answer is
quite simple. I am a great optimist. I believe that people can
work together and reach compromises that will be acceptable to
most Canadians.
We have built an entire heritage of doing that. We are in the
process of reaching agreements with aboriginal people that I
wish were further along in process than they are today. We are
reaching that point and I know we will do so with the province of
Quebec, its people and its leaders as well.
I have no hesitation in saying that when we share the will we
will share also the dream of developing a political system that
we can all work with and live under.
At the same time, in approaching his question the member
made the comment that the Bloc Quebecois is playing a role as
the official opposition in the House of Commons. He talked
about the Bloc Quebecois ensuring that Parliament is as
effective as possible as the official opposition. He implied that
the Bloc Quebecois therefore was able to represent the interests
of Saskatchewan people because they are the official opposition.
I do not think anything can be further from the truth.
After 18 months in office, the present government enjoys
unprecedented popularity among the Canadian people. It is not
for anything that the government has done. It is because the
ineffective opposition is not communicating to the Canadian
people the devastation that the policies of the government are
creating on the people of our country.
Nothing could be more clear than the policies that are
affecting the people of Saskatchewan. The elimination of the
Crow rate in any other Parliament in our history would have
been a raucous debate in this Chamber. There would have been
members yelling and screaming from their chairs. They would
have done everything within the rules, within their power, to
prevent the government from changing the Crow rate, which
devastates the rail transportation system and the agriculture
system in Saskatchewan.
We have completed, over the last couple of days, debate that
implements the changes to the Crow benefit. There were 23 Bloc
speakers on the bill that changes the government's relationship
with Saskatchewan farmers. Of those 23 Bloc speakers, not one
defended Saskatchewan's interests on the Crow rate. In between
these debates, the Bloc even introduced a motion stating that
because of the minuscule payout to the Saskatchewan farmers in
compensation for this huge program they have lost, Quebec was
somehow discriminated against in the process.
That is not an official opposition representing the interests of
Saskatchewan people. That is not an opposition that is going to
bring the people in any part of the country to the conclusion that
the policies of the government are wrong for all Canadians.
Until we have an effective opposition in the country
composed of people who care about all of Canada, the
government is going to continue to have undeserved popularity.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to rise to address Bill C-69.
Bill C-69 really has not received much news coverage. On the
face of it, it is a technical piece of legislation completely lacking
in sex appeal.
At its essence, it can be an important bill for a couple of
reasons. First, it points beyond itself to the desperate need to
bring about some reform of the Canadian parliamentary system.
It points to some of the flaws that we have in our system today. It
should be scrutinized, regarded and debated in the context of
overall reform of the Canadian parliamentary system.
11626
The bill will find opposition among three different groups of
people. It will find opposition among people who believe in real
representation by population. It will find opposition among
people who feel that we are already over-governed to a great
degree. It will find opposition among people who disapprove of
the idea of granting power to unelected and unaccountable
bodies like a boundaries commission.
(1610 )
First, let me talk about representation by population in the
context of the reform of the whole parliamentary system.
Reformers believe in the idea of absolute representation by
population. In other words, to the greatest degree possible
constituencies should have the same population.
However, as a counterpoise to that, to balance the idea of
constituencies which perhaps would congregate in heavily
populated areas, we have to have a triple-E Senate. It should
have an equal number of senators from each province; it should
be an elected Senate and it should be an effective Senate. It is
something that our party has been fighting for since its inception
in 1987.
We are proud of the fact that we are the only party that has
ever elected a senator. The late Stan Waters was elected in the
Senate election of 1991 in Alberta and was subsequently
appointed to the other place. That could have been a very
valuable way to start the trend toward a triple-E Senate.
That system would probably give some regions, such as
Alberta and Saskatchewan, as my hon. friend from The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake has just talked about, and other
regions of the country some representation and protection from
the tyranny of the majority that we have found when we have a
pure representation by population system in a country that is as
geographically large as Canada.
Reformers believe in the idea of representation by population
because it underscores a commitment to the idea of equality
before the law. It is a very important concept which, to some
degree, has been forgotten in the past several years. It has been
superseded by a different type of equality which governments
have come to believe in, that is, the equality of outcome. All
Canadians want is equality of opportunity, and they would find
that, to a large degree, in a system that had absolute
representation by population, along with a triple-E Senate. It is
is a very pragmatic concept, a concept familiar to countries
which have large geographical areas, such as the United States
and Australia.
It is a pragmatic idea because it prevents countries which are
big and sparsely populated in some areas from falling apart. In a
country as large as Canada, we have very disparate points of
view and divergent interests. Sometimes, certainly under a pure
representation by population system, those ideas that we find in
different areas of the country would not be adequately addressed
in a House of Commons, for instance. We need a counterpoise to
that and that is why Reformers are big supporters of a triple-E
Senate.
Bill C-69 gives us neither of those concepts; certainly not
representation by population and definitely not any kind of
change that would give us a triple-E Senate. In fact, it offends
the principles that underlie both of them.
One of the things that Reformers find hard to deal with is the
25 per cent variance regulation in Bill C-69. It means that
constituencies can vary in size by 25 per cent from the mean.
That could lead to discrepancies of as much as 67 per cent in
population size between constituencies. That is a huge
difference in population size. It permanently dispels the idea
that we can have equal influence for our votes in a Canadian
system.
That may be a quaint notion to a lot of people in this place, but
I would argue that people back home very firmly believe in the
idea that each vote should carry the same weight. We would
argue strongly that the government has to begin to move that
way. That is why the Reform Party has suggested, at least, to
amend the variance to 15 per cent between constituencies. If we
did that, it would mean that, at most, we would have a variance
of 35 per cent in populations between constituencies. That is not
perfect, but it certainly brings us closer to the idea of
representation by population until such time as we can have
constitutional reform that can address some of the real problems
that affect the Canadian parliamentary system.
(1615)
As I mentioned a minute ago, I think people feel we are
already over governed. I remind members of an article in that
ubiquitous journal that sits on just about everybody's night
stand, Readers Digest. About a year ago there was an article
about how much money is spent on governing Canadians, how
much it costs to run Parliament. When I think of that article I
cannot help but think of our unelected Senate and the people
over there who sadly do not enjoy the confidence of Canadians,
and how at times they have not displayed the type of conduct we
would like to see from all parliamentarians. I specifically think
of the GST debate.
It is necessary to make those people accountable. If we had a
triple-E senate it is entirely possible that we could trim the size.
Reform has called at various times for Senate reform that could
possibly leave us with six senators from each province. Some
people have suggested we only need two from each province. We
look to the American example and we can see they can get by
with two senators from states as large as California, which has a
population almost as large as Canada's. Somehow they manage
to make that system work. One thing that could be done is trim
the number of senators.
11627
A lot of people would agree with me if I said there are a lot of
backbenchers in the House we probably could do without
because there is not always enough meaningful work to go
around. I mean no disrespect to any particular backbencher.
However, in a private moment if they were true to their heart of
hearts, many backbenchers would acknowledge we could
probably get by with fewer members of Parliament and still do
the essential work required to make the government run.
The article mentioned it costs somewhere in the order of $770
million to run Parliament. If we could get the number of
members of Parliament to about 265, as Reform suggested, it
would still leave constituencies of a size allowing members to
deal with the concerns.
If we could get the size of the Senate down, make it effective,
elected and equal, it would have the confidence of the people
and could serve a necessary purpose and perhaps go a long way
to healing some of the wounds that divide the country.
Concerning boundary commissions being given a lot of power
to make changes, I am concerned about that and Canadians
should be concerned about it as well. It is conceivable that
power could reside simply in the statues for the government to
administer.
The boundary commissions people are unelected and
unaccountable. They have the power to set boundaries. I would
not suggest they have this in mind but if they wished they could
do a tremendous amount of mischief with the boundaries. It has
been suggested by other members that has happened in the past,
that boundaries were drawn somewhat arbitrarily because of
political and other reasons that really do not have anything to do
with the proper function and the proper way representatives and
their areas should be chosen. That bothers me.
We need to move away from that to the greatest degree
possible and enshrine in statutes more precisely how rules
should work so there would be less latitude for unelected,
unaccountable bodies to change the boundaries to suit either
their own needs or perhaps the needs of their political masters.
In Bill C-69 we see the tremendous latitude boundaries
commissions have to make exceptions to the 25 per cent
variance rule by allowing them to exempt certain
constituencies. In the past this has applied to very large
constituencies. There is nothing in the rules preventing
boundary commissions from making exemptions for
constituencies that are not as large.
(1620)
Reform would like to propose bigger changes which would
require a different forum and a different debate. In the context of
this bill we would like to see a rule that would put a limit on the
minimum size of a constituency that could be exempted on the
schedule. We are suggesting somewhere in the range of 200,000
or 250,000 kilometres. We are concerned that as long as it is left
open, we will see MPs from various areas of the country coming
forward, lobbying to have their boundaries exempted, not for
any good reason, but because they want to keep their boundaries
for very political reasons.
I point to the reason we are here discussing Bill C-69. There
was a very unseemly scene not too long ago when the boundaries
came out under the current bill. MPs from the government and
the Bloc were running to the government saying: ``Please do not
change my boundaries. It will ruin my chances for re-election''.
It stopped a situation in which we already had a process
underway to draw new boundaries.
Reform constituencies were very much affected by this. The
member for Beaver River, the deputy leader of the Reform Party,
was to lose her riding altogether. Nevertheless, Reform did not
squawk about this. Members across the way and in the Bloc
squawked, made a big deal about this, made sure their own
interests were protected at the expense of Canadian taxpayers
and at the expense of slowing the entire process down, forcing it
back into the House under new legislation, tying up members'
time to deal with this once again. That is entirely inappropriate.
The government has made a grave error. It has gone to great
lengths to protect its own interests as it has done with other
issues like MP pensions. For once it would be nice to see the
government put the interests of its constituents and of the people
of Canada ahead of its own interests. That is all Canadians want.
That whole unseemly situation gave birth to Bill C-69. It is
why we are here today. What Canadians really want ultimately is
a complete change to the underpinnings of the Canadian system.
They want representation by population. They also want a
triple-E Senate which would go a long way to giving the regions
representation and in healing some of the wounds as a result of a
faulty system today.
A fair and transparent democratic set of institutions is all
Canadians want. The government and Bill C-69 have failed to
give them that. For that reason I will not be supporting this
legislation.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am a little curious as to something the member
said. He referred to the schedules in the bill whereby members
could apply to have their ridings exempted from redistribution
because it would be included in the schedule.
Is he aware that in committee that section of the bill was
removed?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak directly to what the
hon. member has referred to, but my concern is that we will have
members and their delegates arguing before boundary
commissions for exemption and that will tie up the whole
process.
11628
We have already seen how members have run to the
government to have the whole system changed at great expense
to the Canadian taxpayers. I am concerned there might be
loopholes that would allow government members and other
members, from the Bloc for instance, to continue that.
(1625 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member has not
answered the question.
Is he not aware the section to which he refers whereby Bloc
members, Liberal members or any member could ask to have
their riding put in a schedule either because it is too large or for
any other consideration is not there? The last section of this bill
is entitled coming into force, section 40. The previous section to
add to this schedule was removed at the committee by
unanimous vote, including the Reform members who sit on the
committee.
Given that is the case, surely the member will understand the
whole premise of his speech today is wrong. Given that all of
that was wrong, should we now conclude he is now in favour of
the bill because the whole premise by which he thought the bill
was wrong is not there? It was removed several weeks ago in the
committee on a motion by a committee member and approved by
all other committee members.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I reject the hon. member's
premise. Obviously I addressed many points in my speech. The
hon. member across the way has not addressed the concern I
raised that there be a minimum level at which exemptions would
not be permitted, 200,000 to 250,000, somewhere in that range.
That is what we are calling for.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a regrettable aspect of the
Reform member's speech, namely the denigrating of an MP's
work.
The member started by saying that the choices made by
Canadians were not all good ones. This is tantamount to
insulting voters. Then, he criticized the number of members.
These are facile comments. Indeed, regardless of which side
members sit in this House, regardless of their option, the fact is
that, as with any group, some people are more efficient than
others. However, the overwhelming majority of members put all
their energy into their work and try to do a good job.
The member also indicated that we try to protect the interests
of our individual ridings. I categorically object to that
statement. When representations are made, at any stage, it is
always with the public interest in mind, to ensure that voters are
adequately represented and to also ensure that certain criteria
are taken into account.
I will end with a question which expresses my astonishment.
The Reform member, as well as the NDP member who preceded
him, both feel that a constitutional reform is essential. Do
members not realize that, since the failure of the Charlottetown
accord, it is no longer possible to reform the existing structure?
[English]
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I reject the idea there is no
possibility of constitutional reform. Canadians by and large
want to ultimately change the system and there will be a day in
the not too distant future when they will be ready to discuss that.
Perhaps that is a little wishful thinking on behalf of the member
from the Bloc Quebecois who would like to separate. Sadly for
him that will be denied in an upcoming referendum which they
surely will lose due in no small part to the ineffectiveness of the
Bloc Quebecois to represent the constituents of Quebec.
Perhaps he has made an argument for me that certain
backbenchers have not been effective in putting across the views
of their constituents very effectively.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I simply
want to ask a question to the hon. member, but first I would like
to make a short comment.
After hearing the hon. member's speech, I think I can see the
difference between Reform and Bloc members. I feel that
Reform members represent taxpayers, while we, Bloc members,
represent citizens.
It is often said that citizens do not want their riding to change,
or that their member makes representations on their behalf to
preserve the boundaries of the riding. That is because the
member recognizes that these people feel a sense of belonging to
their riding.
(1630)
People get attached to their riding, which is represented by a
member of Parliament. Often, they will have created a sense of
community in that riding.
To think strictly in terms of numbers when establishing the
boundaries of a riding would be to make the same mistake as in
1982, when the Canadian constitution was changed and when the
country's ten provinces, whose populations are far from being
equal, were said to be equal. That created an artificial country.
I believe that, given the attitude which frequently prevails
when setting electoral boundaries, we create artificial ridings
which do not mean anything special. It is as though Canada was
a big cake cut into pieces, with the hope that these pieces will
somehow be equal. You simply cannot do that with a country.
You cannot overlook the sense of belonging.
I ask the hon. member: Does he not think it is important to
take into account the voters' sense of belonging when redefining
electoral boundaries?
11629
[English]
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, certainly I recognize there are
differences from community to community. To the greatest
degree possible boundaries should recognize this and try to
embrace communities where there have been traditional
boundaries.
However the first principle, the driving principle in my
judgment, has to be representation by population. At the end of
the 20th century we do not yet have a political system that either
serves people on the basis of representation by population or
contrarily has a counterpoise through a triple-E Senate. It is
time that we started to move toward that.
In our amendments to Bill C-69, the one that called for a 15
per cent variance would have given us a closer system. That has
to be the first principle that drives any changes to the
boundaries. The second principle should respect trading areas
and things like that. We agree with that absolutely. Let us not
make that the first principle.
Canadians are democrats first and foremost. I think they
would like to see a system that is based on a more democratic
type of system.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Turkey; the hon. member
for Bourassa-Immigration.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at the start of this the last statement on this bill, I
would like to identify my reasons for opposing it.
First, the Bloc Quebecois was elected to defend Quebec's
interests and to promote sovereignty. Personally, as a member, I
said, obviously, that I wanted to protect the interests of the
people in my part of the country.
When the electoral map is to be redrawn resulting in the
disappearance of one of the five ridings of eastern Quebec-be
it Gaspé, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine or
Matane-Matapédia-or a change to the riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup or Rimouski-Témiscouata, I
believe it is important that all members of this House understand
the need for legislation permitting true representation of the
people, one that would not be simply based on a mathematical
computation.
To this end, while we have been in this House, we have made
representations to the electoral boundaries commission, we
have spoken during second reading, we appeared before the
standing committee. After all that, I would once again ask
people to make sure that consideration is given to a region's
natural configuration in the make-up of federal ridings, if the
federal map is to be used again.
(1635)
I gave as an example my riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. If the electoral map were ever
changed, I would like the people in the RCMs concerned to be
asked what riding they would like to be in in order to be sure that
people are where they want to be and not stuck somewhere as the
result of mathematical or geographical calculations that have
nothing to do with reality.
When changing electoral boundaries, we are reminded of the
past a bit-very large ridings across Canada with a scattered
population that is difficult to reach. In the past, there have even
been protected ridings in Quebec to ensure better representation
for anglophones in the Eastern Townships. However, when we
consider the electoral map as one of the tools of democracy for
the future, we must ensure it provides for better representation
and that it is an effective tool for the exercise of democracy.
I have been a member for a year and a half. I think all
members of this House think the same way. The work here is
apportioned fairly well. Whether we come from a large or a
small riding, area-wise, our work is quite similar. However, it is
another matter when we are talking about our work in our
ridings. Some ridings are located right downtown, a few streets
away from each other, whereas the one I represent encompasses
a total of 55 municipalities. There are even ridings with 80
municipalities. This all affects the work of MPs and the way
they will go about doing it.
The number of municipalities is not the only issue. We should
also consider the extent to which government services are
spread out in a riding. MPs must try to compensate, particularly
in rural areas. In major centres, all of the government services
can be found; people in those ridings can always find the office
which can provide them such and such a service. But for people
in rural areas, the MP's office is often the only resource they
have to help them locate the government services they need. The
workload, therefore, is heavier and when a riding is particularly
large, this obviously has an impact on the amount of work to be
done.
Therefore, it is very important that we take into consideration
the size of the territory covered if we want to ensure that MPs
will be able to represent their electorate well. They must also be
able to see their constituents regularly.
11630
Other important factors which must be taken into account are
activity and industrial sectors. For example, this week, we had
an opposition day on agriculture. If we move closer to basing
representation purely on demographic considerations, the
impact of the agricultural sector will be reduced, the impact of
MPs representing such ridings will also be reduced, and even
society as a whole will be negatively affected because
agriculture has an impact on the population as a whole.
Therefore, we must ensure that we continue to be able to take
into account this kind of sector. That is why it seems to me that
the current bill lacks nuance and subtlety in the way that the
boundaries of ridings can be determined. That was one aspect
that I wanted to discuss, but there is another-and it was perhaps
the greatest disappointment during the entire consideration of
the bill-the Liberal majority's refusal to grant Quebec a
minimum of 25 per cent of all of the seats in the House of
Commons.
I equated this behaviour with someone slamming the door on
another person, an egotistical act committed by the majority and
a sort of negation of the fact that Canada has two founding
peoples. Initially, in this House, two founding peoples created
this country. Through immigration policies and the way that the
provinces were created, Quebecers, the first explorers of this
vast continent, will become a smaller and smaller minority as
time goes by if they choose to stay in Canada, a choice which
will mean that they will be a minority without any real impact
compared to the position they have had in North America for
centuries.
(1640)
I believe that this tendency to reduce Quebec to a minority
reflects the same attitude that gave us the unilateral patriation of
the Constitution. There is some consistency there. In the same
way as Quebec Liberal members were not very proud of
patriation in 1982-and were reminded of that during the 1984
election-the Quebec people told them that they were not very
pleased with their vote on this amendment. We were very
surprised to see Quebec Liberal members vote against our
amendment which, basically, was to guarantee a minimum
representation in the House.
I believe that it is something that all Quebecers will remember
for a long time. They will remember it, in particular, when they
have to decide whether they want to become a country or not,
and one of the reasons for their choice will be that they have no
hope of regaining the place they had in this country, given that
they are refused even this small guarantee of survival.
The refusal to make the Magdalen Islands a special case, and
consider it a separate riding, is another disappointment, even if
it does not have the same national significance. This shows a
lack of sensitivity and in that regard I should mention that the
Quebec Electoral Law considers the Magdalen Islands as a
separate riding, outside the norm for other ridings. At the
federal level, this riding has existed in the past, but later the
islands were joined with either Gaspé or Bonaventure.
This puts the member who represents this area in a very
awkward position, since there are very distinct interests. This is
clear when you consider the territory to be covered and the
isolation of the place, and also when you consider its
relationship with other Canadian communities surrounding the
Gulf. I find the decision not to recognize the islands as a
separate riding regrettable, because a member representing
solely the islands could have made a very interesting
contribution. This does not mean that there could not be in
Canada some other exceptions of that kind, which could be
given special recognition.
The reason I am against this bill is that the provincial
commissions which will be established to readjust the electoral
boundaries will have to apply the three following criteria:
community of interest, reasonable size, and significant
population increase over the next five years. This is the exact
opposite of the argument I presented to the committee when I
said: ``Would it not make sense, when considering eliminating a
riding, to give it the opportunity to continue being represented
in the House of Commons until the next census and, if it shows
that the population is still dropping, to eliminate it then but only
then?''
The situation is reversed; for a riding to be exempt, one must
forecast a significant increase in the population of the area over
the next five years. This flies in the face of regional
development. For instance, eastern Quebec has seen its
population drop for the last 10 to 15 years as a result of
deliberate policies on the part of centralizing governments
which have pushed people to leave the area in search of a job.
For the past few years, all the economic stakeholders have
been working hard to reverse this trend. It will take a few years.
Demographers say that it will take another 10 years, if the
measures being implemented are successful. But, if in the
meantime, you take away their ability to be represented, you are
thwarting the efforts of the people who want to develop that
particular part of the country.
Therefore, I believe that electoral boundaries commissions
should have to consider other criteria over and above the three I
already mentioned, namely: community of interest, reasonable
size, and significant population increase over the next five
years.
(1645)
I have already listed them, but the main ones are the economic
profile of a region, its size, the number of municipalities of
which it is comprised and geographic unifying factors. These
are all factors that should be considered and would, in my
11631
opinion, make for a more balanced definition of electoral
boundaries.
So, if you apply to the five electoral districts in Eastern
Quebec the rules contained in the bill as it stands, you inevitably
end up with a higher rate of depopulation and conditions
unfavourable to building a new rurality. This situation is not
unique to us. Every region in Canada is similarly affected, and I
think the government should really be responsive to this.
In conclusion, after following this bill as it went through
several stages, I think that it should be defeated because the
government did not fulfil the mandate it should have given
itself, that is to ensure that all citizens of this country are
adequately represented on the electoral map and that this map
will promote a more participating democracy.
One more thing, and I will conclude on this. I think it is very
important to make sure that the cost of our democratic
mechanisms are well within reasonable limits and that this is
probably the least expensive system allowing us to achieve
interesting results. Under the present circumstances, the
government could have come up with a better mechanism and I
think that it would have gained from listening to representations
in that regard.
I hope that the people of Quebec will be able to clearly see
that, in that regard, the Bloc fully carried out its mandate to
protect the interests of Quebecers and respect the choice they
will make in the referendum. Either way, they will have been
represented in this place by members who will have done their
utmost to ensure adequate representation.
As we examine electoral boundaries, we also notice
duplication in the representation provided by members of
Parliament. In the day-to-day work of members, there is clearly
duplication resulting in additional costs to the government.
There is also, in a way, unhealthy competition between
provincial and federal members of Parliament, which does not
promote efficiency in the system. I think this is one of the main
reasons why a majority, the vast majority of Quebecers condemn
the federal system in its present form and have been trying for 30
years to change it and make it better, but the actions taken in
recent years have shown that this is impossible and that the only
way to get things moving again is to vote ``yes'' in the
referendum to make sure they are in control of their future.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of my hon.
colleague across the way.
``Slamming the door in our face'' I think was the terminology
he used for not immediately agreeing to providing 25 per cent of
the seats in this House for the province of Quebec. I suppose
many Quebecers, and indeed many other Canadians, consider
that the separatists from Quebec who propose separating from
Canada are slamming the door in other Canadians' faces.
We are adults and should resolve our problems as individuals
and as a country through serious discussion, through caring and
sharing our thoughts and ideas with all areas of this great
country. It would certainly be childish to suggest that one needs
four or five strikes and then, like children, take the ball and bat
and go home.
(1650)
In this particular case, my hon. colleague across the way
noted some of the concerns he and perhaps others have had. We
could sit down and cite, back and forth, historic concerns
probably for several days and weeks. However, we have to take a
point from where we are today and move forward. We cannot
move forward and accomplish our goals when we have such
things as a referendum and separatists and separation hanging
over our heads. What we really need is an opportunity to sit
down and, with serious discussion, negotiate where this country
is going in the future.
I compliment my hon. colleague across the way for even
suggesting that. The fact that they are talking about whatever
percentage of seats in this House indicates to me that indeed
deep down they are looking to stay in Canada and to stay in this
House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member heard that I chose to stay here. I think that it is quite
obvious from our approach and our desire to stay until the end of
our mandate. I think that it is quite obvious given the number of
times we showed that we favoured sovereignty and that we want
Quebecers to make that choice in a democratic fashion.
However, on the issue of the bill before the House, it is
interesting to note that it is not the official opposition in Ottawa
that asked for the 25 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition in
the Quebec National Assembly, who is the leader of the Quebec
Liberal Party, proposed that the Quebec National Assembly
reiterate its objective of keeping at least 25 per cent of the seats
in the Canadian House of Commons for Quebec and call on the
Quebec government to make representations to that effect.
This reminds me a little of the type of consensus we see on the
issue of jurisdiction over manpower. It is the kind of unanimous
opposition we in Quebec can summon against this. It is the
Liberal majority in this place that voted against giving Quebec
25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. It is the kind
of results we will keep in mind.
The official opposition in Quebec agrees with the official
opposition in the House of Commons in this regard. The Quebec
government wants to assume that responsibility, to ensure that
minimum level of protection. I think that there is a consensus
the Liberal majority must face.
11632
We must be able to hold serious discussions in an effort to
address the problems. My father told me that, long before I was
born, electoral boundaries were imposed on Quebecers even
though 80 per cent of them voted against them.
Later, the Constitution was patriated unilaterally without the
agreement of the Quebec government under Mr. Lévesque or of
the federalist governments that followed. We are still living
with this Constitution today but the Liberal majority does not
have a problem with it just because one of the provinces did not
sign the agreement, and that is very difficult for us to accept.
However, I did like one element of the presentation by the
hon. member across the way. He said that we should sit down
and negotiate. I think he should speak with his leader and all
Liberal members because it is obvious that the leader of the
government has repeatedly denied the need to amend the
Constitution.
It is clear that the current Prime Minister is trying to make
Quebecers forget their own reality by providing good
government for both Canadians and Quebecers. According to
the figures we got earlier today, we are for the first time in 125
years the province with the largest number of poor people in
Canada. This kind of situation calls for fundamental changes. If
the system has produced such results for 125 years, the only
solution, in my opinion, is to get out.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1655)
The Deputy Speaker: As no other speaker wishes to ask a
question or make a comment, we will resume debate. The hon.
deputy government whip.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
most Quebecers do not agree with the position of the last speaker
and obviously do not want to leave Canada. This is why Quebec
separatists have postponed the referendum.
I would also like to remind the Bloc member that Quebecers
rejected the constitutional amendments that would have
guaranteed them a percentage of the seats in the House of
Commons.
Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I want to point out that I will
be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
[English]
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. It
really is an extremely important bill, which deals with how we
as Canadians determine how we will be represented in our
House of Commons.
While I have had the privilege of being a member of the
committee on procedure and House affairs, which dealt with this
bill, I joined the committee only part-way through the process. I
am aware that the members of that committee spent a great deal
of time on it. It was an innovative process in that it was the first
time a committee fulfilled a mandate that we as a government
promised to give members of the House of Commons, as
members of committee, to actually initiate legislation, to bring
legislation forward to the House from the members of this
House as opposed to from the government.
I want to compliment those members of the committee who
have been on this project since the beginning for the excellent
work they have done and the detailed consideration they have
given to all aspects of this bill.
I said it was an important bill and it is. It deals with how we
are represented democratically as Canadians. That is a very
difficult issue in a country like ours, which is so disperse, so
disparate, so diverse geographically and demographically.
We have huge concentrations of people in urban centres such
as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and yet we have huge and vast
expanses of the country with very little population, with very
little opportunity for people to have direct contact with their
elected representatives.
One dilemma the committee faced was how to deal with equal
representation by population for people in very concentrated
areas and in very dispersed areas.
It is not an easy challenge. One has to recognize that
representation by one's elected representative is more difficult
when the member of Parliament has to travel perhaps thousands
of miles even to see the parts of his or her constituency. One may
have a very small population in a vast northern riding or in a
riding such as Labrador and still have less contact with one's
constituents than with a much larger population in an urban area
that is much more compact.
(1700 )
The committee has proposed some innovative ways of
ensuring when riding boundaries are decided upon. Of course
they will not be decided by us but by independent commissions.
However those factors will be taken into consideration. The very
unique nature of this country will be taken into consideration.
Ridings will be constructed so that people are equally well
represented regardless of geography, dispersion of the
population, sparsity of the population, or concentration of the
population.
I did want to speak about the whole concept of community of
interest. That very clearly is a factor many of us felt was not
adequately respected in the previous report of the electoral
boundaries commissions, a factor that I feel has been
tremendously strengthened in the legislation now before the
House.
One must not only look at numbers when deciding on ridings,
how large they are and what their boundaries are. One must look
at the commonality of interests in the people to be represented
by the same member of Parliament. Do they identify themselves
as a community? This is probably nowhere more important than
in deciding what groups of people are going to be represented by
11633
the same individual. Of course, there will always be diversity
and differences within any community no matter the size.
It is extremely important that when members of Parliament
walks into this Chamber to represent their constituents, they do
so for a group of people who feel they have something in
common. They identify themselves as a community historically
or by virtue of common interests.
I also want to respond to some comments that have been made
about the 25 per cent representation. Members from the Bloc
know very well that what they have talked about this week
cannot be achieved except by constitutional change. To pretend
anything else is simply not being straightforward with people.
I do not think we could identify a handful of people in this
country who want to go through the turmoil of talking about
constitutional change again. There are so many bigger and much
more important issues which touch the lives of people daily.
People have contacted me asking why we cannot have a much
smaller House of Commons. That is certainly an option. Again,
it would require a constitutional change because of minimum
representation which is guaranteed to some of our smaller
provinces.
I also tell people it is entirely possible to have a very much
smaller House of Commons but we would lose something in
doing that. Canadians would lose much closer and more
personal contact with their members of Parliament.
The people I have talked to value the ability to be in personal
contact and have a personal response from their members of
Parliament, when they want to discuss an issue with them or
have a problem resolved or have recommendations for
government action. This is extremely important to Canadians.
Coming back to the first point, it is extremely important given
the diversity of this country. Therefore, people should be
cautious when they suggest we have fewer elected
representatives. They would also then have more remote
representation.
Mr. Speaker, I only have a few seconds left. Therefore, I move
pursuant to Standing Order 26:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for
the purpose of considering Bill C-69.
(1705)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Would those members who object to
the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 15 members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: More than 15 members have risen,
pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have
been withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn.)
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening closely to the parliamentary assistant and I thought it
was rather presumptuous of her to state without any doubt that
Quebecers do not support the theory of Quebec's sovereigntists.
Although it is true that Quebecers rejected the Charlottetown
agreement which kind of guaranteed Quebec 25 per cent of the
seats in the House of Commons, I want to point out to the hon.
member that English-speaking Canadians and the residents of
the rest of Canada also voted against the agreement.
So, she should not blame us for the failure of the
Charlottetown agreement. I would also remind the hon. member
that her leader, the current Prime Minister of Canada, warmly
welcomed in his party the man who torpedoed the Meech Lake
accord. I also want to take this opportunity to say to the hon.
member that it is not because the sovereignty option is currently
down in the polls that one must conclude that Quebecers support
the federalist option.
I think that, for various reasons, but mostly because of
everything that is going on, because of previous threats they
have received, because of fear-mongering, Quebecers are
reluctant to opt for this avenue, but remember that a marriage
run by fear is not a happy one. The hon. member should
remember this, because with the growing debt and the deficit
they will never get rid of-although they will never admit to
it-one day they will have to say to Quebecers: ``Please, leave.
We are no longer able to afford to be so big, so fat. We can no
longer afford all this splendour''.
This will quickly put an end to the member's rejoicing. So, I
would ask her to be a little less presumptuous and to tell us what
is wrong with giving Quebecers 25 per cent of the seats in the
House of Commons, when they used to have, at the very
beginning of Confederation, almost 50 per cent of them?
I want to remind the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that Confucius said that the hen
has no business ruling the farmyard.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to play on the
word sovereignist and claim the support of a majority of
Quebecers.
(1710)
But after yesterday's declaration it has become clear that
there will not be a referendum before next fall and that
separatists are afraid of what Quebecers might decide. It is very
clear that they want a sovereignist interpretation which would
please Quebecers.
11634
But the truth is that they constantly avoid the real question,
which is separation. They want to avoid a clear definition of
their aim, which is separation, and they do not want people to
know that they are separatists. It is a very clear question. I do not
understand the problem with asking the question right now.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have such a large audience and to see
all the members of the Bloc who are eager to hear my speech,
which will lead them to vote in favour of Bill C-69. They are all
here in front of me.
Let me begin with the member who has just taken us back to
Confederation and talked to us about the representation in the
House of Commons in 1867. One does not have to be a great
historian to know that, in 1867-The member, who knows his
history, knows perfectly well that the Union Act, 1840 and the
British North America Act are not the same thing.
Anyway, at the time of Confederation in 1867, there were in
fact three regions. There were, of course, 24 seats for what was
then Upper Canada, 24 seats for Lower Canada, and 24 seats for
the three maritime provinces, that is ten for New Brunswick, ten
for Nova Scotia and four for Prince Edward Island.
We all know that Prince Edward Island chose not to enter
Confederation at that time and joined a few years later. So, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia each had 12 seats; 12 and 12 are 24,
right? Twenty-four for Quebec and 24 for Ontario. For a
member to claim that Quebec had 50 per cent of the seats in 1867
is the opposite of the truth, as Sir Winston Churchill and his
parliamentarians said so well.
Those are the facts. With all due respect, the hon. member
opposite does not know what he is talking about. Twenty-four
out of 72 is not 50 per cent. Our friend who wants to leave the
room, no doubt on very urgent business, should know better.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
there is some laxness in the negative turn of phrase used to avoid
using unparliamentary language. There is a lot of laxness in the
content of the hon. member's speech; I hope there will not be as
much in his vocabulary.
The Deputy Speaker: I too heard language that came very
close to being unparliamentary. I would ask all hon. members to
respect the rules.
Mr. Boudria: I will go on, after being interrupted by a Bloc
member. Another Bloc member claimed today in a speech, and
again this was not what actually happened, that it was because of
certain federalists here in Ottawa, and only because of them, he
said, that the War Measures Act was invoked during the October
crisis.
(1715)
I have here some excerpts from a letter I would like to quote to
relate certain facts: ``Under the circumstances, on behalf of the
Government of Quebec, I request that emergency powers be
provided as soon as possible so that more effective steps may be
taken. I request particularly that such powers encompass the
authority to apprehend and keep in custody individuals who, the
Attorney General of Quebec has valid reasons to believe, are
determined to overthrow the government through violence and
illegal means''. And it goes on.
I read further on: ``The chief of the Montreal Police has
informed us that the means available to him are proving
inadequate and that the assistance of higher levels of
government has become essential for the protection of society'',
etc.
Of course, I was reading from a letter the Quebec government
of the day wrote to the Canadian government at the request of
the Montreal chief of police. I do not mean here to defend or
criticize the War Measures Act, but I want to tell members
opposite that when they talk about the War Measures Act, they
should tell the whole story instead of hiding half the truth the
way they so often do.
Earlier today, we heard members across the way say they
reject this bill even if they unanimously endorsed it in
committee. They changed their mind along the way because one
of them saw fit to move this motion to ensure Quebec will never
have less than 25 per cent of seats in the Commons. Those same
members opposite keep whining, like one of them is doing now
while I am speaking. They tend to forget that they opposed the
Charlottetown accord that gave that kind of assurance.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): It was rejected
everywhere.
Mr. Boudria: It is not true. I am sorry but in French-speaking
areas outside Quebec, in my own riding, 70 per cent of my
constituents supported the accord. The hon. member across the
way says it was rejected everywhere, but it is not true.
Obviously, the accord did not pass, though. But when I hear
Reform members demanding an elected Senate, something they
rejected in the Charlottetown accord, and when I hear Bloc
members demanding 25 per cent of the seats, something they
refused in that same accord, I am entitled to question their
sincerity.
[English]
Some people across the way are remembering the truth in a
selective manner. They are indeed remembering the truth in
ways that pleases them.
I for one am in favour of this bill. It is not to change the
Constitution. It is nothing of the sort. It is just to modernize our
electoral laws. Let us do it now. If we do not pass this bill, those
same people across the way are going to accuse us in very short
order that we did not proceed with the bill and redistribution
could not take place on time.
11635
I will say to them at that particular time, they know everything
has to be installed by June; otherwise it will not proceed. I have
here the timetable for the boundaries readjustment in front of
me. Unless this bill clears the House by the end of June, unless
Royal Assent is given by June 22, this whole thing will not be
possible.
I say to the members across the way, shame on them for
having deliberately held this piece of legislation to give better,
more effective representation to all Canadians.
(1720)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a little
while ago, I heard the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell read a letter concerning the
October crisis. He did not read it all and did not say who wrote it.
We know that it can only have been signed by the Premier of
Quebec at the time, Robert Bourassa. I am very sad to hear the
member recall these events as if they were something Canada
and the Canadian Parliament should be proud of.
I believe that everything that has come out regarding the
Cabinet discussions at the time clearly shows that if ever there
was a dark time in Canada's recent history, it was then. I can
assure him that now that we have a Premier with a backbone in
Quebec, we will not see such a letter in the months to come.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I always like to hear the hon.
member speak about the head office and his leader in Quebec,
the head of the provincial government, whom he praises and
says he has guts, courage, etc.
I ask my colleagues to ponder over these few questions. Is that
the same leader as the one who refuses to hold a referendum
because he knows he will lose? Is that the provincial leader who
postpones the referendum until next fall? Is that the leader who
broke the formal promise he made to Quebecers during the
election campaign? Is it another person? It must be. It certainly
cannot be the same one.
I know the hon. member from the other side is only a member
of a local branch of the Parti Quebecois, the one they call the
Bloc, and that the head office is far away. But I would suggest he
makes a conference call to talk to other representatives of the
head office. And when he gets his information from that head
office, he will find out something we all know already, that is,
the Parti Quebecois does not have the courage to call the
referendum immediately. They say they must wait because
people are not ready, but in fact it is because they do not want to
lose.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there were several things in the speech of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that I agreed with and a few that I
did not agree with. He said one thing, perhaps inadvertently, and
I would like to give him a chance to elaborate on a particular
comment he made that if we do not pass this bill we will not have
a redistribution before the next election.
Is it not in fact the case that the present electoral boundary
redistribution process is under suspension and if we do not pass
this bill we simply resume with the process as it is virtually now
completed and could be completed fairly quickly? Is that not a
more realistic option than restarting the process all over again at
the cost of some $5 million to $6 million?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question.
This same electoral redistribution that he refers to, the bill we
have put under suspension in order to get this better one, would
not have the measure of providing quinquennial redistribution
to increase the number of seats in British Columbia, which some
of his colleagues have said was under-represented by not
proceeding with a bill like this. This is the same party that
advocates both positions.
I say to the hon. member, he may be from the next province
over, but he should discuss this issue with his friends from B.C.
if he wants to go back to the bill that is under suspension as
opposed to Bill C-69. Bill C-69 is far better in terms of
providing more even redistributions in a quicker way and that
are fairer to all Canadians. Surely he knows that, but if he does
not, the people of British Columbia-
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. member
for Mercier.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all I want to say that we have just heard a prime example of
contempt for the Quebec people as they are known now, after
having been for a long time the French Canadian nation.
(1725)
In this Parliament and the previous one, if other members had
respected the people of Quebec, Quebec's history would have
been different, and I would like to talk about that, because after
all, we will have to live together in any case as neighbours.
I may recall that Daniel Johnson senior was descended from
Irish immigrants who spoke no French. In 1965, he gave his
party a fresh start with his book, published under the title
Égalité ou Indépendance, which became the slogan for his
convention and his election campaign.
Daniel Johnson wrote the following: ``Our English Canadian
compatriots refer to a nation consisting of two peoples, while
according to our French concept of the Canadian fact, we say
there one people consisting of two nations. The confusion arises
from the fact that English puts more emphasis on the political
connotation of the word, while French uses the word in its
sociological context. If we go by the description I just gave,
there is no doubt Canada has two nations. Canada has two
communities that are distinct by reason of their language,
religion, culture, traditions, history and finally, a common
desire to live together. Even in provinces where they are a
minority, they have a natural tendency to regroup on a regional
or local basis so as to create an environment in which they can
flourish''. As Daniel Johnson said in 1965: ``The fundamental
11636
characteristic of a nation is not race but culture. Whatever one's
name or ethnic origin, one belongs to one of the two nations
depending on whether one's roots, education, choices, lifestyle,
and philosophy lead one to identify with one cultural
community rather than another. And I am thinking'', he said,
``of all the new Canadians who chose to become a part of French
Canadian culture and to contribute to its development and
growth''.
He goes on to say that ``the French Canadian nation is trying
with all its might and with every fibre of its being to realize its
potential as a nation and that its aspirations are entirely normal
and legitimate. Later on I will explain how and why French
Canadians try to identify with the State of Quebec, the only one
where they can claim to be masters of their own destiny and
where they can develop the full potential of their community,
while the English Canadian nation tends to make Ottawa the
centre of its community life''.
If Canada had recognized the French Canadian nation, we
would not be where we are today. And we are there because after
being denied equality, the French Canadian nation became the
Quebec nation and now seeks its sovereignty, as Daniel Johnson
explains here.
I have very little time, Mr. Speaker, but I will go on. However,
in this vote on the position of the Bloc Quebecois, Canada and
the Liberals could have shown a minimum of respect for this
people, this nation with whom, in any case, they will have to find
a modus vivendi, as neighbours or otherwise.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Mercier will have 15 minutes, next time.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to
consideration of Private Members' Business as indicated on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11636
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately end
employment equity programs and the inclusion of employment equity
requirements on employment or training forms because such requirements
encourage candidate selection to be made on the basis of sex or ethnic origin
rather than merit, and, as a result, foster a sense of resentment among
applicants.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been deemed not
votable. Because it covers such an important topic, I would ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to make it votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the
House?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is refused, but the hon.
member has the floor.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, it is noted that
the government members do not want to vote on this issue.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member
across the way has just impugned motive to government
members because he says a committee of this House has
unanimously decided that his motion was not votable. It is right
in our standing orders. Members across the way know it is in our
standing orders. Therefore, I submit that it is a valid point of
order.
The matter is that this is simply a motion that was addressed
by a committee of this House. To say that refusing this is
somehow the fault of the government as opposed to the
committee that unanimously did so is simply and factually
incorrect.
The Deputy Speaker: With respect, I do not think that is a
point of order.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, over the next
hour this House will have the opportunity to discuss what some
members will see as a politically incorrect motion.
I made the decision to prepare this motion after receiving
complaints from constituents that they may have missed out on
being selected for taxpayer-funded training or job creation
programs solely because they did not fit into a designated target
group on an application form.
It is appalling that the government of a democratic country
has a policy condoning the selection of workers or trainees
based on their gender or ethnic origins. It makes the government
guilty of promoting sexism and racism, and it is particularly bad
policy when there simply is no statistical evidence to support the
claimed need for employment equity programs.
For example, figures from Statistics Canada indicate that the
unemployment rate for young males ranges between 20 per cent
and 23 per cent, while the unemployment rate for young females
ranges from 14 per cent to 15 per cent. While both figures are far
too high, clearly it is the young men who are the disadvantaged
group. Their unemployment rate is consistently twice the
national average, and it probably is contributing to their higher
suicide rate and an increase in youth crime.
Some interesting material comes from a research paper by Dr.
John T. Samuel of Carleton University, which cites statistics
from the 1986 census, showing that 72.1 per cent of visible
minorities over 15 years of age are in the workforce while only
66.5 per cent of the general population over 15 is in the
workforce. The same census shows that the average personal
income is $17,500 for the general population and almost $1,500
more for visible minorities. The REAL Women organization has
also confirmed these figures in their own investigation of the
representation of visible minorities and women in the Canadian
workforce.
Well-meaning people are chasing ghosts, because there is no
evidence that employment equity programs are needed. This is
not to say that every employer out there is a saint. But the best
11637
way to handle individual cases where there is improper
treatment of employees is for those cases to be dealt with in the
courts and the employers properly punished.
Unfortunately, government-enforced provisions start with
the assumption that all employers are guilty, even though 1993
Nobel laureate and economist Gary Becker notes that
discrimination poses internal as well as external costs on a
company. In other words, discriminatory employment decisions
cost firms money. If they do not select the best person for the
job, that translates directly to a drop in productivity and a drop
in the bottom line. Since the overriding objective of a company
is to make money, discrimination will be short-lived and the
marketplace will police discrimination. This theory is borne out
by the statistics I have already given and the ones that will
follow in the rest of this speech.
(1735)
In terms of public support for employment equity, a
December 1993 Gallup poll showed 74 per cent of Canadians to
be opposed to such programs. This high percentage is not a
surprise to me because to this day I have never met a person who
wanted to get a job or be promoted on the basis of their gender or
their race rather than the skills or merits they have brought to the
job.
Sadly, this government, as usual, is not the slightest bit
interested in what the majority of Canadians think and is bound
and determined to stick to an agenda of social engineering that
will unfortunately have the opposite effect to that which is
intended.
I correspond on a regular basis with a young lady in
Vancouver named Kim Oliver. Kim has a disability called
Fragile X Syndrome. Despite having this disability, Kim has a
great sense of humour, she has great ambition and quite an
artistic flair. Kim has indicated in her letters that she wants
exactly what any other young person wants. She wants to be able
to support herself through the skills that she can bring to the
workplace.
I would like to read from one of Kim's letters. I quote:
The United Farm Women of the 20's and 30's were western women who
withstood the hardships of life on the farm alongside their husbands. They
were responsible for lobbying for the vote, universal social programs, and
pensions for widows and orphans. They also helped their men form unions
and collectives. I identify with these women because, unlike today's
feminists, they took matters into their own hands, using printing presses to
spread the word via a women's newspaper, travelling to the Geneva
Convention in the 40's and most impressive of all-got men to let us vote!
Unlike NAC, Vancouver Status of Women and other special-interest groups,
the UFW didn't have the media nor did they have millions in government
funding-So why keep funding ethnic groups or women's groups? All they do
is tell women, especially poor `visible' minority women with disabilities, that
we are the victims of racism, sexism, white male imperialism-and that we
will never be equally paid, heard, educated because of men and men's cultural
symbols. Makes you want to scream, doesn't it?
Kim identifies with people who had to work hard for what
they achieved. She also makes it clear that she does not want to
be treated like a victim by special interest groups.
Kim also writes that she has found that members of the
Reform Party treat her like a fellow Canadian instead of putting
her into a box labelled ``disabled'' or ``disadvantaged''.
I wish I could hold up some of Kim's drawings to show to the
House her artistic flair, but unfortunately we cannot use props in
the House, so I would ask members to believe me when I say
they are very good. I think Kim will eventually find a place in
the workforce to utilize her artistic skills. I know she wants to
achieve that not through employment equity but through her
own hard work.
This should not be interpreted as meaning that the disabled do
not need any assistance to gain skills or that the government
should not be involved in helping them gain access to the
workplace. However, it does mean that we should not insult their
intelligence and their abilities by artificially pushing them to the
front of the line for employment. Like everyone else, they just
want the chance to prove their worth and their true value through
open and unbiased job interviews.
Obviously, there are fewer opportunities in the job market for
someone with Fragile X Syndrome, and that is where every one
of us as caring Canadians can help. We must be aware of the
problems and we have to do what we can to support them. For
Kim, I would like other members of this House to give me some
examples, or perhaps the public who become aware of this
debate, of where there have been successes in Canada achieved
by people with Fragile X Syndrome. What sort of jobs have they
managed to fill? How have things worked out for them? I hope
they will write to me so I can pass these successes on to Kim, to
give her even more encouragement for the future.
(1740)
In wrapping up, I would like to read one more piece from a
letter she wrote to me last September:
We have a ministry responsible for women's equality, plus multiple
feminists groups who are government-funded. As well, `visible' minorities
and natives have just as much government attention.
So why does the Ministry of Social Services and Human Resources still
classify women, minorities and natives as disadvantaged?
She also mentions:
Why is it that our social services and human resources departments have no
`Ministry of the Disabled'? If we are to be Foster Children, couldn't the
Provincial/Federal governments acknowledge our special needs?''
I know that Kim is not alone in feeling this way. She
represents a very large group of thoughtful people with
disabilities who really feel that the government is not
representing their needs.
In their well-meaning attempts to promote the equality of
opportunity that we all support, the government is actually
fostering legislative racism and pitting identifiable groups
against one another.
In their pursuit of social engineering they are inadvertently
sowing the seeds of racial conflict by forcing employers to
emphasize differences in race and gender instead of the
differences in skills and suitability that should be the basis for
employment.
I have here a letter and a questionnaire from the Chief of
Defence Staff to all regular force and primary reserve members,
announcing a survey of Canadian forces to identify the
representation of aboriginals and visible minorities.
11638
Is it not racist to be carrying out a survey specifically
designed to identify persons by race? Is it really appropriate for
a government to have a database identifying its employees by
racial background?
Respondents have to identify themselves as black, Chinese,
Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, East Indian, Southeast
Asian, non-white Latin American, non-white West Asian, Inuit,
Métis, First Nation, or mixed race and colour.
If anyone except this Liberal government had asked for such a
survey, they would be labelled as racist and accused of planning
some sort of racial persecution. As it happens, all available
statistics indicate that young Caucasian men are the ones who
are in the disadvantaged group.
When we take a look at the employee make-up of several
prominent groups that promote employment equity, we find
some very disturbing situations. The Ontario government's
office of employment equity in 1994 had a workforce made up of
90.5 per cent women, 52.9 per cent racial minorities, 5.6 per
cent aboriginals, and zero able-bodied white males.
The workforce of the Ontario Rights Commission is 67 per
cent women, 38 per cent minorities, even though these
minorities represent just 9 per cent of the general population;
there are no white males in the senior management group or the
policy branch of this commission.
In an article she wrote for the August 26, 1994 edition of The
Toronto Sun, Christie Blatchford said: ``It is quite clear that if
the commission is a glimpse of the future for Ontario under
employment equity, the face of the future is female and
non-white''.
The Employment Excellence Organization asks whether the
only difference between the racist agendas of the Heritage Front
and the Ontario Rights Commission is that the latter is funded
with taxpayers' money. That is a pretty extreme statement, but
that is the sort of thing these employment equity provisions are
making people say.
The government does not want to hear these things because
their entire argument is based on emotion rather than facts. The
fact is that one cannot fix discrimination by imposing a different
type of discrimination.
The Sri Lankan-born author and economist of a 1992 report
from the Economic Council, Arnold deSilva, found no
correlation between wage levels and a person's country of
origin. He also concluded that there is no significant
discrimination against immigrants in general and that there is no
systematic employment discrimination on the basis of colour.
Another study done for the Government of Canada in 1992 by
Daniel Boothby involving a sample size of 115,000 people and
entitled ``Job Changes, Wage Changes and Employment Equity
Groups'', concluded that: ``Visible minority status had no
significant effect on the probability of job loss and, all else
being equal, women are less likely to lose jobs than men''.
(1745 )
In 1992 Statistics Canada reported that 56 per cent of all
undergraduate degrees earned at Canadian universities go to
women. In 1990 they took 45 per cent of the degrees in
traditional male territories of business management and
commerce. They accounted for 47 per cent of the law degrees,
46 per cent of medical diplomas and 63 per cent of those in
veterinary medicine. Fazil Mihlar, a senior policy analyst with
the Fraser Institute says that evidence of discrimination in the
workplace is scant and isolated.
In my riding of North Vancouver I have been unable to
confirm a single case, even though each time someone has called
or written to me in support of employment equity, I have asked
for any specific example of discrimination in North Vancouver
so that I could make that situation public.
I challenge other members of the House to do the same before
they support the ongoing use of employment equity programs or
the inclusion of those requirements on government employment
and training forms.
Bell Canada falls under the Federal Employment Equity Act
of 1986. In 1989 Bell Canada had 61 more female employees
than males. On a numbers basis that is pretty well balanced. Just
two years later there were 2,058 more females than males
employed by Bell Canada and the number of males employed
had dropped by almost 2,000. No one could possibly argue that
women are not adequately represented at Bell Canada but the
trend in male employment with that company should be a cause
for grave concern for believers in forced employment equity.
They had better start insisting that Bell Canada place a special
category on employment forms for the under-represented
group, in this case males.
While I am talking about job loss I should mention that a
number of my constituents have been asking me whether there
will be affirmative action firing practices during the downsizing
of the civil service announced in the budget. Will this whole
exercise end up distorting the civil service employee base with
enforced equity quotas that fail to recognize individual skill
levels and the value to the taxpayers that are picking up the cost?
I already receive complaints from constituents who say that
some employees at the front counters and on the phones at
federal government departments hardly speak English and
cannot be understood. Some of the members opposite will not
like hearing that message but I have an obligation to pass on the
concerns of my constituents to the House.
The federal government in the United States is considering
the introduction of legislation to end affirmative action and an
initiative has been started in California to place affirmative
action on the ballot at the next election.
Polls indicate that affirmative action is going down to defeat
in the United States in the interest of a fair and open
marketplace. As one man put it on an interview on CNN,
employment equity is a bit like the Vietnam war. It seemed like a
good idea when we started it, but it turned into a nightmare.
11639
Sadly, the government is still living in the past, trying to enact
an agenda that is 20 years out of date, well-meaning and
soft-hearted, but definitely soft-headed at the same time. On
top of that it discriminates against skilled people who cannot
label themselves as a visible minority.
I wonder how many Liberal members would be prepared to
step down from their seats today, right now, so that a member of
a visible minority could step into their place. I see no volunteers,
no doubt because each of them would take the position that he or
she has earned the right to be here. Why should they give up
their seat to someone else who has not been through the election
process? That is exactly what it is like in the real world job
marketplace too.
People all across Canada oppose employment equity
programs and every MP on the government side should admit
that the programs are unfair and discriminatory. At the very
least, they should admit that they would not like to see such
programs applied to their own MP jobs. They should also agree
to put an end to discrimination by refusing, as I do, to approve
any grants or job creation programs which make employment
equity a condition of the project.
Finally they should show courage and give their constituents
true representation in the House by voting against any future
employment equity bill.
(1750 )
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to debate
this motion. I want to say this loudly for the Canadian public. I
am sure those who are watching the debate today or who will be
reading Hansard will mourn the occasion this member stood in
the House to ask the government to immediately end
employment equity programs and the inclusion of employment
equity requirements on employment or training forms because
such requirements encourage candidate selection, et cetera.
What a sad opportunity it is to stand in the House to debunk
some of the myths we heard a few minutes ago. The public
record presents a completely different picture. It suggests hiring
practices have very little to do with ability but a lot to do with
discriminatory attitudes toward women, visible minorities,
aboriginal people and people with disabilities.
I frankly believe the focus of the debate is on the wrong side.
Rather than questioning why we need the employment equity we
should be asking: Why do visible minorities, women, aboriginal
people and persons with disabilities experience significantly
higher rates of unemployment, sometimes twice the national
level, even when they prove themselves to be eminently
qualified for jobs? That is the question.
Documents and research tell us these individuals are
frequently better educated and trained at proportionately higher
levels than the general population to take on work opportunities.
In addition to their advanced university degrees, they often
come equipped with special knowledge or personal attributes
that can also contribute to the job.
Let us look at it from a strictly pragmatic, business
perspective. Visible minority members, for example, may be
immigrants from other parts of the world. They bring with them
firsthand knowledge of foreign market conditions which may be
invaluable to Canadian exporters.
We heard quite a few businesses cited and we heard some
misinformation given in terms of statistics. Women who make
up more than half the population know better than anyone the
needs of Canadian consumers, their families and themselves.
Aboriginal people have a wealth of experience in traditional
approaches to a multitude of disciplines, from the earth sciences
to holistic healing to dispute resolution. With advanced
education they are well positioned to marry traditions with the
best of the contemporary economy.
Who better than persons with disabilities to offer insights into
the specialized needs of people who are physically or
intellectually challenged, one of the growth markets of the next
century.
The member across the way threw out a case study. In that
diatribe we were subjected to, the member mixed so many things
together, the apples and the oranges and the myths. Too many
employers continue to erect barriers to employment of these
talented, work-ready people.
We can take statistics from Max Yalden, the Canadian human
rights commissioner. He has publicly stated his concern about a
growing mean-spirited attitude in Canada. He has warned of a
backlash against members of society's most vulnerable groups
by critics that claim they enjoy special workplace and hiring
advantages. The statistics clearly show nothing could be further
from the truth.
Mr. Yalden noted that while white male Canadians make up
just 45 per cent of the workforce, they account for 55 per cent of
all hirings. Men constitute nearly 95 per cent of corporate board
members and more than 90 per cent of senior managers. They
also earn an average of 20 per cent more than female workers. A
study was recently done and published in the local media.
A study recently completed by Statistics Canada also
concluded systemic discrimination explains much of that wage
gap. Many women consider themselves lucky just to be hired.
11640
Women's share of all hiring declined from 1988 to 1992 and has
improved only slightly since then.
(1755 )
Women are frequently members of more than one designated
group, what we call the double disadvantaged and maybe in my
case triple disadvantaged. Imagine how much more difficult it is
for women to compete who are aboriginal, a visible minority or
someone with a disability. People in these groups are
particularly subject to prejudice in hiring.
Bias is the only apparent explanation for the fact that the
unemployment rate among visible minorities, aboriginal people
and people with disabilities with university degrees is much
higher than for white males with the same education. In fact, it
can be more than double.
Reports submitted by employers under the Employment
Equity Act show some worrisome trends in the hiring rates of
individuals in designated groups. The same reports show that
the situation for persons with disabilities is even worse. I can go
on and cite other instances, but I ask the House if these figures
suggest that members of designated groups enjoy preferential
treatment? The answer is self-evident.
The hon. member cited the fact that in his riding he could not
find one individual who was subjected to inequity. I would
remind the hon. member that the Employment Equity Act is
designed to ensure that an employer's hiring and promotion
decisions are based solely on the bona fide requirements of an
occupation and not on any other job related criteria.
The Employment Equity Act ensures that only qualified
individuals be considered for a job, but most important it
requires employers to remove barriers to employment for
capable candidates who are members of the designated groups
so we can turn these unacceptable unemployment figures
around, which is only fair.
The Canadian human rights commissioner, Mr. Yalden, has
reason to be concerned. The anachronistic thinking associated
with this motion certainly will do nothing to advance us toward
our goal of preparing Canada for the global economy of the 21st
century.
It ignores the reality that we will soon experience a severe
skills shortage in the country that will demand that we put every
capable Canadian to work. It disregards the fact that two-thirds
of new entrants to the labour market will be members of the
designated group by the year 2000, a large percentage of whom
are more than qualified to meet the challenge. It overlooks the
importance of capitalizing on these people's diversities in an
increasingly specialized, interconnected and international
economy.
It is lucky for us that this is not a votable motion because it
would have been voted down by members on this side of the
House. The motion could have had the opportunity to, if, heaven
forbid, there was an opportunity for it to be a votable motion,
condone racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination, all
of which we know exist in the workplace. It would permit
prejudice to go unchecked and may even encourage outright acts
of physical or sexual harassment of the most vulnerable.
The Employment Equity Act is not about counting numbers as
the member would have us believe. It is about instituting
irritating rules and regulations that somehow stand in the way of
individuals in this society from being contributing members and
full participants in Canadian society.
I ask every member of the House to stand firm the
Employment Equity Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am both disappointed and disturbed that today
members are asked to consider a motion which seems to be
totally removed from reality and that, with all due respect for its
author, appears to be based on a completely erroneous
interpretation of the Employment Equity Act.
I would like to point out that the hon. member seems to
associate the existence of the Employment Equity act with a
tendency on the part of some employers to hire incompetent
people. To make this kind of connection encourages prejudice
and is entirely absurd.
Before going any further, I would like to recall for the benefit
of our listeners and of our colleagues in this House that the sole
purpose of the Employment Equity Act, which has existed since
1986, is to ensure that our labour force is more representative of
Quebec and Canadian society.
(1800)
To achieve this, we ask employers to try, as part of their hiring
practices, to include four so-called designated groups, namely
women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and disabled
people, in view of the fact that in the labour market, people do
not all have the same opportunities, and there are people who are
discriminated against and who have trouble getting the jobs for
which they are qualified. To think that because we have an
Employment Equity Act like the one we have had since 1990 and
which we are in the process of reviewing, there is some
connection between the existence of this Act and the practice of
some employers to hire incompetent people, is patently absurd.
I may recall that section 6 of the old and the new Employment
Equity Act clearly says:
the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an
employer
(a) to take a particular measure to implement employment equity where the
taking of that measure would cause undue hardship to the employer;
(b) to hire or promote unqualified persons.
11641
That is made very clear in the Act.
We believe it is important to have an Employment Equity Act
because we know perfectly well that the labour market alone is
not likely to provide this equality between various groups. My
proof is our colleague for North Vancouver, who began his
remarks by saying that legislation on employment equity was no
longer necessary. Let us have a look at the comments of groups
that have studied the legislation, specifically, the Canadian
Human Rights Commission. It is almost dishonest to say that
Whites are victims of reverse discrimination. This prejudice
must be stopped, fought from the start.
I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Rights, and, since
January, we have been trying to improve the Employment
Equity Act, as we realize there are gaps in it. Let us remember
what Commissioner Max Yalden, who is as critical as a person
can be before the government, said. As you know, he is well
versed in the workings of government, having been in
government since 1956, even before I was born. He said that, in
1993, able bodied caucasian males accounted for approximately
55 per cent of all workers newly hired for permanent full time
positions by employers covered under federal legislation on
employment equity. This is significantly higher than the
proportion of able bodied Whites on the labour market; the
figure in this case is 45 per cent.
So, people who try to convince us that Whites without
disabilities are discriminated against are not aware of the
statistics or of the reality of the labour market.
The Employment Equity Act says that some people are
systematically discriminated against. That means that, if
corrective measures are not taken, some groups will continue to
receive unequal treatment. What form does this inequality take?
It works by forming the five following groups: groups with
higher than average rates of unemployment; groups with lower
than average incomes; groups which are over-represented in
lower paying professions and groups with less opportunity for
advancement.
(1805)
This is particularly true, as we will see, for aboriginal people
and handicapped people. Lastly, there are also groups which are
under-represented in higher paying professions, with good job
prospects and which are in expansion. That is the general picture
of discrimination that the designated categories face, groups
like handicapped people, aboriginal people, members of visible
minorities and women.
Let us take a look to see whether discrimination against these
groups has really ceased over the last few months, as the hon.
member claims. Let us look at each category. Women make up
52 per cent of the population of Canada, but in 1993-that is not
very long ago-they accounted for only 45 per cent of the
Canadian labour force. Last year, women continued to be paid
about one third less than their male counterparts. This means
that, in the labour market of 1993, a woman doing a job of equal
value, for which she was equally qualified, earned two thirds of
what a man earned to do the same job. If that is not
discrimination, I wonder what the hon. member for North
Vancouver calls it.
Second, 52 per cent of the time, women, who, as we know,
make up 52 per cent of the population of Canada and 45 per cent
of the Canadian labour force, end up in jobs in the lower service
echelons, as office clerks or secretaries, jobs which are naturally
lower paid.
It should also be pointed out about career women with a
university degree that 18 per cent of White females who
graduated in commerce, business administration or industrial
management and were hired in the past few months were
assigned positions below their professional qualifications. That
is 18 per cent of women university graduates whose positions
are below their professional qualifications, as compared to only
5 per cent of men, according to Statistics Canada.
I think it is to refuse to recognize the reality of the target
groups, i.e. the female population, to think and to tell us that
labour market equilibrium has been reached and that we no
longer need an act like the Employment Equity Act.
Another situation is that of the aboriginal people. The
Employment Equity Committee heard many witnesses on that
issue. Our friend from the Reform Party certainly did not
mention it, and I am sure you will be very surprised to learn
about this, but the native people represent 3.8 per cent of the
total population of Canada. Up until now however, they have
succeeded in getting only 1.4 per cent of all the jobs available to
the workforce. These are recent data and they show clearly that,
not only do native people have a hard time entering the labour
market, but their unemployment rate is exactly twice as high as
the national average.
These data also show, Mr. Speaker, that the income of native
people is $10,000 below that of other Canadians. I will conclude
by saying that these examples of discrimination are still very
much current and that Parliament must pass a legislation as this
one on employment equity to promote a better balance within
the Canadian labour force.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding
Motion No. M-372 proposed by the hon. member for North
Vancouver. This motion advocates that employment equity
programs and the inclusion of employment equity requirements
on employment or training forms be terminated.
11642
(1810 )
In the recent past a backlash has occurred against employment
equity. This is unfortunate because the principle behind
employment equity is a noble and valid one. It aims to correct
discrimination, both intentional and systemic, directed toward
designated groups, in other words, persons with disabilities,
aboriginal people, visible minorities and women.
Critics of employment equity charge that it is reverse
discrimination against white males. They argue that it lowers
standards and promotes mediocrity. This is clearly a simplistic
and unfair assessment of employment equity.
This is not to say that employment equity programs are
perfect and are not in need of some refinement and fine tuning.
Presently there are some potential negative consequences which
may result from employment equity policies. These concerns
need to be taken into account and addressed.
An example is the instilling of deep resentment among
non-designated groups. Another one is the decrease of the
workplace morale for employees from non-designated groups
when the mistaken belief occurs that designated groups receive
preferential treatment for promotions.
The above are some factors which need to be overcome in
order to ensure that employment equity is implemented in an
equitable and fair manner. It is very clear that in order to correct
these backlashes more public education and workforce
education programs are absolutely essential. Also, we should
attempt to implement enrichment programs for disadvantaged
persons from designated groups at all levels of formal education
so that they may obtain the tools to become more competitive.
When implementing an employment equity plan, we need to
keep in mind that the existing workforce did not create the
discrimination that employment equity is attempting to
eliminate. If the rights of the existing workforce are respected,
one can avoid resentment upon the implementation of an
employment equity policy.
An alternative solution which could be employed to fine tune
employment equity would involve instituting a program that
would be representative of how qualified persons from
designated groups are distributed in the local labour market.
For example, if 5 per cent of the country consists of persons
with disabilities and only 1 per cent of a local community
consists of disabled people with engineering degrees, it is clear
that only 1 per cent of the workforce in a local engineering
company should consist of disabled engineers. Certainly, it
would not be fair to non-designated groups if 5 per cent of the
engineering company's workforce included disabled persons
drawn from other communities, unless of course the very best
people were available in this specific group 5 per cent of the
time during hiring.
By keeping the above in mind, it could be ensured that local
communities are not prejudiced, that the most qualified are
always chosen and that discriminatory hiring practices are
eliminated.
Despite some very minor fine tuning, the evidence clearly
indicates that employment equity is beneficial to both
employers and Canadian workers. Studies have demonstrated
that substantial gains have been made by members of the
designated groups since the introduction of the federal
Employment Equity Act. We will continue to work toward full
employment parity for these groups.
The intent of the act is not to provide preferential treatment. It
is designed to ensure equal access to opportunities for all
qualified work ready Canadians, regardless of their race,
physical attributes or gender. It is about removing, not erecting,
barriers to employment.
The act was not developed overnight. It was a product of a
comprehensive review of the Canadian workplace in 1984 by the
Royal Commission on Equality in Employment headed by Judge
Rosalie Abella. In the course of its review the commission
looked closely at affirmative action programs in the United
States. Canadian commissioners wanted to learn from the
American experience in order to avoid some of the problems
associated with that legislation.
Judge Abella quite correctly concluded that Canadians would
resist the American approach, given its overly interventionist
government policies and the imposition of quotas. She
recommended instead that Canadians adopt the employment
equity model which focuses on the elimination of
discriminatory employment barriers.
(1815 )
In the United States, affirmative action targets particular
groups for special treatment because of a previous history of
discrimination. Employment equity, on the other hand, attempts
to ensure in Canada that all qualified job applicants receive a
fair shot at available jobs. The employment equity program in
the United States, and rightly so, is to be destroyed simply
because it is a destructive model, a model that has been
introduced based on a former model that was introduced
regarding the discrimination of certain classes of people, a
model of desegregation that tore the very fabric of American
society, a model that destroyed community after community, all
because of a quota system.
Our approach to achieve equality is far more progressive than
the American model. It has led to greater partnerships among
groups pursuing fair access to employment opportunities and
has also led to far greater success.
For example, often workers, union leaders and employers will
work together in unison to establish a fair equity plan. In this
way, employment equity works as much to the advantage of
employers as it does for the members of the designated groups.
11643
Organizations that take advantage of and capitalize upon the
rich composition of Canadian society will come out ahead.
Organizations that are able to manage a diverse and dynamic
workforce are bound to be more competitive in today's
marketplace. Given demographic trends we cannot afford to
overlook any under-utilized source of talent.
By the year 2000, the very time when we will experience a
severe skill shortage because of an aging workforce, two-thirds
of the entrants to the Canadian labour market will be women,
visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, and persons with
disabilities. This is the face of the future workforce and we must
integrate them, whether the Reform Party likes it or not.
In conclusion, I do not believe that government should base
their policies on the media coverage of the backlash against
employment equity. In reality there are no losers under Canada's
employment equity legislation. There are only winners when
each and every citizen is given a fair chance for employment and
then given equal opportunity to advance within the organization.
Ensuring that qualified minorities are not discriminated
against is a worthwhile and noble goal. As a nation of caring,
compassionate people dedicated to dignity and justice, we are
determined to build a country where all Canadians can take
pride in employment and their contribution to the community.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure indeed today to rise to speak on the motion presented
by my colleague from North Vancouver. I would like to
congratulate my colleague for his speech, which outlined the
purpose of his motion.
The motion deals with a sensitive issue, the practice of
employment equity. I am pleased to have seconded the motion
and to support the motion, which calls for the immediate end to
employment equity programs and the end to the inclusion of
employment equity requirements on employment or training
forms. Such requirements encourage candidate selection to be
made on the basis of sex or ethnic origin rather than merit and as
a result foster a sense of resentment among applicants. The
whole concept of employment equity is flawed. As my colleague
pointed out, it advocates the hiring of individuals based on
designations, not merit.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West also expressed it
quite well. He said the concept of employment equity will
subordinate the principle of merit to the politics of race and of
gender. This is made clear by a number of factors, one being the
sense of dissatisfaction with employment equity by those it
claims to help.
Members of targeted groups who supposedly benefit from
employment equity face two difficult questions, the first from
themselves. Were they chosen for the position they now hold
because of the target group they belong to, or was their hiring
based on merit? It is a question that is always there.
(1820)
Second, there is a question from their colleagues. Do the
individuals they work with have doubts about whether they were
hired based on the fact that they are a member of a visible
minority or a member of a disadvantaged group, or did they truly
deserve the position?
This brings me to my second point. When people in a
workplace really do not know why they or their colleagues were
hired, whether it was based on merit or because of a specific
category to which they belong, it fosters a sense of inequality
and divisiveness among co-workers. This sense of inequality, as
a result of astute hiring practices and quota filling, can lead to a
split in the workplace because they create an atmosphere of
distrust and doubt. This does not make for a productive or a
happy workplace.
I would like to tell a story that was told to me by a staff
member of a member of Parliament on the Hill. She had a friend
at university, a very bright individual and a member of a visible
minority group, who often spoke out very strongly against
employment equity programs. Many people questioned his
position. They asked why he, one who could obviously benefit
from such programs, was so vocally and so strongly against
these programs. His reasons were that he did not know, and was
afraid that he would not know, if he was hired based on his skills
or his skin colour. His co-workers would not know either. This
individual said he wanted to be judged solely on the basis of
merit and on nothing else.
Indeed, even hon. members opposite have expressed similar
views and have shared similar stories. The hon. member for
Waterloo stated in committee, with regard to the government's
employment equity legislation, that an individual from his own
riding did not want people to think he got his job based on
preferential treatment. This constituent was also speaking out
against employment equity.
Looking at this concern from another point of view, from a
point of view based on productivity in the workplace and from
the employer's point of view, I would like to tell another story.
This story was told to me personally by a gentleman who owns a
fairly large business that he built from scratch in my
constituency.
This gentleman's company bid on government contracts on a
fairly regular basis. He had been very successful in winning
these contracts over the years. He was expressing a deep concern
to me that his company was no longer eligible to bid on these
contracts. The reason was that he did not have the proper quota
allocations within his company. More than 50 per cent of his
employees were women. He had always hired a considerable
number of women because they could do the job best. He had
some members from visible minority groups. But his company
could not successfully keep enough employees from the
aborigi-
11644
nal group to be able to bid on this contract. Because of this, this
business person was disqualified from bidding on these
contracts. Any way one looks at that, it is discrimination.
Why does the government then feel that we need employment
equity? I guess its reason is to correct perceived injustices in the
workplace, an honourable motive. However, when we look at
numbers we see that these injustices are often only perceived,
and mostly perceived by government.
I would like to present a few more stats to add to those
presented by the hon. member for North Vancouver a little
earlier.
There are 570,000 people currently regulated by the present
Employment Equity Act. Women make up 45.6 per cent of those
covered. When looking at women in the overall Canadian
workforce, we find that 45.9 per cent of the workforce is female.
There is a difference of .03 per cent between those who work
under the bodies that are covered by the Employment Equity
Program and those in the greater workforce. That is .03 per cent.
We have to ask ourselves if this .3 per cent is enough of a
difference to warrant the cost and the damage done by these
employment equity programs.
(1825)
According to StatsCan for example, in 1992 single women
made about 99 per cent of the salaries of single men. Many
salary differences between men and women can be explained by
lifestyle choices, for example, the choice to stay at home and
raise a family. Of course, that is a very honourable choice
indeed.
As well, the Economic Council of Canada released a study in
1992 that found no correlation between wage levels and a
person's country of origin. The same report also found that
immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than
Canadian-born workers. The conclusion reached in the
council's report was that there is no significant discrimination
against immigrants in general.
In 1994 the employment equity report said that in total,
women occupied 47 per cent of government jobs while 47.3 per
cent were available to work. Jobs held by women increased by a
full percentage point in 1993-94. They took a full per cent more
of the top jobs despite the fact that the executive category
declined by 6 per cent. Again, would government have us bring
in costly programs to adjust for a difference of .3 per cent?
I have a few more statistics. The civilian staff at the RCMP is
82.6 per cent female. At Citizenship Canada, 74 per cent are
female. However, in Transport Canada more than 75 per cent are
male. Are we to assume that this under-representation of
women in the transport department is caused by discrimination?
I would say no. However, that is what the report wrongly
assumed and this illustrates the fundamental flaw in the report.
It is difficult to determine why there are differences, but we
cannot automatically assume that it is due to rampant
discrimination.
Again I ask the question: Why do we need employment equity
programs and legislation? The answer is: I do not think we do.
Then why do we have them? I believe we have them because the
Liberal government's agenda has been and in fact is set too
much by special interest groups and these special interest groups
support employment equity. They are not driven by public
interest.
We have had too much government based on the vocal input
from a minority and too little government based on the less
vocal input of the majority. We have had government by the
minority instead of the majority. What we have with
employment equity is a playing field that is tipped in favour of
special interest groups. That is not what Canada is all about.
The motion today calls for the immediate end to employment
equity and I fully support the motion. In keeping with the
Reform practice of proposing positive alternatives, I will
explain the Reform Party's position on employment equity by
making five short statements:
One, all Canadians are equal before and under the law and all
workers have the right to be free from discrimination in the
workplace. Two, the market will provide solutions to a
representative workplace in the private sector. Three, it is the
role of government to ensure equality of opportunity rather than
to determine equality of employment outcome in the public
sector. Four, the workplace should be free from arbitrary
obstructions to hiring or promotion. Merit must be the sole
hiring criterion. Five, employment equity legislation is
coercive, discriminatory, unnecessary and costly. It should be
discontinued.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have very little time and I will use it as well as I can.
To quote a longtime good friend: ``I will be happy that
equality has arrived when an unqualified, incompetent woman
has as good a chance of getting hired and promoted as an
unqualified, incompetent man''. That is equality.
Employment equity is not about special treatment; it is about
equality of opportunity. History proves and the figures prove
that in fact a minority in our population have had preference in
hiring and promotion. How else does one explain that 84 per
cent of clerks in the federal government are women, the lowest
paid? Even within that category of clerks, men rise to the top
more often than women.
11645
(1830)
Numerous statistics demonstrate clearly to us that the merit
principle has not been applied in hiring and in employment in
this country and, shamefully, in our own public service. The
statistics make it very clear that women have been at a
disadvantage and have been kept at low levels of employment.
People with disabilities are totally under-represented in our
workforce, notwithstanding their qualifications. Aboriginal
people are shamefully under-represented in our workforce.
People who are visible minorities are also shamefully
under-represented and in fact have far less chances of getting
hired, one-quarter of a chance just a couple of years ago,
compared to a white applicant.
These are not necessarily conscious discriminations. They are
built into our system and our value judgments. I say to the white
males of this country: ``You have nothing to lose but your
privileges''. This Canada of ours is not about privileges. It is not
about preferential treatment for a minority of the population
which has existed for a long time. It is about using the full,
rich-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the time provided for
Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to
Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11645
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last month I had the honour of leading a delegation to
Turkey to look into the very serious situation of human rights
violations in that country. In particular, I was looking at the
appalling human rights violations affecting the Kurdish
community in Turkey.
Some 12 million Kurds live in Turkey. They have been denied
any democratic rights whatsoever to express their fundamental
cultural and linguistic heritage.
Following my return from that delegation, I raised a question
in the House last week. I asked the Prime Minister to explain
why the Canadian government is seriously contemplating
sending a delegation led by a minister of the government to
celebrate 75 years of Turkish parliamentary democracy.
It is absolutely appalling that the government would seriously
consider sending a delegation of that nature when six members
of the Turkish Parliament are locked up in the Ankara prison
solely for have spoken out for human rights, democracy and
justice.
When I had the privilege of meeting with these members of
Parliament, including a Kurdish woman, Leyla Zana, who has
been sentenced to a term of 15 years, they were astonished and
deeply concerned that our government would seriously
contemplate sending that delegation.
Second, I raised the issue of the possible sale of 39 CF-5
fighter aircraft to Turkey. We know of the human rights abuses.
We know of the burning and destruction of villages. We know of
over two million Kurds who have been made homeless in
southeastern Turkey. We know of the attacks on journalists. We
know of the very profound attacks on many other minorities in
Turkey.
This arms deal is fundamentally immoral. I call on the
Government of Canada to join with Norway and Germany, two
of our strong NATO allies, in imposing an arms embargo on
Turkey. Far from selling fighter aircraft, we should be imposing
an arms embargo. Look at Turkey's record in Cyprus for
example: the illegal invasion, as well as its current appalling
human rights record.
Canada's policy is supposedly not to sell weapons to areas of
conflict and not to sell weapons to countries with questionable
human rights records. The government says: ``No problem, we
will get a promise from Turkey that they will not use this against
civilians''. The Turkish government made a similar promise
with respect to tanks sold to them by Germany. That promise
was broken as well.
(1835)
I call on the government to say now, categorically, that it will
not participate in this charade of the celebration of Turkish
democracy, that it will cancel the Canadian delegation, that it
will not sell CF-5 fighter aircraft, that it will impose an arms
embargo and call on the Turkish government to arrive at a
peaceful solution through political dialogue and peaceful means
instead of attacking the Kurdish community.
Finally, the PKK has called on the government to recognize
that the time has come for dialogue, not for separation but as
General Secretary Ocalan said: ``The time has come to live side
by side on free and equal terms''. The way to achieve this is to be
open and honest.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will take the opportunity to
set the record straight on this issue.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to set the record
straight. The hon. member has raised three important issues.
One is the Canadian delegation participating in the 75th
anniversary of the founding of the Turkish Parliament on April
23. The other is the human rights violations against the Kurds in
northern Iraq and against some parliamentarians, that he
explained in detail. The third issue is the sale of the CF-5
aircraft to Turkey.
11646
I would like to begin by addressing the first two issues. The
hon. member received an excellent answer from the Prime
Minister when he asked the question on March 28. The Prime
Minister in his reply said: ``It might be a good occasion for the
ministerial delegation to raise the issue of human rights with the
government when it is there''. He also said: ``Perhaps one way is
to cancel the delegation or the other way is to send the
delegation with a mandate to talk about it''.
It is interesting what the member does when he sees human
rights violations. He hops a plane and gets out there, whether it
is the Middle East, China, Africa. He makes the headlines. He is
the champion of fighting human rights violations. I compliment
him for it.
In this case, for other Canadians, he says: ``Don't go there. It's
okay for me to go there, but don't go there. You Canadians stay
home; don't go there''. I think the hon. member would agree
with me that the best way to address these human rights
violations with Turkey is to go and present it to them face to
face.
We have continually made representations to the Turkish
government through our ambassador in Ottawa, through the
embassy in Ankara. As far back as last June the Minister of
Foreign Affairs raised the issue with his then Turkish
counterpart, Mr. Çetin, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister of
Turkey.
I am sure these kind of direct interventions, face to face
interventions, go a long way. Boycotting that country and not
talking to them is not going to give them the message. We have
to get there and approach them eyeball to eyeball on this
situation. That addresses the first two issues.
As far as the sale of the CF-5s is concerned, again I do not
know why the member is making such a fuss over the issue. Just
after question period today I asked the Minister of Foreign
Affairs about this. There is no sale of CF-5s to Turkey. That is as
recent as today. I hope the hon. member will pass that on to his
constituents and to other Canadians. Yes, we have surplus
planes. Yes, countries are interested in purchasing them. The
price is a little lower because they are surplus and used. As of
today, there is no sale of CF-5s to Turkey.
I thank the hon. member for his intervention, but I hope he
will not be hypocritical-
The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, I asked a question to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration regarding the deportation of a family of Romanian
refugees, Carmen and Alexandru Dima and their daughters
Simona and Diana.
Once again, the minister refused to intervene in this issue, and
showed a blatant lack of sensitivity, humanism and compassion.
The public, as well as the groups and the individuals who
supported that family, were frustrated and shocked by the
minister and the government's refusal to use discretionary
power in this case. The Dima family arrived in Quebec on
February 27, 1992, and immediately claimed refugee status. To
everyone's surprise, the IRB and the minister rejected all the
representations made.
The Dima family was very well integrated to the community.
Mrs. Dima, who was a teacher in Romania, worked as a
volunteer at the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce school. She was
promised a job with the Montreal catholic school board. Her
husband, a computer technician, received a job offer from
Avtech company, in Dorval.
One daughter, Simona, got 97 per cent in French and is in a
class for advanced or gifted students at the Saint-Luc high
school. As for Diana, she goes to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and
only speaks French. The family also has relatives in Montreal. I
saw the Dimas cry on television before their deportation, and I
was very moved by that drama.
I want to congratulate the Quebec minister of Immigration,
Mr. Bernard Landry, who promised to deal quickly, and with
compassion, with the immigrant applications which will be
submitted at the Canadian consulate, in New York. This is
another example of the open-mindedness of the Quebec
government towards immigrants and refugees. Quebec is truly
an exceptional land of adoption.
I want to mention the solidarity expressed by ordinary
citizens, parishioners from the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce church,
reverend Fernand Patry, teachers and students from the two
above-mentioned schools, as well as by the Brothers of
Christian Schools, who will look after the family in Plattsburgh.
The minister, who is afraid of the Reform Party, and who is
becoming increasingly hard on immigrants and refugees, should
take into account these spontaneous expressions of human
solidarity by the public. I do hope that he will take the necessary
measures to expedite the processing of the immigrant
applications of that family, as regards the elements which fall
under federal jurisdiction.
I am convinced that Quebec and Canadian society will benefit
from the contribution of the Dima family. I am the last speaker
and I want to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, as
well as all the members of this House, a Happy Easter.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question to the hon. minister and for his concern for the Dima
family.
I would like to inform him that the family has co-operated
with immigration officials by returning to the United States
where they can apply through the normal channels. The Quebec
government has indicated that it will interview the family when
they apply from outside Canada.
11647
They have had full benefit of our refugee determination
system and they were found not to be refugees. Their case was
reviewed under our post-determination risk assessment criteria
and the Dima family were found not to be in danger if returned to
Romania. They have also had a humanitarian and compassionate
review which was negative.
Over 2,900 people immigrated to Canada from Romania in
1994, the vast majority having applied in the normal manner
from outside Canada. In fact, in 1993 there were 3,300 entrants
into Canada from Romania.
I want to respond to the member's greeting by also wishing
you, Mr. Speaker, the member, and everyone else in the House a
very pleasant holiday and Easter season.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to an order made earlier the
motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted.
The House stands adjourned until Monday, April 24, 1995 at11 a.m.
Happy Easter, Joyeuses Pâques to everyone as well.
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)