CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 23, 1994
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 2663
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2666
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2666
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2667
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2667
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2667
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2668
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2668
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2668
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2669
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2669
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2669
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2669
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2670
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2670
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2670
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2671
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2671
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2672
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2673
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 2673
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2674
Bill C-230. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted. 2678
Bill S-2. Motion for first reading agreed to 2678
Bill C-14. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 2679
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 90. 2694
Bill read the third time and passed. 2695
Consideration resumed of budget motion 2695
Motion agreed to on following division: Yeas, 146; Nays: 90 2696
2663
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 23, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker,
biodiversity means a richness of life as it surrounds us in nature.
We must preserve biodiversity because it is nature's protection
against catastrophes. The loss of biodiversity has serious
implications for life on earth.
We have been told that since the beginning of the century 75
per cent of crop diversity has been lost. This leaves us
vulnerable. For example uniformity in corn crops could have
resulted in disaster when a severe blight threatened corn crops in
the 1970s. By maintaining biodiversity we also help sustain
ourselves.
As a responsible society we in Canada must preserve our still
rich biodiversity. From our forests and fields to our wetlands,
lakeshores, parks and lawns our biodiversity is our most
precious asset.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, this
morning's
Globe and Mail reported on a Statistics Canada study
which found that the median income of francophone Canadians
was more than 10 per cent lower in 1992 than that of
anglophones. The gap has more than doubled since 1977 and it is
growing wider every year.
Considering that the aim of the Official Languages Act passed
by the Liberal Party was to give francophones their rightful
place in the Canadian economy, the only conclusion that can be
drawn is that the legislation has been a failure.
The study also found that Quebec francophones had made up
some ground during the same period. The income gap between
anglophone and francophone families in Quebec has narrowed
from 8.2 per cent to 1.9 per cent.
The income gap can be closed, Mr. Speaker, but one has to
conclude that federal policies are not a contributing factor.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday after the announcement of the downgrading of
Canada's rating for foreign currency debt, the Minister of
Finance stated it only affected a small portion of our total debt
so it was no big deal.
Now the Bank of Canada has increased its key lending rate
which undoubtedly will result in increased borrowing costs for
Canadian consumers and businesses. It is also having an impact
on the cost of government borrowing.
The budget did not address the deficit or debt. Now all
Canadians are starting to pay for this short-sightedness.
When will the government realize it is on a course to financial
disaster and revise the budget to deal with the problems it has
created? Could it be that the government believes that all
problems faced by Canadians are no big deal?
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, last
week I listened to an hon. member of the opposition speak with
sadness about the unfavourable conditions in his riding. There
was a lack of hope in his voice. Let me assure the House that all
the news is not bad and the economic recovery is beginning.
In Oakville-Milton more than 1,500 jobs have arrived since
election day. Ford has increased its workforce by 1,100 and Lear
Seating has hired 455 persons. Polywheels has expanded into a
larger facility, thus expressing confidence in its future. Derlan
Aerospace has secured the contract to retrofit the Lynx
helicopters made in Britain, thus ensuring the employment of
300 workers in Milton.
This good news is being highlighted by the media and is
reinforcing the climate of confidence which underpins new
investment and economic growth.
2664
My hope is that we will all begin to feel this confidence,
rekindle our optimism and together rebuild the national
economy.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, Reverend
Brian Weatherdon, the respected, hard working and loyal
associate minister of St. Andrew's Church, has recently been
called to a new ministry in Hamilton.
During the five years Brian has ministered in Ottawa he has
played a key leadership role in advancing important issues such
as the fight against child poverty and the organization of
nutrition programs for families in need. He was also very
instrumental in helping me to establish National Child Day.
His enthusiasm and his dedication to his congregation and the
Ottawa community have been exceptional.
Brian will leave behind countless accomplishments,
memories and friends. I along with many others am sad to see
Brian leave. He can be very proud of the meaningful
contributions he has made to this community.
On Easter Sunday, Brian will take up his new duties as the
minister at MacNab Street Presbyterian Church in downtown
Hamilton.
I would like to inform the members from the Hamilton area
that a very remarkable and generous man will soon be in their
neighbourhood.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, Sunday
was the first day of spring in Canada, or at least it was in my city
of Vancouver.
Today I have attempted to bring the sweet air of our west coast
spring to Ottawa. In the lobbies outside this House are 295
daffodils for 295 members of Parliament. It is my wish that
these daffodils like spring itself awaken the creative passions of
members of the House of Commons.
(1405)
The challenge before us of making Canada work better
requires the swiftness of a sudden spring shower, the resolution
of a blossom, and the certitude of a thaw.
May these daffodils, generously donated by a Vancouver
radio station as well as by a fine corporate community partner,
serve as a pleasant reminder that with spring comes hope,
renewal and growth.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the information highway is unquestionably the
technological issue of the day. Once completed, the information
highway will bring together telephone, cable and computer
technology with a view to providing a wide range of interactive
services to consumers.
The information highway will alter consumer, work and
education habits and impact on the private lives of Canadians
and Quebecers.
Therefore, the Minister of Industry must commit publicly to
holding public, open, transparent and accessible hearings on this
subject, not consultations behind closed doors, as the committee
is expected to hold.
As Ottawa prepares to put in place the administrative
machinery to manage the information highway, protecting the
privacy of Canadians and Quebecers must be one of the federal
government's main concerns.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to give tribute to the Forum for
Young Canadians.
As hon. members know, participants in the Forum for Young
Canadians are in Ottawa this week to learn more about the
process of government at the federal level. I know all members
will join me in praising the organizers, the sponsors and the
many volunteers who have made this forum a reality.
I wish to give special tribute to each of the participants, our
future leaders, and in particular to a young constituent of mine,
Jennifer Robinson of Prince George, B.C.
Welcome to Ottawa and best wishes for a most successful
session.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak briefly on a question of urgency in my riding of
Elgin-Norfolk: the need for Canada to have an updated
industrial strategy.
To many in my riding words like ``change'' and
``competition'' are synonymous with plant closings and higher
unemployment. Almost one job in four in my riding is in the
highly vulnerable manufacturing sector. Over one-third of the
industrial park in the city of St. Thomas is empty. It should be
clear to
2665
this House that manufacturing jobs in Elgin-Norfolk are in
deep decline.
Elgin-Norfolk relies heavily for employment on the auto
parts industry in which technology is key. Canadian workers
need only the new tool of technology to add to their high
productivity and education, two areas in which we hold an
excellent advantage.
I urge the government to look at technology as a way of
ensuring the people of Elgin-Norfolk and all of Canada a better
tomorrow.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the Benevolent and
Protective Order of Elks in Estevan, Saskatchewan. It is holding
the Canadian Elks 1994 national curling playdowns in Estevan
from March 22 to March 27, 1994.
The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks is widely known
and appreciated across Canada.
On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to offer
my best wishes to all the participants and volunteers involved in
this prestigious event.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
quality food production is of great importance to every area and
to every citizen of Canada. Canadians are fortunate that the farm
and agricultural community ensures a continual supply of
quality foods.
Over the past few days the Canadian Farm Business
Management Committee has been meeting in Ottawa. I believe
some committee members are visiting the House today.
During the sessions I had the opportunity to sample food
products. They were from displays consisting of food products
of the particular native province. I must admit they were most
impressive and very tasty.
(1410 )
Let us reaffirm in this House today our support for the
Canadian farmer and for the Canadian food producer, their
importance to our economy and their importance to every
citizen in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, I want to
express my concern about the future of the CBC's news services.
The Chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission, Mr. Keith Spicer, asked the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast news bulletins
on both networks using simultaneous translation. Such a service
will cost more than $15 million a year.
This new demand is being made in a context of cutbacks.
Obviously, Mr. Spicer and the CRTC want to sacrifice the
quality of the CBC's news on the altar of national unity.
Need I remind the commissioners of the CRTC and the Liberal
government that there is still no all-news service in French?
Need I recall that the CBC's French service can no longer afford
to pay its correspondents abroad?
Mr. Speaker, we members of the Bloc Quebecois are opposed
to any political interference in the internal affairs of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, a recent edition of
Taxpayer magazine reported on the
Canadian Manufacturers Association study of Canada's debt.
The president of the CMA, Mr. Stephen Van Houten, said that
given the track record of previous governments the debt could
soar to $965 billion by the year 2001. He observed that
governments have a bad habit of seriously overestimating
economic growth and tax revenues. The government has a
narrow window of opportunity to deal with this impending debt
crisis.
Mr. Van Houten also noted the dramatic growth in the
underground economy shows that Canadians are fighting back
against tax increases. The only viable option for the government
is to cut spending.
The CMA notes that the money markets are reacting
negatively to yet another high deficit. Many Canadians are
concerned about our financial future.
It is time to take a serious look at our financial problems. It is
time for this government to stop leading Canada further into the
red. It is time to cut spending.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Emerson Everett of
Bracebridge who passed away recently. Bob Everett was one of
the greatest ambassadors to come out of my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka.
Mr. Everett began painting at nine years of age. Even though
he never had formal art training he became one of Muskoka's
finest artists in oil and pastel. A past president of the Ontario
Institute of Painters, Mr. Everett was a full member of the Pastel
2666
Society of Canada and an elected associate member of the Pastel
Society of America.
Not only did Mr. Everett serve the Muskoka area as a
successful pharmacist, he served this country in World War II as
a Royal Canadian Air Force flight navigator. He was shot down
in a Hampton bomber.
Bob Everett was a true gentleman in every sense of the word.
He was respected and loved by his friends and family.
I extend condolences to his wife Nora and four children,
Eugene, David, Jason and Peter. Muskoka and the rest of Canada
share their loss.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, as the
House will know the Prime Minister is in Mexico City today. I
recently returned from Mexico City having accompanied a CAW
delegation there.
One of the recommendations we made to the ambassador on
our departure was that when the Prime Minister was in Mexico
he should meet with human rights activists. He should not just
satisfy himself with attending the trade fair and meeting with
business people, as important as that may be.
I hope when the Prime Minister returns he will be able to
report to this House that he has met with human rights activists.
The situation in Chiapas is still very delicate. The demands of
the Zapatistas have not yet been met, demands which are shared
by a great many of the Mexican people.
I hope the Prime Minister will show enough interest in the
welfare of the Mexican people and not just Canadian trade
opportunities and meet with human rights activists while he is in
Mexico City.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, before we go to oral questions I
want to point out one of our parliamentary colleagues in the
gallery, Mr. Michael C. Liapis, member of Parliament from
Greece.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
2666
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. During the
election campaign, the Liberal Party shouted from the rooftops
that its economic program was based on creating jobs, on
reducing the deficit by cutting government spending, and on a
monetary policy balancing job creation with the fight against
inflation.
The government failed at every level. Its first budget got a
negative reception from the financial community as illustrated
by the lowering of its credit rating announced the day before
yesterday.
Does the Minister of Finance admit that this lower credit
rating is due to a negative response from a financial community
disappointed by the timid and inadequate budget measures to
reduce departmental operating expenditures?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the
Leader of the Opposition who criticizes us at every turn because
we have cut military bases, reformed unemployment insurance,
and trimmed government machinery, who spent three months
criticizing our cuts, suddenly rises to tell us we did not cut
enough.
So I ask you this: Where do you want us to cut? Tell us exactly
in what areas!
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, there are many areas and the minister knows it. Let us
think about the family trusts he is protecting in a rather special
fashion.
I am convinced that the reason the financial community
lowered Canada's credit rating is not because we cut too much,
but because we did not cut deep enough, contrary to the
commitments that were made.
I would ask the minister to comment on the government's
timid spending reduction efforts combined with its obsession
with fighting inflation, which is almost non-existent, causing a
rise in interest rates, and I ask him specifically whether it is right
that the upward pressure on interest rates should compromise
the already slim chances of economic recovery and job creation,
with the well-known negative effects on businesses and the
unemployed.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Yes, I am looking at you, Mr.
Speaker. It is much better than looking elsewhere.
First of all, interest rates even today are much lower than they
were three months, six months or a year ago. Second, as you
know full well, the increase in interest rates is due to
international reasons that have nothing to do with the situation
here in Canada.
As far as budget cuts are concerned, we gave the Leader of the
Opposition and his colleagues the opportunity to make
suggestions in a pre-budget debate; they did not take that
opportunity, so what are they telling us now?
2667
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the financial community does not go in for the florid
speeches and noises we sometimes hear in this House, which
take the place of monetary and fiscal policies. They spoke very
toughly and very eloquently this week by lowering Canada's
credit rating. There are also the unemployed and others.
I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is willing to review
his inefficient and unfair approach which consists in attacking
the unemployed by cutting their benefits to force them to look
for non-existent jobs instead of going after the actual causes of
unemployment.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, regarding our fight
against unemployment, our job-creation plan was endorsed by
the G-7 countries, by France, Germany and the United States.
When we look at the results for the month of February, 66,000
new jobs were created, including 15,000 in Quebec. And when
we look at what we did by lowering unemployment insurance
premiums, everything we did for small and medium-sized
businesses, the high-tech networks, when we look at the action
plan to create jobs, it must be said that this government is doing
the right thing.
* * *
(1420)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
page 16 of the red book reads, and I quote:
The Conservatives' single-minded fight against inflation resulted in a deep
recession, three years without growth, declining incomes, skyrocketing
unemployment-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: And it goes on. But the Minister of Finance told
us yesterday that he is doing the exact same thing as the
Conservatives. He strongly reaffirmed the Bank of Canada's
goal to fight inflation. What an about-face in four short months!
One can wonder what to expect for the next four years, Mr.
Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Finance-and you will not
get off lightly! After-
The Speaker: Order! I did not hear the question. Could the
hon. member please repeat it?
Mr. Loubier: I will start over, Mr. Speaker. I thought you
were rising to indicate that my preamble was too long. That is
why I sat down.
Let me put my question again to the minister. After tabling a
Conservative-style budget, does the Minister of Finance not
realize that he is reneging on his election commitment by
pursuing the same obsessive fight against inflation and refusing
to make lowering unemployment the priority of the Bank of
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say
we were better off before the hon. member put his question. I
want to congratulate him on the way he read the quote.
As far as the question is concerned, is the hon. member going
back on what his own leader said? Is he telling us that maybe we
should not preserve what has been achieved in the fight against
inflation, at the price of so much effort, as we know? Is the hon.
member actually saying that we should not have low interest
rates in this country? Should we not take advantage of these
lower rates to stimulate employment in Canada? Is he denying
all he has learned as an economics student? Not likely. Maybe.
He says he denies it. What is he denying, the denial or having
studied economics?
The Speaker: Let us not forget that we have several questions
to hear today, from both sides. So, let us hear from this side now.
I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question. It is strange all the same to see
the Minister of Finance throw his short-term job creation creed
out the window, just days after the G-7 Summit. So, I will ask
him again.
Does the minister not agree that, by pursuing this obsessive
inflation reduction policy, which his own party fingered as the
main cause of the latest recession, he is knowingly stifling any
hope of economic recovery and employment development in
Quebec as well as in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in our
minds that job creation is our number one priority. That is why
we were so happy to see that 66,000 new jobs had been created in
Canada in February, as I just mentioned, 15,000 of which are in
Quebec.
Let us assess the situation: consumer confidence has grown 13
per cent during the fourth quarter; retail sales increased by 1.2
per cent in January, following a 1.1 per cent increase in
December; and car sales have increased significantly. Our
economy is growing, and that is because of the confidence
Canadians have in us.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
2668
The minister's budget projects a bank rate of 4.5 per cent,
a long term bond rate of 6.4 per cent and interest costs of $41
billion this year. It also predicts a 1 per cent rise in interest rates
will add about $1.7 billion to the deficit.
Today the Bank of Canada rate is already half a per cent higher
than projected and rising interest rates are mainly due to higher
interest rates in the United States over which the government
has no control.
Will the minister today acknowledge that his estimates for
next year's budget deficit are simply too low? Just acknowledge
it so that the House can get on with addressing the real problem
that represents.
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the member's statement in terms of the
short term interest rates is a little out of date as of the present
time, although the numbers he cited were good as of about ten
o'clock this morning.
The member is nonetheless right in one area and that is on the
long term rates. The long term rates are higher than those which
we projected.
When one looks at the degree of conservatism which we built
into all of the forecasts, that is to say in terms of growth,
inflation and interest rates, we are very confident that the
projections we have made in our budget will be attained.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, it
is the degree of conservatism that we are particularly worried
about.
Just last week the minister's parliamentary secretary
answered a question on rising interest rates by saying: ``The
outlines in the budget were done very conservatively. These
types of considerations, that is higher interest rates, were taken
into account''.
Does the finance department actually have in place a
contingency plan for dealing with the impact of higher interest
rates on the budget as the minister's parliamentary secretary has
implied?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we remain very confident in the
objectives and our ability to attain the objectives that have been
set out in the budget.
As I mentioned, the deficit projections that we made, the
question of revenues and expenditures, are based on a series of
projections. While the member is obviously right in terms of
long term interest rates, the fact is that we are nonetheless easily
within the safe side on the vast majority of our projections.
I would like to say one other thing. The member made
reference to my use of the word conservatism and the use of the
same word by my parliamentary secretary. I share that
difficulty. I wish I could find another word, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a further supplementary question.
There must have been somebody in the finance department
who had anticipated interest rates higher than those projected in
the budget and what to do about it. I ask the minister if the
government will be forthright and publish its real interest rate
projections and its real interest cost projections as distinct from
those contained in the red ink book.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the interest rate projections are simply
part of a series of projections within the budget. We remain
confident that we are going to attain the objectives of the budget.
We are going to have the opportunity to sit down some time
after Easter with members of the Reform Party, as has been
described in discussions with Mr. Speaker and myself. We are
quite prepared to go through all of the various scenarios and
discuss a multitude of contingencies.
Let me say one thing to the member. We are confident that we
are not going to need a contingency plan because we are going to
hit our targets.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development in Quebec.
Yesterday, the big three American automakers clearly
indicated that they had no intention of taking over the Hyundai
plant in Bromont. In answer to a question from the media, the
Minister of Finance said that if the big three persist in ignoring
the Bromont facility, the government might decide to look up
companies from other sectors.
Is the minister confirming that the big three American
automakers do not intend to participate in the recovery of the
Bromont plant, and can he specify which type of businesses he
was referring to yesterday?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a relief to
see that they have stopped directing questions to the Minister of
Finance.
2669
(1430)
As you know, the Quebec minister of Industry himself, Mr.
Tremblay, said yesterday that he was still hoping to negotiate
with the automakers and that he intended to contact them. In
fact, I think he had already done so. Therefore, we should wait
for the outcome of the discussions between Mr. Tremblay and
those companies.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister agree that the closure of the car assembly plant
in Bromont will put Quebec at an even greater disadvantage,
compared to Ontario, regarding subcontracting in the auto
industry, and that a real strategy must be implemented to correct
this situation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I already said that I was
very disappointed by Hyundai's decision. I am very familiar
with the situation-in fact, I live in the hon. member's
constituency-and I know the region very well. I fully agree to
co-operate with the Quebec government and the municipality of
Bromont to truly find a solution to this situation.
The red book, to which the hon. member just referred,
includes a plan to fight unemployment, which certainly applies
to the Eastern Townships. I hope to report soon on the
discussions with the Quebec government on job creation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is
also for the Minister of Finance.
The minister has stated repeatedly that his budget is a
two-part strategy and that severe cuts are coming next year. At
the same time the Prime Minister maintains that all proposed
cuts are already on the table.
There are no spending cuts in the budget for next year which
could be described as severe, and on this basis can the Minister
of Finance tell Canadians if severe cuts are coming, and if so
why is the Prime Minister not aware of them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister said is exactly
what I said in the House when the budget was presented, that the
cuts and the actions taken in the February 22 budget in and of
themselves will lead to a reduction of the deficit, bringing it to
the point of 3 per cent of GDP in three years.
At the same time in the budget, and the Prime Minister
repeated it, there were a series of measures regarding the
re-examination of the way that government operates. Some are
led by the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, a
number of others are led by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, and a series of other ministers, including the
Minister of Transport, is going to continue to lead our efforts to
clean up the nation's finances.
That is what the Prime Minister said, that is what I said, and
that is our position.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, the financial
markets recognize that there must be severe cuts in spending if
Canada is to avoid a severe financial crisis. Rising interest rates
indicate that they expect the government to renege on their
second round of cuts.
The credibility of the Minister of Finance is at stake, and his
audience extends well beyond the House. Will the minister
assure us that the deep spending cuts are coming and will be
imposed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we said very clearly that the February
22 budget was the first stage of a two-stage process.
We had been in power for slightly over 100 days when we
brought in our first budget and what we were doing was
reviewing all government operations. That review is under way
and its results will be manifest not only in the next budget but in
announcements that will be made by ministers over the course of
the next year and in periods following.
(1435 )
We were elected on two bases, one to create jobs and one to
clean up the nation's finances. There is no doubt in my mind that
at the end of our mandate, the Canadian people will find that we
have been faithful to our word.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
After the parliamentary committee responsible for consulting
Canadians on social programs had to hand in its report on
Monday so that it could be tabled in this House on Friday, and
after the parallel consultations held yesterday, Tuesday, in
Montreal were denounced by most of the invited groups, today
the Minister of Human Resources Development announced,
with the Premier of New Brunswick, an income security
program for people between 50 and 65 who live in that province.
Does the minister not agree that the first phase of
consultations on social programs was a sham?
2670
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, contrary to being a sham, the
program we announced was multi-faceted in its approach. It
attempted to reach out to Canadians in a wide variety of fora. We
certainly look forward to the report of the committee.
As the hon. member has said many times, we also have to try
other ways and means of tapping into the opinions of Canadians.
As a result, my department and various provinces across the
country sponsored fora at which a large number of Canadians
could come and express their views, be heard, have a dialogue
and get into a serious debate.
I find it incredible that a democratically elected member of
the House would object to Canadians having an honest debate
about their future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, for
Canadians to have an honest debate on what is coming, the
minister should put it on the table.
Does he not admit that he intends to use this new so-called
regular income program as a first step to introduce a guaranteed
minimum income program throughout Canada and then to force
the hand of reluctant provinces?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may speculate
all she wants but the fact is that we are being very serious and
sincere about soliciting the views of a large number of
Canadians.
One of the aspects we take very seriously is working with the
provincial governments where we can develop a series of pilot
projects, new models, and new techniques we can test out during
this period of re-examination to determine what works well. In
this day and age where there is such complexity in the job
market, in the social service network, we should be trying out a
variety of methods and a variety of models to see what works
best.
As the hon. member knows, I am quite prepared to share all
the information with members, to bring it together in an action
plan we hope will be brought forward to the Canadian public
within approximately six or eight weeks so we can then have the
second stage of debate.
I find it incredible and really not very understandable why the
hon. member would object to the government's reaching out to
all parts of Canada, to all Canadians, to find out what works
best.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the health minister.
On Monday we heard that Dr. Doug Kennedy was going to
Toronto to get us some information on blood samples from the
Red Cross. A progress report, please.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Dr.
Kennedy did go to Toronto. They are in the process of examining
the samples.
I believe the Red Cross has put out a report and we concur
with that report at this time.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I really wanted a
progress report that would give us some idea of what the report
was.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
right now the Red Cross is in the process of examining how it
can test all the samples. That is about as much as I can report at
this time.
I will be very happy to give members a more complete report
as soon as I have one.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who was
clearly nervous, again contradicted himself in comments on the
controversial Ginn Publishing transaction. He stated that since
the election, no offers had been made by Canadian publishers,
and also, that his decision had not been influenced by the
possibility of a lawsuit.
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
How can the minister justify his latest about-face on the Ginn
Publishing transaction, because after having said that he
authorized this transaction because of the risk of being sued,
yesterday, he said candidly to the reporter for the Toronto Star,
and I read the article, that his decision was in no way affected by
the risk of a lawsuit?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure whether the applause is in anticipation of
my answer. I never changed my mind, and I never changed my
position. The comments I allegedly made outside the House
referred to the period which followed the transaction, not to the
period prior to the transaction. Anyone who has followed this
debate will understand what I mean.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
2671
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I followed this debate, but I have trouble following
the minister.
How can the minister keep saying that since the election, no
Canadian publishers showed any interest in purchasing Ginn,
when in January, the president of Canada Publishing, Mr.
Ronald Besse, advised the CDIC for at least the fourth time
since 1989 that he intended to acquire Ginn Publishing. How can
the minister justify his statement? When is the minister telling
the truth? In the House or in the lobby, to the Toronto Star?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I realize the hon. member has trouble following me,
because since I became responsible for Amateur Sport, I have
learned how to do some pretty fancy footwork.
I do not appreciate words being put into my mouth. What I
said is that, to my knowledge, no firm and specific offers had
been made for Ginn. That is what I said.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
High school and post-secondary students in Winnipeg North,
as I am sure in all ridings, are worried about job prospects this
summer, which is fast approaching.
How will the minister ensure that the forthcoming summer
employment program will meet the young people's increased
demands for jobs? How will the government create the linkage
between this program and its upcoming initiatives from the
youth services corps and training internship to better serve the
needs of young Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I also thank other members of this caucus for their
representations over the last months about the need to enhance
our student employment program.
I am very pleased to announce that the government has
decided to increase summer employment by 20 per cent at a cost
of over $20 million. That increased amount will be especially
directed toward linkages between summer employment and the
employer that will continue to be the mentor of those students
throughout the entire year.
We think this is a very innovative approach and will provide
additional help to the many deserving students who want to go
back to school and get good training for their future.
(1445 )
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
On March 11 I questioned the minister with regard to
intervener funding for participation in the Kemano completion
hearings and the equality of access for concerned groups to that
funding.
Unfortunately the minister did not respond to my inquiry
concerning equal access but chose instead to remind the House
of how there was not a bottomless pit of money and that the
federal government was going to act responsibly in respect to
federal spending.
If this is the case, will the minister confirm if his government
has hired Farris and company, one of the most expensive law
firms in Canada, to represent the government at the BCUC
hearings instead of using Department of Justice lawyers who
most assuredly are more familiar with the issue and most
assuredly less expensive than Farris and company?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for asking my first question in the House.
As the hon. member knows, in the Kemano completion
project the government is committed to making sure that we
have an open process, a transparent process. As he also knows,
thousands of pages of documents have been given out to make
sure that all information is available in the BCUC hearings.
In terms of intervener funding, as was indicated by the
minister earlier we will look at groups that can apply to the
department. We will be open and ensure that we will consider
intervener groups. Some budget is available but they would have
to make an application. We would look at it and we would
consider intervener funding for some groups.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members
would like to partake in different activities in the House, but I
would ask all hon. members to cease and desist from putting up
any kind of paper which would in any way distract us from our
very serious business.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say that I am far happier with the hon.
member's response with regard to intervener funding than the
minister's. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans clearly said in
a memo that only native groups would be considered for
intervener funding.
Today the parliamentary secretary says that-
2672
The Speaker: Will the hon. member please put his question.
Mr. Harris: On behalf of all concerned members of my
riding, is the parliamentary secretary now telling us, the House
and all other concerned people that the government will
consider intervener funding for non-native groups?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated earlier
in response to a similar question that there was funding
available for intervener groups. We will look at any group that
wants to make application and make sure that we stay within the
budget.
There are also funds available through the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They can make
application there as well.
What I am saying today is that we will review groups that
want to come forward and make application for the existing
budget for intervener funding.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, the
Commissioner of Official Languages has intervened personally
at the Department of National Defence to ensure that
francophones who have lost their job have access in their
language to career renewal and reclassification courses at
National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. As it happens, the
person in charge of this service for the past six years is a
unilingual anglophone.
(1450)
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. How can
the minister, an unswerving defender of francophone rights in
our Armed Forces, tolerate this kind of situation? What action
does he plan to take to ensure that francophones, who account
for roughly 30 per cent of staff at headquarters, have access to
the same services as anglophones?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. We have implemented
many of the recommendations of the Department of National
Defence. The former minister established a ministerial
committee. We also have a general Canadian Forces-wide
committee. We have carried out many recommendations and we
still have a great deal of work to do.
[English]
It is a good point at which to state to the House that in view of
the questions that came about in recent weeks regarding military
colleges we have been reviewing the whole question of
bilingualism in the armed forces.
In a few weeks, when we come back after our Easter recess, I
might be in a position to make a statement to the House. It will
deal with how we propose to make the military college in
Kingston acceptably bilingual for members opposite. It is a
bilingual institution and we are going to enhance that
bilingualism.
We will also generally deal with some of the concerns raised
by the Commissioner of Official Languages and others who have
criticized the department in the past.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, in
spite of the answer he has just given me, does the minister not
recognize that this new case illustrates once again the problems
francophones have working in their own language within DND,
even here in the bilingual city of Ottawa? Given this state of
affairs, how can the minister expect us to believe that he will
transform the military college in Kingston into a bilingual
institution?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the House and the hon. member that it is possible to work
in French at headquarters in Ottawa. As minister, I work in
French, as do all of my senior officials.
[English]
It is an ongoing problem we have in Canadian society that we
feel very strongly about. We are committed to bilingual national
institutions. We are committed to bilingualism within the
operation of government throughout the headquarters of
national defence. We have made great strides. That is not to say
that we cannot make even greater strides in the weeks ahead.
I invite the hon. member opposite and his colleagues to help
us make the Canadian Armed Forces much more bilingual and
acceptable to Canadians who speak both official languages.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, the
House has been considering the matter of suspending the
process of redrawing electoral boundaries in Canada before the
public can have public hearings on the matter and after we have
spent $5 million. Apparently also, we hear rumours, the
government is intending to impose closure after only one day of
debate.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister
inform the House whether the government sought an opinion on
the constitutionality of this law before it was tabled in the
House? If it did, will it table that opinion? If it did not, will it
explain why not?
2673
The Speaker: I believe this matter is before the House for
debate. However, the question itself is of a broad enough nature
that if the hon. minister would care to I will permit him to
answer.
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the hon. member's question refers to a
proposal that would save Canadian taxpayers millions of
dollars. It seems quite unrealistic at this time to redraw the
electoral map which now has too many ridings, according to the
hon. member's own party, which says that there are already too
many MPs.
(1455)
This proposal would further increase the number of members.
I therefore urge the hon. member to assume his responsibilities
for saving taxpayers money and to postpone this plan until later.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, we have
offered to meet with the government any time to negotiate a
reduction in the number of members in the House, and the
government has refused to do that.
My question is on the constitutionality of this act. During the
last suspension of the process, Bill C-67 in the last Parliament,
considered legal opinion, indicated to a parliamentary
committee at the time that there was an implied time limit for
carrying out readjustment under section 51 of the Constitution
Act. Delaying it past the next census was a violation of the
Constitution and had an impact upon other sections such as
section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act.
The Speaker: Order. The question itself perhaps would find a
better response on the Order Paper. It is a very detailed question.
I would ask the hon. member to consider putting this type of
question on the Order Paper.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Fishermen in my riding are concerned that their livelihood is
being threatened by a few large Canadian vessels fishing bluefin
tuna off Bermuda's coast. As the parliamentary secretary
knows, Bermuda is new to the bluefin tuna fishery and is not a
member of ICCAT, the international body overseeing the
conservation of this fragile resource.
This Canadian fishing activity in Bermuda's waters could
threaten the ability of other tuna fishermen in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence to fish their own quota later this year.
Would the parliamentary secretary please explain to the
House and to my constituents what actions the government is
taking to stop this inappropriate fishing activity?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to inform the House the five vessels in question have been
formally advised that their activities are not sanctioned by this
government and that their existing licences to fish inside the
Canadian zone are in jeopardy.
They have also been informed that Canadian tuna and
swordfish industry representatives have been advised that the
catches of bluefin tuna and swordfish by these Canadian flag
vessels will be counted against Canadian quotas.
We are doing everything possible to control these vessels and
hope to put an end to it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
In January, Mr. Justice Krever, who is in charge of the
tainted-blood inquiry, said that he did not have sufficient funds
and resources to carry out his mandate. Questioned by the
Official Opposition, the Minister of Health said that a request
for additional funds had been presented and was being
considered by Treasury Board.
Can the Minister tell us if Treasury Board has finally made a
decision on this request for additional funds?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
are still reviewing the request today. We will make an
announcement once we have made a final decision.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Canada's grain exports are being hit hard by reduced rail
movement. According to Howard Restall of XCan Grain, ships
are waiting from two to three weeks for prairie canola, forcing
XCan to pay as much as $10,000 per day in demurrage. Ships are
also leaving empty after collecting demurrage of up to $350,000
without any canola.
When will the minister demand that railways honour their
commitment to expediently move farmers' grain when markets
demand it, instead of constantly lobbying government to allow
them to reduce services?
2674
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member raises a question that is causing grave
concerns in the industry for shippers, consumers and clients.
We are trying to encourage a solution that will be arrived at
through consultation among the various players. It is a very
complicated matter, as the hon. member would know.
(1500)
I am informed that the rail companies are trying to come up
with some solutions because of the changes in weather and some
cars that they would not have been able to use through the
winter. Efforts are being made to find cars in the United States
for lease. We are actively pursuing this. I recognize the urgency
of it and we will do the very best we can.
* * *
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I want to bring to the attention of the House
something which happened today in Question Period.
Since the opening of the 35th Parliament, I think all members
of this House and especially the whips have always tried to keep
decorum so that we can have good debate.
I understand that in the heat of debate sometimes members
can heckle or speak a little bit louder. However, today I was very
disturbed by what occurred, especially when it involved a
political party that before, during and after the election lectured
us about how we should behave here. Posters were displayed,
not only by an individual member but by more than a row of their
seats. I think it was deliberately organized. It is a shame that for
the past three months we have been trying to have decorum and
today regretfully we broke that practice.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: As a matter of fact, since the 35th Parliament
began all hon. members, I believe, have done their utmost to
have decorum in the House.
As I mentioned in the course of Question Period, we did ask
all hon. colleagues to cease and desist from any such displays. I
am sure the words of the hon. whip will be taken to heart by all of
us because I think it is coming along well and I would encourage
hon. members to please keep a sense of decorum in the House.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. I would ask you to examine the blues from
Question Period. You ruled my supplementary question out of
order before I had a chance to put it. My question was: ``Would
the government simply consider looking into these matters with
its constitutional lawyer-''
The Speaker: I will make this commitment to the hon.
member. I will review the blues and if indeed there was an error
on my part I will get back to the House and I will try to correct it.
I try to listen as much as I can to the gist of the question before
members get to it. Therefore, if I do err I would beg the
indulgence of the House. I would also ask that if some questions
could be better put on the Order Paper so as to get a more
complete answer, then perhaps that is where hon. members
should attempt to put that type of question. However, I will
make that commitment and I will have a look at the blues.
My colleagues, we are going to have tributes.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, by
announced consent and in my capacity as co-chair of the joint
committee on the Library of Parliament, I move the following
motion, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert:
That in recognition for his long and distinguished service as the Chief
Executive Officer of the Library of Parliament, Erik John Spicer, Esquire, is
hereby appointed as Honorary Officer of the House of Commons as
Parliamentary Librarian Emeritus.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
The Speaker: As a formality I put this question. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: I was going to formally introduce our Librarian
Emeritus and now that members have already acclaimed him, I
would call on some hon. members to share with us a few of their
ideas.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to have been asked by my party, the Bloc Quebecois, to
rise in this House today to congratulate Mr. Erik John Spicer on
his appointment as Parliamentary Librarian Emeritus.
I was first elected to this House on November 21, 1988. As a
newcomer and government member at the time, I wanted to
know all there was to know. I am naturally curious, of course. I
wanted all the information on all items on the agenda,
particularly on a subject that has always concerned me:
firearms. I wanted to know what legislation and regulations
there were in European countries on that subject. I wanted to
know under what authority the Americans kept saying that they
had an almost
2675
natural right to own firearms. All my questions were answered
by the Library of Parliament.
Also, when we sat on committees, and it is still the case today,
we could always count on the library, especially for legislative
summaries on the various subjects. The Library of Parliament
research branch is always ready and willing to provide
information to assist us in our quest for truth.
It has also developed briefings for members and departmental
assistants so that we and our staff know where to look and who to
contact to obtain all the information required for the smooth
functioning of our offices.
Furthermore, if you miss one of these briefings, you can
always ask the Library of Parliament for the audio tapes. Again,
you will get the same excellent service.
All this to say that we greatly appreciate the services
developed for us, members of Parliament, as well as for our
assistants, to enable us to carry out our duties adequately. Many
thanks to Mr. Spicer.
[English]
The Speaker: We will hear from the hon. member for Beaver
River. Inadvertently I cut off my colleague for Vancouver
Quadra, whom I will recognize after the member for Beaver
River.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
behalf of my party today as well and offer congratulations to Mr.
Spicer for a long and remarkable career in this place, certainly
longer than many have been able to celebrate.
I have known Erik Spicer for five years in my capacity as the
member of Parliament for Beaver River. Of course, in my unique
position in the last Parliament I must say it was wonderful to
have somebody to call on who knew what they were doing in
Parliament. The services that were offered to me sitting as an
independent member were just terrific.
To know that there was an incredible number of well qualified
people in the Library offering their services and help to me was
marvellous. As a qualified English teacher who had spent 10
years in the teaching profession to see a library like this at my
disposal was marvellous. I want to thank Mr. Spicer so much for
being helpful to me and to my staff.
What I will always remember about Mr. Spicer as I look at
him now in the gallery is his marvellous smile. He is somebody
who has always been cheerful. I do not think there has been a
time I have come across him, whether it has been in the elevator,
the Library, anywhere in the hallways or in the cafeteria, when
he has not been cheerful and very pleasant to work with.
Certainly that is much appreciated as well.
(1510)
In this new Parliament of course the Library was just as
astounded as the table and everybody else to see so many new
members elected to this Parliament. I am sure that was a huge
surprise but also an incredible amount of work.
From the floor of the House of Commons today I would like to
say thank you on behalf of all the members here, especially new
members, for the orientation sessions that were offered
regarding the Library and all the services that have been given.
What a marvellous place to work in, the parliamentary library.
I will never forget my first steps through that doorway and just
literally having my breath taken away when I looked at that
place. What a marvellous place to have worked for several
decades now. I know that he will miss it a great deal.
Mr. Spicer is leaving probably one of the most beautiful
offices on Parliament Hill, but he is going to see all kinds of
beautiful places.
Mr. Speaker, as you and I and the Spicers know, they love to
travel. This will be a good jumping off spot for them, going from
a beautiful office on Parliament Hill, the finest that Canada has
to offer, to many other places.
I would like to pay tribute to Erik and his wife Helen, both of
whom are librarians. I was amused when I read in a recent issue
of the Hill Times: ``That a major occupation for them while
moving from a large home into a smaller condo has been the
packing of their books for the move''. That is no small wonder.
With two librarians one can imagine the number of books in
their private library. I dare say that has been a huge challenge to
both of them.
I would like to pay tribute also to their daughter Erika who
grew up in a home with I am sure an incredible love and respect
for books. I am sure that she passes that on to her three daughters
today. They are going from a beautiful place to many visits all
around the world. I know they will be stopping in Vancouver
regularly to visit their daughter and granddaughters.
One final memory that I have which will remain special with
me forever is being on the elevator a couple of weeks ago. There
was a group of senior citizens who obviously had been for dinner
in the parliamentary restaurant. I just happened to be on the
elevator riding down from my fifth floor office and I had a little
visit with one of the women there. She said to me: ``A group of
friends and I have come from the lodge today and we had lunch
in the parliamentary restaurant''. I said: ``Well, that is really
nice. Is there a special occasion or what?'' She said: ``No, not
particularly. We were just getting together. Erik Spicer is my
son''. It was just a treat for her to be able to come and celebrate
that. She just beamed when she talked about her son Erik. That
was so special because they were out for lunch on Parliament
Hill and having a marvellous time at it. I will always remember
the gleam in her eye and the smile that she shared with me when
2676
she said: ``Erik Spicer is my son''. She was proud of him and I
would say she has ever reason to be proud of Erik.
Good luck and congratulations to both of them as they retire.
They are held in high esteem in this place. God bless them both.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, I
echo the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert and the
hon. member for Beaver River in the gracious tribute they have
paid to our parliamentary Librarian Emeritus. Erik Spicer
served for 33 years at the rank of deputy minister. That must be a
record of achievement for Ottawa. He has presided over the
transition of the Library from the classic library formation to the
electronic age, at the same time conserving the immense
richness of the past of the accumulated collections.
A librarian sometimes does not have the time to read his
books he is so busy. However, this is a gentleman who has read
books, a cultivated, witty, articulate gentleman. He has
recognized, as Solon did, that wise law making rests upon wise
study of the past of the accumulated wisdom in books. One
cannot separate a library from the business of making laws.
They go together.
It is in this sense that the Library of Parliament represents a
treasure house. It is the jewel in the crown in a real sense in this
large parliamentary edifice over which you preside, Mr.
Speaker.
(1515)
What Erik Spicer has done, the co-operation he has given, the
great impartiality, the openness with which he has presided over
the researchers-and never forget we have a magnificent
research staff freely available to all parties, to people of all
opinions within the House-has brought this together,
concentrated in his own very unique personality. We shall all
miss him.
We wish him, his wife and his family a pleasant and I am sure
an intellectually active retirement. Thank you very much for
accepting the treasure of Parliament when you were appointed
Librarian, for conserving it, for adding to it, for augmenting it
and making it one of the great institutions of the
Commonwealth, of the world which has inherited its
parliamentary traditions ultimately from the Greeks and
Romans and the Britons and the French and all the new cultures
that our country represents.
Thank you, sir, and a pleasant and honourable retirement
which you have so richly earned.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased
to join with my colleagues to wish our distinguished Librarian
well.
I could not help but think when the member for Beaver River
indicated that the first time she walked into the Library and
looked up she was awestruck, I thought she was going to say it
was because of Erik Spicer. I think that is how we all felt when
we first met Erik Spicer. He probably was the ultimate symbol of
devoted public service.
I remember over the years having all sorts of library needs or
research needs that not only were always met and met in a timely
way, but always beyond even my wildest expectations and
wildest hopes. The leadership that he provided for so many years
was nothing short of awesome and outstanding.
Not only was Erik Spicer a distinguished Librarian for many
years, but more than that, as my hon. friend from Beaver River
intimated, he was a friend to everyone. Whenever you would
encounter Erik Spicer you knew that you were with a friend,
always there to ask a friendly word about how life was going and
how your trials and tribulations were unfolding as a member of
Parliament.
He is a genuine individual, a gentleman in every sense of the
term, an outstanding and dedicated Librarian, a professional
known around the world for his ability and leadership in
establishing for Canada and for us here in Parliament what must
be one of the best libraries and research facilities available to
parliamentarians anywhere.
We will miss him, but we will be seeing Erik Spicer around,
knowing the kind of gentleman he is. On behalf of my colleagues
in the New Democratic Party and all of the independents we
wish not only him but his wife Helen and daughter well. We hope
to be seeing him for a long time in the future.
The Speaker: As your Speaker it is very rare that I speak in
the House, but I do take this opportunity as a parliamentarian, as
one of you, to express our great vote of thanks to you, Mr.
Spicer.
You have brought distinction to your profession. Witness the
title of Librarian Emeritus. There can be no higher honour paid.
You leave us here with a wealth of books and in a sense a
wealth of knowledge in this edifice. But more than that you have
prepared countless parliamentarians by making information
accessible to them, on which they can make rational and good
decisions and good laws for all Canadians. You have done a
great service to us here in the House and your service has
extended to your country even beyond this House.
Sir, you are well worthy of all of the accolades that you have
heard on this day.
(1520 )
As Speaker, I wish you the very best of health. I hope that you
and Helen will enjoy all of your many years to come, as much as
2677
you have helped us to enjoy those years that we served here as
parliamentarians. I do thank you, sir.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
The Speaker: I have a point of privilege from the member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. Before I hear the point of
privilege I want to thank the hon. member for holding off on the
point of privilege until these tributes were paid. I asked that he
do this through my Clerk.
I am going to hear the point of privilege. I would simply
indicate to the hon. member that I as the Speaker have heard the
point of privilege that was brought up earlier. I was prepared
earlier to make a ruling on the information that was before me
then, but (a) I was asked by the hon. member to withhold the
decision, and (b) the hon. member withdrew that point of
privilege.
If this is the same point of privilege that the hon. member is
bringing up, I would ask him to please at the beginning identify
for me precisely which point has been infringed, and second, I
would ask him to bring new information if there is such, or if it is
the same point of privilege that the hon. member brought up
before. If the hon. member would do that it would help the Chair
considerably.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, this point of privilege relates to the question I
raised on February 15 and it is very brief.
I rise here today on the question of privilege after consulting
with counsel and having discussed the issues of blackmail and
the unfounded allegations made against me. I wish to re-submit
my original question of privilege of February 15 so that all these
issues may be investigated accordingly in the appropriate
committee.
I trust your decision will be favourable, Mr. Speaker.
Concerning all the information that has come up, after
discussing it with counsel I was informed that the details were
not so pressing as I had believed they were. Therefore the issue
remains almost the same as I had raised earlier. The discussion
which I had with counsel did not produce any new material at all.
The Speaker: So that your Speaker is absolutely clear, the
hon. member wishes me to make a ruling on the information
which has been put before me at an earlier time.
If this is what the hon. member is asking me, then I will gladly
do that. I will review all of the notes. I will review Hansard. I
will review all of the information which has been put before me
and I will be making a ruling to this House at the earliest
possible time.
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, no agreement could be
reached under Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2), regarding the
proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-18, an act to
suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act.
[English]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of
my intention to propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a
specific number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings of the said stage.
_____________________________________________
2677
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1525)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
Order in Council appointments which were made by the
government pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order
110(1).
These appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate
standing committees, a list of which is attached to the
documents.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, and pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
The committee has considered Bill C-6, an act to amend the
Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum
Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act and to make
2678
consequential amendments to other acts and has agreed to report
it without amendment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-230, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act
(training and self-employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the bill I wish to
table today is to allow recipients of unemployment insurance
benefits to start a course of training that will help them create
their own employment and thus put an end to their dependency
on unemployment insurance, or to enable people who are now
receiving unemployment insurance benefits to start their own
business, while continuing to receive unemployment insurance
benefits for the period to which they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, I table this bill in the hope that it will receive the
support of members on both sides of the House. Thank you.
(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time and
ordered to be printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill S-2, an act to implement a convention between Canada
and the Republic of Hungary, an agreement between Canada and
the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an agreement between Canada
and the Republic of Zimbabwe, a convention between Canada
and the Argentine Republic and a protocol between Canada and
the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double
taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to
income taxes and to make related amendments to other acts, be
read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a
petition that has been certified correct as to form and content by
the Clerk of Petitions.
On behalf of constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, the petitioners are
requesting the enactment of legislation providing for a
referendum of the people to accept or reject two official
languages for Canada.
(1530 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present eight petitions. There is still a great concern in
Peterborough riding about the lowering of the tobacco tax. I
would like to summarize these petitions.
The first one which has 25 signatures stresses the increase in
teen smoking which will be caused by the change. The second
which also has 25 signatures suggests there will be more
preventable deaths as a result of this measure than there were
deaths in World War I and World War II combined. The third
petition also with 25 signatures contains a reminder that the
problem was Canadian tobacco which was being imported back
into the country.
The next petition also has 25 signatures and suggests that the
change could create two million more tobacco addicts in
Canada. The next petition points out that between one-third and
one-half of all smokers eventually die from tobacco use. The
next petition which has 75 signatures stresses the effective
marking of all tobacco products.
The second last petition with 25 signatures supports the idea
of high export taxes rather than the lowering of the sales tax. The
last one which has 34 signatures points out that in Peterborough
riding alone 200 people die every year from tobacco use. It also
points out that the incidence of lung cancer in women has tripled
in the last 20 years.
I present these petitions which I have signed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that the notices of motions for the production of papers
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2679
2679
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority for
the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1994, be read the the third time
and passed.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
although I have spoken many times in the House during
members' statements and question period, I am pleased to rise in
the House for the first time without a severe time constraint in
response to the debate on Bill C-14.
I would first like to offer my congratulations to you on your
appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. I also
congratulate all members of the House on their successful
campaigns, especially those members who have been
re-elected. During a time when the public is growing more wary
of politicians being returned to Parliament that is a feat worth
noting. It should be an interesting and productive Parliament.
My thanks to the constituents of Kootenay West-Revelstoke
for the confidence they have shown in me to be their
representative here in Parliament.
I will not take the usual time to wax eloquent about the beauty
of my riding. Those who are from there know how incredible it
is. Those who are from other places are mistaken in believing
that theirs equal it.
It is not the intention of the Reform Party to criticize the
government just for the sake of opposition as was often the style
of opposition parties in the past. We will be the first to
acknowledge good legislation when it occurs. Likewise when
we do not agree with the government position we will try to offer
constructive alternatives.
We want this Parliament to work for all Canadians, not just
whoever makes the best speech from time to time. We stand
prepared to work with the government and co-operate on any
legislation that is in the best interests of the citizens of Canada.
Bill C-14 is somewhat of an enigma. I recognize on one hand
that the government must have funds to operate during the
ensuing period of awaiting the arrival of some of the tax dollars
Canadian taxpayers have been sentenced to pay. On the other
hand I am in a position in which I cannot in good conscience vote
to support providing the government with its first instalment of
an unacceptable level of spending. What is the alternative?
(1535 )
The alternative is to have come out with a budget based on
spending reductions leading to a balanced budget and ultimately
tax reductions. Had this been done Canadian taxpayers, myself
among them, may not have felt the same level of hostility about
the lack of restraint by the government. I would have been able
to support this bill to temporarily borrow funds for reduced
levels of spending.
Whenever someone goes to the bank or another financial
institution to borrow money, the first thing the lender does is to
look at the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. The
Canadian government goes to a lot of lenders these days. I can
assure members that these lenders look very closely at Canada's
ability to repay the loans and they do not like what they see.
When these lenders look at Canada, do they see a borrower
who needs to borrow to fulfil a short term shortage?-not likely.
Canada has been in debt since the first world war. Do they see a
borrower that is paying off its loan? Again the exact opposite is
true. Not only are we not paying off our loan, we cannot even pay
any of the interest on it.
In 1993 we were going into debt at the alarming rate of
$56,000 a minute. Now one year later and four months into the
new Liberal government we are going into debt at the rate of
$84,000 a minute. It would be bad enough if the rate at which our
debt was increasing had not improved, but in reality we are
heading into a national debt hole we may not be able to get out
of, at the accelerated rate of 50 per cent faster than one year ago.
This is hardly something to inspire the confidence of the
international lending place.
Do these lenders see a borrower that is expanding its business
so as to be more profitable at some point in the future? There is
no question that in the new budget the government intends to
increase its revenues. Does this really relate to the equivalent of
a business increasing its profits?-hardly. A more fitting
analogy would be a situation where a business proposed to
charge higher prices for its goods or services with absolutely no
indication that anyone would or could pay this inflated price.
The government's utopian projections are based on so many
variables that even a fanatical optimist would be shaken.
The next thing a lender looks at is the credibility of the main
players in the company. They want to see if those major players
are likely to lead the company to success and solvency or to
greater debt and bankruptcy.
If the lenders look at the main players in the government, who
do they see? They would see the Minister of Finance, the main
financial officer of the government who went on a great tour of
Canada to find out what Canadians wanted them to do. An
overwhelming number of those consulted and not consulted said
we should cut the spending and we should not raise taxes.
2680
What did Canada's chief financial officer do? He increased
government spending by $3.3 billion. He relied on increased
revenues, taxes, to make up the difference in the spending hike,
the exact opposite of what Canadians asked for. If he was not
going to listen to what Canadians said, why then did he go
through the sham and the expense of these hollow hearings?
Who were these Canadians who spoke out against increased
spending and taxes? They were everyday Canadians who turned
out at meetings across this country. They were small business
owners and major corporations. They were organizations like
the Vancouver Board of Trade, the British Columbia Chamber of
Commerce, the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation. They were publications like Maclean's, the
Vancouver Sun, the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Financial
Post. They were economists and financial experts from across
this country.
Even a member from the government side of the House was
compelled to rise in defence of his own constituents. He pointed
out to the Minister of Finance that if he had somehow heard
Canadians state that they welcomed tax increases as he claimed
they did, he did not hear it in the member's riding.
If the lenders looked at the CEO of the government, the Prime
Minister, what would they see in terms of assurance, of the will
and the expertise to bring the country out of its financial crisis?
They would see a former Minister of Finance in whose hands the
debt of this nation rose by 60 per cent during the two fiscal years
he held that position.
During the week following the release of the 1994-95 budget
figures the Prime Minister went on a national tour to sell this
spending package. During an interview in Calgary in which it
was very obvious the package was not selling well, the Prime
Minister retorted that this was not a Tory budget nor a Reform
budget nor an NDP budget; it was a Liberal budget. Of this there
can be no doubt. It has always been the philosophy of the Liberal
Party to tax and spend and in this it certainly has been true to its
own philosophy. The question is can it work? The answer is a
resounding no. The problem now is how do we get this point
across to the main players of the government.
(1540)
Let us suppose for a moment that these two people were mere
mortals like the rest of us. Let us suppose they had a house with a
mortgage, a car loan, children going to college who needed
financial help. Let us suppose they had a paycheque with an ever
decreasing disposable income and an economic future that held
very little security. Can either of them honestly suggest that if
they were in that situation they would support an increase in the
very taxes that drained the lifeblood from them, their families
and their future? I think not.
Would the Minister of Finance operate a company with the
huge debt and interest payments this country has? Would he
maintain inefficiency and duplication in that company by
paying out more than required for various services and by
expanding the company in areas that would lead to more debt
without any increase in revenues or relief of the overall problem
of the debt? Not very likely.
Why then is he offering this as a solution to the identical
problems of this country? Why is he going to the Canadian
taxpayers by way of their elected representatives and asking for
the authority to begin this great spending plan by borrowing
money for round one?
An explanation of the cause of this country's debt is not some
great mystery like how they get the caramilk inside the
chocolate bar. It is very simple for anyone who takes the trouble
to look at the problem.
Canadians are looking at two problems: unemployment and
debt. To solve these problems we have to decide if one causes
the other and if so, which one to remove to solve the other.
If the government were to incur enough new debt to put every
person in this country to work would that solve the debt
problem? Of course it would not. If the country were able to get
rid of its debt which is eating up our tax dollars and screaming
ever louder for more would employment return? To answer that
let us look at the unemployment problem and how it got so bad.
As this country's debt became larger and larger so did its
appetite for tax dollars. When taxes go up, individual Canadians
have less disposable income to spend on Canadian goods and
services. At the same time when the taxes of Canadian
companies go up, it is reflected in the price of their products.
This makes it even harder for Canadians to purchase those
products and also makes it difficult for these companies to
compete with their international trading partners.
As a result, these companies have to shut down
non-profitable sections of their operations and streamline the
remaining operations. This results in the laying off of a great
number of Canadian workers.
The solution then is to reduce the government's appetite for
these tax dollars by reducing spending, balancing the budget and
then working toward the reduction of taxes in this country.
Simply put, this will provide individual Canadians with more
disposable income with which to purchase Canadian goods and
services. It will reduce the cost of these same Canadian goods
and services and will make Canadian companies more
competitive with their international trading partners.
It stands to reason if Canadian companies are able to market
more products profitably they will expand and hire Canadians
instead of closing down and laying Canadians off. Is this a
2681
simplistic solution? Of course it is, but it is the only one that will
work.
Maybe part of the problem is that everyone wants to find some
complex, earth shattering solution which puts their own
personal stamp on the recovery. The real solution does not
belong to any one party or person. It is a matter of facing reality
and reversing the disastrous actions of the past. Maybe then
Canadians would not be so reluctant to approve temporary
borrowing authority.
What we should do is take an honest look at how we got into
our current financial mess. In the past the vote of Canadians has
been for sale and the politicians of the past have bought that
vote.
They bought it with overly generous social spending; not
overly generous for those in need but overly generous for those
not in need. They bought it with subsidies to business; not all
business, only specially selected businesses that were in a
position to aid the politicians or parties providing the grants.
They bought it with subsidies to crown corporations in answer to
special interest groups. They bought it with grants to those same
special interest groups instead of requiring them to get their
funding from those they claimed to represent. They bought it
from rich or politically well connected individuals with
promises of plum patronage appointments. Then they made
good on those appointments.
Why would anyone act in a manner that is so detrimental to
the needs of all Canadians?
(1545 )
In the politics of the past, with exceptions, there have been
two rules. The first is to get elected and the second is to stay
elected. Nothing else mattered. Now we have to pay the price.
We have run up a debt of over half a trillion dollars and we are
increasing that debt by $1 million every 12 minutes.
If government members want to restore public confidence in
them and get the country on its feet, they must alter the budget
by reducing the government's spending and balancing the
budget within the term of the 35th Parliament of Canada.
The country will balance its budget and start paying off its
huge debt in the foreseeable future. That is not in question. What
is in question is the manner in which it will be done. We can
choose to start now selecting the methods and speed with which
we implement the program of financial responsibility, or we can
wait as New Zealand did and have someone else make those
decisions for us. Some might scoff at the idea of comparing
ourselves with New Zealand and they would be right. The truth
of the matter is that we are now much worse off financially than
New Zealand was when it was forced to deal with its financial
crisis.
Could the government have made a significant reduction in
spending in its first budget in 10 years? I bet it could and I
suspect more than one of its members would like to follow that
course of action.
The areas in which the government could have reduced
spending in its budget are numerous. I will list but a few
examples of what could have been accomplished. Budget cuts in
government operations will save $470 million. A reduction of
15 per cent of non-salaried overhead is achievable and would
save $1.25 billion and the elimination of low priority
government functions would save hundreds of millions more.
The budget reduced business subsidies by $120 million.
Business subsidies are selective and available only to the chosen
few. It would be far better off to eliminate all subsidies totalling
up to $5 billion and work toward general tax deductions instead.
If this had been done, the elimination of the capital gains
exemption and tax increases on medium sized Canadian
businesses would not have been necessary and job creation
would have been stimulated, not discouraged. Instead of
spending money to study funding of special interest groups, it
could cut that funding, saving half a billion dollars a year.
Reductions of supplements for senior citizens who have a
higher than average income is not an unreasonable concept, but
the government should have looked at family income rather than
at individual income. An income of $26,000 a year is not
particularly high, but if a couple has $52,000 a year income a
reduction of non-contributory income or credits is not
unreasonable. In that area refocusing of the old age pension on
people with family income below $54,000 a year would save
$3.5 billion. A 25 per cent reduction in the subsidy of crown
corporations would save $1.25 billion a year.
The government knows well that we have many other
spending reduction proposals. I am sure it has many in mind.
The few I have listed would have resulted in a reduction of this
year's deficit by $10.5 billion. If the government complemented
that by eliminating the spending increases in the budget, we
would have had a deficit this year of approximately $26 billion.
Had the government followed this course of action, I believe it
would have won the approval of an overwhelming majority of
taxpayers and I would have been able to support Bill C-14.
It is not too late. If the government is now ready to accept the
$153 billion spending cap proposed by the Reform Party in the
throne speech debate, I would be pleased to support the
government's bill to borrow money for necessary spending.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on his maiden speech. I enjoyed it. I
2682
thought he had a lot to say. I also enjoyed the fact that he put the
details to his theories so that we could tell exactly what kind of
budgetary savings were possible with his suggestions.
A while ago there was a comment in the editorial section of
the Globe and Mail. It went something along the lines that
sustained profligate borrowing by several generations of
politicians is committing not only this generation but future
generations of Canadians to a lower standard of living.
(1550 )
In the last few days we have seen some real interest rate
fluctuations and so on. People are theorising that there has been
not only a run on the Canadian dollar but a huge jump in interest
rates because the government has been unable to control its
profligate spending.
Could the member for Kootenay East give his opinion on the
relationship between the growing size of our deficit and debt and
the future of interest rates as he see them?
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
Certainly every time our debt seems to get a bit higher and a
bit worse it makes international lenders look a little more
sceptically at the ability of Canada to pay off these loans. We
have seen our interest rating drop. I am sure we will see other
measures taken by international lenders.
I mentioned New Zealand in my speech. What happened in
New Zealand was not something that it got a lot of warning
about. It came to the point where lenders lost confidence in the
ability of New Zealand to make its payments and in a one-month
time period it was virtually cut off all foreign loans. That could
happen to Canada. I am sure we have a much stronger economy
than New Zealand had even though we also have more debt. I am
sure people are waiting to see if we can do something in
Parliament.
Occasionally we hear encouraging words, unfortunately not
followed by encouraging deeds, on the government side of the
House. We are hoping that government members will come to
their senses and deal with our tremendous debt and deficit. The
lenders are waiting to see if they will come around to that. If
they do not, I am sure we will see a further drop in our credit
rating and higher interest rates.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I am both
surprised and disappointed to see that the Liberal Party did not
have the courtesy to respond with questions and comments and
failed to appreciate the speech by the hon. member of the
Reform Party.
Although I do not have the figures to which he referred, I was
interested in what he said about calculating income tax on
family income as opposed to individual income.
I would appreciate more information on the subject, and I
would ask the hon. member to expand on a topic that should be
of interest to the members of the party in power.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to elaborate on
that. I do not have the details of it in front of me, as the hon.
member mentioned. However, the concept simply is that we
have to start looking beyond the salary of the individual person.
I mentioned the idea of the government setting a threshold in
the reduction of old age credits at $26,000 which, as I said, is not
a very high income for an individual. However, if we start
combining incomes and the family income is higher that is when
we should start looking. Obviously the expenses for two or more
living as a family unit are not the same as those of individuals
trying to provide their own housing, food and so on.
Realistically we have to look at this in a way that we can
reduce some government expenditures but at the same time not
place a hardship on seniors. The idea of the old age pension to
which I referred was something that was brought in to aid people
who had a problem in sustaining a reasonable standard of living
in their old age. Now we are giving it out to millionaires.
The government answers on one hand by saying: ``We tax it
back''. That is terrific. First we give away money to people who
do not need it. We create a bureaucracy to give it to them and
then we create another bureaucracy to get it back from them. The
worst of it is that we let them keep some. The bottom line is that
we cannot help the people who really need it if we keep on
giving money to those who do not. That is the reason we have to
address the concept of family income. It is a fair way of
addressing that problem.
(1555)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Again, the hon. member for Portneuf,
this time on debate.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, there are
subjects we discuss with enthusiasm. There are bills that elicit
much positive feeling and that are really worthwhile.
Unfortunately, I am somewhat less than enthusiastic about
speaking to the matter before the House today. This afternoon,
the debate is on the motion of the Minister of Finance for third
reading and passage of Bill C-14. And what is Bill C-14 about?
Is it something we can applaud? Is this a bill that will give us
reason to rejoice and look forward to a happy and prosperous
future for all Canadians and Quebecers?
This bill is an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal
year beginning on April 1, 1994. The operative word is
borrowing, and borrowing means deficit and deficit means debt.
We are
2683
now talking about getting into debt. The subject is the debts of
this country and its citizens. Are these small debts? Are these
debts we can pay back quickly? Were these debts incurred for
capital spending on infrastructures and services that will be
useful to this generation and future generations as well? Not
exactly.
What we are talking about is the cost of financing a deficit of
$40 billion. That is a lot of money, and not many people can
appreciate what this amount represents. Put in simple terms, let
us say this boils down to $100 million per day. If we consider the
bridge for Prince Edward Island, which raised quite a few
questions because people felt that $900 million was too much,
this bridge would be paid for in nine days, which means that we
could afford forty of these bridges, and I mean forty per year.
I suppose that could be called ``looking on the bright side'',
but seriously, we should try and understand why we have to
finance a debt of this magnitude. As the previous speaker
pointed out, we are not paying the interest on our debt. We
borrowed this money more than a decade ago. We borrowed, and
since then, we have not paid back the capital and we have not
paid back the interest incurred. We have not paid the cost of
servicing the debt. Consequently, day after day, month after
month, and year after year, the interest we have not paid off is
being added to the debt. In fact, and most people who know
something about compound interest will realize this
immediately, we have a debt that is growing as a result of
compound interest.
Are we unable to pay because we do not pay enough taxes or
because we spend too much? I suggest we look at the figures and
try to draw certain conclusions later on.
(1600)
To begin with, the citizens of Quebec and Canada pay out
roughly $120 billion each year in various kinds of taxes. This is
a substantial amount of money and all of us can understand what
it represents, since it either comes out of our wages or we pay it
in the form of a goods and services tax.
What does the government do with these $120 billion? Well, it
spends it on various programs which result in services to the
public or in more or less durable goods. All of which means that
we spend what we pay out.
The $40 billion deficit did not come about because we
purchased services or goods without being able to pay for them.
Basically, the $40 billion represents the interest on the debt
which we are unable to pay.
And the debt is getting bigger and bigger. It now stands at
$500 billion! It may even be higher than that since, as the
member before me mentioned, it is growing at the rate of
$85,000 per minute. In the few minutes that I have been
speaking, the debt has increased by an amount which would
allow several people to live quite comfortably for some time.
Imagine, $500 billion! Few people can appreciate what this
amount represents. As you know, I am a teacher by profession
and a good instructor tries to find ways to illustrate the subject
matter he is teaching. Therefore, I have tried to come up with an
example which would give Quebecers and Canadians an idea of
what $500 billion represents.
So, here goes. The TransCanada Highway is a ribbon of
asphalt about 7,000 kilometres long stretching from the Atlantic
to the Pacific. Let us assume that the TransCanada Highway has
four lanes: two heading from east to west, and two heading from
west to East. This is a great deal of pavement, four lanes in all.
Now, let me see if I have a coin in my pocket. It is unlikely
though because it must have been eaten up by taxes. What if we
were to pave this highway with one dollar coins, pave it from
shoulder to shoulder, all four lanes, with loonies. Would we be
able to get from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick or maybe even
Quebec? How about Ontario, Saskatchewan or Manitoba? What
about Alberta? Would we make it through the Rockies? Would
we get to British Columbia? We are talking about 7,000
kilometres of four-lane highway, and loonies are, after all, a
relatively small coin and we only have 500 billion of them.
I will give the House a few moments to think about this and
then I will give you the answer. Not only would we be able to
pave the highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we could go
all the way back to the Atlantic and travel an additional 700
kilometres in the opposite direction. That is what $500 billion
represents. Where are we going to get the money to reimburse a
debt of this magnitude?
(1605)
That is obviously a major problem. I have heard on the radio,
seen on television, read in papers-claims to that effect were
even made in this House-that Quebec's sovereignty poses a
serious threat to Canada. I will say this. The real threat to
Canada, let us not forget it, is this absolutely enormous debt, this
crushing debt, which is going to ruin us all if we do not make the
right moves.
Quebec's accession to sovereignty, I might add, would
probably be a good time to change the current rules of the game
and provide a golden opportunity to all parties to review these
rules and finally deal with the public finance problem. Our
public finances have obviously not been managed properly for
decades and, as a result, an extremely heavy burden will be
passed on to future generations.
They will have a heavy burden to bear. We already do. What is
the per capita share of this burden? How much does each and
every one of us owe on the public debt? Some say $16,000,
2684
others $16,500. It all depends of course on the time of day,
seeing that the debt grows by the minute.
For the sake of argument, let us say for the time being that
each and every one of us, all 30 million of us in Quebec and
across Canada, owes $16,384.22, but this figure grows as we
speak.
We also know that, given the current interest rates, the debt
doubles every six or seven years. So, unless we act now, unless
we start paying off the interest on the debt if not the capital, six
or seven years from now, the public debt will have doubled and
each of us will owe anywhere from $32,000 to $33,000 on it.
If an individual goes to his or her bank or credit union and
says to the manager: ``Look, I have debts, about $16,000 worth
of debts, and I would like to consolidate all that'', the bank
manager will frown, of course, but he or she will more than
likely answer: ``Let us sit down together and see what we could
do about your lifestyle. Let us try and work something out''.
But six or seven years from now, if you go to your bank
manager with a debt of approximately $32,000, I have a feeling
that his or her immediate reaction will be: ``File for
bankruptcy''. Sometimes I wonder if we should not file for
bankruptcy and just start over under a new name. I can see
certain members have understood what I am getting at.
(1610)
During the holiday season I volunteered to work with the Red
Nose organization in my riding. English-Canadian communities
probably have similar organizations where, during the holiday
season, volunteers offer rides to people who have had a little too
much to drink. These people make it home safely without having
to drive their cars. It has become an institution in Quebec and in
many other countries. The Red Nose organization allows people
aware of the dangers associated with drinking and driving to act
responsibly.
That being said, I offered to drive people asking for a ride
home, and one of my constituents said during the ride, ``Why not
simply raise taxes to pay off the deficit so that we can get rid of it
quickly?'' I asked her by how much she thought her taxes would
go up and she said, ``By a small amount of money''. When she
understood that we were talking of $16,000 for the interest
alone, she realized we had a real problem on our hands.
We are indeed in a dilemma. You see, if we increase income or
consumption taxes, everyone will have less available income
and, as a result, less money to spend on goods and services.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I have only three
minutes left so I will be quick. If we raise taxes, consumers will
have less money in their pockets to buy things with; if they
consume less, businesses will eventually sell less; if businesses
sell less, they will lay off workers. And we will just have
increased the deficit. However, if we cut spending, again people
will be laid off. These people will stop contributing to tax
revenues, and again we are in trouble.
We must redirect federal expenditures wisely, cut where it
will hurt the least, and ensure that displaced workers can find
new jobs. We have our work cut out for us; it will not happen as
if by magic.
In conclusion, I must quote the Minister of Finance not
because I like his comments, but because they scare me. The
Minister of Finance said, ``We clearly showed, in the first phase
of our budget, that we would bring the deficit down to 3 per cent
of GDP within three years. It will be the first time-he used the
future-in 15 or 20 years that this goal has been achieved''. I
hope so, but he should have said-it would have been more
accurate in my opinion-``it would be the first time''. He could
also have stated that it was not, unfortunately, the first time such
promises were made to Canadian and Quebec voters. Although I
sincerely hope that this budget will fulfil the promises made to
us, I am afraid that it is just another illusion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for Portneuf for his speech.
[English]
That is as much as I can get out at this time, but it is going to
come.
I would like to thank the member for his remarks. I am glad to
see that he is concerned as many of us are with the size of not
only the deficit but the size of the debt. The debt we all realize is
driving this deficit problem that many of us at least on this side
of the House seem to be quite concerned about.
(1615 )
I am also very pleased that he used the example of a national
highway from sea to sea as an example of the size of the national
debt. It is perhaps a symbolic gesture on his part of that
continuity from ocean to ocean. I am glad he was willing to use
that.
I know the previous speaker gave some detailed examples of
what he thought should happen in order to address the size of the
debt and the deficit, specifically the year to year deficit. Other
than some duplication of services which I know can be
streamlined, with the size of the debt surely the hon. member has
some specific ideas for saving significant amounts of dollars in
order to bring this deficit more in line.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign,
the Bloc Quebecois proposed a specific plan for reducing
government spending and attacking the deficit.
2685
One of these measures was an infrastructure program,
something much bigger that what the Liberal Party offered us.
Let me point out here, and perhaps other members will want
to react to this, that the federal government is advancing $2
billion for the infrastructure program, but the federal
government is now spending $20 billion on unemployment
insurance.
Look at the dichotomy. On the one hand, we have $2 billion to
put people to work and, on the other, we have $20 billion for
them not to work. I would have expected a much more solid
proposal from the Liberal government for redirecting
unemployment insurance funds to more productive things that
are more promising for the future of all these unemployed
people.
At the present time, unfortunately, unemployment insurance
is a way to help people survive until welfare becomes their only
option. Unfortunately, there is no work once these weeks of
unemployment insurance inexorably run out.
The Bloc Quebecois's program also sought to redirect a
greater share of federal spending to Quebec. You should realize
that Quebec pays a total of $28 billion, more or less, in tax every
year and receives the same amount of $28 billion from the
federal government. The problem is that a large part of this $28
billion is unemployment insurance and what is called welfare. If
this money were spent on job creation, and what I am saying
applies not only to Quebec but to all of Canada, people who
work would pay taxes.
An interesting statistic to which few people refer is the $120
billion paid by people who work and consume. In Canada, about
one in four employable persons does not work, which means that
if they could work, they would pay $40 billion more in taxes and
that is exactly what we need to wipe out the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for to act?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the words of the hon. member of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He quite rightly points out the very
difficult financial situation which exists in Canada.
(1620 )
We have all been through the stages leading up to where we
are today. A brief history is that it started many years ago when
Keynesian economics were applied to the economic situation of
the day creating a national debt. The subsequent government
that took over, if it was going to apply that same philosophy,
during the years of increased economic activity in this country,
should have been taking that money back and paying off the
national debt. But it did not. Therefore what was a debt of $160
billion 10 years ago escalated another $340 billion over the two
terms of office of the previous government.
The challenge has been how to turn the ship around without
capsizing it in the process and put us on a new tack. Our Minister
of Finance did an admirable job in focusing on the vision in the
red book, which we all used during the last election campaign,
and in applying it in the first phase of a double budget. My
friends in the Reform Party have insisted we have to make more
cuts. The government has introduced a multitude of measures.
I fail to understand how the hon. member believes that
separation, or as he words it, the sovereignty of Quebec, would
help with this financial problem.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member
seemed to want to go on for a while, and I thought I would have a
little time to respond. I appreciate how he put his question.
[English]
I understand the sovereignty of Quebec is very important for
everyone from coast to coast and believe me, more so for
Quebecers.
Something must be said in this House. The Quebec
government over the years and for well over a decade has
managed its public finances a lot better than what has been done
in Ottawa.
Furthermore I am a taxpayer and have been a taxpayer for a
long, long time. I have paid my share I am sure, as all the other
people in this country are doing.
We send money to Ottawa on the assumption that it will be
used to pay the interest on the debt and to reduce the deficit. I
was told that. Everyone has been told that year after year after
year for well over a decade by all the governments that have
preceded this one. We are told that right now by this
government.
I send my money to Ottawa on the assumption that it will be
used well. When I see it is not, I wonder why I should not give
my money directly to the government that has proven in the past
to be more able to take care of my finances. By that I mean
Quebec. That is why I think Quebec would better administer the
servicing of our debt than Ottawa has proven able to do in the
past.
(1625)
[Translation]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, today we are asked to give
extensive borrowing authority to a government that has already
shown in its first budget that it is not only fiscally incompetent
but also fiscally incontinent.
On February 22, while the Minister of Finance was singing
into our ears, I could not help but see the ghosts of Michael
Wilson and Don Mazankowski coming back to haunt us. We
heard all the old platitudes. For example-
2686
[English]
-restoring fiscal responsibility, a responsible social security
system and a framework for economic renewal. There was even
a mandatory pledge to get a handle on things next year and really
take action the year after that.
The minister bravely proclaimed it is time for the government
to get its fiscal House in order while confessing that the
government plans net spending increases of $3 billion in the
next fiscal year.
After nine years of Tory smoke and mirrors, inflated revenue
estimates and broken promises, Canadians were entitled to
expect something new, something better. All they got was the
same old hokum that hardly anyone takes seriously any more.
This government which plans to persist with the Tory practice
of killing the economy with high taxes is nevertheless predicting
that the economy is going to miraculously rebound, thus
inflating its projected revenue.
Personal income tax which unexpectedly fell by $6 billion
this year is supposed to rebound by $7 billion next year. The
anticipated increase of $1 billion from higher UIC premiums
will probably come true. Why should GST revenues increase by
$1 billion when anyone who has a few dollars is scared to death
to spend them on consumer goods?
Rather than face reality and cut spending now, the
government wants to party on. It wants to borrow another $34
billion to pay the tab. It has already been quite a party, twenty
years of glorious excess.
Now our children and our grandchildren are going to be stuck
with both the bill and the hangover. The $500 billion that this
government already owes is going to be around for generations.
Because of it those future generations are going to have a lower
standard of living than we have had. There is no way out.
In the name of decency and common sense, how can we justify
borrowing another $34 billion to make their burden heavier?
More to the point, how can we talk about adding another $100
billion to this load on their backs for the next three years?
Remember that $100 billion is based on the rosy estimates of
this government. If events of the last 20 years are any indication,
it will probably be closer to $150 billion if the foreign money
lenders do not come and take our credit card away before that
happens.
Thanks to the magic of compound interest the debt we have
already accumulated is eating us alive. Debt service costs this
fiscal year will equal the cost of old age pensions and UIC
combined. Every second the federal government pays more than
$1,200 in interest. A typical Canadian family of four pays $460
in taxes every month just to cover the interest on the federal
debt, a third of which is foreign debt.
(1630)
For 20 years the Grits and the Tories have told us soothingly
that mounting government debts are not really a problem
because they are internal, that we owe it to ourselves and since
the interest payments remain within the domestic economy they
constitute only a recirculation of funds, an economic perpetual
motion machine.
Even if one accepts this Disneyland approach to economics,
the basic premise is no longer true. We are paying so much
interest to foreigners that even though we have had a trade
surplus every year for decades, our current account balance has
been negative since 1985. This year our current account
shortfall will be $25 billion and our foreign exchange reserves
are shrinking.
If provincial foreign debts are added to those accumulated in
this place, and that is reasonable since most countries do not
have states or provinces borrowing money on world markets,
Canadian public foreign debt is greater than that of Mexico and
on a per capita basis it is greater than that of Brazil.
The government can wail ``But there is nothing we can do. If
we cut spending it is going to hurt''. Sure it will but the pain can
only be delayed, it cannot be avoided. Every time a year goes by
and another $40 billion is added to the burden, the intensity of
the potential pain becomes greater.
What is more desirable, to cut voluntarily while we still can or
wait for the inevitable fiscal meltdown to burn us up like New
Zealand and Sweden? How long does the government think that
our economy can survive if the foreign bankers cut us off? How
long before we would have to go hat in hand to the IMF like a
third world country?
The government says it cannot cut spending because of its
great compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged. I submit
that the trick is to target social spending to those who need it. We
can no longer afford to subsidize high income individuals and
we can no longer afford to subsidize corporate Canada. If the
government does not start to practise a little basic economic
management, that compound interest machine is going to
continue to accelerate.
One-third of every tax dollar collected by the government is
already being used to service existing debt. What happens in the
not too distant future when that becomes 40 cents out of the
dollar, 45 cents or even 50 cents? Where will the money come
from to pay for social programs or even to provide basic
government services?
If the whole rotten structure comes tumbling down there will
be no medicare, no pensions, no UIC, no welfare, nothing. Those
who will suffer the most will be the weakest members of society:
the sick, the old and the very young. That will be the govern-
2687
ment's legacy to the people of Canada if it does not begin to take
the problem seriously.
The government has proven through its non-budget that it
cannot be trusted with a credit card. That card should be locked
away in a safe place before the foreign bankers come and take it
away from us.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, true, I talk a
lot about the deficit but, you see, a few years ago I thought it was
my money at stake, but I realized some time ago that it is my
children's and perhaps even my grandchildren's money.
(1635 )
[English]
The hon. member mentioned many things, one of which I want
to correct, if he would kindly allow me to do so. He said that
one-third of the tax collected by the government is used to
service the debt. Unfortunately, it is a lot worse than that. Zero
per cent is used to service the debt. One hundred per cent is used
for programs. We do not pay the debt and the interest just adds
on. How unfortunate.
However, I have a question for the hon. member if he does not
mind. I will read something that was printed in La Presse in
Montreal. I will read it in French. I am sure he will be able to
follow it through the translation.
[Translation]
``The changes to the unemployment insurance program
announced in the last federal budget make unemployed
Canadians bear the brunt of over half of all new Liberal cuts'', as
if cuts could be liberal, ``and will cost the provinces $1 billion,
including $280 million in Quebec alone''.
[English]
This is the question I would like the hon. member to address.
It seems that the federal government has succeeded in keeping
the deficit just below the $40 billion mark by shovelling part of
the problem into the backyard of every one of the provinces.
How does the member react to that?
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I will address the first comment
of the hon. member for Portneuf.
Where does the money come from to pay the interest on the
debt? I guess this is an exercise in semantics. You can take it out
of their right pocket or you can take it out of their left pocket.
The fact remains it collects $120 billion in taxes and $40 billion
goes to pay interest on the debt.
Yes, I agree with the hon. member. We are borrowing money
to pay interest on the debt because we are not quite breaking
even. We are borrowing more than the interest cost. Where this
will end, the hon. member knows well.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Portneuf on his
original speech. I did not get a chance to stand up because
everyone wanted to ask him questions. I applauded him. I
thought he had perhaps become a Reformer when I listened to
his economic analysis.
Mr. Canuel: Le Bloc réformiste.
Mr. Morrison: Yes, le Bloc réformiste, bien sûr.
The only part of his address that bothered me and sort of
spoiled the effect was when he persisted from time to time in
referring to two different countries, Quebec and Canada. If he
would accept the premise that we are all one country, I would
really like to see him move many seats this way and display his
considerable talents on behalf of the nation because he really
knows his economics.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
as the House may or may not be aware, the hon. member for
Swift Current is involved in the agricultural community.
I wonder if the member could enlighten me and other
members of the House of the effect on the agriculture industry of
this chronic overspending and our inability to live within our
means. Is it making our agricultural products less competitive in
the world market?
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, it is having a
very marked bad effect on our competitiveness in the
agricultural markets.
One of the main reasons that farm input costs are so high is the
tax component they contain. It does not matter whether one is
buying a tractor or a litre of diesel fuel or repairs for something
on one's farm, the tax component if one tracks it backwards
through every stage of production in many cases, I would
suspect in most cases, amounts to some 50 per cent of the cost
when the farmer goes to buy it from his agent.
(1640)
If we were not being taxed to death in order to maintain this
excessive debt load, then the prices of farm inputs would
automatically go down and we would be more competitive on
the world stage.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the member from Swift Current again
for his presentation on the borrowing authority bill and to get
away a little bit from the side issues. I guess they are all
important, but to me it is a side issue, whether it affects
agriculture per se or affects one region of the country more than
another.
I would like to focus on the borrowing aspect of this bill, the
authority that it is giving the Government of Canada to borrow
2688
tens of billions of dollars at unknown interest rates, apparently
ever on the increase, and the effect that is going to have on the
government's budgetary predictions.
I wonder if the member from Swift Current would comment
on yesterday's announcement of the three-quarter per cent jump
in the Canadian prime and the effect he feels this will have on
the government's budgetary predictions.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, we asked the Minister of
Finance this morning to address that very question. We did not
get an answer. My own interpretation is that it will probably cost
about an extra $1.5 billion a year if this current increase
continues.
What I am more afraid of is that this is the shape of things to
come and that we are going to have another spurt of interest rate
increases. As our bond ratings are downgraded and as foreign
investors begin to look more and more unkindly on us, we could
very easily see 8 per cent interest rates by the end of this year.
Then watch the deficit roll.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak again on this bill. I spoke at second reading. I
raised some concerns at that time, concerns that have been
expressed to me not only in post budget days but during the
lead-up and the entire campaign period last fall, even during the
time I was nominated before I entered into the campaign mode.
This whole issue of deficit financing, the national debt,
having to borrow and the fact that we are placing not only this
nation and ourselves into a tremendous debt hole but are asking
our children to try to dig us back out is an issue for which many
of us in the Reform Party have become standard bearers.
One of the major concerns that brought the Reform Party into
being was the fact that the fiscal mismanagement of successive
federal governments has placed us in an untenable position for
which we will be paying for generations.
When I first sought the nomination for Fraser Valley East the
size of the deficit was forecast as perhaps going as high as $30
billion. This was a couple of years ago. At the time I have to
admit it was the last straw that catapulted me into the federal
election arena. Just the thought that I was going to saddle the
nation with a deficit of $30 billion was more than I could stand. I
am not sure whether there was a national uproar, but in my area it
was such a concern that many of us joined the Reform Party and
said that we would try to do something to turn the tide so that our
children would not be adversely affected.
Thirty billion dollars is looking better every day. We are
approaching a $45 billion deficit. By the government's own
admission the best that it can hope for this year is in excess of
$40 billion. Every day that the interest rate fluctuates or the
dollar drops or the Minister of Finance has some musings, it
changes the rates and the figures once again.
(1645)
It was a real concern at $30 billion. Now that it is $40 billion
or $45 billion, depending on who one wants to believe, it is even
more of a concern. I would suggest it has gone from a concern to
a pending and possibly imminent disaster.
Since it is bad and is getting worse we should describe, as the
member did previously I think a little bit, the size of the debt and
what it will mean to Canadians in the years to come. The debt is
in excess of $500 billion, depending on the figures that were
bandied about here a little bit earlier. Whether it is $16,000 per
person or whatever, that only shows part of the picture. The
other half of the picture, of course, is the added debt from the
provinces, because there is only one taxpayer. Canadians are
going to have to finance somehow by increased taxes, increased
deficit, and more and more of these types of bills, borrowing
authority acts, in all legislatures and Parliaments and that will
continue to add to this burden for successive generations.
The deficit, which is a year to year accumulation of the
shortfall in the revenues from expenditures, is going to be at
least $40 billion this year. That alone is going to add increased
burdens on all the people who can least afford it. I seldom see
people worth $10 million or $20 million running for cover when
these figures are bandied about. What bothers me and concerns
me the most is that the people who are least able to shoulder this
type of load, those on fixed incomes, the people who are relying
on a government pension that they have faithfully paid into and
expect to reap some benefit from, the people who are needing
some temporary help from a temporary loss of employment
through a UI program, no matter how it is revised, will have to
pay the price and pay increased taxes and will in the long run
experience decreased services.
I have a lot of concerns about that. These concerns have not
gone away since I have come to Parliament. Over the last couple
of months the concerns I think have been exacerbated by the
signals being sent from the government side of the House.
It seems there is no concept of fiscal restraint. The budget
papers states: ``We will no longer nibble around the edges and
just fuss with the minor details of the budget. This budget
contains real cutbacks''. That is what the government would
have us believe. When I turn the page I see that the total
expenditures of the federal government have increased from
$160 billion to $163 billion.
How is that a cutback? It is not a cutback. It is increased
spending. Our borrowing has increased, our taxes inevitably
will go up, and our service inevitably will go down. That is a
2689
problem. It is a concern to all of us. It certainly should be even
more of a concern to the government side.
If that is the problem, and I believe the problem is what I have
described, we are going to pass this problem on to successive
generations. What can we possibly do to control the deficit?
What can we do to bring under control the year to year deficit so
that this borrowing authority that we are debating today will no
longer be necessary?
We are not without examples of what can be done even within
the Canadian jurisdiction, leaving New Zealand out of it for a
moment. I know that is often bandied about. Within the
Canadian jurisdiction there have been some examples of what
can be done to control excessive spending by governments.
We have an example from Alberta in which the provincial
government has grabbed the bull by the horns, if I may use a
western expression, and has said that enough is enough, we can
no longer afford to continue to spend and tax and spend, and
expect to maintain services and a business environment that will
assure prosperity in the future.
The premier of Alberta did the unthinkable in Canadian
politics. He decided to get tough with some spending, and
indeed he did get tough. Some people have done analyses on this
and have suggested that if the federal government were to
exercise as many spending cuts as the Alberta government
proportionately, then it would have to slice $19 billion from its
spending just to match the precedent set by Premier Klein in his
budget. I am not saying Premier Klein's budget is perfect, but I
use that as an example to show that it is possible to realize the
severity of the problem. It is possible to reduce one's spending
in real terms. It is possible to offer a light at the end of the tunnel
for those Canadians concerned about the size of deficits, debts
and the borrowing that is associated with it.
(1650)
Of all things, and I never thought I would say this, there is
even an example in my own province of British Columbia. I hate
to think that the federal government cannot match an NDP
budget, but the B.C. budget brought down yesterday announces
tax cuts of $112 million. It will reduce its deficit this year to
$189 million which is a tremendous step in the right direction
for a government not known for its fiscal responsibility. It is
offering certain tangible benefits to businesses and some of that
famous light at the end of that famous tunnel.
For example, the Vancouver international airport, which is
competing as all of B.C. must for Pacific rim business, is a big
winner. The jet fuel taxes are being rolled back one cent to four
cents a litre. Air cargo gets another boost. Last year's budget
removed fuel taxes from cargo carriers altogether. There are
ways to help businesses, consumers and people who are
concerned about taxes, deficits and everything that just seems to
snowball together. We can specifically reduce spending and by
reducing that spending we can offer tax breaks to businesses,
consumers and people on fixed incomes.
For instance, in the B.C. budget there were the mining tax
breaks estimated to be worth $18 million. This is unprecedented
in B.C. recent budgetary history. The people are concerned
about increased taxes, increased borrowing and the never ending
spiral of hopelessness that involves. Now that the government
has seen the light, if I can use that expression again, it has
actually reduced taxes in specific areas to help businesses help
themselves. These businesses are not going to receive a grant, a
handout, regional development aid or anything else. These
businesses are going to receive tax breaks which is all that
businesses require.
How many times have we heard small and medium sized
businesses say that all they ask of government is to get out of
their way and get off their backs so they can get on doing the job
that they do best which is create jobs for Canadians?
As I said, I did not know that I would ever compliment the
B.C. government on its ability to bring in a budget, but I am not
going to be totally complimentary to it either. The B.C. budget
also brought in some total budgetary spending increases of 3.5
per cent.
What would have happened in B.C. if instead of bringing in
increased budgetary spending it had brought in a zero increase in
budgetary spending? All of the similar cuts that I talked about
earlier could have gone on. The cuts in overall taxation levels
could have gone on. The reduction in the taxation for jet fuel and
so on and so forth could have gone on. What if, instead of
increasing the spending in other areas by 3.5 per cent, the B.C.
government had brought in a zero increase budget? Instead of
predicting a balanced budget by 1997 it could have brought in a
balanced budget within its term, within the next year or two.
That would have been a tremendous feather in its cap and may
have turned the tide in the popularity contest which it seems to
be losing at the current time.
Those are precedents that are within the Canadian round. If
the federal government had brought in a zero increase budget
and had just held flat at $160 billion, which is incredible as it is,
but even if it had brought in that much without an extra $3
billion or $4 billion in spending, then this government I think
would have been perceived by the Canadian people as being
serious about addressing what may be a crisis problem of
deficits, debt and borrowing.
(1655 )
My riding extends from Boston Bar, which is pre-riding
boundary adjustment time, in the north which is basically a one
industry town, a lumber town that derives almost its entire
economic activity from the forestry industry. It extends down
through Hope which starts to diversify a little. There is some
mining and basically a lot more forestry activity and a lot of
tourism. It extends down through the Chilliwack area where I
live and where we diversify into agriculture and again
lumbering and forestry continue to be important. There is a
Canadian
2690
forces base there. My riding extends right into the Abbotsford
area which has almost another flavour unto itself. It has a lot of
urban commuters who drive in to Vancouver and work in the big
city and it has a lot of retirement people as well.
It does not matter where I go in my riding, whether I am
talking to a lumberjack or a logger up in Boston Bar with his red
strap suspenders and the whole ball of wax, if I talk to him about
the size of the deficit and having to live within your means, that
logger knows exactly what I am talking about. He will poke his
finger into my chest and tell me to tell this government to quit
spending money it does not have just like he has to manage
things in his own household.
If I extend down into Hope and into Chilliwack where I live
and talk to a dairy farmer there who is worried about GATT and
NAFTA and all sorts of things, he will tell me again as he sticks
his finger into my chest: ``You tell that government to quit
spending money it does not have. Quit borrowing money to
spend on things we do not even need. Quit obligating my
children to pay your debts. Tell that government to quit spending
money''.
If I go into Abbotsford where people live on a fixed income
they will come up to me at a public meeting and tell me the same
story. It does not matter what you do or where you live, the
people know you have to live within your means.
As soon as you get an allowance of two bucks a week when
you are 10 years old, you know you have to live within your
means. This government has not learned this lesson yet. This is
why this government's borrowing authority act is asking for an
unprecedented amount of money to keep government going. It
has not learned the lessons it should have learned by watching, if
I may be so bold, the PC government of the last eight, nine or ten
years.
If the government continues to spend this sort of money in the
dollar amounts it is proposing, the electorate will turf it out at
the next election with such a vengeance that we may again find a
party decimated to the ranks with one or two people left. It has to
listen to the Canadian people. The Canadian people want
restraint. They want budgetary sanity brought back into
government and they expect this government to do its part by
restricting spending, bringing in a budget that does not include
increased spending measures. Do it now. Do it not only for the
people sitting here today but, more important, do it for the
people of Canada who are demanding it.
I ask the government to reconsider this bill. Do not pass it. Do
not ask for this amount of money. Bring in a budget that we can
support, something with a cap on spending, and do it now.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment and a question for the hon. member, who raised points
which I wondered about several months ago already, and for
which I found an answer. I am going to suggest that answer to the
hon. member and, in the process, get his point of view.
The hon. member says that the government must live
according to its means. He adds that, for years now, in fact two
decades, we progressively got more and more into debt.
I noticed that too, and I wondered not only about the facts but
also their cause. It is not enough to say that we notice something.
We have to ask ourselves: How did we end up in this situation
and why do we still find ourselves in it?
(1700)
So, I asked myself this very simple question: Why is it that
Mr. Trudeau-I think I can name him without violating the
rules-started getting us into debt? Is it because he did not
realize that it was not a very smart idea to incur debts? Or is it
because he was incompetent or acted in bad faith? Certainly not!
I am convinced that, at the time, Mr. Trudeau acted in good faith
and followed what he believed to be excellent advice
encouraging him to do what he did.
Several years later, Mr. Mulroney promised to correct the
situation and he failed. Did Mr. Mulroney act in bad faith? I do
not think so. I believe that Mr. Mulroney really wanted to reduce
the national debt.
Did he receive bad advice? I think that, here in Ottawa, we
have extremely competent civil servants who work very hard to
make things happen. So, my question is: What happened?
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Portneuf for his question. He raised a couple of interesting
points. I am not exactly sure what Mr. Trudeau was thinking
when he started us down this path. Perhaps it is just a Liberal
frame of mind. I am not sure but time will tell.
I realize I am stretching it, but Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulroney
have a similar problem or similar disease that afflicts new
governments. It is called missed opportunities. When a new
government takes the reins in Parliament it has a window of
opportunity, which lasts a few months while the honeymoon
period is on and while government members are glowing from
ear to ear and from coast to coast, to make significant changes in
the way that Parliament and Canada are run.
2691
Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulroney had a similar disease
in that they missed opportunities. I am not sure exactly what
the perception of Mr. Mulroney was in Quebec where he won
a huge number of seats, but we voted for him in the west in
1984 because we thought we were electing a fiscally
responsible voice that would ensure our concerns were upheld
in Parliament.
During his first budget Mr. Mulroney missed a tremendous
opportunity. People wanted a fiscally responsible budget
brought down, but because of some vocal people who were
naysayers he folded the tents and went scurrying with his tail
between his legs.
If I could come now to the 35th Parliament, I fear from
looking at the budget that we have a similar phenomenon. We
have a populace leader of the government who seems to be very
much in tune with people. He seems on the outside to be one of
the little guys from Shawinigan, just a regular guy, but he
missed an opportunity in the budget to change the course of the
35th Parliament. It will not get easier. If the hon. Minister of
Finance thinks it will get easier as we get near the next election,
he is totally wrong.
As the hon. member said, whether they received bad advice or
did not catch the full vision of what people were sending them to
Ottawa to do, I am not sure. Regardless of what it was, if an
opportunity is missed at the start of a parliament to set the tone
for what the government is trying to accomplish the opportunity
will never come back.
(1705)
Perhaps the government wonders why we make such a fuss
about the borrowing authority, the budget and so on. It tells us to
wait until next year, but we have heard this wait until next year
stuff for at least 10 years and it never comes because it never
gets easier.
Any time we shrug something off and think that a problem
will go away on its own it is just wishful thinking and there is a
famous road paved with wishful thinking.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to address for the first time Bill C-14, an act to provide
borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1994.
I speak against the bill because it is time we stopped living on
borrowed money. The government has to start living within its
means and resist the temptation to continue the mistakes of the
past 25 years.
In 1968 the Liberal government under Pierre Elliot Trudeau
came into power. It generated the first deficit. Since 1968 and
including that year every government has continued to spend
more money each and every year than it generated in tax dollars.
If we check the records, after the Liberal government was kicked
out by the Conservative government it left a debt for the
Conservatives of $175 billion in 1984.
The Conservatives continued the same spending habits the
Liberals had taught them while they were in government. Each
and every year while the Conservatives were in power they
continued to add to the debt to the point at which the people
finally had enough. Under that government the debt grew to
$460 billion. When the Conservatives were in power they kept
blaming the Liberal government for the debt that grew every
year because they had to pay interest out of the revenues to
service the debt brought in by the Liberal government under Mr.
Trudeau.
Now the Liberals are back in power and they are blaming the
Conservatives for the $460 billion debt. They say it is their fault
and that the $40 billion interest payment is a result of their lack
of fiscal responsibility. The Liberals are now expecting the
Canadian public to buy the same argument again.
Enough is enough. The finance minister's budget ignored the
real problem. The finance minister presented a budget that
accomplished nothing. The results would have been the same
after 12 months if he had done nothing. It is a shame for him as a
person with such good business background and business
acumen not to heed the advice of his own experience.
The real problem is the debt and the interest we must pay
every year to service the debt which is in the $40 billion range.
There is the deficit, the debt and the interest payment on the
debt. The finance minister brought in a budget that increased
overall spending by $3 billion. Yet his rhetoric sounds as if he
read the Reform Party blue book and the zero in three plan.
He talks tough. He talks about where we must take tough
measures and make tough decisions. We must work toward a
balanced budget. We must do this. We must do that. However,
what does he do? He makes one sector of the economy, the
military, suffer the most. It is suffering pain for no net gain
because he increased spending by $3 billion overall.
This is why we are concerned as members of the Reform
Party. The finance minister says he understands the problem but
he fails to address it in the budget. As a businessman I am doubly
infuriated because every time the government interferes in the
private sector through grants, subsidies and regional
development funds it proves in the long run not to work. When
the money runs out so do the businesses. It is unfair. It distorts
the marketplace and it creates confusion.
For instance, under the infrastructure program the federal
government will contribute $2 billion if a province contributes
$2 billion and the municipalities collectively contribute $2
billion. Then we will have a $6 billion job creation program. It is
creating confusion. In the heart of downtown Calgary in my
riding is a building that contributes to infrastructure that already
draws businesses and people. It is a round-up centre, a building
called the Saddle Dome which houses the Calgary Flames, a
professional hockey team. The municipal council has now
found a way to make application to the provincial government
and through it to the federal government. The President of the
Treasury Board will have to make a decision. I advise him to
2692
decide against it because it is not a true use of infrastructure
moneys. He will be asked to make a decision on whether it falls
under the criterion and the definition. There is confusion.
(1710)
Therefore the federal government should make it a point that
if it has an infrastructure program it should go toward
infrastructure. Two other levels of government have decided
that spending money on a facility that is already in place is
infrastructure. Since the private sector is involved with the
Calgary Flames and since it is the major tenant, I recommend the
President of the Treasury Board take a good hard look at the
application.
My original point was that the infrastructure program was
causing confusion. It is an intrusion into the marketplace.
Another intrusion involves the province of Quebec and the
manufacturer of the Hyundai car. Hyundai was originally
subsidized, attracted to come to the province. It was to create
1,000 jobs. We were to lend it $100 million and to sell 100,000
cars at the end of this wonderful deal.
Hyundai closed its doors when the money ran out. Some 856
jobs were created, not 1,000. There were only 26,000 cars
produced, not 100,000. However the Minister of Finance is
considering lending more money for it to reopen the doors and
gainfully employ another 800 people, the same 800 people.
Has the government or the finance minister not even asked
why it shut its doors. Is it because Hyundai is not competitive
enough? Is it because it cannot sell cars?
This is the private sector in which the federal government
continues to intrude and continues to distort. The private sector
wants the government off its back and out of its pockets. It wants
to be left alone; it can create the infrastructure. It wants the
government to do only what governments can do, and that is
peace, order and good government, not investing in the private
sector. I do not know how much more emphatically Reformers
can say that and repeat that until it finally gets the message
across.
The government wants to pass Bill C-14 so that it can borrow
money to meet its commitments in the red ink book. It wants to
borrow money so that it can create jobs to fund our already too
generous social programs rather than review them for ways and
means in which it can create a social safety net that protects the
truly needy, not those it protects now who do not really need the
money.
We have limited dollars. We are living on borrowed money.
Why do we not stop wasting borrowed money and reduce the
debt and thus reduce the amount we have to borrow? The proper
signal should be sent to investors, lenders and consumers that
the government will change the mistakes of the past 23
governments and finally make a commitment to the proper
principles of economic growth. Lord knows, with all the advice
we have available through bureaucracy we could do it.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance I have
heard some interesting presentations on a replacement tax for
the GST. I have also had the very good privilege of questioning
the deputy minister of finance, Mr. Dodge. It is worthwhile for
the entire Liberal cabinet to listen to him, especially the finance
minister to whom this man has to answer. Let me read a
comment that he made to the committee referring to our huge
debt. He said that the problem was not only a federal one but also
a provincial and local one.
(1715 )
In 1992-93 our deficit stood at approximately $40 billion
federally and approximately $25 million provincially. The debt
at the federal level is getting very close to three-quarters of the
GNP. We are paying interest rates that are about 2 per cent above
the rate of growth of the economy. That means we have to divert
increasing amounts of taxpayers revenues just to service the past
debt.
Canada's total budget deficit was the second highest among
G-7 countries in 1992. We are just about leading the G-7 with
respect to all levels of spending which is approximately 50 per
cent of our GNP. The proportion of our debt that is
internationally held has increased a great deal over the past 10
years. It is to the point now where the combined federal
provincial total is about $750 billion and $300 billion plus is
foreign held.
We must pay foreigners more and more to service Canada's
foreign debt, approximately $1 of every $20 produced. All we
can say is there may come a time when financial markets will
feel they can no longer trust Canada to handle its problems.
People will want to sell their Canadian bonds and we will no
longer be able to borrow. We will face serious problems like
New Zealand, Sweden, et cetera.
The important part is that the moment of truth can arrive just
like that. That means when the Liberal government's program
and budget after this year and next year do not work, its final
recourse may be the International Monetary Fund. The
government may have to invite them here and I do not think we
need that. Do we want to invite the International Monetary Fund
to solve our problems? I do not think so.
Is the finance minister listening to his own deputy Minister of
Finance? Is the Liberal cabinet discussing the seriousness of the
debt and the deficit and the interest costs on servicing that debt?
What is going to happen if interest rates continue to rise? I will
leave that for another speaker to possibly address.
I recommend we handle our own problems before resorting to
groups like the International Monetary Fund. I recommend a
complete overhaul and entire review of the taxation system.
Never mind just a GST study, make a commitment to an entire
2693
tax review. Get rid of the income tax in its present form. Get rid
of the 14,000 books of rules and regulations.
Why does this government not take some advice from one of
its own members who worked hard and true on this in
opposition, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood? I
know what his name is but I am not allowed to mention it. He
wrote the book The Single Tax.
That has a lot of merit. A flat tax for Canada would help
spread the tax load. It would allow us to introduce a lower tax
rate. It would help solve the problems with the social safety net
with an exemption level for each person that generates money.
That would solve the problem. They would not have to pay tax
on the first $15,000 for instance. They could then look after
themselves without government subsidies and aid. Then the
money we did generate as a government could go to the truly
needy, the people who really need welfare and those seniors who
really need help under the guaranteed income supplement.
Why will the Liberal government not focus on issues like
this? There is a member within that party and he is not even in
cabinet. He has been shunted right out and I do not understand
why.
A flat tax has some other advantages. A flat tax would allow
all Canadians on a proportional basis, depending upon the size
of their family and the size of their income, to pay the same rate
of tax. That would be equal. It would be more equitable and it
would be fair. The finance minister always likes to use the word
``fair''. He has said in his budget speech that his intent and one
of the objectives of the federal budget is to restore and sustain
fiscal responsibility but I beg to differ.
The other advantages of a flat tax, if the Liberal government
were so inclined to review it, would be that being simple it
eliminates the need and the work with all these exemptions and
loopholes that the finance minister talks about in his budget.
Today when we want to develop a certain sector of our natural
resources, we create an incentive for people to invest and we
give them a tax deduction. That starts to work or does not work
and then later on we take the exemption away. We call it a
loophole and we eliminate it. We give and take and give and
take.
(1720)
If we had a flat tax we would not have to worry about
incentives, loopholes and deductions. We would only have to
figure out mechanisms over and above the personal exemption
in terms of charitable donations, perhaps 1 per cent, and in terms
of the child credit and child care costs. Those could be
incorporated.
After that we could draw a line. We would state what was
made, make the deductions, multiply by 15 per cent and send
that amount to the federal government. This system would be
less complicated and understandable by everybody. It could be
put on one sheet. Everybody would be doing it the same way. It
is a proportional tax.
I would love to have a debate on this. Perhaps I could
convince my own caucus to make a motion at some future point
to discuss this flat tax and have a situation in which we solve our
own problems. I believe a major overhaul of the entire taxation
system would entice more investment in Canada.
We need capital. We need equity capital. Right now the
government mentality, especially at the federal level is to
continue to live on borrowed money which I call debt capital.
There is a big difference. Money that is at risk motivates.
Government money, especially borrowed money, is a waste.
I wish at some point in time we could address our entire
economic and social problems in a comprehensive and
analytical manner. As some Bloc Quebecois members like to say
in the finance committee, there should be a complete review of
our taxation system category by category, allocation by
allocation.
We could then decide what programs we should be funding,
what programs should remain in the public sector and what
programs should be shunted off to the private sector. Yes, I am
talking about privatization. There are a lot of Crown
corporations that could be sold off if they are still necessary. If
nobody in the private sector wishes to buy them, that is only
proof nobody wants the service or needs it anyway.
We could really clean house in this 35th Parliament if we
made a commitment. I understand the Bloc Quebecois claims to
be fiscally responsible. So does the Reform Party. Why do the
cabinet ministers not swallow their pride and listen to some of
the comments we make? They could take credit for being the
greatest government that ever lived because it finally listened to
the people on matters that really counted, money. We pay far too
much in taxes and they need to be reduced.
I speak against Bill C-14. I know the government ultimately
can put this bill through, but I caution it to at least listen to some
of the comments made in this House. Do more than give token
interest to what we say. We are here to serve for another four and
a half years. We want to be solving the problems for this country,
not for some international association.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief
because I really want to hear the Reform Party's answer to this
question.
Some time ago, because of a similar perception of the debt
problem, I was invited to join the ranks of the Reform Party.
2694
However, even though we may perceive the problem in a similar
way, it does not necessarily mean that we share the solution.
Indeed, our respective solutions may differ.
In this context, I said earlier that in the last decade or two no
government was able to control the debt and the deficit.
(1725)
I submit that the reason for this failure rests with the system
itself and that the system has to be changed. I would like to read
the hon. member, if I may, Mr. Speaker, the end of the letter
dated March 1st which the president and chief executive officer
of the Quebec manufacturers' association, Richard Le Hir,
wrote about the budget. It is only one paragraph long.
Faced with this situation, the federal government's only
strategy is the relentless pursuit of the same policy in spite of all
the evidence. Nothing else can explain Mr. Martin's reserve in
his recent budget. He and his Liberal colleagues are hoping that,
contrary to all expectations, a miraculous upturn in the economy
will save Canada from the disaster it is headed for. They are
making the same mistake the Conservatives made before them.
They refuse to admit there is a structural aspect to the Canadian
public finances problem. And for a very good reason! If they
did, it would call into doubt the very structure of the system: the
sacrosanct Constitution. That would be tantamount to opening
Pandora's box. That is why, as we now say in Montreal, `les jeux
sont faits, rien ne va plus'!
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the commentary of the hon.
member. That quote has a lot of merit. I would not dispute that.
I would like to raise one thing that perhaps Bloc Quebecois
members have not considered. I know the agenda they ran in the
province of Quebec. They feel that separation is the best thing
for Quebec. I respect their views on that. I respect why they feel
that way. Perhaps members could give them other thoughts to
consider.
Why not stay in Canada? Why not work together for one
Canada, a new federalism? The Bloc Quebecois would work
within this confederation to gain the best possible for the
province of Quebec in partnership with nine other equal
provinces. As one country we would grow together and
ultimately achieve our highest potential. Why does the hon.
member not talk to his caucus about the economic advantages
for the province of Quebec of staying in Canada? The signal that
would send to the global community and the global market
would have resounding positive financial rewards for the
province of Quebec.
As Reformers we would be happy to point out to the Bloc
Quebecois what some of the advantages are to staying in
confederation. This separatist point of view is divisive and
confusing. There are the arguments and debates over
immigration, over the debt and what Quebec's share would be,
how we do this, how we do that. Why not work together?
Financially it is advantageous for everyone concerned.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has received written notice
from the hon. member for Davenport that he is unable to move
his motion during private members' hour on Thursday, March
24.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence according to Standing Order 94(2)(a).
Accordingly it is necessary that the Chair ask the table officers
to drop the item of business to the bottom of the order of
precedence.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), Private Members' Hour
will be suspended for the day and the House will continue with
the business before it at the time.
[English]
It now being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made on
Tuesday, March 22, 1994, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 21)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
2695
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-90
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Duceppe
Dumas
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Marchi
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
(1755 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.
* * *
The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the
motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy
of the government.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Wednesday,
March 16, 1994 the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on Ways and Means Motion No. 6 concerning
the budget.
2696
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find
unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote just taken to
the motion which you just announced on the Budget.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 22)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-90
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Duceppe
Dumas
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Marchi
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
2697
It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2697
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate an
amendment to the Constitution Act, 1982 to delete section 33 (the
notwithstanding clause).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if we could get a
little order in the House as it is difficult to speak over the noise.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, your colleague wants to
have some order and the Chair on his behalf would request order
so that he might present his motion.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have
presented asks that the government initiate an amendment to the
Constitution Act of 1982 to delete section 33, the
notwithstanding clause.
What are we talking about? In 1982 the Parliament of Canada
and all the parliaments of the provinces passed the Constitution
Act of 1982 which included for the first time in our history an
entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These were such
rights as the fundamental freedoms; the freedom of conscience
and religion, the freedom of thought, the freedom of belief,
opinion and expression, freedom of the press, freedom of
peaceful assembly, freedom of association, our democratic
rights-that is, the right to take part in elections, the right to run
for office, mobility rights, legal rights, very important equality
rights. That section said that all Canadians were equal
irrespective of their sex, their age, their colour, their religion,
their race, their national origin.
In 1982 we entrenched those rights, which meant that those
rights could not be taken away by ordinary legislation.
Furthermore, those rights prevailed over all other legislation
since they were in the Constitution.
If a conflict arose between any other law in Canada and what
was in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms prevailed. The only way those rights could
be taken away is by an amendment to the Constitution, which is
a very complex thing, as we all know as a result of the
Charlottetown accord experience.
We took steps to give Canadians these entrenched rights and
then at the same time we put in the very same act article 33, the
notwithstanding clause, which allowed Parliament and all the
legislatures of Canada to take away those very rights by the use
of what is called a notwithstanding clause. This means that if a
government introduced a bill which said: ``Notwithstanding the
charter of rights, we legislate as follows'', then it would
legislate away the right of freedom of the press or freedom of
religion or freedom of equality, and so on.
(1805)
When Prime Minister Trudeau first introduced the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in 1981, the notwithstanding clause was
not in it. At that point the Constitution of 1982 was clear, pure,
simple and direct without any shenanigans or skulduggery
whatsoever.
However, in the negotiations with the provinces, between
early 1981 and passage in late 1981, pressure was brought to
bear and the notwithstanding clause was accepted.
I always opposed the notwithstanding clause. As a matter of
fact I voted for the Constitution Act of 1981 when it was first
presented on the first round by Mr. Trudeau as a member of his
party and supported it strongly. However, at the end of the
process, when we voted again at the end of the year, I was
obliged to oppose the package, not because I did not support
many things in it but I could not accept the notwithstanding
clause and there were a few other clauses that were added that I
could not accept.
Why am I so opposed to the notwithstanding clause? I just
referred to these rights. These are not marginal rights that we are
talking about. These are not supplementary rights. We are
talking about basic, universal rights, rights that are recognized
around the world. We are talking about rights that are
recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the
United Nations. We are not talking about rights to own property
or to build a house on a certain street. We are talking about
things like freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, equality
between races, equality between people of different religious
backgrounds and so on. We are talking about things that are very
basic.
As far as I am concerned, rights are rights and they should not
be subject to legislative suspension for any reason, not these
kinds of rights. They cannot be legislated away.
Some people would argue that no rights are unlimited. That is
correct. For example, let us take freedom of speech. The
principle of freedom of speech is, without a doubt,
unchallengeable, but we cannot abuse it. We have accepted for a
long time the crimes of liable and slander which are an abuse of
the freedom of speech. We have now in our criminal law
provisions against hate literature by which one cannot attack
another ethnic or religious group in a demeaning way. It can add
up to hate literature. That is an abuse of the freedom of speech.
The Constitution Act of 1982 and the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms provide for that in section 1. The notwithstanding
clause is not necessary. Section 1 of the charter states: ``that the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights
and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
2698
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society''.
We have had our liable and slander laws for many years, but if
they were to be challenged as contrary to the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, the spokespersons for the government could
argue that these were exceptions that were reasonable in a free
and democratic society. In other words, one should not be able to
tell lies that will hurt the reputation of other people.
The difference with article 1 of the charter is that it is the court
which decides whether the law being challenged is an exception
to the charter or not and it is not a politically elected Parliament
or legislature that decides. To me that is very important.
What does it really mean when we have a notwithstanding
clause in our Constitution and in our Charter of Rights and
Freedoms? It means that our minorities really have no
protection vis-à-vis the majority. It means that the minorities
are subject to the rule of the majority. The notwithstanding
clause becomes a contradiction to the very reason for the charter
in the first place.
(1810 )
Those of us who argued in favour of the charter, including
Prime Minister Trudeau, said that we must have a charter
entrenched in our Constitution to protect minorities of different
kinds against the rule of majorities in cases where fear often is
demonstrated, where all of a sudden in certain situations people
want to trample over the rights of the minorities. He said that we
could not leave that to ordinary legislation, that we must
recognize basic principles and put them beyond the rule of the
majority. However if a notwithstanding clause is included that is
contradicting what is being done in the first place. You are
giving with one hand and then taking away with the other.
To me that is hypocrisy. You really do not have a Charter of
Rights and Freedoms if a legislature can pass a law using the
notwithstanding clause, using the words ``notwithstanding the
rights and freedoms we are legislating as follows''. You really
do not have protection and that is what was supposed to be done
in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However you are giving
with one hand and taking away with the other. It becomes a
farce. It can even become mob rule. That is, the mob, the
majority when they want to act, they act regardless of the basic
rights of the minorities in society.
I had the privilege of being educated at law school by Frank R.
Scott, one of the great Canadian professors of law and one of the
great civil rights lawyers in our entire history. He was able to
challenge two laws Quebec Premier Duplessis passed in the
post-war period.
One was a law to ban the Jehovah Witnesses. Frank Scott with
others was able to have that law overturned. We did not have the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in those days. However because
he was a very imaginative lawyer he was able to do it by
referring to other parts of the Constitution.
Then Premier Duplessis passed a law called the padlock act. It
allowed him to put locks on the doors of anybody suspected of
being a Communist. I have no sympathy for Communists. The
point is if it can be done for the Communists, it can be done for
the Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or
any other party if you do not like them and you are allowed to
pass a law banning a political party. Again, Frank Scott was able
to win without the charter.
However I put this to the House. If there had been a charter
with the notwithstanding clause and Frank Scott had won in the
Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Duplessis would simply go back
to his legislature and say: ``Notwithstanding the Supreme Court
of Canada, notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
we are once again going to ban the Jehovah Witnesses. We are
once again going to ban a political party''.
When it was introduced and agreed to by my own party and
our own government, it was said we were agreeing to it to get the
package through. It was said that it would never be used and if it
was going to be used, it would be rare.
It has been used several times. It has been used in
Saskatchewan; it has been used in Quebec to override the
Supreme Court of Canada and to override other rulings of the
court with respect to the charter.
I ask Quebecers in particular to consider that if the legislature
of Quebec can do it for language in that province, then another
province can do it for language as well. If it can be done for
language, it can be done for religion. If it can be done for
religion, it can be done for equality between the races.
Once you agree to do it, then one day you cannot say to the guy
in the next province or to this Parliament that it should not be
done for that when you have done it yourself. You cannot pick
and choose on this kind of thing.
Imagine what the situation would have been if the United
States had a notwithstanding clause. I know it took a long time
but it was finally in 1954 in the famous Brown case that the
discrimination laws against blacks in the United States were
finally struck down. They were laws that were enforced in
several of the southern states that said that blacks must sit in the
back of the bus, that said that blacks had to sit in a certain part of
a cinema, that said that blacks could not go into certain parks,
that they could not live in certain districts, that they could not go
to certain schools.
2699
It was the constitution of the United States. It took a long
while in American history but finally they won in 1954 by
gathering together the funds necessary to challenge those laws.
They won in the Supreme Court of the United States in that very
famous case, the Brown case.
(1815 )
Can members imagine if they had a notwithstanding clause in
the American constitution and Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia
or any of those states could simply say that despite the Supreme
Court of the United States, too bad, they are going to legislate
exactly what they had in the first place. The constitution of the
United States would not mean anything. That would be
ridiculous. It is ridiculous in most countries. The
notwithstanding clause was accepted as a political compromise
and it was unfortunate and wrong.
During the discussions on the Charlottetown accord there was
discussion as to whether the committee of which I was a
member, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee-it was Castonguay
at one point-should make recommendations against the
notwithstanding clause.
We debated it at great length and finally we left it aside, much
to my dismay, on the grounds that while the notwithstanding
clause is not correct in principle there was no chance we could
get the provinces to agree, therefore we should not waste our
time pursuing something that we could not get agreement on. I
say that was unfortunate.
There are other people who will argue that the last word must
always be with the political people, the elected people. I can
remember an NDP premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney,
whom I respect for other things. He took that point of view.
Legislatures and Parliaments in this country are not
unlimited. The Constitution Act of 1867 puts limits on us in
many respects. There are limits on catholic schools and
protestant schools. There are limits on what one can legislate in
the provinces and what one can legislate at the federal level.
There are limits with respect to what one can do regarding the
monarchy in the country. One cannot legislate in any respect
whatever one wants. There have always been limitations. What
the charter did was extend those limitations and say that certain
rights belong to people and political bodies cannot take them
away.
The argument that political bodies should be completely free
to do whatever they want or what they think right at any time is
not right in principle and it is not acceptable even from a legal
point of view.
I want to remind the House that in 1986 at a large national
convention after we lost in a devastating way the election of
1984, the Liberal Party passed a resolution by well over 80 per
cent of the delegates attending in 1986 in Ottawa, saying exactly
what I have in my motion today, that we should take steps to get
rid of the notwithstanding clause.
As a matter of fact, the then leader of our party, the Right Hon.
John Turner, presented the same motion that I am presenting
today. It was in his name until he retired. I have taken up the
motion although I have always supported the same point of
view.
I am saying that if we are going to have a Charter of Rights
and Freedoms on such basic rights as I have described-I would
not say the same thing about marginal rights which are
important or other types of rights-and that we have in this
charter, they should never be subject to suspension.
If one agrees to suspension in one case, then one leaves
oneself open a little while down the road to the suspension of
other rights whether they be religious rights or language rights
or rights to express one's opinions, freely to write what one
wants, to form a trade union, or to form a political party.
I ask this House to take this motion seriously. This is not a
piece of legislation in itself. It is a motion that will express the
view of this Parliament.
During the discussion right up to the Charlottetown accord
some people said that we could not get rid of the
notwithstanding clause altogether but that maybe we could get
agreement on its limitation, maybe we could take it off the
equality rights section, perhaps we could take it off the
fundamental freedoms section but leave it on the political rights,
in other words restrict its ambit of application.
That was one solution proposed. Others said that maybe we
could reduce the number of years for which the notwithstanding
legislation is valid. As members know, right now when you pass
a bill under the notwithstanding clause it is only good for five
years and you must do it all over again. They said let us reduce
that to three years, two years or whatever.
(1820)
Then others said maybe we should introduce a two-thirds
requirement for its use. If you are going to suspend basic rights
in the Constitution with the notwithstanding clause you should
at least have to have two-thirds, three-quarters, not the ordinary
51 per cent majority.
If it was impossible to get rid of the clause altogether I would
certainly accept those kind of compromises. I think they would
go some distance in reducing the concern that the many
minorities in this country have.
Let me say this is a country of minorities. You look at the
House we have today, we come from many parts of the world, we
come from many linguistic backgrounds, many racial
backgrounds, many religious backgrounds. It is not as it was in
1867 when we were basically catholics, protestants, we were all
white
2700
and we were either had French or British background. Today we
are of many many backgrounds. We are all minorities.
I think we would do ourselves well to declare ourselves on
this. It is not to pass a law but it would show where this new
Parliament stands on basic rights and freedoms and we would be
saying loud and clear that these rights are our rights forever and
a day and they cannot be suspended by any simple majority of a
Parliament of Canada or a legislature of a province.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to motion M-239, introduced
by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, which requests
withdrawal of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of 1982, the notwithstanding clause, also known in
Quebec as the ``clause nonobstant''.
Need I recall that the legislation we are discussing, the 1982
Canadian Charter, was passed by the Imperial Parliament in
Westminster, after a debate in this House where the majority of
Quebecers-there were a few exceptions-supported the
request made to the Imperial Parliament?
In fact, there was more opposition to the Constitution Act,
1982, in the Imperial Parliament in Westminster than in this
House. Westminster ratified this legislation, despite two
memoranda by the Government of Quebec which vigorously
objected to the process and also despite a resolution supported
by both parties then represented in the Quebec National
Assembly, the Parti québécois and the Liberal Party of Quebec,
with only six members voting against the resolution.
What we have now is legislation that may have its merits but
is fundamentally flawed in terms of the process that was
imposed on us to adopt it. The government amended Canada's
Constitution and removed Quebec's right to legislate on
language matters, a right guaranteed by section 92 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, by what was always defined as a pact
between the two founding peoples. What a fallacy, Mr. Speaker!
Section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982, ratified in London
and amended in a Parliament on the other side of the Atlantic,
amended section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, by restricting
the powers of the Quebec National Assembly with respect to
language in Quebec, and in many respects it was this section that
caused so much trouble. How ironic that we should have to go to
London to amend the Canadian Constitution and to incorporate
in the constitutional amending formula provisions that, if they
had existed in 1982, would have made it impossible to amend
section 23 with respect to the powers of Quebec.
They asked London to do the dirty work, so that would be the
end of it. This is a strange interpretation of democracy. And with
all due respect for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
who referred to decisions by the courts in Quebec and especially
to Mr. Duplessis, I think we should not forget that in this trilogy
of judgments made in the fifties, in Saumur versus the City of
Quebec, the Switsman case and the Roncareli case, the Supreme
Court of Canada came down on the side of those who defended
civil rights and quashed the laws passed by the Legislative
Assembly and Legislature of Quebec which restricted individual
rights and freedoms. The rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses were
recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. The padlock act,
passed by the Legislative Assembly and Legislature of Quebec,
was declared null and void.
(1825)
But where was the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in
1970, when this House passed the War Measures Act which
provided for arrests without a warrant and arbitrary detention of
Canadian citizens? Government by decree, that is exactly what
they did in 1970, and the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce voted in favour of this odious piece of
legislation, which was last used in World War I. Was he there to
defend the rights of Quebecers, when 500 were jailed without a
warrant and could be detained for up to six months without trial?
In most cases they received no compensation, or very little.
Some people lost their jobs, their families and the love and
respect of their friends. Where was the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce then? Perhaps he should tell us
someday.
However, I understand some of the frustrations of the hon.
member which are probably connected with Bill 178, passed by
the Quebec National Assembly and proposed by the Liberal
Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, which created two language
categories in Quebec, one language which could be posted
inside and another outside. There is nothing wrong with being
able to post signs in one's own language. Bill 178 was highly
questionable because it seemed to make English a language that
had to be used furtively. And that should certainly not be the
case.
Getting back to the crux of the matter, since these precautions
were taken, section 33, the famous notwithstanding clause,
allows us to interpret the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. It allows parliamentarians to interpret the Charter
and, depending on the circumstances, to ask themselves this:
Should we or can we distance ourselves from the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
At the federal level, the decision to do so is made by the
houses of the federal parliament, while at the provincial level, it
is made by the members of the legislatures. The decision is only
valid for five years. It is a serious matter which must be studied
each time and the decision that is reached is valid for a period of
five years, which enables the legislator to have the final word.
However, when it comes to justifying the use of the
notwithstanding clause to the Canadian and provincial
electorates, the
2701
burden will fall to federal and provincial members of
Parliament. And there may indeed be circumstances where the
application of the notwithstanding clause is justifiable. For
example, it may be justified in the case of political party funding
where the sky is virtually the limit when it comes to
contributions.
Perhaps a notwithstanding clause will be referred to this
Parliament, thereby making it possible to adjust today's reality
to the deeply felt wishes of Canadian and Quebec society.
Perhaps. There are cases. In any event, when there is a charter of
rights or constitutional provision, such as the constitutional
amendments to the constitution of the United States, there is no
notwithstanding clause. The U.S. constitution does not contain
one and the legislator is bound by his own constitutional
provisions which must be upheld.
The offshoot of this, however, is that if the legislator cannot
do the job, the courts will do it. The courts take on the task, from
time to time, of defining that which, in their opinion, is
acceptable at a given point in time, based on how a society
evolves. Over the decades and even the centuries now, the
Supreme Court of the United States has not been shy about
interpreting differently various provisions of the amendments to
the American Constitution that guarantee certain rights
associated with certain fundamental freedoms.
(1830)
I much prefer to have this discretionary power exercised by
elected officials as in our country who must go before their
constituents at least every five years, rather than by unelected
judges who cannot be removed and are not accountable to
anyone, since this is basically a political act. If we want to take
politics out of Parliament and put it in the courts, the proposal of
the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce should be
accepted. If political debates should go on in our stately
courtrooms, let us adopt the motion presented by the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, but if we want political
issues to be settled here in the House of Commons or in the
Quebec National Assembly or in the provincial legislatures,
please do not pass a motion like this one.
Passing Motion No. 239 would be compounding the wrong
done to us Quebecers in 1982, which came on top of the insult
we had to put up with in October 1970, let me remind the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in closing.
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I wonder if the hon.
member has not completed his remarks, perhaps he could have
unanimous consent to do so. Has the hon. member for
Bellechasse finished?
Mr. Langlois: I think that this is a debate about the kind of
society we want which could go on for years, Mr. Speaker. If you
wish, give the floor to the hon. member for Chambly, who could
use up my speaking time.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask hon. members if there is
unanimous consent to give the hon. member five minutes to
complete his remarks? Do hon. members agree? I know that it is
a very important subject. Can the hon. member for Bellechasse
have more time to complete his remarks?
Mr. Langlois: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to
give the floor for the rest of my time to the hon. member for
Chambly.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Members who follow the member who presented this motion
have ten minutes each.
I think that two other members wish to speak. No, four
members want to talk on this. Can we share the time, perhaps
seven or eight minutes each?
I now give the floor to the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
will share my time. I have a few very brief comments to make.
I recognize the motion put forward by my hon. friend from
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and accept the fact that it is a basic
contradiction to speak against the motion. If article 33 is to be
used to take away rights or freedoms, chances are that it will be
used to take away rights and freedoms from where they are
probably needed the most. There is a basic contradiction in
speaking against the motion, which is what I intend to do this
evening. I do so despite the fact that I am appreciative that it
really is a conundrum when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
has an override provision on perhaps the most personal aspects
of the charter.
Under the Constitution Act, 1982, as was pointed out by my
hon. friend from Quebec, when the Constitution came back to
Canada it did not have unanimous support of all provinces. It
also changed the fundamental values in the way our country
relates, the way we relate as citizens one to another. We no
longer have common law. The legislatures are not longer
paramount in Canada; it is the Supreme Court. We found
ourselves as a nation reacting to interpretations of the way we
relate one to another by virtue of how the Supreme Court
interprets a particular law.
(1835)
The net result is that we have become a nation of entitlement
rather than of responsibilities. I keep suggesting that perhaps we
2702
could immeasurably improve the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms if we were to change it to the charter of rights,
freedoms and responsibilities, because there is no such thing as
a right or a freedom without a corresponding responsibility.
Bringing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the
Constitution Act has fundamentally changed the way we relate
to each other as citizens and to our governments. The
notwithstanding clause gives elected parliaments the
opportunity to override the court which is unelected and
appointed.
Perhaps there would be some way we could evolve to some
sort of compromise so that we could have the best of both
worlds. I do not know what that compromise would be, but I
know the people of Canada, at least in my opinion, would far
rather have a country where elected bodies in our nation were
paramount to appointed judicial bodies.
For that reason I would vote against the bill and I would speak
against the notion of striking the notwithstanding clause,
keeping in mind that when invoked the notwithstanding clause
must be redone every five years.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for
Chambly, I would like to inform the House that there is enough
time remaining for two members to speak for 10 minutes apiece.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, I am truly
outraged by the motion of the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-De-Grâce.
A brief overview of the events of 1982 will make it clear to
him that Quebec has always been opposed to the unilateral
patriation of the Constitution and to the passage of laws
overseas by a foreign country for the purpose of muzzling
Quebec and taking away from it the only powers it had left as far
as language was concerned.
In the National Assembly, Quebecers in both parties opposed
these measures. Now, twelve years later, is the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce trying to hammer the final nail into the
coffin of the French language in Quebec? I have to say that this
is not very far from the truth.
Quebec will never agree to the removal of such measures as
the notwithstanding clause. All the more so because at the
present time, the provisions of Quebec's education laws are
being extended. Five laws are currently being debated in the
National Assembly and the notwithstanding clause will be
continued because it reflects the very essence of Quebecers and
their existence in Quebec. If the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has not yet understood this after 25 or
30 years in politics, then I wonder what he is doing here.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a negotiable issue as far as we are
concerned. Nor will it ever be. I do not need 10 minutes to tell
you that it will never fly in Quebec. If we have to, we will fight
you on this tooth and nail.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak
on the motion before us. I must say I have listened with a great
deal of interest to some of the arguments presented by my friend
in the Reform caucus, members of the Official Opposition and
the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who moved the
motion. I agree with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
that the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution is a
fundamental and, some might say, fatal flaw which emasculates
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(1840)
The override clause is contradictory to the idea of inalienable
rights. On the one hand the charter says that the people of
Canada have inalienable rights. On the other hand they can be
taken away by legislation when the government chooses. That is
a fundamental contradiction. It actually puts us in a position
where we do not have a final set of inalienable rights that cannot
be taken away from us at the whim of government.
I want to talk about some of the ramifications of this point and
then talk about some other flaws in the charter. As I said earlier,
the government can suspend specific rights granted in the
charter at its whim. Governments are usually elected with only a
plurality of the vote and very seldom by a majority. Even when
they are elected with a majority, the majority is giving them that
endorsement on election day for a variety of reasons but often
not specifically so that they have the legislative authority to take
away fundamental rights.
I could use my home province of British Columbia as an
example. In the last election its government was elected with 38
per cent of the popular vote. Now it is in a position to use
legislative power to suspend charter rights in British Columbia
if it so chooses, even though it were only elected with 38 per cent
of the popular vote. At this point its popularity has gone down,
not up. As we sit here today the Government of British Columbia
probably enjoys less than 25 per cent support among the people.
Again I say this is a fundamental flaw in the charter. It gives a
government which enjoys very low popular support the ability to
override fundamental rights in the charter. I consider that to be
anti-democratic. It is very anti-democratic at its very roots. I
therefore concur that the override provision in the charter is not
in the interests of the people.
The mover of the motion has gone. I wanted to ask him some
questions. The way the process evolved that brought us the
charter was flawed in itself. That is the reason we have problems
with the charter. The framers of the charter never consulted in a
meaningful way with the people. There was no opportunity for
Canadians to come out and express their opinion on the charter.
Whether they agreed with it or disagreed with it or whether they
2703
wanted changes, it was framed by a group of elite politicians in a
power brokering deal between the federal government and the
provinces with very little if any opportunity for the people to put
forward their points of view.
An hon. member: All men, no women.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): As my hon. friend said, it was a group of
white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. No women or minorities
were reflected. It was very much a power brokering deal.
I have read a bit of history and I understand that at the time
Prime Minister Trudeau considered very carefully going to a
referendum because he was having a problem getting the
provinces to agree to the amendment of the Constitution. If the
government of the day had gone to the people and had asked for
their input, we would have today a charter without a
notwithstanding clause. That was put in there at the request of
the provinces. It was done in a power brokering deal
arrangement made behind closed doors with a group of elite
politicians.
Does the member who moved the motion not agree that the
process was flawed and that if we had the proper process we
would not be in the situation we are in today? I guess that leads
to the following questions. Where does sovereignty
fundamentally reside? Does it reside in the federal government?
Does it reside in the provincial governments? Is it shared
between them? Or, does it reside in the people where it properly
should reside?
The power sharing arrangement was constructed by and for
political interests.
(1845 )
I go on from there to say that the framers of the charter in my
view have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a charter of
rights is for. A charter of rights should be about freedoms from
and not entitlements to.
If we look at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as
it is today, it is not that. There are certainly some reflections of
that idea in there but it is more than that. It has some
fundamental omissions in my opinion and it has some things in
there that we could easily do without.
I would like to talk about the omissions first. There is no
entrenchment of private property rights. This was done to serve
the interests of the provincial governments but it certainly is not
in line with what Canadians want. I suggest again if the process
had been right that would be in there.
There is no tax limitation clause. There is no ability for the
people to say that government can have only so much of my skin
and I want the rest. There is no ability to do that within the
charter. There is no deficit limitation clause. There is no ability
for the people to say that government can only go into debt so
far, that government can only have deficits of such a per cent of
gross domestic product and no more.
That is not in the charter. There is no ability within the charter
for referendums, initiative or recall and that could very well
have been placed in there as well. It is something that we in this
party know from campaigning and talking to people throughout
Canada is very popular with the people but it is not in our
charter.
I want to talk now about a part of the charter that we could do
without. Section 15 of the Constitution Act of 1982 provides in
subsection (1) that no Canadian will be discriminated against
because of race, sex, disability, et cetera. Subsection (2) of the
same section notes that the first section does not mean that
government may not enact laws that are intended to ameliorate
past discriminations.
What this subsection implies is that subsection (1) holds
unless government has decided that a reverse discrimination
program is in order. If there is such a program, the rights of those
who are affected by such programs are simply forfeited in the
interest of achieving the aims of the program.
This reverse discrimination or affirmative action provision in
effect means that there is no protection for individuals from
discrimination against them by Parliament if Parliament deems
that in some past period of time some group covered by
subsection (2) was discriminated against. This is another
fundamental flaw in the charter.
While I agree that the notwithstanding clause is
fundamentally undemocratic and its removal would enhance the
charter and give it real meaning and protect the inalienable
rights of Canadians, there are these other changes to the charter
that need to be addressed as well.
In line with that, as my hon. friend earlier suggested, we have
to look at reforming appointments to the Supreme Court. We
have to look at a more democratic way of having those
appointments made so that people can feel that at the highest
levels of protection of our democratic interests we do have a
democratic institution, an institution that is elected and not
appointed, that is there to safeguard those interests.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon.
member for Skeena asked me a question and I am wondering
with the permission of the House if I could briefly answer it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
member to briefly answer the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2704
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the member asked me if I
thought it was due that we got the notwithstanding clause
because of the process. I would say absolutely correct.
When Mr. Trudeau first introduced the charter, it did not have
a notwithstanding clause. It only came about in the negotiations
with the provinces. By the way, it was not Quebec that suggested
it. It came from one of the western provinces.
I also agree with him when he says that sovereignty lies with
the people and not with governments or legislatures. We all get
our power from the people. There may have been a different
result if there had been a referendum on it. After going through
several referendums I do not know.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: As no other hon. member wishes to
speak and the motion was not selected as a votable item, the hour
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired and, pursuant to Standing Order 96 (1), this
item is dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
It being more or less seven o'clock, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)