CONTENTS
Friday, December 2, 1994
Bill C-59. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 8583
Division on motion deferred 8590
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8591
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8593
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8593
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8594
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8596
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8597
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8598
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8598
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8603
8583
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 2, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, this is a very sad day for us
here in this House. One of our own is ill. I hope that our
colleague, Lucien Bouchard, will be in your prayers today.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from December 1 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and
the income tax application rules, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you will understand that having just learned of the
sudden and dreadful illness that has afflicted our leader, we are
all, and particularly those of us who are members of the Bloc
Quebecois, deeply saddened, not to say in shock. I can only hope
that the Leader of the Opposition will make a speedy recovery.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-59, an act to amend
the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules,
because of certain measures it introduces. We are not, however,
opposed to the following provisions of Bill C-59. First, the
permanent renewal of the provision under which money
accumulated in an RRSP can be used to finance the purchase of a
first home. Second, the measure increasing the value, in many
cases, of the charitable donations tax credit. The Bloc
Quebecois is in agreement with this last measure, as it
recognizes the contribution made by charitable donations to the
well-being of the community.
At the present time, taxpayers are entitled to a tax credit
equivalent to 17 per cent of the first $250 of charitable donations
and a tax credit equal to 29 per cent on charitable donations over
$250. The bill before us increases the total value of the tax credit
for charitable donations, while lowering the threshold from
$250 to $200.
(1005)
The third measure that we do not object to is the one that
permits a tax deduction for contributions into mine reclamation
funds by businesses in the mining industry in the year in which
these contributions are made. Such funds are used to cover the
costs incurred when mines are shut down.
However, as a spokesperson for seniors' associations and
organizations in Canada, I have undertaken to ensure that the
social programs review not be reduced to simply making cuts
across the board in programs designed to protect the
disadvantaged, and the aged in particular.
The Bloc Quebecois denounces the fact that, over the next
three years, the federal government will take half a billion
dollars from seniors with this reduction in the age tax credit.
The National Advisory Council on Aging reported the
following regarding the personal disposable income of the
elderly: in 1989, the average income of unattached senior
citizens 65 and over was $16,316, as compared to $23,080 for
their counterparts under 65. An unattached senior citizen is a
person who lives alone or in a household in which he or she is
related to no other member of the household.
In 1992, the average income in unattached senior citizen
households was $18,434, whereas that for other unattached
persons was $25,039. Nearly 21 per cent, or 625,000, of
Canadian senior citizens are considered as low income. The
percentage of low income elderly is always higher than in the
general population.
On March 9, I rose in this House and asked the Minister of
Human Resources Development this question:
By making alarming statements on the old age security system, is the
minister preparing to hit seniors with a considerable cut in their old age
security pensions?
By way of an answer, the Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification simply said that he wanted to ``ensure that there
will be a stable, effective, fair, honest system for seniors in the
future and to make sure that this country can pay for it''.
Allow me to wonder about the meaning of the word ``stable''
used in his reply in relation to seniors, as some tax provisions in
Bill C-59 create a climate of insecurity for seniors.
8584
On September 28, I asked the Minister of Human Resources
Development another question concerning programs for
seniors:
Does the minister still intend to slash programs for seniors in order to
finance other federal government programs?
The minister's reply was this:
Mr. Speaker, it never was our intention, it will not be our intention, la
réponse est non.
The next day, September 29, I rose again in the House of
Commons to say this to the Minister of Finance:
The Minister of Finance turns a deaf ear to public opinion and is using
current consultations to deflect any questions. Senior citizens have often
saved for years to have a decent income in their old age-
The government wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Although the minister has been stalling for several days, he will have to make
a decision. Seniors hope he will select the only fair option: no taxation of
RRSPs.
Bill C-59 clearly penalizes those most in need. Seniors have
worked hard all their lives. We should be grateful to them for
being pioneers.
In the last budget, the federal government decided to reduce
the age credit. All taxpayers aged 65 and up can apply for a tax
credit equal to 17 per cent of $3,482 at the federal level and to 20
per cent of $2,200 in Quebec. This credit is non-refundable, that
is, it applies to the tax payable and there can be no refund on the
excess portion.
(1010)
The credit reduces federal income tax by about $610 a year for
all seniors who have to pay income tax. In most provinces,
including Quebec, this credit also reduces provincial income
tax. The combined reduction of federal and provincial income
tax averages about $950; in Quebec, it is about $1,050: $610 in
federal tax and $440 for Quebec.
The change made by the latest budget would reduce this credit
for seniors whose net income exceeds $25,921, the current
threshold for other income-dependent credits. This threshold
will be indexed to the annual increase in consumer prices over 3
per cent. The credit will be reduced by 15 per cent of an
individual's net income over $25,921 and will be completely
eliminated when his or her income reaches $49,100.
This measure will be phased in over two years. In 1994, the
reduction will be half the amount calculated and the total
reduction will apply starting in 1995.
According to the finance department, this measure will affect
800,000 out of 2.6 million seniors, including 600,000 seniors
whose income is between $25,921 and $49,134 and 200,000
whose income is over $49,134.
Although the finance department estimated that the credit
cost the federal government $1.3 billion in 1991, the expected
savings are as follows: $20 million in 1994-95, $170 million in
1995-96 and $300 million in 1996-97.
By tightening the program conditions for seniors, the
government is just lowering their income and making them feel
insecure.
Furthermore, the government still stubbornly insists on
penalizing seniors by proposing to install voice mail systems to
answer inquiries from seniors. On May 10, I asked the minister
responsible for seniors about using voice mail to answer
inquiries from seniors. The minister simply told us about how
fast the proposed service was. I explained that many seniors
were reluctant to use this type of service, as the representative of
the seniors' federation said clearly on their behalf. At the
beginning of the period when we present petitions, I will have
several petitions to table on this subject.
On May 11, 1994, I raised the issue again by asking this
question in the House:
-why does the federal government insists on attacking senior citizens,
considering that most of them find it very difficult to deal with a system that
is so impersonal?
The minister's response was both disarming and unacceptable.
He said that the program would be more efficient and
personalized, and that it would provide better service to seniors.
The implementation of a centralized telephone answering
system using voice mail to answer every request for information
from seniors regarding government services will have a major
impact on the quality of services provided to these people.
The Liberal Party was the first one to oppose cuts affecting
programs for seniors. The government did not keep its promises.
After targeting the age credit, cutting into old age pensions,
scaring seniors with the announcement of a review of the
Canada Pension Plan, the government now has the audacity to
try to tax RRSPs. Every available source of income for seniors
will be adversely affected and the federal government does not
guarantee anything any more to people who saved money
throughout their lives to have decent retirement incomes.
This fear among seniors is prevalent right across the country. I
recently met with a delegation representing various associations
for seniors, and I was told about their concerns regarding the
government's proposed cuts to seniors' programs. I am referring
more specifically to the old age pensioners' association, which
was represented by its president, Mr. Grabke, its director of
public relations, Mr. Ben Swankey, and its chairperson, Mrs.
Marjory Kingsbury.
(1015)
This association is the oldest organization in English Canada
and has nearly 10,000 members in about 100 groups throughout
British Columbia.
8585
The position of the seniors in these groups was expressed as
follows by their representatives.
[English]
``The position of seniors is that our generation made a lifelong
contribution to building our country and we believe strongly
that Canada should continue to provide a measure of security for
seniors in their declining years''.
[Translation]
On December 1, here on Parliament Hill, I also met
representatives of the coalition of seniors for social equity. The
association which has a membership of about 500,000 senior
citizens, submitted a brief on the income of seniors: Myth or
Reality. The coalition expressed the need for wide ranging
consultations and planning, involving both government and
seniors groups, before any changes were made in the old age
security program.
Mr. André Lécuyer, a spokesman for francophone seniors,
stressed that it was important to give people time to plan and
adjust to changes in the system. According to Mr. Lécuyer, the
public had been led to believe that the government could save
more money than it does now, by cutting income security
programs for seniors.
The spokesman for the coalition and president of the Federal
Superannuates National Association, Mr. Claude Edwards, said
during this press conference that they were not prepared to sit
idle at a time when the very foundation of their superannuation
plan was cracking. He said it was like buying insurance during
one's working life and, upon retirement, being told by the
insurance company that the policy had been cancelled and the
money was no longer available. Why tax seniors?
And what about family trusts? According to some tax experts,
wealthy Canadian families use family trusts as a special tax
planning tool. Assets in trusts are not subject to capital gains tax
for several decades, which means that these families are able to
protect part of their family inheritance from one generation to
the next. The family trust system introduced in 1972 by the
Trudeau government, provided for the disposition of assets in
trust after 21 years, which means in 1993, for instance, in the
case of trusts created before 1973.
The Bloc Quebecois has nothing against the principle of
family trusts but objects to their use as tax shelters. For instance,
the Bloc Quebecois objects to the carrying forward of capital
gains tax to the next generation. Furthermore, we want the
government to reveal the figures on the value of assets and
family trusts and the amount of tax revenue lost by deferring
capital gains.
Why is the government so hard on the most vulnerable in our
society who have worked all their lives and deserve a decent
quality of life?
Bill C-59 is unacceptable in its present form because, as a
result of certain measures introduced in this bill, the most
vulnerable in our society will be penalized.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is a sad day for parliamentarians, a sad day for Quebec and
a sad day for Canada. Our thoughts today are with our hon.
colleague, the Leader of the Opposition who is courageously
fighting a very serious personal battle. I wanted to begin my
comments by letting him know that our prayers are with him, his
family and his children. All Canadians are with him.
(1020 )
I am pleased to join in the debate and to support Bill C-59.
There are several aspects of the legislation and how it relates to
our overall tax system that deserve comment and clarification.
Let me emphasize that our government knows full well
Canadians believe taxes are already too high and we agree with
them. That is why our priority objectives are to stimulate
economic growth while putting in place real fiscal discipline. It
is this double-barrelled thrust that will ultimately allow us to
reduce taxes in the years ahead.
Let us remember that the tax deficit relationship is a two-way
street. Every dollar of deficit borrowing we accept today will
axiomatically lead to higher taxes tomorrow. Every dollar we
can trim from the deficit, preferably through spending cuts but
also through tax measures if need be is a step on the road to
keeping the tax burden down.
That is why our government's 1994 budget was in many ways
a tax reform and a tax reduction budget. It included measures to
eliminate loopholes and increase tax system fairness and equity.
It also committed to direct action to bring down unemployment
insurance premiums which is a payroll tax that acts as a real
barrier to new job creation.
It was also a tax reduction budget because of the firm
commitment made by the Minister of Finance to cut the deficit
to 3 per cent of the economy in three years. Again, let me make
this central point. Fiscal discipline is the key to long term tax
reductions in two key ways.
Obviously the less we have to borrow the less we have to tax
to repay the loan and its interest, but there is another important
dimension to this process. Controlling government's appetite
for debt is our fundamental tool for getting interest rates back
down. Lower interest rates mean lower carrying costs on our
$500 billion debt. Again that means fewer tax dollars we need to
spend.
I understand the concern some Canadians may feel about
measures that add to tax revenues today in order to let us cut
taxes in the future. We know the tax fatigue felt by so many. That
is why the 1994 budget undertook a program of net spending
reduction over three years. That is the most significant of any
budget in a decade.
8586
Over 80 per cent of the net fiscal improvement delivered by
the 1994 budget over three years comes from spending cuts. In
other words there are $5 of spending cuts for every $1 of revenue
increase.
There is another aspect of our approach I must highlight. The
net savings of $17 billion we will achieve in spending cuts
comes after paying for our new initiatives. Some $6.7 billion in
current federal program spending was reallocated to encourage
growth, create jobs and to fund new priorities.
So far I have touched on the broad budgetary context of Bill
C-59. Now let me comment on some of the specific aspects of
the legislation and how it relates to the tax system and to other
issues.
Clearly the most contentious part of the legislation is the
measure to subject the age credit to an income test. Let me
remind hon. members how this will work. Under the existing tax
system Canadian seniors 65 years and over are eligible for
special tax relief in the form of an age credit. It results in a
combined federal-provincial tax reduction of about $950 per
year. It is critical to note that under Bill C-59 individuals with
net incomes below $25,921 will retain their full credit. That
represents three-quarters of all seniors; 2.6 million seniors will
not be affected.
But what about the 800,000 seniors who will feel an impact?
Like our tax system itself, the effect will be progressive. For
individuals with net incomes above the threshold, the age
amount will be reduced at a rate of 15 per cent of their net
incomes exceeding $25,921. The threshold will be indexed.
(1025)
The bottom line is that most of those who will be affected will
continue to receive partial benefits. In fact, only about 6 per cent
of seniors, some 200,000, will no longer receive benefits
because their incomes exceed $49,134, the threshold at which
the benefits will be exhausted.
Let me just step aside for a second and give a context to that
threshold. In 1992 only 10 per cent of all Canadians filing tax
returns had incomes over $50,000. I should also point out that
the reduction will be phased in over two years. For 1994 the
reduction will be one-half of the amount otherwise determined.
As well, the age credit will remain transferable to a spouse.
Let me now turn to the measures in Bill C-59 to eliminate the
$100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. As was said in the
House yesterday, this exemption has been subject to much
criticism. It distorts the tax system, totally exempting certain
gains while taxing others. It also gives our tax system the real
sense of being inequitable because it mostly benefits high
income Canadians.
Let me highlight just one aspect of the dilemma. In 1992 there
were some 12,000 Canadians out of the 19.4 million tax filers
who earned $50,000 or more yet paid no income tax. A wide
range of allowable tax deductions and credits made it possible
for these people to eliminate their tax liability. Figures show
that over 4,700 people in this group, some 40 per cent, used their
lifetime capital gains deduction to reduce their tax payable.
I am not suggesting that those Canadians did anything wrong.
But there is a real public policy problem, a philosophical wrong
at work when millions of less affluent taxpayers see those
well-off individuals escape taxation completely.
The bill will be an important step in helping to restore
Canadians' faith in tax equity. It will help prevent some people
from feeling any justification for their tax evasion, an important
goal when the Auditor General reports billions of dollars of
unpaid taxes.
The issue of tax system fairness and the ability to avoid taxes
leads me directly to other measures of Bill C-59, those related to
the corporate sector. There are many Canadians today who feel
that the business sector receives preferential treatment
compared to the individual taxpayer.
It is worth noting that people often focus on the corporate
income tax and do not recognize the many other taxes that
businesses must pay. They include provincial corporate income
taxes, capital and insurance premium taxes, payroll levies such
as UI premiums, Canada and Quebec pension plan
contributions, workmen's compensation premiums, and
municipal property taxes.
In fact in 1993 Canadian corporations paid some $51 billion
in such taxes, about $21 billion to the federal government and
$30 billion to the provincial and municipal governments. That
being said, the perception of corporate welfare bums still
remains in many minds. People still read of profitable
corporations paying no tax. They believe there are still too many
loopholes and deductions that are not justified given our serious
national debt problem.
Bill C-59 takes new steps to reduce deductions and eliminate
loopholes that were clearly violating the spirit of a fair tax
system. For example, the bill will reduce the tax deduction for
eligible business meals and entertainment expenses from 80 per
cent to 50 per cent. This measure will make the tax system fairer
by helping to ensure that all businesses, large and small, pay an
appropriate share of tax. It also better reflects the element of
personal consumption that we believe is inherent in such
expenses.
(1030 )
I should reiterate a key point made by the government's
opening speaker. This measure is consistent with recent
reductions of business meals and entertainment expense
deductions in Ontario, Quebec and the United States.
8587
The legislation also proposes to restrict the use of certain tax
shelters. These are ones where limited or passive investors in a
partnership have been able to claim tax deductible losses and/or
to receive cash distributions that actually exceed the cost of
their investment.
Similarly Bill C-59 will also curtail the use of the tax
avoidance technique known as a purchase butterfly. Let me
remind members of how this flighty corporate provision has
functioned.
Current federal tax rules permit corporate property to be
divided pro rata among its shareholders on a tax deferred basis.
This assists the splitting up of a corporation so that the
shareholders can continue to carry on separately the
corporation's business.
In recent years, unfortunately, the rules have been used to
avoid or defer tax on the sale of corporate assets. In May 1993
the government introduced rules to curtail cross border purchase
butterfly transactions. Bill C-59 proposes to modify these rules
and extend them to all purchase butterflies.
The final measure I want to highlight is the proposal to make
large private corporations ineligible for the small business
deduction. In today's new economy small business is the major
job creator. It is a sector that deserves effective targeted support.
Unfortunately under the existing rules this support was also
going to larger firms, companies that do not have a reasonable
claim on the limited public and taxpayers' purse.
The small business deduction recognizes the special
financing difficulties and higher capital costs faced by the vital
small business sector. The deduction lowers the basic federal tax
rate on the first $200,000 of active business income of Canadian
controlled private corporations from 28 per cent to 12 per cent, a
reduction of 16 percentage points.
This lower tax rate provides small corporations with more
after tax income for reinvestment and expansion. Regrettably
under the current rules, some very large corporations are also
obtaining this benefit. The proposed rule changes will make
large corporations, those with taxable capital of $15 million or
more, ineligible for the small business deduction. As well, the
rule changes will reduce the deduction for corporations having
taxable capital between $10 million and $15 million.
Let me acknowledge that Bill C-59 will not in itself resolve
Canada's fiscal problems nor restore equity throughout the tax
system. Those are the goals that will only be met by consistent,
continuous effort, effort our government is committed to
delivering.
Bill C-59 does take valuable steps in both directions,
measures to broaden the tax base for fiscal renewal and even
more important, measures to improve the fairness and efficiency
of the tax system itself. On both counts it deserves the full
support of the House.
As I said, Bill C-59 in itself is not going to change or fix all
our problems. We do need a continuous and consistent effort to
deal with the deficit and the debt.
I want to spend the remaining moments of my time to review
very briefly some of the initiatives that the government and the
finance minister have brought forward in preparation for our
next budget.
On October 17, 1994, the finance minister came before the
finance committee of the House of Commons and outlined the
framework for economic policy. I want to remind hon. members
of the first principles that the finance minister articulated for all
members.
(1035 )
He said: ``First, we have one overriding goal as a government,
that is jobs and economic growth. Second, good economic
policy and good social policy are one and the same. Third, a
country that is to continue to care for its citizens must be a
country that can pay its bills, and, fourth, we need to create a
new infrastructure for a Canada of ideas and innovation''.
Finally he said that government itself must change. A
government cannot or should not do everything. Responsibility
should lie with those who are best able to do the job.
We have had changes in the world economy. We are now in a
strong economic recovery. Jobs are being created. The job crisis
is not just about a recession or a cycle. It is a global epidemic.
The world economy is truly integrated. Trade barriers are now
gone. Communications are instant. Transportation is efficient.
Markets never close and of course information technology is
exploding. All this spells competition and opportunity. To be
successful we need to upgrade our skills to fit a knowledge
based economy. In addition we must reform our social and
income support programs upon which so many Canadians have
become dependent.
The fiscal track we have been on is unsustainable, not because
of ideology but because of its mathematical reality. The only
answer to our job dilemma is sustained substantial economic
growth. That growth requires improved productivity in terms of
ingenuity, better management and paying attention to the
common sense workers.
High productivity increases incomes and contributes to a
higher standard of living for all Canadians. To improve our
productivity we must also improve our skills.
During the social program review and in the budget review it
has become clear that we will and we are reviewing all
programs. Rather than trying to fix everything by ourselves we
are also trying to facilitate solutions in partnerships with
business, industry, and Canadians at large.
8588
We must also continue to clean up federal regulations which
cost businesses billions of dollars. We must create a healthy
fiscal and monetary climate. We must restore our fiscal health
and deal with the deficit and the debt. As we know the debt is
growing faster than the economy and that is unsustainable. As
the finance minister and the Prime Minister have told us on so
many occasions, our goal is to balance the budget.
As an interim target the government is committed to reduce
the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by the 1996-97 year. We are
going to hit that target.
Finally let me highlight the principles guiding our choices in
the 1995 budget as represented to the finance committee on
October 18. He said that deficit reduction is an integral part of
jobs and growth strategy. Fairness, and I stress fairness, is
paramount so the most vulnerable in our society will not be left
behind. Deficit reduction must be selective and strategic,
reflecting clear priorities and not simply a mathematical across
the board approach.
Budgetary action should weigh on the side of cuts and
expenditures and not increased taxes. Economic assumptions
must be prudent to stimulate confidence that deficit targets will
be achieved.
We have $120 billion that the government spends on
programs, one-third of which went to individuals in the form of
elderly or UI benefits, transfers to Indians or to the Inuit.
Twenty-five per cent of transfers were to other levels of
government, ten per cent to business subsidies, international
assistance, et cetera, and nine per cent to defence. All aspects of
our program spending will be reviewed.
This is the commitment of the government. This is the
direction established by the 1994 budget. This is the direction
supported by Bill C-59.
(1040 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to rise for debate on Bill C-59, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act and the income tax application rules.
Before getting into my speech, I want to say that I am deeply
concerned for the health and welfare of the Leader of the
Opposition as I know all my colleagues are. I want him and his
family to know that our thoughts and prayers are with him
through this ordeal. We sincerely wish him the very best.
I am going to speak against the bill today for reasons I will
talk about later. I would like to first summarize the bill. As I do
that I will point out the positive and negative aspects as I see
them. I will outline why I will not support the legislation. Then I
will briefly talk about what the government should have done
instead of putting these changes in place.
To summarize, the bill has 12 main points. First is the
elimination of the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. I
believe this is the most significant change in the bill. I will
discuss it later.
Second, it extends employee benefits to include the first
$25,000 of life insurance. Reform supports this measure. I
support this measure because it harmonizes employer funded
plans with private plans.
The third aspect dealt with in the bill is the age tax credit. It
reduces the amount of credit based on an individual's income
level. It provides for income testing which I believe is
something we need in this tough financial crisis we are facing
right now. It provides a clawback of credits that begins at
$26,000 and ends at $50,000 when the credit is fully clawed
back. We support this measure because it moves away from
universality, benefiting those most in need. This is something
we have to move to in the times we are in.
The fourth aspect is extending the homebuyers plan
indefinitely for first time buyers. While I support this to some
extent I do have some concern with it. It is discriminating
against second and third time buyers and so on. One thing I do
not like to see in the income tax system is measures that
encourage and give special preference to one group and not to
others. While I support the idea and think it will be productive, I
do have some concerns for these reasons.
Fifth is the area of charitable donation tax credits. It lowers
the threshold at which the tax credit is calculated. The amount is
now 17 per cent of the first $250 donated and 29 per cent for
anything over $250. The change lowers the threshold for the 29
per cent benefit to $200. This is an acceptable change.
The sixth change is a reduction in the business meals and
entertainment expense allowance from 80 per cent to 50 per
cent. I support the elimination of this measure which I believe
has been a subsidy to business to some extent. I believe the meal
allowance is due to some extent at least a double-up on an
expense that would normally be there in the life of other
individuals who are not carrying out business. I agree with the
lowering of this level to 50 per cent from 80 per cent.
Seventh, in terms of tax shelters and partnership interests, it
requires limiting the amount to passive partners. It really deals
with the issue of using partnership interests for tax shelters. I
believe this change will correct a loophole that Reform has seen
and we support it for that reason.
Eighth, the device of corporate recognition closes tax
loopholes. This loophole has allowed capital gains on
disposition of corporate assets to be avoided in certain
circumstances. Because it is being removed we support it.
8589
(1045)
The ninth measure, the investment in research and
development tax credit, reduces regional disparity in certain
credit schemes and distortions in the tax regime. Because it
removes these disparities in the distortion we support it as well.
The tenth amendment is the expenditure limit on scientific
research and development. It prorates the expenditure limit for a
Canadian controlled private corporation and is based on the
corporation's business limit for the year. It seems that it would
make sense although we have some concern about that as well.
The eleventh measure reduces the small business deduction
available to Canadian controlled private corporations with
taxable capital over $10 million but under $15 million. These
changes ensure that only small businesses can avail themselves
of this deduction which was intended for small business in the
first place. At least it is moving the deduction toward the more
common or more accepted definition of small business. We
support the measure for that reason.
The final change is to the mine reclamation fund. This results
in lower taxes and provides for environmental clean-up. It is
something that Reform expects in any business venture. Part of
the business analysis before start-up should involve
environmental reclamation in the case of mines or should
involve figuring the cost of putting the environment in as near to
the original condition as possible. Reform supports that.
Why does the Reform Party not support the legislation? The
main reason is that the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption is
being removed. This is a serious impediment to the build-up of
wealth in Canada. To me that is a large concern.
Yesterday and the day before I attended a conference in
Toronto. It was called Hitting the Wall and was sponsored by the
Fraser Institute. There were speakers from several countries
who were seized very much with the situation in countries like
Canada that had refused to deal with the situation until it became
a crisis.
One of the things that was talked about at the conference was
the fact that it is very important to have savings in a country,
especially a country like Canada that is seriously facing the very
real possibility, in fact probability according to these speakers
who had lived through this in other countries, of Canada being
cut off in terms of bond issues to other countries.
It is a very real possibility. I will talk a little later about how
the different speakers dealt with this issue and their thoughts on
it. If there comes a time, and I believe there will come a time,
that Canada issues a bond and there are no takers, we have a
crisis. Our savings in Canada have been declining. It used to be
that the United States had the lowest percentage of savings in the
OECD countries. Now Canada has surpassed the United States
in having the lowest savings level in the OECD. The United
States which is notorious for having low savings now has been
outstripped by Canada in winning that honour.
When the time comes that we have no takers on our bonds
from outside the country, we will then we have to rely solely on
Canadians to finance any additional debt and to finance
payments on our present debt. What does it mean if savings are
decreasing? It means there is that much less money available to
finance the new debt and the new money that Canada has to
borrow just to continue to keep the country operating. Therefore
there is less money available.
Speakers at the conference made it known that it gives us less
margin to react come the time when our bonds will no longer be
accepted. There were speakers at the conference who deal in
offering and buying Canadian bonds. One individual worked for
a Japanese corporation. When asked he said that his corporation
probably would continue to fund Canada's debt through bonds,
but not because Canada is a good risk. In fact this gentleman said
very clearly that Canada is a very bad risk. But his corporation
will continue to buy bonds because Canada will pay the risk
premium that is necessary for its investors to be willing to buy
them.
(1050)
Another reason is that the proportion of Canadian bonds held
by this huge bonding company, of which this gentleman is the
chief economist, is 3 per cent of its portfolio. Because of the
high risk premium, in other words the high interest rates Canada
must pay to maintain this foreign debt, this company will
continue to finance these bonds for now.
However this gentleman said there could well come a time
when the financial situation will be so bad that Canada will not
be able to fund our debt from without. It could be very soon.
That is why it is extremely important we have savings in the
country to at least tide us over until we can make some kind of an
arrangement with the International Monetary Fund to deal with
the crisis, get some intermediate funding and work out an
arrangement to work through the crisis which is caused by debt
that is out of hand and government spending which is out of
hand.
At this conference several things came across very clearly.
First, most of the speakers at the conference said that Canada is
in a very serious situation right now. Two of the speakers said
they thought government would not deal with the problem. In
other words they said Canada will hit the wall. It means that our
economy and this country will go into a crisis situation. We will
not be able to obtain financing from outside the country.
Both of these speakers were very clear in saying that it does
not have to be like that, but that history has shown that is what
happens. The history of Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Chile, Mexico
and New Zealand among other countries has shown this. These
are countries that had well developed economies, much like
8590
Canada's. However history has shown that governments in well
developed countries will not deal with the problem.
Two speakers said we are going to hit the wall, our economy is
going to collapse. Most speakers said we do not have to. The
telltale time will be the finance minister's next budget. If he
comes out with a budget that cuts spending, that will lead to a
balanced budget in a very short time, then we will avoid this
crisis.
These speakers were not confident that will happen. They said
we certainly can avoid it. But this next budget is the last chance.
They made that very clear.
One speaker told a story about our finance minister. He said
our finance minister had gone to the doctor because he had a
serious hearing problem. The doctor said: ``Your hearing
problem is directly related to the fact that you are drinking a
little too much. You have to cut your drinking down and that will
fix the hearing problem''. The finance minister went away and
came back several months later. The doctor asked: ``Have you
quit drinking?'' The finance minister said: ``Yes, I have. I did
quit drinking but I found that what I was drinking was much
better than what I was hearing, so I started drinking again''.
I hope sincerely that is not the case, that is not the way the
finance minister will react to this crisis and that he will come
down with the budget we need next February. It is our last
chance to avoid this crisis.
Increases in taxation will not solve the problem. A decrease in
government spending will. This is our last chance. Let there be
no doubt about it.
(1055 )
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded
division stands deferred until Monday, December 5, 1994, at
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the vote be further deferred from Monday until
Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Speaker: Members have heard the hon. member's
suggestion. Is there unanimous agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8590
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members and all Canadians
that, as citizens of Canada and citizens of the world, each and
everyone of us is responsible for protecting our precious natural
heritage and for transmitting it to future generations.
[English]
Each year the Environmental Achievement Awards recognize
the special contribution Canadians have made toward protecting
and restoring the integrity of our natural environment.
[Translation]
The 1994 winners of the Environmental Achievement
Awards, the finalists and the candidates, are an outstanding
example of how we all, individually or as a group, can make a
difference.
[English]
Special congratulations are in order, Mr. Speaker, for yourself
and all the employees of the House of Commons. The House
received an Environmental Achievement Award yesterday,
recognizing its environmental leadership within the federal
government for its program ``Greening the Hill'', an initiative
designed to incorporate environmental considerations into its
daily operations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
recently,
Le Radar, the Magdalen Islands newspaper, published
an editorial that was very critical of the Minister of the
Environment for her attitude to the refloating of the
Irving
Whale. The barge is lying on the bottom of the sea between the
Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island, with three million
litres of oil in its hold.
8591
The people of the Islands are alarmed at the prospect of this
very risky operation to refloat the barge, especially since two
sea birds were recently found covered in oil, on the beaches of
the Islands.
The Regroupement des Madelinots has demanded that the
Minister of Transport reconsider the decision to refloat the
barge and adopt a safer method, consisting of pumping and
refloating.
Why is the government so reluctant to listen to these people
who are afraid that an ecological disaster could threaten the
fragile ecosystem of the Islands? What is it waiting for?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to express the deep concern of all members of
the Reform Party for the current health crisis the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean is facing.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife and family as they
deal with this serious situation.
We want our colleagues in the Bloc to know that we share their
concern for the health of their leader. While we do not share the
same political views, there is no question of the member's
sincerity and dedication to his cause and those who support him.
Good health and a loving family are far too often taken for
granted as we deal with life each day. It is the suddenness of
something like this that serves to remind all Canadians of how
fragile our hold on good health really is.
We in Reform wish the member for Lac-Saint-Jean a speedy
recovery so that he may return to his family. We look forward to
his return to the House.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice for making good on the
government's promise to fight crime with tough gun control
legislation.
The vast majority of my constituents of Parkdale-High Park
welcome mandatory prison sentences for those who commit
violent crimes with a gun. We welcome mandatory jail terms for
those caught in possession of stolen or restricted firearms. All
Canadians are pleased to see that gun smugglers will serve up to
10 years.
Tougher gun control is just one part of the government's
commitment to safer streets and safer homes. Personal safety is
in everyone's interest. If this legislation will save one life it will
be worth the time, the effort and the cost of the program.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again the city of Guelph has made history. On
November 29 the Police Services Board announced the
appointment of the first woman to head a city police force in
Canada.
I join my constituents in congratulating Lenna Bradburn on
her appointment. Ms. Bradburn becomes police chief at age 34.
She is described as extremely intelligent, extremely innovative
and extremely productive. She was chosen largely because of
her innovative ideas on strategic planning and community
policing.
On December 19 Lenna Bradburn becomes chief of police and
will lead Guelph's 142 officer force for the next five years. The
city of Guelph and the residents of Guelph-Wellington
welcome Chief Lenna Bradburn and wish her much success in
this challenging position.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
I would like to take a few moments today to recognize some
very courageous people in my constituency. Earlier this month
they were honoured with the NWT Commissioner's award for
bravery.
Moses Aliyak of Rankin Inlet received the award for bravery
at the highest level for rescuing his wife and nephew from a
polar bear attack.
Three Cambridge Bay residents, Peter Evalik, Richard Evalik
and Grant Corey, also received the award at the highest level.
They saved the lives of two women in a burning house by
crawling through heavy smoke to find them and get them to
safety.
Dennis Klengenberg and Kevin Niptanatiak of Coppermine
received letters of commendation for rescuing each other after
their snow machine broke through the ice near the mouth of the
Coppermine River.
With great pride and admiration I salute these heroes of the
north.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some
important aspects contained in the report of the panel of experts
8592
on the safety of the blood system in Canada were revealed
yesterday after being leaked to the press.
Several complaints and fears expressed by a number of groups
were confirmed in the report. The experts noted a manifest lack
of consistency in the work done by Health Canada's Bureau of
Biologics, which is responsible for controlling the quality of
blood products and facilities at the seventeen transfusion
centres of the Canadian Red Cross.
This proves how reluctant the Minister of Health is to take the
present situation seriously. The minister prefers to let the
provinces take the blame for this mess and, instead of doing
what she is supposed to do, has tolerated these lax procedures at
the Bureau of Biologics. It is high time the minister acted
responsibly and tightened up the standards and their application.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in July of this year an RCMP officer in my constituency caught
Ian David Martin crossing into Canada illegally.
This 200-pound man lunged at the officer, knocking her down
and wrestling away her service revolver. Just before he could
shoot the officer a private citizen by the name of Klaus Soth
stopped his car and intervened. Though threatened with death he
bravely continued to reason with the assailant until they could
both escape. Subsequently the criminal torched the police car,
causing $41,000 worth of damage.
For these grievous crimes he received a slap on the wrist of 15
months. He may be paroled by Christmas. Mr. Martin also had a
smuggled .357 magnum revolver on his person.
If the government would have followed Reform's prescription
a year ago and put in place automatic sentences for the
commission of crimes while using a gun, this dangerous man
could have been put away for years instead of months.
Our current system mocks justice and declares open season on
police officers by allowing criminals to act with virtual
impugnity.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has launched the first ever comprehensive review of
social security programs.
To say the least, this has been long overdue. Canadians realize
that the social safety net no longer meets the needs of those in
need. Not enough emphasis is placed on ending the cycle of
dependence on poverty.
This is particularly true in Atlantic Canada. That region
desperately needs better access to higher education and training
programs to help people get jobs that last.
Atlantic Canada has a seasonal economy. Agriculture,
tourism and fishing are our largest industries and will remain so
for a long time. In redesigning the unemployment insurance
program and other social programs, I urge the minister to
remember the seasonal foundation of our economy.
I am confident this government will design a package that will
help us move beyond a seasonal economy and that seasonal
workers will not be left behind.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 16, 1992 I had the honour of introducing in the House
two very important bills. Bill C-365 considered crossbows
dangerous weapons and recommended that they be prohibited.
Bill C-366 sought to prohibit the sale and use of replica guns
that might be mistaken as a real weapon and used in crime.
These bills came about as the result of major crimes in our
community. On behalf of the victims of these crimes, in
particular Patricia Allen's family and friends, I want to
congratulate the Minister of Justice in committing this
government to taking action on the banning of these two items.
The people in my community are solidly behind the minister's
bold, progressive and dynamic approach to addressing the issues
of crime and community safety.
I would also like to take a moment to thank my former staff
member, Mike Bonser, who worked very hard on these two bills,
and my current staff for their continued support and hard work.
As members know, an MP without staff is like a bird without
wings. I thank all MPs' staff for making our job a lot easier.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in October the Minister of Human Resources
Development released a discussion paper entitled: ``Improving
Social Security in Canada''. This document outlined the
government's options for improving Canada's social programs.
To ensure that the people of my Dauphin-Swan River riding
had input into the changes being made, I sponsored four public
forums as part of the public consultation process. I am pleased to
report that the forums were a complete success.
8593
The participants represented a cross-section of the riding.
The discussions were thoughtful and constructive. A variety of
very good ideas were brought to the table. Today I will be
providing the minister and the standing committee with the
report that summarizes these very valuable ideas.
I strongly recommend to all members of this House who have
not yet met with their constituents about this important issue to
do so.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many
Canadians are demanding that the government increase its
efforts to reduce the deficit. We must cut the deficit now while
the economy is still expanding. The government does not appear
to be listening, but maybe it will listen to the latest news.
The International Monetary Fund is also disappointed by the
government's deficit reduction targets. A confidential IMF
report said that it would be appropriate to plan on the basis of a
more ambitious medium term target in the 1995-96 budget, with
a view to accelerating fiscal consolidation the next few years.
Along with the IMF, market watchers are becoming uneasy
with the federal government's 3 per cent target. Last month
witnessed the largest sell off of foreign held Canadian securities
since the eve of the Charlottetown accord.
When will this government get the message that 3 per cent is
not enough? The debt clock today is $540,471,337,554.19.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind all Canadians that this week
is National Road Safety Week. It is important that all motorists
in this country realize the importance of safe driving.
[Translation]
Last Monday, I had the misfortune to be involved in a traffic
accident. I emerged with a broken nose, a few bruises and a good
scare. The woman driving the second vehicle was also slightly
injured.
I can tell you that the fact that I was wearing a seat belt
probably saved my life. There are far too many deaths in
Canada. A number of lives could be saved simply by the use of
seatbelts.
(1110)
It is my keen hope that this message will be heard by the
public and that National Road Safety Week will be a reminder to
motorists that safety on the roads is in their hands. I repeat my
message: we must all be on our guard when driving.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice has indicated his desire to enact
stringent gun control measures that will primarily affect
law-abiding citizens and will do little to address the criminal
use of guns.
I fully support several measures which call for increased
penalties for the trafficking of illegal weapons and certainty of
sentencing for weapons offences. However, I caution the
Minister of Justice to bear in mind that of all homicides
committed between 1961 and 1990, less than 1 per cent were
committed with legally owned handguns. As a result the
registration of all firearms will be of little value in attempting to
reduce crime and it will be the law-abiding citizens who will
bear the brunt of this legislation.
The reality is we have a serious crime problem, not a serious
gun problem. The principle of the protection of life and property
of every Canadian citizen must be the number one priority when
considering all legislation pertaining to our criminal justice
system. I trust the Minister of Justice will bear this in mind.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in the House the member for London West was asking a very
serious question of the Minister of Justice about violence
against women and I quote: ``Most of the violence women
experience is in their homes and at the hands of men they know.
What measures is the minister taking to protect women from
violence?''
A male member from the Reform Party clearly shouted out:
``Give them .32s,'' a shameful display of disrespect-
The Speaker: My colleagues, this matter was dealt with
yesterday on a point of order. At that time I heard both sides. I
would say that this statement is coming back on a point of order
that I declared closed. This statement is out of order.
8594
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard, our leader and our friend, is
right now engaged in a human drama, the intensity of which we
can scarcely imagine. We are powerless before this tragic event
and must rely completely on medicine and on providence.
But we want him to know that we are all with him in spirit,
that our thoughts and our energies accompany him. All the
members of this House, and the members of the Bloc Quebecois
in particular, wish to express their support to his family,
especially his mother, his wife Audrey and his two children,
Alexandre and Simon. Lucien Bouchard is a man who has
devoted all his energy and all his talent to the cause of the people
of Quebec and today, in his personal struggle, the people of
Quebec are behind him.
_____________________________________________
8594
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.
The board of directors of Hibernia has really thumbed its nose
at the Prime Minister-a move with very serious political
consequences-by refusing his request to review its decision to
award a contract without tender to Saint John Shipbuilding. In
doing so, the Hibernia board is maintaining its original decision
which violates all the rules for awarding contracts.
Does the acting Prime Minister maintain the position of the
Prime Minister, who said that the contract should not have been
awarded directly to Saint John Shipbuilding?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): First of
all, Mr. Speaker, before answering the hon. member's question,
let me say that our thoughts and prayers go out to the Leader of
the Opposition and his family. We pray that he will recover and
regain his health. I think that I speak not only for my colleagues
but for all Canadians.
[English]
I was in agreement with what the Prime Minister said when he
made the remarks quoted by the hon. member. I continue to be in
agreement with those remarks.
However, after the announcement of the consortium yesterday
that they had acceded to the request of the government to review
their decision but after doing so had decided to maintain their
original decision, we sought legal advice. I say with some regret
that the advice was that the government does not have the legal
means to do anything to change that decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, while everyone, including the Minister of Natural
Resources and the Prime Minister, admits that MIL Davie was
wronged by this appalling decision and that the Hibernia
consortium is making a mockery of the established rules, does
the government now intend to intervene directly so that justice
and equity prevail?
I recall that there were two bidders. When one of them cannot
fulfil the contract, usually the second one is called on. Will the
government put sufficient pressure on the board of directors?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, MIL Davie was not the only one wronged by this
decision. I think that all other shipyards that could have bid are
in the same position. That is why the government, in light of the
report from the Newfoundland-Canada Offshore Petroleum
Board, asked for a review of the initial decision.
I am sorry to say that based on the legal opinions we have
received we cannot insist that the call for tenders be reissued. I
must add that a general review of all the economic spinoffs in
this area is already in place. The government will take this
situation into consideration to see what changes must be made in
future to avoid a recurrence.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let us recall the facts. The Canada-Newfoundland
board said that only MIL Davie was wronged. First, no other
shipyards were mentioned. Second, all the shipyards could bid.
When Hibernia called for tenders, only two shipyards bid,
Marystown and MIL Davie. Normally, the second one is called
on if the first is not up to scratch.
Remember that before he left for Paris, the Prime Minister
clearly instructed Hibernia to review its initial decision, which
he termed unfortunate. How does the acting Prime Minister
explain that, although his government guarantees 50 per cent of
the Hibernia project and is investing more than $3 billion in it, it
cannot make the Hibernia consortium respect its decisions and
those of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): First of
all, Mr. Speaker, I said that not only MIL Davie but also the
other shipyards were wronged by the decisions in question
because all the other shipyards did not have a chance to bid on
the work which was taken away from Marystown.
8595
(1120)
Second, my answer was given in light of the fact that the
previous Conservative government had passed a bill on the
Atlantic Accord which does not give the present government the
power to have the contract in question reopened. I am sorry but
that is why the government is reviewing the whole program of
economic benefits to be certain that the situation will not recur.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to remind the Acting Prime Minister that the
Bloc Quebecois was the only party to vote against the Hibernia
legislation; the current government voted in favour.
The Hibernia consortium, heavily subsidized with billions of
dollars from taxpayers in Canada and Quebec, was denounced
last week by the Canada-Newfoundland Board for violating the
terms of the plan for awarding Hibernia contracts. By renewing
their decision, probably with the agreement of the
representative from Petro-Canada, 70 per cent owned by the
federal government, the members of the Hibernia board of
directors continue to deny justice to the MIL Davie shipyard.
Is the government aware that by not immediately demanding
the cancellation of the contract awarded to Saint John
Shipbuilding, it is condoning another decision that
discriminates against the MIL Davie shipyard?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to the advice I received, the government
does not have the power to have the contract in question
reopened but, because it wants to ensure that MIL Davie and all
other shipyards are treated equally in this matter, the
government has asked the consortium to review its decision. We
regret that the consortium has decided to maintain this decision.
As I just said, that is why we will undertake a full review of this
system of economic benefits and do what we can so that this
situation does not happen again.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand correctly, the government has no power
to act, but it has the power to sink billions of dollars into this
project.
Are we to understand that the government's refusal to take
immediate action in this matter is intended to doom the MIL
Davie shipyard and to satisfy its little Liberal friends in the
maritimes?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that in this difficult situation the hon.
member can do nothing but try to sow dissension and ill will
between various parts of Canada. I think it is shameful that he
misuses this serious situation in this way.
This government wants to treat all involved in a fair and
equitable fashion: MIL Davie, the shipyards in Atlantic Canada
and everyone else concerned, and that is the way we have been
acting. We have used the powers we have and unfortunately they
do not extend to having the whole thing reopened. However, we
are reviewing the whole process to try and make sure that this
unfortunate situation does not happen again.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the report of the special joint committee on Canada's
defence policy has been generally well received. There has been
virtually unanimous support for the recommendation to
constitute a standing joint committee on defence to monitor
progress on defence department programs. I have been unable to
find any reference to this committee in the white paper.
I ask the defence minister, is this an oversight or has the
government decided to exclude Parliament from defence
matters?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
deliberately did not address ourselves to this particular question
in the white paper because this is really a matter of negotiation
between the leaders of the various parties and in the other place.
That is something my colleague, the House leader, will
obviously take into consideration. However, that is not within
the ambit of defence policy.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps this falls into the same category, but I think the
minister should address it.
The committee report also recommended that except in
extraordinary circumstances Canadian forces commitments for
overseas tasking should not be made prior to a debate in
Parliament.
Canadians want to know what is involved and want to have
more opportunity to express their opinions before our forces are
committed overseas. The government has been better than the
previous government, but Rwanda and Haiti had in fact been
decided before they were brought before Parliament.
Will the government reconsider and commit to incorporating
this parliamentary process?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member has answered his own question, if I may say. The
fact is this government has had debates on our peacekeeping
engagements and I am sure the Prime Minister will continue to
do that in future.
8596
In terms of the flexibility of having those debates, that is
really up to the Prime Minister and the government generally.
Again it is a representation that I am sure we will consider.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we would very much like to see a commitment by the
government to bring this to pass.
The military training assistance program is one in which
foreign military personnel are trained in concepts and
procedures by our military. Unlike Canada, foreign military
officers are often directly involved or very influential in their
governments.
In the white paper the government has committed to expand
this program. While the training is done by the military the
results support foreign relations, international trade or it could
even be called foreign aid. The committee recommended that
that defence dollars be spent only on defence.
Will the minister confirm that the costs of the MTAP will not
come out of the defence budget.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they do come
out of the defence budget now and they obviously will in the
future.
I beg to differ with my friend. We believe that the bilateral
assistance that we give to members of other armed forces is
consistent not only with our foreign policy, but is an aspect of
defence policy. That is something we will continue. In fact, in
the white paper we do announce a decision which was
communicated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday in
Brussels to his colleagues to reduce our commitment to the
NATO infrastructure budget so that some of those funds which
now do not come back to Canada, because Canada has given one
of the largest shares and has probably the lowest payback, will
be used for bilateral training at our Lester B. Pearson
Peacekeeping Institute in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, involving
specifically those countries in the Partnership for Peace
Program from eastern Europe.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. The war is
more intense than ever in Bosnia. After the visit of the UN
Secretary-General to Sarajevo ended in failure, Bosnian Serbs
took more peacekeepers hostage in a raid in Croatia. They are
pursuing their assault on Bihac and continue to block
humanitarian relief convoys. It is even reported that, today, they
fired missiles on Sarajevo.
Does the minister confirm these reports? And can he give us
an update on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, especially
as the conflict may well spread to Croatia now?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did not
get any dramatically different news from the former Yugoslavia
today than we got yesterday except that there are some hopeful
signs. Some convoys, I believe involving British and Dutch,
have been allowed to proceed. So they are not being detained.
Discussions are under way concerning our Canadian
peacekeepers that have been detained. As I have said publicly,
those people who are detaining them from the Bosnian-Serb
side are not unknown to our forces. There is a good rapport
between them. While it is obviously becoming much more
worrying and frustrating for everyone concerned, especially the
families, we have no reason to believe that the situation
involving our own peacekeepers has deteriorated substantially.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
contact group is scheduled to meet today in Brussels to develop
a new diplomatic approach. Can the minister tell us what
Canada's preference would be in terms of such an approach and
whether or not he supports the idea that was put forward, to let
the Bosnian Serbs form a confederation with Serbia?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gets a
little out of my realm. Perhaps my colleague, the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, who is here, would like to address it
subsequently.
(1130 )
As far as we are concerned it is time to take a fresh look at
negotiations for a settlement in the former Yugoslavia.
Obviously the settlement the contact group came up with earlier
this summer is unacceptable, at least to the Bosnian Serb side.
We need some fresh thinking. Whether or not Canada is part
of the contact group we are kept informed. We have indirect
input. I hope that Canada can play a more prominent role in
bringing the various points of view together in the coming
weeks.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party has been saying that the deficit should be
eliminated during this term of Parliament but the Minister of
Finance has said it is unrealistic.
8597
In the finance hearing, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce,
the Business Council on National Issues, the C. D. Howe
Institute and others have said that we should balance the budget
within the term of this Parliament.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he believe
this is realistic at this point in time?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
continues to be committed to its deficit reduction target. Its
interim target is 3 per cent of GDP in the third year of its
mandate. It is definite. It is clearly the Minister of Finance's
response to this. It is clearly on the agenda and we will certainly
make that target.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the pillar
of the Liberal Party is the red book. On page 20 of that book it
says that there will be a balanced budget, but it also says that it is
unrealistic to do it five years. It is time the government puts on
the table what is a proper time line. Could the minister indicate
to the House when the budget will be balanced?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the interim target
is within two years now. It is important for the government to
meet its targets on a year by year basis.
It is important to restore the confidence of the financial
markets in the ability of the government to meet its targets.
There is no point in putting forward a target that is unreachable
such as the Reform Party has done in the past. It is important to
put forward targets that are reachable and attainable to ensure
we have the financial market's support.
That is what we are going to do. We are going to reach our
target of 3 per cent of GDP in the third year. Then we are going to
go on to a balanced budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister tabled yesterday, and rather hastily, his white
paper on defence, which is in fact a botched job, a spur of the
moment job, a paper characterized throughout by a
backward-looking vision and lacking any real, meaningful
direction.
Does the minister not realize that the hurried tabling of his
white paper has deprived the government of practical proposals
with respect to NATO, NORAD and the UN and thus provides no
real vision of the future?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe the hon. member made this assertion. I can only assume
he has not read the white paper. As has been pointed out by the
critic for the Reform Party, the white paper has been very well
received.
As to the timing, we always said we would try to table the
document before Christmas. We are cognizant of the fact that
going into the holiday season people are preoccupied with other
matters and we wanted to give Parliament and Canadians a good
time to reflect on it.
Again the hon. member is indirectly reflecting on the work of
the special joint committee on defence. I know his party had a
dissenting report, but there were three other parties including a
party not represented in the House officially, but represented in
the Senate-which shall remain nameless-that all agreed with
the report. We have taken the core of that report, almost all the
recommendations, and we have embellished them. I believe that
if the hon. member reads the document he will see it does set out
a clear vision for defence policy in the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
knowing that the development of any defence policy is really
only possible when it is keyed to a clear foreign policy, how can
the minister suggest and maintain that he has a clear vision of
the future, when his white paper was tabled before the
government even had the chance to announce the new thrust of
its foreign policy?
(1135)
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): It is true, Mr. Speaker, that
defence policy is to some degree an instrument of foreign policy
but not exclusively so. There are constitutional requirements
made of the armed forces which do not fall into the foreign
affairs category. The whole question of protecting Canada
offshore, around its coasts, aid to the civil power, are domestic
considerations to protect Canada's interest.
With respect to the substance of the question on why we have
done this now as opposed to doing it jointly with a foreign policy
report, the government felt that with all of the rapid changes,
especially reductions, being faced by the armed forces we owed
it to all those in the forces, both civilian and uniform personnel,
to give some clear indication of where we are going as quickly as
possible, but also to set in motion some of the equipment
purchases for which we have a dramatic need.
The defence white paper and its security review coincide with
the recommendations of the joint committee on foreign policy,
the joint committee on defence policy and was developed in
conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
who is quite comfortable with it.
8598
From the point of view of Canada's security policy we feel it
is quite appropriate to table the document at this particular time.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Health.
The Reform Party is committed to ensuring that every
Canadian citizen receive essential health care services in a
timely fashion regardless of income. The presence of private
medical clinics would allow this by decreasing waiting lists and
decreasing pressure on the public system.
Why is the government exercising the archaic Canada Health
Act and threatening to penalize Alberta for trying to provide
better health care for all of its citizens?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of November
28 the Minister of Health advised that she would be providing a
clarification of our interpretation of the Canada Health Act to all
provinces in the very near future.
The minister has repeatedly maintained that the Canada
health system is the best system in the world. The rest of the
world envies our system. We invite the province of Alberta, like
the other provinces are doing, to continue to protect and develop
this wonderful system.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we used to have the best health care system but
tragically we do not any more. I hope no one in the House has to
find that out.
Private clinics exist in Alberta, Ontario and the rest of the
country. Why is the government threatening only Alberta for
this by cutting transfer payments and not Ontario?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has repeatedly
stated in the House that a broad consensus exists on the need to
regulate private clinics to ensure there are no financial barriers
to access any necessary medical services, and the minister
invites the Alberta government to do that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Defence. In spite of the disastrous
state of public finances, the Minister of National Defence has
drawn up an extensive shopping list. Indeed, he wants to buy
new armoured personnel carriers, new land helicopters, new
remote controlled weapons, and even new submarines. Yet, the
white paper tabled yesterday does not include any concrete
measure to eliminate the waste of some $100 million disclosed
by the Auditor General in his recent report.
How can the minister explain that his white paper totally
ignores the Auditor General's recommendations and that his
department still does not implement better management
practices to cut spending and save money?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think
the hon. member has read the report.
The white paper talks about improvement of administrative
practices, of saving money, of privatizing certain functions such
as maintenance and things of that nature, all of which have been
advocated by the Auditor General over the years. In addition,
administrative measures have been announced recently that are
ongoing and meet the Auditor General's requirements.
(1140)
On the question the hon. member raises about a so-called
shopping list, the fact is, and let us be frank about it, we are
either in the defence business or we are not. If we are in the
defence business we cannot have our armed forces personnel ill
equipped. There is agreement both in the parliamentary
committees and across the country that we have to equip our
armed forces better.
In the case of the armoured personnel carriers I do not think
there is any argument that these are justified. In the case of
helicopters we always knew that the search and rescue
helicopters would have to be replaced. It is a civilian role, not
purely military.
As to the question of the helicopters on the ships that is
something that was recommended by the special joint
committee and something we can fully justify.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister, who was described last week as the minister of waste
by the Auditor General, justify that his white paper contains
none of the Auditor General's recommendations, whether on the
reserve army-which, incidentally, is the most costly in the
world-, on the deplorable management of capital assets, or on
the procurement programs of the defence department?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only
person who has ever called me the minister of waste is my wife
and that has to do with the fact that I need to lose a few pounds.
The running around we are doing in budget preparations and
with the white paper will achieve that objective.
8599
From cover to cover we talk about doing business differently
in the armed forces. We talk about ending project management.
We did in the last budget. We talk about buying equipment off
the shelf. We talk about contracting out to the private sector a
number of functions that are already being performed internally.
We think we can do them much more cheaply. We have even
mused about privatizing the operation and maintenance of the
search and rescue function with Department of National
Defence crews.
If the hon. member reads the report over the weekend I do not
think he would ask this type of question on Monday.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs will
be in Budapest next week to attend the Conference on Security
and Co-Operation in Europe. What does Canada hope to
accomplish at this summit, in particular concerning the crisis in
the former Yugoslavia?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the
upcoming CSC summit in Budapest is to enhance security and
respect for human rights in Europe.
Canada would also like the summit to broaden the CSC's
capacity to prevent and resolve conflicts, notably by giving it
the ability to establish or monitor peacekeeping operations. The
conflict in former Yugoslavia, including recent events in the
Bihac area of Bosnia will be of primary concern to the heads of
state and government.
In support of an eventual comprehensive political settlement
to the conflict, the summit could and should offer CSC expertise
in areas such as human rights, elections monitoring, the
protection of minorities, arms control, and confidence building
measures.
Canada's voice at previous summits, conferences, and general
meetings has always been listened to and highly respected.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and relates to
a recent directive given by the Canadian Human Rights
Commission to its tribunals.
Apparently they have been ordered to hear four complaints of
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, three of which
pertain to same sex spousal benefits.
Why has the minister allowed such a directive when the
legislation to amend the act to include sexual orientation has not
even been introduced in the House, never mind been approved
by the will of the people? Is this just another example of
ignoring the genuine concerns of Canadians, including some
members of his own party?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should understand that the human rights commission is an
independent body which is not under the control or direction of
the government or any minister thereof.
(1145)
The commission is obligated by law to make up its own mind
based on its own investigation and the exercise of its own
independent judgment with respect to those matters to refer to
tribunals for hearing. We would not want it any other way. There
must be independence.
While she may ask me as the minister responsible to the
House for the Human Rights Act and its administration to speak
to matters of structure or of the human rights system, I do not
direct the commission in what decisions to make or what matters
to undertake in terms of hearings.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for that response. I do feel the
minister has made it clear he is convinced that there is wide
support for this issue.
I challenge the minister today, as he is unwilling to challenge
the Human Rights Commission, will he not agree if he thinks
there is so much support to allow a free vote on this issue so that
the real will of the people on this issue can be expressed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a separate
question and I understand it is separate. I am prepared to deal
with that as a matter for which I am responsible, that is to say
whether the Human Rights Act should be amended to add certain
words. That is my responsibility.
We are dealing with commitments made by the Prime
Minister and by me, not so much based on polling for support
but based on principles and what is right, on fundamental
justice.
The amendment which is under discussion has to do with
adding sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination is
prohibited. I would have thought that on that principle, that is to
say whether discrimination should be prohibited against
somebody only on the basis of their sexual orientation, there is
not much debate.
8600
On the subsidiary questions, separate questions, of whether
there should be same sex benefits or whether there should be this
or that form of marriage, those are entirely separate. We are not
proposing any amendments to deal with those. We are talking
about discrimination and it is on that issue I would have thought
there is not a great deal of controversy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister's new procurement policy, which consists in
buying equipment already operational and available on the
world market, will have harmful consequences on the Canadian
defence industry.
In his white paper tabled yesterday, the minister recognizes
that it is vital to promote defence conversion, but no concrete
solutions are proposed.
How can the minister explain that his white paper does not
contain any concrete initiatives on defence conversion, given
the clear commitment made in the red book?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the Minister of Industry, will talk perhaps on a
supplementary on the matter dealing with conversion
specifically as announced in the white paper.
With respect to the capital purchases that we have announced,
we do have in Canada the capacity to build armoured personnel
carriers. One company has served the Canadian and foreign
markets quite well, the General Motors diesel division in
London, Ontario. Many components are built across the country
including in the member's home province of Quebec.
In terms of the helicopters, I have to emphasize that while this
could in all likelihood come from external sources, much of the
work with respect to avionics, electronics and integrated
systems probably would all be done in Canada because anybody
who wants to sell to a country like Canada equipment of such
cost knows that it is in the best interest of being competitive to
source a lot of that work in Canada. I do believe that the
equipment purchases will not have the effect the hon. member
says.
Finally, with respect to the submarines, I covered that
yesterday. This is simply a matter of exploring whether this is a
good deal for Canada. That question will be looked at very
carefully before a decision is taken.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the minister did not answer my question. I
hope his wife will remind him of that.
(1150)
Does the minister not realize that the existing defence
material program, DIPP, of which only a part concerns defence
conversion, is clearly insufficient, and that he must show
leadership with his colleagues from Industry and Public Works
to implement a true conversion strategy for that industry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as always, it is very hard to figure out what the Bloc
wants.
First, one member tells us not to buy military equipment
because it is a waste, and then one of his colleagues says that we
must save the defence industry.
[English]
It is always a little hard for me to understand quite where this
party is coming from. Its two wings do not always beat at the
same pace.
The fundamental issue that we need to deal with is the use of
the existing program DIPP as a defence conversion program. As
the hon. member knows, of the 41 applications approved by this
government under DIPP so far 39 have been for civilian or dual
use purposes. Clearly that has been the key tool in assisting
industries in their defence conversion.
More important, and I have said this repeatedly and I hope
other members understand how important this is, the
government's strategy in helping the Canadian industries in all
sectors is not to throw money at them. It is to provide them with
the strategic advice and assistance that will enable them to be
competitive in the world markets. That is the key to their
success.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
week marks the end of the 30-day discussion period between the
U.S. and Canada on proposals made by the U.S. department of
agriculture that all Canadian grain shipments to the United
States must go to a feed lot, a feed mill or an end user and require
an end user certificate.
What have we heard from the minister of agriculture on this
issue? Silence.
My question to the minister is what action has the minister
taken on this issue which is a direct violation of the August 1
Canada-U.S. grain pact on wheat which specified that neither
country would introduce any new trade restricting measures
until the deal's one-year term ended?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the member
across the way, he should get his facts straight. The United
States has not yet made its decision on whether it is going to put
end use certificates in place.
8601
We have expressed to the United States our views on that. It
knows our views and we will await its action as far as end use
certificates.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I
expected, the minister has done absolutely nothing on this issue.
The United States has not made the decision yet therefore it is
not urgent.
Why has the government done nothing? I would expect that
the reason is that it could be wanting to protect the Canadian
Wheat Board at the expense of farmers. For the Canadian Wheat
Board end user certificates only involve slight inconvenience,
while for the farmers it will put an end to their market in the
United States.
Why has the minister once again chosen to avoid the real issue
which is reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, a change which
he has acknowledged farmers want, by letting American foreign
policy solve the problems for him here at home?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I again remind
the hon. member that the United States has not yet made the
decision that he would obviously like it to make. It should be
pointed out that he has made that assumption and western wheat
growers and farmers should note that.
I repeat, the Canadian government and the minister have
made our views very clear to the United States as far as how we
would view its imposition of end use certificates. That
discussion will continue and we will await its reaction to our
views.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many
Canadians are concerned about the tax loopholes which make it
possible for the rich to invest in order to avoid paying taxes.
(1155)
[English]
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Can the
minister tell my constituents what he is doing to ensure that all
Canadians pay their fair share of taxes?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
his concern on this very important issue.
The Minister of Finance and I issued yesterday a press release
outlining changes to the tax system that will plug loopholes with
respect to tax shelters. We are particularly concerned that there
are many people who are taking advantage of what were
originally set up as legitimate opportunities in high risk areas.
They are now taking these opportunities simply to avoid paying
taxes.
For example, we have uncovered tax shelters where no
business activity was being undertaken and the only thing the
individual received in return for their investment was a
brochure; that is, the only thing other than a tax benefit of
substantial proportions.
We will continue to make sure that the tax system is fair for
Canadians and we will make changes as necessary to make sure
that all Canadians pay their fair share.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his white paper the defence minister
claims that he is going to save $7 billion over the next five years.
Yet the minister is planning to buy numerous helicopters,
submarines and a good deal more. In short, the Department of
National Defence is embarking on an unjustified equipment
purchase program which will be the source of additional waste.
Since today's international context does not justify new
capital expenditures, how can the defence minister explain, in
view of the present fiscal restraints, the planned purchases listed
in his white paper?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has
always been in the capital program of national defence spanning
a 15-year period the need to replace certain types of equipment.
Those allocations were made.
Over the last number of budgets, including those of the former
government, $21 billion has been cut off the projected
expenditures for national defence, including a lot of the capital
program.
We announced yesterday that we will be cutting $15 billion
out of the capital program over the next 15 years for planning
purposes. With respect to helicopters, I am surprised that the
hon. member would make the assertion that we do not need to
replace helicopters when he knows that the Sea Kings and the
Labradors are coming to the end of their life.
Even if he does not agree that our state of the art ships and our
refurbished destroyers should not have combat helicopters on
board, surely he, from a province that has a coastline and uses
the search and rescue facility, has to agree that the Government
of Canada will be committing a grievous error if we did not
make provision for new equipment even on the search and
rescue end which is purely civilian.
8602
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Ian John Hutton has been serving a life
sentence for murder at the Archibald Centre halfway house in
Vaughan, Ontario.
He failed to return to the facility on November 28 and a
Canada-wide warrant has been issued for him. Can the Solicitor
General explain why a murderer who is classified on CPIC as
being violent and an escape risk is serving time at a halfway
house?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be happy to get the fullest possible information
on this and give it directly to the hon. member. She has raised a
serious question.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
great news for all Canadians when more and more working men
and women find meaningful employment in this country.
The number of Canadians unemployed is still too high but it is
below 10 per cent for the first time in several years in Canada.
In examining the employment figures, has the secretary of
state for finance a breakdown of the numbers and has he
determined how many of the new jobs are worthwhile,
rewarding and full time jobs as opposed to part time jobs?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is good news
for Canada. This raises to over 400,000 the number of new jobs
that have been created in this country this year alone. All these
jobs are full time jobs. Indeed, last month there was a growth in
employment of some 95,000 new jobs. All those were full time
jobs. There was an actual drop in part time employment.
(1200)
I remind this House that a Prime Minister of a previous
government said we would not get the unemployment rate below
10 per cent this decade. The Liberal government brings in next
decade's unemployment levels this year.
_____________________________________________
8602
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in question period dealing with questions on Hibernia there was
a request to table the report of the Canada-Newfoundland
Offshore Petroleum Board.
I have the pleasure to deliver, in both official languages, the
report as well as, in both official languages, a copy of all the
contracts that have been given to the province of Quebec in
relation to the Hibernia project.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
certain petitions.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition comes
from the Association féminine d'action sociale du Québec. It is
signed by 437 petitioners.
They urge Parliament to press the government not to go ahead
with its voice mail project for the elderly.
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to draw to the attention of the House a petition signed by
residents of the regions of St. Mary's, The Capes and
Whitbourne area in the province of Newfoundland in the riding
of St. John's West. I fully support this petition which reads as
follows.
``We the undersigned residents of the province of
Newfoundland draw the attention of the House to the following:
That there is a severe unemployment problem in this area of our
province causing great hardship to many residents. Therefore,
your petitioners call upon Parliament to provide emergency
response funding to provide employment in the short term to
alleviate this hardship''.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to introduce three petitions today. The first one
asks Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously. I support that petition.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition prays and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality. I agree with that petition as well.
8603
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time I have presented a petition of this sort. In the
third petition, 70 petitioners from across Canada ask the present
government to institute price controls to include housing rental,
hydro, heating, food, phone, UIC, et cetera.
I understand their motive, but I do question the reasonability
of that particular petition. I am happy to present it on their
behalf.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present to Parliament a petition signed by 130 people
in the Red Deer and surrounding area.
My constituents express their grave concerns with section 241
of the Criminal Code and the issue of assisted suicide and
euthanasia.
(1205 )
The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way to uphold
the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993, to
disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from
persons all across the province of British Columbia containing
196 signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament refuse to
accept the hon. Minister of Justice's anti-firearms proposals
and insist that he bring forth legislation to convict and punish
criminals rather than persecute the innocent.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I too would like to
present three petitions on behalf of my constituents.
The first one is that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): The
second petition, Mr. Speaker, requests that Parliament not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act,
or the charter of rights in any way which would indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition asks that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions today on
behalf of my constituents of Dauphin-Swan River.
The first petition containing 451 signatures is from the RMs
and towns of Grandview and Gilbert Plains calling upon
Parliament to urge the government to take action on
construction of an all-weather gravel road through the west end
of the Riding Mountain National Park. This road connects the
communities of Grandview, which is my home town, and
Rossburn and contributes to stimulating a stagnating
agricultural economy by promoting trade, tourism, social and
cultural exchanges.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition has 138 signatures. It is asking,
first, that Parliament continues to reject euthanasia and
physician assisted suicide; second, that the present provisions of
section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada which forbids the
counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting of a person to commit
suicide be enforced vigorously, and, third, that Parliament
consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to
all dying persons in Canada.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): The
third petition, Mr. Speaker, has 350 signatures. It draws the
attention of the House of Commons to the following. There is a
remarkable increase in beaver numbers in the Riding Mountain
National Park. These beaver are causing extensive damage to
land which is located near the park.
My constituents ask this Parliament to urge the government to
take action toward developing beaver control methods within
the Riding Mountain National Park.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to
present a petition from Little Britain, Ontario, constituents of
mine in Cavan, Ontario, and Port Parry, Bowmanville and
Oshawa.
It requests the government not to enact any further firearms
control regulations or legislation or orders in council.
8604
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, having completed the bill that was
before the House this morning, I think you would find
unanimous consent that we now call it 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the chief government whip. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 2.30 p.m, the
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 12.11 p.m.)