CONTENTS
Thursday, June 1, 1995
Bill C-95. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 13088
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 13089
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 13110
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13115
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 13120
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13124
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13124
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13124
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13125
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13126
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13127
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13129
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13129
Resuming consideration of the motion 13133
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 13136
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 13143
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 13145
Consideration resumed of the motion 13151
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13154
13087
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 1, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, a short while ago the hon.
member for Saint John raised a point of privilege. I had
suggested to the House that we wait until we hear from the
minister who was involved. Today the Minister of Health is with
us and I have been informed that she has asked to make a
statement.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to respond to a question of privilege which
has been put before the House by the hon. member for Saint
John.
The question concerns the inclusion of a photograph of the
hon. member in a report released by Health Canada on May 19 of
this year. The motion is serious and it is important that the
House be apprised of the facts involved. According to the
information provided to me by my officials, after looking into
the matter, they are as follows.
The report contained the findings of an independent panel of
experts which had been commissioned by Health Canada to
assess the possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of
tobacco products. I want to emphasize the independence of this
panel. It was given the authority and responsibility to produce
an objective and unbiased assessment of the issue. The research
conducted by the expert panel included a visual image
experiment. It was in this context that a photograph of the hon.
member appeared.
A private company was contracted by the panel to provide test
pictures for this study. The company has advised that the method
by which the photograph of the hon. member was selected is
widely used in consumer image research and that it is not
common practice to use release forms.
In this instance images from a variety of public sources,
including libraries, magazines, stock image inventories and
images in the public domain were compiled by a student on work
placement with the firm. These images were then sorted and
filed according to certain criteria which had been established by
the panel. Final selections were made by the panel after it had
reviewed all of the images.
The company has confirmed that numerous images were seen
throughout the sourcing and selection process by all members of
the project team but that at no time did anyone recognize one of
the photographs as being the member for Saint John.
There are other points which I believe should be brought to
the attention of the House. These pertain to several statements
made by the hon. member when she rose on this question of
privilege.
(1010 )
The first concerns the language used in the report to describe
the photograph of the hon. member. The only description of that
photograph is the one on page 91 of the report. Members will
find that it does not correspond to the description that the hon.
member has attributed to the report in her motion.
The second concerns the suggestion that this incident is
similar to a 1985 question of privilege which the hon. member
cited in her motion. It is important that the House be aware that
unlike the situation in 1985, the hon. member in this case is not
identified in the expert panel report by name as a member of
Parliament or in any other manner.
The hon. member has asked for a public apology. I can inform
the House that apologies were conveyed by all concerned
without delay. I spoke to the hon. member and wrote to her
within hours following the release of the expert panel report. I
repeat today the regret that I expressed at that time.
The company that provided the photograph in question issued
a public apology as did the expert panel. Canadians were
advised of these actions through a statement issued by my
department to the news media that same day.
The hon. member has also asked for an explanation of the
events that accounted for the use of her photograph in the expert
panel report. That explanation, which I have related here this
morning, was provided in a letter to the hon. member which I am
tabling today for the information of the House.
13088
The Speaker: Colleagues, I thank the hon. Minister of Health
for giving us the information. This circumstance carries quite
a few ramifications for all sitting members of Parliament. As
was suggested by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands,
I would like some time to review both the statements of the hon.
member for Saint John and the hon. Minister of Health.
After my deliberations, I will return to the House with a
decision. I thank all members for their interventions.
_____________________________________________
13088
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
one petition.
* * *
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department
of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the
clerk of petitions, on behalf of 60 individuals from the riding of
Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding areas.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation against
serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk
offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention
orders and specifically passing Bill C-240.
(1015 )
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to
present a petition this morning, which has 922 signatures.
The petition pertains to the Ministry of Human Resources
Development and the objection to improving the social security
policy in Canada, which is unacceptable to these nearly 1,000
students of my riding.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
several petitions I would like to present this morning.
The first petition is from constituents in the Blind River area
of my riding. The petitioners wish to express to the government
their concerns with respect to the issue of same sex legislation.
On the same issue, there is another petition signed by folks
from the area of Blind River and Algoma Mills.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to present a petition that has to do with the rape of
women in the war in Bosnia. Constituents from the Sault Ste.
Marie area of the Algoma riding wish to express their concerns
on the issue.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour today to present a petition on behalf of certain
individuals from my riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt as well as
other areas in the province of Saskatchewan.
The signatories to the petition are deeply concerned about the
use of BST in dairy production and urge the House to desist from
passing legislation legalizing the use of BST and require that
products using BST be identified on their entry to Canada.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour today to present three
petitions from people from across Canada.
Two of the petitions are signed by almost 200 individuals who
call upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act or to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that provide for the inclusion of the phrase ``sexual
orientation''.
I concur with the petitions.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the third petition I have the honour to present
today is from people in the Vancouver area, some of whom are
from my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present
provision of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
13089
law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in accordance with
Standing Order 36 on the subject of gun control.
The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that
would severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in
the commission of a crime. The petitioners also request that
Parliament support new Criminal Code firearms control
provisions that recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding
citizens to own and use recreational firearms.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I suggest that all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
13089
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) moved:
That this House condemn the government's legislative agenda, which makes
clear its intention to usurp provincial areas of jurisdiction and construct an
entirely centralized state, as can be seen from Bills C-76, C-88, C-46 and C-91,
all designed to take substantial powers away from Quebec and transfer them to
the federal government.
He said: Madam Speaker, on this opposition day, the Bloc
Quebecois is presenting the following motion:
That this House condemn the government's legislative agenda, which makes
clear its intention to usurp provincial areas of jurisdiction and construct an
entirely centralized state, as can be seen from Bills C-76, C-88, C-46 and C-91,
all designed to take substantial powers away from Quebec and transfer them to
the federal government.
(1020)
With this motion, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition,
is seeking to denounce the extremely centralizing offensive
launched by the present federal government. It also wants to
show that the ultimate goal of the federal Liberals is to establish
a de facto unitarian state in Canada. We have seen with recent
federal pieces of legislation dealing more specifically with
regional economic development, such as Bill C-46 on
establishing the Department of Industry, Bill C-88 on
interprovincial trade, Bill C-91 on redefining the Federal
Business Development Bank, and Bill C-76 regarding certain
dispositions concerning transfer payments to the provinces, the
increasingly centralizing approach of the present federal
government.
This motion, which I present this morning on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois, is a warning to provincial governments to
beware of the interference of the federal government with regard
to regional economic development. I urge them to be vigilent
and not to let some of their powers slip away as their provincial
autonomy is put on the back burner because of the upcoming
referendum in Quebec.
Even though every single piece of legislation being presented
by the federal government in the area of regional economic
development has an impact on the political autonomy of all, this
morning, I want to address my comments more specifically to
my fellow Quebecers. Because they deny the specificity of
Quebec, and the need for Quebec to have its own tools of
development, it is in Quebec that federal centralizing measures
hurt the most.
One of the effects of the Constitution Act, 1982, the ``Canada
Bill'', was to establish provincial equality where all provinces
would be on the same level. It created a sort of egalitarianism
which denied the Canadian duality and the very existence of the
Quebec nation. It is on this kind of egalitarianism that they will
base today's Canadian nationalism. Towards the end of the
sixties, Pierre Elliott Trudeau came to power with a nationalistic
vision that he would not give up in spite of repeated
interventions. The establishment and development of a more
unified Canadian economy had to be based on the rationalization
of government operations and on the concentration of powers.
In June 1978, in a context of unilateral patriation of the
constitution, the federal government published a meaty
declaration by Pierre Trudeau under the title A Time for Action.
In fact, it was a very elaborate constitutional reform project.
One can see from that declaration that, even though the
Canadian people is the result of sociological and historical
diversity and comprises the first nations, who have legitimate
rights we must respect, two large linguistic groups and
numerous cultural communities, the constitutional approach of
the federal Liberals is essentially based on the primacy of
citizens and individual freedoms.
13090
Therefore, and I am quoting part of that published
declaration: ``The unity of Canada must transcend the
identification Canadians have with provinces, regions and
linguistic or other differences. -Each must feel that Canada,
and the federal Parliament and government acting on his or her
behalf, are the best guarantors of the security''.
As member of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, I
say to my fellow Quebecers that such a declaration, such a
statement of intent, threatens considerably the existence of the
Quebec state and the Quebec nation and threatens also the
economic development tools we want to give ourselves.
The referendum failure of May 20, 1980, the failure of the PQ
government's proposal, changed the circumstances. The federal
government now enters into negotiations by taking the
offensive; it starts by reminding us that decentralization is not a
solution to Canada's problems and states that the Canadian
federation sorely needs the federal government to ensure a
strong economic management.
The Canada Act, or Constitution Act of 1982, includes in the
famous Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a formal amendment
limiting the capacity of provincial governments to obstruct
economic mobility and therefore extending federal jurisdictions
to all essential matters necessary to preserve the economic
union. The goal is to put an end to the many provincial
initiatives which impede the mobility of production factors; in
other words, Ottawa is trying to marginalise the provincial
level.
(1025)
We find the same objective in the federal position on all the
important questions relating to areas of shared jurisdiction.
For example, Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on
internal trade, signed by the provinces last summer and
denounced by the official opposition, is a direct result of this
highly centralizing outlook of the Canadian government, started
by the federal Liberals. Bill C-88 gives the federal government
powers which were never considered at the time the agreement
was negotiated or signed, and embodies the extremely
centralizing position of the federal Liberal government.
Indeed, clause 9 of the bill goes way beyond the spirit of the
agreement signed last summer. It reads as follows: ``For the
purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory
measures of equivalent effect against the province pursuant to
Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by
order, do any one or more of the following-'' What we are
talking about, here, is an order in council. This is no laughing
matter. Orders in council, or decrees, are generally the means
used by totalitarian governments. What this clause says is that
the Liberal government wants to govern by decree. Are we faced
with the prospect of a Liberal dictatorship?
Similarly, the text of clause 9 means that, if ever a party is
recognized at fault pursuant to article 1710 of the
agreement-and I would like to remind you, Madam Speaker,
that article 1710 deals with retaliatory measures-the aggrieved
party can take retaliatory measures against the other party which
does not conform to the agreement.
Now, the federal government, no matter whether it is part of
the dispute or not, is taking it upon itself to impose retaliatory
measures on all provinces, without distinction. As regards this
bill, the federal government shows its intention of setting itself
up, in the area of interprovincial trade, as both judge and party,
of establishing, within this agreement, an enforcement power
that would take the form of an order in council, which it alone
can invoke, and of extending the application of federal laws to
the provinces, as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of clause 9.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, the fact that the government
intends to govern by order in council and act as if it were in
charge of interprovincial trade goes far beyond the spirit of the
agreement that was reached by the provinces, last summer.
The government is assuming too much retaliatory power
through this clause. Indeed, it is assuming excessive power to
take measures against all the residents of a province. Obviously,
clause 9 of Bill C-88 does not go in the same direction as the
current tendencies in international trade. This is all the more
relevant since economic development is based on competitive
development, which seeks to take advantage of the quality of the
workforce, the infrastructure, and the savings associated with
conglomeration and urbanization.
It must be remembered that those levers come under
provincial jurisdiction, since health, education, and land use
planning come under provincial jurisdiction. By setting itself up
as an arbitrator in international trade, under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, and therefore Bill C-88, the federal
government is impeding the development and the autonomy of
provinces.
The spirit of the unitary state, of centralizing federalism
opposed to provincial identity, thus directly impeding directly
the development of the people of Quebec, can also be found in
Bill C-46. This enabling bill for the Department of Industry
adds to duplication and overlap in Quebec, and deprives the
state of Quebec of exclusive authority over regional economic
development.
Along these very centralizing lines, clause 8 of the bill
specifies that the Minister of Industry of Canada, a minister
from Ontario, is responsible for regional development in
Ontario and in Quebec. This bill confirms the existence of
overlap in regional development, by confirming the
interventionism of the federal department of industry in an area
over which Quebec has long claimed jurisdiction.
Quebecers have a very different way of looking at their
regional economic development needs. Decentralization of
budgetary envelopes and powers proposed by the Parti
Quebecois is the answer that outlying regions in Quebec have
long
13091
been waiting for in order to take charge of their own interests.
This is a democratic vision of regional development which has
nothing in common with the centralizing vision of the liberal
government in Ottawa.
(1030)
Quebec does not want to see the development of its 16
administrative regions based on an exclusively industrial vision
controlled by the federal department of industry. Regional
development forms the basis of a social covenant which rests on
an understanding of all the needs of the various milieux which
only regional stakeholders can understand well.
I say to my Quebec compatriots that in the context of the
referendum where they will have to decide on the political
autonomy of Quebec, a negative answer to the proposal of the
Quebec government team would mean accepting the
centralizing federalism defined by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and
the end of the people of Quebec.
Bill C-91 is another example of denial of the existence of the
Quebec State. With this bill, the government seeks to rationalize
and modernize the Federal Business Development Bank, words
undoubtedly well suited to the market realities of the end of this
century, but that fool no one as to the primary objective of the
federal government, that is to interfere even more in matters of
regional development in Quebec while increasing its
involvement in the main mechanisms of economic development
in Quebec.
There is such a thing as a Quebec state. It is trying to create its
own development instruments, despite the federal government's
intrusive presence in economic development issues. The FBDB
remains a parallel structure, an unacceptable example of
administrative duplication. Several structures and programs
addressing the needs of small business are already in existence
in Quebec.
The Société de développement industriel is an example,
though it was not used efficiently under the Liberal government
of Premier Robert Bourassa. Programs like production
assistance, with a contribution reaching up to 35 per cent of
capital expenditures for a minimum investment of $100,000,
and the Reprise de la PME program, which offers loan
guarantees covering up to 80 per cent of a financial institution's
net loss, are tangible illustrations of the Quebec State's
involvement in assistance to small business.
Let us not forget the solidarity funds: the Fonds d'aide aux
entreprises, which is managed by the regional development
councils; the Fonds décentralisé de création d'emplois,
managed by the Secrétariat au développement des régions; and
Innovation (PME), managed by the ministry of industry,
commerce, science and technology. All these attest as well that a
very well balanced assistance structure exists already for small
business in Quebec.
In his last budget, the Minister of Finance of the Quebec State,
Jean Campeau, claimed he would maximize the use of venture
capital by increasing the number of regional funds and creating
the Fonds de solidarité de la CSN. Among such regional funds, I
want to mention SOLIDE, a venture capital fund created under a
program called SOLIDEQ, the purpose of which is to promote
local development. The SOLIDEQ program was created jointly
by the Fonds de solidarité du Québec and the Union des
municipalités régionales de comté du Québec.
I cannot help mentioning the Caisses populaires Desjardins,
that play an important role in the funding of small business by
granting loans at the local community level. A network of 1,232
caisses populaires everywhere, throughout Quebec, provides
almost a quarter of all business loans in Quebec.
So, this is what centralizing federalism is all about: parallel
structures at outrageous costs that are directly responsible for
the Canadian deficit. Centralizing federalism is responsible for
the bankruptcy of the country.
Furthermore, clause 20 of the bill allows the Federal Business
Development Bank to conclude agreements directly with
individuals or organizations. This means that the FBDB could
conclude agreements, among other things, with the Conseils
régionaux de développement, as the Federal Office of Regional
Development wants. However, in Quebec, the Act respecting the
Ministère du Conseil exécutif forbids organizations operating
under provincial legislation to conclude agreements with the
federal government without the minister's consent.
Once again, the federal government is ignoring the Quebec
government's existence and is shamelessly giving itself the
power to act without consulting Quebec.
Finally, I would like to conclude by reminding the House of
some of the elements of Bill C-76 that represent extremely
centralizing and anti-Quebec measures. Bill C-76, which deals
with the implementation of certain provisions of the federal
1995-96 budget, goes way beyond the scope of that fiscal year.
(1035)
Indeed, clause 48, without prior negotiation with the
provinces, will result in a shortfall of $2.5 billion, with $650
million in Quebec alone. Moreover, the implementation of the
Canada health and social transfer will mean a shortfall of $4.5
billion in 1997-98 for the provinces.
The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is also opposing
this bill because it establishes a mechanism whereby the federal
government, despite the fact that it does not have any
constitutional jurisdiction over social programs, will be able to
further interfere in these areas and impose national standards on
Quebec.
13092
Bill C-76 maintains national health care standards while
taking away all transfer payments and introduces new standards
in social assistance and postsecondary education. If the
provinces do not meet these standards, their funds will be cut
off by Bill C-76.
This arrogant kind of federalism does not decentralize powers
in any way, as these national standards will limit the autonomy
of the provinces in their own areas of jurisdiction. In addition,
Quebec's distinct society will not recognize itself in the new
national standards implemented from coast to coast in a sector
as important to its cultural identity as education.
In fact, many observers and analysts have confirmed that Bill
C-76 relegates the provinces to a purely advisory role and does
not give them a veto on the introduction of new national
standards in their own areas of jurisdiction. For example, in an
editorial published in Le Devoir, Lise Bissonnette says this:
``Bill C-76 treats postsecondary education as a social program
and allows Ottawa to apply national standards in this and other
sectors. The most that the provinces, whose jurisdiction over
education is very clearly stated in the Canadian Constitution,
can expect is to be consulted''.
For her part, Chantal Hébert wrote in the March 31 edition of
La Presse: ``In the bill it tabled in the Commons to implement its
February budget, the federal government opens the door to the
unilateral introduction of new national standards in sectors such
as postsecondary education, child care, etc-. In fact, Bill C-76
gives the provinces a purely advisory role in this exercise.-No
provision of this bill requires prior provincial consent for the
introduction of national standards for social programs''.
In closing, I say to my fellow Quebecers that voting Yes to
Quebec sovereignty would end federal interference in Quebec's
areas of jurisdiction and lead to real savings by eliminating
duplication and overlap.
Voting Yes to Quebec sovereignty would allow Quebec to
develop job creation, manpower training, education, health and
welfare policies in line with its needs and priorities.
Voting to Quebec sovereignty would also ensure that Quebec
will no longer be vulnerable to federal low blows such as the
patriation of the constitution in 1982 without Quebec's consent,
and the federal government's unilateral cuts to transfer
payments. In short, whatever the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi may say, Quebec says Yes to sovereignty,
to maturity, to trust, to openness, and to the pride of the people
we already are.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in this the official opposition's last opposition day
before the summer adjournment, especially since the motion put
forward by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe gives me
and some of my colleagues an opportunity to dispel
misconceptions voiced by our colleagues opposite on several
major issues involving the Government of Canada.
(1040)
I hope that the first group of ten Bloc members whom the
Leader of the Opposition intends to send every week, starting
this month, to spread the good word on the referendum are here
today. They will have a better idea of what the federal
government's intentions really are regarding each and every one
of the bills mentioned in the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe.
Before getting on to these bills, I would like to comment on
the part of the motion that reads ``an entirely centralized state''.
It seems to me that this is going too far. I have known for a long
time that the supporters of separation had a propensity for verbal
inflation, but from what I can see today, they are more
bombastic than ever. An entirely centralized state, they say. In
fact, it is just the contrary, and the figures speak for themselves.
Every study on the subject will tell you that Canada is one of the
most decentralized countries in the world.
Compared to OECD countries, Canada is a federated country
where the central government is the most diffused among all the
public administrations. This means that, compared to the U.S.,
Germany, Switzerland, France or the United Kingdom, the
Canadian government's share of revenues and expenditures is
lower than that of the provinces and municipalities. In fact, the
Government of Canada collects less than half of the overall
public sector revenues.
In almost all other federated OECD countries, the central
government gets more than half of these revenues. As for
expenditures, in Canada, they are 3.5 times higher at the
provincial and municipal level than at the federal level. How can
a level of government that spends less than the other levels be
described as centralizing? We must realize that decentralization
has been going on for some time already in Canada.
Since the 1960s, a series of agreements have been entered into
by the governments of Canada and Quebec, promoting
decentralization. Successive immigration agreements have
enabled Quebec to select who can immigrate to the province and
to put in place its own immigration and host programs, all the
while collecting substantial financial compensation from the
Government of Canada.
At the international level, Quebec can deal directly with
France and Belgium under Canada-Quebec framework
agreements. There is also an agreement giving Quebec the status
required to participate in the Francophonie Summit. In Quebec,
the provincial government collects GST for the federal govern-
13093
ment, thereby eliminating costly overlaps and duplications in
federal and provincial tax collection.
Since the mid 1960s, opting out agreements have allowed
Quebec to withdraw from a number of federal-provincial
programs and to assume the related administrative and financial
authorities. In 1992-93, the federal government paid more than
$2 billion to the Quebec government under these opting out
agreements.
No, Madam Speaker, Canada is not an overly centralized
state, as members opposite would have us believe. Canada takes
the necessary steps to meet the challenges it faces, which is
precisely the object of the bills mentioned in the motion. For
example, let us take Bill C-91. The sole purpose of this bill is to
give more flexibility to the Business Development Bank of
Canada, formerly known as the Federal Business Development
Bank.
The changes proposed to the bank's mandate will not usurp
provincial powers, far from it.
(1045)
The primary purpose of these changes is to improve services
to the bank's clients, small and mid size businesses, so that they
are better equipped to develop and create jobs.
The official opposition is wrong if it considers this bill as a
trick that the federal government is using to invade provincial
jurisdictions. The Canadian government uses no tricks, others
can do that. And the polls show how little success they are
having.
The motion also mentions Bill C-88, an act to implement the
Agreement on Internal Trade, which was concluded, in July
1994, by the Prime Minister and provincial first ministers. That
agreement is an example of how efficient Canadian federalism
is. It will promote interprovincial trade liberalization, as well as
economic growth and job creation.
Those who support separatism are constantly telling us that
they are free traders and that they support access to new
markets, as well as the free movement of goods, services and
labour. Consequently, I do not understand their objections when
the federal and provincial governments agree to liberalize
internal trade. Come to think of it, I do understand their reaction
very well: the official opposition has no interest in admitting
that Canadian federalism works well. This is why it opposes this
legislation so strongly.
People are not stupid. It is obvious that the Bloc Quebecois is
firmly opposed to a Canada-wide economic association.
Quebecers will know what to expect when the details of the
offers are made public. Clearly, the official opposition's
campaign to promote economic association is nothing but
another ploy or mirage to try to fool Quebecers.
The official opposition also denounces Bill C-46. This is
rather surprising since, on September 26, at second reading, the
hon. member for Trois-Rivières had this to say about that
legislation: ``Bill C-46 is aimed at maintaining the status quo,
making the minor amendments that are needed, but not
substantial''. Yet, today, the official opposition is launching an
all-out attack against this bill. True, this is not the first time that
the Bloc has changed its mind.
Bill C-46 seeks to establish the new federal Department of
Industry. It merges four departments into a single one which will
be better equipped to implement three priorities. Let me read
you the three priorities of the new department.
The first one is to create better conditions to do business. This
means doing everything possible to allow businesses and
workers to concentrate on job creation.
The second priority is to stimulate trade. This means using
new ways, inspired by Team Canada, to take advantage of
foreign market opportunities, and to help Canadian businesses
access these markets.
The third priority is to create an efficient infrastructure. This
means ensuring that Canada has transport, telecommunications
and information networks which will enable businesses to be
efficient in a modern economy.
You will agree, Madam Speaker, that these priorities meet the
true concerns of Canadians, including Quebecers. However, the
official opposition is not pleased with these priorities. The Bloc
Quebecois tries to block every initiative designed to help boost
the economy and create jobs. Such an attitude is unacceptable,
considering that so many Quebecers are out of work.
(1050)
Official opposition members keep saying they are here to
defend the best interests of Quebecers. These interests require
that the opposition play a constructive role and support the
federal government in its efforts to boost the economy and
enhance job creation. Quebecers understand, increasingly, that
the interests the official opposition is defending are not theirs.
Finally, the official opposition is also opposed to Bill C-76.
In this regard, one need hardly be surprised that the advocates
of separation are opposed to last February's federal budget. Our
budget shows that Canadian federalism works and, what is
more, is working well. This budget mentioned only two
conditions to be met: compliance with the five principles of the
health care insurance plan, and prohibition of the residence
requirement as a criterion for eligibility to social assistance.
Seventy-seven per cent of Quebecers believe the principles
underlying the Canada Health Act are very important. In every
other social program, provinces will agree by mutual consent on
shared principles and goals.
13094
Unless the definition has been changed, ``mutual consent''
does not mean imposition of national standards; ``mutual
consent'' means just that, that is that the parties involved will
have to give their consent. This shows once again that the
federal government wants to give the provinces a wider
flexibility.
This is about flexibility, decentralization and co-operation;
not about centralization as advocates of separation are fond of
suggesting.
What deserves condemnation is not the pieces of legislation
mentioned in the motion, but the official opposition's attitude.
Earlier, we heard them, they are already talking about voting
yes. The referendum campaign has not even been launched yet.
The Parti Quebecois did not even have the courage to hold a
referendum in its first eight months in office.
Obsessed as it is with the referendum question, the official
opposition alters facts, indulges in grandstanding and tries to
depict to Quebecers a Canada that does not exist. I know
Quebecers. I know they expect their governments to put their
financial houses in order, to boost the economy, and do their
utmost to enhance job creation. Since the election, that is what
our government has been trying to do.
The budget that was tabled in February reduced federal
spending by 7.3 per cent, a first in our history.
It was a difficult decision, and we did not make it with a light
heart. But we had to do it, for the sake of the future of young
Canadians.
We know jobs are important for all Canadians. That is why we
launched the infrastructure program, which created nearly
20,000 jobs in Quebec alone.
Trade missions under the leadership of the Prime Minister in
Asia and Latin America have resulted in contracts adding up to
almost $10 billion. We know that Quebecers and all Canadians
want to feel safe in their cities and towns. The gun control bill
will contribute to making communities safer.
That is what we mean when we talk about good government,
and that is what Canadians want. That is what Quebecers want,
too.
I repeat that what should be condemned is not the bills
mentioned in the motion, but the motion itself.
(1055)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I was very surprised to hear the hon. secretary
of state for Parliamentary Affairs say, especially at the
beginning of his speech, that when the Bloc members go visit the
people in their ridings, they are not performing their duties as
members of Parliament. I want him to tell me that I was not
carrying out my duties as a member of Parliament when I met
some fifteen senior citizens of Trois-Rivières to talk about the
upcoming old age pension reform and listened to their concerns
that the federal government would cut their old age pension as it
did with the unemployment insurance benefits.
I think we are acting very properly when we get together with
our constituents. This does not stop us from taking the
opportunity to talk about the real solutions to these problems
that would give the province of Quebec more control over its
own development.
When we meet with people who complain about the
unemployment situation and tell us that 40 per cent of all new
welfare recipients end up on the welfare roll because of the new
restrictions put on UI benefits by this new government, which is
more Conservative than Liberal, are we not performing our
duties as members of Parliament?
When the federal government decides to cut all research and
development in sheep production, a promising new industry
which is quickly expanding in Quebec and in Canada, and we are
asked by the people: ``Who took that decision, what is going on
in Ottawa? What is wrong with them? Do they have their heads
in the clouds? They are cutting R and D'', are we not performing
our duties as members of Parliament? I think the member for
Saint-Léonard should reconsider his position on this issue.
On the other hand, given the centralization efforts of the
current government, Quebecers will obviously have a very clear
choice to make. This is the most positive aspect of the federal
efforts. Everything is quite clear. When they talk about national
standards and their willingness to interfere in the day care sector
and impose national standards so that Alberta and Quebec are
both treated the same way, we realize that their initiative does
not make any sense and is doomed from the start.
It does not make sense for the federal government, which has
no authority in education, to create a human resources
investment fund and, by a devious device, intervene in the area
of education instead of reducing unemployment insurance
premiums, because less money is needed to finance the
unemployment insurance fund, and giving the difference back to
the people who do finance the fund. The unemployment
insurance scheme is not there as an excuse to create an education
department. It is there to provide benefits to workers between
jobs. Is this not an intrusion of the federal government where it
has no business?
There is also the agreement on internal trade. Let us talk about
it. This agreement was signed by all provinces and the federal
government. It is designed to ensure that internal trade is at least
the equivalent of what we have with NAFTA in external trade.
But the federal government tables a bill with the insidious
provision that it will be able to rap the provinces on the knuckles
if it does not like a decision, if a province does not measure up. It
is acting as both judge and jury.
13095
Is that not the return of the steamroller style we first saw in
the Trudeau years? Is not the present Liberal government acting
as the servant of federal bureaucracy, which is systematically
denounced by Canadians as a whole? Everybody in Canada,
sovereignists as well as federalists, is fed up with the fact that
the federal bureaucratic machine dictates how things should be
done, and what Canadians and Quebecers should think. This is
why the official opposition is perfectly justified in rising up
against it.
When we know that there are 800,000 welfare recipients in
Quebec and 1,200,000 in Ontario, it means that it is not only the
fault of the government of Quebec, which has been in power for
less than a year. When we see that there are 800,000 welfare
recipients in Quebec and 1,200,000 in Ontario, does that show
that the Canadian system is working? Are the interventions of
the federal government producing good results? I believe the
member has to recite an act of contrition and reconsider his
position.
As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, my question
will be on this subject.
(1100)
In that case, what choice remains to Quebecers but to side
with those who want change, those who really want Quebec to be
the master of its development? We are talking about the Bloc
Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois, and possibly the Action
démocratique du Québec party, all of whom want Quebec to be
in charge of its own development.
Should not the member for Saint-Léonard try to convince his
government to reconsider its positions and to backtrack on this
decentralization project which will only lead to more results like
Canada's present debt, an absolutely negative result of the
Canadian federal system?
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon.
member that I agree with him on one point only. I agree with him
when he says that he represents change. The members opposite
have changed their minds back and forth so many times that
even the Premier of Quebec, their ally, said that he was getting a
stiff neck. They are trying to get out of this situation but they
cannot because they are already in too deep.
All the polls show that Quebecers want to stay within Canada.
But the separatists-and they refuse to be called by their true
name-want people to believe that after they separate from the
rest of Canada, they will have a political and economic
association and that things will not be much different than they
are now.
The member could at least stay put and listen to what I have to
say. The choice is his, but if he does not stay, it means that he
does not care to hear the answers to his own questions.
If separation really is the way to go, if it would solve all of
Quebec's economic and social problems as the member was
saying, why then do they have to have this change of direction
after months of reflection and say that they will have a political
and economic association? Because they need a winning
question.
They have to play with words, to get around the problem to try
and confuse people with their separatist option. There are not
four or five questions, there is only one: Do Quebecers want to
separate from the rest of Canada, yes or no? A bit earlier, the
member for Richmond-Wolfe who asked his fellow Quebecers
to vote yes. Why should they do so? For more pie in the sky?
Another stiff neck? That is the question.
Today, for example, the opposition is telling us that we want
to impose national standards. The budget was very clear on that.
It said that there had to be mutual consent. The bill was clear.
Furthermore, to make sure that it was really clear, that it said
what the Minister of Finance and the government meant, we
proposed amendments to specify that there would be agreements
and mutual consent. Mutual consent means that the two parties
agree. This is what we will aim for in our negotiations with the
provinces.
If, instead of always complaining that Canada does not work,
those who are in favour of separation were ready to co-operate
with the other provinces and the federal government, we could
solve many problems. For example, last year, in July, a free
trade agreement was signed. The separatists want free trade with
the United States and Mexico, but they are against free trade
within Canada.
We introduced a bill to implement the free trade agreement
signed by the Prime Minister and all the provinces but again,
they oppose it. They say that the federal government wants to
overstep its jurisdiction. Again, we took precautions, we
checked the legislation.
The other day, in this House, we announced that there would
be clarifications. The federal government does not for one
moment intend to usurp the provinces' powers. What do we
want? We only want to make the Canadian federation work.
(1105)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. secretary of state, but his time is up. I take the
opportunity to remind you all that we should never mention the
absence of an hon. member from his seat.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in this
debate as once again the citizens of Canada are treated to this
family squabble.
13096
It is difficult from time to time as a member of the Reform
Party to be in agreement with the members of the Liberal Party
but there are some things which do tend to draw us together.
Something about today's debate and today's motion by the
Bloc is embarrassing to me as a member of the House and as a
Canadian. If I were a resident of Quebec, whether I were a
separatist or not I would be embarrassed about it. If I were a
separatist I would be doubly embarrassed by this motion and by
the attitude of the Bloc in the House and what it has been doing
in recent months.
It is my opinion that Bloc members over the last few months
are becoming less and less a force in Parliament. They seem to
have marginalized themselves. When the House started they
came and by and large the media were their lapdogs. The media
loved the Bloc. It created clash and conflict all the time and it
had a free ride from the media outside of Quebec. I do not know
about the Quebec media but the English media looked at Bloc
members and thought they were people who really had it
together.
Quite a number of Bloc members are competent and capable.
Unfortunately when they get together some group dynamic takes
over. It must be something they drink which causes them all of a
sudden to become introspective, afraid, frightened, isolationist;
everything they would not want to be, they become.
Here we are debating a motion, the essence of which is to put a
wall up around Quebec with a one way check valve in the wall:
send money in but do not let anything else out and then they can
take care of themselves. How can a group of people presume
they will take their province into separation and they can stand
on their own as a separate nation, when every time they open
their mouths they are afraid to stand alone as a separate
province? It does not make any sense. There is a huge
contradiction.
There is a difference between constructive opposition and
obstructionism. It is single minded. I cannot find a word for it
right now but I am sure one will spring to mind to describe the
incessant day in, day out attitude of the Bloc. Tribalism would
be the word. The attitude in committee and the attitude in the
House is not what can they do to make their province better,
thereby making the country as a whole better; the attitude is
consistently what is in it for them and how can they benefit to
make sure they do not get screwed by the rest of Canadians who
get up every morning and have one overriding thought which is
how can they stick it to Quebec.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Canadians from coast
to coast have treated Quebec with kid gloves for at least all of
my adult life. My adult life has been spent asking: How do we
make Quebec feel at home in Canada? What can we do to make
Quebec and the people who live in Quebec happy as Canadians?
For the last 30 years or so we have tried to buy their affection
and has that worked? I think not.
(1110)
Let me give an illustration. For those who may have just tuned
in today is an opposition day, a supply motion. This means the
opposition gets to determine what we are to debate in the House
today.
Keep in mind that 52 Canadians are being held hostage,
including Quebecers, in Bosnia. Bear in mind our country is into
the hole $120 million a day. What do we do? We debate this
motion:
That this House condemn the government's legislative agenda, which makes
clear its intention to usurp provincial jurisdictions and construct an entirely
centralized state, as can be seen from Bills C-76, C-88, C-46 and C-91.
The opposition presumes all these bills are designed to take
substantial powers away from Quebec and transfer them to the
federal government. What about the rest of the country, the rest
of the provinces? There is nothing in any of these that say these
bills are specific to Quebec. This is legislation the government
brings down for the country. We may not like it but it has a
majority and we have to deal with that.
As the loyal opposition and the third party we have to do what
we can to make it better legislation and where possible derail
legislation which is in our opinion not worthy of support. It is
not my role as a member representing an Alberta constituency to
get up every morning, come to the House and ask how I can look
after Alberta.
I am a federal member of Parliament representing a federal
constituency in Alberta. My primary responsibility is our
country, not just Edmonton Southwest. I have to be concerned
about every Canadian, not just Albertans, not just people who
live in Edmonton. If I am not prepared to do that, why am I
sitting here?
The Reform Party's bias is to radically decentralize Canada
and we share with our colleagues from the Bloc the notion that it
is imperative to reduce the overlap we acknowledge exists in
many areas in the country. Why do we need a federal
environment department, a provincial environment department
and a municipal environment department?
Every time we turn around there is overlap. We have more
public servants per capita, per square inch than most countries.
We share that with our friends from the Bloc. We need to
decentralize. We share with our colleagues from the Bloc ideas
about decentralizing authority and responsibility to make
authority and responsibility to devolve that closest to the people
who are being served.
We would like to see a radically changed federal government,
much smaller, much less intrusive in the lives of Canadians,
with provinces having far more responsibility as would be
necessary to make our country work better. That does not mean
13097
the federal government does not have a role in national affairs.
If we are to be a country we need certain uniform things from
coast to coast.
All of these bills whether we like it or not speak to those ideas.
Bill C-76 is the budget implementation act. What the Bloc was
complaining, whining, moaning and dripping about in the
budget implementation act is that it has a clause whereby
transfers to the provinces will be block transfers.
This means that instead of transferring specific moneys to
education, health and other areas along with the Canada
assistance plan, these moneys will be transferred in block,
allowing the provinces to do with that money as they will. That
makes sense to me. That sounds like decentralization to me.
How is it that the Bloc can possibly construe that to be some sort
of centralizing plan? What the Bloc did not say is there is a
possibility the people of Quebec will have to be a little more
careful in how they spend their money because they will get less
money.
Our country is into the hole $120 million a day. Every single
Canadian will be in debt. Our deficit per individual Canadian is
$1,375 just for this year. Our total per person debt in Canada is
$19,000. For a family of four it is $76,000. That is our federal
debt. Forget the provincial debt, of which Quebec has a ton, that
is just our federal debt. There is going to be less money to
transfer to the provinces and I think the Bloc is a little upset over
that.
(1115)
Let me give an illustration of some of the inequities that exist
in our country. Under the Canada assistance plan, if someone
happens to be on welfare, collecting benefits from the province,
and lives in Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, the federal
government kicks in 29 cents of every dollar that is paid out.
However, if that person lives in Quebec or one of the other
provinces considered to be a have not province, the federal
government kicks in 50 cents of every dollar.
Because it is in a block transfer, if Quebec is going to continue
to pay benefits the way it has been, then it is going to have to
take that money from somewhere else. Why on earth should
Alberta residents pay taxes via equalization payments that go to
Quebec so that seniors in Quebec do not have to pay for
prescription drugs? Those who live in Alberta have to pay for
prescription drugs. Quebec is considered a have not province
and we subsidize it. Over the last 30 years or so Quebec has
benefited to the tune of $100 billion from equalization
payments. Why is it that the rest of the country should put up
with that?
I want to make it clear that as a person, I kind of like the hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe who led this debate. But I sure
get fed up with him every time he starts to pontificate in the
House about how hard done by the people in Quebec are. I
thought his comments this morning were pathetic. I wondered
how, representing isolationism thoughts like that, Quebecers
could possibly have any confidence in that group to run their
affairs in an independent Quebec. They would spend the first 20
years of independence building a wall around Quebec.
We know that Quebec benefits tremendously from
interprovincial trade which is what Bill C-88 is all about, which
they do not like. Bill C-88 was a bill to reduce the
interprovincial trade barriers within Canada. The Reform Party
objected to the bill because it did not go far enough. We felt the
government should have used its powers to force the provinces
to bring down the trade barriers. It is in our common best
interests to develop a critical mass that will allow us to be
competitive on a worldwide basis.
People will recall that when we entered into free trade with
the United States we got whipped in those first few years. Why
did we get whipped? Because we had a high dollar, high interest
rates and we had these interprovincial trade barriers all across
the country so that our industries that were protected were not
capable of competing in the world markets.
We would have to be brain dead, and I think we were, to enter
into an agreement to have free trade with the strongest trading
nation in the world without having free trade within Canada to
start with. How could we be so stupid-I hate to say not to put
bullets in our gun because with Bill C-68 we are not going to
have any-as to go hunting and have our guns loaded with
blanks?
(1120 )
We have a high dollar, high interest rates and we have these
interprovincial trade barriers. The federal government is
carrying out its rightful duty and responsibility by saying to the
provinces that we are going to get rid of these interprovincial
trade barriers so we can compete.
I have notes somewhere on just how important trade is to the
Canadians of Quebec, to the people of Quebec whether they are
independent or not. Let me make it clear. The last thing in the
world I want is the people of Quebec to be independent. If by
some quirk of fate they are dumb enough to follow the Bloc and
go down that road, this is what they had better keep in mind.
Quebec exported more to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in
1989 than to any country in Europe, including France. It sold as
much to Ontario as it did to the United States. The rest of Canada
exported more to Quebec than to the European Union and Japan
combined.
13098
In Quebec 470,000 jobs were directly and indirectly
attributable to interprovincial exports in 1989. Quebec was the
only province other than Ontario that registered a surplus in
interprovincial trade. Let me repeat that Quebec was the only
province other than Ontario to register a surplus in
interprovincial trade.
Quebec had a deficit of interprovincial trade with Ontario of
about $3 billion but it had an overall surplus of, I think, about
$1.3 billion because it traded with other provinces. And
members of the Bloc representing the people of Quebec say:
``We want to put up barriers; we do not want free trade within
our own country''. Well, I can say that an independent Quebec
will be on its knees at the door of Canada asking please could it
have free trade because it must have it. How is it that the Bloc
members can stand here today and say they do not want it?
Bill C-91 concerns the Federal Business Development Bank.
We have some serious reservations about continuing the Federal
Business Development Bank. Our perspective is we do not think
the federal government has any business setting up a crown
corporation to compete with private business. That is the
essence of what will happen. We are going to have a renewed
Federal Business Development Bank which will be competing
with the existing banks in Canada. I do not think we should do it.
We should force private enterprise to do what it must.
Bloc members have a perspective that is different from ours
and I think they are far more dependent upon government for
everything in life. I think it is fair to characterize members of
the Bloc as living in a kind of socialist dream world. They would
love to see societal responsibility for everything and personal
responsibility for very little, but that is fair. It is a difference of
opinion.
We have a difference of opinion over this. We are saying we
should not have a renewed bank because we do not want to
compete with the private sector. The Bloc perspective is that
somehow a renewed bank is going to compete with existing
agencies in Quebec.
Why does the Bloc not ask how to go about melding existing
agencies in Quebec? It is not as though the people who work for
the Federal Business Development Bank came from Mars.
Those people came from Quebec. The president of the FBDB,
Francois Beaudoin, is in Montreal. So combine FEDNOR and
reduce the overlap and the costs of providing these services to
Canadians. Do not just stand in the road saying that this or that
cannot be done. Be constructive.
The final one was Bill C-46, the reorganization of the
Department of Industry. What can I say? That is basically a
housekeeping bill. We objected to it because our role is to
oppose, but it is going to be done.
(1125)
I think this illustrates the fact that the House will work if we
work together constructively. I would ask members of the Bloc
to please bear that in mind in future debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have listened to the member's analysis of my colleague's
remarks. I must tell you that it is difficult to know what he
thinks. First, he criticized everything that the Bloc has said or
done since its arrival in the House of Commons. Then he told us
he agreed with everything we are doing. Where does he really
stand? It is certainly not evident; it is difficult to follow him.
The bulk of his speech was about decentralization, something
he shares our views on. For years now, we in Quebec have been
asking, without success, for decentralization of powers to the
provinces in order to meet the challenge of eventual
globalization of markets.
The debt was mentioned. It is centralization that has brought
us this $500 billion debt, which may well wipe out all the social
programs and be passed on to future generations. In particular,
he spoke about the advantages to Quebec of east-west trade. But
he neglected to mention that we have spent millions over the last
127 years to develop this trade. This might allow an independent
Quebec to look in the direction of other large markets of interest
to us, north-south markets.
He also spoke about the problems we are experiencing that we
have been unable to resolve within the existing system. I would
like to mention a few to him. If we are speaking about structural
problems, there are fundamental problems to which solutions
have never been found under the constitution. First, the
interference of the federal government in provincial areas of
responsibility; second, the distinct society; third, the autonomy
of the First Nations; fourth the absence of affinity between
eastern and western Canadians, the well-know alienation of the
west, which has always viewed itself as the frontier; the federal
government's right to fund megaprojects without the agreement
of the provinces, which has resulted in a debt of $500 billion and
the unemployment we are now experiencing; economic recovery
and job creation; and finally, the challenge of tomorrow, which
is the globalization of markets.
Yet, if I take the period between 1968 and 1993, there were
two great leaders, with two different approaches-Trudeau from
1968 to 1984, and Mulroney from 1984 to 1993. One was
pushing a dominant central government, one strong nation while
the other-in all fairness, Mr. Mulroney cannot be faulted for
trying-proposed decentralization simply in an effort to get this
great country going again.
We all know the results: the Meech Lake fiasco and the failure
of the Charlottetown accord, despite the fact that English
Canada spent $13 million promoting this accord compared to the
13099
some $800,000 spent on the Yes campaign. Furthermore, in the
election following these events, the Conservative Party was
wiped off the map.
(1130)
There is no denying that something is happening. We are
heading straight for a black hole, and we have proof that strong
federalism is steering us towards it, while
decentralization-well, everybody is in favour of it but no one
wants to make the first move. And that is simply what Quebec
wants to do. Quebec wants to take its matters into its own hands
and simply show the rest of Canada that it is time to make a
move, because we are on the brink of falling into the black hole.
My question for the hon. member is about the globalization of
markets. Be it in the industrial sector or the public sector, it has
been proven that the only survivors will be small units capable
of charting their own course, reorganizing their operations and
meeting market demand. Does he think that the road to success
is through decentralization, which has yet to have been seen
here, or through following the status quo?
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, in response to some of the
questions put forward by my hon. colleague I want to make it
clear that I do not agree with everything the Bloc is doing. As a
matter of fact, I do not agree with a lot of what the Bloc is doing.
But I do agree wholeheartedly with one of the things the Bloc
stands for, and that is the notion of a radically decentralized
Canada.
It drives me crazy that while I would be looking at it from the
perspective that it would be better for Canada, when the Bloc
members speak they say it would be better for Quebec. They are
here representing the federal Parliament. I know it is a
contradiction, since they represent the Bloc. However, their role
as the official opposition is to make Canada work better. As long
as they are here, quite willing to collect their pensions from
Canada, they should start thinking in terms of what is right for
Canada. If they want to leave, leave. But they should be leaving
a stronger Canada, not a weaker one because of their actions in
the House.
As far as transferring responsibility to the provinces, the Bloc
has made a good point; it is quite right. The federal government
has cut the amount of money being transferred via block
transfers while at the same time not allowing the provinces to
raise additional money to pay for standards the federal
government is maintaining. The federal government cannot on
one hand say that it is going to transfer responsibility to the
provinces and then say the provinces have to run things exactly
as the federal government tells them. There must be more
latitude. We concur with the Bloc in that constructive sentiment.
The other major point my colleague from the Bloc mentioned
was that Canada is set up on a trading basis of east and west,
while the natural trade routes are north and south. He is
absolutely right. It has cost people in western Canada an
absolute fortune over the years.
Why is it that in Montana you could buy a piece of farm
equipment manufactured in Toronto for less than you could buy
the same piece of equipment in Alberta? Because of these tariff
barriers. Why is it that for years all Canadians were paying twice
as much for textiles as we should have in order to protect the
textile industry in Quebec, thus allowing it to become
non-competitive on a world basis?
The member is right. We have had these trade barriers, which
have created an artificial economy east-west when the natural
one is north-south. Imagine how much stronger they would be in
the maritimes if they were dealing north-south with Boston and
the New England states.
The member talked about looking at new markets. What on
earth prevents the people of Quebec from getting new markets to
the south today? Is there anybody saying to people in Quebec
that they cannot trade with the United States? Of course not. We
are trying as hard as we can as a nation-and the people in
Quebec-to export.
(1135 )
Quebec has been extremely efficient in managing exports to
the United States. I am not quite sure, but I think that over recent
years Quebec has had something like a 3 per cent increase in its
exports to the United States, more than the Canadian average.
There is nothing to prevent Quebec from exporting as much as it
wants south right now. It does not have to throw the baby out
with the bath water.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this opposition day, a
debate that concerns the following motion:
That this House condemn the government's legislative agenda, which makes
clear its intention to usurp provincial jurisdictions and construct an entirely
centralized state, as can be seen from Bills C-76, C-88, C-46 and C-91, all
designed to take substantial powers away from Quebec and transfer them to the
federal government.
I also welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate
because as the industry critic, I was involved in the drafting of
this motion. In fact, we have four bills, three introduced directly
by the Minister of Industry, that have certain implications which
are very disturbing, both for Quebec and the other provinces. I
hope that my colleagues, especially those in the Reform Party,
will realize that what is happening here in Ottawa not only
violates the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec but
13100
also the legitimate aspirations of Canadian provinces that
support decentralized government.
What makes this so disturbing is that this government acts so
discreetly it is almost self-effacing. No fuss, no boasting, but
meanwhile, it is carefully and almost secretly centralizing the
powers of the Canadian federation here in Ottawa as no other
government has done before in this country's history.
I will try to explain this process, starting with Bill C-46,
which comes first both numerically and chronologically and
which last fall, took a number of departments, including
Communications, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and
amalgamated these to establish the Department of Industry, as it
is known today. So far, so good, except that the Federal Office of
Regional Development (Quebec) was maintained. When I say
maintained, we should realize that for some time there were
rumours that the office would be dropped.
In view of the deplorable and indeed disastrous state of
Canada's public finances, the federal government, as you know,
had to take a long, hard look at the situation and, in the process,
it seems the very existence of the Federal Office of Regional
Development (Quebec) was called into question because it
could no longer provide financial assistance for small
businesses. At the time, it had found its niche helping high tech
companies but, because of budgetary cutbacks, all this had to be
shelved so that the continued existence of FORD was in doubt.
However, instead of getting rid of FORD, the government
maintained this empty shell, which has now become a kind of
conveyor belt, a Trojan horse, the federal government's
favourite mechanism for getting involved in regional
development in Quebec.
(1140)
The mission of FORD is being changed. It will serve as a
consultant to small and mid size high tech businesses, primarily
in the area of exports. This is all very well, except it is already
the case in Quebec. And the networking-and since you were at
the Standing Committee on Industry recently, you know what I
am talking about-that FORD can do as part of its activities, the
Quebec Department of Industry and Commerce is already doing
it. We have already dealt with this concern on the part of high
tech business and high tech exporting businesses. This ground
has already been covered. Instead of abolishing the Federal
Office of Regional Development, it is being kept alive by further
duplicating mechanisms that already exist in Quebec in the area
of regional development.
Except that it is becoming the preferred vehicle, making
agreements, as we will see, with the Federal Business
Development Bank. This will enable the federal government to
slip in and meddle even more blithely than before in the
operations and the management of regional development. It will
do so while ignoring the presence of the Quebec government and
the regional development apparatus it already has and the
equality of the Quebec government in the relationship. The
federal government must remember that if it is going to
intervene as a government, it must be to provide support and not
to compete with the provinces. This is what we see in Bill C-46
with FORD remaining as we know it today in terms of SMB
adviser-resource persons.
I move on now to Bill C-76. Briefly, because the main theme
must always be taken into account, what is new about Bill C-76,
which is the bill to implement the budget the Minister of Finance
tabled a while back, is that it establishes a completely new
concept, that of the Canada social transfer, which is the budget
for social and welfare programs. A new concept is therefore in
use, doubtless to assist in the advancement of the science known
as the Canada social transfer.
According to Bill C-76 implementing the budget, the federal
government will, over the next three years, reduce by $7 billion
the public funds it gives to the provinces, which means a $2.5
billion cut for the Quebec government.
Not only are the cuts in question huge, the federal
government, instead of being apologetic about it and paving the
way for a true decentralization of powers following its financial
withdrawal, is interfering more and more in the management of
health, welfare and social programs and more recently, in
post-secondary education. Also it announced that it will set
national standards to which provinces will have to conform to
avoid being further penalized.
It is a new way of interfering into areas of provincial
jurisdiction. Section 93 of the Canadian constitution provides
for a distribution of powers and areas of jurisdiction. The areas
just mentioned-health, post-secondary education, social
programs and welfare-are all within provincial jurisdiction.
These areas, which affect Quebecers every day, are crucial to
Quebec's distinct society in the Canadian federation. They are
existential.
(1145)
The federal government has no right to set national standards
for Quebec. Furthermore, under clause 37 of Bill C-76, the
federal government demands that its financial assistance be
visible, which means that, from now on, the forms used by
citizens must reflect the fact that the federal government
contributed to such and such a program.
Not only is it withdrawing, not only is it cutting, not only is it
setting standards, but now it boasts about it and demands to be
praised by the provinces so that citizens realize that the federal
government doles out presents. This is the underlying
philosophy: to show that it is giving presents to the provinces, as
if it were not with the taxes paid by Canadians and Quebecers,
and this is the normal state of affairs. As unconstitutional as
these measures may be, it is normal for the Canadian
government to be
13101
redistributing money. Still, one should keep in mind that these
measures are indeed unconstitutional.
The position of the official opposition is clear in this regard: it
demands that the federal government withdraw from provincial
areas of jurisdiction without any ifs, ands or buts. In other
words, within the Canadian confederation, the official
opposition demands that the constitution be abided by, and that
the withdrawal of the federal government from social programs,
health care, and education be offset by the transfer of tax points
so that taxpayers do not end up paying more. It would balance
out. The federal government would lose one or two per cent in
taxes to the current province of Quebec, and thus the tax burden
of citizens would not get heavier.
Therefore, we see that, with this second piece of legislation,
Bill C-76, aimed at implementing the budget, the federal
government keeps on attacking, and even intensifies its attacks
against the provinces, especially Quebec, by setting national
standards in the areas of health care, post-secondary education,
social programs and welfare.
I now come to Bill C-88. Bill C-88 deals with internal trade in
Canada. It is a matter which was the subject of an interprovincial
agreement signed last year, on July 1st, by the provinces, the
federal government, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories,
and which is to come into force on July 1st, 1995. There is, in
this agreement, a certain legal vagueness due to the wording of
article 1710-which is at the heart of the agreement and could
become the stumbling block-providing for mechanisms to
settle possible disputes between two provinces, or between the
federal government and one of the signatories; the least that can
be said about these mechanisms is that they are somewhat
lacking in clarity.
The reason is that the signatories agreed that any dispute
settlement mechanism would be based on the good faith of the
parties and would not, in any case, be of a legal nature. There
was, on April 10 of this year, less than two months ago, a
federal-provincial conference of provincial, territorial and
federal ministers, in Calgary, where, we are told, nothing was
said about the fact that there were new texts and new ways of
doing things in the areas of dispute settlement mechanisms.
Yet, two or three weeks ago, the federal government came up,
without any warning, without debate, with Bill C-88 where, in
clause 9, it imposes or rather assumes powers it never mentioned
to the parties and for which it was not mandated by said parties.
(1150)
I will read clause 9, which will create quite a conflict because
the federal government really assumes powers although, in the
spirit of the agreement, it is solely one partner, equal to the other
signatories. This question is extremely important and was called
by the Premier of Quebec a ``trade war measure''. He did not
mince his words. Given the credibility of the Premier of Quebec
in this area, we can see the importance of what I talking about.
Clause 9, which is the main element of Bill C-88, reads as
follows:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of
equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following:
(a) suspend rights or privileges granted by the Government of Canada to the
province under the Agreement or any federal law;
(b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the
province;
(c) extend the application of any federal law to the province; and
(d) take any other measure-and this is important-that the Governor in
Council considers necessary-what it means is to bring the province in step.
In subclause 9(2), they even make the following precision,
and I quote: ``In this section, federal law'' means the whole or
any portion of any Act of Parliament or any regulation order or
other instrument issued, made or established in the exercise of a
power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament''.
Before the parties gave any kind of authorization, before any
discussion or joint action, without any mandate, the
Government of Canada, a legitimately elected government,
unilaterally, arbitrarily and arrogantly decided to add a
provision whereby it granted itself the authority to set any
stubborn province right.
Just think what that could mean in the case of Quebec.
Personally, that is one thing I hope Quebecers will seriously
think about during the upcoming great consultation. This is the
type of Canada we will have in the future where there will be
only one real government, Madam Speaker, and it will be this
government, arrogant, arbitrary, cut off from the people and
ignorant of regional interests; the so-called provincial
governments will become mere regional governments. Imagine
what irreparable damage will be done to Quebec where we
firmly believe to be, where we claim to be a distinct society
within Canada with different habits, thinking patterns and
background.
That clause, as others is typical of this government's way of
doing things, in Ottawa, capital of Canada, a country soon to be
centralized, unitarian, accepting no debate or consultation and
no social debate, a debate which the Canadian population should
demand, especially westerners. Without any social debate as we
have in Quebec, a clause like this one could have serious
consequences. The intent of that clause would certainly have a
catastrophic impact on Quebec.
13102
I am coming now to Bill C-91 which deals with the Federal
Business Development Bank that will soon become the
Business Development Bank of Canada. There again there was
no consultation and no joint action. This showed a certain
disregard for the industry committee of which I am vice-chair
and which never made such recommendations, on the contrary.
If there were a recommendation from the parliamentary
secretary, it was basically to reduce the importance of the bank,
to make it the bank of Canadian small businesses. It was to scale
it down. But now, we are going to the other extreme, Madam
Speaker, with the Business Development Bank of Canada, to
which the minister gives a new mandate; it will no longer be
a last resort for small business but rather intervene in programs
supporting Canadian entrepreneurship.
(1155)
Those words, which are neither defined nor specified in the
legislation, will allow the federal bank, pursuant to clause 21, to
intervene not only in federal organizations, but also in
provincial ones and in regional organizations created by the
Quebec government. That is still basically a way of interfering
in the daily lives of the people in this country, and of the people
of Quebec, without any mandate to do so.
For those who do not believe what we are saying, I refer to the
March 30 article in which two well-known Liberals talk about
the future of Canada.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières and I would like to ask him a
question. Are liberals not trying to find solutions to the
problems of Ontario regarding the financing of small business
and to generalize the Ontario model by amending the Federal
Business Development Bank Act?
I remember that, in the months following the election, Ontario
Liberal members on the industry committee were somewhat
angry and said that banks were not sensitive enough to the needs
of small business, that the last recession had caused many
bankruptcies and that ways had to be found to deal with the
situation.
Quebec committee members were less concerned by the
situation because Quebec had already developed its own tools
like the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs de la FTQ-the CSN
will soon have a similar fund-and the Mouvement des Caisses
Desjardins. There is also the use made of business support
centre funds and regional development funds. We already had
all those resources.
I feel that the amendments to the Federal Business
Development Bank were proposed to please Ontario but they
will not make funds more easily available to Quebec. We
already have regional funds available. There are many
coordination problems between the various funds. Is the change
of vocation of the Federal Business Development Bank not
going to make things more complicated and increase delays
without necessarily having a positive effect on the access of
Quebec small business to financing?
Mr. Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, for his question. I commend
his intuition. Indeed, when the Standing Committee on Industry
started looking into the matter, the problem was centered on the
issue of funding of small and medium size enterprises. Members
of Parliament from Ontario made legitimate representations,
considering the slump caused by the lack of credit, although this
was never proven.
But things went differently afterwards, when the purpose of
the Federal Business Development Bank was radically changed.
Previously, the bank's primary purpose and almost only concern
was assisting small and medium size enterprises, but that is now
becoming somewhat secondary.
I will read the first lines of clause 4 which deals with that
purpose:
``The purpose of the Bank is to support Canadian entrepreneurship-''
That is what subclause 4(1) says. Subclause 4(2) says:
``In carrying out its activities, the Bank must give particular consideration to
the needs of small and medium sized-enterprises.''
So, we see that what was previously a fundamental concern
for small and medium size enterprises is becoming somewhat
secondary. The bank will deal as it can with small and medium
size enterprises having primarily established entrepreneurship
development programs, as I was saying earlier, which do not
qualify or have not been defined. Anything is possible with the
private funds that the bank will have in the future.
I would like to give more information on the two
distinguished Liberals that I was telling you about. They are the
hon. senator Rivest and Mr. Forget. They said on an open line
show on the CBC, which is as credible as these two gentlemen:
``Mr. Rivest having revealed that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Privy Council is
preparing a major administrative and tax reform for Canada''.
This is Mr. Rivest speaking, a very good Liberal.
(1200)
``Mr. Forget went on to say that he feared a no vote on the
referendum-this is very important for Quebecers-would lead
to a loss of control by the government of Quebec on subsequent
events''. That is, after the referendum. ``This situation would
create opportunities for initiatives, whether under the
constitution or not, but which could, at any rate, considerably
change the rules. It seems to me that, for now, the threat to
Quebec lies
13103
much more in this restructuring of the government-a vital
issue-than in some constitutional matter''.
I conclude with these comments, which confirm our
apprehensions. Here, in this Parliament, as well as in the
Langevin building, very important events are occurring, but
they are not being publicized. A country is being built and
changed without any debate. I think it is outrageous.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I just heard the hon. member for Trois-Rivières speak
about the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec. I
would like to remind him that the Office's presence in Quebec
was requested by the social and economic stakeholders in the
regions.
In my riding, as in most ridings, people have asked for a
regional economic development policy. A few days ago, we
heard the Minister of Finance say in the House that he had
written several times to his provincial counterparts inviting
them to co-operate on matters related to regional economic
development. He has received no answer to date. This is an
important point that we must not forget during our debate.
A few weeks ago, a seminar was held in Chicoutimi on the
future of Quebec and its regions. At the seminar, the Quebec
government was asked to do something along the same lines as
the federal government in the area of economic development. I
think this is important. The federal government is a leader in the
field of economic development in Quebec, and, through the
Federal Office, it is responding to people's needs, as Quebec
should do. It is very important that the federal government
continue its efforts, but with the provinces' co-operation.
Finally, I have a question for the member for Trois-Rivières.
In his riding, some forty economic development projects have
been approved by FORD-Q. Would he deprive his constituents
of the federal government's economic presence in his own
riding?
Mr. Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi for his very thoughtful question. Sure, we
do not want to deprive our constituents of the moneys they have
already paid to the government and that are redistributed in the
normal way. When one claims to want to develop the economy,
as the federal government is doing, it is perfectly normal that
from time to time it takes tax moneys paid by Quebec taxpayers
to redistribute them in Quebec.
There is nothing new here, there is no gift in there, contrary to
what is hinted at in such a question, as if that money was paid out
of generosity. However, I am not sure, and there lies the danger,
that these 40 projects are being developed in harmony with the
efforts being made at the same time by the Quebec government.
That is not obvious at all. On the contrary, one is left with the
impression that there is competition, duplication and
overlapping of energies.
I would like to take the opportunity provided by my
colleague's question to talk about the Federal Business
Development Bank and the change in policy it is setting for
itself or that is being imposed on it by the minister. We seriously
wonder how, despite all its claims, the new Business
Development Bank of Canada will be able to meet the need it
met successfully up till now for very small businesses, because
52 per cent of the loans made by the FBDB were loans of
$100,000 or less, which suited the needs of very small
businesses. Given the new aspirations of the Business
Development Bank of Canada, it is not that obvious that the
needs that were met up till now will be met in the future. This is
not very reassuring, and therefore leads us to question the
validity of this new mandate.
(1205)
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in
this debate. I will take this opportunity to set the record straight
concerning the Canada health and social transfer.
Contrary to the propaganda spread by the Bloc Quebecois and
reflected in the motion before the House, the Canada health and
social transfer does not take powers away from Quebec and
transfer them to the federal government. Instead, it gives more
flexibility to provinces.
Thus, the new Canadian social transfer is a big step toward
more mature federal-provincial fiscal relations.
In the last federal budget, the government acted on the request
made by Canadians that deficits be reduced through structural
changes.
That kind of change is essential if we are to secure Canada's
economic well-being and protect our social programs. But the
structural changes we need could not be made without a reform
of the provincial transfer system.
Cash transfers amount today to more than 20 per cent of all
federal program spending.
[English]
The government responded to the need for change with a new
transfer system that is both more sustainable and more effective,
the Canada health and social transfer. Currently the federal
government transfers funds to the provinces for health and
post-secondary education under established programs financing
or EPF.
Funding for social assistance and social services is provided
under the Canada assistance plan. Beginning in 1996-97, these
transfers will be replaced by a single transfer as described in Bill
C-76 which is before the House. The Canada health and social
transfer is part of that bill.
Unlike the current system, which is based partly on cost
sharing arrangements, the Canada health and social transfer will
13104
be a block fund like EPF. This means that amounts transferred
will no longer be determined by provincial spending decisions
as under cost sharing.
The new system will be more fiscally sustainable. When the
Canada health and social transfer is fully implemented in
1997-98, the total of all major transfers to provinces will be
down by about $4.5 billion from what would have been
transferred under the existing system.
This is significant action but to put it into perspective, the
reduction will equal about 3 per cent aggregate provincial
revenues. Furthermore, the Canada health and social transfer is
not merely more sustainable but also more efficient. It will bring
real benefits for both levels of government.
The Canada health and social transfer continues the evolution
away from the requirement to obtain federal government
approval in areas of provincial responsibility, which has been a
source of entanglement and irritation in federal-provincial
relations.
[Translation]
From the provinces' point of view, the new system will
include fewer conditions on the use of transferred money.
From now on, there will be no more rules on the kinds of
expenditures that can be cost-shared and those that cannot. Provinces will be completely free to use innovative means in the context of social security reform, and they will have more flexibility to set their own priorities.
[English]
Let me offer some concrete examples of what this greater
flexibility could entail in practice. There would be no need for
provinces to submit claims for federal approval and no need to
draw up lists of provincial laws, welfare agencies and the like.
This will bring significant administrative savings.
The move from CAP cost sharing to block funding will also
mean that policies and programs could be designed to better
integrate social, health, education and labour market
programming.
(1210 )
Further, provinces can use simpler, less intrusive methods of
establishing eligibility for income support and services such as
an income test. In this way federal funds will assist a wider
range of people with disabilities to live independently, based on
a variety of personal and employment criteria.
[Translation]
A less stringent implementation of needs tests could also help
provinces make income support and non monetary benefits more
widely available to low wage earners or people who try to stop
depending on welfare and to enter the labour market.
That way, federal money could be used to support the
APPORT program in Quebec and other income supplement
projects geared to low income families and workers.
[English]
By moving from the needs test, provinces could also provide
integrated prevention programming to a broader cross section of
children and families. For instance, federal funds could support
community or school nutrition programs which are not currently
eligible for CAP because they are not needs tested.
The flexibility I have just described-the flexibility to spend
as effectively as possible-paves the way for better design and
more affordable social programs for Canadians. Each province
will be able to emphasize the programs and services that work
best for its own unique circumstances.
It is important to emphasize this enhanced flexibility does not
mean a free for all. The Canadian health and social transfer
maintains an important federal role in social programs.
First, the federal government will continue to provide
substantial funding to provinces in support of health and other
social programs. Individual provinces will receive amounts
ranging from about 20 per cent to about 40 per cent of their total
revenues.
Further, the principles of the Canada Health Act will continue
to be enforced. Canadians have made it very clear this is
extremely important to them. Seventy-seven per cent of
Quebecers believe these new principles are important to them
also.
Also, there will be no change in the principle that provinces
must provide social assistance without minimum residency
requirements.
[Translation]
Furthermore, the Minister of Human Resources Development
will be inviting all provincial governments to work together on
developing, through mutuel consent, a set of shared principles
and objectives that could underlie the new Canada health and
social transfer.
The official opposition would like us to believe that this
whole process is nothing but a plot to underhandedly impose
new conditions, methods or penalties on the province of Quebec.
[English]
Frankly, that is absurd. Let me emphasize again the only
standards contained in the legislation introduced in the Canada
health and social transfer are the Canada Health Act provisions
and the social assistance mobility condition. These are not new
and they have not been changed. Compared to the status quo
there are fewer legislative social assistance conditions in this
13105
legislation, not more. The legislation provides no legal
authority to introduce any new conditions, standards or
penalties. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong.
The legislation does contain a statement of the federal
government's intention to launch the consultative process I have
described, a process seeking mutual consent on principles and
objectives.
[Translation]
Nothing new was included in this statement of intention. On
budget night, on February 27, 1995, the government stated
clearly that it would be ``inviting all provincial governments to
work together on developing, through mutual consent, a set of
shared principles and objectives that could underlie the new
Canada social transfer''.
This is the exact same commitment we included in Bill C-76,
word for word. What does ``mutual consent'' mean? It means no
government whatsoever in Canada can be forced to adhere to
new principles and objectives against its will.
(1215)
In other words, only the governments who subscribe freely to
new objectives and common principles will have to abide by
them. Nothing is clearer than that and those who claim that we
are dispensing with mutual consent are being ridiculous.
There is another piece of nonsense from the Bloc members
that I would like to challenge during this debate. Contrary to the
devious spin being given by the opposition, the bill does not
allow the federal government to introduce new standards
through the back door. Quite the contrary. There is absolutely no
clause in the bill that allows the federal government to introduce
new criteria or new financial penalties with the Canada social
transfer. Bill C-76 does not allow us to tack new conditions on
the Canada social transfer arising from the consultative process
carried out by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Those who say otherwise have misunderstood the bill. They
do not make a distinction between statutory conditions and
statements of intent. The principles and objectives eventually
reached through mutual agreement between governments would
not necessarily lend themselves to inclusion in a legislative text.
If, some day in the future, the consenting governments want to
entrench an agreement in a federal statute, it would be necessary
to submit a bill to this effect to the Canadian Parliament.
In conclusion, I would say that one of the main characteristics
of the Canada Social Transfer for health care and social
programs is that it is proof that Canadian federalism is capable
of evolving. It opens the door to further progress toward a kind a
federalism that is more mature, more responsive to the concerns
of Canadians, who want more viable programs, and to the
concerns of the provinces, who want more flexibility.
It proves our commitment to get the government back on the
right track and to reduce duplication and overlap, which will
result in administrative savings. And it clearly shows the federal
government's firm commitment to co-operate with the
provinces. That commitment involves a consultation process on
the establishment of a permanent distribution formula for the
Canada health and social transfer, as well as on a series of issues
concerning fiscal federalism.
I am not at all surprised that the official opposition expresses
its dissatisfaction about the characteristics of the new program.
The Canada health and social transfer delivers a fatal blow to the
separatists' arguments because it proves the vitality and the
flexibility of the federal system.
But the great majority of Canadian men and women strongly
support this evolution of Canadian fiscal arrangements, as do
most members in this House. Therefore, I urge all members to
support this motion.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I found my Liberal colleague opposite quite eloquent, in his own
way. He has aptly illustrated the ambiguity and the depth of the
government's strategy, which is to hide its real motives.
(1220)
This is non-transparency incarnate, since it is saying one
thing and doing another. It claims that this beautiful and
supposedly united country is in the process of decentralizing,
while in reality, what is really happening, to use the term used by
the opposition and several columnists, is that the federal
government is offloading under the pretext of decentralizing. It
is decentralizing the fight against the deficit by foisting
unprecedented cuts on the provinces.
This is obvious in Quebec. There is nothing surprising about
the unfortunate closure of a certain number of hospitals when
one considers that the government of Quebec has had to deal
with over one billion in cuts per year, cuts made almost on the
quiet, without any opportunity for discussion. Fourteen billion
dollars in cuts over 12 years and now the federal government
wants to sell us a form of decentralization! And these cuts are
paired with the introduction of national standards. Next, it will
boast that it is helping to fund such and such programs. This is
downright indecent. It should at least have the guts to call a
spade a spade.
I would like to ask the hon. member to once again explain how
his government can justify this way of operating. It would be so
simple to just respect section 93 of this country's constitution,
which says that social matters, including education, fall under
provincial jurisdiction, and to just divvy up the appropriate tax
13106
points to the provinces and stay out of other people's business,
which would be the constitutional way of operating.
[English]
Mr. Walker: Madam Speaker, the opposition member
confused about three or four very important issues in the same
speech. Let us take them one at a time.
First, the federal government has given the provinces every
opportunity to design their social programs as they wish. The
only condition the federal government is putting in Bill C-76 is
the condition that there is no residency requirement attached to
social assistance.
We think that the provinces will respond very positively and
will develop some very innovative programming. As I explained
in my speech on some of the barriers under the Canada
assistance plan, which has been sort of the cornerstone of the
Canadian social assistance program and social policy for the last
30 years, the time has come to change it. We feel very confident
that the provinces will do the right thing and develop some very
innovative programming. One of the things I mentioned was the
school lunch and breakfast programs, which are not facilitated
under the present arrangements under the Canada assistance
plan. There will be other opportunities.
[Translation]
One expression in the text is crucial to this debate, and that is
``mutual consent''.
[English]
We use those words very carefully and very purposely to
indicate to the provinces that we are not about to impose new
conditions on their social programs and that if a future
government wishes to do so this would require entirely new
legislation.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will be
approaching the provinces, as is stated in the act. I want to say to
the House that in my short history as a parliamentarian and my
longer history as a student of Canadian politics, I cannot
remember an act that mandates a minister to go out and consult.
This was not just said in a speech in the House of Commons but
is in fact part of the legislation.
I suspect this is being taken very seriously by the minister
himself, as he has indicated in the House, and that by mutual
consent there may be programs emerging and conditions or
statements. However, this is up to the minister to discuss with
the provinces. We have simply said that at this time the
conditions that are stated are those that are in the act.
In terms of the responsibility the federal government has for
closing hospitals, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot ask
the federal government to sponsor and finance but to leave
people alone and then second guess whether provinces are
closing hospitals or cutting back on doctors or cutting back on
nurses. These are very serious decisions, but they are the
decisions of the provincial government.
(1225)
I will use the example of Alberta, where everybody is up in
arms about the government closing rural hospitals. They often
forget that it was the same government that opened those
hospitals in the first place. The province has the responsibility
for its construction programs and for the infrastructure it puts
into health care. If mistakes were made in the past, I do not think
federal politicians should second guess them. Those things are
in the provincial domain, the construction of hospitals and the
delivery of health care.
I say this in the context that the cutbacks that will come into
effect in two years represent 3 per cent of the total provincial
revenues of Canada.
We in the finance committee listened to many groups
intervening on the question of federal funding for social and
health policy. We have been most conscious that the amount of
funds will not be devastating to the poor of the country. We are
confident that with the two years of warning, one year of no cuts
and another year of half the cuts, most provinces will have the
revenue capacity and the tax points and the space needed to
generate the money to make sure the programs continue,
particularly those west of Ontario that have a balanced budget. I
believe seven out of ten are getting close to a balanced budget.
However, they have to decide on their own which are the best
ways to finance these programs and what the priorities are.
There is no province I can think of that would think of
abandoning the poor as a priority. I am confident these issues
will be taken care of.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would like to ask my colleague, who is undoubtedly an
honourable man, as a Canadian citizen elected by his
constituents, whether, when he considers the demands of the
people of Quebec as embodied by their government, he feels that
these are the demands of a distinct society within the Canadian
federation or that these are merely the vengeful demands of a
province that refuses to conform, and above all, to be treated
like the other provinces?
I would be interested to hear what the hon. member has to say
about Quebec's historic claims as opposed to the other concept
that includes all that, where our aim, at least within the
framework of Canadian Confederation, is to be a distinct society
in Canada.
13107
[English]
Mr. Walker: Madam Speaker, in the Canada social health
transfers and in the debate we are having, the words distinct
society do not appear. I will put that case aside for another
debate.
In the history of federal-provincial relations in the country
there have been many arguments by many provinces against the
federal government. Some of those have been conceptual fights
over the federal-provincial authority and some have been fights
over money. Depending on the nature of the Quebec government
at various times it has pursued aggressively some of these
objectives. In the same fashion, British Columbia took the
federal government to court over cutbacks in the Canada
assistance program.
The constitutional debate is always on the horizon in Canada,
but it is not here today and is not central to the debate today.
What is before the House is an opposition motion debunking the
cornerstone of the government's approach to resolving the
problems of the country.
We feel we have a very pragmatic and effective way of
permitting provinces to develop their own social programs.
There will be programming responses from Quebec, which I am
sure will be entirely different from programming responses
elsewhere in the country. This facilitates the development of
programs that are very responsive to the Quebecois. People in
other provinces may choose to do things differently. I see this in
the context of a very wide ranging series of problems we are
dealing with.
(1230)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the
opposition motion before the House today, and I may recall the
wording: That this House condemn the government's legislative
agenda, which makes clear its intention to usurp provincial
jurisdictions and construct an entirely centralized state, as can
be seen from Bills C-76 on the Canada Social Transfer, C-88 on
the Agreement on Internal Trade, C-91 on changing the name
and mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank and
C-46, which confirms that the Department of Industry is
responsible for regional development in Quebec and Ontario.
These are legal terms we use in the House, but basically, the
real question being asked today, and it has already been asked
this morning by the federalist parties, which demonstrates their
failure to understand the issues at stake for Quebec, is as
follows: Why is Quebec again disturbed by this attack by the
federal government which is intruding in a variety of areas?
Why is Quebec again being a spoil sport? Since today is the first
day of June, 1995, I think we should make this show-and-tell
month.
In fact, after the offensive fought during the Trudeau years to
put in place a system the Liberals now want to resuscitate, we
had a strategic retreat by the Conservatives when, because of
nationalist members within the Conservative caucus and
because it was impossible to get through the bureaucracy at
Industry Canada, for instance, the government decided in favour
of what I would call a by-pass operation. It created the Federal
Office of Regional Development and other regional agencies to
get around the centralizt bureaucracy and find parallel channels
for spending federal money in the regions. However, that was
still at a time when there seemed to be enough money or in any
case the government was still willing to borrow money, all of
which helped to run up our current debt.
Today, the ``arteries'' are being closed down. There is no more
blood for the system to pump. Whether we try to preserve the
Conservative-built bypasses or whether we return to the
centralizing approach, the system needs oxygen and does not
meet the objectives. This is what has led us to the present
situation of 1.2 million welfare cases in Ontario and 800,000 in
Quebec and a debt that will soon reach $600 billion. I think these
are the symptoms of the system's failure.
We are seeing a repeat of the events of the 1970s. The federal
government decided it had the solutions to all the problems in
areas of jurisdiction other than its own. Let us take Bill C-76
dealing with the Canada social transfer as an example. The
federal government has decided to intervene in the areas of
health, social assistance and post-secondary education-all
areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has decided to establish
national standards, which take no account of the economic and
social realities of Canada's regions.
Let us look at a few examples. Bursaries and loans, for one.
The bursary and loan system was changed on the sly so the
provinces are now forced to comply with the wishes of the
federal minister in this area. In Quebec, we developed a
different model, and here Quebec will have to choose between
complying with federal standards and making the rest of the
population pay for the constraints established by the federal
government.
One thing I learned as a member of the human resources
committee on its cross-Canada tour is that there is not one
Canada and that there is no single solution to the problems
raised. The approach of setting up national standards, as we have
seen in health care and other sectors, at a time when the federal
government is cutting back, leads nowhere, except to
frustration. This is the reason for today's motion by the
opposition, which is to make people aware, in June 1995, a few
months away from the referendum in which Quebecers will
decide whether they want to leave this madhouse, as René
Lévesque described this dysfunctional and dead-end system.
13108
Therefore, Quebecers must do some thinking. At first we had
thought they would have to decide between the status quo and
sovereignty. Now, however, it appears that the choice is
between a degenerating status quo with the federal government
wanting to intervene even more and sovereignty. It is very clear.
(1235)
I understand why people who consider the federal government
to be the main government in Canada, the one that must apply all
the rules, have difficulty understanding where the official
opposition stands on this issue. When one looks at it from
Quebecers' perspective, it is clear that for Quebecers in general,
the main government has for a long time been and still is
Quebec. The government in Ottawa is to a large extent the result
of a compromise made in 1867.
Quebecers cannot accept that this federal government
systematically interfere in areas such as social programs,
internal trade and potential loans by the Federal Business
Development Bank, and give the Department of Industry the
responsibility for regional development in Quebec and in
Ontario when one knows very well that this system never
worked.
The Tories had been forced to create parallel agencies to put
an end to this bureaucracy. Now the Liberals come back to the
old system which suited Ontario but does not suit Quebec. I have
nothing against the fact that members of Parliament from
Ontario protect their interests, but I am against the
consequences of restoring an old structure which adversely
affects Quebec and does not offer good prospects.
Let us take, for example, the bill to implement the Agreement
on Internal Trade, Bill C-88. We should keep in mind that this
bill implements an agreement based on co-operation. Everyone
in Quebec, Canada and North America realizes how important
free trade is. It is so important that Quebecers rallied to the
defence of the FTA, which would never have passed without
Quebec's massive support. The FTA goes well beyond
interprovincial trade opportunities.
Adjustments were made to reach an acceptable compromise.
This agreement is based on interprovincial co-operation.
Suddenly, with Bill C-84, the federal government is
surreptitiously putting its big paws in this agreement by
introducing a judicial process into an agreement based on an
administrative consensus that disputes should be settled
between the parties.
However, the federal government has now come up with a
wonderful idea. In one case, whether or not the federal
government is a party to the dispute, it may impose sanctions on
the provinces which, in its opinion, do not comply with the
agreement. This amounts to being both judge and party. This is a
concrete example of the paternalistic approach used by this
government and developed by the Canadian federal system,
since, under the federal decision making process, senior
officials always feel that they are right about what to impose on
Canadians.
I now come back to the example of the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development. A year ago, officials,
deputy ministers told the committee that UI reform would
introduce two levels of coverage. They said that people in the
outlying regions and seasonal workers go on UI because they are
not prepared to work hard. Our committee travelled across
Canada and unanimously rejected the proposed system. The
minister set up a committee on seasonal work, which also
rejected the whole approach proposed by the federal
bureaucrats. This week, senior officials smugly outlined for our
committee the same vision they had a year ago.
Although he may have acted in good faith in this matter, the
minister did not succeed in convincing them to change their
proposal one iota. The bureaucracy's control over Canada's
development is unhealthy. Bureaucrats are responsible for the
current results. It is because of them that regional disparities are
so wide, because they never wanted, because this government in
particular does not want, to give each region control over
important sectors. Instead, perhaps because the constitutional
provisions on the division of powers are so vague, it always feels
like interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, simply
because it has the right to collect and redistribute taxes.
Following the Canadian social transfer and the agreement on
internal trade, the federal government is stepping up its attacks
by proposing a new Business Development Bank of Canada.
(1240)
Clauses 20 and 21 of the new legislation to change the name of
the Federal Business Development Bank to Business
Development Bank of Canada, which is a minor change as far
the name is concerned, make it possible for the federal
government to systematically interfere in regional
development. This goes to show, once again, that the federal
government does not regard regional development as a
provincial area of responsibility. In fact, it is unclear whether
the provinces exist at all in the eyes of the federal government.
Under clause 20 of this bill, it may deal directly with any
organization, which means that the same pattern will be used as
in the past. The federal government will walk in with its money,
tell community consultation organizations, municipalities or
development funds: ``The thing is, we can give you money for
regional development, but we want to have a say about how it
will be used, since our contribution will be substantial''. And
the pattern of fighting will be repeated, with provincial and
federal organizations each defending their turf. In the end, who
will be the losers? The people. In this case, with the
development bank, the businessman is the one who will be in a
worse
13109
position than before with the various departments he will have
to deal with.
This is the third bill which, under the guise of simple name
change, is used to discreetly introduce provisions that would
have gone unnoticed if it were not for the watchful eye of the
opposition. But this is serious business and it speaks volumes
about how this government operates, always trying to go over
the heads of the provinces.
If we were certain that this approach was effective, we would
have to recognize that, as unconstitutional as it may be, it is
efficient, but experience shows that it is not effective and never
has been. A region like Eastern Quebec is a perfect example,
having been a proving ground for every federal-provincial
action for the past 25 years. And the end result was a significant
drop in population. All the young people have moved away, and
we are struggling in our communities to get out of this situation,
but were it not for the goodwill and sweat of local stakeholders,
we would get nowhere. But we also get tired of trying to work
with that system and finding ways to implement programs
locally.
There is another clause in the Business Development Bank of
Canada bill which is indicative of duplication, as it set out two
different goals for a development policy. I am referring to the
fact that the bank is to support Canadian entrepreneurship. This
is a very general statement. It means that, if some provinces
implement projects on their territory to make up for the
seasonality of their economy, for example in the Maritimes or in
certain regions of Quebec, a federal intervention aimed at
providing programs which support Canadian entrepreneurship
could easily trigger a centralization of businesses in the large
centres, and thus result in an even greater population decrease in
the outlying regions.
The provinces, and particularly Quebec, will have to spend
energy and money to fight that approach. The federal
government will do just the same, with the result that public
servants will be very busy and will work really hard, but not
toward the stated goal, which is to develop the economy.
If only one bill or another was involved, we could talk about a
blip on the screen, or say that the federal government wants to
interfere in social programs because it feels that some provinces
are not adequately assuming their responsibilities. However,
this is a planned approach. It is a systematic approach designed
to make Canada a unitary state.
The predominantly English-speaking provinces probably
have no problem with that approach, since they are pretty
comfortable with a system where the federal government
assumes all the responsibilities. A university chancellor in the
Maritimes told me that we were now at a stage where we need a
federal department of education and that it will have to come to
that. I told him that I appreciated his being so clear about the
issue. Such will be the choice for Quebecers. They will have to
decide whether to keep the steamroller which, in 1982,
unilaterally erased the reference to two founding nations in
Canada's constitution.
(1245)
Now we are left with the Canadian people. Since 1982, all the
federal structures have favoured this approach, which is at odds
with how Quebec wishes to develop.
Take health, as an example. The official opposition is said to
continually criticize the federal government's interference in
areas of provincial jurisdiction, but, of course, they are
sovereignists. The members opposite will even say we are
separatists. But if we take an event like the health forum, there
could have been two different approaches.
The federal government could have made sure that the
provinces were represented. The discussions might have taken a
little longer, but it would have been possible to reach a
consensus and find a logical solution. Instead, it was decided to
hold the health forum without the provinces. Not to worry, we
will bring in experts to define Canada's needs. The result was
inevitable.
We find ourselves in the situation where the recommendations
resulting from this forum will have no credibility with the
provinces, who already have jurisdiction in this area and are
aware of the problems created by the reduced federal budgets.
And more problems are expected in the future. The provinces
must take on increasing responsibilities, with no consultation by
the federal government, accepting the news and making short
term adjustments.
Here we are at the beginning of June 1995. Quebecers are
three weeks away from their national holiday and a few months
away from a referendum in which they must decide if they want
the future of the people of Quebec to be governed entirely by
Quebecers or whether they can risk seeing the people of Quebec
become just a minority among Canadians within the Canadian
constitutional context.
We have the choice of accepting the model proposed by the
federal government or fighting it within the existing Canadian
system. But that has been the nightmare of the last 30 years.
There is no longer anyone in Quebec who dares to say that we
should keep trying to change the federal system. No one in a
position of political responsibility would say it because it no
longer has any credibility, there is no longer any likelihood that
it can be done.
The third choice available to Quebecers is to leave the
existing federal system, eliminate duplications and overlap, all
the reasons to do with how it operates. But why, when it comes
right down to it, should we leave? Why must we make sure that
these unsuccessful efforts are not repeated? Why cease these
futile struggles? Because, fundamentally, we are a nation. We
have long sought to work out an agreement with Canada's other
founding nation. Now is the time to make a choice. As Maurice
Duplessis said: ``Donnez-nous notre butin''. Faced with a
choice between what this government is offering us and taking
13110
control of our own destiny, I think that Quebecers will choose
Quebec and that, in the fall, they will decide that it is time they
had their own country.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in my
hon. colleague's earlier remarks he referred to Bill C-76,
particularly the Canada health and social transfer, somehow
implying that our change to a block funding format is reducing
the flexibility or changing the control the province has in the
areas of health, education and social assistance.
I sat on the finance committee and listened to witness after
witness say that they were concerned the strategy was quite the
opposite, that perhaps the block transfer gave too much
flexibility to the provinces.
The hon. member must be able to defend that. The people of
Canada are seeing just the opposite. Under Bill C-76 we are not
infringing upon or tying the hands of the provinces but doing
quite the opposite. We are giving them far more latitude, far
more opportunity to spend the moneys transferred to the
provinces in the way they see as best.
(1250 )
There were questions earlier of my hon. colleague, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, that said we
were somehow creating new guidelines and controls on the
provinces. However, as the parliamentary secretary indicated
very clearly, the words mutual consent are just that. The
provinces would have to agree to any new standards and
guidelines and if they did not, fair game.
How can the hon. member convolute Bill C-76, particularly
the Canada health and social transfer, into any kind of
representation that the federal government is trying to put more
controls and more strings on the provincial responsibilities and
ability to use their funding in those areas?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I think that the question is quite
pertinent, because it gets to the heart of the debate. In effect, the
organizations from English Canada which testified before
committee had the gall to say that, if the provinces were given
too much latitude, they might do things that hinder their
objectives as organizations.
Let us look at what led to this situation. Twenty-five or thirty
years ago, the federal government opened up its floodgates and
began funding all kinds of programs. This contributed to our
current debt. These organizations, which have all along been fed
by the federal government, fear that when the government runs
out of money, instead of simply saying so, it will decide to
reduce transfers to the provinces, which will in turn reduce the
capacity of these organizations to act.
Their reaction is understandable, absolutely normal and
healthy. They want to survive and are looking for funding. Each
group is doing it the best way it knows how. But did you see any
Quebec organizations behave in such a fashion in front of the
finance and human resources development committees? Did any
of Quebec's organizations appearing before the finance
committee say ``we could not live with the decision to give
Quebec jurisdiction over social programs?'' No, not a one.
The main government for Quebecers is the government of
Quebec. The government of Quebec is responsible for providing
the fundamentals to promote at the very least the survival of
Quebecers as a people. Many years ago, Quebec realized that
that was not enough. We cannot live on unemployment
insurance benefits alone. We do not want people telling us that
they are our cash cow, that they hold the key to our development.
What we want is control over our own development and the
ability to implement measures that will get us out of difficult
situations.
We, not just Paul Crête the separatist but all Quebec labour
stakeholders, have been systematically petitioning for
jurisdiction over the labour portfolio for 10 years now. The
Liberal Party of Quebec, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the
unions, and everybody in between all agree.
It is obvious that Quebecers took part in the Canadian
confederation in the hope of harvesting good economic benefits.
Today, they are realizing that they do not have enough power to
develop to their potential in this system. Worse yet, they are
realizing that the federal government would force them to use
the model that the other provinces want.
Take for example the changes made to the loan and bursary
program this year. The main section says that all provinces with
a loan and bursary program must meet all of the requirements of
the federal minister. The anglophone provinces have no problem
with that, but Quebec developed a unique loan and bursary
program 25 years ago. When this program becomes compulsory,
which is why in Quebec particularly, students were opposed to
this bill, Quebec will have to revamp its program completely to
make it conform to national standards, without the social
adjustments we want to include.
In Quebec we are willing to have government pay a larger
share of tuition fees. We are willing to let students have a better
balance of bursaries and loans. The Canadian model does not
want to develop that. Let them go ahead and develop a different
model, but let Quebec have the option of doing as it sees fit.
13111
(1255)
Briefly, to answer the question, I think we have reached a
decisive stage. We must get out of this artificial financing,
because Canada no longer has the artificial means to spend as if
there were no tomorrow. The debt is no longer the government's
business, when people from outside the country come to tell the
government to find ways to control the debt.
So they closed the tap part of the way. The federal government
decided it would offload budget cuts on the provinces, and now
we are going to have to pick up the pieces. You can live beyond
your means some of time, but not all of the time. In any case,
there will have to be some major structural changes, but the
most positive change would be to give these two communities,
Quebec and Canada, a chance to develop side by side without
putting obstacles in each other's way, and to let them each
control their own future.
[English]
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I think the hon.
member has just made my case. He says that the people of
Quebec want to have the responsibility to spend the moneys on
health, education and social assistance in the way they see fit.
That is what the block transfer allows them to do. We put the
money together in a fund and give it to the provinces that
constitutionally have the responsibility to provide programs and
services for health, education and social assistance. We are
telling them they know best. They can take the money and
allocate it in the way they see best fitting for the people of
Quebec. The block transfer gives that flexibility. It gives the
provinces the responsibility to respond to its own constituency
in those areas.
In the course of the debate I cannot see that the opposition has
any real clarity or substance to its point.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I think the clearest answer to this
question, the best example, to be objective, is not to be found in
Quebec, but in Alberta. The provincial government there has an
approach which is very different from what the federal
government might wish. It is almost forced to cheat with federal
standards in the area of health. It is forced to beat about the bush,
because it wants different rules. But the federal government,
despite its reduced funding, feels free to establish very clear
national standards regarding the five principal conditions. And
so the provincial government becomes the bad guy. Provincial
governments are certainly not going to accept responsibility for
the years of bad management of funds by the federal
government.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on what we
have just heard.
First, a reminder regarding the Canada social transfer. Could
it be that what the Bloc members do not like in this is the word
``Canada''? They might like it better if it were called the Bloc
social transfer. Indeed, it is the word ``Canada'' that irritates
them the most in the expression Canada social transfer.
It must be pointed out that the Canada social transfer includes
education, health care, and social assistance. From now on,
under the Canada social transfer, Quebec will receive block
funding, as will all the other provinces, each one of them; the
Quebec government will be able to allocate this block funding as
it sees fit. It will decide how much will go to education, how
much to health care, and how much to social assistance. This is
important.
The federal government is only setting the following two
conditions; this is extraordinary decentralization and flexible
federalism. First, the health care system will have to remain
Canadian, and accessible to all Canadians. As our Prime
Minister has said on several occasions, the health care system
must allow people to be admitted to the hospital when they are
sick, not because they have money.
Therefore, a universal health care system is the first
condition, The second one is that there be no minimal residence
requirements. This is simple, this is not complicated, this is
what the Canada social transfer is all about, whether you like it
or not. Furthermore, the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned earlier that this
system was centralizing.
(1300)
I would like to go back to something I said earlier using
FORD-Q as an example. This is something I discussed with
several of my constituents-I am fresh out of an election
campaign and have been in this House for close to three
months-and people in Brome-Missisquoi want to keep
FORD-Q. Not only do they want to keep it but, as I mentioned
earlier, at a forum recently held in Trois-Rivières on the future
of the regions in Quebec, people demanded that Quebec do its
share with regard to regional development. To this day, Quebec
has done nothing. The federal example is convincing and I
believe that we must continue along the same line.
To conclude, I would like to ask a question to the member.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but the
member has risen on debate. He has 10 minutes. I understand
that you are sharing your time.
Mr. Paradis: Madam Speaker, I thought I had risen on
questions and comments. For the debate, I intend to share my
time with the member for Durham.
The motion of the opposition suggests, among other things,
that the legislation implementing the Agreement on Internal
Trade is aimed at reducing Quebec's powers to the benefit of the
federal government. First of all, I would like the member for
13112
Shefford, the mover of the motion, to become familiar with the
bill.
The preamble reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada together with the Governments of
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec,
Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest
Territories and the Yukon Territory have entered into an Agreement on Internal
Trade;
AND WHEREAS the reduction or elimination of barriers to the free movement
of persons, goods, services and investments is essential for the promotion of an
open, efficient and stable domestic market to enhance the competitiveness of
Canadian business and sustainable development-
This is the preamble to the bill.
Clause 5 is not too complicated. Clause 7 says: ``The
Agreement is hereby approved''.
This is an agreement between the provinces and the federal
government. This agreement between the federal government
and the provinces shows once again how efficiently Canadian
federalism can accommodate differences and produce concrete,
practical results.
For example, in Brome-Missisquoi and particularly in the
Estrie region, there is an very high degree of co-operation in
labour matters between the Monteregian and Estrie manpower
associations and Human Resources Development Canada. We
sat down together and signed an agreement, a document looking
at job opportunities in the next five years.
This is another example of the co-operation between the
federal government and Quebec.
Canadian federalism requires a high degree of consultation
and co-operation between the federal government and the
provinces on a wide range of issues. Federal-provincial
relations are doing very well in Brome-Missisquoi. I must say
that the relations are quite friendly.
Our federalism is based on a series of intergovernmental
mechanisms that allows us to overcome difficulties. That is
why, over the years, we were able to work out various
arrangements between the two levels of government.
This approach is successful in our federation because the
Prime Minister, the premiers, ministers and public officials all
work in close co-operation to achieve concrete, practical
results.
These arrangements are an essential component of the
Canadian federation and provide flexibility.
These various mechanisms and this great flexibility
associated with our kind of federalism enabled us to achieve the
following in co-operation with our partners: the signature of
infrastructure program agreements with all the provinces.
(1305)
This program was implemented quickly with the co-operation
of the federal government and all the provinces, is working very
well and has created jobs from coast to coast, which is what
Canadians want.
We also signed action plans to reduce overlap and duplication
with eight provinces and two territories. We set up Team
Canada. As you may recall, the Prime Minister travelled to Asia
and South America for the purpose of making inroads on new,
promising markets. Again, for the purpose of strengthening the
economic union, we signed an agreement to reduce
interprovincial barriers to the free movement of goods and
people.
Consultations on interprovincial barrier elimination in
Canada is a fine example of co-operation that lead to a practical
agreement, which reflects the flexibility and vitality of this
federation. The Government of Canada engaged in consultations
with the provinces and territories, and together they agreed on a
process that resulted, once again, in an agreement which is fair
and just for all concerned.
Specifically, the agreement lays the basis for preventing the
creation of new barriers and eliminating existing ones in nine
areas of economic activity. It increases transparency and puts in
place a dispute settlement mechanism available to individuals
as well as businesses to ensure government compliance with the
agreement.
It provides for the development of action plans in a number of
areas, so that standards are harmonized. It covers major areas
like transportation and consumer protection. In addition, great
emphasis is put on the environment in this agreement, thereby
setting it up as a modern-day concern.
Finally, the agreement takes Canadian diversity into account
by ensuring a fair balance between trade objectives and
government objectives.
This is the first agreement of its kind in Canada. It represents
a major victory for all Canadians. It proves conclusively that the
federal, provincial and territorial governments can work
together, provided there is good faith.
This agreement is a key part of this government's strategy for
promoting strong economic growth in Canada and getting
Canadians back to work. The Internal Trade Agreement,
complete with concrete changes, implementation schedules and
thorough process, will reinforce the Canadian economic union
and promote freer movement of people, capital, goods and
services within it. It is the exact opposite of the separatist
option, characterized mainly by self-centredness and a
fascination with one's navel.
13113
Contrary to what the hon. member opposite suggests, the act
to implement the Internal Trade Agreement is not designed to
take powers away from Quebec or any other province, but to
ensure that we all grow stronger.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
will make a few comments before putting my question. First, I
want to point out the contradiction in the hon. member's last
comment. He claims that sovereignists are self-centered, but it
is the federalists who say that, if we do achieve sovereignty, they
will not enter into an economic union with Quebec.
So, which side is self-centered? It is the Canadian side, and I
do not mean the people, but those who are mandated to represent
them and do not do so properly in this case. They are the ones
who say that they will refuse to participate in an economic union
with Quebec. They are the ones who are self-centered, not us.
As for us, we are saying just the opposite: we welcome the
idea of a partnership. After all, it would be consistent with
today's trend. It is possible to want to control things and have as
much power as possible as a nation and still be open to the idea
of economic partnerships with others.
It is the hon. member who is inward-looking and
self-centered. He is new here but, over time, he will come to
recognize all the examples of duplication which exist.
(1310)
The member referred to the Canada social transfer. I
participated in a talk show at a Montreal radio station, CJAD,
with the Minister of Human Resources Development, who
addressed people who were panicking at the idea that the federal
government would no longer have control. Interest groups in
Canada are indeed concerned when they realize that the federal
government will have less control over social programs. They
are worried when they see the rise of the right wing in western
Canada, and I can certainly understand their concern. They are
worried about this whole issue.
The Minister of Human Resources Development told these
people, and you can listen to the tapes: ``Quite the contrary! We
will now have more control than before''. I would appreciate it if
the two of them could get together and try to reconcile their
views, given that the member just referred to an extraordinary
flexibility.
He also mentioned the Federal Office of Regional
Development, now a federal structure with no money and no
means to act, but which gets involved in many issues. The
member says: ``Now, this is a good illustration of the future in
regional development''. I say that there is still a lot of room for
improvement.
Let us now look at the issue of manpower, to which the
member briefly alluded, and also the co-operation agreements
in his region. In his speech, the hon. member said that we would
discuss, examine and consider the issue, and that is exactly what
is being done. But while governments are discussing, the
unemployed and welfare recipients are not working. While he
says: ``It is all right, federal and provincial officers are working
together, trying to harmonize things and reduce overlap'',
nothing is being done, because of all the tension between the two
levels of government which are always eager to pass the buck
back and forth.
When only one level of government will be dealing with this
issue, things will be clearer for the citizens who will have a more
direct influence. The time will have come to stop talking about it
and to take action, and I can hardly wait. My question is related
to all of this. At first, the Minister of Human Resources
Development said that he would reduce transfer payments for
post-secondary education. Given the reaction of students, the
government decided to hide its agenda first by lumping up the
programs and then by making its cuts so that no one would know
which program was hit the hardest.
Having said that, let me add that the Quebec National
Assembly unanimously passed a motion put forward by the
Action démocratique, with the support of the Liberal Party of
Quebec, the close federalist friends of the members opposite,
which said that Quebec should get more tax points instead. They
all agreed on that.
Since the hon. member believes that the system is flexible, I
would like him to tell us why his government does not want to
give this area of jurisdiction to the province of Quebec and if he
supports the resolution passed by the National Assembly of
Quebec, which is asking for more tax points instead of cuts to
cash transfers. I would like to find out the position of the hon.
member on this issue.
Mr. Paradis: Madam Speaker, my first comment would be to
say that Canada is a country that works. Maybe that is why our
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois do not know which way to
turn. Canada is a working proposition. A moment ago, they were
talking about dismantling something that works just fine in
order to set up a new partnership. That is exactly the word used
by colleague from the Bloc.
If we are to have a partnership, mutual respect is a
prerequisite. Hurling insults at people or at a system will lead us
nowhere. Canada already has a structure to accommodate
co-operation and partnership between the provinces and the
federal government. Scores of agreements have been signed by
both levels of government. That structure has been designed to
let Canada as a whole and the provinces, reach for a better
future.
My second point concerns the Canada social transfer, which
demonstrates the flexibility of federalism.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to enter into this debate on the motion by
my hon. colleague in the Bloc Quebecois.
13114
What we are discussing today is flexible federalism. Indeed,
I think sometimes that my hon. colleagues in the Bloc do not
understand the word flexible. What has kept Canada together
for many years has been the fact that people have been able to
understand and respect each other's differences and diversities.
I can remember reading an article about an American study
which was commissioned during the second world war. It said
that of all the allied countries which were fighting in the war,
Canada was the most likely to break up.
(1315 )
As we stand here today we can reflect on the erroneousness of
that report which talked about Canada's being so decentralized
it would be an easy matter for it to dissolve. The reality is the
decentralization of Canada is its strength.
We govern a huge geographical country. This part of the
northern hemisphere has not only great cultural diversity but
also climactic diversity due to our geography. Lester Pearson
once said we have too much geography in this country. There is
some truth to that.
My fellow colleagues in the Bloc often discuss and point to
what they believe is duplication and overlap. They like to point
out this is some kind of failure of our federal system. Let us look
at some of these programs. I am amazed at some of the areas
Quebec does control. It has control over immigration and
controls for a large part its own income tax system. For most
countries their individual states do not have these kinds of
powers. Clearly we have already decentralized significantly in
Canada.
The Bloc often says our having shared jurisdictions creates
inefficiency. Duplication and overlap is the theory. I have been
interested to discover one area of purely provincial jurisdiction
in Quebec, education, does not perform particularly well. Next
to Alberta, Quebec has the highest drop out rate for secondary
education institutions, over 30 per cent.
Quebec spends the highest per capita on education with
$7,132 per student. With this exclusive control it would appear
it has been unable to solve its problems. All provinces have
problems, but it is not clear that by not having shared
jurisdictions somehow there are great efficiencies to be earned.
With shared jurisdictions there is more of a consultative
framework, more of an opportunity to get good advice form
across the country.
I will deal with two components of the motion. It talks about
Bill C-88, an agreement on internal trade. All provinces have
basically consented to this and signed this agreement. In an era
when we are discussing things like the GATT agreement and
NAFTA it seems almost a tarnish and a shame on Canada that we
have to argue and discuss trade agreements within our country.
The Bloc Quebecois has often talked about a European Union
type of government. In reality the European Union probably has
freer trade within its union than does Canada. The agreement on
internal trade does not solve all of these problems. There is
continued inhibition of trade within our country. It seems odd to
me when this act is used as part of an argument that somehow we
are trying to concentrate power in Ottawa when in reality we are
trying to create a free market within our nation.
The motion deals with Bill C-91, an act not to create
something new but merely to rename something. I can only
assume my colleague's concern is the Federal Business
Development Bank may well become the business development
bank of Canada. I do not know if the use of the word Canada
bothers him so much. I do not like those words. When I see the
words of Canada I think of American corporations operating in
Canada, such as General Motors of Canada. Be that as it may this
is the proposed new name.
(1320)
It seems to me some of the things proposed in the legislation
are to create more dynamism in arranging capitalization of
small and medium sized businesses. This is something very
close to my heart. I believe through creating new capital markets
in Canada we will encourage and create new jobs. The business
formation is inhibited by its inability to seek capital.
I have listened to some of my colleagues in the Reform Party
who speak against this bill because they feel it is a competition
with existing banking structures. The Federal Business
Development Bank and in some ways its sister company, the
Farm Credit Corporation came into existence for a very
significant and real reason: there is a significant lack of long
term business financing. Our banking sector has basically
become a short term lender. The popular loan within the banks is
a demand loan. Imagine borrowing some money today and
tomorrow the banks can call it back. That is how the banks want
to lend. There are a number of reasons. It has to do with their
deposits and so on. That is what banks are.
In a sense there is a disequilibrium in the market which is long
term financing. Banks do not get involved in it mainly because
of the way they are capitalized. The Federal Business
Development Bank, which is now called the business
development bank of Canada, will raise funds in Europe and
other equity markets throughout the world and attempt to match
them on a long term approach.
It does not matter whether we are in Quebec, Ontario or
Saskatchewan, small business needs some kind of access to this
capitalization and it is not being provided in Canada.
In the United States it is common to have mortgages that run
30 years and payable in 30 years. This gives people a great deal
of security in their arrangements. We do not have this in Canada.
Our capital markets are deficient because we have only short
term lenders. Because of that uncertainty in our marketplace
13115
small businesses find it very difficult to become capitalized.
What they want is equipment. Farmers are probably the most
capital intensive of any business with farmland, equipment and
buildings that cannot be paid off tomorrow.
I am surprised that my colleagues in the Bloc, who I am sure
must be interested in creating jobs in Quebec which has one of
the highest unemployment rates in Canada, would see this bill as
somehow a centralizing factor. This bank has branches
throughout Quebec. If we had only one branch in Ottawa and we
made all the people come here, I would call that centralization.
When in reality facilities are available not only in Quebec but
throughout Canada that is a decentralized approach and we are
not treating any one province differently than another.
These are not gifts. These are not grants. These are not
sources of regional development. People simply borrow money
on a long term basis and pay it back over an agreed period of
time. It is fulfilling a need.
I understand some people wish the private sector would do
this. Why Canada is typified by short term capital markets I do
not know. However, this is the way it is being addressed.
Hopefully some day we can privatize this bank, but it has not
occurred. Most of the major banks still do not get involved in
long term lending.
From my experience the Federal Business Development Bank
has been a major asset in lending to small businesses.
The important thing is both of these pieces of legislation have
nothing to do with centralizing the power of the state but they
have everything to do with creating jobs in neighbourhoods and
communities in Quebec and in Ontario.
(1325)
The problem we have with a lot of people is we have too much
government. I do not think we need to centralize it. We need to
get government closer to the people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise this afternoon and speak in opposition to
the Bloc motion.
In some ways and in some areas of the bill highlighted on this
motion we agree with the Bloc that the system is broken and
these bills are not addressing the real problem.
Where we differ with our colleagues from the Bloc is the
problem is repairable. It can be fixed. There is absolutely no
reason for quitting or separating. Canada is worth fighting for
and that is what we have to do.
What I read in this motion, the me, we mentality, is the real
problem. It is what is in it for me and not what is in it for Canada.
I recall an article about the me, we generation. It identified the
1980s as the me generation. It talked about the Milkens in the
United States and the Campeaus in Canada who were out for
personal gain and glory at the expense of jobs to thousands of
Canadians.
The article suggested that changed in the 1990s, that the
1990s changed to what we call the we generation. It talked about
people becoming more concerned about what is really important
in life. It talked about the number of people who have started
contributing to charities and working for the betterment of their
communities.
In the article a minister had interviewed many people in their
last moments. He never had heard anyone say in those last
moments they wished they had spent more time at the office.
The message there was we all have to remember that what is
good for the family is really what is important.
There was also a story of a very successful stockbroker who
had made millions in the stock exchange, more money than he
could ever hope to spend in his lifetime. He quit all that when he
realized what was really meaningful in life and what was really
important to him was missing. He walked away from it. He went
home to look after a young family even to the point of making
sandwiches and participating in life. He found a great deal more
satisfaction from that. This mentality of we, me is at the bottom
of many of the problems we have in Canada today.
The status quo has been rejected overwhelmingly. There is no
question about that with 205 new members elected to
Parliament. There was a very strong message from the Canadian
people they were not happy with what had been happening here
and they wanted change.
Change does not mean walking away or quitting. The change
they are asking for is a change to the system to make it work, to
make for a better and united Canada. Canada is worth fighting
for. We have the greatest country in the world.
We have a great opportunity with 205 new members. We have
some fresh thinking, some new ideas and new visions for a new
Canada, a Canada where all citizens in all provinces will be
treated equally.
I am sure the people in the province of Quebec are no different
from the people in every province across this great country.
They are looking for a government that will live within its
means. They are looking for a government that will do what it
has to do in their lives and in their businesses.
13116
There is no way any family or any business can continue to
go deeper and deeper in debt year after year and survive. The
people in Quebec are looking for politicians with integrity who
will say what they mean and mean what they say. The tragedy
of broken promises has created a level of cynicism which has
to be overcome all across Canada.
They are looking for a change in the process. They are looking
for changes with the government being more responsive to the
needs and demands of the people. They want to have a say in
what is going on in Ottawa, not just hear the voice of Ottawa in
the ridings. They want a change in the process. Freer votes,
referenda and recall are all issues which the people of Quebec
would support as well as the rest of Canadians. As I said in
another speech, if you want trust you have to give trust. We have
to do that to return to the level of trust that has been lost. I am
sure the people of Quebec are no different from other Canadians
in wanting safer streets, safer homes and safer communities.
(1330)
This motion highlights several bills and I would like to deal
with two of them, the budget bill, Bill C-76, and Bill C-88, that
deals with interprovincial trade barriers. In those two bills the
government missed an opportunity and failed to unite Canada
and to address the barriers which exist. I would like to highlight
where the government went wrong and what should be done to
restore Canada as a united nation.
The budget was wrong. It failed dismally in addressing the
deficit and the debt, which are the most serious problems
Canada has today. I was very disturbed and disappointed by the
Bloc response to the budget. Apparently Bloc members still do
not understand and appreciate the fact that the deficit and the
debt are the major problems in Canada. What I heard was: ``It is
not really a problem. It is not too serious. All we have to do is
trim a bit of government fat. Whatever we do, we should not
touch the social programs because they are sacred''.
I would suggest that with a $600 billion debt, overspending of
$25 billion a year and interest payments approaching $52
billion, all programs have to be looked at thoroughly. It cannot
be done simply by trimming government fat or by going after the
social programs. All areas of government spending must be
addressed. The spending which has been taking place in social
programs, because they represent such a huge portion of the
total spending envelope, absolutely has to be addressed.
The message is that Canada has a spending problem, not a
revenue problem. Canadians from coast to coast understand
that. They were ready for the budget. When I say coast to coast I
am including the people of the province of Quebec. They
understand the magnitude of the problem. They understand that
living beyond our means has to come to an end. There will be
some pain associated with it, but that is facing reality. To
suggest that the deficit might be tackled by getting delinquent
taxpayers to pay the tax dollars they owe is a flight in fantasy. It
nowhere nearly approaches our enormous debt.
It is interesting that Moody's, the bond rating agency which
fired a warning shot across the bow of the finance minister
before the budget came out is not Conservative, Liberal, Reform
or Bloc. Moody's is non-political and was, as a bond rating
agency, in my estimation, doing us a favour. It was sending a
warning to the government about the seriousness of the
overspending problem.
What did we do? We shot the messenger. The messenger was
not telling us what we wanted to hear. In reality the messenger
was giving us good fiscal advice to get our house in order and to
get it in order quickly. It did that in advance of the budget
because there were two messages which it wanted the
government to get.
The first message was that 3 per cent of GDP is too low a
target. It is easy and it will not fly with the investors that have
been buying our bonds. The second part of the message was that
it wanted a date set when Canada was going to achieve a
balanced budget. Rolling two-year targets that the government
hopes to meet will not fly with the people who have been buying
our bonds. They want to know how and when Canada will
balance its budget. No reasonable banker and no reasonable
Canadian would expect less.
The downgrade which Moody's threatened before the budget
was introduced, as we know now, happened. The budget which
could have united us did not. In fact, it is doing more damage to
the country as we are going deeper and deeper into debt. The
downgrade has not really taken effect yet but it will down the
road. It will have a very dramatic effect on the rate of interest
paid to finance our bonds. Every 1 per cent increase in those
interest rates costs Canadian taxpayers in the first year of
borrowing an extra $1.7 billion. The impact of that downgrade is
very significant and does not look well for the future.
(1335)
The budget has been passed on the assumption that interest
rates will remain fairly stable. That is a very dangerous
assumption. It does not take into account the possibility of a
downturn in the economy which we know is coming. It is not a
matter of if it is going to come. Economies go up and down and
Canada could very well be into a downturn in the economy now
and is very poorly positioned to deal with it.
Canadians know there are three ways to balance the books in
Ottawa. One is to raise taxes. The second is to hope for growth in
the economy and the third is to cut spending.
Canadians from coast to coast are not prepared to pay any
more taxes. Again, the people in Quebec are no different from
the people in every other province who are taxed to the limit.
13117
That is not an avenue that the government should explore to
raise funds in order to balance the books.
Growth in the economy is an area the Liberals look at through
rose coloured glasses, hoping that there would be greater growth
in the economy than actually happens. The downside of that is
when the economy does not grow. In fact our deficit and debt has
increased, it has not been reduced.
Going back to taxes for a moment, taxes right across Canada
are counterproductive. The more taxes are increased, the more
the underground economy is fuelled. As huge as it is now, it will
only grow by any attempt at an additional tax grab.
The area that we have complete control over is spending. That
is where the government missed with this budget. It did not go
after the reductions in spending to get the books in balance so
that there would be no new and increased taxes.
The government likes to say that it inherited the problem. I
suggest that it initiated the problem. I go back to the years 1963
to 1984 when the debt rose from $20 billion to just about $200
billion when it left office.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives took office and in their
years from 1984 to 1993 the debt increased from $200 billion to
some $490 billion. It is interesting that some of the Bloc
members today were actually sitting with the Conservative
government and were allowing that debt hole to continue to go
as deep as it did.
It is also interesting to recall that very little was done by
government members when they were in opposition to support
any of the attempts that were made to get spending under
control. For them to say that they inherited the debt is not quite
factual. They initiated the problem several years ago that put us
in the mess we are in today.
In 1993 when the Liberals presented their first budget, they
still had no idea of the magnitude of the problem. The message
we got then was: ``Be happy, don't worry. This deficit and debt
are not serious. We are not going to do anything''. In fact they
did nothing.
I should not say that nothing was done but what was done was
unbelievable in the short time after the budget. The Bloc was
part of this. They gave in to the smugglers. They gave away $350
million in taxes that Canadians could ill afford then and
certainly could not afford today. That is aside from the
additional health costs that are down the road because of that
very foolish move on the part of the government.
What has been learned since is that the forecast of $350
million, which should not have surprised us because they are not
good with numbers, turned out to be something like $800 or
$850 million. It cost nearly a billion dollars to give in to the bad
guys, the smugglers. It is unbelievable given the fiscal position
we are in.
What happened in 1994? We had an admission that the
problem was serious. Now the finance minister is saying that
this is a serious problem. It may even be life threatening.
Unfortunately he does not have a solution.
(1340 )
They have some plans for these rolling targets. At the end of
this first rolling target the government will still be overspending
by $25 billion a year and will be $600 billion in debt. When it
addresses the next budget it will be trying to shoehorn in $52
billion in interest payments.
If members think this budget was difficult, try the next one,
where the government will be trying to find a way to
accommodate $52 billion in interest payments without any
significant cuts. I would suggest it cannot be done.
Canadians in every province want fiscal sanity in this place
and that is not what Bill C-76 gave us. They are not looking for
pie in the sky. They know what has to be done. They are looking
for reality and they are prepared to support a government that
will give it to them.
Let me speak for a moment on Bill C-88 concerning
interprovincial trade barriers. It is a bill that could have meant a
great deal to uniting the country but it missed the mark
completely. It was a great opportunity to bring down the walls
that are dividing us east to west.
In spite of the barriers there is about $146 billion in trade
between the provinces. It was the Canadian Manufacturers'
Association that said those barriers are costing taxpayers $6
billion and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Canada can trade north-south with free trade but it still cannot
trade east-west. Bill C-88 did nothing to really address that. It
just touched lightly on some areas but did not get into the real
meat of the barriers that are there.
Free trade is talked about as the salvation of Canada. If it was
not for free trade, our exports would be in a much sadder
condition than they are presently. Free trade was violently
opposed by the current government when it was in opposition.
Today it is proving to be its salvation.
The federal government has a responsibility for breaking
down the barriers to interprovincial trade but it has abdicated the
responsibility. Those walls must be broken down because those
barriers are interfering with the interaction of governments and
deterring the development of culture between the different
provinces.
The provinces have always been able to negotiate bilateral
trade agreements. As a matter of fact one was negotiated
between Quebec and Ontario regarding the construction trades.
Both provinces worked that out and it was a model which
showed those things could be worked out across Canada.
13118
Bill C-88 as it is now discourages international investors
from coming into all the provinces and creating employment.
Years were spent negotiating GATT. The Department of Finance
estimated it represents about a .04 per cent increase in Canada's
gross domestic product. Yet the Fraser Institute said that if
interprovincial trade barriers could be broken down the GDP
could be increased anywhere from 2 per cent to 6 per cent. All
this time has been spent negotiating GATT for .04 per cent when
if something was done about internal barriers a much more
significant improvement could be made in the GDP. This would
translate into jobs that are sorely needed in the economy. As
I said, it would strengthen our economic, political and cultural
ties.
These barriers cause lost jobs in every province resulting in
higher taxes and making us less competitive in the global
economy. If we really want to benefit from north-south free
trade, we can only do it by maximizing trade east-west as well.
Again, it is the me mentality that exists which must be broken
down. It has to give way to the we mentality.
In closing, I would like to say that with 205 new members in
the House we have a great opportunity to resolve the problems in
the country. We do have problems. There is no denying that. We
are a family and all families must give and take. In every
successful marriage it is give and take. It is never all one way if
it is to be a successful and happy marriage. Working together we
can fix it. We can make Canada a better place for all Canadians.
(1345 )
Indeed, Canada is worth fighting for. I intend to fight for it as
hard as I can, as hard as I know how. I want to do that because my
grandchildren are counting on me to do that.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
begin by making a comment and then asking my colleague to
answer a question.
First, I very much enjoyed the beginning of his speech where
he spoke about the me and we mentality. Then for whatever
reason, I do not know why, he derailed himself and took a
different type of train. I counted in excess of 52 different
negative connotations throughout his speech. He spoke at the
beginning about public cynicism and public confidence, yet his
speech dealt only with the negative but not really the positive
things this government and this country have to offer its people.
My colleague surely knows it is not government that creates
jobs; it is the private sector. Surely my colleague and the public
would know that all the government can and should do is create a
proper environment so the private sector can create jobs.
Historically, it has always been the private sector that has
created jobs.
I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that
interest rates since we took office have been stable; we have
stability in interest rates. Our trade has hit an all-time high. Our
economic growth is leading the G-7 countries. My colleague
could testify to the fact that our growth is greater than any other
country in the western hemisphere.
The government has taken a number of steps in order to
streamline and reorganize the way we deliver services. In fact
some of those bills deal specifically with reorganizing, with
giving different levels of government different responsibilities
so we can better do the job we are supposed to be doing.
I also wanted to bring to my colleague's attention that there is
a myth that government should not be looking at taxes for
generating revenue. The only way for government to get revenue
is through taxes. How else can we support programs unless we
are generating tax revenues? Economic growth means
businesses are doing well, which means government is
generating more taxes.
Telling the public we are no longer going to collect taxes gives
the wrong signal; it is the wrong thing to say. We should be
saying that we need economic growth so government revenue
could increase through taxes. If businesses do well we will bring
in more taxes.
I do not understand why my colleague would say we can no
longer collect tax from the private domain. That is the only way
governments here and anywhere in the world can do business
unless they were to go into business themselves. We were in
business in the past. This government is trying to get out of
doing business itself by streamlining, by privatizing part of the
crown corporations we have so they can do the kind of work
done by them in the past through the government. They will be
able to do it on their own.
On the issue of spending, this government has done a
tremendous amount of work in the area of spending. I do not
know what my colleague expects. In one year the government
came down with a budget that slashed over 45,000 jobs from the
public service itself, from the public domain.
If we were to look at the balance sheet, this government is now
generating more revenues than we are spending. In a way we are
already in a surplus position. The problem here is there are no
more cuts to be done but we have to increase revenues.
I will submit to my colleague that we should turn the me and
we mentality into a mentality of we collectively.
Finally, I wanted to ask him what specifically he would
suggest the government do that it has not done, and give it to us
in point form without any negatives.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, there was a
lot said by the member for Ottawa Centre.
I would like to begin by saying it is very difficult to find
anything but negatives when we are responding to this
government's agenda. I could not believe it when I heard the
member say that it is not governments that create jobs but the
private sector. That is not the message that has been coming
across the
13119
floor. They have spent $6 billion on an infrastructure program
because governments were going to create jobs, arenas, boccie
courts.
(1350 )
That is government creating false jobs, not real jobs. It still
fails to get the connection between high taxes and job creation.
High taxes kill job creation. If we want to create jobs we have to
lower taxes. One of the provinces is doing that right now. It is
lowering taxes and cutting spending. What is happening? It is
increasing employment. It is getting more jobs for its people.
This budget is not a job creator, it is a job killer. The
government does not create jobs, the private sector does, and the
private sector is looking for tax reductions. Anybody in the
private sector will say: ``Get out of our lives. Get off our backs.
Get out of our pockets. We will create the jobs, but we do not
need you on our backs. Get off our backs and we will do it''.
The hon. member spoke about the myth of taxes. I am sure that
Canadians who were listening to ``we do it with more taxes'' are
responding to that, because they are eagerly waiting to give the
government more tax dollars. They have been giving the
government all of these tax dollars and they have been receiving
fewer services. Does the government not think they are getting
the message?
The reason for the tax increases over the years has been
supposedly to do something about our deficit and debt, but they
have been getting deeper and deeper. It has not happened. There
is no proof that the answer is to go after more taxes. In fact, the
opposite has been happening for 25 years.
Where is the justification for standing up and talking about
the myth of taxes? The myth is that we are taxing too much. We
have to cut our spending. When we have been overspending for
the number of years we have been, to suggest that we can
continue to overspend and that the Canadian people will be
prepared to support us with more tax dollars is to dream in the
extreme.
The government has not yet received the message. It will get it
in the next election. When the government addresses the next
budget let it find how it will accommodate $52 billion in interest
payments that are going out the window without increasing
taxes and again hurting the creation of jobs.
It is nice to hear hon. members opposite talking about free
trade. When they were in opposition they were vehemently
opposed to free trade. Yet in fact free trade today is the salvation
of this government. If it were not for free trade it would be in far
worse shape than it is right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, as my colleague for Simcoe-Centre was saying, it is
true that the Liberal government does not understand anything.
But, unfortunately, the Reform Party has not yet understood that
Canada's fundamental problem is not about to be solved.
Despite their good intentions, Reform members have not
understood that, when powers are centralized in Ottawa, it just
perpetuates a long-standing problem in Canada. When powers
are centralized, taxes go up, costs go up and we do not get the
services we need. So when a Reform member rises in this House
to tell us that what we need is more services for the people, I
have to tell him that it is certainly not by centralizing powers in
Ottawa that we will be able to provide more services to the
people. Anybody with good common sense would recognize
that, if we want to provide more services at a lower cost, we have
to get closer to the people. Therefore, powers have to be
decentralized.
We can see through all the bills I have talked about that the
Liberal government is trying once again to centralize even more.
And, once again, it will be expensive, it may even lead to tax
increases, it will certainly cause more waste, more
irresponsibility, more lobbying and all the other evils that come
with excessive centralization of powers in Ottawa.
If members from the Reform Party, from the west, really want
to offer a solution for Canada, they have to try to return powers
to their provinces. They really have to do that. If they do,
government will become more efficient.
We, in Quebec, understand that bureaucracy has to be
reduced. We have known that for a long time. That is exactly
why we are sovereignist. We have understood that it is the only
solution for us if we want to provide more services to the people,
to reduce costs, to reduce duplication and to get the federal
government out of the picture.
(1355)
And if Reform members and western Canadians really
understood the situation, they would agree with us because the
option for Canada-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, I am not sure
what the question was. I do not even think it was a question. I
think it was a very eloquent statement from a very eloquent
member.
Nowhere did I say the government should offer more services.
That is not a reality and I did not suggest that for a moment.
What I am saying and what I said in my remarks is that we have
to get less government. We have to get government out of our
lives. There is too much government, and we have to reduce that
level. However, we do have to provide services, and we can
provide services by getting the services provided by the
government that is closest to the people. There are many areas
where that means transferring it to the provincial governments.
We do
13120
not have a problem with that. We have to deliver these services
in the most cost efficient way possible.
The member was suggesting that people in Quebec might be
prepared to pay more taxes. I would like to see a poll on that. I do
not think they are prepared to pay any more taxes. I think they
feel the same way as the people in Ontario: They are taxed to
death and they are looking for some relief by the government
cutting its spending. That is the answer to creating the jobs the
member needs in Quebec, just as we need them in Ontario.
The Speaker: That is a lively little exchange we have going. I
think it is almost two o'clock.
[Translation]
My dear colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now move on to members'
statements.
_____________________________________________
13120
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak about a group of students who are here
in Ottawa today.
Some 30 students from Como Lake Junior Secondary in
British Columbia and from l'école Saint-François-Xavier in
Quebec have been participating in a praiseworthy cultural
exchange. The Quebec participants first went to British
Columbia,
[English]
They were welcomed by a host family and encouraged to
practise and improve their knowledge of English and of British
Columbia. In turn, the students from British Columbia were
welcomed into homes in Quebec, where they were immersed in
the French culture and language.
These students are living proof of the desire held by
Canadians to learn more about their neighbours.
[Translation]
I congratulate the students and their professors for promoting
cultural exchanges and for their desire to learn the other official
language.
I would encourage my colleagues in this House to follow their
example and to show the whole world how Canadians appreciate
each others' differences and similarities, and how this makes it
the best country in the world.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in honour of
Environment Week, June 4-11, I would like to acknowledge the
laudable efforts of the Canadian and Quebec mining industry to
be more environmentally conscious.
The Canadian mining industry is the first mining association
in the world to develop an environmental policy for all of its
members. Under this initiative, dubbed ARET, Accelerated
Reduction/Elimination of Toxics, the largest mining companies
have committed themselves to reducing the most offensive
emissions by 71 per cent by the year 2000.
We can only welcome any measure which aims to make the
sustainable development of natural resources more
environmentally friendly.
The mining industry's commitment to reducing its emissions
is a big step in the right direction. Our congratulations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with next week being Canadian Environment Week, I
want to point out the many improvements that have taken place
in our natural resource industries, especially forestry, to protect
the environment.
As someone who has earned a living as a logger and a
prospector, I know that most people work in the bush because
they love it. I know that forest industry employees want to
ensure that jobs in the bush remain available for their
communities, their children and their grandchildren. They want
to be able to continue hunting, fishing, hiking and camping on
public lands. They want their communities' watersheds also to
be protected.
Science and technology are helping us to gain a better
understanding of how these activities affect one another. I
believe it is only through a national commitment to sustainable
development of our natural resources that our Canadian
standard of living, widely recognized as the best in the world,
will be maintained, including the environment.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons I again asked
the government to delay its plans to immediately eliminate the
Crow benefit until a more detailed review of the long term
implications of this decision was completed. I want to bring to
the attention of the minister of agriculture that other farm
13121
experts have today said that the government may be moving too
quickly.
Testifying in front of a committee today, Ron Leonhardt from
the Unifarm organization said: ``When great changes are being
made, there must be a transition period''. On behalf of the
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Ron Gleim
said that the federal government may have moved too fast with
not enough money. He expressed concern about the
unsubstantiated government claim that crop diversification and
value added production would replace the Crow losses by
saying: ``Hoping and praying will not pay the bills''.
There has not been enough attention paid to the question of
how producers will be able to manage the change thrust upon
them and how long this will take. I think the federal government
had better take the time to adequately-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Denis.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): I rise today to
welcome the member of Parliament from Saranda of the
Republic of Albania on his first visit to Canada.
As a representative of the ethnic Greek minority and a
member of the Human Rights Party, the purpose of his visit is to
meet and exchange ideas with Canadian parliamentarians on the
democratic principles and respect for minorities which make
Canada a shining example.
We learned of the difficulties that opposition parties are
facing and more specifically the plight of the leader of the
opposition, Mr. Fatos Nanos, who has been imprisoned since
September 1993 by the government. I will be calling on my
colleagues to sign a petition for his release.
He has and will continue to work very hard in his native
Albania for the betterment of conditions of the ethnic Greek
minority and the improvement of Greek-Albanian relations.
This is something we as Canadians should look forward to and
encourage because it will contribute to the peace, stability and
prosperity of this volatile region.
[Translation]
I welcome the member from Saranda.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of the Environment recently announced the release
of the first summary report on the 1993 national pollutant
release inventory. Over 1,400 companies across Canada
reported their releases and transfers of 178 specified pollutants
as required under the Environmental Protection Act.
The most significant feature of this inventory is that it is
completely accessible to the Canadian public. For the first time
in history, Canadians can find out directly from a full database
of information about the pollutants being released in their
neighbourhoods and communities or across the country.
Canadians can access the information on this inventory through
Internet either on their personal computers or they can use those
available to them at libraries, schools and universities.
This important initiative will support the government's
commitment to encourage pollution prevention by making both
the public and industry aware of the quantities of pollutants
being released all around us.
I encourage the government to continue to pursue this type of
community right to know initiative.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week all Canadians join together in celebrating
National Access Awareness Week, the goal being to ensure the
full participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of
community life.
National Access Awareness Week works to remove physical
barriers to community access for Canadians with disabilities.
The week has evolved from awareness raising to a vehicle
promoting concrete action to remove barriers to accessibility.
Throughout Canada more than 1,000 communities participate in
this important opportunity for celebration and commitment.
Through the partnerships of National Access Awareness
Week, voluntary organizations, governments at all levels, local
businesses and thousands of volunteers have been able to
undertake innovative projects in communities all across the
country. The results of these projects are dramatic. Barriers for
people with disabilities are coming down.
(1405 )
The House of Commons, its members and staff are also
celebrating this important week. Activities on Parliament Hill
include promotional displays, leadership activities and
workshops.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the Summit of the Americas in Miami in December, the
Presidents of the United States and Mexico and the Prime
Minister of Canada made a commitment to begin negotiations
with Chile for
13122
its inclusion in NAFTA. These negotiations get underway next
week in Toronto.
We find it unfortunate that the American Congress appears to
have made the elimination of the side agreements on
occupational environment a prior condition to the adoption of
fast track legislation.
The Government of Canada should make it very clear that
Canada insists on the side agreements on occupational
environment being an integral part of the negotiations with
Chile. The people and the workers in the NAFTA member
countries should enjoy reasonable working and environmental
conditions.
The Bloc Quebecois supports Chile's inclusion in NAFTA and
will monitor these negotiations with interest.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, have you noticed that the Liberals are no longer waving
the little red book in defending their policies? There is a good
reason. We did some research. At least four of the promises in
the little red book have been broken already and we are only
halfway through the mandate of this Parliament.
If props were allowed in this House, Reformers would be
waving the red book as a symbol of broken promises, of a
callous lack of integrity of a government that campaigned on
being different.
Were the Liberals incompetent or just power hungry when
they made promises Reformers always knew could not be kept,
to replace the GST, raise immigration to 300,000, and many
others soon to be paraded in front of this House?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the needs of the small and medium sized businesses,
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec will
shortly implement a new concept of strategic intervention with a
focus on innovation, market development and entrepreneurship.
The FORD-Q will continue to promote the interests of all of
the regions of Quebec with strong and efficient measures. The
driving force behind small and medium sized businesses will
become the pivotal point in the realization of the economic
potential of each of Quebec's regions.
The FORD-Q will add a whole new dimension to its role by
joining in community projects and providing strategic advice
and assistance. In this context, its presence will be felt more
than ever before in the very heart of the regions.
This is what we on this side of the House call an excellent
example of the government's desire to promote economic
growth. This is government at its finest.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the YWCA, the National Association of Women and
the Law, the Canadian Federation of University Women and the
Action Advocacy Department of B'nai Brith Canada reinforced
their support for this government's efforts to increase safety for
all Canadians.
Gun control is one measure to help address the issue of
violence against women. In homes where violence occurs, if
guns are present they become part of the abusive use of power,
control and intimidation whether implicitly or explicitly. In
almost half of domestic homicides, guns are the weapons of
choice for men who kill their spouses.
Domestic homicides are not random acts of violence and the
guns used are not smuggled or illegally owned. The registration
system will permit police to issue and enforce a prohibition
order to obtain these potentially dangerous weapons and to
prevent these deadly situations.
These four groups know that Bill C-68 will not eliminate
violence against women, but it will save some of their lives. I
support their work and their position.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
just a few months ago the leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party in Ontario stood on the steps of the legislature and
encouraged a Toronto area woman to quit her well paying job
and go on welfare. Talk about the ultimate flip-flop artist who is
now proposing workfare for welfare recipients. Is he forgetting
that the ones who will suffer the most will be little children?
Perhaps he should look more toward the Liberal plan which
outlines welfare reform initiatives designed to encourage and
help people obtain permanent employment.
(1410 )
Furthermore, the Conservative leader's plan is based on a
fairy tale 30 per cent tax cut which will take $750 million out of
13123
the education budget. As one who realizes the importance of
educating all our youth for tomorrow and not just the elite few, I
have grave concerns and so should the electorate.
Ontario voters should reflect carefully on this election and not
be fooled by the Tory nonsense plan.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because
the Red Cross hesitated and, in fact, neglected to test blood
products for contamination by hepatitis C, several hundred
Canadians were infected. This shocking conclusion was
mentioned several times in the course of the proceedings of the
Krever Commission.
The Red Cross waited until 1990 before using a test to detect
hepatitis C, claiming that existing tests were not effective. In
1986, the United States was already using an indirect test to
detect contaminated products. Hesitation on the part of the Red
Cross between 1986 and 1990 potentially infected 10,000
Canadians.
These damning revelations are the latest in a series of horror
stories which have surfaced at the hearings so far. In view of this
information, the Krever Commission has a responsibility and a
duty to identify those whose irresponsible attitudes led to the
death of hundreds of human beings.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to inform the House that the
illegal roadblock by the Indians at the Douglas Lake ranch is
escalating. The Indians threatened violence when the RCMP
tried to enforce the court injunction to dismantle the blockade.
My constituents and I have been here before. Last year, the
minister of Indian affairs refused to get involved when a similar
situation arose at Apex Alpine. The minister is again shrugging
off his constitutional responsibility for Indians and lands
reserved to Indians.
The minister has tried to excuse himself by declaring that he
has received no request from the Indians to intervene. Yet, my
constituents are desperately calling for intervention from this
government.
I demand that the minister get involved. The roadblock has
been declared illegal by the courts. The RCMP have been unable
to dismantle the roadblock.
The Liberals must act. If this illegal blockade is not taken
down, then the minister should exercise his authority and
suspend federal funds to the Upper Nicola Indian Band.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
heroes are very much in demand nowadays. We all want a role
model to emulate and when we meet one we feel very privileged.
Yesterday, the Governor General of Canada presented
decorations for meritorious service to a number of Canadians
who performed above and beyond the call of duty. Three of these
people are from British Columbia.
Sergeant Thomas Joachim Hoppe from Vancouver was
awarded the meritorious service cross in the military division
for displaying outstanding leadership and ensuring the safety of
his patrol and his mission while commanding a key observation
post located between Serb and Muslim forces in
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Sergeant Hoppe was also awarded the medal of bravery for
rescuing three Muslim children who were under direct fire near
Visoko in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Sergeant Hoppe is the first soldier since World War II to
receive two of Canada's top military awards for exceptional
bravery.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate Sergeant
Hoppe and all recipients for their acts of bravery and for making
all of us very proud of our peacekeepers.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the PQ government has again shown how loyal and
generous it is to those who pledge allegiance to the separatist
cause.
Yesterday, we heard that Marcel Masse, former minister in the
Union nationale government and former Conservative minister,
had been appointed president of the Conseil de la langue
française du Québec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Patry: This appointment came after his predecessor,
whose term was supposed to run until next September, was
relieved of his duties.
With this latest appointment, Marcel Masse joins a select
group of people who directly benefit from the separatist
obsessions of the PQ.
13124
If it fails to convince Quebecers to vote for separation, the
PQ will at least have helped to create jobs for the new
supporters of ``profitable separatism''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
13124
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a report presented to the Security Council yesterday,
the UN Secretary General proposed four options for the role of
UN peacekeepers in Bosnia. In another development, the United
States is prepared to send ground support troops to Bosnia to
reinforce the mandate of the peacekeepers. Meanwhile, there is
still no indication of Canada's real intentions with respect to
redefining the mandate of the peacekeepers.
Could the Prime Minister tell us quite frankly which of the
four options suggested by the UN Secretary General before the
Security Council is the one preferred by Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada prefers the option recommended by UN
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. We believe the
mandate should be redefined to make it possible for our troops
to avoid the kind of position they are in now.
That is exactly what I said to the Secretary General when I
spoke to him on Sunday. He preferred the option favoured by
Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is now negotiating with the Serbs to let
Canadian soldiers volunteer to replace their colleagues who
have been taken hostage so they can take turns.
Notwithstanding the noble proposition of our Canadian
peacekeepers, could the government tell us whether these
exchanges will be restricted to hostages who are ill, because
otherwise, it would be tantamount to agreeing that the Serbs
have the right to take hostages?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously, the soldiers who are there and who know
their colleagues are being held a few kilometres away from the
base are trying to find a way to put an end to this situation. They
are trying to find a way to end the deadlock. Last year, the
situation went on for a few weeks, and the local commanding
officer managed to find a solution that was acceptable to all
parties.
For the time being, I would rather let the local authorities
decide on the best way to obtain the release of the hostages or at
least provide for maximum security, under the circumstances.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I must say we are far removed from the days when
Lester B. Pearson was a household word in international
relations.
Are we to understand that Canada has no clearcut policy on
redefining the mandate of the peacekeepers in Bosnia because it
no longer has any influence and has ceased to show leadership
among peacekeeping forces on the international scene, now that
it is not even a member of the contact group and has been
relegated to the role of a bit player, merely following the cues
given by other countries?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just explained that the position taken yesterday by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations is exactly the one we
proposed to him over the weekend. I personally had a discussion
with him on Sunday morning.
We are using all the channels available to us. In that case it is
evident that the position of Canada was integral to reaching a
conclusion. It is not one that is supported by all participants. We
are in constant contact with the United Nations.
I have to say that the Secretary-General of the United Nations
recognizes that of all the forces available anywhere in the world,
when Canadians are there he can always rely on them because
they are the best. He is listening to Canadians as he has done in
that case.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The gross domestic product
fell for the second time in as many months. According to
Statistics Canada, the GDP fell by 0.2 per cent in February, and
by 0.7 per cent in March.
(1420)
It would appear that the economic slow-down is due to a
slump in exportation and domestic consumption. The situation
is largely the result of a monetary policy which favours high
interest rates, and is not aimed at reducing unemployment.
Why is the government persisting in pursuing the same
monetary policy as its predecessors, when it knows that it is bad
for the economy and for job creation?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that the GDP in the first quarter of this year rose, it did
not fall. In only two months of the quarter there were minor
declines in the GDP.
13125
These numbers do have variations and they are not indicative
of a recession as yet. I remind the hon. member that our
economic programs are on course.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why
is the government refusing to correct its aim, when the drop in
the gross domestic product is signalling an economic
slow-down, when its present policy flies in the face of its
election promises regarding job creation, and when there has
been no net job creation during the past five months?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will point out to the official opposition that, looking
at these statistics, it is obvious that something happened which
hurt the economy. We had a two-week long transportation strike
which caused the economy to slow down.
At that time, we told the Bloc Quebecois that by refusing to
pass the government bill, it was causing an economic
slow-down. Today, the economy is paying for the Bloc's
irresponsibility.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's mismanagement of aboriginal affairs
in British Columbia has now brought tempers to a boil at
Douglas Lake. The Upper Nicola Band is blocking the road to
the Douglas Lake ranch and the RCMP is worried that someone
will get seriously hurt or killed.
The blockade is just the tip of the iceberg. What we do not
want are three or four Okas in B.C. this summer, yet the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development refuses to address
this and other similar situations.
What is the government prepared to do to resolve the standoff
at Douglas Lake before things get out of hand?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader for his
question.
As far as jurisdiction is concerned, this demonstration is
clearly off reserve and is not within federal jurisdiction. I
checked and the Upper Nicola Band does not have a specific
claim which would put us in the picture. It is not a part of the
B.C. treaty process. On these three grounds it is clearly
provincial. However, if requested by the province, we are
prepared to go in and do whatever we can to facilitate.
I am encouraged by several things. First, several significant
aboriginal leaders have volunteered to help. The hon. member of
the Reform Party in whose riding this is has talked to my
executive assistant. He has offered some help. I am prepared to
delegate someone if Mr. Cashore asks for help.
The other encouraging thing although the situation could get
volatile is that Joe Gardner, manager of the Douglas Lake cattle
ranch, the person who is most involved, has told the various
ranchers to sit still. He has insisted that the dispute be resolved
peacefully and we agree with his position. Hopefully we can get
it resolved.
[Translation]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal red book contained promises which led to
unreasonable expectations on the part of the aboriginal people.
In Quebec, the Band Council of Kahnawake, with the help of
Frank Vieni, one of those in charge of Indian Affairs during the
Oka crisis, has presented to the Department of Indian Affairs a
land claim asking for millions and even billions of dollars. The
co-ordinator of the project for the department, Kate Fawkes,
said that the document contains some real breakthroughs.
(1425)
Is it the policy of the department to encourage claims of such a
large scope when it knows quite well that it will be impossible to
meet those expectations?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is
wrong.
[English]
Other than the hon. leader making a commendable effort in
French, I assume the question is: Are we trying to lift up
expectations? Are we trying to settle? Are we trying to do the
reasonable thing?
We are trying to do the reasonable thing. We are trying to do
what most Canadians want us to do, to deal honourably and to
find just and reasonable solutions. Merci bien.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is anything that has soured relations between
aboriginal peoples and governments it has been inflated
expectations and broken promises.
The current minister appears to be going down the same road
as his predecessors. The Liberal red book promises on land
claims and self-government raise aboriginal expectations sky
high, and then the government simply cannot deliver.
Would the minister not agree it would be better to make one or
two simple commitments to aboriginals that he could keep
rather than make inflated promises to 600 aboriginal bands that
he is simply unable to keep at the end of the day?
13126
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member behind
me says, Liberals are optimists, not pessimists. That probably
describes the difference between Liberal members and Reform
members.
We did an assessment last night. One whole section of the red
book deals with aboriginal issues. It has been a difficult year, but
I can say to the House that on every promise we made in the red
book there has been medium to moderate to significant progress
made across Canada.
It makes me proud as a member of the Liberal government and
the Liberal Party that we have kept our word and done our job in
difficult circumstances.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
A report from Statistics Canada shows a new decrease in the
number of unemployed people covered by unemployment
insurance. In 1990, seventy-seven per cent of the unemployed
were covered by unemployment insurance, whereas in March of
this year the proportion was down to 49.7 per cent. This shows
how much the reform introduced by the government in its
February 1994 Budget is hitting the unemployed.
Considering that the unemployment insurance plan is helping
only half the unemployed, does the Prime Minister not realize
that his reform is increasing the poverty problem in Quebec and
Canada and that he must rescind the cruel decisions taken in
February 1994?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It raises the
very important issue of unemployment in Canada, which the
government takes quite seriously. It is for this reason that
through various programs initiated by the government over
460,000 new full time jobs have been created in Canada.
I also bring to the attention of the hon. member that reading
the report would make it very clear to her that the reason there
are fewer people on unemployment is job creation.
In Quebec over 110,000 full time jobs have been created. Also
in the province of Quebec over 86,000 people did not exhaust
their UI benefits prior to gaining new employment. That to me is
positive change for the people of Canada.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
very hard to swallow since there has not been any net job
creation for the last five months, since the new report on social
assistance shows that there has been a further increase despite
the fact that we are supposed to be in a period of prosperity,
since irate unemployed are confronting members everywhere.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Since, to this day, the
Unemployment Insurance Fund has a surplus of $4 billion, due
to the cuts and the 15 per cent reduction in the money distributed
despite an increase in applications, does the Prime Minister not
find it indecent that his Cabinet is studying a plan to cut
unemployment insurance by a further $700 million next year?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has a very suspicious way of looking
at statistics.
The fact is that because of the changes we have made to UI,
over 280,000 low income families in this country are benefiting
through a differential benefit rate of 60 per cent.
I understand the point made by the members of the opposition,
but I think there comes a time in this House when they should be
applauding positive measures for people.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we speak,
the U.S. and Europe are sending squadrons of F-14 Tomcats,
F-18 Hornets, Harrier jump jets, Cobra attack helicopters, an
amphibious battle group, and even U.S. nuclear powered, fast
attack submarines. Mr. Speaker, does this sound like a
humanitarian peacekeeping mandate to you?
Given this rapid escalation, how can the government assure
Canadians that our troops will not be inextricably drawn into a
war for which they are neither equipped nor mandated?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
welcome the departure in U.S. foreign policy to perhaps put
ground troops into the former Yugoslavia under extreme
circumstances to help with the redeployment of UNPROFOR
forces. We welcome that possibility. We would like to know how
they would be deployed.
With respect to the British and French contingents, the British
defence minister has said that those forces will be part of an
effort to protect British forces that are in Bosnia, which are
13127
currently more exposed than the Canadian forces but would be
subject to UNPROFOR command and therefore would be
available for the protection of all.
This Saturday the defence ministers of the NATO contributing
countries will be meeting to discuss other ways we can reprofile
the positioning of military forces in Bosnia with respect to fully
discharging the UNPROFOR mandate.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Lord Owen,
the chief European negotiator in Bosnia, who is himself
withdrawing from this war torn country, argues that if there is no
peace settlement by autumn then UN forces will be forced to
leave Bosnia.
Given the circumstances and that Canada's commitment to
Bosnia ends in September, will the government assure
Canadians today that after three and a half long years in Bosnia
all our troops will be home with their families by fall or sooner?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to Lord Owen, we do regret very much that he now feels
unable to continue with his duties. He has done outstanding
work, but it is frustrating and very demanding.
However, we still believe that a negotiated settlement to this
problem is the answer, not a military solution. We will not be
moved by any deadlines set by anyone, whether it is the Bosnian
Serbs or any other party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
Former workers at Singer are arguing that the federal
government did not fulfill its contract obligations toward them
because it gave the company, instead of them, the Government
Annuities Account surplus, that is a part of their pension funds
that it was responsible for administering.
Does the Minister of Labour not agree that the contract
binding the parties between 1946 and 1957 is abundantly clear
and that the federal government had an obligation to pay the
surplus out to the workers and not to Singer?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the federal regulations have been applied in this
matter.
(1435)
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a lot of difficulty accepting the minister's answer. She is
responsible for the No Committee in Quebec and is also my
former neighbour in the riding of Saint-Jean. The average age of
the 600 workers at Singer is 80 years and 250 of them are already
dead. So, answers are needed urgently and must be specific.
When is the minister going to commit to table in the House all
the documentation with respect to this issue, so that we can
assist these workers in their search for justice?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, within the labour program of the Department of Human
Resource Development, we always work to make sure that the
rights and responsibilities of workers, as well as employers, are
respected, and in so doing, we apply the Canada Labour Code
with respect to the parties involved. That is the day-to-day job
of the labour program officials.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the justice minister.
Yesterday I pointed out that three law firms with very tight
connections to the revenue minister had been appointed. The
revenue minister has said that he was not troubled by the
appearance of patronage, saying: ``I am not concerned. I think
merit is the primary consideration for an appointment''.
Does the justice minister not think that a $4,000 contribution
to the revenue minister's election campaign might have been the
real consideration?
The Speaker: My colleagues, it would seem to me that the
question does not deal with the administrative responsibility of
the government. It is more of a party matter.
That question I would rule out of order unless the member can
rephrase the question so that it deals with the administrative
responsibility of a minister of the government.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I can redefine it this way. In
making appointments of law firms to work for the justice
department, my understanding is that the justice minister would
go to the minister or some Liberal in that area.
Does he not think that when considerations such as I put
forward come into play it calls into question the ability of the
justice department to be able to put the very best law firms at the
beck and call of the Canadian people, instead of it going to the
drug dealers who can afford to buy the best?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the government
goes to the legal profession to hire agents to help us with legal
cases the fundamental criterion is competence and merit. That is
as true in
13128
British Columbia as it is in Newfoundland and as it is here in
Ontario.
I take this opportunity to tell the hon. member that during the
last 18 months this government has made a number of
significant changes in the way we retain agents in the legal
profession to do work for us. They are changes that are very
much in line with the principles he has described.
For example, there has been a significant decrease in
government expenditures on agents. Spending was reduced by
25 per cent in 1994 compared to 1993, when the other
government was in power. The number of agents was reduced
over the country from 550 to 400. Agents have been replaced by
staff counsel-
The Speaker: A brief question, the hon. member for
Kootenay East.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
of the matter is that an experienced undercover officer has said
that this is a complete and utter farce. He has said that this is a
definite blow to drug enforcement in the area we are talking
about.
Did the justice minister have any prior knowledge of the
excessive contributions to the revenue minister in the election
campaign prior to making that decision?
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Transport Canada is
about to sell the air navigation system to a non-profit
organization. The minister indicated that the organization would
not be subject to all provisions of the Official Languages Act.
Quebec air transport associations have warned the minister
against a possible deterioration of French-language services, as
they feel that his plans do not do enough to guarantee the use of
French in Quebec airspace.
What does the minister plan to do to ensure that French
language services are maintained in the air navigation system,
thereby fully meeting the demands of Quebec air transport
associations which have expressed concern about the fact that
the minister may not be imposing adequate requirements?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we intend to table before this House a bill to authorize
the commercialization of the air navigation system. I can assure
my hon. colleague that every provision of the Official
Languages Act currently applying to this system will be
maintained in the new structure.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
hope this goes for the Magdalen Islands and the Lower North
Shore of Quebec as well. So, to prevent a decrease in French
language services in Quebec airspace and ensure honesty on the
part of the future air navigation system operator, does the
minister undertake to submit to public scrutiny, at the Standing
Committee on Transport, the whole process and the English only
charter drafted in secret by his department for the new
non-profit organization?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): First of
all, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that, as I
have repeated time and time again, every existing provision
aimed at protecting the interests of people who speak either
official language of Canada will be maintained in the new
organization.
As far as ensuring that all views are represented and that all
concerned can be heard, we will certainly see to that. I would
like to point out that it is practically unheard of to have the
support of every sector in the air industry, as we do for
commercializing the air navigation system in Canada. I hope
that my hon. colleague will come forward with any suggestion
he may have, because we intend to have a totally transparent
process.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
It is critical in an increasingly global economy that the
Canadian workforce become more knowledgeable about other
cultures. Student exchange programs and recognition of
international credentials could facilitate the acquisition of this
knowledge.
What action has the government taken in this area so vital to
the economic and social well-being of Canada?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North
for his question. I know he has worked very hard to improve
Canada's recognition of foreign credentials.
I am very pleased to report to the House today that the
Minister of Human Resources Development, along with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, this morning at a conference in
Alberta on NAFTA announced the establishment of a three-year
program for North American mobility in higher education. The
program will involve approximately 60 Canadian institutions
and the private sector. Thanks to this program, 400 students will
13129
be able to spend periods of study in the U.S. and Mexican
post-secondary educational institutions.
This is yet another example of the Liberal government's
global and forward looking policies.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago, while Leader of the
Opposition, the Prime Minister promised that the Liberals ``will
continue to press the government to create a royal commission
to look into the Air-India disaster''.
(1445 )
Yesterday while the RCMP was announcing a $1 million
reward for information about the bombing of Air-India, the
solicitor general advised that a royal commission will not be
held while a criminal investigation is still under way.
My question for the Prime Minister is was his earlier promise
to create a royal commission into the bombing of Air-India
solely to garner votes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House wants to see the
murderers brought to justice. Yesterday's announcement of a $1
million reward is being viewed as a further delaying tactic to
avoid a royal commission.
Will the solicitor general give the House his assurance that a
royal commission will be called and a deadline for creating this
commission, criminal charges or no criminal charges?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the announcement of the reward yesterday was made
by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police representing the
professional judgment of the mounted police as to the
appropriate steps taken to advance the investigation to a stage
where hopefully charges could be laid.
I do not think it would be appropriate for me to replace the
professional judgment of the RCMP on this matter with my own
by setting deadlines. The hon. member should know better than
to make such a suggestion if she is serious about bringing the
criminals to justice.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In the coming months, four groups will consider the future of
the CBC: the heritage committee, the Juneau committee, the
McKinsey firm from the U.S., and the Canadian Conference of
the Arts. Even before these studies are completed, the CBC is
already cutting staff, in particular at its library in Montreal.
Does the minister not agree that these cuts are premature,
since officially he should wait for at least two of these reports
before making a decision on the CBC's future, and that a
moratorium should therefore be imposed on the proposed cuts?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CBC's financial situation results from a
series of budgets that go back a number of years. It is quite
normal for the CBC's president and managers to make
adjustments in line with budget needs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister agree that the alacrity with which the CBC's senior
officials are cutting services without knowing what the
committees' findings will be suggests that we can expect more
drastic cuts in the coming years?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the CBC
president's ability to manage his affairs. What I find surprising
is that our friends from the Bloc Quebecois do not seem
interested in the fate of Radio-Québec, which is being cut to
pieces.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding allegations of illegal dumping by the
Canadian Wheat Board we now have confirmation from the
RCMP in both Winnipeg and Ottawa that no one from the
solicitor general's office ever asked it to review these
allegations.
Why did the solicitor general write to the member for
Lisgar-Marquette on March 28, 1995, saying the RCMP had
been asked to investigate this matter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think my hon. friend is misinterpreting my letter.
13130
My office took the material given to it by the member's
colleague. According to our practice it was transmitted to the
RCMP for such action as it considered appropriate.
It has not been my practice or custom to give direction to the
RCMP on matters of investigation. Information was provided to
me by the commissioner of the RCMP who reviewed the matter
and decided that on the basis of that material there were not
grounds for a criminal investigation. That information was put
in my letter to the hon. member's colleague.
The whole thing is quite consistent with what I said in my
letter. I regret my hon. friend keeps pursuing the matter in spite
of the totally inappropriate conduct of his colleague. Instead of
pursuing the matter he should get his colleague to apologize.
(1450 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has reported the matter was not even
brought to its attention. The RCMP did not even receive a file on
the matter from the solicitor general and was not even notified
of the incident.
How can the solicitor general tell the House he pursued the
matter when the RCMP was not notified that it should look into
it to see whether it was worthy of an investigation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP will provide further information about the
way it dealt with the matter.
I put on record an accurate quote from my letter of March 28:
``The commissioner of the RCMP has informed me that the
commercial crime section in Winnipeg has reviewed your'', the
hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, ``allegations and the
RCMP has concluded there is no basis to support an
investigation into the Canadian Wheat Board. However, the
commissioner has informed me that the RCMP is willing to
examine any new information you might have to support these
allegations''.
I transmitted to the hon. member information provided me by
the RCMP and I think if the hon. member and his colleagues had
any respect for Parliament they would apologize for the
unwarranted accusation.
If they will not apologize and withdraw their unwarranted
accusations, everything they say about their respect for
Parliament and making it a better place is nothing but a sham.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
There are disturbing reports on airborne pollution in the form
of dioxins, furans and hexachlorobenzenes emitted through the
incineration of medical waste, sewage sludge and cement kilns
burning hazardous waste.
Does the government have plans to regulate carcinogenic
emissions from incinerators and are federal guidelines for
human exposure to dioxins adequate to protect human health
and ecosystems?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1995 guidelines by
Health Canada on the acceptable level of dioxins and furans for
human exposure are under review.
We are extremely concerned about activities south of the
border which could put the health of Canadians at risk. In
Canada we already have an acceptable smog level about 30 per
cent lower than the level in the United States, but at the same
time the Americans are looking at raising their smog level.
The issue of dioxins and furans is under review here but we
also need to examine some transboundary issues to ensure long
range pollutants do not in any way affect the health of Canadians
currently being put at risk because of decisions being made by
the U.S. Congress.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources.
In answer to a question in this House, the Deputy Prime
Minister said that this government could not be held responsible
for the iniquity of previous governments regarding R&D. Yet,
since October 1993 the minister of Natural Resources has
granted less than ten per cent of external R&D contracts to firms
or research centres of Quebec.
How does the minister explain that Quebec received less than
13 per cent, or half of its fair share, of external R&D contracts
from her department since the Liberals took office?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate, as did the Deputy Prime
Minister last week when this issue first came up, the government
awards contracts on the basis of identified research needs.
(1455 )
Let me reassure the hon. member my department and, I am
sure, every other department in the government is committed to
research in Quebec. Perhaps I could share with the hon. member
some examples.
13131
My department makes a significant contribution to Forintek
technology. My department makes a significant contribution to
the research into fusion. We make a significant contribution to
the Canadian Centre for Geomatics in Sherbrooke. We also
make considerable contributions to the Varennes laboratory.
My department has a significant research practice in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, even if we mentioned the whole list, it would still
be only 13 per cent of the total.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crête: Quebec is already being robbed of $650 million a
year in expenditures by the Department of Defence. The
Department of Justice awards only one per cent of its external
contracts to Quebec, and now the Department of Natural
Resources refuses to give Quebec its fair share of R&D
contracts. Can the minister explain why Quebec is once more
being robbed of its fair share?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out to me
that in addition to those facilities and contributions there is
another important one. In the city of Montreal this government
supports the Canadian Pulp and Paper Institute, the centre of
pulp and paper research.
If the member wants to talk about percentages, if we exclude
megaprojects which are sunset projects and which will be taken
from my budget in the year 1996-97, and if we exclude the
national capital region, the percentage of expenditures in my
department to Quebec is 25, representative of the population.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
I quote from two different red books. The first red book states
the Liberals will implement changes to strengthen the
Employment Equity Act. The second red book states the
Employment Equity Act is widely regarded as adversarial,
bureaucratic and expensive to administer.
I am wondering if the minister can tell me if he remembers
which quote is from his red book and which one is from the
Ontario provincial Liberal red book. I wonder in which direction
the government is heading.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are both heading in the same direction in terms of
support for employment equity. We quite clearly support
employment equity in the government. It is part of our priority
and we will continue to implement it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will leave it to the electorate to determine if they are heading in
the same direction.
The red books do not agree which shows provincial and the
federal Liberals are divided on this issue. Provincial Liberals
want to reduce employment equity while federal Liberals want
to make it stronger.
Let me put the question bluntly to the minister. Does he agree
with the provincial Liberal leader's policy on employment
equity?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is to the point is this government's policy on
employment equity.
The member opposite might want to have a look at Mike
Harris' policy on this if that is what he is leaning toward
supporting. It is certainly not an employment equity policy at
all.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
My colleague from Regina-Lumsden has continually in the
House asked the minister to take action on the pricing of
gasoline. No action has been taken and yet over the past few
days we have seen the price of gasoline go up again by as much
as four cents a litre with no apparent economic justification.
These new increases could cost the Canadian taxpayer up to a
billion dollars.
In light of these new increases would the Minister of Industry
now take action to protect consumers and immediately call an
inquiry into price fixing at Canadian gas stations?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there has been a series of
investigations by the director of investigations and research
under the Competition Act with respect to this issue.
Prosecutions have been launched. Some have been before the
courts. As she knows, it is my belief that competition is the best
way to control prices.
(1500)
I know it is part of NDP dogma to regulate prices. Perhaps in
her next five-year plan she will explain what she sees for fuel
prices over the next five years. I do not think that is the way to
get the lowest prices for Canadian consumers. We need very
tough and effective enforcement of our competition laws, and
that is what we propose to deliver.
13132
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
When the minister spoke to constituents in my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka last summer he assured them a boating
infraction ticketing procedure would be in place by June of this
year to protect boaters on waterways in my riding and across the
country.
What plan does the minister have to effectively enforce
boating regulations on Canadian waterways this summer?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I well remember the
delightful day I spent in the hon. member's riding last June. I
remember the very pleasant meeting I had with the Muskoka
Lakes Boating Association. I also recall that we discussed the
Contraventions Act which is a statute passed in October 1992 by
Parliament but not yet proclaimed in force.
The idea behind the Contraventions Act is to permit the
enforcement of federal statutes by a ticketing scheme
administered by officials at all levels of government.
We had hoped that statute would be proclaimed in force this
month but through discussions with the provinces we have found
that changes to the statute will be necessary in order for us to
take advantage of the provincial contraventions procedures and
save the taxpayers money. Therefore it will not come into force
this June.
I can say that officials of the federal Department of Transport
are in discussions with provincial authorities to see that there is
effective supervision and enforcement on lakes this summer so
safety of boaters is assured in the meantime.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of Thomas Mitsios, member of
Parliament from the Republic of Albania.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, before the business question for
Thursday I have notice of a point of privilege from the hon.
member for Kootenay East.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Never before have the rights-
The Speaker: So that I understand, is the hon. member rising
on a point of order or a point of privilege? Would he please
indicate.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is my error. I rise on a point of
privilege.
Never before have the rights of members been so blatantly
abused as they were today. A question was asked that went
directly to the administration of government concerning the
awarding of legal contracts for acting crown prosecutors. While
I accept the fact that the allegations of patronage in the
awarding-
The Speaker: Colleagues, I hope the hon. member for
Kootenay East will weigh very carefully the words he is using. I
believe from the words he has used the hon. member is
questioning a decision taken by the Speaker of the House of
Commons.
When the hon. member uses such words it calls into question
not only the decision of the Speaker but also all of the House
itself, as embodied in me are the rights and privileges of all
members of this House.
That the hon. member is frustrated because his question was
ruled out of order is to me understandable. The House has
empowered me to make rulings such as these. The rulings I make
are never taken frivolously and never taken to give advantage to
one side or the other. My sole duty here is to see that the rights
and privileges of all parliamentarians are adhered to and
respected. That is what I try to do in this chair.
(1505)
When the hon. member stood for his first question, I judged in
that particular case he was referring to party matters. I permitted
the hon. member to rephrase his question, which he did. In my
judgment the question of the hon. member was in order and
therefore I permitted it.
When the hon. member used words in the second question
which I thought were leading down the same path as the first, I
intervened.
I appeal to the hon. member who is standing on this point of
privilege to please take into consideration the great weight that
his words have in here. If the judgment of the Speaker is to be
called into question, surely it is not because he is not
being-excuse me if I do not use the right word
here-responsible. But if the hon. member would like to speak
with me in my chambers, I would be very happy to speak with
him.
My judgment on that particular question stands. I would
appeal to all hon. members to cease and desist now on this point
of privilege because you are attacking your Speaker. In my view,
I do not know that we can long operate like this.
I would appeal to the hon. member that if he wishes to speak to
me I would more than gladly entertain him in my chambers.
13133
If the hon. member is rising on the same point of privilege,
again I would caution and appeal to the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster to choose his words very carefully.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege, I would like the House to
look at citation 409 of Beauchesne's, clause 6 which says:
A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government.
The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his
or her present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.
The member for Kootenay East in his question said: ``An
undercover officer said it is a complete and utter farce. This is a
definite blow to drug enforcement''-
Some hon. members: Sit down.
The Speaker: In response to the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, I am aware of the citation. I am
aware of the rules that govern the House of Commons. It is
because I am aware of these rules, as best I can I am trying to
carry them out.
If the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster would care
to pursue this point in my chambers, I would be more than happy
to listen.
If the hon. members for Kindersley-Lloydminster or
Kootenay East after discussions with me feel that it is so
imperative to pursue this in the House then I am the servant of
the House and as such I would be prepared at that time to at least
consider a point of privilege. As of now, with regard to this
matter, I would again appeal to both hon. members to see me in
my chambers because I am not prepared to pursue it at this time
any further.
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as is our custom, I would like to ask the House leader if
he could tell us what the order of business will be next week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present the weekly business statement.
Tomorrow the House will consider third reading of Bill C-75,
the farm loans legislation and all stages of Bill C-81 respecting
the Buffalo-Fort Erie bridge. I understand there is agreement to
complete both these bills tomorrow.
On Monday and Tuesday, we will consider Bill C-76, the
budget implementation bill and Wednesday shall be the final
allotted day in the present supply period.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if
the hon. government House leader would inform the House what
the government's intentions are in regard to Motion No. 24.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the Order Paper
and get back to my hon. friend. If he would like me to say
something to be recorded in Hansard, I will rise on a point of
order, or my parliamentary secretary will, and provide the
information.
That motion is to set up a special joint committee of the House
and Senate to consider a code of conduct for members and
senators. Certainly it is our desire to have such a committee set
up.
If the hon. member now wishes to have such a committee set
up as does his colleagues, then I will be happy to consult with
him, or my parliamentary secretary will, to find the appropriate
time to bring that debate quickly to an end so the work of the
joint committee can begin.
_____________________________________________
13133
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
must say it is with mixed feelings that I rise today in the House
to discuss a motion tabled by the official opposition member for
Richmond-Wolfe.
By mixed feelings, I mean that, looking at the motion and the
four bills mentioned therein, I sincerely do not understand a
thing. The four bills that, according to the official opposition,
are extremely centralizing are in fact and without a doubt
excessively decentralizing.
I have mixed feelings because, as I have said before in this
House, I believe that the official opposition can do a good job if
it acts in good faith and stands up for its constituents' interests.
Once again, I must admit these people are unable to rise above
strictly partisan interests. The motion under consideration is
another astonishing example of this fact.
(1515)
I have mixed feelings because, on the other hand, I have the
opportunity to rise in this House and express myself on what is
13134
Canadian federalism, what it has been for years, and what it will
be in the future with our government. But before I go on, let me
say that the Bloc Quebecois does not seem to be following a
program of its own but, rather, a program dictated by the Quebec
National Assembly.
Take, for example, the motion tabled three or four weeks ago
to support the claims made by the Quebec Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. That motion was essentially related
to three claims submitted to the federal government by the
Quebec government. There again, I had the opportunity to
participate in the debate on the motion and show this House to
what extent Bloc members are biased and do not want the federal
system to work.
But I digress. On the one hand, you have the extremist
doctrine of the Bloc Quebecois, which says that, if you look at
the evolution of the federal system since 1960, you will see that
we are headed for an extremely centralizing system which will
soon leave very little power, if any, to the provinces. Yet, since
our Liberal government came to office, there have been striking
examples showing that federalism can evolve in such a way that
the wishes of all the governments involved, both federal and
provincial ones, can be respected.
Our federal system compares favourably with other
federations in the world. For example, consumer spending by
the provincial administrations is 3.5 times higher than for the
federal government. That says a lot about whether we are a
centralized or a decentralized federation. It indicates that the
Canadian federation is in fact more decentralized than that of
many other countries, including Switzerland, Germany,
Australia and the United States.
As regards the fact that the Canadian federation is a model of
decentralization, allow me to quote a statement made in 1977, at
the University of Edinburgh, by a famous person. That person
agrees with me and this government, since he clearly said that
the Canadian federation is decentralized. The comment, made in
English, was as follows:
[English]
And because rather often in Canada we tend to talk of the abusive centralized
powers of Ottawa we tend to forget that in reality Canada is highly
decentralized.
[
Translation]
That was reported in the Globe and Mail of May 9, 1977, and
the words came from none other than Quebec's Premier, Jacques
Parizeau, who maintained that Canada was a model of
decentralization. There you have an excellent example of double
standards. You have an example that shows clearly that these
people can say one thing abroad, and quite another when
addressing Quebecers, when they are concerned about their own
interests and their own objectives.
Besides, one only has to think of Mr. Parizeau's speech to the
permanent council of French-speaking countries, on his last
visit to Paris. When you listen to that speech, and consider Mr.
Parizeau's comparisons of Quebec, you are not proud to be a
Quebecer. Quebecers are greater than that, they are energetic,
they can take their place in Canada, and they will take their place
internationally. Mr. Parizeau's speech on the international scene
does not reflect this energy. As a Quebecer, I am upset by such
speeches.
(1520)
You know that members opposite talk about centralizing
federalism. At the beginning of my speech, I said I would have
the opportunity to review a number of issues which clearly show
that our federation is an extremely decentralized federation.
Take for instance the immigration issue. The immigration
agreement is a striking example of good co-operation between
Quebec and Ottawa, where the province of Quebec was given
more power to select immigrants.
Some argue that it does not work, but I could give you other
examples, including the status of some provinces among French
speaking countries. Did the province of Quebec or did New
Brunswick belong at the Francophonie table? No. The federal
government reached an agreement with both provinces so that
these provincial governments would be considered guests
among the French speaking countries and be able to fully take
part in the events. This is another remarkable example of a
flexible federation, but mostly of a respectful one.
The members opposite are turning a deaf ear, saying that it
does not work. Let me give you some more examples. Direct
collection of the GST is another good example of
federal-provincial co-operation, which has an extremely
positive impact on the population and makes the collection of
that tax easier. This is another striking example of
decentralization.
Members opposite refuse to hear anything positive and
simply say that federation is not working. However, we could
give them many more examples which would all indicate that
our federation is flexible. They do not want to understand
anything, so let us give them more examples. The St. Lawrence
2000 Agreement was signed with the province of Quebec. My
colleagues opposite are leaving the House or making fun of what
I say, mostly because the truth hurts. When you give them
examples, they refuse to listen and leave the House. The St.
Lawrence 2000 Agreement is an outstanding example of
co-operation between Quebec and Ottawa. This extremely
positive agreement was signed so that the St. Lawrence could
get cleaned up. It is an agreement that eliminates overlap and
that is beneficial to the people of Canada.
And that is not all. Some will say that is not enough. The
Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Program. Is there another
example of a program that has been implemented in record time
like this one has? It took only four or five months to put this
program in place. This program, involving the three levels of
govern-
13135
ment, municipal, provincial and federal, is aimed at setting in
motion incredibly vast projects that have direct repercussions
on the people and that serve the interests of the people.
Some will say that that is not all good and there is no
decentralization of powers within the federation. Let us look at
another example, the Communications Québec agreement,
which allows the use of Communications Québec displays to
advertise products available from various federal departments.
This agreement exists, it has been signed, it works well and its
ultimate goal is efficiency. We still have a window on the street
but we can save some money.
Some will say that it is not good enough. That they are not
impressed. They will say, to try and mislead Quebecers, that the
system does not work despite all this.
(1525)
There are many more examples. Let us take the Canada social
transfer. This is a remarkable example where the official
opposition has simply done an about-turn.
Members will remember that, before the budget was tabled,
we were told that all programs were centralized in Ottawa, that
Ottawa was controlling funds for post-secondary education,
health and social programs and that there should be a global
social transfer. That is what we were told before the budget.
Now to Mr. Martin's budget. We are giving the Canadian
public-not just Quebec, but all of the provinces because they
all requested it-the Canada social transfer, as a means of
making the federation progress, as a means of showing that the
system is flexible, as a means of bringing the management of
funds closer to the people and of ensuring that decisions
regarding spending will be more sensitive to the needs of the
people.
Now that the Canada social transfer exists, now that it is
reality, we are being told that that is not good, that the Minister
of Human Resources Development will try to set national
standards unilaterally. Just another example of the inability of
the people across the way to rise above partisan interests and to
seriously look at what the finance minister's budget really offers
to Quebecers and Canadians.
In fact, the Canada social transfer is a Canadian
decentralization model. As part of this initiative, the Minister of
Human Resources Development has invited all provinces to
participate in discussions with the federal government regarding
national standards which will apply coast to coast.
Obviously, this bothers Bloc members. This bothers them
because, if this continues, obviously the people of Quebec are
going to realize, and they already do realize, that the Canadian
federation is working well. This bothers them because if it
works too well, like it is now, their pipedream of separating is
simply going to vanish into thin air.
There has been much talk about national standards. As you
know, the people across the way decry national standards. I
worked on the social program reform committee, and I must say
that nobody in Canada, even Quebecers, is against national
standards. However, what people are against is the federal
government unilaterally setting those national standards.
Times have changed. The federal government has said
repeatedly: ``We want a flexible system. We want to work
together with all the provinces and, because we are a country, to
develop national standards that will respect the identities,
wishes and needs of the provinces from coast to coast''.
Another example of decentralization is the Human Resources
Investment Fund that will come into force in April 1996. It is a
good example of how we respect the wishes and the will of the
people. There was a reference to manpower issues and to the
need for decentralizing manpower services. There are two
schools of thought. There is the position taken by the Parti
Quebecois in Quebec City and the position taken by the public,
which is the one we have chosen.
The Parti Quebecois takes the position that everything related
to manpower development and manpower training should be
theirs alone because they are the experts and know best what is
needed. On the other side we have the public that wants to see a
partnership between various levels of government that will have
access to flexible funding, as opposed to rigid programs,
funding that organizations at the local level will be able to
manage according to genuine need.
I need hardly add that the course of action chosen by this
government is clearcut, straightforward and non-partisan.
(1530)
I am happy to say that this is the route the people wanted us to
take. This is what the human resources investment fund is about.
It will ensure that local agencies will be able to manage very
flexible funds according to the real needs of the community.
There is another thing. Those opposite criticize us from time
to time for intervening in regional economic development. We
intervene, because people ask us to. People ask us to intervene
as the federal government and also as a partner.
Am I to understand that what members opposite want is for
the federal government to withdraw essentially from its regional
development function? Does this mean that all the money
invested in people to strengthen our economic fibre should be
13136
withdrawn? They will have the task of explaining locally why
they want the federal government out of regional development
when we have very recent and particularly eloquent examples of
efficiency and of funds invested, once again, in business, in the
economy and, ultimately, in the people.
Recently, we announced the CESAM project in Montreal. It is
a remarkable project, another partnership with the province and
private enterprise. It brings together people from the same
sector to exchange information and knowledge thus making
Quebec businesses competitive not only provincially, not only
nationally but internationally. This is what today's Quebec is all
about. This is the sort of positive talk the people of Quebec want
to hear, talk that is in their interest and that will make them
stronger and more viable economically.
There are other remarkable examples proving that we are
headed in the right direction. What about Team Canada, headed
by the Prime Minister, which also brought back $11.3 billion in
contracts. In conclusion, noteworthy examples demonstrating
that, if we work together to ensure Quebec felt its interests were
well protected both at the National Assembly and in Ottawa, we
could build a strong Quebec and a strong country.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member
for Outremont was speaking about the great Quebec dream. I
think he dreams that one day Canada will be good for us, but this
is an illusion. If he would just look at the results, the
consequences of the Canadian federation, maybe he would have
the answer to his dreams.
I always look at the results first and, in our case, the result is
that Canada now has an accumulated debt of $600 billion and
that it cannot even balance its budget. That is the result, the
consequence of federalism. We should stop talking about nice
agreements between Canada and Quebec, we should stop saying
that everything is fine and dandy. We cannot even balance the
budget and the Canadian federation has turned into a fiasco over
a short period of time.
It is urgent that we put our house in order. As Mr. Lévesque
once said so well: ``Canada is like having two scorpions in a
bottle; they try to kill each other, they both want to prove that
they are distinct and different, they both want to spread out, but
they are stuck in the same bottle. One day they will both die''.
This is what is happening now. We are on the edge of the abyss,
we are both dying.
Because there are two nations in this country, it is urgent that
each one become a country and that we give ourselves a chance
to thrive. That is the reality. That is the mandate Quebecers gave
us. They sent us here to Ottawa for that purpose. They told us:
``Go to Ottawa to promote sovereignty; it is essential and urgent
for Quebec because we are now in death throes financially.
(1535)
We hear nice stories about common projects, a million here, a
million there, a dozen million elsewhere, and we try to make
Quebecers believe that federalism is a way of life and that
without it Quebecers could not survive.
In duplications alone, this system costs $2 to $3 billion. We
are told that the administration cost of the GST, for individuals
and businesses, is in the order of $2 to $3 billion. We did not
need that. All the government had to do was say: ``Administer
the tax. Combine it with yours immediately. Hide it if you want,
but administer it in a sensible way and we will return a certain
percentage to you''. But that is not the way the federal
government does it, it returns money to Quebec as if it were a
gift.
The federal government has always tried to do it this way, to
make Quebecers believe that without the federal government
they would, all of a sudden, become much poorer. This is not
true. The government always forget to say that Quebec sends
$29 billion, that is $29,000 million, to Ottawa, every year, and
the federal government uses this money according to its own
priorities and most of the time without due consideration to
Quebec priorities. More often than not decisions are made
unilaterally. The government does not care whether Quebec
prospers or not, as we have seen when the government spent $2
billion of Quebec's money to promote Hibernia, when
everybody knows that it will never be viable. Yet, Quebecers
will continue to pay.
This was a nice dream, sure, but it is time to come back to
reality. And the reality is that we are two peoples and that, if we
want to move ahead, we must separate into two different
countries.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the opposition
member, I seriously wonder if we are really living in the same
world and if, in the last year and a half, he has looked at the
policies carried out by the present government.
First of all, when people on the other side of the House tell us
that Quebecers elected them to make Quebec's independence, I
think that is playing down the issues of the last election.
Quebecers told us, in the last election, that they expressed their
discontent at the ballot box, and it simply happened that the vote
went heavily to the Bloc Quebecois.
Why discontent? There were years of Conservative
government when an absolutely incredible debt and deficit were
built up, and I point out that the hon. member who just spoke was
part of that government and voted for all its legislation.
Moreover, there were years that resulted in the people losing
confidence in the government machinery, in the public servants.
I think that, today, when we look at the polls in general and the
work done by this government in the last few months, we can see
clearly that the people of Canada and Quebec have regained this
confidence, because we promised certain things during the last
election campaign and we delivered, because these promises,
13137
the economy and job creation, were of interest and concern to
the people. Last year, 430,000 jobs were created, and we are still
creating more.
So, essentially, in everything that my colleague has been
saying about the debt and the fact that Quebec would simply go
and beg for these things in Ottawa, we can see that it is the Bloc
Quebecois that is trying to make sure Quebec is perceived that
way. But that is totally untrue. Quebec has a large place in the
Canadian federation. On the economic level, Quebec plays an
extremely important role within the federation. And on this side
of the House, we want to make sure that Quebec and the nine
other provinces can first develop individually, but also within
the Canadian federation and according to major international
trends, that they can develop together and excel on the
international scene. That is our goal and we will succeed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since there are only two
minutes left, I will divide them between the question and the
answer. I give the floor to the hon. member for Témiscamingue.
(1540)
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speech of our friend from Outremont,
who loved to pass out cheques for the infrastructure program, of
which he spoke with a certain wistfulness. He also referred to
my colleague of Longueuil who is a former Conservative. I
would remind him that the latter at least had the courage to cross
the floor and change sides. I hope the hon. member will have as
much courage when the time comes to make decisions in the
interest of Quebec, which he is supposed to represent.
My colleague said all sorts of things about decentralization.
He chose a good example when he spoke of the Canada social
transfer. Actually, it was the deficit that was decentralized. I
hope he will rise in caucus to defend the interests of Quebec,
because he should know that Quebec might have to bear more
than 40 per cent of those cuts. I also hope, when he talks about
the consensus in Quebec about manpower training, that he will
be intelligent enough to look at what is really going on. The
consensus is not only inside the Parti Quebecois. Ghislain
Dufour is not, as far as I know, a member of the Parti Quebecois,
and is not likely to become one in the near future. Yet, he was
among those who said that manpower training should be the
responsibility of the government of Quebec.
What positive action he intends to take in the coming weeks
within his own party to defend the interests of Quebec on those
two issues?
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, when they hear things that do not
please them, the members of the Bloc Quebecois launch into
personal attacks, saying such things as: ``I hope my colleague
for Outremont will be intelligent enough-'' Obviously, what I
said does not suit him, because he is not hearing what he would
like to hear from members on this side. He knows that what he is
hearing from members on this side is also what the people want
to hear.
As for the Canada social transfer and the human resources
investment fund, I was among the members of Quebec who
stood for these issues in the national caucus, and for two
reasons. First, we are an economically responsible government.
As such, we had to rationalize the programs to propoerly
manage the debt and the deficit. Second, we had to decentralize
as well, because that was what people were asking for. I was
among those who championed these two programs. I am proud
of it, and proud of what the government did.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very happy to participate in this debate on the official
opposition's motion denouncing the excessive centralization of
powers by the federal government, which is preparing, without
saying anything and without consultations, a new, centralized
Canada by passing at least the four bills we mentioned.
I will not repeat my colleagues' extremely important and
interesting explanations on Bill C-88, Bill C-91 and Bill C-46.
I, however, have a lot to say about the bill to implement the
budget. But first, I would like to talk about unemployment and
poverty in Quebec.
I want to explain why the sovereignists here in Ottawa and in
Quebec want to achieve sovereignty, after all the years of
repeatedly trying to convince others that Quebec needs more
than crumbs and federal commissions. Because we are a people
and a nation, we need control over Quebec's economic and
social development. Let us talk about poverty. This year,
Quebec won the award for poverty.
(1545)
In its report released this year, the Family and Social Affairs
Council showed that, in 1993, Quebec came first among poor
provinces for the number and percentage of people and families
living below the poverty line.
Last month, 803,900 people-372,000 households-were on
welfare in Quebec. This figure includes people who are willing
to work and a large number of children we are concerned about,
because children raised with the bare minimum often lack what
they need in life to develop normally.
Poverty has many causes but that is not what we hear because
of the strong prejudices against poor people, who are already
facing great difficulties. In summary, poverty is not only a lack
of money but also a deep sense of failure, of insecurity, of
vulnerability, of worthlessness. All additional failures, such as
fruitless job searches, problems with the spouse or children, and
13138
difficulties in finding suitable housing or in meeting nutritional
needs, further marginalize the poor.
Losing a job often leads to poverty. By making drastic cuts to
UI, the government has reduced the number of recipients, not
because there are fewer unemployed workers, but because a
smaller number of them are eligible for benefits.
In Canada, only 49 per cent of the unemployed qualified for
UI benefits last month, as compared to 77 percent in 1990. As far
as unemployment is concerned, the rate is 14.4 per cent in
Quebec and it is seasonally adjusted, while the rate of
unemployment in Ontario is 8.7 per cent. That is almost three
percentage points lower.
To compare Quebec to Ontario or the rest of Canada, we must
consider not only the number of persons who are unemployed,
but more appropriately the number of persons who are
employed; this is called the employment population ratio. It is
quite simple. If 65 per cent of the population 15 and older has a
job, therefore producing wealth, spending money on clothes and
putting some in the bank, much more wealth will be produced
than if 50 per cent of the same population was employed.
When you look at the difference between employment and
population, you notice differences much greater and more
alarming than those for unemployment. For example, the
employment population ratio for Ontario is 59 per cent, as
compared to 53.8 per cent in Quebec. This means that, quite
apart from the unemployment rate, thousands of jobs would be
required just for Quebec to match the level of employment in
Ontario.
(1550)
That is not all. What is absolutely tragic is that, if you
compare Quebec to the rest of Canada, if you compile statistics
on all of Canada minus Quebec, what do you find? You find that
the overall employment population ratio for Canada is 59 per
cent, while in Quebec, as I indicated earlier, it is only 53.8 per
cent. This is a very substantial gap.
It is important to remind you why we are angry in Quebec, and
I am not referring only to our anger but to the anger we can feel
brewing in many people, ordinary citizens who are unable to
find work, who are given funny looks by UI or welfare officers
because they always take them for defrauders at first, and the
anger of community groups striving to help those in need, and
seeing their resources cut time and time again while the need for
assistance continues to grow.
You may wonder what this has to do with the motion. The
connection between the two is extremely important because,
after a long process- of which I will relate the details, time
permitting-we came to the conclusion that our only chance to
make it was to take control of all the levers, to pass all our
legislation, to collect all our taxes, and to sign all our treaties,
including treaties with the rest of Canada.
Let me read you a text which I recently came upon. It was
written by René Lévesque, then a federalist Liberal minister
responsible for family and welfare issues, at a conference on
poverty held in Ottawa, on December 10, 1965.
Mr. Lévesque said: ``It is absolutely essential, to use a
redundancy, that the government primarily responsible for
developing and implementing these measures on our territory be
the Quebec government. This is the only way to ensure efficient
action. It is also the only way to implement a co-ordinated
policy for economic and social development which will truly put
the accent on the individual''.
We could use those same words today to explain our program.
Mr. Lévesque added: ``We do not feel it necessary to prove
that our government is closer to its population than Ottawa is.
Our government is by far in the best position to adapt the
possible solutions to the needs of its citizens. It is so because our
government has the immediate data on land development, and
also because it can monitor the implementation of its selected
policies and make necessary changes without having to wait for
federal-provincial conferences which take ages to organize or
which are useless''.
I might add that there has not been any federal-provincial
conference on the vital issue of manpower since this
government took office.
Mr. Lévesque continued by saying: ``Moreover, our
government can more easily enlist the co-operation of its
citizens than the federal government could. This is important at
a time when the issues of democratic planning and concerted
action by citizens and their government take on a greater
significance. Moreover, how could we possibly ensure the
necessary co-operation in the socio-economic sector if, in
addition to the usual problems related to co-ordinating the
efforts of a large number of Quebec departments, we would also
have to take into account similar initiatives and projects by the
federal government? To raise the question is to answer it''.
(1555)
Those words were written by René Lévesque in 1965, when he
was a Liberal minister, in his last days as a federalist.
In those days, René Lévesque thought it was possible to have
some kind of arrangement with Ottawa while keeping control in
Quebec. We are a people. We are a nation. In our house-our
economic and social development-we cannot have two
architects, two teams of engineers working their own way, with
13139
separate budgets, and giving orders. That is what our motion is
all about.
The federal government is making the plan of our house, with
our money and without consulting us, when we already have a
plan in Quebec. We do not have all the money we need, because
part of it was coming to us from transfers originating in our own
pockets. In our confederation, the constitution gives the federal
government the power to collect money to spend in areas that are
outside its jurisdiction.
So, the federal government uses our own money to draw the
plan of our house without consulting us, while, on our side, we
try as best we can, with whatever means left to us, to prevent the
worst, in a situation where we have 803,000 welfare recipients
and more than 327,000 unemployed, not to mention people who
have given up, and the young who have no hope.
It is hard to keep calm when we hear the federal government
bragging that it brought its deficit under control. How dit it
manage to do it? By transferring cuts instead of money to
provinces, and more particularly Quebec. I stressed how, more
than ever, Quebec's economy needs only one architect and only
one team of engineers working under the control of that
architect, in co-operation with others when information is
needed. However, we just cannot continue with this madhouse
being built at the people's expense, in spite of the 130 members
elected by Quebecers out of a total of 200 at both levels of
government.
Quebecers elect, at both the federal and provincial levels, 200
parliamentarians, 130 of whom are sovereignists. They are fed
up with the central government using taxpayers' money to try to
build a house they do not want, with blueprints they do not want,
and for whose satisfaction? To satisfy those who, since
confederation, think they are the only ones who know what kind
of house should be built, and how.
Now, we happen to be a nation. We are not only a distinct
society, but a nation. We are a nation according to every existing
international criterion, the main one being the collective will to
live. This collective will to live is our main mandate to see to it
that our house is built following our blueprints and, moreover,
with our money.
(1600)
I want to read, if I may, a motion that I have just this instant
received, and that has just been tabled in the National Assembly:
``That the Quebec National Assembly call upon the federal
government to review its Bill C-91, which will have the effect of
sanctioning the federal government's interference and
increasing duplication in regional development''.
This comes just at the right moment in my speech. Yes, we
will do our utmost to explain that to Quebecers, who have had
about as much as they can take of the problems of everyday
life-and we can understand that sometimes they do not know
which way to turn. We will try to explain to them that it is
absurd, with our limited resources, to have two teams of
architects contradicting each other, whereas there is only one
team they can control democratically. The only one they can
control democratically is the one they elect.
Some could say: ``Oh! but why is it not Ottawa that looks after
all of Canada's economy?'' We could have a group of
economists who would disagree on many things, but who would
agree on one thing, that is as culture goes, so goes the economy.
The Japanese do not think like the French, the Germans or the
Americans when it comes to the economy and money. What is
working for Toyota in Japan is not necessarily working in
Mississauga.
The same is true for Boisbriand versus Mississauga. Why?
Because culture has a profound influence on how we work, on
how we create, on how we organize, on how we sell, on what we
decide to work on. It is in the name of this culture, in a broad
sense, and in the name of this nation that we are saying in this
House, and I understand that it can be annoying, that the
movement will not stop. As René Lévesque, who was to become
the founder of the Parti Quebecois, said in 1965, once a
movement has started, nothing can stop it.
It would be better to start realizing that we will have to
negotiate together, but let no one think that they are going to
sneak one past us, that they are going to ignore us and create a
Canada in which we will not feel perfectly at home, with our
money and against our interests. I spoke mostly of Quebec, but I
would like to conclude by saying that if the bills in question
allow for a better development of Canada, I would say great, if
that is what you want. I respect your culture and I respect the fact
that that is how you want to develop, but for Quebec, and I am
speaking in the name of the majority of members elected by
Quebecers, it will not do.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. In her speech, the hon. member said that
there was anger among Quebecers. She said that she felt that
anger, and I agree with her, it is true that there is anger among
Quebecers, but I would simply like to point out to the hon.
member that that anger, and it does exist, comes from a great
disappointment vis-à-vis the present Quebec government. The
other way to govern of that government, which is a branch of the
Bloc Quebecois, scares Quebecers.
(1605)
We even saw sovereignist central labour bodies question their
allegiance to sovereignty. Just consider the cuts in health care,
which is a provincial jurisdiction. So, yes, there is anger. Since
you also talked about your plan, about the architects, I will ask
you a very simple question: Since you have a plan-
13140
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I simply
want to remind my colleagues on both sides of the House that
all comments must be made through the chair and not directly,
from one side of the floor to the other.
Mr. Patry: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this
of the hon. member: If you have architects, if you have a plan,
why wait? I would like to know when the Quebec government
will decide to call a referendum with a simple and clear
question.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it is not
up to me to answer that question and to say when the referendum
will be held. It will be held when the Government of Quebec,
which has the power to hold such a referendum under Quebec
law, will decide to do so.
However, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague who
suggested that our anger comes from our disappointment in the
present Parti Quebecois government. With all due respect, my
colleague is mistaken. I want to tell him that we did not find
ourselves with so many people on welfare and unemployed
overnight and that the previous government, which was in office
for nine years, had something to do with it.
I want to remind the member that as soon as the previous
government led by Robert Bourassa came into office, it asked
the central government to negotiate so that Quebec could regain
powers in five areas in order to rejoin the constitutional fold. It
thought it was important not only from a cultural standpoint, but
also for the economy.
I want to remind the member that, for years, we had a
federalist Liberal government, led by Mr. Bourassa, and a
central government that wanted to help Quebec back into the
Constitution because it had been imposed upon it even though
that Constitution brought fundamental changes to the rules
established at the time of Confederation in 1867. But Robert
Bourassa saw the Meech Lake Accord fail because of whom?
Because of the party that is now in office. We know, and it has
been well documented in the newspapers and in many history
books, that this party put pressure on some people, one of our
honourable colleagues who shall remain nameless and the
premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells, to get them to oppose
this deal. And then the federalist Liberal Party of Quebec voted
for the Allaire report, which left very few powers to the federal
government.
What did it do after that? There was the Bélanger-Campeau
commission, and then it adopted a bill, Bill 150, saying that it
would hold a referendum if it did not get satisfactory offers,
which we know never came.
(1610)
Despite all that, a referendum was held and, as we all
remember, the Charlottetown agreement was rejected in Quebec
because it was not enough and in the rest of Canada because it
was too much. Now we are being told that the people are angry
because of the unemployment and welfare situation, they are
angry at all the levels of governments, and they are angry
because they feel powerless, and I can certainly understand
them, and all that anger is directed towards the new government.
I had a better opinion of my Quebec colleague than that.
Politics does not make you lose your analytical ability, your
knowledge of history or your good sense. Yes, people are more
and more angry, and my hon. colleagues should realize that our
constituents want change. It is true that a large number of people
are facing such problems that it does not make sense any longer.
You only have to think about these women who are walking
from Montreal to Quebec City-at first it was for bread and
roses, but I am sure it is not rosy all the time-who are
painstakingly making their way to Quebec City to show that
poverty as they know it does not make sense. Their situation was
documented, written about, told, but now they want concrete
solutions. These women know full well that our scope of action
is limited as long as the province of Quebec does not have all the
powers it needs.
Even within a sovereign Quebec, we will not be able to make
all the needed changes instantly, but we know we will eliminate
all the overlap and stop arguing, when we cannot even take the
necessary measures to help the ordinary citizens. Ottawa will
never do this for Quebec. So, everyone, including my hon.
colleagues, will have to join us to build Quebec.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the remarks made by the last speakers,
particularly those made by the member for Longueuil who
blamed the national debt on the Canadian federation. I also
listened to the remarks made by the member for Mercier who, at
the beginning of her speech, was going to blame the poverty
level in the Montreal area on federalism, or I thought she would,
but she stopped.
Moreover, she tried to say that the high unemployment rate
was again a consequence of the federal system. Strangely
enough, she forgot to mention that, even with the Canada social
transfer, Quebec benefits considerably from federalism through
equalization.
Many studies have clearly shown that Quebec has been able to
grow within a federal system while benefiting enormously from
such a system. She also forgot to mention that, through the
unemployment insurance program, Quebec gets over $1 billion
more.
In this last allotted day that the official opposition has during
this session, it has chosen once again to talk about four bills in
order to try to show that federalism does not work, that the
government wants to centralize powers. In her speech, the
13141
member for Mercier also said that the time has come for
Quebecers to take complete control of their own destiny.
(1615)
However, I find it hard to keep a straight face when I hear
these arguments, because in their draft bill, they want their
dollar to be the Canadian dollar, they want their passport to be a
Canadian passport. And throughout the debate on these issues,
they want to determine the scope and subject of the referendum
question. They had a debate, and they told us the question would
include one on political and economic association with Canada.
It seems to me they want what Canada has to offer. In that case, I
challenge them to do the following. Instead of wasting the 10 or
11 million dollars it cost to conduct these consultations-the
hon. member for Mercier also mentioned the high poverty
rate-I think this money would have been better spent on
dealing with unemployment and poverty.
So we have four bills that were mentioned together in an
attempt to demonstrate that federalism, as they see it, has
become centralist.
I would like to discuss Bill C-76, which implements certain
provisions of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. In
referring to this bill, the opposition is very critical and says we
want to centralize everything. In fact, the only condition set by
the government for the Canada social transfer is the period of
residence, which cannot disqualify a recipient from receiving
social assistance.
The other criterion, which already exists, is maintaining the
five principles of health care. At the request of the Province of
Quebec and the other provinces, the government decided to
group these transfers. Again, at the request of the provinces, the
government gave them a set target budget, guaranteed for a
period of two years. And the members of the Bloc Quebecois
complain that we want to centralize powers!
I find it very hard to understand how the motion could
possibly be about centralization, since in this bill and other bills,
and also in our approach as a government, we have shown
repeatedly that we want to decentralize powers, in two respects.
The first one is to eliminate overlap and duplication. Not
because it is the will of the Province of Quebec or of the Bloc.
No. Because it is the will of all of Canada, all Canadians,
because it will save us money. That is what we are doing.
My presentation is about Bill C-91, the bill in relation to
which the National Assembly just passed a motion, as the hon.
member for Mercier just said. As I will explain, I find it hard to
believe how the Bloc Quebecois can construe this bill as an
effort on the part of the federal government to once again
centralize powers.
Canada and Quebec have entered a new phase of economic
growth. The federal administration is sensitive to the
globalization of markets and to the increased emphasis on
competitiveness. We are redefining the federal government's
approach to the economy.
(1620)
The most important part of this new approach is recognizing
the dynamic role that small and medium size businesses play in
job creation and the creation of wealth.
This government has developed many approaches and
reworked its strategy and its tools to take into consideration the
key role that they play in our economic prosperity.
[English]
Bill C-91 gives the Federal Business Development Bank a
new mandate. Under this new mandate the bank will be able to
increase its activity in smaller loans and investments and focus
more on knowledge based industries and exporters, two of the
thriving forces in the global economy.
A key element of the bank's new mandate is partnership. Bill
C-91 makes it easier for the bank to work in close partnership
with other partners. These new closer partnerships will help
small and medium size businesses and will avoid inefficient and
costly overlap and duplication, contrary to what the members of
the Bloc Quebecois have said.
[Translation]
The opposition's reaction to Bill C-91 disappoints me. The
opposition claims that the objectives of this bill are to usurp
provincial powers, to build a centralized state and to take
considerable powers away from Quebec.
This opinion could only be based on a misinterpretation of
clause 20 of this bill.
[English]
Clause 20 says: ``The bank may enter into agreements with
and act as agents for any department or agency of the
Government of Canada or a province or any other body or person
for the provision of services or programs to, on behalf of, or
jointly with that body or person''. I do not know how the
opposition member can misread that. It is quite clear. This is not
in any way an intrusion by the federal government into
provincial jurisdiction. Clause 20 of Bill C-91 facilitates
co-operative joint ventures with partners from the private sector
as well as the public sector.
Clause 20 permits the bank to enter into agreements with
other persons and organizations, including federal and
provincial government departments and agencies. The
authorization applies to the bank, not to the other parties
involved. Let me repeat that again so members of the opposition
understand. Clause 20 applies to the bank only. I think this is
where they are having a hard time. It does not apply to the other
parties at all. The other parties, whether they be government
agencies or
13142
provincial boards, still have to obtain proper authorization from
their jurisdictional authorities before entering into any
agreement with the bank.
In circumstances and situations in which a jurisdictional body
must grant authorization for a partner to enter an agreement
there will be no change.
[Translation]
Why is this change necessary? Because the wording of the
previous legislation limited the bank's ability to conclude
agreements with non commercial firms. In some cases, these
organizations, some of which come under provincial
jurisdiction, proposed to the bank itself that it help provide
financial and management services.
The bank could not do anything at the time, because it lacked
the legislative authority to enable it to co-operate. A lot of time
and effort went into obtaining this authority. Clause 20 will
eliminate all the bureaucratic red tape and will make it possible
to provide more effective services, which small business can
use.
[English]
Clause 20 of Bill C-91 is very technical I will admit, but it
allows the bank to enter into joint co-operative agreements.
Clause 20 will allow partnerships, joint ventures and even the
delivery of financial assistance on behalf of other agencies
subject to the banks usual guidelines.
(1625 )
As an example of co-operation and collaboration, the Federal
Business Development Bank and FORD-Q, the body
responsible for regional development in Quebec, are currently
developing a strategic partnership as part of a pilot project. The
object is to create a special fund which will have a leverage
effect in order to support projects undertaken by small and
medium size enterprises in unexploited niches.
In addition, the bank has developed strategic partnerships
with agencies and departments of Quebec's provincial
government. For example, the bank recently completed an
agreement to develop a technology training and counselling
program with le Ministère de l'Industrie, du Commerce et de la
Technologie du Québec and the Professional Engineers
Association of Quebec.
[Translation]
The bank, moreover, joined with the Société québécoise de la
main-d'oeuvre to start up a program to promote and encourage
women's initiatives in conjunction with a Bank of Montreal
program to train and develop business women.
Together with the Maison régionale de l'industrie in
Sherbrooke, the Federal Regional Development Office designed
a program to advise and train new exporters. The power to
establish partnerships is no different from similar provisions in
legislation governing other crown corporations, including the
Farm Credit Corporation and the Export Development
Corporation.
[English]
I must point out at this point that the ability to enter into
partnerships certainly follows one of the recommendations of
``Taking Care of Business'', the report which the Standing
Committee on Industry released in October 1994. I had the
pleasure to sit on that committee. The committee recommended
that the mandate of the bank be confirmed and refocused as a
complementary lender to small and medium size businesses and
that it be authorized to use new financial instruments to fulfil its
mandate. The two members of the Bloc Quebecois who sit on
that committee were in full agreement with that
recommendation.
Bill C-91 is an important element in creating the supportive
environment for small and medium size enterprises across
Canada which will contribute to building a long and lasting
prosperity. This bill is one part of the future we are building for
small businesses and for Canada's economic prosperity.
There is no doubt about the importance of small and medium
size businesses to our economy today and tomorrow. Small
businesses employ more than half of the Canadians working in
the private sector. Since the early 1980s small businesses have
created over 87 per cent of all new jobs in Canada.
[Translation]
Small and medium size businesses will continue to be a
source of jobs and wealth in Canada. Our goal is to create a
climate in which businesses will be able to continue to create
jobs for Canadians, and to contribute to the wealth of the
country.
We are taking action on this basis, and moving toward our
goal. In 1994, we asked several groups and organizations in the
public and private sectors, including the committee, how the
government could create a suitable climate to foster the growth
of small businesses.
Everybody agreed that small and medium size businesses
have great potential to create even more jobs and wealth.
Unfortunately, that potential is too often left untapped. The
groups and organizations we consulted said that, in order to tap
this potential, the government had to start with reducing the
deficit. The first step was taken by the finance minister in his
last budget.
Moreover, they told us that we must develop more efficient,
more effective, and more relevant programs for small
businesses. Finally, we must recognize that the government
cannot, on its own, foster, in the small business community, the
vitality and the growth the country needs.
13143
(1630)
On the basis of these recommendations, we outlined in our
report entitled Building a More Innovative Economy a wide
range of initiatives aimed at fostering the growth of small
business in Canada.
[English]
In the vital area of financing, we have pressed the banks to
improve their relationship with small businesses. We have taken
steps to ease access to capital for innovative projects. We are
refocusing federal government financing programs to fill in the
gaps left by the private sector.
At our urging, the Canadian Bankers Association developed a
code of conduct to help ensure accountability, understandable
contracts, more efficient credit processing, and an effective
method in dealing with complaints. Member banks are
incorporating these standards into their own codes of conduct.
The federal regional agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, the Federal Office of Regional
Development in Quebec, western diversification, and the
federal office of regional economic development for northern
Ontario, have all refocused their programs almost entirely on
small businesses. Federal agencies now focus on recoverable
contributions and information to businesses.
[Translation]
At the end of the 1994 fiscal year, we amended the Small
Businesses Loans Act by increasing the credit ceiling to $12
billion in order to meet the ever growing demand.
On April 1, we implemented other amendments allowing for
cost recovery in accordance with our overall deficit reduction
goal. These amendments will also help identify the main
beneficiaries of the program.
In the next few weeks, we will table further amendments to
the SBLA in order to get on with the process of recovering all
program costs and make other minor changes affecting lenders
and borrowers.
The review of the small business policy clearly showed that
one of the most pressing problems facing small and medium size
businesses is access to capital.
The review of the role and mandate of the Federal Business
Development Bank was a key element of the government's
efforts to improve this access.
[English]
The Federal Business Development Bank, since it started
almost 50 years ago as the former Industrial Development Bank,
has helped Canadian businesses respond to the changing
demands of the economy through timely and innovative
financing and management services. As the economy changes
again, the time has now come to change the Federal Business
Development Act as it stands.
[Translation]
The purpose of Bill C-91 is to modernize the bank's mandate.
It is based on the experience and skills acquired to provide the
financial and administrative leadership needed by small and
medium size businesses in the knowledge-based economy,
without neglecting traditional finance sectors.
The Business Development Bank of Canada will be an
important source of support to small business, as it will be able
to fill in what I would call the ``gaps'' faced by small and
medium size businesses across the country.
[English]
Bill C-91 in no way intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. It
does not take powers away from any province. It does, however,
make this very important institution more flexible and more
responsive to the needs of small and medium sized businesses
for the benefit of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to point out to the hon. member for Vaudreuil that he
missed something in his remarks. He clearly identified the needs
of the small and medium size business sector, needs that we
recognize because in Quebec-and there was much talk about
this in committee-all the organizations concerned and directly
involved with meeting the needs of this industry, not only in
terms of development but also in terms of export, have been
identified.
(1635)
Take the solidarity funds, the Paillé project and the regional
development fund for example. And now, in the wake of the
APEX program, we are setting up in all of Quebec's regions a
commissioner of exports system.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil failed to assess the impact of
Bill C-91 on regional development. He was careful not to get
into the impact of the provision in which the federal government
gives itself the power to step in and enter into agreements
directly with whomever it wants in Quebec, whether an
organization, a regional development council, a municipality, a
business or what not.
However, the hon. member for Vaudreuil knows very well
that, in terms of regional development, Quebec is the only
province where a federal development office called FORD-Q
has been established, with offices in every region of the
province. No such agency exists elsewhere in Canada. In the rest
of Canada, regional development is overseen through agencies
like ACOA in the east for Atlantic Canada, WDO, which stands
for Western Diversification Office, for western Canada, or
FEDNOR in Ontario. And these agencies do not have regional
offices all over the place.
13144
This FORD-Q we are talking about is everywhere in Quebec.
We call it the delivery arm, seeing that this agency signs
memoranda of understanding with other departments, which in
turn deliver services, having themselves signed MOUs with the
Federal Bank.
We have put questions to the Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency as well as the Minister of Industry for Ontario, and none
of them was aware of the existence of a delivery arm elsewhere
in Canada. None of these development authorities had heard
about agreements or MOUs between departments. Incredible
efforts are made in Quebec in terms of federal interference in
regional development.
I would like to tell the hon. member for Vaudreuil that the
position taken by the official opposition should come as no
surprise to him. After all, he said that Quebec is a prime mover
and a leader in regional development. This fact was stated quite
simply.
In Quebec, we have a decentralized sectorial and political
structure. The powers related to regional development were
delegated to various organizations accountable to the Quebec
government. Some of these organizations are present in the hon.
member's riding of Vaudreuil, and he knows these structures.
There are regional county municipalities, municipalities, school
boards, CEGEPs, universities, regional health boards, Quebec
manpower development societies, regional manpower councils
and regional development councils. All these organizations are
established in the province's 16 administrative regions and are
accountable to the Quebec government.
Moreover, there is an act respecting the ministère du Conseil
exécutif, which provides that the Quebec government is the only
authority which can sign development agreements, or any other
type of agreement, with other governments.
Yet, through its bills, the federal government is assuming the
authority to unilaterally interfere by reaching agreements with
organizations which are under Quebec's jurisdiction. This is a
flat rejection of a Quebec law, as well as a flat denial of the
Quebec government's jurisdiction over regional development.
The legislation on the business development bank of Canada,
which seeks to allow agreements with federal or provincial
departments and organizations, as well as with any other body or
individual, goes so far as to say that the bank could act as agent
for such organizations. This is a direct and blatant attempt to
take over regional development, by totalling bypassing the
Quebec government and dismissing its authority.
(1640)
I want to tell the hon. member for Vaudreuil that, in August
1991, some of his Quebec Liberal colleagues denounced the
establishment, by order in council, of the federal office of
regional development in Quebec. Indeed, the Quebec Liberal
minister responsible for regional development, Yvon Picotte,
was quick to react to the order in council confirming the
establishment of a federal department of regional development
and the appointment of a deputy minister in that department.Mr. Picotte said that, under the more discreet title of Federal
Office of Regional Development for Quebec, the new
department could, in the medium term, end up costing Quebec
regions a lot. The federal government does not have the
expertise to ensure that the subsidized projects will match the
regional development priorities that were set these last few
years by all of the stakeholders within each of Quebec's
regions.'' He also said: ``It is obvious that, with this federal
approach, Quebec is faced with a fait accompli through orders in
council.''
What do we find in the bills which are central to today's
debate? Exactly the same thing. Let us not forget that it was his
Liberal friends from Quebec who protested. I should add that the
then Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations, Mr. Rémillard,
stated on August 8, 1991, that the government of Quebec was
determined to stop co-operating with the federal government in
the area of regional development.
The Quebec minister reminds us of the conditions for
approval-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I think we all
understand that the question and comment period can lead to
debate. I would certainly like to give the hon. member for
Vaudreuil the opportunity to answer these comments and
questions. I would ask the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe
to conclude so that our colleague can answer.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
getting to my question. Given all these facts, which are not
necessarily the work of the Bloc Quebecois, but are the results of
all the negotiations held throughout the years with our Liberal
colleagues opposite, who protested against our approach, how
can the hon. member for Vaudreuil forget to mention the direct
impact these bills will have on regional development and
control, and refuse to recognize that Quebec has exclusive
jurisdiction in this area?
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, the industry committee has been
examining this bill for three days now and here, in the House,
the minister has now been trying to allay the hon. member's
fears for two or three days. With each passing day, I realize that
his understanding of this bill's role is getting lesser and lesser.
13145
The clock is ticking away and, unless we pass this bill before
the end of June, there will be no more money for the Federal
Business Development Bank, to name one, and no more money
for small and medium size businesses. One of the aims of this
bill is to increase the capital available to these businesses as
loans.
The hon. members say that no other province boasts so many
regional offices. That is because the other provinces, like the
four Atlantic provinces, have their own agency. I know at least
70 members from Ontario who would like to get their hands on
the budget for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec to give it to Ontario, where the program
does not even exist.
I am going to quote again the clause with which the hon.
member seems to have so much difficulty. Clause 20 clearly
says that ``The Bank may enter into agreements with, and act as
agent for, any department or agency of the government of
Canada or a province-''
I am stopping here because I think he is stumbling on the word
``province''. When he talks about the RCMs, municipalities and
school boards of Quebec-I must agree that municipalities were
created by the provincial government-that did not prevent us
from signing the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement with
all three levels of government.
(1645)
Therefore, I fail to see why he should worry, because, in my
opinion, there is no cause for worry. We can sign agreements
with agencies, and if they fall under provincial jurisdiction, the
agencies, for example a municipality, will be obliged by law to
obtain the provincial government's agreement.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are not trying to erode
powers. What we are trying to do is resolve the problem many
small and medium size businesses are having regarding access
to capital. This bill aims to bring within their reach the $50,000,
$60,000 or $100,000 they need, which banks cannot offer them,
at the moment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate,
it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport-the
environment.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity today to speak to the motion presented by the
Bloc Quebecois. It is a pleasure to do so, both personally and
especially on behalf of the people of Quebec who will hear what
we have to say about the federal government and its constant
push for centralization. I will try to show how the federal
government is centralizing powers at the expense of the
provinces and especially Quebec.
Quebec is a nation that is truly distinct from Canada and that
has always wanted to develop its potential according to its
priorities-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Vaudreuil, on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As far
as I know Quebec is still a province. It is not a nation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I realize that occasionally
members may wish to get involved in the debate, but this is not a
point of order.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, this motion
condemns the federal government for wanting to centralize
powers through legislation, and more specifically, through Bills
C-46, C-91, C-88 and C-76. Little by little, the government,
acting as it were behind the scenes, has made the Canadian
federation, and especially the government of that federation, the
master of this Canadian destiny, while ignoring the people of
Quebec who want to develop their potential according to their
own priorities, their own culture, their own way of doing things.
It is always the same old story.
The process is a very gradual and very discreet one, and if we
look at the situation very carefully, we realize that gradually, the
provinces, if the process is allowed to continue, would become
regions that would merely act on decisions handed down by
Ottawa, something Quebec will never except, since for years we
have refused to become a part of this way of running Canada.
The federal government, and a Liberal one to boot, says it
wants a flexible and open federation, but at the same time it
decides to centralize and give itself certain powers without
further consultation. As my colleague said, there have been no
federal-provincial meetings since this Liberal government was
elected. Why? Because it is independent. It thinks it is the only
government in Canada that should determine the future of this
country. It does not consult the provinces, and it goes ahead,
slowly but surely, little by little, very discreetly. It is very smart
about the way it is doing this, but we in the Bloc Quebecois, who
came to Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebec and promote
the sovereignty of Quebec because we felt we had to do this, we
cannot let this go on.
(1650)
I would remind you that this desire to centralize powers in
Ottawa is not new. Sixty years ago, Mr. Duplessis was elected in
Quebec in 1936 on a platform of: ``Il faut rapatrier notre butin''.
I remember by father and grandfather voted for Mr. Duplessis,
who was Quebec's premier for many years and who got elected
on the platform of: ``Il faut rapatrier notre butin d'Ottawa''.
Quebecers' mistrust of the federal government is not new. In
13146
order to grow, we need more independence. Mr. Duplessis got
elected with the slogan: ``Il faut rapatrier notre butin''.
Jean Lesage was a Liberal, a senior public servant and a
former member of Parliament in Ottawa. He ran for election in
Quebec City in 1960 and was elected with the slogan ``Maîtres
chez nous''. This is important. Quebecers voted for Mr. Lesage
because he talked to them about being ``Maîtres chez nous''. He
was a Liberal, a former member of Parliament in Ottawa, and he
became the Premier of Quebec who got the quiet revolution in
Quebec rolling. This is when Quebec really began to pick up
speed in achieving success and bringing about change. It
happened because Quebecers began to take pride in themselves
and because the Liberal Premier of Quebec in 1960 said that we
had to be ``Maîtres chez nous''. This is how he got elected.
Daniel Johnson, the father of the Union Nationale, got elected
with the slogan ``Égalité ou indépendance''. So, here again,
Quebecers elected a government in Quebec on the strength of a
slogan like ``Égalité ou indépendance''. It is important, when
the federal government wants to centralize things here in Ottawa
and proves the point with the bills we mentioned earlier, to note
that governments in Quebec have been elected almost since the
start of the century on the strength of such slogans.
We are not here by chance, we in the Bloc Quebecois. We were
sent here by Quebecers to defend this point again. Today, as in
the past, while it has been in power, the Liberal Party continues
to try to centralize, obviously a little at a time and somewhat
deceitfully. They are good at it. People do not really realize it,
but we are being had yet again.
In 1976, Mr. Lévesque got elected with
``Souveraineté-association''. We can see that things have
evolved. Sixty years ago, Mr. Duplessis used to say: ``Il faut
rapatrier notre butin''. Mr. Lesage: ``Maître chez nous'', Daniel
Johnson Senior: ``Égalité ou indépendance'', and Mr. Lévesque,
in 1976: ``Souveraineté-association''. While keeping a close
eye on things, we realized that the federal government wanted to
take over more and more and centralize more powers in Ottawa.
What happened? In the 1970s, Mr. Trudeau's Liberals
realized that Quebec was really coming along with its
governments which were really working for the
people-Maîtres chez nous, Égalité ou indépendance, and so on
and so forth-Quebecers were really starting to be proud and to
grow. So the federal government said: ``We cannot let this
happen, Quebecers are going to be ahead of us''. In order to stay
ahead, the federal government decided to use its spending
power. And it established all kinds of programs. It set health
care standards. It injected money, taxpayers' money, of course,
it is never the money of the federal government, it is the money
of taxpayers. It started borrowing.
In 1972, the federal government borrowed so much money
that it started accumulating a debt. From a zero deficit in 1972,
the federal government had accumulated a $175 billion debt by
1984. In 1980, its accumulated debt had reached $80 billion,
strictly to show its superiority over Quebec. Seeing that Quebec
was developing, seeing Quebec with a sovereignist movement
more sovereignist than Quebecers themselves, if I may say so,
the federal government, not looking kindly on these
developments, said: ``We are going to show Quebecers that we
are important. We are going to spend money and show them that
they will not survive without us''.
(1655)
Quietly, they borrowed and borrowed. What has been the
result? For the sole purpose of proving its superiority, the
federal government borrowed and spent. At the same time, it
created a completely artificial economy which contradicted the
very model of the Liberal free entreprise system. It did not
create a system, it created an artificial economy by injecting so
much money into it. It was not free enterprise which caused the
economy to overheat and go into a crisis, it was the government
with its interventionist policy.
Remember that in the 1970s, the federal government caused
inflation by trying to prove its superiority with its free spending.
The annual inflation rate climbed to 10, 12 and even 15 per cent.
The federal government continued its free spending until after
the 1980 referendum. We had to wait until 1980. In that year, a
referendum was held in Quebec, a referendum which was lost by
Quebecers. But still they won by 43 to 45 per cent.
It was only after the referendum that the government began to
say that it made no sense. It had been causing inflation for so
long that it now had to stop it. And the only way to stop it-the
governor of the Bank of Canada said it himself-was by raising
interest rates. So, in 1981, 1982, interest rates soared to 21 per
cent. The recession which ensued was so severe that many small
businesses in Quebec as well as in Canada went bankrupt. The
hon. member from Vaudreuil knows that, he just mentioned it. I
know too, I was in business at that time. I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, that those were very hard times. A lot of businesses
went belly up.
Many businesses were expanding, they had lines of credit and
heavy mortgages. Quebecers went with the flow, they grew,
contracted loans, etc. because Quebec was part of the modern
economy. The recession which was a pure creation of the federal
government which brutally raised interest rates up to 22 per cent
over a very short period of time caused bankruptcies and
economic and social chaos. The whole problem was caused by
the federal government which wanted to prove that it was the big
13147
boss, that it was the greatest and that it must stick its nose
everywhere. It was terrible, simply shocking.
In 1984, the cumulative debt totalled $170 billion. That year,
to show its superiority, the liberal government, with Mr.
Lalonde as Minister of Finance, presented its last budget before
being defeated that same year. Its deficit was estimated at $38
billion and its revenues at $70 billion. The government was
borrowing $38 billion, which meant it was spending almost 150
per cent of its anticipated revenues. It collected $70 billion and
borrowed $38 billion. That was the Lalonde budget. All that, I
repeat, only to show that it was superior, to show Quebecers that
it was the big boss, that it spent and controlled.
As you know, in the 18th century, the Emperor Napoleon
spent 135 per cent of what he could collect in revenues to
maintain his empire.
(1700)
But in 1984, Lalonde and Trudeau were spending 165 per cent
to maintain their superiority here in Ottawa. That is what
happened. People wonder why we are deep in debt and why
things are not working. Why? Because two nations want to grow
and they are fighting to see who will be the strongest. We
decided that the best way was to have two countries so that both
nations could grow.
The same thing happened in 1984. I arrived here as a
Conservative in 1984. We had three slogans: decentralization of
powers, national reconciliation and spending cuts. Those are the
three reasons why I joined the Conservatives and why we were
elected in 1984. Some said that a decentralization of powers was
needed, and I agreed with that. In any case, we had lost the
referendum, so we decided to take the risk of starting over again
if that were possible.
The Conservatives were well-intentioned. They said that they
would decentralize powers. A national reconciliation was
necessary. Everybody was fighting, so we had to clean up our
act. A reduction in spending was obviously needed. We had an
accumulated debt of $175 billion, which was way too much.
That is what we said. The Conservative government did cut
spending and did make extraordinary efforts toward a national
reconciliation. But you know what happened to Meech.
The Meech Lake Accord failed because it provided for a
reduction in the federal government's spending power. That is
why it failed. It failed because Mr. Chretien, the current Prime
Minister, did not want to see the spending power of the federal
government reduced. He used the premiers of New Brunswick
and of Newfoundland, Mr. McKenna and Mr. Wells, and also
Mrs. Carstairs, who is now a senator, to bring about the failure of
the Meech Lake Accord because it limited the spending power of
the federal government.
That was the major problem. We were absolutely right in
asking for that, but it was the reason the accord was rejected.
The leader of the present government is the one who caused the
failure of the Meech Lake Accord. He is the one most
responsible for the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. Everyone
knows it. It is not something we made up.
What were the consequences? The consequences were that the
Tories spent even more to prove their superiority. Despite
spending cuts, they spent approximately $30 billion, $32 billion
annually in excess of what they collected, that is a yearly deficit
of $30 billion, $32 billion dollars. They continued to artificially
inflate the economy, to raise inflation. They created a kind of
artificial economy.
The economic growth was between 3 and 3.9 per cent, but the
real economic growth-if the government had not invested $30
billion, $32 billion dollars to prove its superiority-would
probably have been 2 per cent. Real economic growth such as we
are seeing in Europe and elsewhere. Real economic growth of
1.5 or 2 per cent per year. But no. The federal government
borrowed abroad and now 40 per cent of the $600 billion we owe
are foreign owned. They artificially inflated the economy, and
we are now faced with this big problem.
What I want to say is that because of the federal government's
desire to centralize, to prove that it is in control, the Canadian
economy has been destroyed. Canada is bankrupt as a result. It
has to stop. Even if, tomorrow morning or in the fall, Quebecers
lost the referendum, the problem would be the same. Fifty per
cent of the sovereignists in Quebec still would want to prove
their superiority, to continue to develop according to their
needs, to their priorities. The problem would be the same.
(1705)
I am telling Quebecers through you, Mr. Speaker, that they
must vote for sovereignty. They have to create a new country for
the good of Canada and for the good of Quebec. We must strive
to do so. There is no alternative, otherwise we will never get out
of it. For the good of our children, for the good of our
grand-children, for the good of Quebec and Canada, we should
build a sound economic union. If we had some kind of union
council, with delegates from the two countries, it would be fine.
But we should each have the opportunity to develop according to
our own priorities and according to our own culture.
I guarantee you that we would be better off not centralizing, as
it is done right now, but becoming two separate sovereign
nations linked by an economic union. There is some kind of
agreement on the management of such an union.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
the second time the member for Longueuil refers to the debt. In
his speech, he said that in the sixties our slogan was ``Maîtres
chez nous'', in the seventies it was ``Égalité ou indépendance''
13148
and in the eighties it became ``Souveraineté-Association''. I
prefer to talk about the ``Beau risque'' of the seventies. But now,
the change of direction of March 1995 has turned into no
direction at all.
Why do I say that? Because the Bloc Quebecois with its
separation option does not know what to offer Quebecers. The
member for Longueuil speaks about the debt as if it belonged
exclusively to the federal government. Quebecers also
participated in that debt. If Quebec becomes independent, the
quality of life of its citizens will drop from the 9th position,
where it stands right now, to the 19th. The member also said that
the political system is not working, that it does not meet the
expectations or requirements of Quebec and that we created an
artificial economy in Canada.
My question for the member is this: If he does not approve of
Canada's political system, if our economy does not meet his
expectations, why is it that in their plan, the Bloc members say
they want sovereignty, but they also want to maintain the same
economic union and the same political system? Is there not a
contradiction there? I am asking the member because he said
himself that after the referendum, if the answer is no, there will
still be 54 members promoting independence for Quebec.
I want to ask the member if that means that all Bloc Quebecois
members will resign if their option is rejected during the fall
referendum, as he claims?
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find it rather
strange that when we say that we want an economic association
with the rest of Canada, the Liberal Party, especially the Quebec
members and the Prime Minister, who is also from Quebec, say:
``We do not want any association with the rest of Canada''. And
yet, they too are Quebecers.
You see, this economic association is unavoidable, no matter
what. We do a lot of trade with Ontario and western Canada. As a
matter of fact, the West sells more in Quebec that we sell there.
There is a deficit. Ontario buys slightly over one billion more
from Quebec than we purchase from Ontario. If we were to
become sovereign, without an economic association, Ontario
would have a trade deficit with Quebec.
In order not to disturb this economy which is working and will
go on, in any case, and which business people and economists
will want to keep going, we say that we need some kind of
economic association. No matter the form it takes, we will need
some kind of economic association to manage and continue to
manage our trade.
(1710)
Moreover, we must say that, at the present time, it is harder to
trade among provinces that it is with the United States through
the FTA. I find this terrible. It seems to me that it should be easy
for Canada and Quebec to have an economic association at least
as open as the one we have with the United States.
In Quebec, we tend to trade north-south, because the market
there is very large, as in New York City and Boston. It is said that
there are close to 100 million consumers within a range of 1,000
kilometres from Montreal. This explains why we tend to trade
with the South. But this does not mean that we do not want to
maintain our economic links with the rest of Canada. To achieve
this, we say that we need an economic association. It could be
managed by some kind of a council which could sit, perhaps here
in Ottawa, with delegates from the government in Quebec City,
MPs delegated by the government in Ottawa, who could sit once
in a while to manage this united council. This is not
complicated, this is simple. Life goes on.
Any way, one cannot claim that governments can do
everything. It is the economy which fosters good trade relations.
I hear the Liberals laugh over there, and I think they are being
rather foolish. I cannot understand why they are laughing. It
bothers me to hear them laugh, I do not like it. I heard the Prime
Minister, himself a Quebecer, say that he does not want a union
with the rest of Canada, that he has no need for it. I do not know
what he is going to do. He is going to die alone. I do not know;
maybe he will have to move to Toronto, because he lives in
Quebec. I think he lives in Quebec, although I am not sure. I
rather think that he has been living in Ontario for 30 years. I am
not sure about that. When I listen to him, I wonder if the
language, the words he uses are not words that Quebecers were
using 30 years ago. The language of Quebecers has evolved, but
the Prime Minister talks as people used to 30 years ago. I think
that he has been living in Ontario for 30 years and that he seldom
goes back to Quebec. The language there has evolved.
So, I find it a little strange to hear Quebec Liberals-because
that applies only to Quebec Liberals-say that they do not want
an economic association with the rest of Canada. I am really
disappointed. I do not understand.
In this regard, in the interests of all Quebecers, it is high time
for us to be sovereign so that we can grow and also have an
economic association with the rest of Canada that will come
naturally, I am sure. Some may say that they do not want it, but
that is not true; it will come naturally. Business people,
professionals, economists, all those who are in business will
want it to be maintained.
Planes full of business people link Montreal and Toronto
every day. I used to be in business and I used to go regularly to
Toronto to buy products. I was president of a wholesale
company and I used to buy a lot of products in Toronto. I went
there
13149
regularly. Ontarians will surely want Quebecers to continue to
buy products in Toronto. I am sure of it.
In Ontario, over 100,000 jobs are dependent on sales in
Quebec. I doubt that Ontarians will refuse to sell to Quebec any
more if 100,000 jobs are at stake. I doubt that westerners will
refuse to sell their beef to Quebec when we buy $800 or $900
million of it each year.
Therefore, those who claim that there will be no economic
union with Quebec are talking nonsense. Anyone who is the
least realistic will understand that this is a bare fact, that we are
not inventing anything and that it will evolve quite naturally.
What we are saying is that we are determined enough to do it.
If Liberals, and especially those from Quebec, maintain that
they do not want that, it just baffles me.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to engage in this debate,
particularly after having listened to that rather enlightening
rendition of creative imagination on the part of the Bloc
Quebecois members. I am happy to know that Jules Verne is
alive and well and writing science fiction when we hear their
description of how everything can change while everything
remains the same. It does challenge the imagination.
(1715 )
I want to speak for a few moments about the allegations
contained in the motion on the floor today with respect to Bill
C-88. That is the bill to implement the internal trade agreement
which was negotiated and signed among the federal government
and the provinces about a year ago today. I must say that the
allegations contained in that motion represent an inability or
perhaps an unwillingness on the part of the Bloc Quebecois to
understand the plain meaning of the text in the bill.
[Translation]
As was said in the House before, the federal government
would seldom intervene as plaintiff in a dispute that arises
within the context of the Agreement on Internal Trade. If a
dispute is settled in the federal government's favour and the
province concerned refuses to accept the conclusions of an
impartial panel, the federal government could then suspend
benefits or impose retaliatory measures of equivalent effect.
Clearly, such measures would be imposed in the same sector
as the initial violation or in another sector regulated by the
agreement. Retaliatory measures would not affect transfer
payments or social programs since these do not come under the
purview of this agreement.
[English]
Bill C-88 does not make the federal government the
policeman of the internal trade agreement as the official
opposition mistakenly insists. Anyone who takes the time to
read the bill, even the headnote to clause 9 of Bill C-88 or to
read article 1710 of the agreement on internal trade can only
verify the accuracy of what I have just outlined. Bill C-88 deals
only with what the federal government must do to live up to its
obligations under the internal trade agreement and nothing else.
As I said in the House on May 4, the agreement on internal
trade is a consensual agreement. All the parties who agreed to it
must act within their own jurisdiction to implement it and
comply with its obligations.
[Translation]
So far, only the federal government and the Government of
Alberta have tabled legislation to implement the agreement and
comply with their respective obligations in this regard. It is
probable that most of the other parties to the agreement will
decide to do likewise, sooner or later.
I am sure that all Canadians are anxious to see what
governments that claim to support domestic free trade will
actually do to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade and
eliminate the barriers they themselves created over the years.
Bill C-88 is an historic milestone. It is an opportunity for the
federal government to show leadership and to do so with the
governments of the other parties to the agreement, as they
implement the first comprehensive domestic free trade
agreement since the British North America Act, 1867.
[English]
Since 1867 the Canadian economy has grown and evolved in
ways never imagined by the Fathers of Confederation. The
federal government still has the constitutional responsibility for
trade and commerce. Over time, provinces have assumed
prominent roles as influencers of economic growth and in the
regulation of trade and commerce at their level.
As a result, trading arrangements and regulations have
developed in an ad hoc way often in response to a particular
regional need. Many of these measures create barriers to trade as
they impact on the free flow of goods, services, people and
capital within Canada.
Such barriers can lead to the inefficient use of resources and
limit the ability of industry to take advantage of economies of
scale and to maintain competitive market positions. The result is
to reduce the competitiveness of Canadian business and
adversely affect the Canadian economy.
(1720 )
Also, in Canada we have a patchwork of regulations,
standards and other barriers to interprovincial trade that have
grown around us and have become an unacceptable feature of
our domestic market. There has been growing concern and
evidence these barriers to trade are seriously affecting our
ability to remain competitive in the international trading
environment.
13150
It is urgent that we establish a new trading regime in Canada,
one based on more open interprovincial trade, one that would
not impede the movement of people and investment within the
country and one that would allow for co-operative approaches
to the resolution of domestic trade disputes. Bill C-88 is a key
element in bringing to fruition the process of intergovernmental
negotiation and co-operation that will produce that new regime.
[Translation]
This bill concludes a lengthy process to which many people
have contributed and which has involved analyzing a great many
issues and points of view. Ministers and officials of the federal,
provincial and territorial governments took an active part in this
process, as well as representatives of the private sector.
In fact, representatives of the private sector and especially
members of the business community have put constant pressure
on all levels of government to find ways to deal with
interprovincial trade barriers and the resulting economic cost
for Canada.
The Canadian Manufacturers Association, for instance,
estimates that trade barriers on domestic markets cost the
Canadian economy about $7 billion annually in terms of lost
jobs and income.
[English]
The agreement on internal free trade signed last year by the
Prime Minister and other first ministers is an outstanding
example of what can be accomplished within a co-operative
framework in Canada. It is also important to note that political
parties of all stripes and all regional perspectives have been part
of this process.
[Translation]
All parties that took part in the negotiations share the same
view and recognize the benefits of a more open market for
Canada.
[English]
As a result of the work done by the committee of ministers on
internal trade and by the chief negotiators, we achieved a
comprehensive agreement. It provides for a rules based system
for trade within Canada, a dispute settlement mechanism to
resolve issues on internal trade matters, a standstill on new
barriers, commitments to future negotiations to broaden and
deepen the agreement, a code of conduct to prevent destructive
competition for investment, increased labour mobility and a
commitment to reconcile standards related measures. These are
significant achievements.
[Translation]
Dispute settlement is a key component of this agreement as it
is of any trade agreement. This agreement represents a unique
response to circumstances that are uniquely Canadian. The
agreement is based on rules which, in turn, are based on certain
concepts and agreements that are well established in
international trade but adapted to the Canadian context.
[English]
Well known examples include the GATT agreement, the
European Union and NAFTA. There have been suggestions that
we in Canada should just use one or other of these models in the
Canadian situation. However, these suggestions overlook the
important issue of the sovereignty of the parties to an agreement
as well as the degree of political control the parties themselves
are willing to give up to the compliance mechanism which is in
place in the accord.
The agreement on internal trade sets out the framework and
basic underpinnings for a dispute resolution mechanism
approach that is unique to the Canadian context and provides for
open access to the settlement process. This approach commits
all parties to the use of conciliation to address problems arising
from the provisions of the agreement, including its principles,
its rules and its individual sectoral agreements.
(1725 )
The mandate of the committee on internal trade is to ``assist in
the resolution of disputes arising out of interpretations and
applications of the agreement''. The working philosophy of the
committee and of the agreement is to use consultation and
conciliation in dispute resolution.
Disputing parties will be encouraged to make every attempt
through co-operation, consultation and other forms of dispute
resolution to arrive at a solution. If consultation fails,
governments or governments on behalf of individual persons or
persons directly can ask to have matters raised with a panel. The
panel will consider the facts and make recommendations for
changing policies or behaviour, but it will not assess damages.
The underlying objective of the process is to seek to change
inconsistent behaviour and policies and not apply penalties or
award damages.
Under the agreement, retaliation is only possible at the end of
the dispute settlement process. Only in cases where the federal
government was a complainant in a dispute and only where a
province has refused for a year to change a measure found by an
impartial panel to have violated the agreement could the federal
government consider taking retaliatory action.
Such action would first have to be discussed with the
committee on internal trade. Even then it could only be such as
to have the equivalent economic effect to the measure that had
originally violated the agreement and it would have to be taken
in a sector specifically covered by the agreement. This is what
the Bloc Quebecois is complaining about as an undue intrusion
of the federal government into provincial affairs. I ask you, Mr.
Speaker, if you have ever heard anything so ridiculous.
13151
In addition to dispute resolution procedures, the bill also
presents amendments to a number of other federal acts which
need to be changed in order that we meet our obligations to the
provinces and territories to make the changes to federal
legislation and regulations necessary to implement the
agreement which we signed last year. All parties to the
agreement were informed on April 12 in Calgary that the federal
government would be introducing these amendments in the near
future.
Our work to date has emphasized the value of the
co-operative approach to solving trade problems internally in
Canada. Our work in the future will do so as well. That is the
very reason the agreement on internal trade has been criticized
by members of the Reform Party for not going far enough fast
enough. Other members opposite would have had the
government act unilaterally. They have suggested under
sections 91(a) and 121 of the Constitution to impose free
internal trade on the provinces. That is the very thing the other
opposition party accuses us of having done. Both criticisms are
purely and simply ill founded and wrong headed.
[Translation]
The government tried to resolve this country's problems in
collaboration with the provincial governements. The process
leading up to the Free Trade Agreement bears witness to this. It
has been our approach in the past, it is our approach now and it is
the only approach that any responsible Canadian government
can take in the future. It is the only way to govern and that is
what real power is.
Cases where the federal government is the grievor in a
disagreement under the Free Trade Agreement will be few. If a
dispute were settled in favour of the federal government and if
the province in question were to refuse to respect the
conclusions of the impartial panel, the federal government
would have the right to withdraw equivalent benefits.
Such retaliatory measures should be taken in the same sector
as the initial violation or in another sector covered by the
accord.
[English]
Retaliation could not involve transfer payments or social
programs because these things are not covered by the
agreement. Bill C-88 does not make the federal government a
policeman of the internal trade agreement as the official
opposition has claimed.
[Translation]
Bill C-88 only covers the federal government's obligations
under the interprovincial trade accord, nothing more. The
interprovincial trade accord is a consensual accord. All parties
to this accord are responsible for applying it in their own
jurisdictions and for meeting its requirements.
[English]
What we have heard over this day of debate is a series of
allegations founded on misapprehension, perhaps wilful
misunderstanding of the contents of bills before the House.
The agreement on internal trade we want to see broadened,
deepened and strengthened. There is a lot more work to do. I call
on the official opposition, since the Government of Quebec has
claimed to be a free trader, not to put up roadblocks to a real free
internal trading market within Canada but to begin to support it
with actions instead of protestations.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., it is my
duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81,
proceedings on this motion have expired.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
13151
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): At the time of
adjournment on Wednesday, April 26, 1995 the hon. member for
Elk Island had seven minutes remaining for debate.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is the
second time I have had a speech interrupted by a period of some
two to three months. It is difficult to keep one's train of thought
when that happens. However, I shall review the beginning of my
speech and then carry on.
We are debating the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve which has to do with the
government taking the necessary measures to recognize same
sex spouses. In my intervention last April 26, before I was
interrupted, I was stating that as legislators, we have a
responsibility, an obligation, a high calling to do what is right
for our country and its citizens. Very often debates such as this
are limited because we allow our emotions to enter into them to
such an extent that we sometimes fail to ask the real questions.
We need to ask some very serious questions about this issue.
Where are
13152
we going as a society? How are we going to determine what is
best in this regard?
I would like to submit several ideas for the criteria we could
use in determining what is best. One which is very important,
and which I alluded to in my last intervention, is that we need to
listen to Canadians. That is so important. As members of
Parliament we are sent here to represent our constituents
according to what they want us to do.
We are all aware that Canadians have been expressing their
views on this issue. There is a continual stream of petitions on
the subject. Why do people do these things? Why do they get
into the mode of asking questions of people? ``Here is an issue.
Do you agree with it? If you agree will you sign the petition?''
They think a decision is about to be made which is of
considerable importance to them. They want to express their
opinions and have them represented in the House. Consequently,
we have had many petitions in which the members of
Parliament, the House of Commons assembled, have been
petitioned to not change any laws that would indicate approval
of same sex relationships or homosexuality.
(1735)
That may on the surface appear to be somewhat intolerant, but
the question needs to be asked: Are we experiencing the tyranny
of the majority? Does the majority feel this way? According to
statistics and various surveys that have been taken, by far the
majority of Canadians believes that heterosexual couples are the
ideal models for marriage and for family.
We would err if we were to ignore the advice from Canadians
when they say: ``Hold it here, legislators. There is a danger. You
are embarking on dangerous ground. Stop, do not do this''.
There have been other very notable instances where the
wishes of Canadians have not been taken into account. I suppose
the best example is the infamous GST. If I am not mistaken,
there were more petitions presented on the GST than on any
issue when it was being debated. However, the legislators of the
day chose to ignore that advice and we now have on the books
and in practice the most hated tax that Canada has ever had. It is
so hated that we all know what happened to the government that
brought it in.
It is incredible that the present government got elected on,
among other things, a promise to eliminate the GST. That is how
strongly Canadians felt about it. Consequently the GST is one of
the best examples of government ignoring the advice of
Canadians. There are some consequences to us in this place if we
ignore advice and put through legislation anyway.
That would be one of the arguments I would put in favour of
my view and in my opposition to this motion. We need to learn to
increasingly trust and express the views of the Canadian people
when they express themselves in this way.
Something else we ought to take into account is that this is not
the tyranny of the majority. By saying we do not want to
recognize same sex couples, we are not telling these people that
it is justifiable to persecute them and to do other things that are
not right to any member of our society. I would really emphasize
that.
I grieve for anyone who is attacked, beaten up or assaulted. It
does not matter to me whether that person is male or female, a
native Canadian or an immigrant Canadian, or a Canadian who
has been here for two or three generations. It also does not
matter to me whether that person is a homosexual or a
heterosexual. If that person is assaulted it is wrong. No
Canadian should be deprived of the protection of law for such
fundamental things as freedom of security and freedom of
person. When we speak in opposition to this motion it is not
because we are in any way condoning that type of activity.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is my definite opinion
and certainly the opinion of many who have communicated to
me on this topic, that we need to promote, to the greatest extent
possible, what we might label as the traditional family: the
mother and father, the procreative couple, the family with
children. Our taxation laws and laws on benefits should promote
and encourage that kind of loving family relationship.
(1740)
At the same time we say to these people who wish to engage in
same sex relationships that there is presently nothing in the law
preventing same sex relationships. Many of us disagree with it.
It would be ill-advised of us as a Parliament and as a country to
condone it, to approve it, to say that it is okay by voting in favour
of a motion such as the one that we have before us.
With great respect for the member who brought forward this
motion, I will not be able to support it.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from the outset I wish to advise the House that I do not support
this motion.
This motion is specifically asking Parliament to encroach on a
jurisdiction that is not within the domain of Parliament. This
motion is asking Parliament to take the necessary measures for
the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
In effect, Parliament is being asked to provide special legal
status to homosexuals, thereby allowing them to redefine the
family, to redefine marriage, to enter into the realm of sanctity
of marriage, to allow homosexuals to adopt children, to enter
into schools, education and infiltrate the curriculum within our
school system and to impose an alternative lifestyle on our
youth. This is unacceptable.
13153
All these demands are encroaching on and undermining the
inherent and inviolable rights of families. Families have existed
before the church. Families have existed before the state.
Parliament has absolutely no legal or constitutional authority
to redefine family, or to enter into the realm of the sanctity of
marriage.
It is important for the House to understand why this line of
thinking is present here today and why such a motion would
even be entertained on the floor of the House.
The first theme that we have to come to understand is that of
freedom. At the collective level, people are saying that they
want freedom to govern themselves, develop their own
economies, to enhance their overall quality of life, and the
freedom of choice.
Closely tied to this theme of freedom is our second theme,
that is, the individual. At the personal level, people are saying
that they want to be free to express themselves, free to work,
free to worship, free to travel, free to be what they aspire to be
and once again, individual freedom of choice.
Closely tied to our themes of freedom and individualism in
our country is our third emphasis and that is pluralism. As a
policy, pluralism contributes to collective and personal freedom
by legitimizing diversity. It appears on the surface to resolve the
issue of how different individuals who want to be free can live in
community and harmony.
Our three themes of freedom, individualism and pluralism are
now joined with our fourth theme in our country, relativism. The
free expression of the individual and groups is made possible
only by suspending value judgments about how people live or
what choices people have made.
Truth has been replaced by relativism, which is the
legitimization of diverse choice. Under the guise of equality and
fairness, pluralism coupled with relativism has come to pervade
Canadian minds and Canadian institutions.
Canadians have become conditioned to be tolerant, to respect,
to appreciate diversity. The insistence that individuals must be
free to think and free to behave without interference according
to their conscience has been reinforced in our pluralistic secular
society today.
The introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and the promotion of multiculturalism has once again
reaffirmed Canada's goal of harmonious co-existence whereby
the ideas, lifestyles and free thinking of all individuals must be
accepted and respected to ensure equality and fairness.
To accept and to endorse the theory of pluralism coupled with
relativism is to accept that truth is nothing more than personal
opinion. Relativism in our pluralistic society has stripped us as
Canadians of our ethical and moral guidelines. Justice, law and
morality are inseparable. In Canada we cannot have laws unless
our laws are just and moral.
(1745)
The preamble to our Canadian Constitution set forth in the
Constitution Act recognizes the supremacy of God in the rule of
law. The recognition of the supremacy of God entrenches into
the Constitution natural law, and therefore the laws of our
country must not contravene natural law, for to do so the laws
would be ultra vires or unconstitutional.
I refer to recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Nesbit and
Egan. This decision was rendered on May 25, 1995 and the
decision makers refer to the relevancy and the functional values
underlining the law and that the Canadian charter of rights is not
enacted in a vacuum but must be placed in its proper linguistic,
philosophic and historical context.
Also Chief Justice Lamer and the majority of the Supreme
Court judiciary stated quite eloquently: ``Marriage has from
time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition,
one that is itself a reflection of longstanding philosophical and
religious traditions, but its ultimate raison d'étre transcends all
of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social
realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to
procreate, that most children are the product of these
relationships and that they are generally cared for and nurtured
by those who live in that relationship. In this sense marriage is
by nature heterosexual''.
The rights of family are being seriously undermined and
eroded in Canada today. The conventional terms of debate in
matters of political, economic and legal issues tend to focus on
individual rights and the rights of state, not the rights of the
family. This is unfortunate and must change, for the family is the
most important reality in our lives. To redefine the family to
include homosexual and lesbian relationships is immoral and
unjust and a violation of the rights of the family which are well
founded in both our Canadian and natural law.
The family unit is the basic institution of life and the solid
foundation in which our forefathers have built this great nation.
The protection of families, family life and family values must be
a priority with the government. Families have inherent and
inviolable rights. Families have existed before the church,
families have existed before the state. The rights of family must
be preserved, safeguarded and protected by Parliament.
To recognize same sex marriages would give credence to a
faction in our society undermining and destroying our values,
principles and morality. Such a special recognition of same sex
marriage by Parliament is an overt acceptance and condonation
of homosexuality being imposed on Canadians. It has the effect
13154
of legislating a morality that is not supported by our Canadian
principles, morals and values.
Canadians do not have to accept homosexuality as being
natural and moral. Homosexuality is not natural. It is immoral
and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of Canadian
families and it must not and should not be condoned.
To endorse same sex marriages or to include the words sexual
orientation in any federal legislation would allow homosexuals
to obtain special legal status. It would allow them to redefine the
family, to redefine marriage and enter into the realm of the
sanctity of marriage, to adopt children, to enter into our schools
and infiltrate the curriculum of our schools and to impose an
alternative lifestyle on our youth. All these demands are
encroaching on and undermining the inherent and inviolable
rights of family.
Families have existed before the church and families have
existed before the state. Parliament has absolutely no legal or
constitutional authority to redefine family or to enter into the
realm of sanctity of marriage. For Parliament to do so would
encroach on the rights and responsibilities of family. It would
also encroach on the rights of the church. I use the word church
all inclusively.
Parliament must be reminded that separation of church and
state has been respected for centuries. The state must not
interfere in matters of church. However, the church has the right
and responsibility to enter into and be concerned with matters of
state. The power of church, and I use the word all inclusively,
must not be underestimated. Over the last 25 years Parliament
has gradually encroached on the rights of the church, the rights
of family and the rights of life.
(1750)
Over the last 25 years morality, an essential element in justice
and legislation, has been gradually removed from our laws.
Such examples are decriminalization of homosexuality, no fault
divorce, facilitating and funding abortion and our Young
Offenders Act. Now this motion before the House is requesting
special legal status for homosexuals to allow them to redefine
family, to undermine and erode and destroy the rights of family
and to destroy the sanctity of marriage.
It is important for Parliament to be reminded that family is the
basic institution of life. Life begins from the moment of
conception and continues until natural death. In the words of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Egan and Nesbit, marriage is
heterosexual by nature.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say to the members of this House that I fully
support the motion by my colleague for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. As we know, this motion concerns
legal recognition of same sex partners. In my opinion, we must
remember, for the purposes of this debate, the limit my
colleague wanted to set in his motion. We are not talking here
about the right of same sex couples to marry or adopt. Debate on
this matter, also a current issue, will take place later.
Today, we are trying to decide whether the Government of
Canada should legally recognize couples of the same sex. I say it
should. My support for the motion is based on certain
observations, and I would like to present to you the conclusions I
have drawn from them.
Individually, the members of a same sex couple enjoy the
same rights as everyone else. This first point may seem rather
obvious. However, I still think it should be made, because there
is sometimes a tendency in some debates to assume that certain
people are more equal than others. I am thinking here primarily
of white heterosexual males.
Individuals who are homosexual are entitled to the same
individual rights as everyone else and are also entitled to the
same protection of these rights. Their constitutional rights, that
is their basic freedoms, their democratic rights, their mobility
rights, their legal rights, and their right to equality are
guaranteed by the law and monitored by the courts. No
government can set aside these rights with impunity. On the
contrary, government has the obligation to ensure that
everyone's rights are respected.
My second observation: homosexual couples are
discriminated against.
Although homosexual individuals enjoy the same rights,
individually and under the law, as their heterosexual
neighbours, they become the subject of discrimination when in a
relationship.
In fact, treatment accorded homosexual couples is completely
opposite that given heterosexual couples. The courts have
recognized this discrimination on many occasions, in cases
involving the entitlement of members of homosexual couples to
the benefits enjoyed by their heterosexual colleagues.
In Canada, several judges and arbitrators have had to analyze
laws and collective agreements that did not recognize same sex
spouses, thus denying these people the spousal rights and
benefits provided under these statutory instruments. In several
cases, after noting the existence of discrimination and its
impact, the courts ordered employers to provide the same social
benefits to both homosexual and heterosexual spouses.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada finally recognized
sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination
under the Canadian charter. However, on the issue of
recognizing same sex spouses, the Supreme Court ruling clearly
sends the ball back into Parliament's court. We can expect the
conse-
13155
quences of this decision to help lessen discrimination against
homosexual and lesbian partners.
A third finding is that the cost of eliminating discriminatory
policies will be minimal.
The legal recognition of same sex spouses would not cost a
fortune, contrary to what some people may have feared.
Although there are no detailed actuarial studies on the
additional cost of extending social benefits to same sex spouses,
we can look at the experience of employers who have recognized
such couples.
(1755)
Several private companies, organizations, and governments
asked actuarial firms to assess the cost of proposed measures
intended for same sex spouses. The experts surveyed concluded
that the additional costs would be minimal, in the order of 0.5 to
1.5 per cent depending on the various social benefits being
considered. The argument that costs would be prohibitive is
therefore not valid.
Fourth and last, the public would support the recognition of
same sex spouses.
Finally, in discussing new social policy-and that is what we
are dealing with today-we must assess how acceptable this new
policy is to the public. This is essential to the success of the
operation. Often, governments that tried to impose changes
without first securing public support were quickly called to
order.
I think that the public is ready now for the legal recognition of
same sex spouses. In Quebec-we are always different-you
would even find greater support than in Canada.
According to an Environics poll conducted in Ontario in the
spring of 1994, fifty-five per cent of respondents were prepared
to recognize entitlement to social benefits for same sex spouses.
An Angus Reid poll showed similar results across Canada. In
Quebec, 73 per cent of respondents to a SOM poll conducted in
the fall of 1993 were in favour.
To conclude, the members of this House should support the
motion put forward by my colleague because it is a matter of
justice and equity. First and foremost, it is a matter of justice
because all individuals in our society are equal. Being equal,
they should not be subject to discrimination when they join with
another person to form a couple.
Second, it is a matter of equity because homosexual couples
are not given the same treatment as heterosexual couples, and
the only difference between the two is sexual orientation.
Parliament must therefore encourage the government to take the
measures necessary to put an end to this discrimination against
same sex couples.
In turn, this stand for justice and equity may well prompt the
public to exhibit a more positive attitude in terms of respecting
differences, something we really need in our society if we want
it to be a better place, with less violence and hatred.
This motion does not ask for the recognition of special rights,
but for the enforcement of the right to equality. That is why I
urge this House to vote for the motion put forward by my hon.
colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion which
calls on the government to take the necessary measures for the
legal recognition of same sex spouses.
I commend my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for
his initiative in bringing up this issue; it is timely and
exceedingly important.
Before I discuss my views on the question I state clearly and
unequivocally I reject the suggestion this debate is blasphemy or
that those who would promote equality are part of some
conspiracy to kidnap our children.
In due course the government will have to address this issue.
The precious moments of private members' business at the end
of each day provide an opportunity for us to express our personal
views, and I am pleased to do so.
I have spoken in the House in support of the hate crimes
provisions of Bill C-41 and in support of amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act. I have encouraged my colleagues
on all sides of the House to support these initiatives. I have
supported them because these initiatives are the right and decent
thing to do as Canadians.
Amending the Canadian Human Rights Act is a matter of
fundamental justice and equality. The goal of the act is not to
confer special rights on anyone but rather to ensure equal rights
for everyone. The measures we have taken in Bill C-41, the
proposed amendments of the human rights act when they are
introduced, are totally consistent with the commitment we have
as Liberals and as Canadians to attack hatred and discrimination
and promote tolerance.
(1800)
I am pleased that in its ruling last Thursday the Supreme
Court of Canada unanimously agreed that sexual orientation
should be read into section 15 of the charter, thus barring
discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is an important step
toward full equality for all members of Canadian society.
On the thornier issue, the more difficult issue of extending
benefits to same sex couples living together, the court was split.
It will soon be up to us as legislators to decide what actions we
should take as we consider the question in the debate today and
in the weeks ahead.
13156
I want to make it clear that extending recognition to
non-traditional relationships is not an attempt to undermine the
family, but it is rather an effort to recognize today's realities
and to end discrimination. Traditional families remain the
majority and a fundamental building block of society. But we
cannot ignore that there are different types of family units that
exist today.
In response to a question put forward by the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve dealing with the Egan and Nesbit
supreme court ruling and the extension of same sex benefits, the
Minister of Justice expressed views before the Standing
Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons
to the following effect. When we talk about extending benefits
we should be looking at relationships and dependency instead of
exclusively sexual criteria to define those relationships. We
should be thinking of a brother and sister living together, a son
taking care of an elderly mother, a mother taking care of an adult
daughter, and other types of relationships where adults depend
on each other emotionally and financially. And there are many
such cases in this complex society.
I think the Minister of Justice has put forward an interesting
and innovative proposition, and I would be ready to support that
position. However, I must stress that we have no immediate
intention of introducing such legislation. We must engage in a
full cost analysis and we must have a full debate in the House.
I want to add that the benefits we need to consider granting to
partners in non-traditional relationships go beyond monetary
ones. Even if the government has yet to put same sex
relationships on an equal footing with more traditional ones, I
firmly believe that measures should be taken to prevent
incidents of discrimination in the workplace and we should be
looking seriously at bereavement leave and family care leave to
same sex partners.
Ironically, while we as elected officials are anxious to provide
leadership on these issues, it is the courts and the private sector
who are doing so, doing the right and courageous things by
protecting the rights of all Canadians.
In its 1994 annual report the Canadian Human Rights
Commission listed major private institutions offering such
arrangements, firms such as BC-Tel, Hudson's Bay Company,
Northern Telecom, Southam Publishing, Shell Canada, Levi
Strauss, Toronto Sun Publishing Corporation, Dow Chemical,
and the Toronto Dominion Bank. Canada Post entered into an
agreement with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that
would provide same sex benefits for its 52,000 members.
I think the Human Rights Commissioner expressed it best
when he said in reference to these corporations: ``All of this
should deliver a simple message. Institutions of this sort are not
wild-eyed reformers. They are not interested in endorsing
certain lifestyles or debating the meaning of the word spouse.
They are changing their practices to bring them into line with the
intent of the charter, provincial law and a growing body of
jurisprudence''. And I might add, to bring them into consistency
with reality.
As I conclude and I look at the clock, it may be 1805 to some
members of the House, but on this side of the House it is 1995.
Discrimination, bigotry, ignorance persist. One of my goals as
an elected member of Parliament is to work toward ending all
forms of discrimination. In that effort, I invite the help of my
colleagues on both sides of the House. This is not an Ozzie and
Harriet world, however much we might wish it would be. I look
forward to working with hon. members on both sides of the
House on these important issues.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this, in my opinion, is the most important piece of private
members' business presently before the House. There is no more
pressing issue facing the House than in what direction we as
parliamentarians want to take the morality of the country.
(1805 )
Our actions as parliamentarians have consequences. We must
take extreme care not to subvert institutions that form the fabric
of our society and way of life. This motion would do just that.
That is why I am strongly, unreservedly, and unapologetically
speaking against it. That is why, as an elected representative of
the families of my riding, I will fight against any move by this or
any government to subvert or undermine traditional family
values. The family is the very building block of our society, not
individuals, because individuals alone cannot maintain and
sustain our country, only families can. It is in this defence of the
family, the most important and basic union of all, that I give this
speech.
I am one of those not so rare people who believe that law is
about morality. I believe it is impossible to separate law and
morality. All laws are either based on or express a fundamental
view of ordering of human relations. That, whether we like it or
not, is morality.
I am also one of those people who believe that a liberal
democratic society founded upon rights requires a certain kind
of moral grounding if it hopes to function. Therefore, if you are
like me and you accept these premises, then you must also
accept the conclusion that government must not pass laws that
threaten the morality upon which fundamental structures of our
society are built. It is not only undemocratic, it is dangerous.
Government must serve its citizens. It must respect and promote
the morality that is the consensus of its citizens. It must not
attack it. It must not threaten it. It must rarely seek to change it.
13157
This government does not agree with me. The government
and the hon. member from the Bloc who sponsored today's
motion think that it is the role of government to subvert the
consensually accepted morality of our society, not universally
accepted, of course, as no single moral rule is ever universally
accepted, but consensually accepted.
Poll after poll show that Canadians are overwhelmingly
opposed to changing the definition of family to include
homosexual unions. People are overwhelmingly opposed to
giving homosexual unions moral and legal parity with the union
that sustains our country and sustains our species, that of man
and woman. Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to giving
in to the vocal if irrational demands of the 2 per cent of the
population who think that sexual preference does not matter
when talking about family. However, that does not stop the gay
rights ideologues and the radical attackers of the family from
shamelessly promoting their narrow special interest cause.
Our Supreme Court is waiting for the House to make its
decision on the family. It is waiting for a message from the
House. The message my colleague from the Bloc wants to send
is that there is no morality, that Canadian law should promote
homosexuality, and that the traditional male-female union is not
the best model of a family history could ever devise. He is
wrong, and I hope that the motion and any other laws like it are
stopped before the moral fabric of the country is rent apart by
narrow interests' societal engineering.
A respected professor of political history and human rights at
Claremont College in California has said that the gay rights
movement is the most radical and sinister challenge to emerge to
not just sexual morality but to all morality. He did not say that
lightly or flippantly, and neither do I. Morality, the structured
relations of humans with one another, is based on our natural
affinities. It is based upon the fact that we are all human. Human
rights are just that: rights that are based upon our common
natural humanity.
Nature is the basis of all humanity. It must be. Convention is
not enough. Common agreement is not enough. This is a bond to
break down in the face of opposition. Morality is, has been, and
always will be based on our natural condition as fellow members
of the human race, dedicated to self-preservation and the good
functioning of our communities.
Allow me to cite Professor Jaffa again, because he puts this
argument so well. The reason we regard the killing of people as a
personal and societal wrong is because we share a common
nature. The reason we regard the enslavement of people as
wrong and not the enslavement of cattle, for example, is because
we share a common nature with people. That commonality,
which is the basis of all morality, is grounded in nature.
(1810)
Homosexuality, to anyone who has not been brainwashed by
the last decade of effective propaganda by the gay lobby, is
unnatural. It is a repudiation of nature. Nature requires
procreation. Morality must defend the continuation of
humanity. Rights must protect those things that promote the
continuation of our country and of our species. Homosexuality
does none of these things. Homosexuality is nihilistic. It
protects nothing, it defends nothing, it continues nothing, and it
sustains nothing.
The call for so-called gay rights is an example of an extreme
repudiation of nature, an extreme repudiation of morality, an
extreme repudiation of every ground upon which we base human
rights. There lies the irony and there lies the tragedy of the
project our justice minister and his colleagues are embarking on
in Bill C-41 and the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights
Act. There lies the tragedy of the failure of our highest court to
firmly and unequivocally defend morality. There lies the
tragedy of this government's apparent unwillingness to send a
strong message to the courts about the need to protect the family.
Canadians agree with me that we need to protect the family
because Canadians have more sense possibly than the justice
minister, more sense than my colleague from the Bloc, more
sense than my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway. Canadians
understand the importance of the family and of the necessity of
natural relationships to our society.
Canadians may not have the fancy rhetoric or the well
practised if wrong headed arguments of the gay lobby, but they
do have common sense. They have the lessons of history, and
that is what this House should be defending and representing.
Governments have defined the family as a man and a woman
because that works and because we need that sort of family. It is
not because we want to punish someone for not choosing that
lifestyle but because we want to reward those who do. We confer
benefits upon that kind of union because it provides benefits for
us. We have protected that sort of family because it protects our
children and ultimately us.
We legally recognize the natural family because we want to
promote it. We as a society have the right to defend and protect
those institutions that benefit our society. We are under no
obligation to protect and codify into law unions or lifestyles that
confer no societal benefit. And when there is damage that will be
inevitably done to our society and to our shared collective
morality by the legal recognition and therefore promotion of
homosexuality, we are under no obligation to recognize that
lifestyle under law, none whatsoever. We are, however, under an
obligation to protect the family from attacks by special
interests.
13158
Let me finish by saying that I have never in my experience,
inside or outside of this House, heard anyone call for active
discrimination against individual homosexuals. No doubt some
will build strawman arguments by suggesting that the
opponents of the legal recognition of homosexual unions are
in favour of this. That is pure nonsense and pure fear
mongering. That is up to individuals. However, when someone
who prefers living a certain lifestyle that demands of me as a
citizen and a legislator that I codify government support for the
union that lifestyle spawns, then they are asking for me to
approve of, promote, and support that lifestyle. They are asking
for my sanction on that union.
As someone who is dedicated to Canada and to the families of
Canada, you can count me out. I will not support any measure in
law that attempts to make homosexual unions and natural
families equal. My constituents have spoken loud and clear. I,
unlike some members of this House, including the justice
minister, have been listening.
I encourage all Canadians from all over this country to start a
campaign. I urge all Canadians, in the name of the preservation
of our families, to let your MP, the justice minister, and the
Prime Minister know how you feel about the preservation of the
family. Stand up for what works in our country. Stand up for the
family. Fight back with common sense against motions of this
nature.
I urge all hon. colleagues to defeat this motion.
(1815 )
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to look at the exact wording of this motion. I have been
listening to people going off on tangents talking about things
that are absolutely irrelevant to the motion before the House
today. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the measures
necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
There is no such thing in this country at the present time as a
same sex spouse. Spouses are heterosexual. Spouses are
husband and wife either legally married or common law. That is
the legal fact in this country now. The words of the motion are
simply incorrect to begin with. At best the motion should
perhaps read: ``That, in the opinion of this House the
government should take the measures necessary for the legal
recognition of same sex couples''.
What the mover of the motion wants is that same sex couples
be given legal recognition. How? By being called spouses. What
does that mean? It means this motion is calling for this House to
recognize two people of the same sex to be legally married.
There is absolutely no other possible interpretation of this
motion.
The motion calls for the legal recognition of same sex
spouses. We cannot recognize same sex spouses legally unless
we declare them spouses. The only way to declare them spouses
is to marry them. There is absolutely no question at all about
what this motion is calling upon Parliament to do. I do not care
how they try to pretend it does not do this, the words themselves
say it. They want this House to declare homosexual unions as
legal marriages.
What do my constituents say about that proposition? It just so
happens I have asked my constituents that very question. I want
to read one of the questions I asked them. I will not read them all
because I want to keep my comments relevant to the motion we
are discussing, unlike some people who have spoken here. The
question was: Do you want same sex marriages to be legally
recognized as the equivalent of heterosexual marriages-pretty
straightforward-including the right to sponsor same sex
spouses or fiancés for immigration purposes? The answer was
crystal clear: 84 per cent of my constituents said no; 13 per cent
said yes; and 3 per cent were undecided. Eighty-four per cent.
In my respectful submission, there is no poll that could be
taken anywhere in this country that would deviate from those
numbers significantly. That is simply a fact. My constituents do
not want homosexual unions to be recognized as marriages.
It has nothing to do with fear. It has nothing to do with hate. It
has nothing to do with equality. It has nothing to do with
homophobia. It has to do with promoting and giving advantage
to that which promotes and gives advantage to society.
People have talked about inequality. I stand here as a white
male. I admit it and I make no apologies for the fact I was born a
male or that I was born a Caucasian. That is the way I am. The
fact is that everyone in this country is equal under the law. The
charter of rights and freedoms provides that everyone is equal
under the law. There is not a criminal matter, there is nothing
that I am entitled to as a matter of law that no one else is entitled
to.
(1820)
There is often a distinction made or a distinction tried to be
played between a right and a benefit. A benefit is not a right. No
matter how we call it, no matter how we try to disguise it, a
benefit will never become a right. One is not entitled to it as a
matter of right; one is entitled to it after meeting certain criteria.
The debate then has to be as to what kind of benefits we want
to give to what kind of people. We can talk about that as much as
we want but not under the rubric, at least not with logic, of this
motion. This motion is not talking about benefits. This motion is
not talking about equality. This motion is talking plainly and
simply about asking this Parliament to legally recognize same
sex unions as a marriage because there is no other way to legally
recognize same sex spouses.
13159
I repeat that someone cannot be a spouse unless he or she
is married. The only way to recognize same sex spouses is to
recognize the legality of the marriage of same sex spouses. Why
should we not do that?
The Supreme Court has spoken and four of the judges,
including the chief justice, had a few interesting comments to
make. I wish to quote directly from the decision. I am talking
about marriage. That is what we are talking about in this motion.
The decision states: ``Suffice it to say that marriage has from
time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition,
one that is itself a reflection of longstanding philosophical and
religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all
of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social
realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to
procreate, that most children are the product of these
relationships and that they are generally cared for and nurtured
by those who live in that relationship. In this sense'', say these
justices of the Supreme Court, ``marriage is by nature
heterosexual''.
The decision goes on: ``It would be possible to legally define
marriage to include homosexual couples'', which is what this
motion wants. Yes, it would be possible but this would not
change the biological and social realities that underlie the
traditional marriage. We can call a homosexual union what we
want but it is not a marriage. That is what this particular motion
wants.
The court then went on to consider that it is perfectly
legitimate in Canadian society for Canadian society to promote
the traditional heterosexual biological family. There is nothing
wrong in doing that and it is not discrimination according to the
justices.
Why not? I quote again from the judgment: ``The singling out
of legally married and common law couples as the recipients of
benefits necessarily excludes all sorts of other couples living
together, such as brothers and sisters or other relatives
regardless of sex and others who are not related, whatever
reasons these other couples may have for doing so and whatever
their sexual orientation''. Of course it excludes them if we are
promoting the traditional family.
The court goes on to say: ``Homosexual couples, it is true,
differ from other excluded couples in that their relationship
includes a sexual aspect, but this sexual aspect has nothing to do
with the social objectives for which Parliament affords a
measure of support to married couples and those who live in a
common law relationship. In a word, the distinction made by
Parliament is grounded in a social relationship, a social unit that
is fundamental to society and that is the heterosexual biological
traditional family''.
(1825)
The court states homosexual couples are not therefore
discriminated against, that is to say when society provides
benefits to the heterosexual couples. They are simply included
with other types of couples such as brothers and sisters,
boyfriend and girlfriend, two sisters living together who are also
excluded. The court specifically said, at least four of the judges,
that there was no discrimination.
My constituents have spoken clearly no matter how one
pretends to hide what this motion means; it means House of
Commons, declare homosexual unions, marriages under the
laws of Canada.
My constituents have said no. I say no.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by the
hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, asking the
government to take the measures necessary for the legal
recognition of same sex spouses.
I listened carefully to the comments of many members who
oppose the motion. I think we have to put things in their proper
context. The fact is that there are same sex couples engaged in a
relation which is in every way similar to that of heterosexual
couples.
That is the reality. And it is a reality which we must respect,
primarily because these are human beings engaged in an
emotional relationship. These people also happen to be citizens
who have a right to enjoy the same benefits as any other
Canadian, and that includes the provisions of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, which I will discuss later on.
It is essential to keep the notion of respect in mind, otherwise
we quickly fall into stereotyping, an attitude which, for
centuries, has had the effect of marginalizing and stigmatizing
same sex couples. The time has come to put an end to that in
Canada.
In our country, same sex relations were decriminalized in
1968. Consequently, the issue that we are discussing today does
not fall under the Criminal Code. It is absolutely unfair,
demagogic and unacceptable to assimilate the lives of people
engaged in same sex relationships to those of people engaged in
sexual deviations prohibited in the Criminal Code.
In 1968, under Prime Minister Trudeau and justice minister
Turner, homosexual relations stopped being considered a crime
in Canada. We are talking about relations which are accepted in
our society, which are not criminal in any way, and which are
experienced by Canadian citizens.
These Canadians are also entitled to the benefits of the 1982
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. As you know, the
charter prohibits discrimination, specifically discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability. I think that sexual
orientation falls into the same category as the grounds listed in
section 15 of the charter.
13160
In today's society, same sex spouses can use section 15 of
the charter of rights and freedoms to put a stop to any
discrimination against them. I believe that the latest decision
made by the Supreme Court in this area, the Egan decision,
recognized that fact. It indicated that discrimination based on
sexual orientation is similar to all the other types of
discrimination mentioned in section 15 of the charter.
(1830)
Now, could any breach of the charter be justified? I do not
think so. As you know, pursuant to some provisions in the
charter, under some circumstances, some types of
discrimination can be accepted, but I do not think it would apply
to homosexuals, because we do not see how it could be justified.
Why could discrimination based on religion, race, colour or
age be prohibited, but discrimination based on sexual
orientation allowed, when homosexuality has not been illegal in
Canada since 1968? Of course, there is some opposition to this
motion, as we heard from some of the previous speakers, but I
think some members are mixing everything up and are raising
issues which have nothing to do with the motion put forward by
my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
They talk about family and marriage. In the motion before the
House, we are not trying to redefine family or marriage. We are
only trying to put a stop to the discrimination against same sex
spouses in Canada. My colleague is not asking Parliament to
recognize that two individuals of the same sex who live as a
couple constitute a family. He is not asking Parliament to decide
if they are married or not. This issue may be debated at another
time, but the object of today's motion is only to recognize that
two homosexuals having a stable relationship can enjoy the
same benefits the Canadian government and Canadian
legislation give to legally married spouses or common law
partners.
While listening to the previous speakers, I realized that the
arguments they used must be the same arguments that came up
during the debates over the Divorce Act or other bills granting
benefits to common law spouses. They would have said that we
are attacking the family and the whole concept of marriage, but
that is not the case.
Obviously, the legislation concerning divorce in Canada and
giving some benefits to common law spouses have in no way
undermined the concept of family in Canada. I see that my time
is up. I hope I will be able to complete my speech during the
third hour of debate on this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Jonquière is absolutely right. Next time the motion tabled by the
hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is called, he will
have the opportunity to complete his remarks in the third hour of
debate.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
13160
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
because of the amendments to the clean water act recently
passed by the United States house of representatives and in light
of a recent study identifying Canadian and American sources of
dioxins, furans and hexachlorobenzenes which are making their
way into the Great Lakes, on May 19 I asked the Minister of the
Environment what action is being taken to ensure water quality
of the Great Lakes.
The study I am referring to is by Dr. Barry Commoner, at the
Centre for the Biology of Natural Systems in Flushing, New
York. He warns about dioxins and dioxin like compounds
because they are highly toxic chemicals produced by industrial
processes and waste incineration.
These processes have been linked with cancer and are
believed to interfere with the reproductive capacities of many
species. Scientists warn also that dioxins contribute to the rising
levels of breast and testicular cancer and declining sperm counts
in humans.
From the report we learned that the vast majority of the dioxin
deposited in the Great Lakes originates in the United States. We
also learned incineration of medical waste accounts for 51 per
cent of all airborne dioxin entering the lakes. Municipal waste
incinerators account for some 24 per cent and cement kilns
burning hazardous waste account for 4.9 per cent.
Research into dioxin exposure in Canada by researchers at
Boston University's School of Public Health suggests there is no
safe limit of exposure to these toxic chemicals.
In light of Dr. Commoner's findings and recommendations
from the international joint commission in its fifth biennial
report on Great Lakes water quality urging action to stop the
inflow of persistent toxic substances into the Great Lakes, I ask
the minister's parliamentary secretary whether he can inform
the House what the Government of Canada intends to do with
respect to this very serious matter. Does the government intend
to negotiate a reduction of dioxin emissions in the U.S. under the
Canada-U.S. air quality accord?
13161
Measures are needed which will protect the health of
Canadians and North American ecosystems. I look forward to
the parliamentary secretary's reply.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I share the hon. member's deep concern about dioxins
and furans. They are a proven and very important source of
cancer. The sources of dioxins and furans are several: municipal
incinerators, waste incinerators, effluence from steel mills and
pulp mills.
The big problem is that under our main legislation dealing
with toxic substances, the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, we have dealt with dioxins and furans with regard to plant
effluence; however, we have not dealt with air emissions with
regard to dioxins and furans.
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development is now reviewing the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. It is my fervent hope that under the leadership of
the chairman of the committee we will recommend to the
government air emissions be included within the CEPA as soon
as possible.
With respect to the air quality accord with the United States,
the accord effectively provides for a mutual commitment
between the two countries to monitor and control air flows with
regard to air pollution. I commit myself to raising this matter as
soon as possible with the Minister of the Environment to see
what can be done under the air quality accord with the United
States.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)