CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 2, 1994
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 785
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 787
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 788
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 790
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 790
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 790
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 790
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 791
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 791
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 791
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 792
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 793
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 793
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 793
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 793
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 794
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 794
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 794
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 794
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 800
Bill C-6. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 804
Bill C-7. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 804
Bill C-208. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 804
Bill C-209. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 804
Bill C-210. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 804
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 805
Motion for concurrence 806
Consideration resumed of the motion of Mr. Axworthy(Winnipeg South Centre) 806
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 809
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 813
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 813
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 815
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 817
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 827
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 832
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 836
785
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 2, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, Martin
H. Creegen of Kranj, Slovenia, sent the following letter to the
European newspaper in January 1994:
The international community has created an impossible situation for itself in
relation to Bosnia, especially when the presence of United Nations troops in the
country is cited as the reason for not enforcing UN resolutions there. The need
for a new approach could not be clearer-I suggest that the following provides
the only basis for bringing peace to Bosnia.
Bosnia must be declared a UN protectorate for a specified period and administered
by the UN.
All parties must immediately cease all military activity.
A large program for handing over arms and those accused of war crimes must be
agreed and enforced.
A large scale program of civil reconstruction should be instituted immediately with
the main emphasis being on cross cultural co-operation.
As soon as conditions allow, an all-Bosnia assembly must be elected under
international supervision and on the basis of electoral units, not ethnic affiliation.
Pressure must be maintained on neighbouring countries, in particular Croatia and
Serbia, to resolve inter-ethnic relations.
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but her
time is up.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, as the daily
La Tribune was reporting today, it is
with great sadness that we learned yesterday that Dominion
Textile was closing two factories in Quebec. Tremendous
international competition and low demand would have
prompted Dominion Textile to make such a decision.
The Domil spinning mill in Sherbrooke employed 275
workers averaging 40 years of age and 16 years of service.
Losing a job when times are so hard and when you have devoted
so many years of your life to it is a traumatic experience. I
sympathize deeply with those laid-off workers and assure them
of my support.
This new factory closing shows the urgency of initiating
retraining measures for the workers in areas more and more
affected by foreign competition. Not only is the federal
government doing nothing in this regard, but it refuses to
recognize that vocational training would be better off under the
jurisdiction of the government of Quebec, the only one able to
take efficient steps in this area.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I have been receiving a growing number of letters from
constituents regarding unemployment insurance premiums and
benefits, one of which reads as follows:
As an unemployed person who is required to pay unemployment insurance
premiums, I am incensed at the recent government decision to increase premium
rates instead of reducing program costs. My after tax dollars are scarce to begin
with, I don't need them shrunken further!
Unemployment insurance should provide only benefits for people who find
themselves unexpectedly out of work. I cannot afford all the other benefits the
government seems to want to build into the system.
The letter lists seven items which the writer thinks should be
cut. I will provide a copy of that to the appropriate minister.
The letter concludes:
As the Member of Parliament for my riding, I request your support in making
the unemployment insurance system more effective and affordable.
786
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, the other day
my colleague, the Minister of Human Resource Development,
used the term generation
x. Generation
x refers to young people
in Canada who are frustrated with bleak employment prospects
and concerned about the value of their education with respect to
career opportunities available to them.
(1405)
In addition to the social challenges facing the youth,
generation x finds itself wondering why they must shoulder the
burden of the nation's economic woes which were caused by the
previous generation. In short they are asking: ``What about us?''
The youth of today are tired of means to no end education and
aspire to more than mere part time jobs. It is time to make a
change.
The government is committed to the youth of Canada and
must certainly reflect that in the next budget through initiatives
such as the youth service corps, job training, the national
literacy program and increased funding for aboriginal
post-secondary education. The government will substantiate its
commitment not only to generation x but to future generations as
well.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
there are those who use the tax on tobacco as an excuse to break
the law, and there are those who invoke civil disobedience as an
excuse to break the law.
When Henry Thoreau staged civil disobedience, it was to
protest the American civil war.
When Mahatma Gandhi staged civil disobedience, it was to
free the people of India from colonialism.
When Martin Luther King staged civil disobedience, it was to
free the American blacks from racial discrimination.
However when smugglers deliberately violate the law for
money and others invoke civil disobedience to protest our tax
laws on cigarettes, it is pure greed.
We cannot surrender the supremacy of law to the lawless. We
must apply the law of our land to every part and parcel of our
country.
Decreasing taxes on tobacco will increase the consumption of
cigarettes, causing disabilities, human suffering, a lifetime of
addiction and premature death.
The present and future health of the newborn, children,
teenagers and adults-all of us-are in the hands of a healthy
government public health policy.
Let Parliament rally our citizens and remind them that those
who break the law hurt their neighbours, their friends, their
families and our nation.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise to speak about one of the residents of my riding of
Bruce-Grey, the famous Wiarton Willy. He resides in the town
of Wiarton which is a short distance away from the beautiful
Bruce Peninsula Park of Tobermory.
Wiarton Willy has a unique characteristic in that he was born
on the 45th parallel which is between the equator and the North
Pole, and because of this he has the facility of forecasting.
Wiarton Willy happens to be a white albino groundhog and this
morning the mayor of Wiarton and a group of dignitaries, all
dressed in white tuxedos, ventured out to speak to Wiarton Willy
at his burrow. They brought with them a space heater and Willy
came out and did his thing.
Unfortunately I have to inform the House that he saw his
shadow and so we have another six weeks of winter. I visited
with Willy before the election and I want to tell the House that
his predictions are good nine times out of ten. He predicted that I
was going to win the election.
Congratulations to the Wiarton Lions Club for the kickoff of
the 38th Groundhog Festival.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, I am
appealing to the solidarity of the Magdalen Islands people so
that they support right now the ferry building project of the MIL
Davie shipyard.
The shipyard is capable of responding to the needs of the
Magdalen Islands people and of providing a comfortable,
reliable and secure ship that will be able to move through the ice
in the St. Laurent Gulf. The Bloc Quebecois is convinced that
the Magdalen Islands people will see the opportunity of
reconciling these needs with the urgency of maintaining 10,000
direct and indirect jobs in the greater area of Quebec City.
Why should we pay for the importation of a ferry from Europe
or elsewhere when we have the manpower and the facilities
necessary to built it ourselves? In these difficult economic
times, it is vital that the decisions that we make reinforce
Quebec's economic activity in the interests of all Quebecers.
The Magdalen Islands people are proud and self-supporting.
They are well capable of taking charge of their own economic,
social and cultural destiny.
787
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform Canadians of a very special event that will
take place in the Prince George-Peace River riding from
February 4 to February 6. I am referring to the 20th annual
Northern B.C. Winter Games taking place in the city of Fort St.
John.
(1410)
The games provide an opportunity for athletes in the north to
compete with one another and form lasting friendships. The
Northern B.C. Winter Games encourage participation from
competitors of all ages, from youths to seniors. All of them
demonstrate the sportsmanship and competitive spirit which
have made these games such a great success.
It is particularly appropriate that Fort St. John should host the
event this year, as the city is celebrating its 200th anniversary.
Please join with me in extending congratulations to my home
town of Fort St. John and in wishing these dedicated athletes
every possible success.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to pay tribute to the contributions of a
courageous leader in the fight against kidney disease. Judy Rose
McKay, 46, of Woodstock, New Brunswick, died on Sunday,
January 23.
One of the longest survivors of a kidney transplant in Canada,
Judy McKay served as the first president of the local and
provincial chapters of the Kidney Foundation of Canada. A
founding member of the Lorna Morse Chapter of the Kidney
Foundation of Canada, Judy was always concerned for the
welfare of others and leading the way in the fight against kidney
disease.
On behalf of my family and friends, the constituents of
Carleton-Charlotte, and my colleagues in the House of
Commons I respectfully offer my condolences to the family and
friends of a local hero.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that
steps must be taken to address the issue of tobacco smuggling in
Canada. It is my opinion that the government can succeed in
substantially reducing it, without rolling back tobacco taxes.
A multifaceted approach must be adopted that includes the
reintroduction of the highly effective federal export tax, tougher
enforcement measures, restrictions on the amount of tobacco
that can be shipped to the United States, measures to prevent
manufacturers from shifting production elsewhere in order to
supply the contraband market, and increased pressure on the
U.S. government to bring their cigarette prices into line with
our own.
Relying on a tax rollback is a public health risk that will lead
to increased health care costs as rates of consumption rise. The
loss in tax revenues will further add to the deficit problems
being faced by every level of government in the country.
I feel that the health of Canadians and the health of our
economy must be primary considerations in developing a
strategy to end tobacco smuggling.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the seaplane
base on Lake Saint-Augustin, Portneuf county, has been
progressively surrounded by residential areas. Its activities are
no longer compatible with its location.
I know the Minister of Transport has received pressing
requests from the municipality of
Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, from the Quebec urban
community and from other municipalities in the Quebec region,
all asking that the base be relocated.
Cap-Santé and surrounding municipalities would like to have
an airport and a seaplane base in their area. What is a problem
for Saint-Augustin could very well be an opportunity for
Cap-Santé. Therefore, I ask the Minister of Transport to do a
feasibility study on such a project and I assure him of my
unfailing co-operation in this matter.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, the Okanagan Valley ships apples, pears, peaches and
fruit of all kinds around the world. Our producers have become
world leaders in the industry and strides forward continue to be
made.
From January 26 through January 28 the British Columbia
Fruit Growers' Association held a major convention in
Penticton. It was highly successful and brought many fruit
growers together to discuss issues that are important to the
industry, such as the impact of the NAFTA, the GATT and
advances in new technologies.
Over the last 100 years, B.C. fruit growers have invested their
capital, their ideas and their hard work to become a world leader
in fruit growing. It is again proof that Canadians can compete
and win against the best in the world.
788
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, Trent
University in Peterborough is the smallest university in Ontario
but its students consistently perform well in national and
international scholarship programs.
Trent maintained this record of excellence in this year's
Canada Scholarship Program.
The Canada Scholarship Program was established to
encourage young people, especially women, to undertake
careers in science. Trent students have a fine record in the
program.
(1415 )
This year 34 students, more than half of them women, won
Canada scholarships. They were drawn from academic
departments which span the sciences from social and
environmental to physical.
A special feature of science at Trent is the flexibility of
students in selecting programs which involve creative
combinations of disciplines. This flexibility is producing young
scientists who are well trained in their specialities but who have
a broad range of interests. This approach is going to stand
Canada well in the 21st century.
I am sure members of the House join me in congratulating all
young Canadians who won Canada scholarship awards this year.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on the issue of the Kemano completion project. The
previous government's handling of this issue was improper and
showed little respect for fishing groups, environmental groups
and First Nations.
The government deserves praise, the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans in particular, for efforts to improve relations with
these constituent groups. To date, the present government has
committed to a full public airing of the issue by participating in
the British Columbia Utilities Commission public hearing on
the matter.
The present government is prepared to make available its
expertise, to open its files and to make federal officials available
as expert witnesses in these hearings.
I would suggest, however, that if we should find the
province's inquiry is too narrow in its scope to cover the
balancing of interests involved, the federal government should
keep in reserve the possibility of a federal judicial inquiry into
the matter.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government announcement yesterday to
spend $2.8 million in an effort to eliminate tuberculosis from
aboriginal communities by the year 2010 is commendable. The
incidence of infectious TB in native communities is alarming
and a serious problem that has to be addressed. However, while
diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis are important, attacking
the root causes is perhaps more important.
The real problems in aboriginal communities of poor housing,
water and sewage treatment, problems that contribute to the
growing incidence of TB, are still largely ignored by this
government.
In recognizing the seriousness of the health related concerns
of aboriginal people, I ask the government to take the next
important step and implement some of the many
recommendations of the 1992 aboriginal affairs committee
report on housing appropriately entitled ``A Time for Action''.
Indeed it is time to act.
_____________________________________________
788
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The protest movement against cigarette smuggling is
spreading, but anti-smoking groups are opposed to any
reduction in taxes on cigarettes.
Meanwhile, the government procrastinates and does nothing
to put an end to the serious social problem cigarette smuggling
in particular has become in Quebec. Yesterday, two Liberal
members publicly said they were opposed to cuts in cigarette
taxes, while the Minister of National Health and Welfare was
equally reluctant.
My question is this: Must we conclude that the government is
taking such a long time to announce its action plan against
cigarette smuggling because of profound divisions within
Cabinet and the Liberal caucus on the Prime Minister's plans to
reduce this tax?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have been working on this problem for a number of weeks.
We are in touch with the provincial governments. I intend to
discuss the problem early next week with the Premier of
Quebec, as soon as he gets back from his trip, and also with
others who are now absent.
I was speaking to several provincial premiers this morning,
and we hope to reach a conclusion on the issue as soon as
possible.
789
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, for nearly three weeks we have asked the government
repeatedly to take some kind of action. And what kind of answer
did we get today? One of the people involved is in Europe,
others are absent, people are talking and waiting and they tell us
there may be a decision shortly.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the high tax on cigarettes,
by encouraging smuggling, has in fact made cigarettes available
to a class of smokers who are now more numerous than ever
before and who on top of that are not helping to finance health
care?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
would be very helpful if we could get a clear position from the
opposition. The other day, the health critic made it clear to the
Minister of National Health and Welfare that he did not want tax
rates to be reduced. It would also be very helpful if the Leader of
the Opposition asked his members not to join demonstrations
with individuals who are breaking the law in Canada.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, to whom
the Prime Minister alluded, made it clear that he dissociated
himself from any civil disobedience. He made this quite clear.
However, in the Liberal caucus we hear voices telling us where
to look and who these people are and that the Solicitor General
knows nothing, although he has access to the RCMP.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the
Prime Minister that all members of the Bloc, without exception,
support tax cuts. I want to repeat that. And I would like to ask the
Prime Minister whether he still agrees it is necessary to lower
these taxes, as recommended by his Minister of Finance and
Minister of National Revenue.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with
his health critic. We noted that he clearly said he was in favour
of reducing taxes. In fact, it is the first time he said so, and this
will help us when we make a decision.
As for the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, I do not
think any of our members went on television to announce that
they supported people who break the law and to applaud and
praise them for doing so. People who break the law should be
harshly condemned by all members of this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I heard
today, and I will repeat it for the benefit of the Prime Minister,
that six white vans loaded with smuggled cigarettes crossed the
ice bridge on Lake of Two Mountains, heading for the 10 outlets
selling smuggled cigarettes in the Oka area.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he realize that his
refusal to take action and the incompetence of his government
are contributing to destabilize Quebec society as a whole?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as the Solicitor General said in the House yesterday, instructions
have been given to RCMP officers to do their job and to arrest
anybody who is not following the laws of the land.
If the hon. member is aware of some information that can be
very useful to the RCMP, he should give it to me and I will pass it
on to the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): It would be a good idea to
give the RCMP a subscription to La Presse.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime
Minister not recognize that the inefficiency of his government
and its refusal to take action have allowed cigarette smugglers to
expand their network into Quebec high schools?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is easy for the opposition to lay the blame on this government
which has been in office for two months and a half. We gave
orders and, as a result, several people were arrested. But the
problem is not new. It started with the intolerance of the
Conservative government. In those days the Leader of the
Opposition was a member of the Tory cabinet.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he believes
his government has a clear mandate from the public to expand
the tax base and the total tax bill paid by Canadians?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the mandate we received from the Canadian people is based on
the program in the red book which was distributed across the
land, that we have to improve the situation in Canada, create
jobs, create growth and make sure at the same time that the tax
system is fair for all Canadians.
790
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Thousands of participants in RRSPs-contributors, financial
institutions and recipients-wish to make direct and effective
representation to the government to dissuade it from reducing
contribution levels.
Is the government willing to receive and respond to these
representations prior to finalizing the 1994-95 budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Reform Party has to wait a few weeks for the
budget that will be introduced by the Minister of Finance.
I hope the Minister of Finance will not take the idea proposed
by the Reform Party leader who wants us to cut the pensions of
old age pensioners.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have one further supplementary question.
Thousands of customers, investors and workers involved in
the production, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels
wish to make direct and effect representation to the government
to dissuade it from instituting a carbon tax.
Is the government willing to receive and respond to these
representations prior to finalizing its 1994-95 budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I must say the first time I heard
somebody raise the issue of a carbon tax was when it was raised
by the leader of the Reform Party.
I would also say that when I was in Calgary I met with groups
on that particular issue. I am certainly prepared between now
and the date of the budget to meet with other groups.
I would tell the leader of the Reform Party that there have
been very strong representations made to me by the members of
the Alberta caucus, led by the Minister of Natural Resources.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have clearly
stated that substantial budget cuts will be made next year. The
Minister of Human Resources Development is also announcing
that his social program review will result in a restructuring of
these programs during the next year.
Is the Minister prepared to concede, in spite of his
magnanimous remarks, that this strange coincidence gives all
Canadians much cause for concern as to the extent of the cuts
that will be made to social programs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, what we have been saying
together is that there are much more effective ways of delivering
government services.
In particular I point out to the hon. member that in discussions
with provinces there are many ways to eliminate the repetition
or duplication of services and to work out more rational ways of
delivering services.
These are all parts of our efforts and attempts to have a new
partnership of federalism in Canada so that not only can we
begin to save taxpayers' money but we can also give better
service.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister recognize, in spite of the laudable
comments of the Minister of Human Resources Development,
that the government is preparing to impose its views on the
provinces through the extremely powerful medium of the
upcoming renegotiation of various transfer programs? Will he
concede that his views will prevail in the social program reform
process?
(1430)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the provinces are not being
pressured. On the contrary, they are asking the federal
government to respond to their efforts to develop new
approaches to the social security system.
It is the Bloc Quebecois, in this House, that is rejecting the
reform process, thereby isolating itself on this issue. Surely you
are aware that all of the Quebec newspapers, Le Soleil, Le Droit
and others, have published articles stating that the time for
reform is now.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Last year the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench struck down the parts of the Canada Elections
Act that restrict spending on election advertising by anybody
other than political parties to just $1,000.
791
The court ruled that these restrictions could not be justified in
a free and democratic society. Is it the government's plan to
restore faith and trust in the process by abandoning any appeal
of this case and by amending the Canada Elections Act to reflect
the court ruling?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we believe this case involves very important issues. Therefore
we think it appropriate that this matter be tested further by a
higher court, the Supreme Court of Canada.
The issues are of sufficient importance that whatever the
Alberta court of appeal has ruled, Canadians deserve to have this
matter dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada if it is willing
to accept the appeal.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, does
the Prime Minister believe the restrictions imposed in the act as
it presently stands are compatible with a fair and open political
process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
think yes. Many people would like to influence the result of an
election but do not have the guts to run. They use the power of
their money to try to gain that influence.
I want to make sure the people can make a choice in an
election that is based not on the amount of money that is spent
but on the quality of the programs and the candidates of every
party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. The game goes on between Quebec and Ottawa
regarding an agreement, yet another agreement, on manpower
training. Yesterday evening, the Quebec employment minister
announced that an agreement was imminent, a statement that the
Minister of Human Resources Development immediately
denied. This morning, the Minister from Quebec qualified his
statement.
Can the minister confirm that no agreement on job training
was reached with Quebec, in spite of what the Quebec minister
of employment said?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I had a positive discussion with
Mr. Marcil on Monday evening. We see eye to eye on the
importance of an extensive restructuring of the social security
system. We share the same determination to fight
unemployment. We agree that the one-stop concept, similar to
what we have now in New Brunswick, is a valid goal as far as the
provinces are concerned. That is what Mr. Marcil said not so
long ago.
Indeed, we will first report to our respective Cabinets on our
discussion and then, at the provincial ministers' meeting to be
held on February 14, we could suggest together some ideas on
how to save money and develop a new approach to deal with
unemployment and poverty. As you know, in Canada, we
generally work together.
(1435)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, we do work together, but we generally do not have
much to show for it.
Can the minister confirm that the two to three month deadline
announced by the Quebec minister yesterday-because he did
mention that yesterday as well- is the same for Ottawa? Are we
to understand that these negotiations are nothing more than a
smokescreen put up by the two ministers to prevent this issue
from being discussed during the public consultations that will be
held at the same, as it were, as a possible election campaign in
Quebec? Is that the minister's strategy?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it may be the strategy of the Bloc
Quebecois to try to fight a provincial election in this Chamber.
We are interested in actually solving the problems of
unemployment. We are interested in a partnership with the
provinces.
We are interested in developing a new sense of co-operation
and federalism and that was the basis for the discussion with the
Quebec minister, as it has been with all the provincial ministers.
They have agreed to come together for a meeting on February 14
so we can establish new arrangements.
If members of the Bloc Quebecois want to play election
politics that is their business. We are interested in getting
Canadians back to work.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the representative on the Board of Internal
Economy. In view of the Speaker's ruling on January 31, will the
representative on the board undertake to discuss the subject of
extra salaries with the board with a view to doing three things.
First, agreeing on a procedure for making all such
expenditures-
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is having a little
difficulty. If the member could phrase the question a little more
generally it would be acceptable. We have someone here to
answer the question. Please continue.
792
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot phrase it
generally because it is quite specific. It goes back to the
discussion we had in this Chamber on Friday, January 28, which
was ruled on-
The Speaker: Order. We will let the member put the question
and then I will rule on it.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, to reiterate I would ask the
representative on the board to do three things. First, to agree on a
procedure with that board for making all such expenditure
decisions public.
Second, to rule that June 9, 1993 decision of the Board of
Internal Economy to pay those extra salaries to members not
entitled to them was wrong.
Third, to report their findings to this House.
The Speaker: I am going to permit a reply from the
government whip.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, I will
take his question as a representation to the board. However I
would like to remind the member that his own party has a
representative on the board. Maybe he should make a similar
representation to the board.
The board will decide because the board is its own master. The
decision taken to continue to pay the leaders of the parties and
officers of the House is a decision that is made before all
elections. Members of Parliament continue to get paid during
the election so officers, who have extra duties to perform even
during an election, also get paid.
(1440 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. whip for his response to the question.
For the edification of the House, the reason I bring this matter
to the House-
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is going to put a
question. I wonder if he would put it forthwith.
Mr. Ringma: Would the hon. whip not agree it is better to
present information in the House openly like this rather than
through our party representative? In that way it is presented to
the public as a whole and not hidden in messages.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, again
I take his question as a representation. I will report his
comments to the board at the next meeting.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Today, hundreds of people living in inadequate housing took
their personal budgets to the office of the Finance Minister. The
objective of this operation is to show the Liberal government
that serious housing problems are being created in Canada.
Every month, thousands of households must save on food just to
pay the rent.
Will the Prime Minister make his Finance Minister restore
and increase social housing program budgets and unfreeze the
budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to
avoid a social housing rent increase?
Hon. David C. Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question.
[English]
The hon. member must recognize that the responsibility for
social housing is not just with the federal government. We have
committed $100 million to RRAP over two years. We have also
committed the savings under the direct lending program which
is approximately $120 million for a four-year period to go to
social housing. In addition, the Government of Canada is
committed to the $2 billion that we have directly involved in
maintaining the existing stock in social housing across this
country.
The hon. member knows that the Government of Canada, like
all other governments, has a limited fiscal capacity. Within that
fiscal capacity we will do our best to try to obtain additional
funds in order to address the important concerns she raises.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask a supplementary question, again to the Prime Minister. Does
the Prime Minister know that all social, co-operative, low-cost
and non-profit housing programs have been frozen and that
housing conditions for tenants in his hometown of Shawinigan
are among the worst in Canada? Does he know that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
know very well than between 1988 and 1993 the riding of
Saint-Maurice was represented by a Conservative member of
Parliament. So we will now be able to take better care of it.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the most distinguished Minister of Foreign
Affairs. It has to do with the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea which, if implemented, would go a long way in
protecting oceans, in improving fisheries and in reducing the
dangers of pollution.
793
Ratification by 60 nations is needed to make the law of the sea
operative. So far some 57 nations have ratified this important
document.
Will the minister inform the House when Canada, after nine
years of inaction, will ratify the law of the sea?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, let me first of all compliment the hon. member for his
active effort in this regard. As an opposition member he fought
very vigorously to try to impress on the Tory government the
necessity to ratify this convention.
As the member understands, there are a few difficulties in
regard to the convention. We are diligently working to improve
it and will hopefully be able to ratify it in the near future.
* * *
(1445 )
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has refused to allow members to represent
their constituents by having free votes in this Parliament. He has
said in effect that such a reform would be contrary to
parliamentary democracy. However the mother of Parliaments
in London has already adopted this reform.
When will the Prime Minister announce that the government
will not consider the defeat of a government motion, including a
spending measure, to constitute an expression of
non-confidence unless it is immediately followed by a formal
motion of non-confidence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have already announced some new initiatives for this House
with the free debates. We have had three so far in less than three
weeks: one on Bosnia, one on the cruise missile and one on the
budget. People were free to express their views. I heard some
members of my party stating views that were in opposition to
others. That is free expression.
Eventually a government has to decide. The budget of the
nation is a vote of confidence in the government. If the
government cannot present a budget and pass it, it should call an
election. It is as simple as that because the government will have
lost the confidence of the House.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, it is a matter
of record that the British Parliament defeated the Maastricht
treaty without any disastrous results or damage to the
democratic process.
Would the Prime Minister tell Canadians why they should
settle for any less democracy than the people of Britain?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the hon. member, the Maastricht vote was not a
budgetary measure. It was voted on again in the House in
England and eventually was passed.
It is not the same thing. The vote was on a more general
policy. It was not on the budget of the administration in Great
Britain. When a vote is on the budget it is confidence in the
government.
I have full confidence that the Minister of Finance will
present a good budget and I know the party will support him. We
were elected to form a good government and have good
ministers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Prime Minister has said many times that he wants to
restore integrity in federal institutions. In this regard, the
previous government had instituted a new policy for
appointments to management positions in public agencies, in
particular by giving parliamentary committees the right to
approve appointments in a free, binding vote.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain to this House
why this policy has been changed and why candidates for the
position of President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
had to send their résumés to the Prime Minister's Office, to the
official in charge of appointments, who is a long-standing
Liberal Party activist and wife of the defence minister?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member thinks that some policies have
changed, perhaps it is because the government has changed.
However, I will point out to her that all Canadians have been
invited, through an announcement in The Canada Gazette, to
propose candidates for the presidency of this great institution,
the CBC.
As for the choice of president, I would refer her to a short
statement I made on January 27, 1994, which she will find on
page 454 of Hansard.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, besides publishing the required qualifications and
saying that the appointment of the president of the CBC will be
announced shortly, can the minister reassure the House that the
appointment of the next president of the CBC will be subject to a
parliamentary committee for approval in a free, binding vote, as
the previous government promised?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I
understand that the new president, once he is appointed, will
794
have an opportunity to appear before the parliamentary
committees concerned. That is how we intend to proceed.
* * *
(1450 )
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
The longshoreman's labour dispute on the west coast has
taken a devastating toll on the agricultural sector in western
Canada.
Canadian grain and alfalfa industries are losing products,
customers, sales and millions of dollars because of this dispute.
Farmers and alfalfa processors have asked me to ask the
minister if they can ship their products through U.S. ports and
still benefit under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will
approve, as I think most members of the House will, that today
the parties are back at the negotiating table with the help of a
federal mediator. We hope that under those circumstances they
realize their mutual responsibilities to come to a settlement.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
If mediation is not successful I would like to remind the
minister that back in 1986 the government legislated the
longshoremen back to work.
The hon. member then represented Winnipeg-Fort Garry,
now Winnipeg South Centre. He said at that time: ``We would
support the bill primarily and fundamentally because of the
situation faced by western farmers''.
Will the government make the same commitment today to
legislate the west coast longshoremen back to work under these
circumstances?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, your namesake is an experienced
member of the legislature and he would know that any statement
of that kind would have a very negative effect on the bargaining
process.
It would be unseemly for the member to make that suggestion.
Certainly it would be for those responsible for labour. As I said
at the outset, we believe that the collective bargaining process is
the way to settle labour-management disputes. We offered our
services. We have the good fortune that the parties have
understood that message, have come back to the table and they
are now using a federal mediator.
I hope the hon. member and his party would be supportive of
what is clearly the kind of process we should follow in a good
private enterprise system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. For two weeks now,
we have been talking here in this House about cigarette
smuggling, which is causing major problems, like an upsurge in
crime and civil disobedience.
It is high time for Canadians to face reality. As a physician, I
am very concerned about the unavoidable lowering of taxes on
cigarettes, since that would undoubtedly encourage young
people to take up smoking. However, as a parliamentarian, I
cannot help but to consider decreasing taxes to put a stop to this
social and economic evil.
If the taxes on cigarettes are lowered, can the Minister of
Health tell us if she intends to introduce preventive measures to
fight the increase in smoking among young Canadians? If so,
what would these measures be?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
have to acknowledge that cigarette smoking is bad for us. I am
ready to suggest serious measures which would target the
population at risk and especially our young people. I have also
instructed my department to review the relevant pieces of
legislation under my authority to see how we can put more teeth
into them.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. After the
comments made recently by the Auditor General of Canada to
the effect that the Canadian International Development Agency
was misusing its resources, an internal study done by CIDA, and
made public by the CTV network, reveals that more than 80 per
cent of the 1,400 Canadian advisors abroad are incompetent.
(1455)
Can the minister tell us what he has done so far to stop this
wasting of public money?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to correct the hon. member's allegation to the
effect that the interview shown on the CTV network referred to
an internal study done by CIDA. The study was conducted seven
795
years ago by an external consultant and refers to a behaviour
which clearly is associated with another era.
It is true that the Auditor General criticized in rather strong
terms some CIDA programs, but he also congratulated all those
who work in that field for the good will, the integrity and the
efficiency they display in most situations.
It is unfortunate that some, like the member opposite, insist
on a few bad cases and forget the importance of international
development throughout the world.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us that he will not, in spite of what he says, take
advantage of a case of mismanagement to make drastic cuts to
the funds granted to CIDA and thereby jeopardize its whole
mandate?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the previous
government, without any notice or consultation, made a 10 per
cent cut in CIDA's budget, thereby adversely affecting many
non-governmental organizations which are active everywhere
in the world and which complement the work of the Canadian
International Development Agency.
I can assure the hon. member that we want to cut what is called
the fat in the federal administration, but that we will be very
careful and try to maintain, as much as possible, the budgets
earmarked for non-governmental organizations working
throughout the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Late last year the minister announced that he will undertake a
major review of the Canadian military to determine what
defence forces Canada needs in the new world order. Our party
supports the need for such a review.
Could the minister explain to the House why he is now
preparing to close military bases across Canada before this
review is complete?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the
Liberal Party's red book we talked about a defence review which
will be completed later this year with the policy announced
probably January 1995.
In the meantime, the red book also talks about the need for
$1.6 billion worth of savings from the defence department.
These savings will help pay for some of the spending programs
such as the infrastructure program to create jobs.
We have a balanced approach. The Prime Minister talked
about this earlier in question period. We have to move now
because the Minister of Finance wants to know how much we
can cut and where before April 1 when the fiscal year starts.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): A supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
The Reform Party applauds the signs of fiscal responsibility
on the part of the government. Few would disagree that the
review is likely to require the closing of several bases.
How can the minister decide which bases to close before the
review is complete?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to cut
$1.6 billion starting April 1 means that we have to make some
long range decisions. If we make cuts at the sharp end of the
military, i.e. the ability of the military to conduct itself as a true
fighting strength and discharge obligations that will be outlined
in the defence review, then obviously we are hurting it before we
actually decide on the policy.
(1500)
We are trying to deal with excess infrastructure and surplus
capacity, much of which has not been dealt with by previous
governments for obvious political and sensitive reasons. We
hope to deal with any communities and individuals affected in a
most sensitive manner.
I believe all hon. members of the House will probably support
us in the drive to bring some efficiency and rationalization to the
armed forces. Later this year the defence review will be able to
outline the policies required for the military in the year 2000 but
will have the ability to discharge those obligations.
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Solicitor General.
On June 23, 1985 an Air-India flight was blown out of the sky
off the coast of Ireland. The 329 people on board were murdered,
the majority of whom were Canadian. It was the worst mass
murder in Canadian history.
Press reports now indicate that one of the alleged murderers
was trained at a Soldier of Fortune training camp in
Birmingham, Alabama, and further that the U.S. government
agreed to train terrorists at the request of the late President Zia
of Pakistan.
Could the minister explain why Mr. Frank Camper, the
operator of the Soldier of Fortune Training School, was not
interviewed by the RCMP? Given the rather unfortunate and
tragic history of this matter, would he agree that it is now time
for a royal commission of inquiry as we promised in the last
Parliament?
796
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised an important question.
I am informed that Mr. Camper was questioned by the FBI on
behalf of the RCMP. I am further informed that the RCMP
investigation is still active and ongoing. Therefore I would like
to keep the idea of a royal commission under consideration.
However because of the long and distinguished study by the
hon. member into this tragic matter, I would like to have him
meet with me as soon as possible so that together we can pursue
the matter further.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Paul Robertson,
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of Jamaica.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, prior to the tabling of the minister's statement, I would
like to make you aware that by agreement of the House leaders
we had hoped to have a copy of the statement three hours prior to
its introduction in the House.
That was not forthcoming and we are very concerned. We
understand this is a new process for a new government. We wish
to be most co-operative, but we would expect more notice and to
have these statements brought to our attention sooner in the
future. If it does not happen then we will be bringing it to your
attention, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. House leaders and the whips
have taken note of the member's comments.
_____________________________________________
796
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table on behalf of
government, in both official languages, the 1994 immigration
levels.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
am tabling, in both official languages, copies of Unemployment
Insurance Developmental Uses: 1994 Expenditure Plan and
copies of the annual report of the Canada Employment and
Immigration Commission Department for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1993.
* * *
(1505)
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak
on behalf of our government and accord our other political
friends on the other side to respond with respect to the levels
document I just tabled for Parliament.
Immigration policy represents one of the most important and
complex challenges facing our nation. Perhaps more than any
other area of federal public policy, it is closely tied to our
history, to the development of our values and indeed to our
cultural diversity.
[Translation]
I want to put in place an open and progressive immigration
policy that does not close the door to those who need our help or
plan to contribute to the growth of our country. This government
is committed to maintaining a very dynamic immigration
program.
[English]
I am also committed to a realistic immigration policy. In the
1994 levels plan we are presenting today, I have identified
realistic targets and I will push the program and our officials to
achieve these targets, something that has not been done in recent
years.
The levels also take into account the views expressed during
the consultation process in 1993 before this government
assumed office. Nevertheless we have made important changes
to specific components, and all of these changes reflect the
commitment this party made in the red book during the recent
election which fully supports an immigration policy firmly
based on family reunification while at the same time promoting
the economic benefits of skilled immigrants and maintaining
our humanitarian obligations to those who seek legitimate
refuge.
You cannot discuss levels, whether it is this year or next,
without looking and talking about the long term policy
directives of our government.
[Translation]
Like most Canadians I want our immigration program to be
managed in a firm and responsible manner. I intend to prevent
797
abuse, protect citizens' interests and limit costs. However, I do
not agree with those who say that our generosity should give
way to a tougher immigration approach.
[English]
Sometimes we forget or ignore the role that immigrants and
immigration have played in the development of our great nation.
Sometimes it does not take too long for the sons and daughters
and grandchildren of immigrants, for instance, to look at the
newcomers today and not see one of us but one of them.
Periodically throughout our history, especially during
economic downturns-and we have lived through those in the
recent years, to be sure-there have been calls to slam the door
shut to immigrants and immigration. Regrettably that sentiment
at various times has been translated by governments into
restricted laws and policies.
Canada would not have flourished or progressed if we had
locked ourselves into such a restrictive mindset that excluded
the very people who have helped make us grow and prosper as a
nation. At the same time, an immigration program must be
effectively controlled and managed. Rules and regulations must
and will be enforced. Attempts to abuse our immigration
program at the expense of Canadians or at the expense of people
who truly need Canada's assistance will not be tolerated.
Second, I believe decisions about immigration should be
made from the perspective of a long term rather than narrow
version. It is not enough to make those decisions with a view to
short term gain or as a quick fix or to make decisions based on
perception or mythology. Decisions made today have
implications for future generations in our country. Therefore we
need a clear and practical vision of the kind of nation we want to
build and build for our children.
(1510)
[Translation]
Third, I think Canadians should be offered a better chance to
participate in the development of this vision. Consultations have
been too limited in my opinion. Too many Canadians did not
have their say in the process. As our immigration policy takes
shape in the next 10 years, we will be faced with issues affecting
the lives of all Canadians.
[English]
Fourth, I am convinced that we need stronger partnership with
all levels of government and private sector organization in the
delivery of our immigration programs. Let me assure my
colleagues in this House that in the first 100 days of this
government's mandate we have already begun to forge those
very and much needed partnerships.
All of these principles underlie the 1994 immigration plan.
While these levels would normally have been tabled last June in
a previous Parliament, that session was not recalled.
Consequently legislation requires that in such a case the plan be
tabled within 15 days of the sitting of the new Parliament, which
is what we are doing this afternoon.
However, the government's commitments regarding
immigration are already well known. They were set out clearly
in the red book during the recent election. The 1994 plan meets
our basic commitment to support a dynamic immigration policy
that balances humanitarian concerns, demographic and
economic needs and our basic capacity to absorb our
newcomers.
The highlights of the 1994 plan are as follows: Planned
immigration levels for 1994 will be set at 250,000, thereby
honouring our pledge to maintain an immigration level of
approximately 1 per cent of Canada's population. That
represents an increase of some 5,000 over the actual numbers in
1993.
Second, in this International Year of the Family, the level for
family class immigrants will increase by 1,300 over last year to
a total of 111,000. Consequently the family class portion of
immigration will roughly represent 45 per cent of the overall
levels in 1994-again, another commitment that this
government made in the red book.
Moreover, the level for independent immigrants, those
selected primarily for their labour market skills, will be
increased by almost 10,000 individuals for a total of 86,700.
When we join this level-that is to say, the skills this economy
needs together with the stream of business and entrepreneur
immigrants-that will reflect a 44 per cent chunk of the overall
immigration levels. This reflects this party's commitment to
give priority to independent and family class immigration,
something that was clearly outlined in the red book. We made
that commitment and today we are honouring that pledge.
Third, I stated in our red book that sponsorship for refugees
for resettlement from abroad will be encouraged. In 1994 the
number of refugees resettled from abroad through government
sponsorship will be increased by some 700 for a total 7,300, an
increase of some 10 per cent. Private sponsorships will increase
by 1,400 for a total of 6,000 refugees, an increase of some 30 per
cent.
This is an olive branch to the communities that traditionally
have come forward to sponsor refugees. We are saying, through
this statement, that this government is back in the business of
working with communities that come forward to sponsor
refugees as a collaborative effort to celebrate that collectivity,
but also because it is those communities that will be picking up
the settlement costs rather than simply having the state do that. I
assure those communities that have played a tremendous role in
years gone by that our department will strive to process those
798
applications much more effectively and efficiently than was the
case in the past nine years under the Conservative government.
(1515)
The numbers for overseas refugee resettlement are at a ceiling
if we are to tie the budgets that are in place for resettlement and
integration programs. It would simply be irresponsible and
misleading of this minister and this government to suggest any
inflated figure for refugees without having respect for the fact
that a proper level of integration programs is needed. This
minister will not draw those invisible lines in the sand, as was
the case in the last nine years. The Conservative government
that preceded us would always put an inflated level of 13,000 to
15,000 government sponsored refugees and in the last years of
its mandate delivered 6,000. Our number of 7,300 is realistic
and will be delivered.
In addition, we will also be accepting an estimated 15,000
successful in Canada refugee claimants. Those are the
individuals who apply for refugee status under our refugee
determination system in Canada. Together the total estimated
number of refugees for 1994 is 28,300, an increase of some
3,500 individuals.
This government intends to maintain its international
obligations towards those who legitimately seek refuge in this
country. We will try as much as we can to mobilize overseas
sponsorship because it is cost effective, it is quick, and it speaks
to those refugees who need help the most.
We are also doing other things that cannot be disconnected
from any discussion on levels, but I am sensitive to the time we
have for this ministerial statement. For instance, there are the
work permits we announced last week, rather than individuals
being forced onto welfare; or our action on deterring welfare
abuse; or the review of how we can enforce those elements of the
Immigration Act to keep out those individuals or criminals who
wish to play with our system and abuse that very foundation; or
the review we have talked about with respect to our
humanitarian programs as well as a review of business
immigration, so we can ensure that we are maximizing those job
opportunities and economic benefits for all Canadians.
What about our special program for refugee women, which is
unique in the world? What about pushing the international
community to come to grips with the sea of humanity that is
striving for things that sometimes you and I take for granted?
We are not going to preach to the world, but we are going to tell
that world that it does not make sense to have an international
corridor of locked doors, that we are fooling ourselves if we
think if we close our front doors we will not get pressure through
our back doors or through our windows. We will tell those
countries locking their doors that this is unacceptable and unfair
to those countries whose doors are still open and whose
doorsteps are therefore crowded.
We should move ensemble as an international community. If
we move together, not only will we be addressing those
individuals who clearly need that legitimate refuge, but as
individual nations we will also be addressing the domestic
pressures that obviously confront countries of the world.
The second part of the levels document we tabled this
afternoon concerns how we consult Canadians. The government
has decided to undertake a new kind of consultation. I am
announcing today the establishment of a new 10-year strategic
framework under which 5-year immigration plans will be
outlined.
[Translation]
I know that there are many sincere but conflicting convictions
on basic immigration issues and how to approach them. It is
more important than ever for people to engage in an open,
long-term and comprehensive discussion on immigration
problems.
(1520)
[English]
We need a form of consultation in which the process is not
dictated solely by the interests of one government but rather
shaped by the interests of all of those taking part, provincial and
municipal levels of government, non-governmental
organizations, business entities and Canadians.
That is why I have asked the public policy forum to join us in
designing and implementing this more democratic and
consequently more effective way of discussing and talking to
Canadians.
In early March representatives from a broad range of
organizations within Canada as well as international experts
will come together to debate and define the issues. They will
also help establish a number of individual expert panels that will
examine in detail the eight, nine, or ten questions that are the
underpinning of our immigration challenges.
In addition, Canadians normally excluded from the process
will be involved in regional, community and round table
discussions. The results of these consultations will then be the
focus of a major conference to be held later this fall so that it
may be forming the basis of the next 1995 immigration levels.
More important, we must begin to answer the question of
where we want to go as a country in the next 10 to 15 years and
how immigration as one important tool of nation building can
help us meet those goals and dreams.
In that regard this minister and this government look forward
to working together with all Canadians and all members and all
political parties represented in the House of Commons.
Canada does face some difficult problems. The economy has
experienced very difficult times of late. Canadians are in a sense
angry and frustrated over unemployment. They are concerned
about losing or regaining their jobs. They are worried about the
799
diminished prospects of their families and they worry about the
careers of their children, and they have every right to feel those
pressures and those dilemmas.
In the process some are casting blame on governments, be
they national, provincial or municipal. Some are casting blame
on those well off, the powerful and the rich in our communities.
Others are also placing the blame on immigrants, on refugees,
on newcomers, that they somehow cost us jobs, that they
somehow cannot adapt to our country, that they somehow are
engulfing our social assistance welfare roles.
I have heard those voices and if we are honest today, we have
all heard those voices. I am not questioning the freedom of those
voices to ring in this place. I ask those voices in this place and
across the country if you are to express those concerns, and we
will have that debate, rather than only talking about the C.D.
Howe report, also look at the Economic Council report that
talked about moving toward 1 per cent gradually, that talked
about the creation of jobs by immigrants.
I ask those voices to be concerned with the fact that
immigrants are also consumers, that immigrants also become
entrepreneurs. I ask them to understand as well if you are going
to look at statistics, Canada's statistics show that on average
foreign-born Canadians spend less time on unemployment
insurance than native born.
(1525 )
I am not castigating anybody, but we have to also speak to the
fact that if we talk about the welfare rolls we also have to talk
about the facts. In the province of Ontario, the province that
receives the most immigrants and refugees, in 1993 had a case
load of 615,000 individuals on welfare. The proportion of
refugees on those rolls according to Ontario officials put to me
in my meeting with them on Monday is 4 per cent, 20,000 to
25,000 people out of 615,000.
I ask my fellow Canadians, in the province of Ontario and
elsewhere, are we really subsidizing those refugees or
immigrants?
I have heard some of those voices and I am prepared to discuss
with those individuals the concerns they are expressing. If we
recall our history as a nation we know that such voices are not
entirely new.
Many new groups of people have come to Canada over the
years, each of them justifying its faith in our country. They
raised families, they worked hard and they too sacrificed. They
helped build our railroads, they helped plough our new frontiers
out west and they helped raise the great cities of Canada. They,
along with all of us, helped build the great country and nation
that we are proud to call home.
Why should we believe now at this juncture of Canada's
history and development that such nation building will all of a
sudden come to a halt? Why should we contemplate now at this
juncture of our history and development that today's
immigrants, today's newcomers cannot be tomorrow's leaders?
Our government and immigration are still about building a
better and more prosperous Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order, pursuant to Standing Order 33 and
routine proceedings as referred to in Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules & Forms.
I commend the minister on his remarks, but I ask for
information on whether it is in order for a minister's statement
to go over 25 minutes or 20 minutes in length. I quote article 348
of Beauchesne's:
Under Standing Order 33(1) Ministers may make a short factual
announcementor statement of Government policy. Provision is made for replies by Members of
parties in opposition to comment on the statement.
Article 350 on the same page states:
The Speaker has emphasized that both the Government and Opposition
contributions should be brief and factual. The purpose of the ministerial
statement is to convey information, not to encourage debate.
Perhaps I am rising more for direction, being a new member
of this House of Commons, on whether this ministerial
statement being 25 minutes long or thereabouts is a usual
procedure of the House.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the
hon. member.
His leader in the first days of Parliament said that this is an
unconventional House, that we should not look to precedent. I
mentioned to my opposition critics that this Prime Minister has
told the House that important decisions, important
announcements or important debates should happen here on the
floor of the House of Commons.
(1530 )
The tradition has been that ministers of immigration in the
past tabled the report, as I did, for 30 seconds and then left for a
press conference outside the House of Commons. This minister
at this level has taken the opportunity under ministerial
statements-and I grant the member it may have gone a little
longer than is traditional-but I thought the issue at hand was
worthy enough for us to make the statement. Regarding the time
that I took, if it was 25 minutes, the hon. member, the
immigration
800
critic for his party, will have the very same time in order to
address the very same concern.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): On the same point of
order, Madam Speaker. I just want to clarify for the hon.
minister that there may be a little problem with his assuming
this is a reformer speaking here. He made reference to this
person's leader, which I think he may have mistaken with the
leader of the Reform Party. Also, as the hon. member at the back
is an independent, there could be a little error there about giving
an equal amount of time. I would just like him to clarify that.
Mr. Marchi: I think the hon. member is absolutely correct. I
had assumed because of the positioning of the member that he
was a member of the Reform Party.
The issues that I raised still stand, but I stand corrected.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to read for
the House Standing Order 33(1):
On Statements by Ministers as listed in Standing Order 30(3), a Minister of the
Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government
policy. A Member from each of the parties in opposition to the government may
comment briefly thereon. The time for such proceedings shall be limited as the
Speaker deems fit.
I thank both hon. members for their interventions.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Madam Speaker, I listened
very closely to the statement of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. However, I must deplore the minister's failure to
co-operate with critics from the other parties.
We did not receive the text of his statement-a document
prepared months ago-until 1 p.m. and we received only one
copy, despite the fact that we had requested two. This is not the
first time this has happened. The same problem occurred a few
days ago when the minister gave a press conference. We
received a copy of his statement only as the press conference
was getting under way. What happened to the minister's promise
to work with us? I must deplore this lack of co-operation.
Regarding the substance of his statement, I would say that
immigration policy does represent an enormous challenge not
just for Canada, but also and above all for Quebec. In referring
to the new levels of immigration announced yesterday, the
minister neglected to mention if he had consulted with Quebec.
If he did, when did these consultations take place and under what
circumstances?
The minister also broached subjects not directly tied to new
immigration levels. For example, concerning criminals, I agree
with him that Canada should not let them in, but I hope that he is
not merely stating good intentions. Precedents in this regard
were set by former governments, and even by this new
government of which the minister is a member. We agree that
immigrants and bona fide refugees should be allowed into
Canada, but not criminals.
Regarding appointments to Canada's Immigration and
Refugee Board, more commissioners are expected to be
appointed in the coming months. We will be watching the
minister closely to ensure that the appointments he does make
are not based on political affiliation. I hope that he will consult
with all interested parties, including Quebec.
(1535)
Naturally we share his concern about women refugees. This
new issue is also a priority for us. We must protect women who
have been persecuted, raped and abused and when appropriate,
we must grant them political refugee status in Canada.
Madam Speaker, as you can see from my accent and my name,
I am a Quebecer of Chilean origin. I came to Quebec 20 years
ago following the 1973 military coup in Chile. I have to say that
I was warmly welcomed by Quebecers, labour unions, religious
groups and international co-operation agencies as well as
agencies working in the field of human rights.
Before I arrived here, I was told I would be going to Canada
and I was issued a visa. I was happy because in my mind, Canada
was, and still is, a democratic country. However, when I arrived
in Quebec, specifically in Montreal, I realized that there were
two countries within Canada, two founding nations and peoples,
two official languages and two cultures, each with its own
history.
Then, I understood the great aspirations of Quebecers, their
desire to defend the French language, their traditions, their
culture and their history, all the more so because I came from a
country where the people had fought for similar goals against
powerful forces, against the penetration of English into Chile
and throughout Latin America, and for the right to develop their
own culture and traditions.
I became a sovereigntist. I have nothing against English
Canada, where I have many friends especially within ethnic
communities and within the labour movement. However, I
support the creation of a country, Quebec, which is the deepest
aspiration of Quebecers.
During my term in office, I plan to travel throughout Canada
and discuss these ideas with my friends everywhere. When a
couple has problems and cannot continue to live together, it
must face reality. I think this analogy can be applied to Quebec
and next year, the referendum will prove that this is so.
Like my party, I am a staunch supporter of immigration and I
would hope that members of ethnic communities will not fear
Quebec sovereignty as we sovereigntists feel that they will
prove to be a formidable asset for Quebec and for Canada.
801
At this time, I would like to dissociate myself from the
position taken by other members of this House who are afraid of
immigration and afraid of refugees. At times they propagate
anti-immigrant sentiment and demand not only that harsh
restrictions be placed on Canadian immigration levels, but also
that claims of refugee status on political grounds and under the
Canadian Charter be denied. I wish to dissociate myself because
my position is vastly different from that of members who view
immigration and refugees in this light.
(1540)
The minister is not telling us anything new about immigration
levels this afternoon. He is quoting the same figures a the
Conservatives: 250,000 immigrants will be admitted to Canada
in 1994. We have no qualms about this figure as long as Quebec
can have its say on the numbers admitted to Quebec.
As far as the mix of immigrants is concerned, we are in favour
of Canada and Quebec throwing open their doors to political
refugees. Canada and Quebec must honour their commitments.
Canada was a signatory to the Geneva Convention relative to
political refugees and we have to meet the humanitarian
assistance requests that we receive from all over the world,
where over 20 million refugees live in various countries. We
discussed the situation in Bosnia a few days ago and I mentioned
at the time that Canada should be open to Bosnian refugees.
So, I maintain that Canada must also tackle the causes of this
form of immigration, that is to say political or economic
refugies, and try to solve the problem that exist in the countries
of origin. People leave their countries because of problems such
as racism, religious strife, poverty, the widening gap between
industrialized countries and developing countries, political
repression. We want Canada to be generous with refugees, while
at the same time addressing the problems that brings them here
in the first place.
Based on the minister's announcement, we can see that the
number of refugees admitted will increase only slightly, by
3,500. We think that this is not enough, in view of what is going
on in the world, in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and other countries,
including El Salvador.
I questioned the minister about the situation of Salvadoran
refugees, but I did not get an answer in this House. Today, we
read in the papers that the expulsion order has been suspended.
That is not what we asked to minister to do. We were asking for a
policy stating that Salvadoran refugees would not be returned to
El Salvador because there are violent troubles in that area. Last
December, the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself was telling
us that political violence had flared up again in El Salvador.
Death squads are still active there. Reports from various
organizations, Development and Peace, Amnesty International,
the UN and even the Salvadoran Human Rights Commission, all
note the violence with disapproval.
What the minister was asked to do was to apply to El Salvador
the same policy as for Haiti, China, Iraq or Somalia. That is all
we were asking and all the fifty or so Salvadoran refugees in
Quebec were asking.
What the press reports today is that there will be a review, but
that has already been done. What we asked the minister to do is
to exercise his jurisdiction. He has that power, under the
Immigration Act, to intervene on humanitarian grounds, and he
should use it to resolve the case of these Salvadoran refugees.
(1545)
He announced to us a few days ago what he intended to do
about work permits for refugee claimants. We agree, we said so,
but we would also like the minister to act more quickly.
Why wait three months to give a political refugee claimant a
work permit, as well as a medical certificate which he must have
obtained before? This still takes a long time. If we do not want
the refugee to collect welfare, he must start working as soon as
possible.
So far, the minister has not answered requests that these
permits be granted quickly. In any case, we know that these
refugees will not compete with Canadian workers because
refugees will usually get only low-paid unpleasant jobs that
other people cannot or will not do.
I noted a glaring omission in the minister's statement, in that
he said nothing about Quebec and the Ottawa-Quebec
agreement. As you know, immigration is a shared
federal-provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has always been
concerned about immigration, even in the last century, because
it is a vital problem for Quebec as it is for Canada. I would say
that it is even more vital for Quebec because Quebec's birth rate
is less than the Canadian average. Immigration in Quebec must
make up this population deficit.
Immigration is also intended to ensure economic prosperity
and openness to the world. Quebec is open to the world, but
immigration to Quebec must ensure the perpetuation of the
French fact. Quebec is the only French-speaking state in North
America. We made demands, we fought the fight and in 1968 we
created the Quebec Department of Immigration. In 1978, the
Couture-Cullen agreement gave Quebec the power to choose its
immigrants. Later, this agreement was improved by the
ministers, Monique Gagnon-Tremblay and Barbara McDougall.
Today, regrettably, the Quebec Department of Immigration and
Cultural Communities has been merged with the Department of
International Affairs.
But our main concern is the survival of French in Quebec, and
it is closely tied to immigration. You know, as I myself have
seen, most immigrants to Quebec integrated with the
English-speaking minority. This has been aggravated by the
federal government's policy of bilingualism in Canada.
802
We want Quebec to have immigrants. We also want them to be
French-speaking as much as possible or at least able to join the
French-speaking community as I was. I speak Spanish; I learned
French because I joined the French speaking majority in
Quebec.
We also want immigration in Quebec to be regionalized. Too
many immigrants are concentrated in Montreal, 90 per cent.
That is why we say and repeat that bill 101 is absolutely
necessary in Quebec and we would like English Canada to
understand that.
(1550)
Since Bill 101 in 1976, our children must attend French
schools. I hope that this concern for immigration in Quebec, a
distinct society, will become part of the minister's message in
the future. Moreover, we want the agreements reached between
Quebec and Ottawa to be honoured. For instance, by increasing
the number of people admitted under the family reunification
program, the minister is imposing a burden on Quebec since
Quebec has no say in this program. The federal government sets
objectives and Quebec does not have anything to say about it. I
hope that in the future you will pay more attention to this aspect
of the immigration policy.
The final objective of our party, and of the entire sovereigntist
movement in Quebec, is to put the immigration policy under
Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. Again, Quebec is open to
foreigners and immigrants; we want to build a just, democratic
and fraternal society that is open to the world and based on
solidarity.
[English]
Mr. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to
interrupt my hon. friend from the Reform Party. I just wanted to
respond to my Bloc critic who said that it was his understanding
that he was to get the documents at noon. I believe my officials
delivered them at one o'clock.
I want to tell the House that I told my officials to provide the
reports to my critics at the traditional-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, Mr. Minister.
The point of order is out of order.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate this opportunity to reply to the minister's
announcement.
This is a policy area of great importance to the people of
Canada and to Canada's future. I hope the minister will regard
the alternatives presented from this side of the House as
constructive and will take them to heart.
I do not need again to point out that Canada is indeed a nation
of immigrants. The country as we know it today would not exist
were it not for the ambition, struggle and determination of
millions of people who have landed on our shores in search of a
better life.
Indeed, my parents were immigrants and as such I understand
the desire for something better which has motivated millions
over the years to come to Canada.
Along with the road to becoming a great nation built by
immigrants, Canada has also gained the reputation as a
compassionate nation. It is one that has opened its arms to
hundreds of thousands of refugees, displaced persons and
families wishing to be united.
We are a compassionate nation. We have stayed true to and
even gone beyond the mandate created by the United Nations
Secretary General regarding refugees. I am proud to be a citizen
of a country that has gained an international reputation for its
fairness, compassion and its acceptance of immigrants of all
kinds.
Further, I represent a riding that more than any other in
Calgary is populated by immigrants or the children of
immigrants. During the course of my campaign I was fortunate
to have had an opportunity to receive input from hundreds of
newcomers to this country.
In short, I applaud the minister, who is himself an immigrant,
for his dedication in this area and his integrity. Nonetheless, I
must seriously question the policy which the minister has
announced. This policy could be of more harm than help to
Canada given our economic state.
(1555 )
The minister has announced that immigration levels this year
will be about 250,000, a substantial number I might add. Of
those immigrants 111,000 will come from the family
sponsorship class, 28,300 will be refugees and 110,700 will be
economic and independent immigrants.
How does the minister justify this level of immigration? Is
there a need at present for this number of immigrants? Upon
what rationale does the minister base his numbers? The answers
to these questions should be discoverable from the minister's
statement today or from his press kit.
However when one searches the minister's statement
regarding today's announcement one finds that rather than
answers regarding the rationale behind this level of immigration
being answered, more questions arise. The minister wrote that in
1994 immigration levels balanced humanitarian considerations
with demographic and economic needs. Could the minister
please explain to this House exactly what sort of a balance has
been achieved apart from a strictly numerical one?
In fact, the minister's projected numbers continue the pattern
of allowing numbers of family and refugee class immigrants
that are virtually unheard of in the industrialized world today. Is
this a balance? Very few other governments would agree. What
exactly are the demographic and economic needs that Canada
faces which this proposed number of immigrants will address?
803
Further, the immigrants that Canada accepts do not settle in
our sparsely populated regions. Rather they are attracted to our
already overcrowded and overburdened metropolitan areas like
Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Those areas are already
polluted. Their landfill sites are overflowing, their traffic is
congested, their crime rates are steadily increasing and their
schools and hospitals are overcrowded and short of funds. I
wonder if the Liberal government took these issues into
consideration when they put together a policy that would add
more than a quarter of a million new people to Canada per year,
people who will be attracted to those overburdened metro areas?
Why then does Canada need the number of immigrants
announced? Yes, there was a time when Canada needed vast
numbers of people, people with very specific skills to open up
our underpopulated areas. That time has long since passed. Even
today as a percentage of our population Canada is still accepting
more immigrants than any other industrialized nation on earth.
Why does this government want to up the number even more?
The government seems to believe that with our fertility rate,
which is currently about 1.7, the Canadian population will begin
to decline at some point in the future and further, that the aging
of our population will place increasing strains upon our social
assistance systems and a drain upon our federal reserves as
fewer and fewer young people in the population will be working
to pay for these social programs.
It is as though the government is using a kind of social
engineering to slow down the aging of the population through
immigration. Had it studied the demographic projection model
of the Economic Council of Canada, it would have discovered
that the council's proposal recommends that immigration levels
be set at the average of the last 25 years, which is .63 per cent of
the population per year or about 170,000 immigrants.
Of the studies that the Reform caucus has examined even this
number of 170,000 per year represents the high end. Compare
that, Madam Speaker, with the 250,000 as the announcement
indicates that this government proposes that we accept.
The government wants us to believe that we will reap
enormous benefits by allowing this number of immigrants each
year but it has neglected to mention the costs of immigration. A
Southam study of literacy in Canada published in 1987 reported
that about 34,000 functionally illiterate immigrants were
admitted annually. Does this government not feel that there is a
cost to be incurred by admitting tens of thousands of illiterate
immigrants, especially with the cuts in English as a second
language program that are being made across the country?
(1600)
The provinces no longer have the funds necessary to support a
poorly thought out federal immigration policy. For example, the
Government of Ontario-and the minister alluded to this-is
straining with the acceptance of 59 per cent of all of Canada's
immigrants and while receiving 39 per cent of federal funds.
These sorts of problems will only be made worse if we accept
the flood of immigrants proposed by this government,
especially when those immigrants are chosen largely from the
family or refugee classes and not as independent immigrants
chosen for their human capital; chosen for their skills, their
ability to quickly and independently integrate into Canadian life
as well as their ability to contribute to the economic needs of
this country. Choosing immigrants on this basis is the policy of
the Reform Party. It is one which we believe would turn our
present immigration dilemma into a solution to some of
Canada's economic woes. Just some.
On the other hand, the immigration plan put forward by the
government will actually discriminate against those immigrants
who could contribute most to Canada's growth and prosperity. It
gives preference to those immigrants who tend to be a drain
upon our social services and will lower the average skill level of
our work force.
This government is saying that we need to take in our fair
share of refugees when in fact Canada's acceptance rate for
refugee applicants is already among the highest in the world.
This government says that we need to make family class a
priority when our family class acceptance system is already
among the most generous in the world.
The government in its red book states that we must take
humanitarianism and compassion into account in our
immigration policy. We are already being more compassionate
than any other nation in the world. Is it not fair to demand that
this compassion be mated with practicality and a consideration
of the other needs in the country?
I want to stress that the Reform Party does not oppose
immigration. On the contrary, the Reform Party recognizes that
Canada is a nation of immigrants, that this nation was built by
immigrants and could continue to benefit from immigration, but
only if the immigration is based on a sensible, well thought out
policy that reflects Canada's needs.
The Reform caucus strongly urges the government to
re-examine its immigration policy. We strongly recommend
that Canada return to its traditional policy for determining the
admissible number of immigrants by first determining Canada's
real economic needs.
The government must also re-examine its refugee
determination process. We believe that only genuine refugees
should be
804
welcome and that bogus refugees, illegal entrants and criminal
offenders should be immediately deported. Further, anyone who
engages in or encourages such activities should be subject to
severe penalties.
I applaud the minister for his plan to open up to the Canadian
people Canada's immigration policy. If a major overhaul is
necessary, and it appears that it is, then it should be prompted by
a national referendum. This would ensure that in the area of
immigration the Canadian people and not special interests
would shape this sensitive national policy.
* * *
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources):
moved for leave to introduce 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
consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1605 )
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-7, an act respecting the control of certain
drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend
certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in
consequence thereof.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-208, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act.
She said: Madam Speaker, this bill deals with the pensions of
parliamentarians and this bill prohibits double-dipping; that is,
it prohibits parliamentarians from receiving a pension from the
Government of Canada if that individual is receiving a salary
from the Government of Canada or crown corporation.
This bill also prevents a member from collecting a
parliamentary pension until that member reaches the age of 60.
As we saw during the last election this matter is of great
concern to Canadians. Given the positions already taken by all
sides of the House, I certainly look forward to this bill passing
very quickly.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden for
seconding the motion.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-209, an act to provide for full employment in
Canada.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to table this bill
today. This bill establishes that full employment must be the
first objective of any economic and fiscal policy of the federal
government. It is the surest means to lower a poverty rate of over
11 percent and to put an end to poverty.
[English]
This bill would require the Minister of Labour to prepare a
draft plan for the achievement of full employment targets which
the minister would then put before this House.
I am sure that all members of this House agree that we must in
a systematic and dedicated way address the issue of
unemployment and I seek when this comes for final reading the
support of all members of this House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1610 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-210, an act to provide for the recall of members
of the House of Commons.
She said: Madam Speaker, I would like to table this. I
appreciate the chance to introduce today a bill to provide for the
recall of members of the House of Commons.
This bill would allow the electors in any federal constituency
to recall their member of Parliament by circulating a petition
containing the names and addresses of a majority of the voters
who voted in that riding in the previous election. If a recall
petition were to be deemed successful by the chief electoral
officer a by-election would be called for that seat.
The bill also contains a number of limitations on the recall
process designed to avoid superfluous and mischievous
employment of this device.
I believe this bill would do more to ensure democratic
parliamentary reform than any other single measure. I
recommend that the government support this bill as quickly as
possible. As the late Senator Stan Waters who said regularly:
805
``Democracy delayed is democracy denied''. I hope we act on
this quickly.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons) I move:
That no later than five minutes before the expiry of the time for consideration
of Government Orders on Thursday, February 3, 1994, any business then under
consideration shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for disposal of the
motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development regarding a reviewof social programs, Government Business No. 4, shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment;
That no later than 15 minutes before expiry of the time for the consideration of
Government Orders on Tuesday, February 8, 1994, any business then under
consideration shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the disposal ofthe second reading stages of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National
Revenue Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof;
That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act and;
That Bill C-4, an act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act shall
be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment;
That no later than five minutes before the expiry of the time for consideration
of Government Orders on Monday, February 7, 1994, any business then under
consideration shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for disposal of the
motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding
amendments to the Standing Orders and other related matters, notice of which
was given on February 2, 1994, shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment;
That any divisions requested on any of the aforementioned business shall be
deferred until six o'clock p.m., Tuesday, February 8, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition
signed by petitioners living in Parkdale-High Park and in other
parts of Ontario.
(1615 )
The petitioners state that the government of the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam is continuing to violate all fundamental
and civil rights of the Vietnamese citizens through arbitrary
arrests, detention without trial and the censorship of peaceful
expressions of political or religious beliefs.
The petitioners urge the government in their prayer to
continue to make full normalization of relations with Vietnam
contingent upon (1) the unconditional release of all political and
religious prisoners in Vietnam; (2) the immediate cessation of
punishment of critics through detention without trial; (3) the
abolition of all political prisoners and re-education camps
throughout the country; (4) the elimination of all regulations,
codes and constitutional provisions prohibiting organized
opposition activities that are commonly used to repress peaceful
expressions of dissent; and (5) a formal commitment by the
leaders of the communist party of Vietnam to create a pluralistic
and democratic environment with free and open national
elections under international supervision so that the citizens of
Vietnam may determine the future leadership and orientation of
their government.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Concerning my
second petition, these petitioners all reside in High Park in my
constituency. They state in their petition that they are very
satisfied with the service and location of sub-post office number
166, located in the High Park Pharmacy, which the previous
government tried to close.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to urge this government to keep post office number
166 located in High Park Pharmacy operating in its present state
and location.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Pursuant to
Standing Order 31, I have the privilege of presenting to
Parliament a petition signed by many people from around my
riding and around Toronto.
Whereas the incidence of violence against women and
children is unacceptable, the undersigned, your petitioners,
humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation
designed to eliminate violence against women and children,
encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or
abuse, provide assistance and support for women reporting
assault or abuse, and also the need for abuser rehabilitation and a
special effort on the training of police, lawyers, court workers
and judges to become knowledgeable about women and child
abuse and to focus public attention on this very important and
long ignored problem.
806
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
806
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. John Manley (for the Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions)): moved that a ways and
means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table
on Monday, January 31, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to).
* * *
The House resumed from January 31, consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, I would
like to start by reminding hon. members of the purpose of the
debate we are engaged in today.
(1620)
The debate is on a motion tabled by the federal Minister of
Human Resources Development, that a committee of the House
be directed to consult broadly, to-as the motion says-analyse
and to make recommendations regarding the modernization and
restructuring of Canada's social security system.
If this motion were tabled in any other Parliament, we would
be inclined to think it was good news. In the normal course of
events, a government may wish to review its social programs in
order to improve them, to make them more productive, as they
say, and provide more protection and security for those in our
society who need it most.
Unfortunately, I have the impression that today, this motion is
not good news for Canadian men and women. There may be are
some disturbing developments if we consider that since the very
beginning of the election campaign, the focus has been on the
economy, to the exclusion of all other issues in this country.
As you know, Madam Speaker, whenever we talk about the
economy, financial problems and challenges to social choices,
the prime concern of the people who engage in this exercise is to
cut social programs. The government must take on a very heavy
financial burden to honour its commitments to the most
vulnerable in our society, as expressed in the social programs
put in place over the years by a succession of parliaments.
Inevitably, because of the very size of this budget item,
whenever there is talk of cutting back and restructuring, social
programs are the obvious target for all these people who can
lobby the government and the Minister of Finance.
Listen to what the wealthiest members of the business
community have to say about tackling Canada's budget
problems. Most of them would tell you: Cut social programs.
Too many people are abusing these programs. Too many people
are getting around the system and drawing benefits without
being entitled to them.
They will tell you also this is common practice and that there
are welfare recipients in the provinces who abuse the system.
They describe one or two or three cases of fraud with a great deal
of emphasis, to show the system works and how taxpayers'
money is wasted. That is the kind of answer you get, Madam
Speaker, when you put this question to the people in our society
who are well off.
When do you hear a wealthy businessman, the member of a
wealthy industrial dynasty, say that 2,384 cases of fraud in such
and such an area or over a year or over two years, together
represent a quarter of a tenth of half of what he saves in income
tax in his family trust or through tax shelters to which he has
access? We have reached the point in this country where
whenever a welfare recipient or a unemployed worker is caught
in the act of trying to save his daily pittance and is tempted to
defraud one of the social programs, such cases are given a lot of
publicity. Every time they are right there on the front page, grist
to the mill of people who argue against helping the neediest in
our society.
(1625)
Tell me, Madam Speaker, when do you hear people wonder,
worry, or rebel because some succeed in saving-I use the term
saving out of politeness-taxes through all kinds of legal and
sometimes not so legal ploys? In any case, our society treats like
heroes those who manage to avoid paying taxes.
There are even companies putting ads in the newspapers
saying: ``Come and see us. We are experts on tax shelters. You
do not want to pay any taxes? This is the place to come''. Our
society is now at the point where it puts on a pedestal those who
somehow succeed in avoiding paying taxes and giving their due
to the tax man. On the other hand, every time a welfare recipient
807
living well below the poverty level manages to defraud the
system, there is a general outcry right across the country.
In this context, and at this stage, we are concerned by the
minister's initiative. We are concerned because we know those
who support the members opposite. We know the economic
interests which have brought this government to power; its
supporters are among the wealthiest in our society and they have
direct channels of communications, not with the secretaries of
state, but with the senior ministers in the Cabinet. It is those
people who hold real power and who influence the decision
process.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): When a government is motivated
by such partisan interests and when the people who support it
have a perspective like the one I described earlier, it is a concern
for welfare recipients who have no say in the decision-making
process and no one in Parliament to inform the ministers of their
problems.
When this session got underway a few months after we were
elected to come here and work for the well-being of Canadians,
our leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, told us and the
press that our party would be the protector of social rights in
Canada. He added that those who have no access to Cabinet or to
the lobbies of powerful people with contacts and connections to
influence the government would be able to count on the Official
Opposition, that is the 54 Bloc Quebecois members, to represent
them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): The government takes all these
measures under the pretense of being short of money. The
federal administration is in a bad financial situation. The
government says we must not penalize those who will follow us,
namely our children. How touching, Madam Speaker! When
will the decision-makers in this government understand that it
would be more appropriate to explore new options than to target
the poor in our society and reduce the benefits of those who
hardly have anything? We agree that the financial situation of
Canada is tragic. We agree that the successive governments,
starting with the previous Liberal administration in which the
current Prime Minister was Minister of Finance, have generated
deficits for Canada. Indeed, the Liberal government of the time
was followed by a Conservative government which continued to
put us in deeper economic trouble.
An hon. member: None of that is true.
(1630)
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, truth hurts. See
how the members opposite become vocal when we point to the
real problems, when we remind them that their Prime Minister,
their leader, was Minister of Finance when the financial
situation started to deteriorate seriously in Canada. Their leader
was the one who, while he was Minister of Finance, never could
redress the downward curve the country's economy had
hopelessly taken. It hurts!
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): At a time when we are trying to
solve the financial problems of Canada, the members opposite
have only one suggestion to make: cut social programs, cut off
the unemployed. There is no other way. This is the third federal
government to bring us deeper into debt, the third one to add to
the debt which has now reached $500 billion. That is quite a
debt! And they want to solve the problem at the expense of the
have-nots of our society. Do you expect us to accept such unfair
proposals without a word?
If they want to know where to save money, let us explore a few
avenues before we cut social programs. Let us try to find
solutions before we cut off the unemployed, welfare recipients
and old age pensioners, let us try to find a way to trim the fat off
government institutions. From the beginning of the election
campaign, from the instant we set foot in this Parliament, the
Leader of the Official Opposition, our leader, has been
requesting the creation of a committee where elected members
would examine government expenditures. Our role should be
enhanced, they say; well, what better task is there for a member
than to tell government which useless activities to cut or abolish
in order to protect his constituents, especially those in need.
Three consecutive governments have failed in this
Parliament; Liberals, Tories and Liberals again can be rightly
accused of mismanagement and poor administration. Their
inability to make the necessary decisions, their lack of political
courage put us in such a difficult situation that today we have to
call upon the disadvantaged of our society to make up for their
incompetence.
They want to know where to cut? Well then, let the
government members tell their Prime Minister that they are
dying, as I know they are, to go through the federal
government's expenditures, item by item. Let those members in
power satisfy their burning urge to go and tell senior civil
servants how harmful some of their department's activities are,
how useless they are, what a total waste of money overlapping
is.
I can see it written on the faces of some of you here, that you
have the interests of your constituents at heart and would like to
do your job as an MP properly and be able to save money, as any
responsible parliamentarian would. Every time we save
$100,000, it is $100,000 that will not come out of the have-not's
pockets, we can be sure of that. And maybe they will get to keep
it. Only then will we feel we are doing our job of representing
our constituents.
808
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, there is another
problem which seems to go over the heads of every one on the
government side in this House, and that is the issue of
overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. If I
remember correctly, we have been here for three weeks now, and
if we were to study the issues which have been of concern to us,
the topics which have been raised the most often for the past
three weeks, we would probably come to the conclusion that our
overall concern is the overlapping and duplication we have been
subjected to by the federal government over the years.
(1635)
This administrative overlap is not disconnected from reality;
everyone recognizes that it does not make sense. In public
management, every time we mention government deficit, we are
told about private enterprise: ``Look at how this or that company
is managed''. Then they give us examples: ``Look at Alcan, at
General Motors, at Chrysler, at Bombardier. See how successful
they are''. What did these companies do when they ran into
economic problems? Very simple. First, they streamlined
operations.
Every time a responsible businessman wants to take
significant administrative measures, the first thing to do is
streamline operations. For the benefit of the hon. members
opposite, streamlining means eliminating all dual
responsibilities, redundant organizations and non-essential
services, simplifying administration and lines of
communications to become more efficient and cost effective.
If this is good for private enterprise, if everyone sees it as the
right approach, why should it not also be good for governments?
Should the first step to be taken by a government wanting to turn
around a disastrous financial situation not be to eliminate
everything that is unnecessary, all overlap and duplication?
Before cutting into services and product quality, Chrysler
Canada went through a crucial streamlining process.
The government is doing exactly the opposite. Instead of
streamlining, they will cut into product quality, into social
services, they will reorganize by saving a few billion here and
there at the expense of unfortunate people. I am convinced that
no administrative measure will be taken to eliminate this dual
administration with provincial and municipal governments.
In the employment sector alone, just to show how political
beliefs deeply held by the hon. members opposite prevent them
from being efficient and seeing clearly, there is total unanimity
in Quebec, except for Liberal members of Parliament who have
managed to get elected in Quebec. Everyone else, including
Liberal members of Quebec's Legislative Assembly, is
convinced that employment responsibilities should come under
Quebec's jurisdiction. Even the previous Premier had
understood this and taken a step in the right direction.
It is essential to convey our position to the members of this
Parliament because it is shared by everyone and publicly
defensible.
Do you know how many employment programs there are?
Give or take a few, there are about 24 in the Quebec government
and 27 or so in the federal government. An unemployed person
who wants to get out of unemployment insurance or welfare in
Quebec is faced with a total of 51 programs under two or three
different administrations and in different buildings. They are
not always consistent and he may well lose any hope of ever
getting out of this vicious circle.
What are the hon. members opposite doing in this regard? We
are looking at $250 million a year. It is an impressive amount:
$250 million a year. Have you ever thought of renouncing your
crippling brand of Canadian nationalism, with your tentacles
reaching into every Canadian province and territory, this kind of
new disease that makes Canadian federalists want to keep a
finger in every pie, because the truth lies in this Parliament?
(1640)
Do you realize that, if we did without, we could save-and by
acting diligently we could also solve an extremely serious
problem-$250 million a year?
Instead of making cuts on the backs of the poor, in benefits to
less fortunate Canadians, old age pensions, unemployment
insurance or federal transfer payments used to pay for social
assistance, we could at least manage to save that much, and this
$250 million could stay in the pockets of people who really need
that money.
Madam Speaker, you are signalling that I am running out of
time. I would have liked to take each area of duplication and
demonstrate, with figures to back it up-because it can be
done-how many millions of dollars could have been saved,
how much streamlining of the government system should be
done and how much simpler relations between Ottawa and the
provinces could be made. By taking these steps, we would have
done the very first thing any sensible manager does. Without
sacrificing quality, we would have cut the fat and taken a hard
look at administration and bad management.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Madam Speaker, I
listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member
opposite, and I was somewhat surprised. Surprised because the
words never change. We are always covering the same ground in
this debate.
I want to ask the hon. member who gave him the right to say
that only his party speaks for the most disadvantaged in society?
His party represents only a portion of this country. The Liberal
809
Party of Canada represents all Canadians and all of the
disadvantaged people in this country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Bakopanos: As a Quebecer and as a member of a
community that is not one of the country's two founding
communities, I get the feeling from the hon. member that he
thinks the people on this side of the House-and let us not forget
that we are all well off-that we come from a segment of society
that does not understand the problems of the less fortunate. I was
rather insulted by what he said because I believe that the Liberal
Party of Canada and its leader tried to field candidates who
represented all segments, races, languages and economic levels
of our society. When our party speaks, it does so not only on
behalf of the wealthy. It speaks for everyone.
Besides, who said anything about cuts? We have not yet made
any decisions about cuts in this House. The Minister of Human
Resources Development has yet to make any announcements
about cuts. Instead, he has welcomed a debate on this issue. He
has asked members to think about the future of the services
provided here in Canada. The hon. member has already decided
that we are going to make cuts, but we have not yet decided
anything of the sort. We are in the process of holding
consultations. We have not yet made any decisions. We want to
consult all Canadians, not just one group or one province, but all
Canadians. Then we will make our decisions.
We are not going to reduce pensions. If the hon. member had
taken the time to read the Liberal Party's red book, he would
have seen that we stated clearly that we would not cut pensions
or target the most disadvantaged members of our society.
(1645)
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for her comments, for this question and for her
assessment. Of course, far be it from me, if she ever took it that
way, to say that the people opposite were all rich and
disconnected from the middle class in this society.
What I said, however, is that I tried to explain in this House
that normally, when you want to find out what motivates a
particular group, you look at the hand that feeds them. If the
hand that feeds them is a certain type of people in society, if
those who support their political party, those who get a good
hearing from each of the hon. ministers of this government,
those who are known to be friends of those in power-I am not at
all calling into question the hon. member-I say that the backers
of those who are in government and the supporters of the
political party from which the government is formed have
well-defined and clearly identifiable interests. That is just what
I mean, no more and no less.
I would simply say to the hon. member that I do not think that
broad based geographical representation is enough to represent
adequately the interests of a certain category of people in
society. Rather, it is the policies proposed which show who
represents whom.
When the hon. member says that there were no cuts and that
no decisions have been made, I am sorry, I must tell the hon.
member that I disagree. I noticed that our colleague, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, just before the opening
of the session, in a speech here in Ottawa, not far from this
Parliament, said as seriously as could be that 20 per cent must be
cut from the cost of health care in Canada.
I really like the hon. member, I take her word, I wish that she
had the same weight in cabinet as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, but she does not. He intends to cut 20
per cent from health care. He said so.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, to begin, I found it difficult to
follow the logic of the previous speaker because at one point in
time he was asking why the government would not operate the
same as a business.
The fact of the matter is that in the case of many of the
examples the member for Roberval used in his remarks, such as
Chrysler, Alcan and General Motors, over the last 10 years when
these corporations ran into difficulty, they came to government
and asked for help in the interest of keeping their people
employed. In most cases-I believe in all these three cases-in
the interest of keeping these organizations vibrant, alive and
keeping their skilled labour forces active and competitive, the
Government of Canada supported these organizations.
The same thing happened with those organizations in relation
to the tax act. Many of these organizations have tremendous tax
preferences and tax grants. I find it inconsistent that the member
would say we should try to operate this place like a business
when in fact business gets into trouble, especially big business,
and usually the first place they come for help is the Government
of Canada.
I am happy to have eight or nine minutes to speak on the
initiative of the Minister of Human Resources Development to
attempt to reinvent our social net, not cut or trash it but reinvent
it, so we can make it much more effective and productive for
those people in our communities who need it the most.
(1650 )
The reason I personally have such great confidence in this
exercise is because I had the opportunity of working with this
minister during the last great recession we had in this country.
That was in November 1982. I would like to share with the
House and with Canadians a very specific initiative that the then
Minister of Employment and Immigration-today he is
responsible for human resources-put forward.
810
It was November 10, 1982. I went to the Library of Parliament
on Monday morning to pull this out. It was called the New
Employment Expansion and Development Program.
This was an effort by that young minister to try to put
unemployed Canadians back to work quickly during that very
tough recession. I am going to talk for a few minutes about this
program because I believe this program can work today, and I
hope that as we go through renewal we would consider going
back to some of the good things we have done in the past and
consider them, especially if they worked.
What the minister essentially said at that time was that it costs
on average, using today's dollars, approximately $17,000 to
$20,000 a year to keep a person on unemployment insurance or
welfare. Why would we not take that same money and work with
the small, medium and large businesses of this country in a joint
venture program to help put people back to work? They would
have to put in a percentage as well.
At that time it was approximately 70-30. In today's terms that
would mean we would divert the $20,000 for the person
unemployed and the company would put in approximately
$10,000. In a five-month period under that NEED program we
put close to 300,000 Canadians back to work.
What I liked about that program was the fact that it used the
private sector as the operational unit. This was not creating a
new bureaucracy. This was not using the institution of
government. This cut out duplication. The Bloc Quebecois
always comes back to duplication and multiple programs, and
quite frankly, I share their view. One of the worst states we have
in this city is the way the bureaucracy has institutionalized itself
on so many different programs, where 50 cents on the dollar
goes to supporting the bureaucrats and the end user gets only 50
cents.
If we ran anything like that in the private sector we would in
fact be trashed. We should be trying to make sure the end user
gets a majority of the money rather than the bureaucrats and
their institutions and their paper pushing mechanisms.
Those small and medium sized businesses also had a crisis of
confidence at that time and were reticent about putting people
on the payroll, because it was a tough time in 1981 and in 1982
as well. The beautiful thing about the NEED program the
minister instituted at that time was the fact that this money,
which would otherwise have gone to a person on unemployment,
was there as a lever to get people into productive capacity, and
the fact that they only had to put in approximately 30 per cent of
the wage was a catalyst. There was very little paper involved.
(1655)
I believe what the minister was trying to say to us this week
was that we have to go back to the drawing boards. We were
elected to put people back to work right away and to do that in
the most cost effective way we possibly can. I believe that as we
are going through these programs and as we do this analysis, we
should not just throw everything out the window. We should also
take a look at some of the things we have done in the past that
have worked well for Canadians. If we can see that they worked,
as the NEED program worked, then we should consider them
again.
What I like about this program is that-and I say this to all
members-we do not need to reinvent the wheel; we can bring it
up to date.
One of the flaws in this deal, in my opinion, was that they
allowed government organizations to participate in this program
at the provincial and municipal levels. I suggest a modification
would be that it should be only private sector employers and
only small, medium and large-sized businesses.
I believe that with the success rate the minister had in 1982
with the NEED program, where in a five-month period he put
close to 35,000 people back to work, if we use that same kind of
creative thinking today, that notion of reinventing, then there is
great hope for us to put people back to work quickly. That is the
kind of thing the minister is hoping we will all participate in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Prior to going to
questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that
pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial
statement government orders will be extended by 52 minutes.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, I too remember the NEED program.
As the hon. member mentioned, there definitely is reason to
resurrect some of the programs that worked. But if we are going
to resurrect and not reinvent the wheel, we had better go back to
the marketplace and discuss with people who actually use the
program what happened as a direct result of the use of some of
these programs.
One of the problems with that particular program was this.
When the government is prepared to pay 70 per cent, what
happens is that people get laid off and others get rehired to
replace them. That may not be the way the program was
designed but that was the effect of the program.
I would suggest further that if this kind of thing is done it
should be exactly reversed. The majority of the income an
employee would get would have to come from the employer, and
if the government was going to top up anything, it would have to
be the minority amount and not the majority amount.
811
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker,
through you to the member for Edmonton Southwest, that is
where we have an ideological difference.
I am speaking now as someone who has the experience of
living in a city like Toronto, where we have about 650,000
people unemployed. It is the worst unemployment in the country
right now and it is something we as a city are not used to. We
have never had a crisis of confidence like the one we are going
through right now.
Part of my reason for going to this NEED program was that a
couple of my constituents reminded me about their success in
being on the program.
(1700 )
We are so desperate to get people back to work right now, I am
afraid that if we only come up with 30 per cent of a person's
wage, I am not sure that would be enough to mobilize the
650,000 small businesses in my province that we really depend
on. That is the case not just in my province, but all across the
country.
Maybe I am being a little too generous on this, but I believe
that the dignity of a person working is very important. We are
already disbursing close to $20,000 when they are sitting at
home doing nothing. Maybe we could make this a national
exercise and maybe only have it in operation for about six
months, not forever. Maybe we could have a couple of million
signs sent to every small business person in Canada saying:
``Jobs Canada, six-month period, here is where it is. You must
take advantage of it in that six month period to get people back
to work again or the opportunity lapses''.
If we could build in the kind of protections the hon. member is
talking about we would be able to meet both our objectives.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech of the hon. member and I asked
myself a few questions. We know that in the past, some
programs for re-entry into the labour force enabled employers
to hire new employees whose salaries were paid in part by the
government. Unfortunately, they were often laid off when the
government grant expired. Today, in my riding and the
neighbouring ridings, people are telling me that they do not want
short term employment, jobs partly paid by the government to
give the illusion that workers have been rehired, have been made
to re-enter the labour force.
Although I agree with much of what the hon. member said, I
would not want people to be fooled, I would not like to see
companies firing their employees once the government funds
run out. Beyond that, I did not sense in that speech-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question and
comment period has expired.
[English]
We are now returning to debate unless we have unanimous
consent for a comment.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We do not have
unanimous consent.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Madam Speaker, I would like to
begin by congratulating all my colleagues who were elected to
the House of Commons on October 25. I would also like to thank
the constituents of Lincoln for electing me to office. I consider it
an honour and will do my best to serve them. I would like to
thank my family and friends for their support and also the many
volunteers who worked so very hard during the election.
For those hon. members who are not familiar with my riding
of Lincoln, it includes part of east Hamilton through to St.
Catharines which encompasses Stoney Creek, Grimsby,
Beamsville, Vineland and Jordan.
Lincoln's workforce combines the industry found in Hamilton
East and Stoney Creek and the farming area for which the
Niagara Peninsula is so famous. Both of these industries have
been under severe pressure due to increased global
competitiveness. That is why I am pleased to have this
opportunity to address the hon. members on some of the means
by which this government will effectively manage its labour and
employment programs despite the continuing financial
constraints.
At the outset I want to acknowledge the Minister of Human
Resources Development. My colleague, the hon. member for
Winnipeg South Centre, is playing a strategic and visionary role
in leading our government on these critical matters.
(1705 )
As the Minister of Human Resources Development has
pointed out, in developed societies like ours the primary source
of income is derived from paid work. Earnings are distributed
among family members and savings are put aside for education,
retirement and the unforeseen contingencies.
In the same way our social security network allocates funds
for the benefit of children, the unemployed and our senior
citizens. Learning, training, income security and old age
pensions are all inextricably intertwined and this is a reality that
we must face as we approach the whole question of social reform
in a rapidly evolving society.
We cannot do this in piecemeal fashion, as there are many
considerations we have to take into account. While this
government must and will take the lead in this process it is vital
that all affected parties, particularly labour, business and special
interest groups, be involved in the consultation process.
812
Recent history shows that countries best able to contend with
economic changes are the ones committed to strong
labour-management partnerships. These types of networks and
alliances set up by consistently successful industrial nations
illustrate how critical consultation and co-operation are to
achieving that competitive edge.
Human resources are at the very top of this government's list
of priorities with respect to restoring Canada to a leading
industrial nation. Our focus is to get Canadians working. To get
Canadians working the contribution of skills development to
economic performance must be emphasized.
One of the pivotal factors leading to improved productivity,
trade performance and creativity is the enhancement of those
proficient skills. These skills are the key to our long term
competitiveness, both in specific industries and in the entire
economy. The very nature of employment is changing.
Most income securities were designed in an era of strong
demand for labour at all skill levels. It was possible for
individuals to leave school at almost any age or to arrive in
Canada from any country and find work quickly. The prospects
that work would pay reasonably well and would lead to a career
with the same employer were quite good at that time but the
economy and labour markets have changed since the mid
seventies Traditional sources of high wage and high benefit
employment such as large companies and government are
cutting jobs.
Most jobs now being created require relatively high skill
levels. Often these are difficult to fill because too many of the
applicants lack the required proficiency. This has lead to a
disproportionate impact on two groups of workers. One
comprises of the older workers whose skills are now obsolete
and whose wage expectations are high, and the other group is
made up of young people who have not undergone the training
necessary to move into these positions.
We all know that young people are facing hardship today.
They have the highest rate of unemployment in the country and
in Lincoln, in particular, the unemployment figure for youth is
close to 22 per cent. We cannot permit this new generation to
reach adulthood without any sense of achieving employment
security. It has become increasingly evident that market forces
alone will not solve our problems. We must focus our attention
on providing Canadians with the opportunity for meaningful
employment, employment that contributes to the growth and
development of our economy.
There will be employment gains made in some sectors of the
economy. For example, the service sector, including both the
high tech and the more traditional service industries, is expected
to continue to grow in the 1990s as well as the small business
sector.
Almost half of the new jobs created between 1979 and 1989
came from firms with fewer than 20 employees. The economy is
creating jobs that demand more education. Between 1990 and
1993 jobs from university graduates increased by 17 per cent,
while those for high school graduates remained about the same.
More important, jobs for high school dropouts dropped by 17
per cent.
At a time when jobs that pay well require higher skill levels
we have almost 40 per cent of Canadians with limited or no
reading skills.
(1710 )
The statistics are quite alarming but the difficulties that they
reflect are not insurmountable. Working together we can
galvanize our intellectual resources and face these daunting
challenges as we have done in many areas of endeavour before.
It will take a collaborative approach with the provinces, the
private sector and communities across the country. It will also
take creativity and courage to change our preconceived notions
about how to go about changing the business of the activating of
our work force and instilling it with confidence.
Through consultation with all members of the House, small
business, labour and other interested parties, we will ensure
labour issues are dealt with in a manner that provides for the
highest possible standards, consistent with progressive training
and leading-edge technology.
Through consultation we may devise restructured working
arrangements to better accommodate work and family
responsibilities. This could well involve reducing the number of
working hours or bringing in shared employment to protect jobs
and ensure the equitable distribution of the total hours of work
available.
In conjunction with the provinces, private sector, unions and
local communities, this government will strive to improve the
income security programs. A comprehensive and integrated
approach to reforming the whole raft of national and provincial
social programs is necessary to restore the hope, confidence and
pride of the Canadian people.
These redesigned programs will better meet our current and
future needs within the context of providing work incentives
rather than disincentives. The government is undertaking the
redesign of programs because it has a vision. The vision will
have the objective of encouraging individual incentive,
promoting the creation of wealth, and establishing a robust
export-oriented economy which will benefit Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We will now move to the
question and comment period. The hon. member for Portneuf
has the floor, since I interrupted him during his first comment.
813
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, this is
very kind of you. In a way I am glad you interrupted me, because
the hon. member has said things I did not hear in the speech of
the previous speaker who has now left.
The hon. member spoke about training. He was proposing that
manpower be upgraded to a level which would allow it to fill the
more technical jobs now offered. In that sense, I quite agree with
my colleague, the hon. member for Lincoln.
This being said, I am sure that the hon. member will agree
that, in Canada, industries and companies differ according to the
local natural resources or the contacts with our neighbour to the
south of the 47th parallel. Therefore, the needs are different.
Is it possible to direct an operation of such complexity and
such diversity from Ottawa? I do not think so, but I would like
the opinion of the hon. member on that.
I would like to mention a solution that works in Quebec, but
would probably work even better if the federal government was
willing to follow up on it. Perhaps he heard about the Société
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. This
organization would be more than willing to undertake precisely
what he mentioned. In my opinion, it is high time that his
colleagues in the Liberal caucus take into consideration his
brilliant ideas, especially the previous speakers. I wish he could
propose a regionalization of actions with the help, for example,
of the Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre. I would like to hear the comments of the hon.
member for Lincoln on that.
[English]
Mr. Valeri: I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I should
also state that training is a shared responsibility. Through
consultations like today, I am sure we will investigate the
various opportunities available in order to deal with the training.
(1715)
As a government we are promoting a national objective. We
want to increase employment. We are looking at the portability
of these skills so we can break down interprovincial trade
barriers and have the movement of skills and capital throughout
the provinces.
Although the hon. member is indicating that the skills and
training should be taken care of by the province of Quebec, we
as a government are pushing for the reduction of those trade
barriers and increasing employment. We are also taking other
measures besides the national apprenticeship program. We are
bringing in, as we have announced, an infrastructure program
right across the country to increase employment. We believe
that by breaking down these barriers and allowing the transfer of
skills across the provinces we will achieve success.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to what was said by the last two or
three speakers and I would like to say I agree entirely with the
statements of the member for Roberval. On the other hand, I am
concerned by what I heard coming from the government
members who have not been reassuring since the beginning of
this debate. True enough, nothing has been decided yet as
regards cuts in social programs, but I can tell you that this
morning's La Presse outlines major problems in the area of
social housing in Valleyfield, in my riding. Compared to the
average of 16.9 per cent for the province, in Valleyfield, 19.3 per
cent of the people have to give more than half their salary for
rent.
There is nothing reassuring in the government's remarks on
the next budget as far as social housing is concerned. The
situation is disastrous and urgent; the government must
immediately find a solution and restore financial assistance for
social housing.
As far as the workforce is concerned, we have been talking
about this for a long time now. Quebec has its own manpower
development programs. I see no need for a continuing debate or
discussion between the two levels of government since it could
slow down the implementation of those programs. I regret that
the federal government is asking Quebec for Canada-wide
manpower programs. We have our own programs; all we need
now is the money to implement them.
You say my time is up, Madam Speaker, but I wanted to stress
these two points.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the House
that pursuant to Standing Order 43, our speakers on this motion
will be dividing their time in half.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam
Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Human
Resources Development for his commitment to the process of
change. I find his remarks both refreshing and encouraging. This
commitment to the process of change that the government
proposes generates genuine hope for the future.
However, I wish to remind the government of the hope we had
in 1985 when a new government launched a royal commission
on unemployment insurance. Then in 1986 those hopes were
dashed when the Forget commission issued its final report and
dozens of good ideas were disregarded because of opposition
attacks on a few ideas that needed a bit more work and more
input from common sense Canadians. Adversarial politics
reached its zenith in the 1980s. Canadians expect that
Parliament in the nineties will be both different and better.
Canadians expect that the good ideas brought forward in
Parliament should be implemented regardless of which member
or which party initiates them.
814
(1720 )
In my reply to the speech from the throne last week I talked
about how our safety nets are catching more people than the fish
nets in Newfoundland have been catching cod in the past few
years. While many people have been saved by our safety nets,
there is a growing number who are caught and trapped in them.
W5 reported last Thursday night that one in every four people
in Toronto is dependent on transfer payments from the
government. Even in my home province of Saskatchewan where
our unemployment rate is always low because many people
move out of province when they become unemployed, the
statistics are still alarming. Spending on social programs has
increased seven times between 1972 and 1992, and as of
September 1993 there were almost 40,000 welfare recipients in
Saskatchewan, a 13 per cent increase in the last year.
The tragedy here is that 49 per cent of welfare recipients were
considered fully employable.
Our challenge is to give Canadians new hope for the future.
Can we give them new hope by going deeper into debt? I think
not. For years the cry from special interest groups has been to
spend more and more money, and it has not helped. The problem
is quickly going from bad to worse.
The Newfoundland Economic Recovery Commission recently
published a report called ``A Proposal for a New Income
Supplementation Program and Other Reforms to the Income
Security System''. Page 2 of this report outlines some of the
weaknesses in our current income security system. First, the
system discourages self-employment and small scale
enterprise. Second, the system undermines personal and
community initiatives. Third, the system undermines the
importance of education. Fourth, the system distorts the efforts
of local development groups. Fifth, the system creates
disincentives to work. Sixth, the system impedes productivity
for employers.
Page 6 of the same report states: ``On the whole the current
system has induced an unconscionable degree of dependency
which is unfair to contributors to the unemployment insurance
fund and in light of recent fiscal restraints is not sustainable''.
In order to address this crisis, Newfoundland has proposed to
replace both unemployment insurance and social assistance
with an income supplementation plan that would direct over 85
per cent of the money currently spent on these programs to the
people in Newfoundland who need them most. I agree with the
thrust of the Newfoundland proposal, which would basically
eliminate the duplication of federal and provincial programs
that have ended up serving much the same purpose and many of
the same clients.
Last week my hon. friend from Medicine Hat outlined some
key principles that should govern this process of modernization
and restructuring of the unemployment insurance program.
First, he stated that all stakeholders must have a real voice in the
process. Second, decisions must be made in the long term best
interests of the country. Third, decisions should take into
account the current economic, social, cultural and political
environment. Fourth, the programs must have clear, measurable
objectives. Fifth, all programs must be user friendly.
Some of the people in my constituency say our UI program is
not user friendly but maybe it is a little too friendly to the users.
Sixth, all government programs should treat all Canadians the
same, regardless of where they live. Finally, he said all
government programs should promote and encourage personal
responsibility and initiative.
Some principles of my own that I would like to add to my hon.
friend's list are as follows:
(a) Our social programs must be financially sustainable in the
long term.
(b) Our social programs must make people less dependent on
government. There should be incentives built right into the
system that would wean people off the system and not make
them more dependent on it.
(c) Our social programs should be designed so that there are
incentives for the public service when the program objectives
are achieved. For example, public servants should be rewarded
for reducing spending. They should be rewarded for lowering
taxes, rewarded for increasing the number of new business starts
and expansions, and ultimately rewarded for lowering
unemployment.
(1725 )
(d) Our social programs should be designed to eliminate all
duplication among the federal, provincial and municipal
governments.
(e) Our social programs should learn from the lessons of the
past and be designed to eliminate the abuse to the system and the
outright fraud that hurts every Canadian taxpayer and robs them.
(f) Our social programs should be targeted to those who most
need them.
(g) The need for social programs should be based on family or
household income and be administered through the income tax
system. I believe we should have one income security program
that would replace all others.
(h) Our final proposal for reform of our social programs
should pass regional fairness tests.
(i) Whatever the final package of social reforms looks like,
the majority of Canadians should be in favour of it.
How we manage this process of change will go a long way to
determine how successful the end result will be. The process has
to be truly open to new ideas, even radical new ideas. The
815
process should be open to new ideas from all Canadians, not just
the so-called elite.
The best design for our social programs will come from an
open bottom up process. It is time to start putting our trust in the
common sense of common people. As we embark on this process
of change, we could learn something from the private sector.
Every year the Fraser Institute holds an
economy-in-government competition. This competition is open
to all Canadians. Canadians are asked to submit ideas to the
Fraser Institute on how to save government money without
reducing services. A panel of experts reviews the submissions
and selects the finalists, and the finalists submit complete
proposals. The panel reviews the proposals and selects the
winners, who win substantial cash prizes.
The whole process works much like a suggestion award
program. The Fraser Institute publishes the winning proposals
and sends them to the federal and provincial governments. I
recommend that the government seriously consider this kind of
approach to kick off this process of reform.
This suggestion award approach would be exciting. It would
permit all Canadians to get directly involved in the
modernization and restructuring of our social programs and it
would reward those Canadians who come up with the good ideas
that government implements.
If the government is interested in the grassroots approach, the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development could
design and administer the suggestion award program.
In conclusion, fishermen in Saskatchewan have designated
many lakes as catch-and-release lakes. This means one can
catch as many fish as one wants but one releases them so they
can continue to grow and propagate, providing more fun and
relaxation for sport fishermen and, I might add, generating more
revenue for the government. Maybe we should start a
catch-and-release program for those unfortunate people who
have got caught in our social safety nets so they can be retrained,
find work and, I might add again, generate more revenue for the
government.
I look forward to participating in this exciting process of
change.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, in my time I would like to address the remarks made by
the member.
I have to say that on a number of issues I would agree in terms
of where the speaker would have us go. He mentioned things
such as a consultative process that would buy Canadians into the
new programs the government will get to. He mentioned the
need for a consolidated income program, which I would also
support.
The difference, however, is what would motivate the direction
that is proposed. I made note of the fact that he mentioned that
the UI program is unfair to contributors-or there was a
reference to that-or that sometimes UI is too user friendly. As a
contributor to unemployment insurance, I would rather be me
than most people in Canada who have to draw on that benefit.
(1730)
If there is an unfairness out there, if there is someone who
needs relief and needs the government to take their side, I really
believe it is the people on the other side of the spectrum who
need my contributions, because I really believe they are a lot
worse off than I am.
Having said that, I look forward to the debate. I think it is
important that Canadians buy into the programs they are called
upon to finance and support. It is important for the people who
receive benefits from these programs to know that Canadians
support these programs as well. I welcome the opportunity to
debate this. I suspect it is going to be an interesting debate.
In large part the kinds of change promoted by the previous
speaker and the kinds of change promoted by the government
side are similar. Maybe it is just the motivation that is a little
different in terms of who it is we are trying to help.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate very much the comments that have just been made. I
also appreciate the atmosphere that exists in this House at the
present time. It is non-confrontational and we are working
together. We do not have all the solutions, but I think we can
work together toward some of them.
One thing mentioned was the unemployment insurance. If we
had taken some of the recommendations of the Forget
commission and implemented them, if we had put UI on an
actuarially sound basis where the premiums paid for it and
employers and employees were responsible for administering it,
we would not have the deficit or the debt that we have at the
present time. It is good to implement some of these
recommendations and not just throw out the baby with the bath
water.
I look forward to working together on this. I do not know if
there was a question asked, but those would be my comments.
We should try to get some of these plans on a more financially
sound basis. We cannot continue to go into debt at the rate we are
now. It is going to threaten all of our social programs. The
interest payments, over $40 billion, are horrendous, and that is
going to bring this country to its knees. We have to do something
right now to preserve our social programs by being careful about
how we spend our money.
816
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): It is a privilege
and a great honour to stand and address the House. Again I
would like to thank the citizens of Surrey North for providing
me with this opportunity.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to you on your
successful appointment to the position of Deputy Speaker in the
House of Commons. It is a challenging role at the best of times
but even more so now, with over 200 brand-new members of
Parliament here. I am confident that we will receive the
guidance and direction needed to participate successfully in the
ways of the House. I wish you every success in that role.
Today I will address health care. Specifically I will direct my
remarks to the national forum on health and to women regarding
health. My remarks on both topics will be brief and general in
nature in order to comment on both today.
First I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her
appointment to the position of Minister of Health. I wish her
success in her new and challenging role.
Since health care is a major interest of mine, I shall be
following closely the activities of the government in this field. I
can assure the minister I will assist her to meet the health care
challenges ahead by providing constructive criticism and
alternate options whenever it seems necessary.
I commend the government on its decision to recognize health
care as a high-priority social program. I think very few, if
anyone, could find fault with that decision. Its agreement to
continue to support and fund this program is encouraging news,
and its objective to seek more efficient ways to spend our tax
dollars in this field is even better news.
The question before us is the nature and effects of these more
efficient ways. The establishment of a forum on health as a
vehicle to gather data from as many sources as possible, to
identify these more efficient ways, has been mentioned by the
government in its red book, in the speech from the throne and in
the minister's speech here last Friday, to name but a few
occasions.
(1735)
I think we can safely say that this will come to pass in the near
future. It seems a main objective of this forum is not to change
from the five main principles of our health care system, but to
identify alternate methods or to streamline the existing ones so
as to allow us to continue with and even enhance our health care
programs while maintaining these five main principles.
In her speech the Minister of Health offered some suggestions
as to how this may be achieved, and many of her suggestions are
echoed by other groups such as the Canadian Nurses
Association. In a brief prepared by this association entitled
Nurses Make a Difference, reference is made to such things as
better use of health resources, greater public involvement, more
equitable access and so forth.
I understand there is a project presently under way at the
University of Ottawa that is being funded by both federal and
provincial funding sources as well as from some professional
associations and private enterprise sources. This group is
examining specifically cost effectiveness in our health care
system and is also offering suggestions or recommendations,
some of which are very similar to those made in the speech by
the Minister of Health.
Opinions and options about health care have been expressed
by health care professionals, other professional groups, the
general public and our colleagues in this and other Houses
across the nation. Potential solutions range from managing our
resources better, changing the structure of transfer payments,
increasing the provincial jurisdiction over health, and
increasing public awareness, to name a few.
I welcome the decision to establish a national forum on health
care so that these and other possible options can be identified
and debated to produce a solution to our economic difficulties in
maintaining a high standard of health care for all Canadians.
I return to the Canadian Nurses Association brief once more.
It also mentions the need for national health goals, and that
nurses and nursing associations across our country support this.
It seems that in September 1991 an agreement was obtained
from the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health to
establish a process to develop national health goals. To date
little action, if any at all, has been taken to this end. I
recommend to the Minister of Health that the development of
national health goals become another objective for the national
forum on health.
I shall now turn to my second topic. Reference has been made
to women as having special conditions or requiring special
attention in the health care field. The Minister of Health said:
``Women do have special conditions, from osteoporosis to
menopause, and they merit equal attention from research to
treatment, to care and prevention.'' One could say the same
thing about men, by changing two words, women to men, and
menopause to prostate.
I caution our use of the word special in this context. Special
tends to imply a situation or circumstance that differs from the
norm or status quo. The normal composition of the human race
is female and male or women and men. The biological nature of
the body structure and, to some extent, the physiological aspects
are the reasons for the two categories or components.
I advocate that neither one of these components, the male or
the female, should be seen as special unto itself, but both should
be seen as equal parts of the whole of the human race, and that
our health care system should be addressing the needs of the
817
human race as a whole by meeting the needs of both components
and not singling out one over the other.
Today we recognize this as a weak area in our health care
programs, a weakness in the sense that our main focus has been
and still is more on one component than the other. I believe that
applying the word special to this weak area in our system, in this
case the programs for women, will lead to approximately half
the Canadian population being seen as a special needs group, a
special interest group or possibly even a minority group. Such a
concept will be detrimental in successfully achieving equal
status for and equal attention to the needs of both sexes, genders
or components, and thus the entire human race. I repeat that we
should use caution when using the word special so as not to
single out one component or sex over the other.
(1740)
My time for speaking is slipping away rather quickly it seems.
In closing I would remind the government that the promotion of
health and the prevention of disease must continue to be the
major focus in our deliberations on our health care programs.
I also advise the government to employ a wellness approach
versus an illness approach as we seek solutions to manage our
health care resources more efficiently and effectively. In this
time of fiscal restraint we face many challenges in our nation
and an efficient health care program is but one, and a very
important one, for the well-being of all Canadians.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I believe this is
the first speech of the hon. member and I would like to express
my congratulations to her on her comments.
I listened to her speech very carefully. I want to ask her about
what seems to me to be a lack of a recognition that much of the
health research over the last decades in this country, and maybe
the industrialized world, has been focused on men.
For example, I believe there is much more information on
heart disease in the male than there is in the female. I do not
think in our program we are talking about distinguishing
between men and women in terms of the care they need when
something is wrong when they are sick. I think we are focusing
on the fact that there is not enough data and not enough history
available on the special health needs of women.
I wonder if the hon. member would explain in more detail
what she meant and whether she is prepared to recognize that
there is very much lacking in our database and in our research
with regard to the health needs of women.
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his comments on my first speech. I would also like
to say that possibly we are saying the same thing but using
different words.
I agree with him that today and in the past the emphasis has
been on men in health care. I personally can recall that the
average height of a human being when I was studying was that of
the average man and at that time he was considered to be 5 feet, 7
inches tall.
What I am saying is that the component of women and
women's needs have not been addressed. It should be seen as a
weakness in our overall assessment or how we are approaching
health care. Instead of looking at this as being a special area it
should be looked at as being part of the whole. At the present
time we are much better with our approach toward the male body
than we are to the female body.
My fear is that we may go through the next 100 years by
putting women's health before men's. Let us get matters even
and look at it as a whole. There are two sexes.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to commend the hon. member for
Surrey North on her first speech. I will be very brief.
She mentioned consultation in regard to the national health
forum. I would like to bring something to her attention and get
her reaction. In my constituency of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury we are holding a forum of our
own on February 27 that will involve probably 100 residents of
the riding. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health and the minister of health in the province of New
Brunswick have agreed to be there. In that way we intend to
promote participation in this debate of all the people that can
make it. It will be a televised discussion in the riding. My guess
is that we will have between 100 and 200 people there. We are
going to prepare for it with a lot of background information.
Many of the stakeholders are participating, but also health care
consumers and many people with alternative ideas on how
health should be dealt with. I would welcome the member's
comments on that.
(1745)
Just before I sit down, the member mentioned her support for
the five principles of the Canada Health Act. I welcome her
support for our position against user fees being used in the
provinces. I would also like her to comment on that.
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, first I will comment on the
health forum. It is not a new role that we are looking at in
relation to gathering data on health problems or situations. In
my address I said that there were already a great number of
people out there who have seen the deficiency in the economic
situation, have already been conducting studies on it and have
818
been offering recommendations either at a federal or provincial
level. I have named two such groups.
Instead of reinventing the wheel over the next few months, we
must make sure that these groups are part of the national health
forum and that many other new ideas are brought forth from
other groups or forums such as the ones the member is talking
about. Maybe this is something that we should all be looking at
to get the data. However there are people out there already who
have some tremendous ideas that certainly should be in front of
the forum.
As far as the five basic principles of the health care program
are concerned, I do not think anybody is arguing them. They are
the basis for Canadians having one of the best health care
programs in the world. User fees come into it as they are a
component of one or more of those five principles. That aspect
goes more to the management of achieving those five
components and providing the service than being one of the five
components.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, I noted the
member for Surrey North indicated in her comments that the
average height of a man was five feet, seven inches. I would be
interested in what the average weight is at some point.
I have been sitting here trying to sort out exactly what it is that
I want to say in only 10 minutes. This is an immense topic. I
have spent most of my working life in what we are defining as
the social services.
As a teenager I worked in the core area of my city in
settlement houses. I have worked with handicapped people, the
disabled and emotionally disturbed kids. I ended that portion of
my career as the director of child welfare in my province. I have
wrestled with some of these issues for some time.
It is interesting in a sense when I reflect on how I became
involved in politics. It was in the mid-1970s. I received a call
from a friend of mine who worked in an agency that was similar
to the one I was directing at that point. He said that a politician
wanted to speak to us, that he wanted to meet with a few people
to talk about social policy.
I was a little unsure just what that meant because my view of
politicians was like that of most people who are somewhat
removed from the system, but I went. I was maybe a little in awe
that somebody who we see on TV and who sits in a legislative
chamber would want to talk to me. That night I met the hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre. We spent an entire evening
just sitting on the couch with a few people talking about what
was happening in social programs in the city of Winnipeg in
1975.
As we talked we sort of wrestled with what are the things that
are helping people, what are the things that are supporting
people, what are the things that are showing signs of success and
what are the things that need change. Therefore when I see Lloyd
stand in the House-
The Deputy Speaker: You must refer to the member or the
minister but not to the member by name. That is a strictly
enforced rule in this place.
(1750)
Mr Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I cannot even argue the
rule at this point. When I see the minister stand in the House I
see him making the same offer. He is not standing to put on
record a whole bunch of Liberal Party rhetoric. He is making a
very genuine request: ``I ask members of the House and all
Canadians to work with my government to develop an action
plan''.
Obviously this is an area that interests me, so I read very
carefully what the Leader of the Official Opposition and the lead
speaker of the Reform Party had to say. I must say I was a little
disappointed in what I heard coming from the Official
Opposition. When I meet with members of the Official
Opposition, when I talk to members of the Official Opposition, I
hear them saying some fairly progressive things about social
policy. I think they have a fundamental understanding of the
issue. However when I heard their leader speak he said
something I have become accustomed to hearing from the New
Democratic Party in my province: ``Don't touch anything. Don't
change anything. You dasn't muss a hair of this program''. That
is unfortunate because I think there is a great deal of wisdom to
be shared with the House as we search for a solution to make the
lives of Canadians better.
Frankly I do not know how to respond to the intervention by
the Reform Party. I read it several times and made some notes on
it because I was trying to figure it out. It seemed to say we have
to cut everything today so we will have it tomorrow. There is a
curiousness in the logic there that escapes me somewhat.
These are serious problems. They affect the lives of real
people living in our communities. We have right now a
tremendous opportunity. In the mid-1960s in Canada and the
United States, at a time when government had huge revenues, we
created the social safety net or the core of it. Some pieces were
already in place. Canada has been a progressive country for a
long time. We created a network of services that was the result of
our best thinking at that time. We have had experience with it.
We have learned over time that some of the things we did were
good and that some were not so good.
We learned, for example, that a lot of the services that we
provide tend not to empower people. They tend to remove their
ability to function independently. We confronted that in the
provision of services in a great many communities.
We have a fiscal crisis right now. If we want to look at the
glass half full side of the fiscal crisis, maybe it is a good thing
the crisis is forcing this debate. Maybe we will finally challenge
some of our assumptions about how we provide help to people.
819
However let us do it from the perspective of providing some
assistance.
I want to make a few quick suggestions to frame out some of
the structural issues that I think confront us. Technology offers a
tremendous opportunity right now. We now have the
technological capacity to begin to understand what is happening
out there and to look at the ways in which our services collide.
Over the years we have built up a patchwork of services.
The classic case in the business of child welfare that I know
best is when one calls for a consultation on a particular
individual and 15 agencies show up. Obviously there is an
abuse, a misuse or an inefficiency in the way in which we use the
resources we have. Technology gives us some opportunities to
identify that, to iron that out and to understand not the reality
presented in the newspapers every day. If we read the
newspapers every day we see terrible problems. In fact when we
begin to look beneath the headlines at how people are doing we
forget that the murder rate is going down, that people are getting
healthier and that people are living longer. In fact we forget that
we have succeeded enormously in the programs we have
delivered.
We forget it was only a few decades ago when to be old meant
to be poor, to be old meant to be living in substandard housing.
Today they cannot rent out all the bachelor apartments in
housing for the elderly. The elderly have now achieved, because
of the programs we have created, a certain level of wealth that
has allowed them to live independently. That is a good thing, not
a bad thing. That is a thing to be proud of as a Canadian, not to be
afraid of.
The Official Opposition presented some interesting issues
about interjurisdictional areas.
(1755)
The minister whom I cannot mention by name has made
comment in the past that when he was a minister in a previous
government between 1980 and 1984, he often spent more of his
time debating interjurisdictional issues than he did debating
problematic issues.
Maybe it is possible to look at the fact, for example, that the
federal government delivers support to people directly. It does
right now through unemployment insurance. We forget that we
give support in many different ways through student aid,
pensions and half the income security costs. Maybe we should
look at providing a basic level of support, maybe a guaranteed
annual income or a basic level of living support to people who
require it. That may be a good idea. Maybe we should allow the
provinces to look at the services that get added on to that to
reflect local needs. It would be a very radical change. Maybe it
is time we begin to think about it.
The last couple of Reform speakers mentioned the income tax
system. That is an idea that is worth exploring. It is interesting
there has long been a concept called negative income tax. It says
that we make our tax system very progressive: when we earn
money we contribute to the community, we contribute more as
we earn more and when we do not have the capacity to earn for
whatever reason we receive basic support. That support
increases as we move further and further into difficulty. A
proposal like that was put forward in the 1970s by Richard
Nixon. It was very progressive. I see the member sort of
struggling with it, but I think there are some aspects to it worth
exploring.
I would genuinely like to see us sitting here struggling with
how to make the lives of Canadians better, how to help them.
The speaker before the last one said that we needed radical new
ideas. I would like to hear a radical new idea from the Reform
Party on how we help a million children living in poverty. I
would like to hear an idea like that.
On the one hand we talk about a new form of debate, but on the
other hand we have the same old kind of politics of just sitting
and picking little holes in things. Let us get some radical ideas
on the table. Let us make this a better country for the people.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the member for Winnipeg South. I
would like to make a few comments on his speech. Obviously
there are political disagreements in terms of philosophies in the
House, but I want to ask the member a couple of questions about
some of the things he said in his 10-minute usage of time.
He attributed to my leader words to the effect of ``cut it now so
you will save it later''. We in the House need to budget our own
personal finances in such a way that they do not come after us.
We need to live within our means. Do we then just spend it all
now? What happens later?
Let me use the analogy of credit cards. Is the member then
saying that he would be happy or he thinks it is advisable for
those of us in the country who are responsible for social policy
to use our American Express card to pay off our Visa?
Somehow this vicious cycle needs to end. Having worked in
the child welfare system he realizes how important it is to look
after the lives of children. What if his government that is
responsible for the funding came to him in the province of
Manitoba and said: ``The gig is up; there is no more cash?'' How
is he going to protect the lives of the children? Should we not
specifically target spending to make sure that the people who
absolutely need it will get that funding? How will American
820
Express paying off his Visa bill make sure that we do look after
one million poor children in Canada?
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an opportunity to
debate this question at great length with the member for Beaver
River and other members of her party in the House.
The problem is twofold. Frankly I hear very simplistic things
coming out of the Reform Party. I hear this constant noise about
this being like a business; that if we are going to run it like a
business and we have no money, we should cut off things, fire
employees or lay people off, downsize. That is a fallacious
understanding of how the economy works.
(1800 )
In a business you do not set the interest rate. You do not set the
exchange rate. You do not set the regulatory environment. You
do not have a myriad of levers to pull or buttons to push in order
to affect the lives of people. That kind of analogy is just a non
starter for me.
The second thing is that it is a little like trying to change
wheels on a moving car. You cannot abandon everybody who sits
out there, everybody who receives support and help right now
while you try to move to this brave new world. You have to move
through some kind of transition.
There are tremendous opportunities to create efficiencies in
the current system. The problem the member references in terms
of the size of the economy and the size of the debt is a very
serious one. Everybody in this House acknowledges that and it is
one that must be confronted. I believe there are ways to find
significant resources in the social policy envelope without
harming a single individual.
If we step aside from some of the antiquated ways in which we
have delivered services and move into the 1990s or if we even
moved into the 1980s it would be an improvement. We could
find some resources. There are other ways to find resources and
they are in the management of this economy. They are in putting
people back to work. They are in helping to revitalize the
business community. Simply stepping back from the
responsibility as a government is not good enough. It does not
work.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member asked if there were anyone over here who could
give him a radical new idea to support the millions of children
who are living in poverty. This is a serious question.
Mr. Alcock: I am listening.
Mr. McClelland: What can we do to insure that the people
who have children, particularly the fathers, support those
children?
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my remarks
empowerment and how we have tended through our programs to
take power away from people. One way to empower people is to
hold them responsible for things. In my province we brought in a
very aggressive policy of enforcing child support payments.
That is a policy that could be looked at nationally.
I do not think you let people off the hook and buy them a free
lunch or any of that kind of stuff. You have to treat them like
powerful individuals, provide them with some supports and let
them get on with the management of their own lives. You have to
be there for them at times.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address the motion on the modernization and
restructuring of our social security system which costs Canada
at all levels of government $130 billion a year.
We in this House are keenly aware of the dual mandate we
have been given by the Canadian people. On one hand we are
told to live within our means and cut the cost of government so
as to reduce and ultimately eliminate our national fiscal deficit.
On the other hand we all know well that we must continue to
provide the kinds of opportunities and services Canadians
expect from their government to reduce or prevent the human
deficit. I believe we can follow through on both orders. The two
are interdependent.
What are the objectives of the review? We would like to find
out what really works, to eliminate disincentives to work and
training, to head off the alienation of youth and perhaps
transform unemployment insurance as an instrument of
re-education. We must synchronize our social security system,
definitely not to reduce the spending per se but put more people
back to work. The objective of the process is to allow a
partnership among all of us in the review of the system and to
seek the agreement of the provinces and thereby achieve a truly
participatory process.
Why the need for this review? The realities are there. We have
seen the increasing numbers of users of the system, the difficult
transition to work, the duplication of government programs that
we feel are no longer responsive to the needs of the day. We have
noticed that there have been too many disincentives to work and
so we would like to modernize the system.
(1805 )
The ultimate objective at the end of the review is to have a
modern social security system that sustains the ethic of work
through its incentives and at the same time guarantees the
security of citizens in their hour of most need.
I said earlier that the twin challenges of reducing the fiscal
deficit and reducing the human deficit are interdependent. We
cannot cut the fiscal deficit in isolation without due regard for
the anguish of the unemployed, for the pain of the poor and their
children, for the fear of the student facing escalating tuition
fees, for the anxiety of seniors about their pensions. We should
not betray the seniors who trusted their governments during
821
their working years. Nor can we disregard the decay of our cities
and municipalities which help secure our streets and our homes.
Cutting the fiscal deficit without taking heed of the human
dimensions of cost cutting would be utter insensitivity and
would constitute inept governance. At the same time, spending
on economic and social programs for our citizens without
attention to their efficiency and effectiveness, even in times of
plenty, is poor stewardship and particularly in times of fiscal
restraint would also constitute inept governance.
Our social assistance programs which include old age
pensions, aid to education such as student loans, the Canada
Assistance Plan, unemployment insurance, training grants and
medicare ensure that there exists a form of social justice in
Canada. Very often there is unfairness.
It is not fair when you have skills, education and
qualifications and are denied employment opportunity due to a
lack of available jobs or to discrimination, be it traditional or
reverse, or to the inability to have one's credentials recognized
in another province.
It is also unfair when immigrants and new citizens find no
orderly process for accreditation of their foreign obtained
credentials. It is unfair when you are unable to work because of
an illness, injury or physical disability and are not provided with
a means of overcoming it. It is unfair when after 65 years of
paying into a pension plan your monthly cheques do not reflect
the many years of hard work to earn your retirement.
The social justice contract under which this nation operates
dictates that Canadians share their privileges and benefits so
that no one is left stranded in times of great need.
Unemployment insurance is similarly designed for periods of
crisis, to ensure that basic necessities continue to be provided
for those who lose their pay cheques.
The idea is to see to it that misfortune, in and of itself, does
not result in a loss of personal dignity. Social programs are not a
haven for dependency. They exist to serve our fellow Canadians
in their acute and genuine continuing needs.
This is the commitment of people and therefore of
government, which makes such privileges possible. It is to
people and to government that we must turn to fix our distressed
social security system.
The numerous privileges our social security system offers are
accompanied by a number of equally important obligations. It is
incumbent on all members of society to use the system only
when needed. Abuse of the security net ultimately results in the
funding hardship we now face.
We must remind those who are inclined to abuse the system
through a public information program that the people footing
the bills for their actions are their neighbours, their families,
their parents and their friends. We must appeal to Canadians'
innate sense of good citizenry.
It is crucial that people come to view social assistance as a
treatment for the symptoms that ail them, and not as a definitive
cure. Permanent relief can only come about after we have
attacked the root causes of financial difficulties.
How can this be accomplished? A Canada-made
modernization of our social security system should reflect our
values, our priorities and our interests, thereby fostering pride
in our citizens, who will then be loathe to abuse it.
The system might include measures such as the income
supplement program being considered today in Newfoundland
and which has been piloted in New Brunswick.
(1810 )
It could also include provisions for an income contingency
repayment plan for student loans and other programs such as the
guaranteed annual income supplement. Let me reiterate that the
key to achieving a successful betterment of our current social
security system lies in our willingness to seek the input of
Canadians.
As people on social assistance take on jobs not only will their
self-esteem be restored but they would then begin to contribute
to the growth of the economy as consumers and to government
revenues through the taxes they would pay.
In conclusion, I would like to convey a message to my
constituents and to all Canadians that we on the government side
can achieve the dual mandate issued to us by voters. We can
eliminate our national fiscal deficit while at the same time
ensuring opportunities and services for Canadians in their hour
of need. Citizens and government can work as partners to defend
and strengthen our shared social values of equity, fairness,
co-operation and generosity.
Then and only then can we help ensure the security and
sensitivity of Canada's social programs for the present and for
the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, speaking
as a woman who is aware of the problems of social development,
I welcome this opportunity today to take part in this debate on
822
social programs. In the riding I have the honour to represent in
this House, like all regions in Quebec and Canada, we see daily
so many examples of social problems that are unacceptable in a
society that ranks among the wealthiest in the world.
The lingering recession in Quebec and Canada has added to
the ranks of the unemployed and welfare recipients whose
numbers were already unacceptable, considering the standard of
wealth in our communities. That the federal system has failed is
reflected in Quebec's high unemployment rate, low job rate and
unusually high percentage of Canada's poor. According to the
latest figures from Statistics Canada, nearly one-third or 31.82
per cent of low income families live in Quebec, although we
represent only slightly more than 25 per cent of the population
of Canada.
In the course of this debate, the Official Opposition intends to
condemn any attempts to cut social programs targeted to the
neediest in our society, while the government tolerates unfair
taxation, the underground economy, costly and
counterproductive government spending, and programs where
taxpayers' money is being wasted, as a result of duplication by
provincial and federal governments. The government is
mistaken if it thinks it can deal with its financial crisis by
drastically cutting social programs that are essential to
maintaining a minimum of human dignity among the neediest in
our society.
I would urge hon. members on both sides of this House to look
at the many pockets of poverty that have emerged in their
respective ridings during the latest recession, and realize that we
must deal with the problem through effective programs instead
of cutting into the basic essentials these people need. We believe
that cutting social spending is the easy way out, to deal with
budget problems caused by previous governments' failure to
act. I would ask this government to use a little more imagination
and provide some hope for the neediest in this country who are
often the victims of government inefficiency.
What must be addressed are the real dangers that threaten the
economies of Quebec and Canada and which, especially in the
case of Quebec, are holding back economy recovery. We can
point the finger at unemployment, the monetary policy, unfair
taxation, duplication of services, which is not only costly but
also inefficient, lack of expenditure control, and the unbearably
high deficit the federal government unloads on Quebec and the
provinces. Those are the many evils which put
counterproductive pressures on social expenditures, and prove,
beyond any doubt, the failure of the Canadian federalist system
whose unchanging characteristic is that it cannot be renewed, in
spite of the many attempts to do so.
(1815)
Fifty years after the publication of the first report outlining
the premises for our social policy, things have not changed that
much. Due to poor management in the past few years, the state
of our social security system is giving rise to a growing concern.
For social programs to be better integrated and more
faithfully reflect national policy, we need uniform standards
regarding efficiency, fairness, consistency and work incentives.
These are the characteristics which should still be guiding us
today. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
In the last few years, the federal government has in fact cut
and altered social programs. Moreover, it has reduced transfer
payments to the provinces and Quebec for their social programs.
And, as I mentioned earlier in this House, neither Quebec nor the
provinces are asking for charity in this respect. All they are
doing is demanding what is owed them under a duly signed
agreement, let us not forget that.
By raising the standards for unemployment insurance
eligibility with Bill C-21, and later on, by imposing new
conditions for entitlement with Bill C-113, the federal
government gave notice that it had little respect for those who
were the hardest hit by the recession.
While doing the less affluent such injustice, at the same time
it made Quebec and the provinces bear a heavier portion of
income security expenditures. In spite of further tax increases,
the federal contribution to provincial governments for health
care and social programs has drastically declined, shaking the
very foundations of the system.
Between 1978 and 1993, the federal contribution for health
care and post-secondary education dropped from 47 per cent to
34 per cent. This means that less money is channelled back to the
provinces for established program financing. However, the
standards that have to be met in the management of these
programs are not being adjusted.
It is not surprising then to hear about user fees. By unloading
its financial problems onto Quebec and the provinces, the
federal government sees, as a result, the principles underlying
the Canadian health policy being undermined.
Quebec and the provinces are faced with increased health care
costs. This increase in due primarily to the following factors: the
aging of the population, new medical technologies that are more
costly and a significant increase in spending for pharmaceutical
products.
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers give the federal government
large amounts of money, some of which is earmarked for health
care under the agreement of 1977. The problem is that, for the
past 10 years, the federal government has not been giving back
to Quebec and the provinces the portion that is rightfully theirs,
thereby depriving them of the funds intended for health care.
Instead, it transfers its deficit to Quebec and the provinces, all
because of the inability of previous governments to control their
spending. The federal government must be aware that, by
increasing the tax burden for Quebec and the other provinces, it
would create a two-tier health system, where the rich will be
823
able to afford health services while the underprivileged will tend
to delay or forgo medical treatment.
(1820)
We believe in the basic principles of universality, integrality,
accessibility, transferability and public management of the
health system. What we are criticizing is the fact that these basic
principles are being threatened, in every province including
Quebec, by the inability of the federal government to honour its
commitments.
If you decrease or freeze the federal transfer payments, you
jeopardize our health system, which is the one component of our
social programs we most rely on. In Quebec, according to the
established programs financing legislation, 45 per cent of health
cost was to be picked by Ottawa. However, faced with the
economic crisis of the early 1980s and the disastrous state of our
public finances, the federal government decided to unilaterally
opt out, so that by 1992-93 the federal transfer share of health
expenditures had dropped by 33 per cent.
This opting out process, often described by the Quebec
government as unacceptable, unfair and incoherent, was not
followed by a reduction in terms of federal intervention, since
Ottawa is maintaining national standards and undertaking
parallel programs, hence causing overlap problems. The end
results, as I said earlier, are steady pressure for users' fees or
other forms of billing, the delisting of some services, a service
tax on drugs, drastic cuts in hospital budgets and outrageous
waiting lists in many specialties.
Thus, the very foundation of our health insurance plan, that is
free, universal and accessible care, is in jeopardy. That brings
me back to my starting point: it is always those most in need who
are the worst affected.
How can anyone speak about social programs without crying
out against a level of poverty so high that 4.2 million people live
in poverty in Canada, with Quebec being the main victim? There
are 1.2 million children living in poverty and that hard core
poverty is the fate of a large majority of single mothers and
women raising a family alone. Let us turn now from the current
costs of that unusual situation to assess the real issues
underlying that crisis and its long-term impact.
Beyond the figures and the statistics, there are real people out
there who hurt, who are sick and who go hungry. Those people
wish the government would act responsibly, quit squandering
money and find lasting remedies. We readily admit that people
in government need to travel, but how many families could we
get out of the mess for good with what it costs for a single
Challenger flight? Every little bit helps.
Many studies demonstrate a clear relation between poverty
and bad health. According to a study by Health Quebec on the 25
most common health problems in Quebec, almost all of them
were more acute among low income people than among
wealthier people. Poor people consume more medicine than rich
people and require more health care.
A report made public by Campaign 2000 revealed a 30 per
cent increase in the number of children living in poverty in
Canada. In addition to being a bigger drain on the health care
budget because they get sick more often, these children suffer
more often from learning problems and are more prone to
becoming school dropouts, twice as often as the children of the
wealthy. Finally and most regrettably, they are more likely to
become dependent upon social assistance than to participate in
development.
(1825)
In order to better control the global state of health of the
population in Quebec and in Canada, and hence to limit health
care costs, we must first wage a merciless war against poverty.
Therefore, those considerations have to be taken into account in
the review of our social programs. Ignoring them would have the
effect of worsening the spiraling deficit and the spiraling
poverty. We have more than enough of one tragedy already.
The only effective remedy against poverty is the creation of
long-term jobs for people who will have first enjoyed adequate
benefits. In this context, the direct duplication of similar federal
programs and provincial initiatives is an absolute waste of
public money and is also, in most cases, counterproductive.
Quebec wants an end to this mess in the manpower and job
training sector which costs its taxpayers $250 million every
year.
In this area, as in many others, the existing rivalry must be
replaced by effectiveness and efficiency. Our debt as well as the
chilling reality of the unemployment rate and the number of
welfare recipients do not allow us to condone waste through
sheer stubbornness. Administrative overlapping generates real
costs, one of the most important of which is the inability to solve
the problem of poverty, especially in Quebec.
Poverty, especially in the case of young people, leads directly
to welfare, drug and alcohol consumption, sometimes jail, and
even despair and suicide. The fact is that the drop-out rate in
schools is alarming. In some districts of the island of Montreal,
close to half of the students quit school without any diploma
and, as we all know, dropping out of school leads directly to
poverty, since the job market massively rejects people without
diplomas. According to Statistics Canada, 65 per cent of the new
jobs between 1990 and 1993 were filled by university graduates.
No speech made by governments on employment makes any
sense if it is not supported by an energetic program to change
824
the objectives and the education system itself. Young Quebecers
and Canadians must have access to a very high quality education
to be able to take advantage of the need for a highly-skilled
manpower.
The federal and provincial governments cannot afford to
waste time and energy in futile bickering over who has
jurisdiction, at the expense of a coherent and structured
financing for post-secondary education.
We believe it is more urgent than ever that a House committee
look into government spending in order to eliminate waste and
duplication, and to reduce operating expenditures. This would
enable us to allocate the budgets necessary to maintain social
programs.
We also believe it would be more appropriate to cut military
spending rather than reduce the budget for health care. We also
propose a courageous tax reform to eliminate tax evasion,
unfairness, as well as tax shelters such as family trusts, which
only benefit the wealthy. This type of reform, and not a charge
led against the poor through cuts to social programs, would get
our support.
Those are useful solutions to help solve the budget crisis
which we are concerned about. However, we will strongly
oppose any violation of the commitment made by this
government during the election campaign not to dismantle
social and health programs.
In conclusion, there is no doubt whatsoever that the health of
Quebecers and Canadians is closely related to poverty.
(1830)
This House and the government have the moral obligation to
put in place the necessary mechanisms to provide for the urgent
needs of more than four million people, mostly women and
children, for whom poverty has replaced hope.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Environment and Deputy Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I could have sworn that I was in the Quebec National
Assembly listening to PQ members. The same fancy words,
inconsistency, unfairness, inefficiency. Sure, and the hon.
member who just spoke and her colleagues are the only ones
who possess virtue. They are the only champions of the cause of
the poor and the disadvantaged and, of course, any federal
initiative by definition does not work.
I would like to remind the hon. member that it was a federal
Liberal government that instituted universal medicare in
Canada as well as old age pensions, the Canada pension plan that
the Quebec pension plan takes after, the UI program and
guaranteed income maintenance programs for the less fortunate
element of our society and our seniors. If you check in our red
book, our electoral platform, every subject you have raised is in
there: education for young people, apprenticeship programs to
start doubling the number of graduates immediately, childcare
programs, pre-natal nutrition programs for women, with a focus
on the underprivileged, as well as a full range of social,
education and training programs. This entire book deals with
just that. You say that this government has two months and a
half-
The Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. member that
members are to address only the Chair, never one another.
Mr. Lincoln: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member
being a paragon of virtue stated that all the faults of government,
our common government, at the federal and provincial level,
would of course fall back on the provincial government. I sat for
nine years in the Quebec National Assembly. Problems arise in
areas of common jurisdiction. We all know that there is
duplication and that adjustments are needed. Just this morning,
the Minister of Human Resources Development, responding to
questions from the opposition, said that he was negotiating to
avoid duplication in the area of manpower.
The other day, the Minister of Finance met with his provincial
counterparts and managed to come up with a tax equalization
payment program guaranteed for the next five years which was
approved unanimously by the provinces, including Quebec.
Two and a half months later, the hon. member comes and
criticizes us for having done nothing. But that is what this debate
is all about, to hear constructive ideas, not only the destructive
ones, to talk about previous governments from 1978 to 1988 that
her leader was a member of. He too flew on a Challenger and had
extravagant expenses when he was ambassador in Paris. Perhaps
those amounts should been transferred to the less fortunate as
well.
The hon. member and her colleagues must also keep in mind
that this debate is an opportunity for us to find together the
remedies we will take to help the underprivileged. Criticizing,
being destructive and saying that the federal government is at
fault, while they, over there, are all virtuous, will not resolve
anything. You solve problems by working together, in
partnership, by making constructive suggestions.
(1835)
Having listened to the hon. member for 20 minutes and heard
nothing but a litany of criticism, I could have sworn this was the
same speech I had heard back in the days when I was sitting
across from the Péquists either as a government member or as a
member of the opposition.
Everything and anything that goes wrong in heaven or on
earth is the fault of the federal government. That may not seem
to change, but we will change. We will listen patiently and try to
work constructively, in partnership-and I hope that the
opposition does not expect us to act on our own-to solve the
problems of the less fortunate members of our society. We will
solve them
825
together with constructive solutions, and that is what this debate
is about.
Mrs. Picard: The policy that the hon. member has just
alluded to is outmoded. The fact of the matter, as I mentioned
clearly in my speech, is that Quebec and the provinces are facing
a different situation. With respect to health care, I stated that
health care costs had increased because of the situations I
described earlier. The problem right now is that the government
is not channelling back to the provinces the funds that are
rightfully theirs.
As a result, the provinces cannot balance their health care
budgets. Take, for example, Sainte-Croix Hospital in my
constituency. It is experiencing an acute crisis because it is
underfunded. This facility serves a population of 80,000 and has
a shortage of 100 acute care beds. Hospital equipment is
outdated and there is shortage of specialists. The situation is
growing more critical by the moment and it is always the less
fortunate who suffer.
That is what I wished to say to my hon. colleague.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
during the presentation of my hon. colleague, the member across
the way, there were a couple of points that became very obvious,
the first being the reference to programs currently not working
in Quebec and also that federalism had failed.
I would suggest that with the minister's tabling of his report
and his release on Monday of this week that the exact opposite
has occurred. There is no question as the old saying goes, at least
in my riding, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
My hon. colleague's statement that in Quebec it is not
working quite obviously there appears to be a need to upgrade,
to review, reform and make better the programs that we have for
all Canadians and that is exactly what the minister stated.
I would like to quote once again from the minister's own
words. He said: ``I am asking the House, our colleagues in the
Senate, our counterparts at the provincial and territorial level,
members of business and labour sectors, the leaders of our
communities and indeed every Canadian to throw out the old
ideas, put aside vested interests'', which the hon. member
referred to, ``and begin thinking of the kind of ground rules we
need in Canada to restore fairness, hope and a sense of
security''.
I would ask the hon. member to refer to those in light of her
suggestion that federalism has failed and the programs are not
working in Quebec.
I believe just the opposite with the minister's statement here
in the House and she has an opportunity to relate, to provide the
input that the minister is asking for.
(1840 )
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, as the
member of Parliament for St. Catharines, may I first
congratulate my fellow colleagues for being part of the 35th
Parliament of Canada.
As this is my first speech in this House, I would particularly
like to congratulate the hon. member for Welland-St.
Catharines-Thorold on his election as Speaker of the House. I
have had the personal privilege of knowing and working with the
hon. member for many years and I know that he will continue in
the tradition he has set as a parliamentarian in this Chamber.
I have the honour and privilege to speak on behalf of the
constituents in the riding of St. Catharines. The city of St.
Catharines, better known as the Garden City, is located on the
southwest shore of Lake Ontario in the heart of the Niagara
Peninsula.
The famous Welland ship canal runs through our community
bypassing Niagara Falls and linking Lake Ontario and Lake
Erie. The riding is surrounded by vineyards, tender fruit
orchards and the picturesque view of the Niagara escarpment.
St. Catharines is also home of the great educational and
cultural organizations. Brock University has gained recognition
not only in education but through its national basketball
championship team. The folk arts festival held in May
celebrates with 35 local ethnic organizations and is always one
of the high points of the year.
The city is also home to the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta
and the famous Niagara Grape and Wine Festival. In all modesty
I suggest that St. Catharines is a microcosm of Canada. We are
proving daily that people can and do live in harmony.
Over the years I have had the pleasure of serving my
community as director and chairman of many organizations. My
involvement in these organizations will I am sure assist me in
serving my constituents more effectively.
Unfortunately the difficult economic times experienced by
Canadians in recent years has hit St. Catharines and the Niagara
Peninsula particularly hard. Unemployment in St. Catharines
has reached record levels. Automotive and small manufacturing
businesses, the major employers in the area, have seen major
restructuring and downsizing. The St. Catharines private
shipyard has been forced to downsize its work base from 1,100
to some 200 employees. ``Job loss grows in Niagara'' read a
recent headline in the St. Catharines Standard. Statistics show
that joblessness is not only more prevalent today but joblessness
also lasts longer.
826
Many of the social programs set up in the past decades no
longer serve Canadians as they should. The result is a
misalignment between what the government should be doing to
assist Canadians and what the outdated programs are providing.
We are here today in the House of Commons to discuss the
motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development that a
committee of this House consult with Canadians and make our
recommendations on modernizing and restructuring our social
security system.
Our challenge is clear. We are committed to maintaining
Canada's social programs but we are also faced with the
economic reality of the national debt which absorbs almost 25
cents of every government dollar.
It is clear that a fundamental change in our social programs
must occur if we are to effectively put people back to work and
reduce the deficit. As a former executive from industry, I would
like to focus my remarks on education and training and the
importance of co-operation between business, industry,
government and the educators in setting priorities for change.
My background in industry has taught me the importance of
education. Future economic health means investing in people.
That is the key. The question is this. How do we train and retrain
Canadians so that they are effective and active members of the
work force?
Do we need to spend more money? Canada presently spends
more than $44 billion a year on schools, colleges and
universities. We devote 6.2 per cent of the gross domestic
product on education, ranking fifth among OECD countries and
despite these high expenditures rising unemployment rates
create a growing concern that our system is off target.
(1845)
It has been mentioned many times before that youth
unemployment is of special concern. In June of last year while
the national unemployment was some 11 per cent,
unemployment for young people between the ages 15 and 24 was
approximately 18 per cent. In 1993, 400,000 young people were
looking for work each month.
In theory the employment system assists in the retraining of
the unemployed for greater long-term employment. In reality
most funding goes directly to pay unemployment insurance
benefits with a small portion remaining for training.
The financial overview for 1993-94 shows that while
unemployment benefits will be approximately $18 billion,
spending on training and other active measures totals $3.6
billion. We are spending. We need to spend more effectively and
setting priorities for effective spending for future jobs cannot be
accomplished blindly by governments. Educators, business and
industry must be involved.
In the mid-1980s Canadian business spent .25 per cent of
gross domestic product on training and education. In Germany
this figure was 1.96 per cent, in Great Britain 2.17 per cent, in
Japan 1.4 per cent and in the U.S., .66 per cent.
Business must realize, and some do, that the future is at stake.
Poorly trained employees cost business money. Business must
participate not only in the funding of programs but in the reform
of the process being started by the government. More and more
education will be key to competitiveness as higher levels of
education are required within the work force overall.
In 1986 just over 45 per cent of jobs required less than 12
years of education. That figure is estimated to drop to just over
32 per cent between now and the year 2000. Conversely, jobs
requiring 17 or more years of education represented only 22.4
per cent of jobs in 1986 but should rise to almost 50 per cent by
the turn of the century.
The government's election platform in the speech from the
throne reaffirmed the commitment to investing in people. We
will work with business, educators and Canadians to ensure that
a final plan for modernizing our social programs is a workable
solution. Specifically we must work with the provinces and the
private sector to help youth be prepared for the transition from
school to work.
The youth service corps is a priority and the Secretary of State
for Training and Youth has already completed a round of
consultation on the corps. Apprenticeship or internship
programs prepare youth for the work force. We are committed to
bridging the gap between education and employment.
Training and skills development must also extend into the
present work force. Several minutes ago I spoke of the increased
training levels required for jobs of the future. An enormous
portion of the present work force will also require retraining and
educational upgrading in the future.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development said in the
House this past week: ``If we are to speak of reform of the social
safety net we must include in that discussion the issues of
training and education''. Unemployment insurance, social
assistance and education are all interconnected. We must
address all of these to create, in the minister's words ``a total
fabric of opportunity''.
Better trained employees create better systems. They reduce
waste, they make business more competitive and in the end
reach that objective of creating more jobs. The changes must be
comprehensive. It must include Canadians; Canadian business,
Canadian industry, Canadian educators and it must be done
immediately. In the Niagara area, the Niagara Peninsula
Industry Council is just beginning and is starting to make
improvements in our area.
827
(1850)
Today we begin an action plan for reforming our social
security system. I am pleased the minister has asked me and
members of this House to participate in the working groups. We
have a lot of work to do, but I join my colleagues in welcoming
the challenges ahead. I encourage all Canadians to participate in
this process.
In closing, I would like to thank my constituents in St.
Catharines, my family on whom I rely, my wife, Carol,
daughters, Tamara and Virginia, and all of those in the riding
who worked tirelessly to give me the opportunity to serve in this
Chamber.
The riding of St. Catharines has been represented by some
very effective members from my party, namely Jim McNulty,
Harry Cavers and the Hon. Gib Parent. It is a proud moment for
me to join my predecessors in service to my city of St.
Catharines. I look forward to representing St. Catharines in this
great House.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments made by the
hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis a few moments
ago. I had the honour of serving with him in the National
Assembly.
The Speaker: Order. You can only ask a question or comment
on the speech of the hon. member for St. Catharines. Do you
have a question?
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Very well, Mr.
Speaker.
Then I will simply follow your instructions and comment on
this debate and on the position taken by our party and by the
government. Obviously, we would like our party and the Reform
Party to reach a consensus on the big issue of the allocation of
public funds.
We know that Ottawa collects roughly $28 billion in taxes
from Quebec each year and we would like to know how this
money is redistributed. For the past several years-and the $500
billion debt confirms this-we have been making suggestions.
We are always accused of harping on the same old Péquist
arguments. However, if the government accepted our
suggestions, then we not go over the same ground again and
again.
We are calling for an end to duplication of services. This is
nothing new. We are calling for an end to cuts in social housing.
The situation is pitiful in my riding. There is a shortage of social
housing and yet the government is poised to make further cuts in
this area. A decade ago, the soup kitchen in my region served up
about 35 meals a day. Today, it serves up 400 meals a day. This is
completely unacceptable.
We have made suggestions to the government as to what
measures should be contained in its upcoming budget. We
proposed the elimination of family trusts and we targeted such
areas as duplication in the taxation and services fields. For the
sake of greater efficiency, we are asking that the federal
government withdraw from manpower training programs and
hand this responsibility over to Quebec.
In conclusion, let me say that Mr. Le Hir, the president of the
Association des manufacturiers du Québec, as well as Mr.
Ghislain Dufour, the President of-
Mr. Dingwall: Question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr. Speaker, there
was a report in this morning's edition of Le Devoir. The hon.
member is upset by the truth. These people are not Péquists, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: Order, please!
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Why have you
called for order, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: I have no objections to what the hon. member is
saying.
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): I am prepared to
co-operate, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member has a question.
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): I do have a
question, Mr. Speaker.
Why is the government not willing to follow the
recommendations put forward by the opposition party, the Bloc
Quebecois? Why will it not eliminate trusts, end duplication of
services and tax large corporations? Why?
(1855 )
[English]
Mr. Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I thank the questioner. I think all
Canadians have come to the point where they have had enough
of paying taxes. I agree that we need to take a look at the various
systems and the waste in the systems. However, we cannot
forget about the important item of trying to improve the system.
We need information and consultation from all parties and from
all Canadians.
This a process the minister has started. I think it is important
for us and for Canada that we continue to have debates and
consult back and forth and that the people of Canada have an
opportunity to provide input. Let us not forget that I am here
representing St. Catharines and Canadians. Canadians feel it is
important that we do something, that we eliminate the waste
right across Canada.
I agree with that. However I have to do it for the good of all
Canadians, no matter what province they live in. I am proud of
my province of Ontario, but I am also proud of Canada. It is
important, as we consult and debate, that we get input from coast
to coast and that we make a better system for Canada on a
continuous basis.
Let us not be afraid. For the next two or three years, let us
make continued improvements for Canada.
828
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
with this referral of the review of social policy to a standing
committee, our government is about to embark on what I
consider to be the most important undertaking during its first
term.
If we are to bring about social justice to this country, if we are
to have any ability to bring our financial house in order, if we are
to find new and innovative ways of conducting business in this
country, then the reform of our social policy is absolutely
essential.
Our government is committing itself to a most extensive
public review process. This issue will be debated not only in this
House, both during the preliminary stages and later when
legislation is actually tabled, but also through the parliamentary
committee to which this review is being referred. In addition, we
will be dealing with both the political and bureaucratic
components of the provincial government and, through a series
of consultative processes, with constituency groups, the general
public, and in particular those individuals presently charged
with delivering our various and sundry programs.
In referring this matter to the standing committee, it is vital to
outline what I believe to be important governing principles that
should be considered in the deliberations. These principles
include equity, effectiveness, co-ordination and accountability.
Whatever system we develop must be equitable. To me this
means we recognize that as Canadians, as a government and as a
nation we have a responsibility to each other.
Going back to at least World War II, there has existed in this
country an unwritten but very clear social contract between
Canadians and their government. This contract essentially says
that on the one hand Canadians will tend to pay more for
government than perhaps their counterparts in the U.S. and other
nations, but on the other hand, in return for this we as Canadians
and as a government have a responsibility to ensure that we will
not allow individual Canadians to fall below a certain level. We
have determined as a country that we will not allow people to die
for lack of medical service, to go hungry for lack of food, to be
exposed for lack of shelter.
This contract is basic to what Canada and Canadians are.
Whatever the result of our social policy review, it must maintain
this basic concept of equity that our parents' generation
formulated, that our generation has attempted to maintain, and
that we must protect for our children and our children's children.
The second governing principle that must be adhered to in our
deliberations regarding social policy is effectiveness. Whether
we are speaking about income support, job retraining or life
skills development, we must ensure the program provides full
value for each dollar that is spent. We need to set as an objective
not a decrease in the number of dollars that are placed in the
hands of individual Canadians but rather an objective that sees a
reduction in the number of programs, a reduction in the
administration costs and a reduction in the duplication of
services. We do not need more money, we need money better
spent. We need to bring to an end the bureaucratic practice of
territoriality, we need to bring to an end the turf wars that
consume so much of our precious resources, and we need to
design our programs so that they put the necessary financial and
other resources in the hands of recipients in a manner that does
not require a massive bureaucracy be maintained.
(1900)
The third principle that I believe should govern our
deliberations is co-ordination; that is, co-ordination within our
own government, co-ordination with other governments and
co-ordination with the private sector. We must bring to an end
the massive amount of duplication of services that presently
exists in the area of social services.
If individuals today wish to receive training, the largest
challenge they will face will not be the actual course they might
take, but rather finding the correct entry point into the system.
They will find that they have to choose from several entry points
and sometimes from dozens. Our system must be designed so
that individuals have one entry point into the system and one
exit point.
Does it make any sense that our income support system is
made up of numerous programs and that these programs are
delivered by various levels of government and in some cases
duplicate programs are delivered by duplicate levels of
government? Income support should be provided by one system,
administered by one bureaucracy and developed in as simple a
manner as possible, one that reflects the economic realities of
the 1990s and not of the 1950s or 1960s.
I can see absolutely no sense as to why an individual who has
lost his job receives his income support in one form from one
level of government for a period of time and then receives his
income support from a different level for another period of time,
administered by a different bureaucracy. We need one income
support program, administered by one level of government and
delivered in a cost efficient way.
The final governing principle that I believe should be adhered
to in our deliberations is that of accountability, accountability
both from government who administers the program and from
the individuals who utilize the program. As a government we
need to design our income support and training programs with
clear objectives as to what they are attempting to accomplish.
The effectiveness of these programs should be measured on an
ongoing basis, both by this Parliament and by the people of
Canada, as to whether they are achieving their objectives. We
829
should be prepared to change programs that do not work or
amend programs that are in need of revision.
But accountability is not just on behalf of the government
which delivers the programs, but also on behalf of the
individuals who utilize them. Individuals who receive income
support must have as their objective, where possible, re-entry
into the work force and the ability to become self-sufficient.
Their objective should not be to maintain an alternative lifestyle
that entails perpetual government assistance from cradle to
grave.
We do have individuals in this country, unfortunately, who
will need our support not just in the short term but perhaps for
the rest of their lives. But we also have individuals who, with
properly designed programs and with the correct incentives, can
become productive members of society, and we must ensure that
our social policy review results in a system that will mandate
this to happen.
In conclusion, let me simply state the one governing principle
that I believe distinguishes a Liberal approach to the issue of
social policy reform as opposed to one that has been pursued by
the past government and that I believe is being pursued by some
of the members opposite.
As Liberals, we start with the needs of individual Canadians,
with the dignity of men and women, the importance of the
human spirit and the sanctity of human values. From this will
flow jobs, from this will flow renewed economic activity, from
this will flow new personal and business prosperity.
If we begin the process with our concern being solely one of
economics, solely one of business profits, solely one of bottom
line, and we ignore the basic component, which is the individual
Canadian, then we will continue to take us down a road that we
have travelled for the past decade, which will create more
hardship, more unemployment, less economic development and
a nation that will not be living up to its true potential. It is the
first option that Canadians have demanded and it is this option
that we as a government intend to pursue.
(1905)
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka. I had the chance to listen to the previous
Liberal speakers. We heard three speeches and three different
positions. One Liberal member who spoke a while ago was
sensitive to the needs of the population and focussed on the
poorest members of our society. Another shared most of the
concerns expressed on this side of the House. Then we gradually
moved away from this position with the address by the hon.
member for St. Catharines.
I will keep my question short. It is fortunate that I still have
my sight because I could see that the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka was on his feet but I was hearing what
sounded like a Reform speech. Could the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka tell me what distinguishes his speech from
those made by Reform members? He seems to be putting a great
distance between himself and some of his colleagues who have
spoken, it must be said, from the back benches, not his
colleagues from the front benches who are conspicuous by their
absence from this debate. We are fortunate to have a minister
present in the House. It is interesting, but the viewpoint from the
back benches seems a little pro forma and at times sounds like
what we heard at the Spicer Commission, a kind of cantina
where everyone brings their own wine and where the bill is
prepared in advance. While we are talking, I am wondering
whether the policies have not already been drafted.
My question to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka
is this: Is there a difference between his own personal position
and that of the Reform Party since this is an open debate?
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
There is indeed a great deal of difference between my point of
view, which is a Liberal point of view, and that of the Reform
Party. It begins with where we start. If we begin our
deliberations from a simple bottom line, which is need, then we
are going to end up where the Reform Party is going to end up.
Liberals do not do that. We begin with the need of the
individual Canadian. We believe in the dignity of individual
Canadians. We believe in that unwritten social contract of the
last 50 years where we as Canadians have believed that we have
responsibilities to each other.
As I said in my speech, we believe we will not allow
Canadians to fall below a certain level. People will not die in
this country for lack of medical services, they will not go hungry
in this country for lack of food, and they will not die exposed for
lack of shelter, because Liberal governments in the last 50 years
have constructed a social policy in this country that has
protected individual Canadians, and we as a government in 1994
are not going to try to dismantle it but find a way to make it
continue so that we will continue to serve Canadians. We will
continue with that social contact so that my children and my
children's children will enjoy the benefits of what Liberal
governments for the last 50 years have been able to accomplish.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed
listening to the hon. member and I would like to ask a simple,
straightforward question.
Our country continues to plunge into debt, and it appears that
before we can wrestle the deficit out of existence we could hit
$650 billion of indebtedness. As each year goes by, we lose a
little more of our ability to help the poor, whether it is the needy
830
refugees coming into our country or any other poor within our
society. What would the member suggest? How would the
member suggest we help the poor in this country when we lose
the financial and economic ability to do so?
(1910)
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the way we are going to help the
poor in this country is with what has been said for the last three
weeks over and over again. We are going to help the poor by
getting them back to work in this country, by giving them jobs,
by creating jobs, by creating an environment in which the small
business sector can create jobs.
That is how one gives them dignity. That is how one is able to
afford it. The red book has outlined a policy through 122 pages.
It details very clearly how we are going to renew the economy in
this country, how we are going to put people back to work and
how the poor will take care of themselves when they have those
jobs.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
consider it a privilege to debate the reform of social programs in
the country. For many here today, reforming them to ensure both
their sustainability and their availability to those who need them
is a significant reason to have run for Parliament in 1993.
We feel grateful that the government has given all members a
chance to air their views on this issue before legislation is
introduced. I am sure that all members share my desire that
backbenchers and constructive opposition members alike will
be able to see reflections of these debates in the legislative
program to come.
Certainly there is general agreement in this country on the
need for reform of our social programs. Members on both sides
of the House again agree that cosmetic changes are not enough.
Questions are being asked that would have been unthinkable
just a few years ago. Is there a better way to deliver this program
or service? Do we need it at all? Are there built-in disincentives
to people who need to be fully self-supporting? How much do
programs cost? Can we sustain them?
Watching the finance minister's pre-budget consultation in
Calgary on the weekend, I was struck by widespread agreement
on these issues. Almost everyone said that our current method of
funding social programs is killing jobs and export opportunities,
that less government intervention is better and that government
needs to spend less, spend smarter and tax less.
Spending less does not mean taking Canada back into the dark
ages. What it really means is that funding must be refocused and
it is incumbent on this House to lay down the principles that will
guide a rechannelling of program assistance in a way that is fair,
effective and compassionate.
Other speakers have already discussed a number of principles.
One of them is that spending in the future must be based on need
rather than entitlement. People with high incomes do not need
the same kind of help as those with low incomes. Therefore the
fact that they belong to a particular ethnic or demographic group
should not automatically entitle them to extra government
support.
We feel that tomorrow's programs will be delivered more in
concert with private groups. People in need will work with a
community based network rather than those who are simply paid
to supply them a service. These private groups may be part of the
answer in helping an individual emerge from this chronic
position of need.
There should be also a stated objective of other programs that
recipients be required to undertake training or community
service that will enable these people to acquire the skills that
will reduce their future dependence upon governments.
These principles are significant. I have the privilege of
addressing the most important principle this afternoon and this
evening. That is the position of the family in relation to the state.
This principle is important because it questions the assumption
of the welfare state that has become entrenched in the post-war
era, the assumption that has spurred this magnificent fiscal
situation in which we find ourselves today.
I am speaking of the concept of the paternalistic state, the
notion that the state or the government has the capacity or even
the duty to somehow replace the family as the basic unit of
nurture in our society.
This sentiment, while never accepted by most Canadians, was
heralded when Bonnie Kreps announced to Maclean's magazine
in 1969 that her group's objectives included getting rid of the
conjugal family unit. For decades this idea has occasionally
found its way on to the desks of government policy makers.
Many feel today that families have been unappreciated and
under supported as a result.
While the role of the family has been questioned, the concept
of the state is also changing.
(1915)
People are disillusioned. They no longer believe it is possible
for government to provide all of the solutions. Certainly its
scope is shrinking because of its financial problems. In a way
this could be a positive thing because with a little help human
relationships could fill in the gaps left by government programs.
The basic unit of care should not be a government cheque or
the department of something or other or a social worker. The
831
unit must be the family. Society has yet to develop a better way
to care for the young, protect the weak and attend to the elderly.
People who come from dysfunctional families need special
help at times and then the government must step in to do the best
it can for the individual, realizing that it will always be an
inferior choice to a functioning and loving family.
In some ways governments have even played a part in
encouraging dysfunctional families because they support people
without reference to their family ties. An example is a young
person who rebels and leaves home only to end up on some kind
of government assistance, or the husband who moves to another
province to shirk his responsibility to pay for court ordered
support.
Governments should require people to demonstrate at least
this minimum level of responsibility toward their relationships
and this might even lead to an increased incentive to make
families work.
There are other positive things government can do to
encourage strong families. I would like to see some aspects of
our tax structure changed, especially encouraging couples with
children. Last year's tax ruling against married couples in an
Alberta court sent a mixed message to Canadians. Incredibly,
the courts ruled that while married couples have suffered tax
discrimination in years past, it is acceptable because families
have suffered less discrimination in the past than other
stereotyped groups. Surely this was and is wrong.
Another positive change could involve day care. Those who
advocate the welfare state would like to see government workers
control the care of children. However, the Reform Party prefers
a de-institutionalized setting that gives the choice to parents.
As Margaret Wente mentioned in her column in Saturday's
Globe and Mail, if we really want to help parents, why not put
extra money directly into their pockets and let them figure out
how to spend it? The government's role would be relegated to
licensing and monitoring day cares, allowing parents to choose
their own system, be it a day care, a nanny or some other
personalized arrangement.
I want to touch for a moment on the reasoning of the welfare
state and why it can be damaging. Advocates of government
solutions feel that the government is somehow objective and
that families are unobjective, unenlightened bastions of
conservatism.
While it is probably true that families are more conservative
than your average university professor, I do not believe that
there is any such thing as a value neutral objective authority. If
the authority of the state replaced that of the family it would
simply teach and impose its own values through that system.
It is quite clear to me that the values of big government are
frequently a fundamentalist mish-mash of left wing, politically
correct dogma that in its own way is far more conservative and
legalistic than that held by most families. Any concerted, large
scale attempt to replace the authority of the parent with that of
the teacher, the social worker or even the courts will be resisted
on this side of the House.
Where is this debate going to take us? We have heard some
discouraging debates in the last few weeks, talk of maintaining
universality regardless of need or broadening the tax base and
changing RRSP rules. Each of these proposals would adversely
affect families.
How will they hurt them? By maintaining or adding new
programs at the urging of special interest groups or failing to
address our debt and deficit problem squarely and honestly, by
refusing to prioritise the dwindling resources of our government
we will harm the most vulnerable in society, including young
families, in the years to come.
There have also been glimmers of hope during these debates.
Speaker after speaker has begun his or her speech with
passionate thanks to the people who count the most to them,
their families. During the one minute presentations that precede
Question Period, many single out family members for special
recognition. Honourable mention for the international year of
the family continues to sprinkle our discussions.
The death certificate of the family has been written
prematurely. Statistics will show that Canadians, especially our
youth, hold a strong family life as a measure of true success. It is
my conviction that history will judge legislators, at least in part,
by the way we treat our families.
(1920 )
I would like to read a quote from someone who shared this
concern: ``Men say to us, `there is this problem with the family.
How are we to preserve it? It seems to be dissolving before our
eyes'. This has been true perhaps always and everywhere.
Everywhere good things have seemed to be going. Yet
everywhere they are merely struggling to their new birth''.
The family has been under many stresses in this generation
but it cannot be extinguished. It is merely struggling to its own
sort of new birth.
Our social programs as well need to struggle for a new
expression in order to serve the needs of Canadians. We have
been discussing principles upon which this rebirth can stand. I
would suggest to this House that any principle upon which our
social programs are reordered must strengthen the social unit
which forms the historic bedrock of our nation and that
foundation upon which all strong nations are built, the family.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the hon. member's speech with great interest. He emphasized
the family as a basic core for the way people live and come
together in Quebec and Canada. He is quite right, the family is a
fundamental value. He also highlighted the fact that
governments, our government, are jeopardizing this family unit.
He
832
even used an expression, ``The death certificate of the family
has been written prematurely''.
There is another kind of family in this country, namely the
provinces. Indeed, does Ottawa's passion for centralization not
endanger not only the family unit but also the provinces' ability
to meet their responsibilities for their own people? Of course, I
am talking about Quebec, but not just Quebec-all the other
provinces. What is his experience? What is the hon. member's
experience in his community?
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and
thank the member for the encouragement. He is taking quite a
leap here from my discussion of family into the constitutional
swamp, as we have talked about before, of trying to relate that
somehow to Quebec and its relationship to Canada.
I would say that for many of us in the west if you are asking for
the British Columbia perspective, or the perspective from where
I come from and where I have been elected from, in many ways
we do see Canada as a family in the sense that we think Canada
has 10 parts, 10 equal members, 10 siblings, 10 people, all part
of this family that together forms a country.
In many ways there is a support in the west, in B.C.
particularly, for the idea that when you have a family everyone
is treated equally. No one is put down and no one is elevated
because a family works best when 10 provinces or 10 people are
treated the same.
Although there are different programs and different priorities
in different areas, and that is as it should be just as 10 children
are unique, they are not treated specially, they are part of a 10
member family.
I will take the leap with the hon. member and I will talk about
the family in that sense. Certainly, as has always been said in a
family, all members are always welcome and all members are
discouraged from leaving.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I have listened
attentively to my colleague in his remarks. He went on at some
length with regard to his high regard, and compliment him, for
the family. Perhaps he would take a moment or two and explain
to the House the definition of family to the hon. member but
more important to the party which he represents.
Second, while he is on his feet if he would indicate to the
House the role that he believes the state should play in
facilitating and assisting the family. I refer specifically to the
role of the Government of Canada.
(1925 )
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Most of my
discussion tonight was about my concern for families and the tax
disincentives. For example, the court decision I quoted was that
in the past somehow married couples were not treated the same
as couples who decided to live together. That is what the court
ruling referred to.
I have been talking about the need for the state through its tax
laws and through other means to monetarily encourage families
especially while they are raising children. That is basically what
I was talking about. We have to find ways to make sure that we
do not penalize people for trying to raise a family.
I do not have the motion in front of me, but it refers to
children, young adults and families. I do not think anyone will
dispute the idea that we need to support families because
families are our future.
We see the government's role as supporting the financial
needs of people rather than picking a program and stating: ``This
is the program you have to try to fit into, whether you are a
square peg in a round hole''. Instead we should say: ``If you have
a financial need, then the social contract is there to make sure
you do not fall through the cracks and be left to your own
devices''.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, tonight I am going to speak about a subject that is dear
to everyone's heart and in particular to our electorate in this
country.
When I was running for office I found, as I am sure many
members did, that one of the biggest considerations and
concerns of Canadians was what was going to happen to their
health care. There were a lot of concerns and a lot of problems
and nobody knew which way to go. Canadians are very
concerned about what is going to happen to their health care in
the future. To that extent I would say that their health care is
probably the most valued thing they have in their lives.
The greatest guardians to good health that exists is our
personal responsibility for a healthy lifestyle and our national
health care system. The first one the government can do
absolutely nothing about, but in the latter the government
certainly can.
I believe as a physician and a consumer that our system is the
best in the world. It is the envy of people outside of our country.
We just need to look at the United States to see how they look
enviously at our country to emulate for their new health care
program.
Canadian citizens receive the best health care free of charge.
They are governed by the five basic tenets under the Canada
833
Health Act. They are: universality of care; comprehensive
coverage for all essential services. I under line the word
``essential''. It is a very important point to remember. It also
provides reasonable access by health care providers as well as
consumers; portability of benefits from one province to another;
and, the administration of health care by a public agency on a
non-profit basis.
To give an idea of what we are talking about in terms of
figures, in 1990 over $60 billion was spent on health care alone
in this country which represents almost 10 per cent of our gross
domestic product.
The financing of the system is divided between the federal
government and the provinces. The provinces manage the actual
day to day affairs and how the money is spent but they have to do
it under the Canada Health Act; otherwise the federal
government will withhold funding. In other words, the federal
government takes their money and uses it as a wedge or a threat
to the provinces regarding what they can and cannot do.
Over the last decade some situations have occurred in this
country that have greatly jeopardized publicly funded health
care which will ultimately lead to the collapse of health care as a
publicly funded system. Not only health care but every social
program in this country will be jeopardized by the following
situation. This has been spoken about quite eloquently by my
colleagues in caucus today as well as other members in the
House.
The escalating debt over the last 12 to 14 years that we have,
which has risen from $125 billion to $500 billion today, is the
biggest threat to health care and social programs in this country.
To give an idea of what has occurred, back in 1984 28 cents
out of every dollar was spent just to service this debt. Today it is
about 33 cents. By the year 2000 at the current rate of spending
40 cents out of every dollar will be used merely to serve the debt.
As can be seen we have less and less money to spend on other
things such as social programs. This is a system that cannot last.
(1930)
The other side of the health care situation is that expenditures
are escalating dramatically. They are growing at over four times
the rate of economic growth. There are a number of reasons for
this. Briefly, number one is the ever-increasing aging
population which consumes over 70 per cent of the health care
dollar. Two, our technologies and intervention and therapeutics
are becoming more advanced and more expensive all the time.
Three, there are new diseases such as AIDS which are increasing
in frequency tragically which also cost a significant amount of
money.
If we accept the facts as I have outlined them today the system
that we can see now is living on borrowed time. The dwindling
funds and increasing costs are going to crush this system in the
future. That is inevitable.
Despite this fact, that the writing is on the wall, the federal
government continues to hamstring the provincial governments
by preventing their ability to get their health care under control
by forcing them to adhere under the tenets of the Canada Health
Act and threatening its contribution to financing health care
under the health act.
There are a number of things we can do. Not to do this will
contribute to the suffering of the Canadian people.
What can we do? We need to modify the Canada Health Act to
stop penalizing the provincial governments when they try to get
their health care costs under control. We need to strike a
committee to define what essential health care services are,
which means delisting some services.
I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that those services which the public
and professionals decide to delist will not be essential for
health. These will not be essential for a good life or for having
adequate treatment in hospitals.
We need to set up an accountability system on the part of the
consumer. Currently very little value is placed on a system and it
is doomed financially unless there is some value placed on this
by the consumer. Therefore I would suggest to the provincial
governments to entertain the thought of such ideas as modest
user fees and deductibles for some groups.
People believe that the Canadian public does not want this but
recent statistics show that over 80 per cent of the people in
Quebec for example, and some studies were done to show this,
would not mind paying a $5 to $10 user fee. The lowest
socio-economic groups I would emphasize would be treated
regardless. These tenets are still consistent with the ideas of
universality of coverage and access.
We also need to concentrate on education of the public in
terms of the costs. One of the things we can do is to have
statements of account at the time of consumption preferably or
during the course of the year.
We need to emphasize health education, especially in the
early grade school years. This will pay off dramatically in the
future. We need to focus on preventative medicine, on leading a
healthy lifestyle with the aspects of drinking excessively,
smoking and diets. From a physician's point of view it is
amazing and also profoundly tragic the lack of knowledge that
some children have when they get into the teenage and
adolescent years and we all know the manifestations of that.
Health care professionals must be educated in the cost of
technologies and interventions and therapeutic options that they
have. I can say again as a physician that we have not done a good
enough job on this at all.
I would also suggest that health care professionals be allowed
to run private medical services. This would enable some people
to get health care services done in a private situation, but all
people, whether they are in a public or private situation, would
have their health care services done earlier. This would decrease
834
the amount of pain and suffering in the community, decrease the
cost to the economy, decrease insurance costs and so on.
It is in fact a win-win situation. To anyone who would argue
that this a two-tier system, I say to them that anybody in this
country involved in health care will say that there is a two-tier
system in this country right now.
The most important thing that the government needs to do
with respect to health care is as I said before get their fiscal
house in order. Until we get our spending under control as a
nation we simply cannot afford to support social programs in the
current state of affairs that we have. To not do that I think would
be morally reprehensible and a tragedy for the Canadian people.
(1935)
The last thing I would like to touch on for a moment is
decreasing tobacco taxes. I feel this is an indefensible situation.
Every year the cost to the country in terms of smoking is
horrendous. It costs billions and billions of dollars. There is a
loss of productivity and an increase in health care costs. Over
40,000 people in this country die of smoking related illnesses.
To increase the cost of cigarettes has resulted, as has been
proven, in a decrease in consumption especially among the
young. Therefore I suggest that instead of decreasing taxes on
tobacco that we maintain them; and instead of caving in to the
criminals who are engaging in this smuggling activity I would
also suggest that we add an export tax to cigarettes going into
other countries.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I want to say
that I enjoyed the member's remarks but my curiosity was
peaked by his comments about the Canada Health Act. It
brought back vivid memories of the election campaign last fall
when underlying many of the public meetings we had in our
riding were questions about the future of our health system
under a regime which might include Reform Party proposals.
I would ask the member to tell this House if he really believes
that weakening in any way the Canada Health Act, in any way
dismantling the thrust and the strength of that legislation to
protect this country, that we can put our full faith in the
provinces to maintain a national system.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for his comment.
As the elected members of the provincial legislatures are
answerable to the Canadian public it would be political suicide
for them to create a health care situation where the people who
elected them to office would suffer.
It behoves every elected individual in this country to face the
writing on the wall, to realize that we have a situation where
health care costs are increasing at four times the rate of
economic growth and governments are dealing with deficit
spending with less and less money being applied to health care.
We have to face up to this. It is not just dismantling or
destroying the Canada Health Act, it is modifying it to make it a
better situation. To accept the current situation as it is now is to
merely stick one's head in the sand. It is incumbent upon all of
us to do something about it in order to preserve essential health
care services for all Canadians so that they are not going to
suffer, they are going to have their operation and they are not
going to die as they do down in the United States due to lack of
care.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has replied to the question
I put to his predecessor who, by the way, left his parents to get
married. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca said:
[English]
``The federal government is preventing the provinces from
putting health care under control by threatening to cut transfer
payments''. And he is right.
[Translation]
I like what the hon. member said because it is exactly what we
feel in Quebec. This means that, both in the West and in the East,
the federal government threatens the very principles of
universality and accessibility. And that is a serious problem. A
few moments ago the question was asked as to whether the
provinces were in a better position to maintain these principles.
Let us take a good look at the situation: in the last ten years or so,
the federal government has been systematically cutting transfer
payments and has now become the biggest threat to universality
and accessibility.
(1940)
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, it is
important for the hon. opposition member to understand that
health care services are pulling the wool over the eyes of the
Canadian public by instituting a concept called rationing. That
means they are telling hospitals how many hips or bypass
surgeries they can do. As a result the Canadian public is being
deprived of service under the guise of so-called universality. In
this current situation people who need essential health care
services are not getting them because of the rationing and the
withdrawal of services.
835
We in the Reform Party are trying to say that people who are
sick are not obtaining services in a timely fashion. Let us
recognize that. Let us do something about that with the amount
of funds we have now.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, this evening I had the pleasure to listen to members of
the Reform, the Bloc and the Liberal parties put forward their
presentations. It is refreshing that people have come here with
an honest concern for considering the social aspects of the
society in which we live.
I have had experiences working for three years in a boys'
school that I will likely never forget. I guess another name for it
would be reform school. Hon. members would like me to
recognize the school was for wayward people who were to be
straightened around. I did not want to tell them but it is true.
One young fellow who was there while I worked there ran
away to his home in North Battleford. He visited me while I was
attending university. He wanted to know what he should do. We
sat there for two hours, at the end of which time I said: ``Make up
your mind. If you want to go back I will take you back''. He
decided to go back and serve his time, which he did.
On returning to the institution one of the people working there
called him a stupid so-and-so and said: ``What are you doing
back here? Why didn't you keep running?'' Those were the
people who were looking after him. Those were the people we
entrusted with our young people.
As I travelled to Moose Mountain after the election I picked
up a young fellow in Grenfell, Saskatchewan. He was from
Richmond, B.C. He was 18 years old and did not even have a
grade nine education. He was going to Winnipeg to get a job as a
salesman. Now it is true some people would say that is fantastic.
I tried to encourage him to go back home to his parents and
improve his education. I hope he does.
I bring before us these analogies of the problems that face us
all. We elected four Liberals from Saskatchewan. They wanted
to make sure there was a balance so they put a teacher on the
ballot. I know that one of those four, a fellow member, is a
lawyer. He feels there is an equal balance now: three lawyers and
one teacher.
With regard to human resource development we are honoured
to have the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as minister
in charge. My constituents have made clear in many meetings
and discussions that they have many concerns regarding our
social programs, a fundamental part of our country that requires
review.
On the issue of fiscal relations and federal spending power,
concern revolves around our ability to form a partnership of
fiscal cohesion throughout the country to deliver social
programs. When one considers that federal spending on social
programs is between $70 billion and $80 billion annually, which
equals as much as two-thirds of program spending at the federal
level, there is a level of dissatisfaction among the voters of
Souris-Moose Mountain over the manner in which our social
programs are structured. I would like for a moment to discuss
some of the needs we see in regard to the Unemployment
Insurance Commission programs. We feel we need to move
toward a level of maximum payout so that there is a ceiling on
earnings one can make during a year in order to be beneficiary of
UIC. In my opinion seasonal jobs which continue to require a
payout year after year need to be reviewed. We cannot
constantly require a higher contribution from both employer and
employee in particular seasonal occupations.
(1945)
Also we have to allocate earnings more effectively to those
who are receiving unemployment so they can be actively doing
something, performing some type of work or receiving some
form of education during the period between jobs. If we can
improve their educational background we can provide them with
the additional incentive to be able to enter the workforce in a
productive nature.
As well, we have to encourage employers to retain staff so if
they wish to downsize they do it through natural attrition rather
than make thousands of Canadians face job loss and uncertainty.
Nowhere in the history of Canada have we seen so many people
going to work day after day fearful of losing their jobs.
I would like to highlight those students completing degrees
and looking to go into the workforce but are unable to find work.
They should have an opportunity to work as assistants to senior
people in their chosen fields. This would help them gain some
credibility and obtain a work record. This would also help them
to enter into the job placement process.
I would like to address a concern of mine regarding education
and young people receiving assistance in the form of student
loans. We have to ensure that their expectations in terms of
paying back their loans are reasonable. We must frame it in a
manner in which repayment of the loans is reasonable and they
have some certainty of a place in the job market when they have
completed their degree. As well interest rates must reflect the
ability of young people to pay. If we want our young people to be
educated and our human resources to be competitive
restructuring of the student loan program is essential.
When we review social security programs some very serious
facts need to be addressed. My riding includes seven First
Nations bands. I know their hopes and aspirations. They hope
for recognition as a First Nation and for self-government. They
too search out in hope for the best for their families.
836
We now find that families in which both the husband and wife
work outside the home are nearing 60 per cent of all families in
the workforce. There are many latch-key children, youngsters
leaving home for school likely with no breakfast, returning
home at noon likely with no lunch and coming home after school
with no adult to greet them.
This is a very serious problem. I am not questioning the
actions of parents. Many families would much sooner have one
parent at home. However the reality is that they need two
incomes just to keep the family together and to pay the bills. We
see many single parent families headed by women. They are
growing at an ever increasing rate. We have the highest
incidence of low income in this group. The needs of these
families are real and great. The demands placed on single
parents are even greater.
The schools could have a great deal to do with before and after
school programs. The infrastructure and the schools are there.
They are heated. We could create programs within the structure
to assist parents requiring assistance with their children while
they must be at work. What about the children of the next
generation? We know that 1.1 million people live in households
with social assistance as a way of life. We also know that in
March 1993 three million Canadians required social assistance.
(1950)
This year is significant in that it is the International Year of
the Family and the International Year of Indigenous Peoples.
For each member of the 35th Parliament, our concerns for these
groups are very real and growing. We must address their
concerns and we will. For the young, we must address their
family needs; for youth, the need for jobs; for seniors, a social
safety net whereby they are assured their pensions will not be
eroded. We cannot allow the poor and the disadvantaged to go
unheard. We must assist.
The payouts for these programs are significant: $7.4 million
in welfare payments. When we take a look at our red book we
find that our proposals show a strong desire to return hope for
desperation, to remove fear and to provide a decent way of life
for Canadians. The challenge is tremendous.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: As hon. members are aware, the debate
will be extended until 8.52 p.m. Since we have five minutes left
for questions and comments, I now recognize the hon. member
for Beauharnois-Salaberry.
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the hon.
member who just spoke. In his speech, he showed his concern
for people who are employed but are afraid of losing their jobs. I
must say I share his concern because we have a plant called
Expro which manufactures military equipment. Not so long ago,
the plant had 1,000 jobs, and now there are only 400 left.
As part of the pre-budget process we are involved in today, I
would like to make a suggestion and also put a question to the
previous speaker. Would his government be able to do what was
done in the United States by Bill Clinton, who set aside a certain
amount of money in the defence budget for reconversion of the
defence industry? Now that the cold war is over, we do not need
as many plants. Orders are shrinking, and that is what causes
lay-offs. In the United States, they set aside a certain amount of
money in the defence budget to be invested in converting
defence plants to civilian production.
Does the hon. member who just spoke agree with this
suggestion? Would he be willing to put this proposal to his
government so that we could convert defence plants to civilian
use?
[English]
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I respect the question of the hon.
member. I feel that he is as competent as I am in making that
suggestion to the government. As I see the 35th Parliament, all
of us are that government. Each of those suggestions have merit.
Why not put it forward? I certainly have no problem with that.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to congratulate the hon. member for an excellent
presentation. I am sure many people on this side of the House
agreed, as did I, with virtually everything he said. It is probably
because he came to the Reform honestly, as did I, except that I
attended reform school when I was about 12. That was when I
got started in Reform.
I wonder if the member would mind expanding on student
loans. This is an extremely important situation facing thousands
of graduates who are going into default because they cannot get
jobs and therefore cannot pay back their student loans.
I wonder if, from the member's side of the House, he could
start to do something and we could carry forward a student loan
repayment package, perhaps as promulgated by the Canadian
Students Association.
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, having a son who went through
nine years of university and accumulated well over $50,000 of
debt and happens to live in Alberta, I appreciate what the
member is saying. I agree wholeheartedly with him. We have to
assist students. We do not want to throttle them so they have no
chance of getting a job and repaying their debt. Therefore I
support the member wholeheartedly. That is the way we have to
go. Otherwise we are going to frustrate young people so that
they have no thought about even going into the educational field
or any post-secondary field because of the problems they are
going to be confronted with.
837
(1955)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations again to the member for Souris-Moose
Mountain on an excellent speech. I notice his real concern for
the families and the young children of this nation. His concern is
that there are so many families with single parents and the fact
that their incomes are low.
He also mentioned that he thought perhaps the school system
should be used to provide after school care for families that do
not have a a parent at home. There are a large number of families
in this country with both parents working who do have a very
high standard of living. It is their choice not to be there at home.
Is he suggesting that this nation again subsidize those people
who can well afford to look after their children and provide that
kind of care after school? Does he feel that we as a society are
obligated to provide that to anybody who would like it just
because the kids do not have someone at home when they get
home?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, as an educator for over 31 years I
had the opportunity to deal with the rich, the poor, the wise and
those who were not so wise. I was happy to have them all. I say to
the hon. member that if I knew of one youngster who needed my
attention, rich or poor, I would want to be there as an educator, as
a parent and as a citizen of this country.
The day we start elevating those who are rich and
distinguishing between rich and poor, we are in a real problem
state. I say to the hon. member that this is the problem in
education. We have lost our commitment that we do have
something to give these youngsters. If any one of them stayed
away from problems because I looked after him, I would feel
that is one thing I did to help him along the way in life. I see no
problem there. I want us to have those opportunities for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, as the education and
youth critic for the Official Opposition, I wanted to take the
opportunity afforded by this debate on social programs to draw
the attention of hon. members to the alarming situation
prevailing among young people in Canada and in Quebec.
In Canada, to recall a few statistics, 17.5 per cent of young
Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 are now unemployed,
which means more than 600,000 young people; 30 per cent do
not finish high school; 51 per cent of high school graduates earn
less than $10,000; and only 11 per cent earn over $20,000. More
than two million young people are living in poverty.
Furthermore, 12 per cent have serious drug problems.
Since the government has often said it wanted to give
Canadians and Quebecers renewed hope and dignity, it will have
to do something about these alarming statistics. After all, our
young people are our future, are they not?
Another disturbing phenomenon is the increase in violence
and intolerance among young people. According to the
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the number of young
people accused of violent crime has increased by an average of
14 per cent annually since 1986. Considering the problems we
mentioned earlier, this should come as no surprise.
In the past weeks, a number of members raised the issue of
stricter treatment of young offenders. I agree it is necessary to
send a clear message to young criminals. Their crimes should
not go unpunished, but we believe it is absolutely essential to
examine the social context that breeds violence and intolerance
among young people.
Second, I would like to talk about the situation of young
people in Quebec which is even more alarming and distressing.
According to a recent report by the Conseil permanent de la
jeunesse du Québec, nearly 40 per cent of young Quebecers live
in poverty and 50 per cent do so for at least five years. More than
150,000 young Quebecers are on welfare.
(2000)
The Quebec coroner's office has recorded an average of some
350 suicides by young people every year since 1987. The youth
unemployment rate in Quebec is nearly 20 per cent, or over
137,000 young people just in Quebec. At least 45,000 jobs
would have to be created annually in Quebec to absorb the young
people arriving on the labour market. The high-school dropout
rate is now 32.2 per cent in Quebec.
Vocational training is also deficient. Most of the 26,000
people waiting for training to improve their chances on the
labour market are young.
The alarming situation of young people affects not only their
own future prospects but also the economy. More and more,
young people must face the same prejudices as all unemployed
people and welfare recipients. The confidence and dignity of our
rising generation suffer greatly as a result. The vicious circle of
unemployment and poverty- I realize that this does not seem to
interest the people opposite, but I would not like us to be
drowned out by their laughter and their talking. They are
disturbing us.
It is not easy to get out of the vicious circle of unemployment
and poverty. It leads to an extreme loss of motivation which can
increase the social problems of our young people. The situation
of young native people is even more alarming and requires more
specific help that is better suited to what they are going through.
In the speech from the throne, the government said that it was
considering self-government for native people. It could start by
838
giving them the necessary resources and support so that they
can take better care of their young people too.
One of the most important aspects of the reform of social
programs proposed by the Minister of Human Resources is
consultation. Taking so much time and resources reminds me of
the operation which followed the failure of the Meech Lake
Accord and led up to the famous Charlottetown accord. The
more things change, the more they are the same. One could say
that this government does not know how to learn from past
failures. If only we were assured that the consultations will
proceed in the spirit of openness described in the speech from
the throne. But judging by previous consultations, that will
surely not be the case. If the consultations preceding the speech
from the throne are any indication, how does the government
intend to ensure the openness described in the Speech from the
Throne?
I would like to mention here something that happened to me
on January 15. Having learned the day before that the Secretary
of State for Training and Youth was holding consultations in
Quebec City, I contacted her office to be invited as an observer
in my capacity as opposition critic for training and youth. No
way, I was told, it was by invitation only, and they did not even
tell me where it was taking place, even though Quebec City is
across from Lévis, right near my riding.
Since this consultation was for all young people in Quebec, I
later contacted the main youth organizations to find out if they
had been invited. None of these groups, except the permanent
council on youth, a Quebec government agency, had received an
invitation. Invitations were made over the heads of the umbrella
groups, sometimes directly to some member organizations or to
organizations which have nothing to do with training. As if that
were not enough, student organizations were completely
overlooked, and students will soon be on the labour market. Is
that how this government intends to consult? That is a fine way
to consult!
Another gem about the Secretary of State for Training and
Youth is her statement last Monday on Quebec. She said: ``I
have been to Quebec twice and I have a fairly good idea of what
the people there want''. I have been to English Canada several
times myself, and in all modesty, I cannot say that I know very
well what the people in those provinces want. If you think you
know what Quebec wants after two visits to Quebec, I think you
are fooling yourself.
(2005)
Even if there are a least a hundred federal programs available
to young people, very few are reserved specifically for them and
when they are, they are inadequately funded.
The worst thing that happened to young people during the
Conservative reign was not the elimination of the Katimavik
program, the demise of which went virtually unnoticed aside
from the remonstrations of Senator Jacques Hébert. No, the
worst thing was the elimination in 1987 of a provision which
gave priority to young people in so far as federal programs were
concerned. Another dramatic situation that young people face is
when they are caught in the middle, that is when they meet
neither the criteria of the federal government, nor those of the
provincial government. These young people do not have access
to occupational training if they do not receive unemployment
insurance or social assistance or if they have not been out on
their own for at least two years.
Even though the federal government does not seem inclined to
respect provincial jurisdiction over training, it could at least
respect existing structures before creating new ones, especially
given the context of budget cuts. Consider the example of
employment development agencies and agencies that sponsor
training extension programs. There is a comprehensive federal
network in place in Quebec and elsewhere and I think these
structures should be strengthened before new ones are created.
In point of fact, the demands of young people have been well
known for many years in Quebec. A national youth summit was
held in 1983 and more than 133 agencies participated in public
hearings in 1989. One very important fact emerged from these
consultations, namely that jobs were a priority. According to
young people and to groups that made representations, the
ultimate goal that the government should be pursuing is full
employment.
In pursuing this objective, consideration must be given to the
characteristics of the various groups of unemployed people and
to the realities in the different regions. People in the community
must be involved to a greater degree. Without regional
solidarity, there can be no worthwhile job creation plan. Young
people are also critical of the multiplicity of programs and of the
way in which resources are allocated. Specifically, they lament
the fact that each time a new government comes to power, the
names of the programs change.
Quebec youth want a quick end to duplication and to futile
struggles between governments. They also want to be involved
more in the process. Young people have set up youth
consultation forums in the regions but they need more money to
support their action. They are also hoping for improved funding
of local youth community organizations.
To help young people the government intends to create a
Youth Service Corps, an initiative that should give them the
opportunity to undergo a training period to acquire experience
and build up confidence. This project is strangely reminiscent of
the old Katimavik program abolished by the Conservatives in
1986. The Youth Service Corps does not stress second language
learning as much as Katimavik but it does not offer any new
839
solutions to young people's problems; it is recycled material.
The Youth Service Corps mostly offers occupational activities
without direct links to the workforce of today and tomorrow.
Again, instead of creating a new program and a new structure,
we should better support youth organizations by giving them
extra resources to adjust to today's reality. It would be a unique
opportunity to combine job training with regional development.
Young people should have a chance to become familiar with new
computer and other technologies while helping their
communities.
In conclusion, I would like to add a few comments: even if the
youth service corps appears at first glance to be motivated by
good intentions, it hides in my opinion an effort to gain time
before tackling the real problems of young people. It is a flashy
operation that will reach very few young people, 10,000 in three
years, when there are over 600,000 unemployed Canadians
between the ages of 16 and 24. The youth service corps is merely
a recycled Katimavik program. This is an old remedy for a new
problem. It is also one more incursion into an area of provincial
jurisdiction. The only positive side that I can see is organizing
activities for young people who want to take a sabbatical before
making a permanent career choice. However, this is certainly
not a priority compared with the needs already identified by
organizations involved in training young people.
(2010 )
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments of the hon. member but I was particularly interested
in his criticisms of the proposed Canadian youth service. He
makes a somewhat disparaging reference concerning the
Katimavik program which was cut by the previous Tory
government. I believe if Katimavik had not been cut we would
have seen, with experience, that program blossom into a very
useful and very helpful program for young people.
I want to ask the member if he does not believe it is helpful for
young people at the critical age of 18, 19, 20 to maybe get out of
the home. If they do not have an opportunity to work in a
community near their home, they could work in another part of
the country. If they are from B.C. they might work in Nova
Scotia or Quebec; if they are from Quebec they might work in
Ontario or Alberta.
Does he not think it would be very helpful to these young
people to have a real work experience even if it is not in their
ultimate area of professional expertise later on in life?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his question. Obviously, if we were not in a particularly tight
financial situation, an experiment like Katimavik would be
entirely praiseworthy, and I agree with what he just said.
However, when we compare the need for personal
development and experience, travelling and all that with the
other needs of youth-needs that I have described in the first
part of my speech-young people who are living in extreme
poverty, who are desperate to get some kind of occupational
training after dropping out of school and then after a while want
to get into the labour market and still do not have the proper
training and experience they need, when we compare that with
the experience of going to another province or another part of
one's own province to do the kind of things described in the
Youth Service Program such as cleaning up the banks of a river
or doing various jobs to beautify the environment, we realize
there is no future in cleaning up the environment with brooms
and shovels. It does not provide a direct link with the labour
market. This kind of work tends to be done by volunteers rather
than employees. These jobs are typical volunteer work. In my
riding, civic-minded residents do this kind of work for a couple
weeks in the spring as volunteers. In fact, it is all part of
environmental awareness.
It may have worked from 1980 to 1986. Perhaps the financial
resources were there at the time, but we should remember that
even in its heyday, the number of young people involved in
Katimavik did not exceed 10,000, at a cost of $10,000 per
person.
You may consider this is a stiff price to pay for the experience
of living in another province for nine months, as described in the
youth service program, Sir-oh, I am sorry-Mr. Speaker, since
I am supposed to address the Chair while trying to get the hon.
member's attention. Trips and room and board are expensive.
(2015)
So if we consider other training needs, it seems to me that we
must get our priorities straight. If it were up to me personally,
obviously I would be more inclined to favour those who will
have to enter the labour market. And I would do that because I
have looked at various reports and heard the demands of youth
organizations which are saying: jobs come first.
During the election campaign and in the throne speech, the
Liberal Party told us that jobs came first. Occupational,
recreational, leisure and cultural activities are all very
interesting, but not in the financial situation we have today.
840
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the member for Lévis for his fine speech.
I noticed his concern for the need to create jobs. He said there
are about 45,000 jobs that had to be created in the province of
Quebec to help the young people there. A great social cost is
being handed from generation to generation as these people lose
hope and motivation.
These things all take money. Education takes a great deal of
money. The province of Quebec is a net recipient of equalization
grants. I wonder if the member for Lévis is looking toward the
federal government to pay for education, to pay for job creation,
to pay for the social problems that exist in Quebec. Where else is
the money going to come from? I would like to hear his point of
view on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat the message that
this side of the House is desperately trying to send, namely that
duplication and overlapping must end. As regards job training,
if the present government delegated the responsibility, and the
related budget, in accordance with the established jurisdiction
of the provinces in the field of education, it would eliminate
duplication and save Quebec taxpayers $250 million. In fact, by
eliminating duplication and overlapping, the federal
government would save a lot more than that, probably an amount
equivalent to ten times the cost of running the Youth Service
Corps for the first year.
If you include all the provinces, the savings would be close to
$1 billion dollars. The $250 million figure for Quebec was never
challenged. Nor was the $1 billion estimated by the other
provinces. Such savings would be made by simply putting an
end to duplication and bringing the program closer to the
regions which, by the way, consult each other more and more
and are better able to identify the training and employment
problems facing young people, and that is very important.
Moreover, the problem with the Youth Service Corps is that it
creates yet another structure and, of the $10,000 which will
supposedly be allocated for young people, $4,000 will be
reserved for administration purposes. It is a very good idea to set
up a program to help young people, but such a measure should
not be an excuse to create a new structure absorbing $4,000, or
40 per cent of the amount allocated. I believe that all sides in this
House should agree to avoid creating new structures and instead
strengthen social programs by using existing ones.
We also say this to the government: ``Respect your areas of
jurisdiction; respect the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and of
the other provinces''. By simply doing this, savings will result.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has expired. Resuming debate. I must apologize, with all the
members surrounding the member for Lévis, I forgot the next
speaker on the list; it is unfortunate since he is a former
professor of mine. I apologize to him.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Never mind,
Mr. Speaker. I enjoyed listening to the member for Lévis. I
really appreciated his remarks.
[English]
I am reminded it is a long day. My day began 12-1/2 hours ago
with a regional caucus meeting. One of these days somebody
should write a book on how Parliament makes a law. We would
discover in empirical fashion that it is not made in the give and
thrust of debates in Parliament, in the Chamber, although that is
important. It is made in the dialectical processes of exchange of
views and compromises and give and take in committees but it
can be the committees in which they have all the parties fully
represented. That is where we reach our compromise and our
consensus and that is how we make laws.
(2020)
I suppose it is an interesting lesson in our approach to this
problem of social policy. I am most impressed by the statement
by the distinguished Minister of Human Resources
Development and one has to remind oneself that however
important a portfolio is it is not an island to itself. We are
reminded again of the Liberal Party program which for better or
for worse was to accept the grave problem of the deficit that
exists. One must do something about it.
One will solve it not by cries of despair alone but by trying to
create employment, the jobs, the flow of revenue and
maintaining our comprehensive social security network in
which we lead the world and of which we are very justly proud.
If we approach the issue of human resources and what the
ministry should do, it is concerned with many facets of cabinet
operations and many portfolios.
I am reminded of one of those distinguished papers which I
reread quite recently issued in the Second World War by
Archbishop Temple who later became Archbishop of Canterbury
on the need for reconstruction in the post war period. He was
emphasizing then that you must use your human resources and
to get an economy moving you must create employment. It is an
older truth but it is still true today.
When I look at the situation in Canada today the most obvious
need is for a long term strategy and the long term strategy in
terms of human resources is to create globally competitive
industries, leading edge technology that provides not simply
short term jobs for tomorrow or even the day after tomorrow but
10 years from now.
841
In a very real sense this is the challenge for my own province
of British Columbia as we have tried to escape from an original
primary resources based economy to a more sophisticated post
industrial economy that recognizes the glut in primary resources
around the world that you cannot base your economic
well-being on primary resources any more alone, although I
must say with imaginative management policies and investment
in the search much is being done to remain ahead of the rest of
the world.
You must invest in industry and leading edge industry and that
means an relationship not merely between the ministry of
employment but the ministry of education. These go together.
The Japanese miracle is to understand that the post modern
society's technology is based on research and that is based on
education and on universities but universities of the 21st
century.
For those who have spent, as I suppose most people here have,
much of their lives in universities we would have to recognize
that the dead hand of tradition lies very heavily on universities.
There are obligations to stay abreast with the scientific
technologically based community in which we are living.
Universities need to move into that threshold between pure
study and application and in some ways the technische
hochschule, those technical universities in continental Europe,
give us a lead which the Japanese took up and which is the
explanation of the Japanese miracle.
In our attempt in British Columbia to escape from the primary
resources based economy we have invested heavily in
education, in science, in pursuit of advanced technology and the
jobs that flow from that.
If I may I will refer to a case study, as it were, of this. I would
stress, though, that science is not simply the cataloguing of dead
knowledge from a past era. There is a poetic element in the great
scientists that distinguishes the Einstein from the ordinary
scientist. Those inductive leaps into the future require that
element of vision.
(2025)
We are very fortunate in British Columbia to have had a
scientist of the calibre of Erich Vogt who has that poetic vision
and a strong university president who recognizes that if you
invest in the science of tomorrow, you may have to wait 10 years
for the fruits to come back. But they will come back in a much
better and a much larger quantity than if you are simply looking
for results that will show on balance sheets next year or 18
months from now.
It is what Dr. Strangway, the very brilliant administrator at the
University of British Columbia calls the development in North
America of ``hot spots''. One of the interesting things is the
development of pharmacological research with its offshoots into
applied industrial development. It is a feature of that area of
land that encompasses British Columbia, Oregon and
Washington. These universities and the communities
co-operating together are pushing the world community to the
advanced frontiers of pharmacological research, one which by
the way yielded a Nobel Laureate for Canada several months ago
by the name of Dr. Michael Smith of the University of British
Columbia.
New technologies, pion therapy for example for brain
tumours or the superconductors which are the product of the
TRIUMF project at the University of British Columbia are not
projects created in the abstract, pure ventures in science that do
not have a spin-off. For example KAON and TRIUMF spend
approximately $30 million a year for research. The spin-off to
industries such as the Ebco Industries Ltd. in Richmond, British
Columbia, a company that started as a small tool manufacturing
company developed by two German immigrant brothers has
been converted into a $100 million a year export industry as a
direct result of the TRIUMF research and the spin-off secondary
industry resulting from it.
If British Columbia and Canada are to create the jobs, to
create those incomes and the flow of revenue to reduce the
deficit, this is the way we should be going, investing in that
frontier of science and knowledge, investing in education. It
does mean, and I do not wish here to get into constitutional
issues to which I have given a good deal of my professional life,
but I do think we are looking at a stage at which national norms
with a large element of imagination and leadership in them are
required. Whether that is reached by strong federal government
alone or in co-operation with provinces is an matter we will be
discussing with the minister in charge of intergovernmental
relations in the future.
I am a little concerned, and I have voiced this in other arenas
than the present one, with the possibility that TRIUMF and its
progeny the KAON project, because of under funding by the
Canadian government, by foreign governments that perhaps are
not kept fully to their obligations by pressure from our own
government, might fail. I would view that as a tragedy in the
sense that a thousand scientists from around the world grouped
together in a Canadian university community, researching
together on common projects, the spin-off in those small
commercially usable cyclotrons, the objects of this sort that are
the rich product of that investment in money and research. There
is a case for pure science. The federal government has led here in
the past and I would hope it will do so in the future.
The investment is worth the trouble. The investment in some
senses is a challenge to the Canada of the 21st century that the
present government committed itself to building. We will
conquer the deficit by new jobs and the new jobs will be leading
edge technology with the education to support it.
842
(2030)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
greatly appreciated the comments made by the hon. member
from British Columbia.
I gathered from what he said that he was a university teacher
for a number of years, like me I might add. I especially
appreciated his comments on education. I agree with him totally
when he says that education is fundamental, essential, and that
we must do our utmost to have a good education system because
it is really basic, not only if we want to create lasting
employment, but also if we want to promote a more democratic
society, an imaginative and innovative society in all areas.
Of course, much could be said about education. I disagree
however with one of his remarks. I have no doubt that the hon.
member is an experienced teacher as well as an intelligent man,
but I have some difficulty with this idea of national standards in
education. Certainly not at the university level. There is no need
for that whatsoever. Several Canadian universities excel while
relying on their own means to achieve high levels in research
and quality. That is a given.
In fact, academic work is clearly one of freedom and
independence. I see absolutely no value in national standards.
Even at the high school or elementary level, it seems to me that
one of great things about education is this freedom of
expression, this freedom to discover, this freedom enjoyed even
with the teacher.
I find that, in Canada, we have too many standards, too many
national standards, too many government-imposed restrictions
as it is. We do not need more national standards, we need less.
We need teachers, at all levels, to be freer to provide young
people with the kind of education that best relates to their life
experience.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by
the hon. member of the Opposition. As you will undoubtedly
remember, I was a special constitutional advisor to a few
premiers of Quebec, Ontario and other provinces. I have always
advocated a pluralistic federalism based on co-operation and
consensus.
I never suggested that standards should be imposed by a
federal government or authority. I only said that, in setting
scientific standards, we are often behind other countries with a
strong national consensus. These are scientific matters. It is not
an ideological or constitutional issue in my opinion.
I never insisted on the application of a consensus by a
sovereign and higher authority. Consensus means something
else. I am not too happy with the National Research Council,
which is overly centralized in Ottawa and does not fully meet the
needs of British Columbia, for instance.
My position is much more pluralistic in this respect. I call for
the co-operation of the hon. members from Quebec and the
other provinces. Nothing in current government policy seems to
reflect this. If I may give a further explanation, nothing in my
speech implies a constitutional theory, much less an overly
centralized federalist policy. I am a constitutional pluralist.
(2035)
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, the fact I am
likely the last speaker today I think you will find the best has
been left for last. Since there are relatively few members here to
witness this just keep it to yourselves.
I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I
always appreciate hearing his interventions. They are well
thought out. Although I would add to his comments about the
relevance of debate in this place vis-à-vis the relevance of
compromise and discussion in committees.
He will agree with me that it is the debate in this place that
really focuses one's attention and really focuses the thinking
that needs to surround the very important subjects that we must
deal with.
The member for Lévis was talking about the relationship of
youth, employment and the social safety nets. It really struck
home that this whole discussion and exercise is about the
relationship between jobs and the social safety nets.
If everybody were working we would not have need for a
social safety net. If there were nobody working we could not
afford to have a social safety net. It is really impossible to
participate in this discussion without linking at all times jobs
and the strength of the economy, which defines the level of our
employment, with our ability to provide those social safety nets,
those supports for those who for various reasons cannot work,
whether they are too young, disabled, too old or they are just not
in a position to find employment because of the economy of
their area.
In linking jobs to the whole question of social safety nets, I
doubt there is really anyone here who has a full grasp of what our
social safety net situation is like in this country right now. It is a
huge monster in many ways. I feel it is madness to suggest that
we should not completely review our social safety net programs.
They have evolved over the years by piecemeal additions of one
program or another, changes here and changes there, some good
and some bad. If we do not take the opportunity now to totally
review these programs we are just going to make the problems
more difficult to tackle later on.
Many of these programs were instituted by previous Liberal
governments, and wisely so, but times have changed and we are
the first ones to recognize it. I really pay tribute to our Minister
of Human Resources Development who has demonstrated tre-
843
mendous leadership. As I review the consultation plan that he
has put forward I marvel at the breadth of the program.
If you look closely it is a three pronged approach involving
the standing committee and members of Parliament, as members
of the committee and as representatives of their ridings. It
involves consultations with the provincial and territorial
governments as a second attack. Third, the minister will have a
special task force of non-partisan professionals who have been
dealing with these issues for years to also provide advice.
This three pronged approach will conclude roughly the end of
March and will tie into the government's action plan which will
be the subject of scrutiny until this coming September and then
the parliamentary debate and review later this fall and into next
year which involves the two years that the minister talked about.
This is such a comprehensive set of consultations but it really
bespeaks the kind of government that we are putting in front of
the people, a transparent government, a government willing to
listen to people and the fact that we are having this debate here.
(2040 )
We really are putting a new face to the people of Canada and
giving Canadians a chance to have confidence again in their
government.
The first 100 days of the Liberal government have
demonstrated that we are serious. There will be some mistakes,
no question about it. With due respect to opposition members
when the score is counted at the end of another four or five years
we will be judged well in our efforts to listen to the people and
try to develop programs that make a lot of sense.
Our social safety net is full of holes, unfortunately. Imagine
being a trapeze artist with a safety net below you that had holes
in it. One would not feel too excited about taking that next swing
under the circus tent.
There are young people, seniors and people with families in
this country who are very fearful about those holes in the safety
net. Like most of us, I am not fully aware of all the elements of
our safety net programs.
It really behoves us to look at it all so that we can identify
those holes. I will talk about a few as part of my intervention.
In my riding of Algoma we have a single industry town, Elliot
Lake, which has virtually lost all of its uranium mining. It is now
struggling, struggling valiantly, and doing well to diversify its
economy to take advantage of the beautiful natural resources in
the area along with the tourism and so on.
The neighbouring communities along the north shore are
struggling with the problems that face single industry
communities and areas. The problems that come with major
shutdowns require a certain kind of response from federal,
provincial and local governments.
Those kinds of responses are different than what is required in
other areas of the country like the Manitoulin and north shore
areas of my riding where we have systemic unemployment and
seasonal employment, or seasonal unemployment to look at the
reverse.
Tourism is wonderful but unfortunately until we can expand
our tourism to all four seasons we will end up with seasonal
employment. We have tended over the years to look at
joblessness as one kind of problem. Past governments with all
due respect have tried to deal with this on a piecemeal basis.
I would like to pick out a few of the holes that have crept into
the system. A few years ago in 1985 the previous government
made changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which
changed the application of severance pay as it related to
unemployment insurance.
Severance pay was intended when it was first designed to
allow laid off workers a bit of breathing space while they moved,
retrained or made the necessary adjustments in their families to
deal with being laid off.
Lo and behold, about seven or eight years ago the previous
government changed the definition or the application of
severance pay so that it had to be used up as income. There in
one fell swoop severance pay was changed from an insurance
against loss of employment to simply another form of income
that the government took advantage of.
That was a tremendous problem for laid off workers in Elliot
Lake and other parts of the riding of Algoma. There was a
tremendous hue and cry. That is a major hole in the safety net
that we have to deal with as part of our overall review.
How many of us have met people who have been laid off from
a certain type of industry and are being retrained in another field
for which there is absolutely no prospect of employment. There
are cases in which major industries have shut down in the
community and we retrain people as welders. However, there is
no chance of there ever being employment in any major way for
welders in that community again.
We really have to do a better job of matching the jobs aspect of
our economy and the safety nets aspect of our economy. When
we allow some people on UI to be retrained and others not to be
retrained because some are in this part of the country or have
faced a designated lay off, when we discriminate between one
kind of unemployment and another, then we have problems.
If one is not working, one is not working. It does not really
matter in the long run how one became unemployed. We really
have to be more fair to our workforce, to individual workers.
844
(2045)
The holes in our safety net often leave our seniors behind.
How many poor seniors do we have in our economy? There are
far too many people facing retirement with little prospect of any
kind of comfort in their twilight years. We owe them much more
than that, having really counted on them to build the country. We
really owe them much more than pushing them off and leaving
them to try to survive on limited incomes.
Throughout the campaign last fall I met many young people.
It hit me so graphically that unlike when I went to university
back in the late sixties and early seventies, believe it or not,
young people who are now looking at going to university or
college in the next year or two may face a situation where they
are competing for fewer seats. Our support programs have
withdrawn seats from our post-secondary education
institutions.
When I think back to when I was in high school the fact is that
I could enjoy high school. I could do a reasonable amount of
homework and at the same time prepare for the future socially
and scholastically. I look at these young people now and they are
under so much pressure to get high marks to go to university that
they are almost losing their teen years. When those years are
gone, they are gone. The economy has deprived them of that.
Our social safety nets have yet to respond to the big problem,
the total problem. I do not believe the debate here is necessarily
the place in which to put forward solutions, although many of us
have. I have been quite impressed with the level of debate, but I
point out that there must be a linkage between jobs and the
safety net. We cannot divorce the two. We cannot discuss one in
isolation from the other.
As we look forward with some anticipation to great challenge,
the most valuable attitude we can have toward our future
planning is that of being creative. We must do some lateral
thinking: think about things that perhaps we would not have
thought about before, think about solutions that maybe we
would not have considered five or ten years ago. Now we have to
put everything on the table. We have to consider seriously,
maybe for the first time in our history, where we are going.
I will conclude my remarks by suggesting to the House that
the government was elected fundamentally on its ability to
project hope. I suggest we can build on that hope by building on
the people who make up the country. It is the people who have
jobs. It is the people who fall into the safety net. That is the
common denominator. We would not be here if it were not for
the people.
It boils down to some very simple points. I believe more
members should take the opportunity to share their views and to
share in rebuilding the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the
speech made by the hon. member for Algoma and I join with him
in praising the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra whose
speeches are indeed impeccably thought-out and delivered.
What I appreciated the most about the remarks made by the
hon. member for Algoma was their great sincerity as well as the
fact that they touched upon a great many of the real issues
confronting us. However, there is a point on which I disagree
and that is the three-step consultations that his party is
proposing.
I could introduce the hon. member for Algoma to a fair
number of residents of my riding who do not need lengthy
consultations to tell you what the real issues confronting us are.
As we speak, there are 25,000 people waiting for training in
Quebec, and I would imagine that the situation is the same
elsewhere in Canada. As we know, if you do not have adequate
training, you cannot find a job, so you are unemployed and then
you get health problems and so on. You are locked into this
vicious circle.
I would like the hon. member for Algoma to tell my
constituents, who are probably watching us at this time of day,
and to those in Bloc Quebecois ridings throughout the province,
in what way delaying these three-step consultations further will
help solve the urgent problems facing these 25,000 young
people waiting to be enroled in classes, which the SQDM would
be prepared to arrange immediately but is unable to due to this
government's inaction.
I hope that my colleague from Algoma will be convincing
because I, for one, find this situation extremely difficult.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma has been
invited to address the voters in the riding of the hon. member for
Portneuf.
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and
questions by the member for Portneuf, my good neighbour.
Eight weeks is not very long. Ten years or twenty years is a
long time, but eight weeks is not so long. The first stage of the
consultations will be completed by the end of March. As part of
the consultations I want to have some meetings in various areas
of my riding of Algoma. I suppose I could advertise those right
now while I have the opportunity. There will be more
information on them in the local newspapers in the very near
future.
We want to hear from the unemployed in our communities. If
we attempt to move forward without taking some serious time,
even if it is only eight weeks at this stage, we will make a serious
mistake. Over the last 10 years we saw some pretend consulting.
I say to my good friend, the member for Portneuf, that the next
845
eight weeks we will see a major step forward, what I call the
scoping phase of the consultations. The member may choose to
have consultations in his riding. I suspect he will, even if it
means talking to individual members of his communities.
In those eight weeks the standing committee will start its
work. The minister and his task force will start their work.
Individual members will start their work. The discussions with
the territories and provinces will continue. By September we
should have something on the table for Parliament to discuss,
which is not such a long time. It is very important we take that
time.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 8.52 p.m. the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.52 p.m.)