CONTENTS
Friday, March 3, 1995
Bill C-73. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading. 10309
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10319
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10322
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10322
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10322
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10323
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10323
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10325
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10325
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 10328
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 10328
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 10329
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10336
Motion for concurrence in 65th Report 10338
(Motion agreed to.) 10338
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 10339
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 10339
Bill C-73. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 10340
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee. 10346
Bill C-247. Motion for second reading 10346
10309
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 3, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from March 2 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for
the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1995, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to the budget that was
brought down Monday by the Minister of Finance.
Not that I am particularly pleased with the provisions it
contains, far from it. Nevertheless, I feel it is my duty as a
parliamentarian to engage in a critical analysis of the budgetary
measures proposed by the government and to report on my
conclusions in this House. I admit it was not very difficult to be
critical of a budget I would qualify as insidious and inequitable.
This budget is disappointing in several respects, and perhaps I
may elaborate.
I think that first of all, it can be said that the budget contains
no specific measures for economic recovery and job creation,
which is unusual, to say the least, considering the government's
emphasis on these issues. Need I recall that during the election
campaign in 1993, the Liberal Party promised it would
champion job creation and fight unemployment?
My constituents, Quebecers and Canadians are still waiting
for this vigorous recovery and the jobs promised in the Liberal
Party's red book, which the Prime Minister brandished
repeatedly as a sure fire recipe for prosperity. There is nothing
new in this budget to create jobs and worse, the Liberal
government has, without any compunction, made cuts in the
only sizeable job creation program it managed to come up with
so far, and I am referring to the infrastructure program.
This program was supposed to create nearly 45,000
jobs-temporary jobs-over a period of three years. The budget
intends to cut about $200 million from this program over the
next three years, which will inevitably result in the withdrawal
of equivalent amounts by participating provinces and
municipalities. So altogether, $600 million less will be spent on
job creation over the next three years.
(1005)
What is more, the government is virtually cancelling out the
expected effects of the infrastructure program by laying off
some 45,000 public servants over the next three years. This is
exactly the number of temporary jobs that this program was to
create, before it was announced that the program would be
spread over five years.
Clearly this budget is continuing the practice instituted by the
previous government of going after the unemployed instead of
tackling unemployment itself. For instance, despite a
significant surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, the
government is announcing cuts of 10 per cent in the
unemployment insurance budget. Needless to say the federal
government is on the wrong track if it thinks that this sort of
measure will help find work for the some 800,000 people who
are unemployed and looking for work in Quebec.
While the fight against the deficit is being waged on the backs
of the unemployed and public servants in the government's
budget, and I will definitely come back to this point later on, we
must also recognize that it is being waged at a cost to the
provinces.
With its brief passages in French alluding clearly to the
referendum, the Minister of Finance's speech spoke of the
dynamic and changing nature of Canadian federalism based on
the pseudo decentralization project, which is nothing more than
a hollow promise and a huge operation to dump the federal
deficit into the laps of the provinces. They will have no choice
but to cut public services and increase income or other taxes or
pass the cost on to the municipalities.
Not wanting to spoil its chances in the upcoming referendum,
the federal government is taking great care to put off its sinister
plan to make massive cuts in transfers to the provinces until next
year, that is, until after the referendum. It will be cutting $2.5
billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98. And the $7
billion cuts announced in the 1995 budget will be in addition to
the $48 billion cuts in transfers to the provinces since 1982 and
the $2 billion cuts in the 1994-95 budget.
10310
The worst part of it all is that the provinces will have to
continue to meet the standards defined by Ottawa. Those that
fail to do so will be immediately deprived of what remains of
federal funding, that is an increasingly paltry amount.
Furthermore, this so-called decentralization program will
certainly not eliminate duplication, there will always be two
ministers of health, two ministers of natural resources, of the
environment, of revenue, etc. The alleged project to give more
power to the provinces is hollow, because the federal
government is not withdrawing from areas that come under
provincial jurisdiction in exchange for a share of the taxes we
pay to Ottawa. Is federalism cost effective?
For Quebec in 1996-97, these forecasts represent a reduction
of almost $700 million or 27.1 per cent of the cuts made to all the
provinces. The federal government's way of proceeding in this
regard will obviously have a definite impact on public finances
in Quebec. Deprived of part of its revenues, which I might add
were earmarked for welfare, health and post-secondary
education, the Quebec government will be left no alternative
other than to make drastic cuts in its own spending, not to reduce
its own deficit, but simply to make up for the shortfall due to the
drop in federal transfers. Quebec will obviously not be spared in
the round of cuts planned for 1997-98. In looking at the Martin
budget, the more one reads the more one realizes that it is more
of a curse than a blessing to the people of Quebec.
The same can be said for the federal public service and more
specifically for the Outaouais which feels it has been given an
especially rough ride by the federal budget. The government has
shown itself to be extremely insensitive in announcing the
elimination of 45,000 jobs in the Canadian public service over
three years. Of these 45,000 jobs to be cut during the next three
years, some 14,000 will be in the Hull-Ottawa area, nearly one
third of jobs cut in the whole country. It is easy to see that this
decision would have a direct and very negative impact on the
economy and social life in the area.
Of the cutbacks expected to total $29 billion over the next
three years, the federal government intends to cut nearly $16.9
billion from the management and operations of its programs. So
the federal deficit will to a large extent be reduced on the backs
of federal public servants, especially those in the Outaouais
region.
Even more unacceptable is the fact that the federal
government knowingly made the Outaouais region
economically dependent on it. Seeking to generate in Quebec
and especially in the Outaouais a sense of belonging to Canada,
the federal government began by creating the National Capital
Commission in 1958. Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government,
eager to give concrete proof of French Power as a means of
hampering the sovereignist movement in Quebec, proceeded to
implant a large number of federal government buildings on the
Quebec shore of the Ottawa River in the 1970s. Probably taking
the region for granted, the federal government seems to have no
qualms about leaving the region to fend for itself in the wake of
the disastrous cuts it announced. To repeat the jest made by the
Quebec finance minister, which I feel hit the mark, the federal
government is acting like a guy who gets a girl pregnant and then
takes off.
(1010)
I agree with the Coalition des associations économiques de
l'Outaouais, which is of the opinion that the federal government
must assume responsibility for the region. It must help to absorb
the shock of budgetary decisions on the Outaouais region, just
like it does when there is a shortage of fish in the Atlantic or a
drought in the Western prairies, by giving the region a one-time
payment to be put in a fund for diversifying the region's
economy. Unless I am mistaken, the budget makes no mention
of such a compensation which, by rights, should be paid to the
region. Does the government intend-and I see that the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is responsible for looking
after the region, is sneaking out-does the government intend to
give-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. As we all know, the
rules of the House stipulate that no comment can be made either
about the presence, and most especially about the absence, of
members of the House, in view of all of the various demands and
responsibilities of our positions.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Unless I am
mistaken, the budget makes no mention of this compensation
which, by rights, should be paid to the region. Does the
government intend to make good on the request made by the
Coalition des associations économiques de l'Outaouais? We are
still waiting for an answer, and from what I can gather, we will
not get one today either. Obviously, these massive public service
staffing cuts are underhanded and pernicious, because they were
made unilaterally in an autoritarian way.
In the months leading up to the budget, the government
obstinately refused to reach an agreement with the Public
Service Alliance of Canada, which represents 70 per cent of
federal public servants. This union, however, was ready to
negotiate and to hammer out what could have been a mutual and
fair agreement with the government. No matter, the government
rejected the union's proposal out of hand, not even bothering to
negotiate.
The people are justifiably concerned about the quality of the
services they are entitled to, which will now be provided by a
heavily mortgaged public service. Would it not have been better
for the government, instead of slashing its own public service as
it did, to put in place mechanisms allowing it to stop wasting
Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money?
10311
What does the government do to avoid wasting public funds,
duplication and overlap? Of course, the government did not
take any action to achieve this goal. That is why I strongly
believe that, had it been otherwise, the cuts in the federal public
service could have been less severe.
To get back to the glaring contradictions and questionable
priorities in the federal budget, I note that the Liberal
government has announced a $532 million cut in the
international aid budget. This decision is quite surprising, since
he himself pointed out very recently in his foreign policy
statement that international aid was crucial to meeting three
objectives: prosperity, employment and international security.
Having cut the international aid budget by over 25 per cent,
how can the government claim it is adhering to the principle of
moral responsibility toward international aid for developing
countries, in order to reduce poverty? The fact is, it cannot, Mr.
Speaker.
Furthermore, how can they favour international trade
development, when Canadian businesses are subsidized so that
they are kept artificially dependent on the government? In fact,
these subsidies hurt their competitiveness at the international
level. This leads me to believe that because he did not have the
courage to go further in reducing business subsidies, the
minister will help keep these businesses in an unhealthy state of
dependence that will hurt their development and hinder access
to international markets.
In closing, I would like to say a few words about the budget
measures with respect to agriculture. Clearly, the federal budget
does not affect all farmers across Canada the same way. The
federal government announced the abolition of the $560 million
Crow rate subsidy that helps finance Western grain transport.
(1015)
However, this measure comes with a financial compensation
package in the order of $1.6 billion for losses in land values, as
well as $1 billion in credit guarantees for grain purchases. In
addition, Western farmers affected by the cancellation of the
Crow rate subsidy will receive $300 million over five years to
facilitate the transition. On the other hand, Canadian milk
producers, almost 50 per cent of whom are in Quebec, will see
their federal subsidies cut by 30 per cent over the next two years.
I find it hard to understand the logical basis for compensating
Western farmers for the loss of the Crow rate subsidy, while
industrial milk producers, most of whom live in Quebec, will
not be entitled to any compensation from the federal
government. Is this a case of double standard? I am afraid so.
After crying wolf for several months to prepare the population
for draconian budget measures, the Liberal government finally
gave birth to a budget that is neither flesh, fish, nor fowl, that
defers until later many of the real solutions, and that insidiously
ignores many of its potentially perverse and negative effects.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was really disappointed with the
Bloc's presentation. Perhaps nothing more should be expected
from someone speaking on behalf of a party which has already
made fundamental choices for ideological reasons and is
therefore impervious to the truth.
The truth is that, last year, 433,000 new jobs were created in
Canada. This is actual job creation, not just idle talk. In Quebec,
116,000 jobs. In the National Capital Region, a net total of
16,600 new full time jobs were created in 1994. These are the
facts, not a bunch of unsubstantiated claims like those made by
the previous speaker.
Yesterday, when the hon. member for Verchères said 14,000
public service jobs would be lost in the Outaouais region, he
showed his profound lack of understanding of the region. The
truth is that the total job loss resulting from the budget over a
three year period will be approximately 3,000, not 14,000.
In all of Canada, 45,000 jobs will be cut but this does not mean
people actually losing their jobs because in many cases these
jobs will be filled by other employees reassigned as a result of
the attrition process. I cannot expect the hon. member opposite
to have deep knowledge of government, but I would ask him to
at least stick to the facts and analysis. The truth about the budget
tabled this week is that it is the only way to promote job creation
in the long term.
When the hon. member says that this budget will result in the
loss of a few thousand jobs throughout the National Capital
Region, he makes it sound like job creation would necessarily
ensue if the deficit in the federal budget were allowed to
continue to build up. If that were true, Canada would have
achieved full employment a long time ago, given its
accumulated deficits.
The truth is that this is the only way to avoid hitting the wall
like New Zealand did. In just a few months, New Zealand had to
cut its public service by two thirds, not a mere 14 per cent like
us. Our public service will continue to operate with 86 per cent
of its employees in three years. Because New Zealand acted
along the lines of what the hon. member opposite recommends,
it had to cut its public service by two thirds. These are historical
facts, not empty words like those spoken by the hon. member.
By shrinking the size of the federal government, which was
long overdue, by forcing ourselves to streamline and downsize
government, we are ensuring that the 1994 job creation effort
can continue.
10312
(1020)
If we had carried on with the deficit that we had, the rise in
interest rates would very quickly have prevented investments in
the private sector, thereby also preventing the creation of jobs.
What we did was to foster the economic climate which will
promote investments and new jobs in the private sector.
The member opposite has no idea of what is going on in the
Outaouais, which is my region, when he says that the federal
government is keeping it in a state of dependency. If you look at
the 1971 census figures, you will see that, back then, one third of
all the jobs for our region were in the public service. By
comparison, last year only one fifth of the jobs in the Outaouais
were in the public service.
In other words, 80 per cent of the jobs in our region are not in
the public service. In the national capital region, there are more
jobs in the service sector than in the federal government. It is
based on that necessary economic diversification that our
government developed a plan for the region which will allow the
private sector to create jobs that are needed and that will reduce
the excessive burden on taxpayers, since the federal public
service had become too big.
I have a question for the member opposite regarding dairy
producers. Quebec provides 48 per cent of the milk production
in Canada and it exports that production elsewhere in the
country. Should the province separate, where would it sell its
milk, which costs two to three times more than the milk which
we could get from the United States? It goes without saying that
the rest of Canada would buy its milk at a cheaper price.
Quebec's separation would totally destroy its dairy industry.
While the federal government adjusts prices at the national level
over a certain period of time, the member opposite wants to
destroy the dairy industry in Quebec.
As regards public servants, the actual number is 3,000 for the
Outaouais, taking into account the five provincial and three
federal ridings. We are told that Quebec would absorb the
federal public servants, there are 50,000 of them, plus the other
50,000 public servants they already have. They put the 3,000
public servants from the Outaouais and the 100,000 for all of
Quebec in the same boat. These people would want us to believe
that they will absorb all these public servants, a measure which
would cost them $4.4 billion.
Given the analysis made by the hon. member, my question is
this: Does he know Quebec sufficiently well to hope to create a
better future than the one that we, federalists, have found to be
adequate for over 125 years?
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with the
minister's somewhat sweeping statements. When he says that
more than 400,000 jobs were created across Canada, when he
says that thousands of jobs were created in Quebec, he implies
that it was all thanks to the federal government.
Last year, the federal government did not set up a single job
creation program, with the exception of the infrastructures
program, which is a program of temporary jobs. The
government is just riding the wave of economic recovery. Jobs
are being created and it says: Look at that, we created those jobs.
This is entirely misleading. The federal government had nothing
to do with it, and I think it is rather absurd that the minister
should go around bragging that they created those jobs.
The government planned to create 45,000 temporary jobs
through the infrastructures program and then turns around and
cuts 45,000 jobs in the Public Service. I heard the minister say
that only 3,000 jobs would be lost in the Outaouais. I hope he is
right. We are going to keep tabs on those figures and the region
will as well. We can only hope the cuts will not go over 3,000.
However, that does not deal with the real problem. The
minister says he knows the Outaouais area well, but if he took a
more active part in the activities of the Commission on the
future of Quebec in this area, he would realize that his
knowledge of the Outaouais is partisan and incomplete, since a
number of people who appeared before this commission kept
telling us-these are not my words-that the region's economy
was dependent on the federal government.
The minister quoted some figures just now. He said that, at
one time, one of every three jobs in the Outaouais was in the
federal public service. It is now one out of five. With the cuts
being made by the government, it may go eventually down to
one out of ten. My point is that considering the economic
dependence the federal government has artificially created in
the Outaouais, is the federal government-and the minister did
not answer this question-is the federal government prepared to
offer financial compensation by investing in an economic
diversification fund, to compensate for the number of jobs lost
in the public service? To get back to the notorious question, if I
can call it that, because it is more like, I will not use the word
misleading, but a very-
(1025)
An hon. member: Very pernicious.
Mr. Bergeron: -pernicious, thank you, a very pernicious
statement that sovereignty would destroy Quebec's dairy
industry. First of all, I want to say that I am dismayed at the
minister's lack of confidence in Quebec's dairy industry, and
furthermore, the minister ought to know that the milk produced
in Quebec is probably the best quality milk in North America.
There are no two ways about it. It is the best. No doubt about
that. If you want to buy a quality product, no problem. Milk from
Quebec can meet the highest standards in the world.
10313
That being said, this can work both ways, since in Quebec
we eat a lot of beef from Western Canada, which is probably
more expensive than beef we could buy elsewhere. In the event
of a sovereign Quebec, if the market dries up for Quebec dairy
producers, we will buy our beef elsewhere. Business is
business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! Before we
proceed, I must inform the House that at the beginning of
today's sitting, we forgot to inform the House of the absence of
the Speaker. I therefore order the clerk to make the appropriate
entry in the Votes and Proceedings. Resuming debate. The
minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate. This is
a budget of very strong measures, because this is what it takes to
break the deficit's hold on our policies. This budget contains the
most draconian measures taken by a government in 50 years.
[English]
The budget achieves our deficit goal without increasing
personal income tax rates. For the second year in a row the
government has refused to reduce the deficit on the backs of
individual Canadians.
I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to explain
the process and significance of the program review, one of the
core elements of the budget.
Last September in Quebec City the Prime Minister outlined
the four key elements of the government's jobs and growth
agenda. This week hon. members have witnessed with the
unveiling of the 1995-96 budget the details of one of those
fundamental elements, the program review.
Last year the Prime Minister asked me to lead, in
co-operation with my cabinet colleagues, the most fundamental
review of government operations in two generations. The review
was meant to be and was an exhaustive examination like none
ever undertaken before of every government program and
service, with a view to getting government back to basics and
focusing on the priorities of Canadians.
I worked closely with my colleagues and I want to take this
opportunity to congratulate them once again for their
commitment to the exercise designed to get government right.
Unlike previous governments we listened to Canadians and
the result we have seen in the budget tabled by my hon.
colleague, the Minister of Finance, demonstrates that we have
the courage to set the country on a new, much more secure
course.
I believe the Canadian people will agree that the budget and
the program review results are ushering in a new approach to
government.
(1030 )
It will be a dramatically changed national government. It will
be a government that is getting back to basics, a government that
reflects the priorities of average Canadians, a government that is
affordable, a government that protects the most vulnerable, and
a government that responds to the true needs of Canadians.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister detailed our intentions last September
before the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce saying that
control over the size and cost of government was vital to
economic growth and job creation. It was in this perspective that
the program review was developed and became one of the basic
components of the budget.
This review will enable the federal government to focus on its
major priorities, to return to basics while enabling it to reduce
its expenditures in an orderly fashion. The review was guided by
three objectives.
First, to strengthen public administration of federal programs
and services; efforts in this regard will lead to a smaller but
more efficient federal administration, which will provide the
programs Canadians consider important. Secondly, to help
modernize Canadian federalism; the government should provide
only those programs and services it is best suited to provide.
Thirdly, to help the government attain its financial objectives.
This involved, therefore, totally rethinking what government
did and what Canadians could allow themselves. In the future,
departments will have to drop all but fundamental
responsibilities. They are amalgamating like programs and
services found within a department or spread among several
departments. They are eliminating job duplication and costly
overlap. They are reducing the operating costs of programs
through new approaches, while raising standards of service.
They are funding necessary programs through cost recovery and
user fees.
It must be stressed that the aim of the program review was not
to identify or make cuts solely in response to financial needs. On
the contrary, we asked each minister to review their programs
and activities according to six criteria.
First, public interest: Does the program or activity continue to
serve the public? Second, the role of government: Is it necessary
or legitimate for the government to be involved in the area of the
program or activity? Third, federalism: Is the present role of
government appropriate, or should consideration be given to
transferring it to the provinces? Fourth, partnership: What
programs or activities could be transferred wholly or in part to
the private or volunteer sectors? Fifth, efficiency: How could
the efficiency of the program or activity be improved? Finally,
10314
financial capability: In financial terms, can we afford all of the
resulting programs and activities?
[English]
I can briefly summarize at this point that we undertook an
unprecedented review of government activities because this
government believes first and foremost it is crucial that we get
our own house in order. As we have seen, this budget focused on
cutting spending, not on raising taxes. Second, we began from
the premise that the priorities of the government must reflect the
priorities of Canadians. We did not want a blind slash and burn
exercise.
The approach we took in our program review was guided by
three fundamentals: one, its fundamental objective to sustain
growth and job creation; two, its fundamental challenge to get
the economy right; and three, its fundamental requirement to
refocus government on priority roles.
(1035 )
Program review encompassed about $52 billion worth of
government spending. The result is that over the next three years
program spending will decline by almost 19 per cent, more than
$16 billion. Some departments will see their spending cut in
half.
The Department of Transport over three years will be cut by
50 per cent. The Department of Natural Resources over the same
three years will be cut by 49.8 per cent. The public service will
be reduced by 14 per cent, 45,000 positions over three years.
Program review will lead to long lasting structural change in
what the government does. These are not, as my hon. colleague
the Minister of Finance stated Monday, the phoney cuts we saw
so often in the past, measures that pretended to define a slower
rate of increase in spending as actual cuts.
The cuts in this budget are real cuts in real dollars. They were
accomplished by refocusing government programs on basics,
eliminating overlap and duplication, improving the efficiency
of our operations and shifting market interventions away from
direct subsidies. Let me give some examples.
In the past, agricultural subsidies have been tied to specific
commodities which resulted in a large number of programs. The
emphasis will now shift from income support to income
stabilization.
Fisheries and oceans will focus its resources on science and
regulation to ensure conservation and sustainable fish stocks.
We will discuss with the provinces the possibility of eventual
devolution of freshwater fisheries management.
Finally, assistance to business will be considerably reduced.
Assistance will shift to repayable loans.
In many departments there will be fundamental change in how
programs and services are delivered. For example, an
immigration fee will be charged to newcomers and sponsors will
have to provide financial guarantees.
Environment Canada will concentrate more on science and
policy and finding new ways to deliver services. Environmental
protection remains a priority in order to ensure the health and
safety of Canadians. Pollution prevention will become a priority
in partnership with the provinces, territories and industries.
[Translation]
A large number of specific measures are based on a common
philosophy and foundation.
For example, we have taken important measures in this
budget to substantially reduce business subsidies offered under
all government programs. Subsidies will be reduced by close to
60 per cent over a three year period. Some programs will be
discontinued or drastically reduced. For example, we will be
eliminating the transportation subsidies offered under the
Western Grain Transportation Act, the Atlantic Region Freight
Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
Some programs will be restructured or merged, for example,
regional development organizations will be more geared to the
needs of small and medium size businesses. Some activities will
be transferred to other public administrations. For example,
several responsibilities concerning inland waters will be turned
over to the provinces; recreational harbours will be divested to
municipalities; the forestry and mining development
agreements with the provinces will be revoked, since the
provinces have indicated that development of these resources
falls under their jurisdiction; the operation of airports will be
transferred to local authorities.
Some activities will be commercialized or privatized: the
remainder of the government's share in Cameco and
Petro-Canada, Canadian National, the Air Navigation System,
Canada Communication Group. Cost recovery and user fees will
be implemented for some services.
(1040)
Treasury Board will put in place a new spending management
system which will improve the management of public funds.
[English]
The program review has allowed us to put our house in order
in order to tackle the challenges of the next century. It
fundamentally changes not only what we do but how we do it.
The program review allows us to restore fiscal health to the
nation's
10315
finances and also to make necessary spending reductions in an
orderly way. The program review actions in the budget only start
what will be an ongoing process of reform and renewal of the
federal government.
Clearly, as announced in the budget, these results will have a
major impact on the public service. All regions of the country
are affected by the cutbacks and reductions. This is no less true
for the national capital region. I want to say that as the Minister
responsible for Public Service Renewal and as a member of
Parliament in the national capital region, I am particularly and
acutely aware of the difficult period many public servants across
the country are going through at this time.
The departure of employees who over the years have
demonstrated loyalty, professionalism and dedication is the
most painful part of any restructuring process. Decisions that
affect people's livelihood are the most difficult to make.
Departures are never easy. Let me reiterate this government's
commitment to deal with employees in the fairest and most
sensitive way possible. We will continue to work with the unions
and local governments to ease the transition. We hope to keep
layoffs and the number of employees on unpaid surplus status to
an absolute minimum.
Some individuals will be accommodated through normal
attrition. Some will take advantage of the departure and early
retirement incentives announced by the President of the
Treasury Board. Some individuals will transfer to the private
sector as some operations are being privatized. Others will find
work in the private sector. No doubt there will be a period of
change and uncertainty as we move to what I firmly believe will
be a revitalized public service in the coming years.
[Translation]
I deplore the fact that the representative for the Outaouais
region, Mr. Blais, and some members of the opposition are
misleading the local population and are creating more
uncertainty. They are proclaiming that the budget cuts 14,000
public service jobs in the Outaouais region.
In fact, the total number of jobs that will be affected in all of
the national capital region, on both sides of the river, will be
12,000 to 13,000 over the next three years. This means,
therefore, that the real number of public servants in the
Outaouais region that will be affected is more like 3,000. I
cannot accuse them of telling untruths, since the difference
between their current claims and the true figures is only one job
to five, which is about par for them.
I am happy that regional players, including Hull mayor
Ducharme and Outaouais urban community president Croteau,
have taken a clear, credible and realistic stand on this budget.
With the various measures I mentioned and the co-operation
of the private sector and all economic stakeholders in the region,
we will manage to minimize job losses while at the same time
diversifying the region's economy.
As the member of Parliament representing Hull-Aylmer, I
have had the privilege of rubbing elbows with people of this
area. I was able to observe how imaginative they are and how
enthusiastically they tackle new challenges. I want to salute
their courage in these tough times.
The budget is further proof of the flexibility of federalism; it
is not stuck in status quo. The budget stresses our commitment
to provide the people with good government in Canada. And this
entails the challenge of bringing the deficit down and
streamlining government. As part of our commitment, no region
will be receiving preferential treatment nor be subjected to more
cuts than the others.
(1045)
The new Canadian social transfer combines into one
lump-sum transfer three formerly separate transfers, thereby
lightening the administrative burden of the provinces. This
transfer will ensure maximum flexibility in developing
provincial programs suited to the needs of the regions. The new
lump-sum transfer limits the restraint the federal government
can impose in exclusive provincial jurisdictions.
This new and more flexible formula does not affect the quality
of services provided to Canadians.
The terms and conditions set out in the Canada Health Act will
be maintained and the provinces will have to abide by the
provisions of the act with respect to health care.
At the same time, we remain committed to fiscal equalization,
one of the cornerstones of the Canadian federal system, through
which Quebec receives nearly $4 billion per year.
The budget marks the beginning of a new era, an era in which
the federation will be managed differently. Management will be
simpler, more efficient and, yes, more sensitive to provincial
jurisdictions. The budget give provincial governments full
scope to meet the needs of the people.
The budget is convincing evidence of the fact that the federal
system is a progressive, co-operative and dynamic system. Less
than a year and a half into this Parliament, we have already
tabled two budgets to substantially reduce public expenditures,
something Ontario and Quebec will also have to do. We also
restructured government organization. The measures outlined in
this budget are the most stringent federal measures in fifty
years.
[English]
We have abandoned the across the board cuts used by previous
governments which proved to be counterproductive and
ineffec-
10316
tive. This budget is a rational way to bring the size and structure
of government into line with our needs.
We agree with Canadians that a balanced budget is the goal
and we will get there by setting realistic and achievable targets.
This budget leads by example. We are cutting government first.
We believe this budget truly marks the beginning of a new era.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening to budget speeches for at least 30 years. Except
for a brief 8-year period of Conservative government, the
Liberals were in office for most of those 30 years. I have yet to
see a Minister of Finance table a budget in this House and say
that it is not a good one. All were guided by the same concern for
fairness and justice. Not one of those ministers said that what he
was proposing was not good. What I do not understand is that,
after 30 years of good budgets, the end result is bad.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Lebel: I was never able to understand that equation: the
sum total of the good is a negative figure. And right now that
figure is almost $600 billion. The Minister of Finance tells us
that all those who were here before him were in the wrong and
that what they suggested made no sense. He adds that his budget
is a real one and a good one. Sure. However, one the
predecessors of the finance minister is the current Prime
Minister, who also contributed to the growth of the deficit.
The minister just told us that there are people in the national
capital region, in Ottawa-Hull, who are happy about the cuts
made in the public service. The minister more or less acted the
way he did with Saint-Jean. He eliminated 400 jobs and, at the
very last minute, he managed to save 20 and claim that it was a
miracle on his part. Let the minister bring those Hull and Aylmer
residents and ask them in front of us whether they agree with the
loss of 45,000 jobs in the public service. Let me give you an
example. At the taxation data centre, in Saint-Hubert, there is a
6-month backlog to process the returns of businesses
conducting R & D.
(1050)
Currently, there are businesses on the verge of experiencing
major financial problems because they are not receiving their
due from the federal government. The public servants cannot
process their claim. And the minister would want us to believe
that the budget tabled on Monday is the greatest thing since
sliced bread. I do not believe that and let me tell you something
else. Next year, the minister will once again say: ``The others
before me, including myself, did not do well. However, I know
what I am doing this time''.
The minister should explain certain things. I remember one
month when the unemployment rate dropped one tenth of one
per cent. The Minister of Finance was elated. The economy was
picking up and everybody was happy. The following month,
economic activity rose by one per cent. Now, that was even
better; things were really looking up. But I simply cannot
understand these people. How did the minister manage to fool
Outaouais residents and make them accept the elimination of
45,000 jobs, when in fact such a loss is a terrible thing. I would
appreciate an answer from the minister.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that opposition
members have asked me these questions, because they will give
me the opportunity to set the record straight. Over the years,
Canadian budgets may have resulted in a large deficit but, at the
same time, they have produced what the UN calls the best
country in the world, with one of the highest rates of income per
capita in the world, a country that enjoys considerable peace and
harmony compared with other nations, a country where life is
good and incomes are high. That is what successive Canadian
budgets have given us.
During the quiet revolution that took place in Quebec in the
sixties, we as Quebecers managed to change our structures,
values and policies within the federation as it was back then.
This gave us the country we now have and want to keep, because
it served us well. Speaking of the last budget, 433,000 jobs were
created in 1994, including 116,000 in Quebec. What are the
factors involved in creating jobs in a country?
Most jobs are not created directly by governments, whether it
is Ontario, Quebec or the federal government. However,
government policies produce a climate allowing the private
sector to create jobs. Clearly, the confidence generated and the
policies adopted by the Liberal government last year allowed the
economy to create over 400,000 jobs, including more than
100,000 in Quebec. That is what our government has
accomplished.
I am so pleased that the hon. member has brought up the
matter of Saint-Jean, a community where we had reached with
the former Liberal government in Quebec an agreement that the
local population found acceptable, which would have kept the
college open and continued to create jobs, which was, in fact, a
hope for the future. When the new government, of which our
Bloc colleagues, under the direction of their leader, are a mere
extension, arrived on the scene, it decided, for its own
ideological reasons, that it wanted no part of any agreement.
These ideological reasons were disclosed by a minister, who has
kept a pretty low profile since then.
In one month, we met with local representatives who know
that the region needs the college and whose goal is not to
promote their ideology but to create jobs and generate economic
activity in the region. We agreed with these people to keep the
college open and maintain the core that will eventually become a
10317
dynamic institution that will continue to benefit the region. I am
still very proud of what we did in Saint-Jean, despite the Parti
Quebecois government and its ideology.
(1055)
Third, I was asked if people in Hull agree. In fact, people in
Hull think about what is happening in their community. They
know how to evaluate the role of government, how to use it and
how to enjoy one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of
the highest rates of income in Quebec. They have voted Liberal
for decades because they know which party has best served their
economic, political and social interests.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election the Reform Party ran in many
ridings where civil servants would be affected by layoffs. The
Reform Party was very honest and said we do have to downsize
government. There will be some changes.
The Liberal Party ran against us in those ridings and said:
``That brutal Reform Party. We would never do that. The poor
civil servants. We would protect their jobs''. The word that
comes to mind is hypocrisy.
The minister is going to downsize his department. He is
quoted in the Ottawa Sun this morning as saying that job cuts
based on race or sex are illegal according to the charter of rights.
He says that the department recognizes the need for
employment equity, respecting the various proportions that
exist now and if possible will increase them.
Is the minister going to use this downsizing of the government
to try and bring in some form of equity balancing, or is he going
to do it by merit the way the laws of the land say he has to do it?
The article suggests that he is asking the department how it is
going to do it. Who is in charge? Is it the minister or is it the
bureaucrats? I would like to hear his answer.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, once again these are questions I am
glad to answer. In my own campaign in Hull and Aylmer I
indicated-the speeches and the transcripts are there for you
see-the government would have to be downsized.
I was criticized by part of the electorate but in the end this was
not hypocritical, this was the truth. It was told government had
to downsize. Knowing the truth, it elected me with more than 53
per cent of the vote in the area. It knew what it was facing and
agreed this had to be done.
On the second question, we have here two objectives that have
to be realized. The first one is that equity in its largest sense has
to be satisfied. There is no doubt that we have to apply equity
when we do any move in government, including restructuring
government.
However, it is quite clear, and this is what I indicated to the
Sun yesterday, when we make an exercise like that in a
government, the managers who have the responsibility to
manage that department will make the choices according to
merit and ability that will keep with them the best civil servants.
There is no doubt also that whatever the categories of people,
by sex or creed or colour, merit is distributed very equally in the
population and that heads of personnel will come to a result that
I am sure will conform to the principles of equity.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 11.00 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
10317
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a safe and efficient transportation system is extremely
important to all Canadians regardless of the mode of travel.
A proper transportation system will allow our citizens to
travel safely and efficiently while providing the tools to enable
our goods to reach our various markets.
As our markets become increasingly global, we will depend
more and more on transportation systems to stay competitive
both in price and delivery. In Atlantic Canada particularly we
need a modern highway system that is both safe and efficient in
order to compete in the North American market.
I encourage the hon. Minister of Transport and our
government to continue to work with the provincial transport
ministers to develop a transportation policy that will meet the
needs of Canadians today and for the future.
* * *
(1100)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
February the member for Longueuil reported on an
advertisement by the Canadian embassy in Poland for potential
immigrants from that country to Canada. The ad stated that
Polish people would only be required to know English to
immigrate to Canada.
10318
Now, the Canadian embassy in Portugal is guilty of the same
thing. The Canadian Embassy placed an ad in the Lisbon
newspaper Expresso to inform potential immigrants to Canada
of the conditions for admission. Although it states that
knowledge of French and English would be considered an asset
in applying to immigrate to Canada, this ad was written
exclusively in English.
Here is another significant example illustrating that Quebec
should have exclusive jurisdiction over international relations.
Quebec should be able to project internationally a true image of
its identity and of the reality in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to pay tribute
to two of my constituents: Ivan Traill and Velda Bradley of
Neepawa, Manitoba.
Ivan was awarded the Community Service Award. This
former school principal started the student exchange program
and the Fulford ski trail and worked on both the 1976 and 1992
summer games. He served on the elder hostel program and on
the building committee for the Neepawa United Church. Ivan
also helped bring cable television to Neepawa and is very active
with the local access channel 12.
Velda received the Citizen of the Year Award. She is well
known for her pastoral work throughout St. Dominic's Roman
Catholic Church and very active in the Neepawa Ministerial
Association.
Both these individuals deserve congratulations for their
efforts. They have shown that one of the greatest rewards a
person can achieve comes with the satisfaction of helping
others.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate Canadian author Carol
Shields for the award she has just won.
[English]
Last week the U.S. National Book Critics Circle awarded its
1994 fiction prize to this author for her most recent work
entitled The Stone Diaries.
The Stone Diaries is a warm, witty story of a fictitious
Canadian woman's life. This work has attained both national
and international recognition. It was awarded the Governor
General's Award for English language fiction in 1993, the
McNally Robinson Award for Manitoba Book of the Year and
was short listed for Britain's prestigious Booker Prize.
[Translation]
Carol Shields was also chosen author of the year by the
Canadian Booksellers' Association. A native of Winnipeg, Mrs.
Shields also holds numerous literary prizes for her other works.
[English]
She will be presented with the award on March 23 in New
York.
[Translation]
My colleagues join me in congratulating Carol Shields once
again and in encouraging her in her literary pursuits.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week men and women around the world are celebrating
International Women's Week. On this occasion, I would like to
emphasize the important social contribution made by women
internationally and praise their many successes.
[English]
Status of Women Canada has selected ``Creating a World of
Equality'' as this year's theme.
Internationally Canada has been a leader with respect to the
advancement of women's rights and the empowerment of
women in developing nations. Nationally Canada has made
great strides in this area.
[Translation]
The fact remains however that we all, men and women, have
much more to accomplish in this regard. As a Liberal member of
Parliament and father of three young women, this week is
especially meaningful to me. I remain full of hope that my
daughters and young women everywhere will live in a world
which will allow them to achieve their full potential, where
``Creating a World of Equality'' is becoming an increasingly
important guiding principle.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to voice my objection to today's court hearing of the
CBC's application to televise the trial of Paul Bernardo.
10319
(1105 )
As the member of Parliament for Burlington, a riding that has
been greatly affected by the crimes Mr. Bernardo is accused of
committing, I believe that justice would be better served without
the glare of television cameras.
I question why the CBC would apply to televise this case. Is it
possible the corporation believes that Canadians wish to
emulate the U.S. system with its phantasmagoric coverage of
trials like that of O. J. Simpson? I say it is wrong.
Canadian courts are open and accessible. Individual
Canadians interested in knowing more about our court system
can attend all the various levels and can watch televised
Supreme Court of Canada trials where witnesses are not heard.
It is not worth experimenting in this case. We cannot afford to
take risks, intimidate witnesses and exacerbate the Mahaffey
and French families' pain. Justice must be served. The trial must
run smoothly. The trial should not be televised.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Robert Young, a respected political scientist from the University
of Western Ontario, has stated that Canada would engage in
negotiations with Quebec soon after a ``yes'' in the referendum.
Contrary to some recent studies which predict chaos and
certain doom after a victory for the ``yes'' side in the
referendum, the scenario described in Mr. Young's book is based
to a greater extent on a deep respect for the most rudimentary
principles of democracy. The political scientist does not hesitate
in the least in stating that Canada would accept the decision of
Quebecers and swiftly recognize the new country.
In spite of the federalist strategy intended to strike fear into
the hearts of Quebecers, experts on Canadian politics are for
their part now making their views known: Canada would in its
own interest respect the choice made by Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to draw the attention of the
House to the visitors' gallery where His Worship, the Mayor of
Oliver, British Columbia, Rick Wilson, is watching the
proceedings today. As well, 20 members of the British Columbia
cross-country ski team are in the area to compete in the
Canadian junior cross-country ski championship being held at
Camp Fortune.
I would like to give special mention to some of the team
members. The first is Tara Moran who won a silver medal in the
five-kilometre classic technique at the recent Canada Winter
Games and another silver medal yesterday at the Canadian
cross-country ski championship. I would also like to
congratulate Gavin Murdoch and Chad Bergen who won silver
medals yesterday as well.
Competitions like this one serve all Canadians. Aside from
having the opportunity to hone athletic skills, the competitors
foster national unity and understanding by bringing Canadians
together from all parts of the country.
On behalf of all members of Parliament, I welcome the British
Columbia visitors to the nation's capital and wish the
cross-country ski team continued success.
* * *
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
provincial premiers whining about the federal budget is
exceeded only by their inability to do simple math.
In Ontario it is a favourite pastime for Bob Rae to blame
Ottawa for Ontario's economic woes. In his effort to get his
pre-election posturing in an upright position, the Ontario silver
spoon socialist continues to pout.
Where was Bob Rae when the federal government increased
its education and health transfers to Ontario by 26 per cent
between 1990 and 1994? He was shirking his responsibility by
only increasing his provincial programs by 17 per cent, a full 9
per cent less than the federal government transferred to Ontario.
Bob Rae's outstanding contributions to Ontario are doubling
the debt to over $90 billion, downgrading Ontario's credit rating
three times and running annual deficits of over $10 billion.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to join Bethune Memorial House in
celebrating the birthday of Dr. Norman Bethune, born in my
home town of Gravenhurst on March 3, 1890.
Dr. Bethune was a medical pioneer known in North America
for tubercular research, in Spain for the first mobile blood
service, and in China for building hospitals, training nurses and
doctors, and treating the wounded.
His life was declared to be of national historical significance
in this country in August 1972. His birth home was purchased
and turned over to the Canadian parks service, which restored it
as an interpretive memorial. The house has been open since
10320
1976 to visitors from around the world, especially China where
Dr. Bethune's humanitarian works were considered heroic.
(1110)
On March 3, in conjunction with Frontier College, the
Gravenhurst Public Library and Muskoka Literacy Council,
Bethune Memorial House hosts a celebration of reading with
story telling in honour of Dr. Bethune.
I wish all participants well as we celebrate Dr. Bethune's
birthday.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
important for me to bring to the attention of the House that
March 6 to March 11 is Vision Awareness Week in Canada. This
year's theme is ``Hope is in sight: good vision and literacy, there
is a clear connection''.
It is a sad fact that many Canadians cannot read well simply
because they cannot see well. One in six children has a vision
problem that makes learning and reading difficult. If our
children cannot focus on the chalkboard or on words in a book,
how can we expect them to learn to read?
This problem is not unique to children. Three-quarters of
adults with poor literacy skills also have problems with their
vision.
The difficulty is that not all vision problems are easily
detected. We know the earlier problems are detected and
corrected, the faster we can get children and adults alike on the
reading track and the faster they will be literate.
Awareness is the key. I ask my colleagues to join me and 2,800
optometrists in reminding Canadians-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
income security minister Jeanne Blackburn yesterday
denounced in no uncertain terms the federal government's
withdrawal of funding for provincial welfare, education and
health programs. In spite of the $7 billion lost over three years
due to federal cuts, the government of Quebec will still have to
provide assistance to 240,000 children whose parents have
turned to welfare as a last resort.
Like a blind executioner with an axe in hand, the federal
government is hacking away at social programs without
realizing the impact these cuts have on people. With a single
stroke of the pen, Ottawa is forcing the Quebec government to
make painful choices among social services without so much as
suffering the terrible consequences of its decisions.
It is high time for Quebecers to protect themselves from such
unilateral cuts. The only solution available to us is to repatriate
the taxes we pay to Ottawa and then decide among ourselves
how much of the joint assets we shall share.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development has fumbled the
ball on his plan to reform the child care system in Canada.
Various child care programs cost over $8 billion per year, yet
many still live in poverty and our courts are filled with charter
challenges by families fighting the discriminatory nature of
government policy.
My private member's Bill C-247 provides for a
straightforward tax deduction per child to any taxpaying parent,
regardless of the method of child care chosen or marital status.
By empowering people to take more responsibility for
themselves, the bill will give them tax free money to do so.
In the social reforms paper the minister addressed day care
spaces and flexible work arrangements for parents but said
nothing about current taxation inequities, charter challenges or
stay at home parenting. ``Such a move'', he said, ``would have
been too racy'', with which I am sure the member opposite
would probably agree. I fail to see what is so racy to the member
for Halifax about a tax break for overburdened parents.
It is obvious that someone with a different agenda-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian freshwater fishery has an important
role to play in the economy of the country, in particular the
economies of the northern regions of the provinces.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has
completed a much needed review of the operations of the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and has made
recommendations to the minister of fisheries.
Those recommendations go too far according to reports I have
received from groups involved in the fishery in Saskatchewan
concerned about the future of the industry and therefore the
future of those regional economies.
Changes can and must be made to the freshwater fishery that
will improve participation, opportunity and income for the
people involved.
10321
The minister of fisheries has received a request for a meeting
with Saskatchewan fisheries groups. To ensure a complete
understanding of this important issue from the perspective of
those involved in the fishery and the communities dependent
upon the freshwater fishery, I urge the minister to accept that
invitation and meet with them as soon as possible.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, March 6 to March 10 is International Women's
Week, a time set aside to honour the contributions of women in
our society.
(1115 )
My riding of Cumberland-Colchester is replete with women
who have made outstanding contributions, not only in their
communities but in Canada and the world beyond.
The Colchester Historical Society in its recent edition of
Colchester Women has recognized the contributions made by
outstanding leaders like Abbie Gray, Dr. Janet Baker, Rev.
Wilena Brown, and Dr. Annie Dickson. The legacy of such
women is an inspiration to those who follow in their footsteps.
Studies indicate that the higher the education of the mother of
the family, the more likely the success of the children. As we
head into International Women's Week, I encourage women
everywhere to build the future of this country by striving to
attain their educational goals. The hand that rocks the cradle is
truly the hand that rules the world.
_____________________________________________
10321
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, over the past decade, individuals have been called upon
to assume a heavier tax load than corporations. This week's
budget perpetuates this state of affairs by imposing a higher
increase in taxes on the middle class than on corporations, in
particular through increased excise taxes on gasoline. In 1995,
individuals will pay four times more income tax than
corporations.
My question is for the acting prime minister. Will the acting
prime minister acknowledge that the budget calls upon
individuals to assume a heavier tax burden than businesses,
since 65 per cent of all of the income tax increases it contains
will hit individuals?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon.
member has so misinterpreted the budget. We are very proud of
the fact that this budget has absolutely no increase in personal
income tax rates.
We have taken several steps to increase the contribution from
the corporate side to the basic revenue structure of this country.
We have made changes in the large corporate income tax rate.
We have made changes in taxation with the banks. For the first
time, given also the increase in profits in the private sector, I
think we will find there is a tremendous shift to the corporate
side away from the average family.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that was exactly what I was talking about. How can the
parliamentary secretary talk about a fair budget when we know
that the only additional effort being required of banks and
financial institutions is a temporary tax of some $100 million
staggered over two years, although the combined profits of the
six biggest banks were $4.3 billion last year alone? When is the
government going to impose a real minimum tax on the earnings
of profitable large corporations?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is making every
effort to make sure the banking industry and the financial
institutions pay their fair share.
A number of measures that were first introduced last year
have been reinforced this year. The tax structure is not
temporary but permanent. These institutions will be paying their
fair share. We will insist upon it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance himself talked about
implementing a minimum tax on the profits of corporations
during the last election campaign.
Considering the finance department's commitment to closing
tax loopholes and creating a fair budget, how can the
parliamentary secretary justify that the 1995 budget does not
touch tax havens, nor does it touch flags of convenience, which
allow rich taxpayers and large corporations to avoid paying their
fair share of tax, or that the budget does not tighten up family
trust rules until 1999?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in rapid succession the member
has been able to misinterpret about three different measures in
the last budget.
First, starting with the capital base of corporations, we have a
tax structure now which eliminates many of the loopholes
whereby corporations managed to escape taxes on the income
side. Second, we did not sign any tax treaty with any country
which provides for a tax haven. It is just the opposite. We ensure
10322
taxes are collected from Canadians and Canadian businesses
doing business overseas. Third, measures involved with the
family trust take place immediately. The other ones on the
capital tax side take place in 1999.
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
getting themselves elected on a promise to create jobs and
restore hope, the Liberals have literally broken their promises in
the 1995 budget and, like the Tories, they feel that the
unemployment problem will only be solved by eliminating the
deficit. There are no jobs in the finance minister's two small
clouds.
Since we still need over 800,000 jobs in Canada to reach the
pre-recession employment rate, how can the Acting Prime
Minister justify the total lack of active job creation measures in
the budget?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the opposition has
misinterpreted the budget. We announced measures starting last
year with the infrastructure program.
We have been very aggressive in creating jobs. With the better
climate we have provided in Canada over 443,000 jobs have
been created. I am sure the hon. member would like to read the
red book more carefully than he has in the past. On page 16 and
again on page 19 we emphasized the double track our new
government had to take. That is to say, we had to create jobs and
reaffirm our commitment to Canadians and at the same time we
had to begin the deficit reduction program.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the
current employment situation, how can the Acting Prime
Minister justify the fact that the only program introduced to
stimulate employment, the infrastructure program, has been
extended until just before the next election campaign, thus
cutting federal job creation funds by $200 million this year?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the prime reasons we have
extended the infrastructure program and pushed $200 million of
work into the future is the very sensitive issue of environmental
assessment. I am sure there is no member in the House of
Commons who would wish us to ignore environmental
assessments and to push projects through without their being
properly evaluated. As these projects are properly evaluated,
they will come onstream as originally planned.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
spite of all the spin doctors and all the puff pieces, there is
growing evidence that the financial markets have not been
fooled by the budget. This week the Canadian dollar has fallen
steadily and dramatically. Interest rates have risen on all forms
of Canadian government securities.
Today the Globe and Mail says that the finance minister calls
the cuts good politics. Will the minister tell us why the
government has chosen good politics when the situation
requires good economics?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the opposition member would
care to read through both the financial press and the general
public press and look at the opinion polls such as Angus Reid
presented this week, he will see that the budget has been
accepted widely by Canadians as well as by financial experts. In
fact, only yesterday Standard and Poor's reaffirmed our AAA
rating. We are very proud of the reception we are getting.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and other financial firms
continue to provide warnings about the financial situation of the
Government of Canada. They continue to evaluate our
securities.
Yesterday, Standard and Poor's lowered its outlook on our
foreign currency debt from negative to stable, saying that it
reflects the possibility of a downgrade should the slow pace of
deficit reduction fail to ease the government's debt and interest
rate burdens over the next few years. The budget does not get the
job done.
Will the minister admit that the cuts in the budget are
inadequate to control the growth in debt and interest payments?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. We all
remain very concerned about the debt. That is why we took the
dramatic actions we did on Monday. I want to remind the
member that Standard and Poor's addressed itself to the 3 per
cent foreign currency debt. On the other 97 per cent it gave a
AAA.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government knows the cuts are inadequate. Yesterday in Toronto
when the Minister of Finance was asked about additional cuts to
the CBC, he joked: ``Is this being televised? Because if it is, it is
a very different answer''.
What additional cuts are being planned to deal with the failure
of the budget? Cuts to the CBC, cuts to old age security, cuts to
unemployment insurance, cuts to health care. Why will the
government not tell Canadians about these cuts in public and on
camera?
10323
(1125 )
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no further cuts will be introduced
due to the failure of the budget because the budget is not a
failure.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have
indicated that as one goes about reviewing an organization as
large as the Government of Canada, naturally one will
continually come across better ways of doing things. We will
continue to do things better.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Monday afternoon, heritage deputy minister Michel Rochon
communicated to CBC president Anthony Manera the Cabinet's
budget decisions for the next three years, I repeat, the next three
years.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage continue to deny that
budget decisions have been made concerning the CBC's fate in
the next three years? If not, does this mean that he has once
again failed to honour one of his commitments, namely to
provide the CBC with multi-year funding?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that our hon. colleague still does not
understand the difference between a budget decision and the
program review. It would seem this is where the confusion stems
from. I have publicly explained these matters both in and
outside this House.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister justify logically and rationally his decision to
strike a committee of wise men and women to look at the CBC's
mandate, after giving members of Parliament the mandate to do
just that last August?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not seem to grasp too
well what was referred to the heritage committee. Had she done
me the courtesy of listening, perhaps she would understand
better. This may explain why the hon. member and her
colleagues never understand anything: they do not listen.
I think that our colleague has a gift for telling the future. We
had not yet outlined how we intend to review not only the CBC's
mandate, but also that of the National Film Board and Telefilm
Canada. This means she will have to wait for the review mandate
to be clearly spelled out. I can assure her that it will not be the
same as the mandate given the House of Commons heritage
committee.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is time to clear the air on the CBC issue.
On Tuesday the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that the
president of the CBC resigned for personal reasons, but last
night Mr. Manera directly contradicted the minister. He
resigned not for personal reasons but because the minister has
secret and specific plans for cuts to the CBC over the next three
years.
Given that the budget is a three-year document and given that
we have a copy of the minister's plans precipitating the
president's resignation, how can the minister justify not coming
clean with Canadians about his plans regarding the CBC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am asked to deal with two issues in the
question, one on the motivation of Mr. Manera's resignation. I
am not speculating about the motivation for his resignation. He
can speak for himself.
As to the second matter, I think I have been clear in the House.
The budget contains some indication for the next fiscal year. It is
4 per cent which amounts to $44 million. The figures for the
second and third year are derived from the program review.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it seems very odd that the president would resign if
that in fact were the case.
When budgetary information is withheld from Canadians, it
creates uncertainty and confusion. In this case, it has caused the
resignation of the president of the CBC who accused the
minister of failing to disclose the information to Canadians
about future cuts to the CBC. The minister denies it. They
cannot both be telling the truth.
(1130)
Since this is the second time the minister has placed himself
in a compromising position, will he clear the air and promptly
submit his resignation to the Prime Minister.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know where our colleagues in
Reform are coming from. One day they say they want to destroy
the CBC. They want to privatize it. They do not want to see it any
more.
I stand here saying we will defend the CBC. It will be a strong
institution. It will be on the information highway and we are not
going to have privatization. This is what I stand for.
10324
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, we learned that the RCMP's lack of co-operation
with Swiss authorities had resulted in the release of two
Canadian nationals who had been charged with money
laundering and detained for six months in Switzerland.
Today, for the second time in a year, the U.S. State
Department indicated that Canada is one of the countries where
money laundering is most prevalent and easiest to do.
Since Canada is truly a sieve when it comes to money
laundering, what is the government waiting for to legislate and
put an end to that illegal activity?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the ease of
international money transfers, money laundering by the
underworld is a concern for all industrialized nations.
Through the inference of the Solicitor General, Canada is
collaborating with other nations around the world to form a
united front against this insidious threat to our economic
security and, frankly to our laws against crime.
The Solicitor General, through his collaboration with the
United States of America and European nations, is working
closely with authorities abroad to take effective steps to deal
with money laundering in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as was confirmed yesterday, the Canadian government
is certainly not co-operating with Swiss authorities. I also urge
the minister to read the U.S. State Department's report. It has
plenty to say about this issue.
Does the minister realize that, because of the lack of
legislation, each year $10 billion are being laundered in Canada,
and does he realize that his failure to act only encourages such
illegal activity?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
incident referred to by the hon. member, the reports also indicate
that action has been taken. We are collaborating with authorities
abroad to make sure that effective steps are taken in that case.
In so far as legislative change is concerned, we believe that
the legislation in place at present is sufficient to meet the
challenge. As I have said in the past, the Solicitor General,
working with other nations, is taking effective steps to make
sure that happens.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of public service renewal acknowledged that job cut
decisions based on race or sex are illegal under the charter of
rights and freedoms.
Yet he indicated that government personnel managers might
turn a blind eye to the charter and it is more likely that
minorities will keep their jobs when the government implements
public service cuts.
Will the minister acknowledge it is his duty, like every other
Canadian, to respect and abide by the charter of rights and
freedoms?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to indicate exactly what the facts are
before questions are asked.
The newspaper quotes me verbatim as saying: ``Mr. Massé
said he had been assured workers' rights will be respected. `The
charter of rights indicate when you are doing a restructuring in
industry you have to designate your surplus workers on totally
objective reasons,' he said. `You cannot use equity reasons of
that type in order to designate them''.
That indicates exactly what was said. It is totally in
conformity with the charter of rights and with our policies.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is trying to obfuscate the problem because the charter
of rights does not allow discrimination based on sex and gender
and that is exactly what he has said in the article.
(1135 )
Will the minister confirm that he will give specific direction
to government personnel managers to abide by the charter of
rights and freedoms and tell them that employment equity plays
second fiddle to the charter of rights and freedoms?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not give orders to directors of personnel. That
is something deputy ministers in departments do.
The member opposite has to recognize that in this case we will
apply the rules as we normally do.
10325
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
In its budget, the government intends to spend $3.5 billion to
compensate Western grain producers for eliminating the Crow
subsidy which totals nearly $600 million annually. This
compensation will be a direct incentive for the diversification of
agricultural production in Western Canada.
Considering current budgetary constraints, how can the
Liberal government justify replacing a grain transportation
subsidy of $560 million with financial compensation and
guarantees totalling $3.5 billion?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of actions were taken on
the agricultural front dealing with both the WGTA and the dairy
subsidy. I remind hon. members these are two different
agricultural sectors. We had a question from the Reform Party
yesterday from a different perspective.
We are working with each of these communities to make sure
that we do things properly. The dairy subsidy is being
approached in an entirely different way than the grain
transportation subsidy. As we work our way through the
communities we will continue making announcements to make
sure these subsidies are both reduced and properly looked after.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
may recall this is a ratio of 6 to 1. How can the Liberal
government justify this inequity which deprives Eastern
producers of any form of compensation, although they will be
the first to suffer as a result of competition from Western farm
producers who are being subsidized by the federal government
to diversify their production?
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the hon. member for Frontenac that the changes made to
the Western Grain Transportation Act are one time and final. As
of August 1 this year the western grain transportation support
will be over and done with. The dairy support-it is one of the
hon. member's concerns-will still be 85 per cent in place as of
August 1, 1995.
The changes we have made to the agriculture and agri-food
budget have been fair and equitable. They will be effective.
I would also remind the hon. member that Quebec has not
been unduly affected by the budget. If I look at the changes in
the research branch, the reduction in staff in the province of
Quebec at the end of all this-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party, in criticizing the budget and
management of the economy, has been speculating that Canada
will not be able to sustain the economic growth rate required to
meet the deficit target.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
provide the doom and gloomers on the other side of the House
with real facts and figures on Canada's economic growth?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity the
question from the hon. member for York-Simcoe gives me to
tell the House that the economy is coming along quite well.
Statistics Canada said this week that the economy has
improved and that we have had the fastest growth rate in five
years. It was 4.5 per cent throughout the year. For the first time
in 40 years we are now competitive with the United States on
every measure. That is why our exports are driving the economy.
Most important-and all members of the House will
appreciate this-finally consumer confidence is growing. With
a 7 per cent increase in retail sales I believe every Canadian feels
he or she is participating in the renewal.
* * *
(1140 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us not
forget what we have learned today, that the Liberals now define
spending cuts as a better way of doing things.
The Liberals' two-tier pension plan through trough regular
and trough light will continue to make millionaires out of
defeated cabinet ministers. On Monday, the President of the
Treasury Board acknowledged that members of Parliament
contribute double what is normal in the private sector to their
own plan. He said that in the House.
How can the Liberal government justify this double standard
of asking Canadians to sacrifice while most ministers continue
to stuff their mattresses?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is funny that members of the third party talk about
10326
stuffing mattresses. They do not say anything about double
dipping, even though a few of them understand it quite well.
The cuts we announced in the budget of 19 per cent over the
next three years are very substantial cuts. In one year, we cut the
MP contribution by 33 per cent. On top of that, salaries of
members of Parliament have been frozen for six years.
Therefore the compensation package overall for members of
Parliament has been going down.
It has been going down to help meet our deficit reduction
targets, to help get our fiscal house in order.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the
information of the President of Treasury Board, we would
support any legislation he introduces to eliminate double
dipping.
On Monday, the Prime Minister said he cannot reform the MP
pension plan retroactively because ``there is a rule in democracy
that we do not pass retroactive legislation''.
Considering the fact that the Liberals applied retroactive
legislation to the Pearson contract, public service contracts, the
EH-101 contract, the Canadian taxpayers working overseas, can
the minister explain why the Liberal fat pack is not subject to the
same rules as those Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been said many times in the House why the
Pearson deal and others were changed. It was a bad deal for
taxpayers.
What is a good deal and a show of leadership is when the
members of the House cut their compensation packages. That is
what has happened in the case of MPs' pensions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
government member admitted that members of the Liberal
caucus were informed of the contents of the federal budget a
week before it was tabled in the House on Monday, which gave
them a chance to prepare for cuts that would affect their ridings.
Would the Acting Prime Minister confirm what was said by
the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, in other words, that
budget secrecy was violated by her colleagues in the Liberal
caucus.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I must ask the hon.
member to rephrase his question so that it concerns more
directly the area for which the minister is responsible and not
what another member may or may not have said.
Mr. Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask whether the
Minister of Finance briefed the Liberal caucus before the budget
was tabled?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
comments of the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington were
taken out of context.
She was referring to the fact that we have had the most open
budget making process in Canadian history. The Minister of
Finance should be congratulated for consulting widely, not just
with his parliamentary colleagues but with industry and all
Canadians.
She was referring to the fact it was well known because my
colleague, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs had talked about the downsizing of
the public service. It was in the public domain. It was not a leak
of the budget.
I should tell members that all of us in the ministry were only
informed of the budget's contents shortly before the minister
presented it to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the minister why only Liberal members had
this opportunity?
(1145 )
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think
the hon. member listened to the answer.
I have been around for budgets before in other governments.
The fact is that the Minister of Finance followed the true
parliamentary tradition in terms of developing the budget in
secrecy but did consult widely with all Canadians.
In no way did the comments of the hon. member on this side of
the House conflict with what the Minister of Finance brought
forward last week.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence
announced an eventual 20 per cent cut to his general staff by
1998. This is too little too late. Canada will still have a ratio of
generals to troops double that of Germany or the United States.
Can the minister justify the fact that even his target reductions
leave his ratios out of whack?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
10327
glad that the Reform Party is supporting what we are doing in
terms of streamlining the Canadian Armed Forces from top to
bottom. I welcome that.
The previous government did announce a reduction at the
general officer level by 20 per cent in 1991 and that has now
gone through the system. We announced, consequential to the
white paper and from the budget, that there would be a further
reduction of 25 per cent at the general officer level and 20 per
cent of the colonels.
Contrary to what the hon. member said, this does bring us
more into line with our NATO allies with respect to the officer to
general ranks ratio.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at that.
Currently we have 12 generals per 10,000 troops in the
Canadian Armed Forces. The United States and Germany have 5
generals per 10,000 troops in their forces. With the
government's reductions that ratio will change to 11 generals
per 10,000 troops.
Does the minister really expect the Canadian people to
believe this is a cut at the top?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member mentioned two countries in which their armed forces
are structured somewhat differently with respect to the way the
general officers are apportioned in their tasks. However, he did
not mention other countries in the NATO alliance in comparison
with which we have a better ratio.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, uranium production employs hundreds of Canadians in
Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada. Exports to the United
States last year amounted to $500 million.
The industry has been concerned that recent U.S.
arrangements with Russia might threaten to destabilize the U.S.
uranium market by providing for U.S. imports of large
quantities of low cost Russian uranium.
Would the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade advise the House what steps his minister is
taking to protect the Canadian uranium exports to the United
States.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken
vigorous action on this issue. Back in March 1994 we initiated
consultations with the United States on this issue. Our motives
are to ensure that the export of Russian uranium to the United
States does not unfairly discriminate against uranium exports to
the United States. We were given assurances by the Americans
that would not be the case.
Throughout it all we have worked closely with the industry in
Canada. We are pleased to report that the outcome was a very
positive one. We will continue to monitor the situation very
closely. It is our hope that it will be an open and fair market for
all concerned.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, P.C.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to return to an issue that I and my colleague raised earlier
this week in the House of Commons. It has to do with old age
security benefits.
The Deputy Prime Minister answered unequivocally that old
age security benefits would not affect women who are 65 and
older even though the budget plan, a government document,
states unequivocally that the basic principles for reforming OAS
shall be the provision of OAS benefits on the basis of family
income.
(1150 )
How does the government square that response with the stated
principle in this document? If that is the answer, what then does
the document mean?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member raises an important question. It
is for this reason, as he well knows, that the federal government
will be meeting with provincial counterparts in the fall to
discuss the issue of pensions.
It is interesting the hon. member would mention the
principles but would not speak to the fact that some of the
principles include undiminished protection for the less well off
seniors, greater progressivity of benefits by income level and
control of program costs.
Pensions are a very important part of this government's
generous and compassionate approach toward social security.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, P.C.): Mr Speaker, I am
glad my hon. colleague referred to a meeting the government
will have with the provinces. I assume this is not improvised and
that the government will have prepared.
Are the hon. member and the government ready to table here
in the House of Commons studies and documents that the
Government of Canada will have prepared with projections on
what the application of this principle of applying OAS benefits
to family income would have?
I want a clear answer. Will the government, yes or no, table all
the documents it has prepared for this meeting?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite surprised that the member, being a former
10328
cabinet minister, would not know that we are duty bound to meet
with the provinces every five years to review the friendship
plan.
We are not only going to consult with provinces, we are going
to go further, as we always have since we have formed the
government, to consult with Canadians about this very
important issue.
It is important that the pension plan of this country be
sustainable. That is something that we are going to make sure
happens.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the acting prime minister.
In spite of the government's wonderful speeches, the budget
has not put government spending in order. Within the natural
resources department alone, the Hibernia project will swallow
up $172 million this year, not to say $66 million more in interest
free loans.
Why has the natural resources minister not taken the
opportunity with this budget to dump the Hibernia project
immediately, this money pit which will never be profitable and
will only ever eat up hundreds of millions of dollars that could
be better spent elsewhere?
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member well knows we are an 8.5 per cent participant in the
Hibernia project. It is a project that has been studied with clear
indication that it will be a viable project when it is done. It will
contribute to our energy security when it is finished.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the parliamentary secretary realize that the private sector's
complete lack of interest in Hibernia confirms that this money
pit will never be profitable? Do you admit that your government
will have a lot of trouble handing it over to the private sector?
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe we
can do the math for the member opposite. We are seeing private
sector involvement to 92 per cent. That seems to be a very strong
commitment by the private sector to this project.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here
is another one of those isolated incidents for the minister of
immigration. It is just one of three isolated incidents that are
currently underway in my riding.
After a five-year crime spree, including an armed home
invasion and drug trafficking, a Mr. Vu Van Li had his
deportation order overruled by the famous Mr. Lam of the
Immigration and Refugee Board who said that Mr. Li just
needed to take anger management courses.
(1155 )
Will the minister not admit that irresponsible IRB decisions
like this are putting the safety of law-abiding Canadians at risk?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should have showed along with his party support for
Bill C-44 which deals with the problems of criminality in
immigration.
As the hon. member well knows, we cannot comment on
individual cases. I know that the hon. member with his interest
and his party will also support the reforms announced yesterday
by the minister of immigration to the Immigration and Refugee
Board to make it a better and more viable institution in this
country, and we know we would have this party's support for this
kind of policy.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
changes announced yesterday by the minister look more like a
fast track way to let more criminals into the country than to
address the way of controlling entry.
Mr. Li was involved in an armed home invasion in 1989,
assault with a weapon in 1990, and drug trafficking in 1994. Day
after day we bring up isolated incidents like this for the minister.
When is the minister going to agree that rearranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic of the IRB is not going to solve the problem
and when will he scrap the IRB as Reform has suggested?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again,
yesterday saw major reforms in policy announced by the
minister to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Today the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board will be
announcing further changes within the administration of that
board. While there have been problems in this board, this is a
good board and it serves Canadians well.
If the Reform Party and the hon. member for North Vancouver
are so concerned about criminality it might have behoved them
to support Bill C-44 when it was in the House.
10329
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
Recently several Canadian citizens have been arrested or
harassed while travelling in India.
There is evidence that the Indian authorities are detaining
individuals without charge. Coincidentally this harassment and
unfounded police interrogation are directed particularly at
Canadians of Sikh origin.
Will the minister on behalf of the Government of Canada send
a strong message to the Indian government to put an end to this
practice and human rights violations with minorities in India?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is
very concerned about the detention of some Sikh Canadians who
have been travelling to India.
To be more specific, recently there was a case in which a
Canadian was held for about a week and others recently for
shorter periods of time.
Our high commissioner in New Delhi has followed up on
every case of detention that he has been aware of and through
him and other officials here in Ottawa we have relayed to the
government in India our concern about this issue and hope that it
will be dealt with.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
A strike is now looming between CP Rail and two unions.
Negotiations could break down by Monday and CP has said that
in that event it would use replacement workers.
What is the minister doing to ensure that negotiations do not
break down, thereby avoiding a potentially bitter
labour-management dispute?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, following the release of the Hope report the parties
were urged to resume negotiations and settle their differences
through collective bargaining.
I am pleased to report that bargaining has resumed at all three
railways with intensive talks being held at CP Rail in an effort to
conclude an early settlement.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we learned from the budget that allocations to Canada Mortgage
and Housing will be cut by almost $215 million in 1995-96.
More than half this amount, over $105 million, was earmarked
for public housing.
My question is for the acting prime minister. Would he not
agree that, by cutting public housing subsidies this way, the
government is directly attacking the basic needs of the most
vulnerable families in our society, contrary to the promises
made in the red book?
(1200)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm, in
this regard, that the federal government will continue to support
and subsidize public housing, at a cost of $2 billion a year. This
is for some 660,000 public housing units occupied by over a
million families including many natives living on and off
reservations.
However, deficit reduction requirements dictated cuts in this
sector as in all other sectors, departments and services. The
Minister of Finance acted responsibly, and Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation had to accept these cuts.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
The federal environmental review panel has recommended
that the Department of National Defence be allowed to double
the number of low level training flights over Labrador and
Quebec. However it has imposed a number of conditions,
including the early settlement of land claims, the establishment
of an institute to study and monitor the effects of the flights and
the establishment of a joint management board for the George
River caribou herd.
The minister is aware that the panel refused to listen to issues
raised by aboriginal people relating to their land. Is he prepared
to recommend rejection of the report? What steps is he willing to
take to ensure that the conditions are met as established by the
panel?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report of
10330
the environmental panel was given to the Minister of the
Environment and me a few days ago. We decided to make it
public at the earliest opportunity.
As to the future of low level flying on the east coast out of
Goose Bay, that will be decided by cabinet in due course.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, you
will remember that yesterday, as recorded in
Hansard, I raised a
question of privilege. I informed the House that I would raise
this matter today after question period. Furthermore, I advised
the whips of the other parties in the House, including the
member for Guelph-Wellington, of my intention to raise this
question of privilege because it is a question that relates to
comments she made.
I rise today on a question of privilege. My query comes after
reading a column that interestingly enough is entitled ``Question
Period''. Question period is published in each weekly edition of
a newspaper very well known here on the Hill, called the Hill
Times. Members of this place will be familiar with a specific
column, a vox populi, very similar to other vox populi we see in
other media, where four individuals are asked a question, often
of members of Parliament, often of individuals who work on the
Hill, and they offer a response.
This week's question was: ``Is there too much secrecy
surrounding the budget?'' The Bloc member for La Prairie, for
example, answered:
The government has to maintain secrecy around the budget, not to favour
certain investors. But there should be more transparency about the budget, to
give a better idea of it without giving precise measures and details.
That is what the member for La Prairie is reported to have
said.
Two other respondents, the members for Ottawa Centre and
Provencher, also echoed their hon. colleague's understanding of
secrecy. However, and this is the point of fact, the member for
Guelph-Wellington gave a very troubling answer. In response
to the clear and concise question: ``Is there too much secrecy
surrounding the budget'' she is quoted as saying:
I don't think so. There were some MPs who were told beforehand if major
cuts were coming to programs in their ridings. They asked for that in caucus so
they could prepare to ask questions.
I will just repeat the words because they are serious: ``some
MPs were told beforehand''. Needless to say, I find this
statement very troubling. I want to explain why I find it
troubling but I also want to explain why I feel this to be a prima
facie violation of my rights and privileges as a member of
Parliament.
I want to quote another parliamentarian on this same issue
who outlined the importance of the budget being confidential
until budget night. By the way there is some real irony in this
quote. This is a quote that I draw from the Debates at page 2283
of Hansard of December 12, 1979. It reads:
The confidentiality in which the details of a budget are kept secret is a
constitutional practice which forms an integral part of a parliamentary system.
Such practice is based on the principle that no individual, whoever he may be,
must know in advance the details of a budget which he could use for personal
gain.
(1205)
That quote is from the right hon. Prime Minister, speaking in
the House of Commons in 1979. I am sure the Prime Minister
intended to include the Liberal caucus in his designation when
he said ``whoever''.
To facilitate your work, Mr. Speaker, I also reviewed the past
occasions when the House had to deal with budget leaks. Not to
undermine the seriousness of any budget leak allegations, I am
sure you will also agree that with the incidents of the past came
also odd and unusual circumstances.
You will remember a photographer having snapped a picture
of the Minister of Finance at the time, Mr. Lalonde, reviewing
budget documents, and that incident being the object of debate
in the House and another question of privilege. I also remember,
Mr. Speaker, and I know that you were in the House at the time, a
colleague of mine who had one of his documents fall into the
hands of the media before the formal announcement of the
budget.
In the past, when dealing with such rather isolated incidents,
your predecessors ruled: ``There was some doubt whether the
convention of budget secrecy falls within the area of privilege''.
In fact, that is a quote which can be found in Jurisprudence
parlementaire de Beauchesne, with which I am sure other
members are familiar.
I quickly realized, and I am sure you will too, Mr. Speaker,
that the very nature of this revelation makes this case a
precedent which stands by itself. Never have we had, as far as I
know in any research that we have done, any situation where a
specific member of Parliament has boldly admitted to having
obtained privileged information relating to the budget before it
was formally announced. Nor are there any precedents where a
whole caucus of this place, according to the statement made by
the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, was actually
informed in advance of the contents of the budget. I have not
found any precedents in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, we have nowhere to turn but to you. We are not in
the presence of a leak of a titbit of information to a controlled
number of people for what has never been more than a very short
period of time, like the situations we have faced in the past.
Neither have we ever been in the presence of what I reasonably
fear to be a concerted effort on the part of someone to give a
10331
great deal of information to the largest body of members in the
House, namely the Liberal caucus, at a day and time we can only
yet still ignore.
I will not get into all the questions that this situation brings
up, and you will know that there are many dimensions to this
question. They are all very grave. Most of the time they have
called for the resignation of the Minister of Finance.
I want to raise a very specific issue in regard to this principle.
I am putting this question of privilege because I believe that the
matter I am talking about poses a grave hindrance to my ability
to accomplish my duties as a member of Parliament for the
riding of Sherbrooke.
It is greatly troubling to me, should such actions be found to
be true, that the people of my riding and all Canadians would
find disrepute and maybe even contempt for this place. In such
circumstances I fail to see how any of us would be able to
accomplish our work properly. That is surely a question of
privilege for myself and for every person here.
Even more sad is what this could mean for free speech. I
respectfully ask that you consider in your ruling whether debate
in this House can be truly free, frank and sincere if members are
led to believe that the contents of the budget that are supposed to
be secret for all, without exception, when in the end the truth is
revealed to us that the members of the governing party were
privy to a special complicity with the Minister of Finance.
(1210)
The budget is at the heart of why we sit in Parliament. It is at
the very heart of what this parliamentary institution is all about.
We are here to vote on behalf of our constituents the moneys that
allow us to live in a democracy and not pursuant to the whims of
an all powerful despot.
That is why the first Commons took away powers from the
monarch and that is why this member is claiming back those
privileges today. I respectfully ask that you consider this matter,
Mr. Speaker, with great attention, urgency and severity.
In conclusion, what we are facing today as a question of
privilege is a situation where certain members of the House of
Commons, namely the Liberal caucus, according to a public
admission by the member for Guelph-Wellington, received
privileged, secret information before budget day to the
detriment of the members who sit on the opposite side of the
House.
Based on that fact, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on this
question of privilege.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are two issues before the House. First, is this
a legitimate question of privilege? Second, was there a breach of
the secrecy of the budget?
I will deal with these two issues in reverse order. We should
all be reminded that the member who has just raised this
question of privilege knows about cabinet secrecy. I would have
hoped that in his remarks he could have borne that in mind a
little more than he did. I am sorry that he failed in that regard.
I wish to bring to members' attention the question of the
secrecy of the budget. There was no breach in the secrecy of the
budget. On reading the article yesterday in the newspaper, I
telephoned the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington and spoke
to her about her comments in the Hill Times.
I asked her to put her response in writing and to send it to me
so that I could share it very briefly with the House today. In the
memorandum she sent to me, which I am perfectly willing to
table with the Clerk later with the consent of the House if such
were forthcoming, is the following:
To: Don Boudria, Chief Government Whip
From Brenda Chamberlain, M.P.
Re: Our Conversation
In reference to your question, I was referring specifically to the caucus
briefing which was held approximately one hour prior to the tabling by the
President of the Treasury Board of measures to deal with downsizing in the
federal public service.
That downsizing document was tabled on February 21. It has
nothing to do with the budget document. There may well have
been issues tabled by the President of the Treasury Board that
were later reflected in budget decisions.
That may be so but it was not information that was given to
Liberal members of Parliament and denied to anyone else. As a
matter of fact, the tabling occurred at ten o'clock that morning.
That is easily verifiable and I am sure all hon. members,
including the member in question, were here that morning.
The hon. member remembers well that the document was
tabled. I read from the letter in question:
This announcement took place one week before the budget and dealt with
downsizing in the federal public service, which was part of the federal budget. If
you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
I will certainly table the letter if it is the wish of the House.
The second issue is the following. Is it in fact a question of
privilege? I wish to bring to members' attention Beauchesne's
sixth edition, page 13, citation 31(5) which says:
Budget secrecy is a political convention, and if breached,
10332
It was not as we have just identified:
-the Minister may be attacked through a substantive motion, but not through
a question of privilege.
(1215 )
That was ruled that way on April 19, 1983.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention the
following decision made on November 18, 1981 by the then
Speaker, the late Madam Sauvé: ``Certainly the matter of budget
secrecy is not dealt with through questions of privilege and there
are very important precedents which I will recall to hon.
members''. She then cited a whole number of cases where it has
been ruled not to be an issue of privilege.
In summary, there has not been a case of breach of budget
secrecy and there is not a question of privilege now before the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would have preferred to speak before one of the
government members replied, who would then have been able to
respond to my comments as well.
Like the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I wanted to quote what
was said by the Prime Minister when he was in the opposition,
on a similar question concerning a budget leak. I will not repeat
the same quote, but I would like to quote what was said by the
hon. member for Saint-Maurice in Hansard of July 24, 1975: ``The tradition of secrecy ensures that all Canadians will be kept at the same advantage or disadvantage with respect to any budgetary matter and that any announcement will be made first in
When, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke pointed out, we
look at what was said by the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington, the members of the Liberal caucus must
have known how the budget would affect their respective ridings
before it was brought down.
I do not think a member of Parliament should have advance
knowledge, before Parliament and members of this House, of
the consequences of budget cuts for his or her own riding. This
raises a number of questions for me, as a parliamentarian, and
my constituents will have a few as well.
If it is true that the Liberal caucus had advance knowledge of
this budget, there must be Liberals who obtained some personal
or political gain from that knowledge. They were able to prepare
answers for their constituents before anyone else, and that is a
personal gain.
Furthermore, what assurances does Parliament have that the
minister did not, following his presentation of the budget to the
Liberal caucus, change parts of his budget in response to undue
pressure from members of his party? How can we be sure? We
cannot.
I do not, and the official opposition does not think the hon.
member's response to the comments by the hon. member for
Shefford was satisfactory. Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am
wrong, but in the past, when there were leaks or alleged leaks,
the matter was usually referred to a committee of the House for
clarification.
Considering that the hon. member's reply fails to satisfy
members on this side of the House, I would like the Chair to take
the matter under advisement and refer it to a committee, for
thorough clarification of an issue that goes to the very core of
the Canadian parliamentary system. It is the government,
through such practices, that is making trouble in this
Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for
bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It certainly is a
very serious concern in light of citation 31 of Beauchesne's:
Budget secrecy is a political convention and if breached, the minister may be
attacked through a substantive motion, but not through a question of privilege.
Certainly this is a very serious matter.
(1220 )
Representing the Reform Party in this House we ask questions
of a general nature regarding rumours around the budget and we
are told that the specifics or even generalities could not be dealt
with in this House until the budget was tabled.
It comes as some shock to me to find out that one caucus in
this House was made privy to the details of the budget.
According to this article in the paper, the question is whether
there is too much secrecy surrounding the budget, not the
documents that the hon. government whip was talking about.
This is a very serious matter.
Never at any time was our caucus approached by the
departmental officials of finance or the minister on whether we
would want a briefing on details that would affect even our
individual ridings.
Were I as a member of Parliament to have known that there
would be a Crow buyout in the budget prior to its tabling, I could
have communicated to people back in my riding of this matter. It
affects the value of land. It affects the transactions between
farmers who may have been actually selling their land at that
time. It is a very serious matter with millions of dollars at stake.
I am rather shocked and I want to assure this House that my
caucus was not made privy to any of the details of the budget in
any manner, particularly as it related to situations of cuts that
would affect our riding.
I add my concern and ask the Chair to deal in a very severe
way with this important matter.
10333
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will deal very directly with the allegation made by
the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, supported by
the hon. member for Sherbrooke. There was absolutely no
question of a budget leak in this case.
There is no evidence that has been adduced by the hon.
member to support that, absolutely no evidence.
Mr. Charest: Read the Hill Times.
Mr. Milliken: I have read the Hill Times and I know the hon.
member read the Hill Times. The answer that was given has been
fully explained in a reply, given in writing, by the hon. member
for Guelph-Wellington which was read by the chief
government whip a few moments ago.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have listened
attentively, as all members have on this issue. A question of
privilege is an important matter and a serious matter for all
parliamentarians. I would ask that we keep the discussion in the
parliamentary fashion that we have thus far, that we might
conclude this matter.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, certain hon. members of the
opposition were invited to a briefing on the budget well in
advance, a briefing that was not provided to government
members. I had no idea what was in the budget until I walked
into the House and heard the budget being delivered.
That was not the case with certain members of the opposition
who were invited to a briefing. That is standard practice and
there is no suggestion in the answer that was given by the hon.
member for Guelph-Wellington as explained in the
memorandum that she has tabled here that there was anything
but that procedure followed. She has explained that the
procedure she was talking about when she answered the question
dealt with events long before budget day.
I refer once again to citation 31 of Beauchesne's which has
already been quoted. I need not read it again. I want to remind
the Chair that when we had a case of a budget leak with the hon.
Michael Wilson during the last Parliament, a major leak in
which the whole document got out, there was a question of
privilege raised and debated for an entire day in this House on
that very issue.
There was never anything referred to a committee. The Chair
never made a finding that there had been a breach of the
privileges of the members of this House, even though there had
been a complete leak of the budget. I think the hon. member for
Sherbrooke was in the cabinet at that time.
What I am saying is that there is no evidence of any leak here
today in respect of the budget. If there were, according to the
citation of Beauchesne's and in accordance with the practice
followed in respect of Mr. Wilson's major leak, the whole thing
went out. In light of the precedent established then, I submit
there is nothing that the House should do to take note of this
unless the hon. member for Sherbrooke wishes to set down a
motion condemning not the member for Guelph-Wellington
but the Minister of Finance for allowing any information to get
into her hands.
In the face of the denial, I suggest such a motion is not
supported by any evidence and it would be a waste of the time of
this House, as is the question raised by the hon. member.
(1225 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair will recognize
the hon. member for Sherbrooke for a final comment, but I wish
to apprise the House that I would hold that comment to a
minimum amount of time. The Chair does not want to restart the
whole debate. I have listened attentively. It is an important,
serious matter. It will be dealt with as its seriousness requires.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience. I do
not want to rehash past events. For the benefit of all members of
the House, let us focus on what is really at issue here. I feel
compelled to stress this because there is a very important
distinction in the situation we are facing today relative to
precedent.
The precedents referred to are on the notion of confidentiality,
budget secrecy as applied at large. We are facing a new situation
today in which certain members of the House of Commons were
informed beforehand according to this bold admission.
Mr. Speaker, that is the evidence you have. May I point out
according to precedent that is the prima facie evidence you have
before you today. That is the reason I think you will find here a
question of privilege.
The parliamentary secretary has hoisted himself on his own
petard when he rises in this place to say there is no evidence and
then goes on to explain the rebuttal of the evidence that happens
to be in front of this House. To make that statement is so gross as
to deny that this statement actually exists in a document that was
distributed to the public at large.
This is the last point I want to make. Let me read the quotation
because it goes directly to the heart of this matter. The member
for Guelph-Wellington said: ``I do not think so. There were
some MPs who were told beforehand if major cuts were coming
to programs in their ridings''.
The last phrase goes to motive: ``They asked for that in caucus
so they could prepare to answer questions''.
My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I think the Chair
has heard all the arguments from the members who participated.
10334
[Translation]
As I said earlier, I realize that a question of privilege is a
serious matter for all parliamentarians. As is customary, the
Chair will certainly prefer to wait until the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington is present to hear what she has to say.
[English]
The Chair will certainly want to give an opportunity to the
member for Guelph-Wellington to express her point of view
more before making a definitive ruling.
I want to thank the well experienced hon. member for
Sherbrooke for raising this question of privilege and the chief
government whip, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, the
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the member for
Kingston and the Islands for their participation.
The matter raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, if
founded, is more an issue of contempt that a question of
privilege. That being said, the Chair will take the matter under
advisement, review the hon. member's comments as well as all
related parliamentary practice and precedents, and report back
to the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Charest: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon.
government whip kindly offered to table a document that the
member for Guelph-Wellington apparently sent to him. I
suggest to the House that there be unanimous consent so that
document could be now tabled.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10334
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
certain petitions.
* * *
(1230)
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
next week, on March 8, women and men around the world will
celebrate International Women's Day.
This day was designated in honour of these early campaigns to
improve working conditions for women. This day has become a
global celebration of women's accomplishments and
advancements. But it was born when women were struggling to
achieve the very basics of equal rights.
[English]
In the ensuing years women have made many important gains,
overcoming many obstacles to achieve through merit their
rightful place in the workforce. They have overcome
professional barriers in virtually every field of human
endeavour. They have overcome many stereotypes and have
excelled in fields where doors were closed before such as
medicine, law, politics, cultural industries, military, business
and so on.
Women have demonstrated conclusively that no task is
beyond them, given fair and equitable access. Women have also
achieved success in the business world. A recent study
conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
found that almost 40 per cent of small businesses are operated
by women, up from 30 per cent in 1981.
Women have steadily progressed in closing the wage gap. The
average Canadian woman now makes 72 cents of what a man
earns. More important, for university graduates the gap is gone.
Young women and young men starting out in their careers with
the same university education earn the same salary.
Although women have made inroads into almost every
profession they still face multiple challenges. Sexual
harassment in the workplace continues to undermine and
marginalize the position of women. Many still face obstacles to
advancement: either the famous glass ceiling that stops
women's progress at middle management levels or the corporate
philosophy that is overly hostile to family considerations.
[Translation]
The recent Statistics Canada study on the wage gap was quite
revealing on this point. While young women start off on an equal
footing, wage-wise, when they graduate from university, they
steadily lose ground as they get married and have children.
Even most of the independent and ambitious women who go
boldly into the business world hit the wall of sexual
discrimination. And a study by the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business revealed that 42 per cent of women
entrepreneurs experience difficulty getting financing. This
despite the fact that women entrepreneurs are generally more
successful than men.
We must address these issues. After all, women work for the
same reasons men do-they want and they have to. Women's
contributions to our economy, and to our society, are
indisputable and indispensable.
[English]
It is estimated that if all employed women were to leave the
workforce, the number of low income families in Canada would
10335
more than double. Given their key role, I think it is time society
recognized their worth. We must pursue a fair distribution of
unpaid work in the home where women still carry a
disproportionate burden of work.
We must persuade industries to develop family friendly
workplaces to help root out sexual harassment and
discriminatory practices. We must urge banks in particular and
the financial community in general to recognize the
achievements of women entrepreneurs and give them the fair
and equitable consideration and support they deserve.
(1235 )
Women do not want a free ride. They want their fair share. I
think that has become fairly obvious. Governments must
continue to have a role in the drive for women's equality, even in
the face of restrictive fiscal constraints.
Violence against women, sexual harassment, inequalities and
inequities in employment opportunities, the wage imbalance
and gender discrimination must all be addressed. I am pleased
the government is continuing to push forward on all these fronts.
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for such
initiatives as the sentencing reform bill, the firearms control
legislation and his quick action to address the defence of
extreme drunkenness.
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for his
budget commitment to remove barriers to the success of small
businesses and to provide practical assistance to them to survive
and grow. It is essential that small businesses have access to the
financing they need to continue being Canada's number one
creator of jobs.
To this end the budget announced that the government would
be working with the banks to develop meaningful performance
benchmarks for small business financing, benchmarks that will
be used to monitor future progress which will include women.
We must also continue to support women in their family
responsibilities. The new Canada social transfer announced in
the budget offers the potential for a more flexible framework for
child care funding. We need improvements in the accessibility
of child care and in the quantity and quality of child care, public
and private, in all regions of the land and based on choice in
those areas.
As my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, begins his work with the provinces to develop
shared principles for the transfer, I know he plans to focus on the
needs of women and their families in general and on their
requirements for child care in particular.
[Translation]
I will also continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that
government policies and programs are examined through a
gender equality lens, so that their impact on women is
considered at every stage of the policy development process.
A particular focus must be on the needs of women from
different ethnocultural communities, aboriginal women, women
with disabilities, and those living in rural or remote areas. We
must continue to help them achieve their independence. These
are all challenges that we must confront if we are going to
achieve our ultimate goal of fairness and equality. This
September fourth's United Nations World Conference on
Women will be a unique forum for advancing women's equality.
It will produce a global Platform for Action to accelerate
progress towards equality.
[English]
I look forward to working with the men and women of the
world at this conference as we lay the groundwork for
eliminating the barriers facing women around the globe. More
important, to all my colleagues I say I look forward to coming
home from the world conference, getting to work and
collaborating with all our stakeholders at the regional,
provincial, federal, private and public levels to implement the
platform of action for Canada. Our society, and that includes all
Canadian men and women, has a responsibility to begin laying
the further groundwork for equality right now.
The ongoing push for equality may be entering its most
difficult phase. It will require that women stand up for
themselves and boldly take the position that is rightfully theirs.
It cannot be done by government alone. It cannot be done by one
voice, by the voice of opposition on either side of the House.
It will require them to be forceful and advance their views. It
will require men to play their role as full partners in this
adventure in growth and development. At the very least I would
suggest that men acknowledge the current of history. They must
recognize that from now on society will be that of equal partners
because we have earned that right from the very start.
(1240)
While some men may still resist this idea, I say to them that
equality of the sexes is not only attainable but is desirable from
all points of view and for all concerned. Is this not what we all
want both for our sons and our daughters?
We need to leave behind the battle of the sexes where
women's gains are interpreted as men's losses. We have to
accept that when women finally achieve equality everyone will
be better off. We will all stand to gain.
I close in reminding everyone that it is purely mathematical
because when women who make up 52 per cent of our population
are able to make a full contribution to society, 100 per cent of the
population will benefit.
10336
On this International Women's Day I want to send a message
of hope to all Canadians, women and men. I say to them that
by working together we can reach our full potential, every one
of us; by working together we can shape our joint future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 8, women from Quebec, Canada and the world over will
celebrate International Women's Day. Some of us will spend the
day with our loved ones, our families, our colleagues from work
or with the women's groups and organizations that we are
involved in.
Others will watch from the sidelines, wondering when
governments are going to stand up and take action to improve
the living conditions of women.
The federal government would have us believe that it is
attentive to women's needs. However, its daily actions speak
louder than its words, speeches and policy statements. Let us
call to mind just some of the Liberal government's acts.
The Liberals' first budget, February 1994, announced
unprecedented cuts to the unemployment insurance system.
With one stroke of the pen, they took more than $5.5 billion out
of the pockets of the unemployed over three years.
The Liberals decided to take their unemployment insurance
cuts in a totally new direction and to hit workers with unstable
jobs, who cannot do without unemployment insurance. This hurt
women most of all. Women have the dubious honour of holding
the majority of unstable jobs.
They reduced the benefit rate and access to them. They
dramatically shortened the length of time that benefits can be
claimed. They took drastic measures, asking the unemployment
insurance fund to foot a disproportionate chunk of the deficit
fighting measures.
In his proposed social program reform, the Minister of Human
Resources Development went as far as suggesting that
eligibility for benefits be subject to a family income test. Since
we know that women earn about 72 per cent of what men earn,
we know very well who will be penalized by such a measure.
We know that women earn less than their partners and that
they often hold unstable jobs. Often, they are the ones who lose
their jobs and go on UI. They are maintained in this dependent
condition. What a move towards equality.
Women immediately saw what the minister was driving at:
women whose spouse's income is above a certain limit are
disqualified in spite of the fact that they have been contributing
to the UI fund. Attacking financial independence dearly won
over the years, the government now wants to turn women into
second-class citizens having to depend on their spouses for their
every need.
That is why so many women came forward when the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development held its hearings
on the social reform package.
They unanimously denounced the minister's proposal,
forcing the committee to recommend that he not pursue this
issue. We will see in the fall if the minister will choose to ignore
the committee's recommendation and implement his proposal
anyway. In that case, he can expect fierce opposition on the part
of women and the Bloc Quebecois.
Monday's budget also speaks volumes about what this
government has in store for women.
(1245)
The Liberals strike again. Monday's budget contains further
cuts, cuts totalling at least $700 million in UI funding and $7
billion in transfer payments to the provinces for welfare, health
and education. In reality, what will be hacked is cash transfers to
the provinces, with a 40 per cent cut in direct federal
contributions to health, education and welfare.
What will these blind cuts translate into in actual fact? Either
cuts in health and education services or cuts in welfare, which
will mean yet more women losing theirs jobs. Pension reform
was also announced. Again, the government is contemplating
tying old age pension benefit entitlement to family income. This
government is certainly bent on subjugating women to their
spouses. Poverty is obviously a sin for which this government
wants to make women pay dearly.
The number of public service positions was cut back. Again,
women at the lower echelons will be penalized. Also, what is the
use of reviewing the Employment Equity Act if it will not be
enforced? Coloured, disabled and native women are highly
likely to lose their jobs, as they are at a disadvantage to begin
with and at the lower echelons. The 160,000 Canadian women
on UI and 230,000 Canadian women on welfare were not smiling
on Monday night, they were afraid. The 100,000 single parents
who rely on social assistance shivered when they realized that
they might be deprived of what little they have left.
What about the election promise made by the Liberal Party
regarding the creation of 150,000 new day-care spaces? The
1994 budget provided that $120 million would be invested as
early as this year. Today, all we know about that promise is that
the Minister of Human Resources Development is discussing
with the provinces. If these discussions are anything like the
ones the minister is having regarding the social program reform,
the Holy Spirit will have to step in to ensure that this promise is
fulfilled.
Another measure directly affecting women is the increase in
the fees for adult immigrants who apply for permanent residence
in Canada. This is more or less tantamount to an immigration tax
of $975 for immigrants, a number of whom are women, in
10337
addition to the basic amount of $500 which they must pay just to
have their application looked at.
This government wants to mark International Women's Day.
Great! However, the government is hiding the plight of many
women and the fact that it is not giving them any chance to
improve their lot. Women must always fight to be treated with
fairness and ensure that the organizations which represent them
get meagre financial support. By the way, these organizations
face new financial constraints, with government cuts of close to
$1.5 million directly affecting them. How will they survive? The
government could not care less.
I should point out here the courage and the determination
displayed by women's organizations in their daily struggle. We
have to constantly urge this government to act rather than to
make nice speeches, or at least to act according to its rhetoric.
This government proclaims to be an international leader in the
promotion of equality for women, but it should first ensure that
Canadian women are not victims of backward measures because
of its own decisions. This government seems to deny women's
reality and we wonder about its strategy to ensure that women
have better working conditions and can make gains in the
workplace?
Some positive measures are needed, including job-creation
programs designed for all Canadians, not just 48 per cent of
them, such as the totally inadequate infrastructure program.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on International
Women's Day. As the secretary of state mentioned in her
remarks, this day was designated in honour of early campaigns
to improve working conditions for women. I would like to take
this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of some of these
women.
(1250 )
In December 1993 the Manitoba legislature granted Dr.
Charlotte Ross a licence to practise medicine. What makes this
event unusual is that Dr. Ross obtained her medical degree 118
years earlier. Charlotte Whitehead Ross has links to this House.
Her father, Joseph Whitehead, was the member of Parliament
for the constituency of Huron North in the Confederation
Parliament of 1867.
After being refused entry to any medical school in Canada
because she was a female, Charlotte Ross obtained her medical
degree in Pennsylvania in 1875. She practised medicine in
Quebec for five years and then in Whitemouth, Manitoba, for
another 32 years. She was the first female physician in both
provinces.
The Manitoba legislature denied a request to license her in
1887 but she continued to practise unlicensed until 1912, four
years before her death. She was a true female pioneer, a woman
who was forced to confront state sponsored chauvinism with no
employment equity or human rights legislation to protect her. In
the proud tradition of western pioneers, Dr. Ross did what so
many other prairie settlers did when confronted by arcane
government regulations, she ignored them. Charlotte Ross'
defiance undoubtedly helped make it easier for other women to
follow in her footsteps.
In marking International Women's Day I am extremely proud
to acknowledge the accomplishments of my great-grandmother.
Another woman who deserves recognition for her
contributions in pioneering a role for women in the workforce is
a constituent of mine, a friend and a mentor, Mrs. Ivy Pat Dillon.
Prior to World War II at a time when the only job most women
could get was as a secretary or a clerk, Mrs. Dillon worked as a
manager for a company in the fledgling aerospace industry. She
did not get there because of any affirmative action program or
government initiative. Pat Dillon was a success because of her
talents and her abilities.
Many other women of that era had to leave promising careers
because they were expected to leave the workforce when they
got married and raise a family. My mother was one of those
women. She chose to give up a nursing career to raise a family of
nine children. While she may not have climbed the corporate
ladder, she made an enormous impact on her family, friends and
community in many ways as a wife, a mother and a volunteer
worker.
These women all overcame the challenges of a society that
was very different from today's. Was it discriminatory? Without
question, but societies evolve. It is just that some things take
longer than others.
The greatest single factor in changing men's attitudes about
equality in the workplace is not legislation. Rather, it is the fact
that women have shown that they can compete with men on
equal footing.
As a female baby boomer I have experienced amazing
changes in the attitudes of both men and women toward the
concept of equality. My working career has taken me from a
clerk typist earning $210 a month to being an owner-operator of
a small business, to a senior government administrator, to a
self-employed realtor and finally, to a parliamentarian. During
my career I have faced a wide variety of attitudes from males
and females.
In her speech the secretary of state commented on the fact that
women entrepreneurs experience difficulty getting financing. I
can attest to that personally. When I approached a bank in 1980
to get financing to expand my business, I was shocked to learn
that it wanted my husband to co-sign for the loan. This was
required despite the fact that my husband had nothing to do with
10338
the business, despite the fact that the business was successful,
and despite the fact that I had been mayor of that community for
three years.
I am happy to report that this attitude has changed. Perhaps it
is because women are now in management positions. The last
two managers of my local Royal Bank have been female.
However some attitudes have not changed. One of the most
chauvinistic individuals I have ever encountered I met last
month. This gentleman was of the opinion that no woman who is
married should be permitted to work. He thought that married
women who work are responsible for unemployment among
men. Not surprisingly, he did not get a very sympathetic ear
from me.
(1255 )
What I did find extremely sad about this attitude was the fact
that the male who held these opinions was only 29 years old. He
is a product of affirmative action mentality. He believes that as
government has legislated more opportunities for women, it has
been at his expense. He views himself as a victim of
discrimination.
We cannot legislate attitudes. For women to show their male
colleagues that they belong, they have to prove they can
compete with them on a level playing field.
I am proud of the fact that to gain my seat in this House of
Commons I proved I could compete on a level playing field.
Unlike some of the female members from the government side, I
was not appointed as a candidate. To secure the Reform Party
nomination in my constituency, I ran against five male
competitors. At a nomination meeting attended by over 600
voting delegates, I won a first ballot victory. In the subsequent
election, all other candidates from the major parties were males.
Obviously, I won that election.
There was no special consideration because I was a woman. I
competed on a level playing field. That is the way it was
supposed to be and that is the way it has got to be. If we want a
society where men and women are viewed as equal partners, we
cannot accomplish this by punishing young men of today for the
sins of their grandfathers.
I am pleased to see the statistics that women graduating from
university today will earn the same salary as their male
counterparts. It is a reality that these women will lose ground
when they absence themselves from the workforce to have
children. The logical way to address this problem is for these
women and their spouses to draw equally upon their registered
personal savings plan to make up the difference.
The alternative would be for medical science to develop a way
for men to share the joy of childbirth. However, even if science
could develop the technology, it would not be of much use. I
think all mothers would agree that men do not have the pain
threshold to survive childbirth.
In this celebration of International Women's Day, I share with
the secretary of state the goal of true equality of the sexes. I just
do not accept that legislation is the way to accomplish it. It gives
the impression that women are incapable of obtaining equality
solely based on their performance.
Yes, women today will experience chauvinism and
discrimination in their lives. But as one of my staffers says, a
woman has to work twice as hard as a man to get half the credit.
Fortunately, this is not particularly difficult. I believe it is a
good sign on the road to equality to know that this quote comes
from a male staffer.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 65th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the associate membership of standing committees.
I move that the 65th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition signed by over 200 residents of
my riding of St. John's West. The petition is in relation to a
decision to destaff lighthouses in Newfoundland.
The undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of
the House that Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the most
treacherous coastlines in Canada. Even with the latest
technology many lives have still been lost while navigating
these coastal waters. Many lighthouse keepers have assisted
mariners with lifesaving measures above and beyond the
capabilities of technology. Therefore the petitioners call upon
Parliament to recognize the valuable service provided by light
keepers and to reconsider the destaffing of lighthouses.
(1300)
Earlier this week I made a statement regarding this important
issue. I fully support this request and ask Parliament to
reconsider the decision.
10339
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of
approximately 15,000 Edmontonians. I also understand that
there are several petitions being presented on the same issue that
equal approximately 64,000 names.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act. They
request that a complete and thorough review of the existing
legislation take place aimed at changing sentencing and repeat
offending.
It is my pleasure to submit this petition and to also inform my
constituents and Edmontonians that I thoroughly concur with
these petitioners.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to present four
petitions to the House with a total of 545 signatures.
The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament
reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and that
it implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal
government spending.
It is my pleasure to support this process and I am pleased to
present these petitions to the House.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a number of
petitions today. The first four petitions collectively contain well
over 3,000 signatures.
The petitioners are requesting that Parliament not attack the
recreational firearms community and support only legislation
which severely punishes one who uses a weapon, including a
weapon other than a firearm; protects the rights and freedoms of
the law-abiding recreational firearms community to own and
use firearms responsibly; passes careful scrutiny to see that it
will improve public safety in a cost effective manner; repeals
present firearms control legislation which features tortuous
language and which has been characterized by the courts as one
of the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
petitioners of the fifth and sixth petitions which I have here wish
to draw Parliament's attention to the consequence of legalizing
euthanasia.
The petitioners request that Parliament not support euthanasia
or doctor assisted suicide.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
seventh petition requests that Parliament oppose amendments to
the Canadian Human Rights Act or Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase
sexual orientation because such an inclusion will provide
certain groups with special status, rights and privileges.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the last
petition I present today on behalf of my constituents concerns
the Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners request that Parliament continue to give the
board monopoly powers in marketing wheat and barley for
export.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
five petitions to present today. The first one is signed by Mrs.
Sisko Hamer-Jackson and 312 other residents of North
Vancouver. The second one is by Mr. F. G. Williams and 26 other
fellow Canadians. The third one is by Ross McCarlie and 25
other persons. All three are on the same subject.
The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament
reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
other two petitions that I would like to present today, the first
one is signed by Helen Hughes and 26 other North Vancouver
residents.
It calls upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
The last petition that I have to present today is sent in by
Arlene Boreham and 41 other people in North Vancouver.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not pass Bill
C-41 with section 718.2 as presently written and in any event
not include the undefined phrase sexual orientation as the
behaviour people engage in does not warrant special
considerations in Canadian law.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the privilege today to present two petitions.
(1305)
The first petition asks Parliament to ensure the presence of
provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide and
make sure they are vigorously enforced.
10340
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition wants to extend the protection for the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
privileges to them as to born children.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition that has been duly authorized by the
clerk of petitions and has signatures on it from my constituency
in the Woodstock and Hartland area.
Those signing are petitioning Parliament to ensure that the
present provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no change in the law that would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or any activity designed to
terminate human life.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions today.
The first one deals with potential changes to the Canadian
Human Rights Act in terms of sexual orientation. The
petitioners are opposed to that.
The second petition also deals with the sexual orientation
issue in the human rights act. These petitioners support that
potential government action.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition relates to the potential firearms
legislation before the House. These petitioners express concern
about the provisions as presently before the House.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by
numerous residents of the Kingston area requesting that
Parliament delete a section from Bill C-41.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if Questions Nos. 87, 130 and 132 could be made
Orders for Return, those returns would be tabled immediately.
I may say that in respect of Question No. 87, the hon. member
for Calgary Southeast has been complaining recently, I will put
it politely, that she has not received this information. I am
pleased to table it and I hope the week we are not sitting will
afford her an opportunity to read the material, given its rather
voluminous nature.
I am tabling only one copy here today because of the bulk. The
other two copies are in Journals. I am also tabling the Orders for
Return of the other two orders agreed to by the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House that Questions Nos. 87, 130 and 132 be deemed to have
been made Orders for Returns?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 87-Mrs. Brown:
For 1992 and 1993, what was the total amount of funds received by individuals
and groups from the Canada Council, who were these individuals, for what
specific projects did they receive funding and how much did they receive?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 130-Mr. Strahl:
With regards to the determinate and indeterminate federal employees
declared surplus in all the departments and agencies of the federal government,
what are the reasons/categories for their surplus status, how many employees
are in each category by department/agency, and how many employees in each
department/agency are receiving pay without actually performing work?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 132-Mr. Strahl:
With regards to determinate and indeterminate employee reclassifications
across all departments and agencies within the federal public service, what was
the number of reclassifications by month and by department/agency across the
public service from November 1993 to the present, and what were the
reclassifications by level, by month and by department/agency across the public
service, from November 1993 to the present?
(Return tabled.)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33, because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
28 minutes.
_____________________________________________
10340
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year
beginning on April 1, 1995, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
10341
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to remind the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 74 we are now at the
next stage of debate in which members will be entitled to a
10-minute maximum intervention without question or
comment.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-73 is the Borrowing Authority Act of 1995-96. Unfortunately
it is becoming an annual event in the House of Commons that we
debate the Borrowing Authority Act every year after the budget.
Every year since the early 1970s we have had to introduce a
borrowing authority in order for the government to carry out the
intentions and the policies introduced by the Minister of Finance
in his budget.
During these last 30 years or more the borrowing authority
has now increased our indebtedness up to $550-odd billion. We
know unfortunately that we are going to be doing the same again
next year as we increase the borrowing authority another
$30-odd billion, $25 billion the subsequent year, and on and on.
When will it stop? That is what we want to know. We have
been asking questions in the House of the Minister of Finance,
of the Prime Minister, of any member of the government who is
prepared to give us a simple, straightforward answer. When can
we expect this budget to be balanced?
(1310 )
In due time, the Liberals say. We have been waiting for over
30 years. They created the problem in the 1970s which was
carried on by the Tories in the 1980s. They are going to
perpetuate it in the 1990s. How long before we stop having this
annual rite of debating borrowing authority to dig ourselves
further and further into the whole?
One day foreign lenders and the international investment
community will not worry about our borrowing authority. They
will say that we are not going to get it. They are the ones who are
going to say it is all over. It is not going to be this House of
Parliament that is going to say we can go out and borrow more
money. The international lenders will say that is it, we are cut
off. Then what?
The Reform Party has been trying to tell this House to balance
the budget in three years. If foreign lenders tells us there is no
borrowing authority we will be balancing this budget in three
weeks. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister refuse to
balance the budget or even tell us when we are going to stop this
annual fiasco of more and more borrowing.
We had the Minister of Finance table a budget the other day.
This was the toughest budget we have had since the second
world war. This was really going to cut the fat and get down to
the real nitty-gritty of managing the nation's finances.
The following day the President of the Treasury Board tabled
the estimates and guess what, spending is going up again. Even
though this was the toughest budget since the second world war
spending is going up again. Let us stop fooling the Canadian
people and let us get the job done. That is all we ask.
The polls are now showing that half of Canadians took one
quick look at the budget and felt it was not tough enough and not
quick enough to balance the budget. They said for goodness
sake, can this government get its act together and get the job
done.
All the Minister of Finance could do was increase taxes again;
more taxes again on gasoline which affects every person in this
country more or less, certainly almost every family. Remember
that we have no inflation in this country any more. That means
when the government increases taxes on gasoline it is going to
affect every family because virtually every family has a car.
This means that these families are going to have to squeeze
their budget because the government is going to take more from
them. They will have to do with less and adjust their budgets
downward in order for them to accommodate the fact that the
government is reaching further into their pockets because this
government cannot do its job of living with less, doing with less
and spending less. It has said that it needs more money and
Canadians are going to give it whether or not they like it. That is
the fault of the way in which this country has been managed for
the last 30 or more years. The government could also tap the
taxpayer for more money. That is not going to work any more.
We could always tap the international investor for money but
that is not going to work any more. The day is rapidly
approaching when we are going to have to say that we have to
live within our means. We must do it now or or we must do it as
soon as we can to get the budget balanced and be able to return to
some idea of prosperity in this country.
There was another budget introduced about 10 days ago called
the taxpayer's budget. The Reform Party said the job can be
done in three years. Not only can the job be done in three years,
it can be done without increasing taxes period.
Let us compare the taxpayer's budget with the Liberal budget
which spends more money liberally and leaves the taxpayer with
less money. Remember I said the taxpayers were going to have
less money. There is no inflation in this country. The taxpayer is
now going to have less money because the government wants
more. It will squeeze $9.9 billion out of the taxpayers this
coming year. Next year it will be $1.3 billion. The subsequent
year it will be $1.4 billion. These are the figures of the Minister
of Finance, by the way.
10342
(1315)
That will carry on ad infinitum until the date we can turn
things around and say: ``Here is a tax decrease''. The extra $1.4
billion a year will carry on every year. That should be compared
to our taxpayers' budget which said the job could be done and
there would be no more taxes.
What about the deficit? According to the figures of the
Minister of Finance, in the year 1995-96 the deficit will be
$32.7 billion. The Liberal government has been around for 18
months. The deficit was $40-odd billion when it arrived. After
this draconian or toughest budget since the second world
war-and this is the minister's second budget-he will only get
it down to $32.7 billion.
The following year it should be $24.3 billion and maybe $20
billion after that. Who knows after that as the country goes into
an economic decline, with UI and other costs like welfare going
up and tax revenues going down? They know that will happen.
My goodness, are there no business people over there? Tax
revenues will go down, expenditures will go up and we will have
lost control of the budget again.
What about the taxpayers' budget? The figure in 1996-97
would be $23 billion, not the $32.7 billion of the Liberal
government. In the subsequent year we would be down to $11
billion, while they would still be up at $24.3 billion. And,
hallelujah, in the following year at the end of 1997-98 we would
be down to zero, a balanced budget, and the Liberals would still
be around $20 billion.
If they are still over there in that year, we will still be over
here talking about another borrowing authority. However if we
are over there and they are over here they will not have to worry
about borrowing authority speeches after all. We will not need
them.
What will the Liberal budget do for job creation? We already
know that it is not too rosy in the public sector. There will be
45,000 less jobs. In the private sector there is more debt and less
jobs. That is fairly simple. We know that already. Whereas in our
budget we acknowledge there will be a negative impact on the
public sector because we will have to do what those folks are
doing because we will have to fix the problems you created.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask the hon.
member to direct his comments to the Chair. I feel left out again.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to be left
out. I apologize. If the Liberal government remains over there it
will have its work cut out. Jobs will be denied because of the fact
that debt will still be mounting.
On it goes. We produced a 58-page document, almost as big
as the one the Liberals produced with all the masses of the public
service, statistics and budget analysis right across the country as
they spent millions of dollars. What did it all matter? We now
find out that the big consultation before the budget was at the
Liberal caucus just before the budget was brought down.
Perhaps that was the big consultation that influenced the
Minister of Finance. All this consultation across the country was
for show.
A borrowing authority as an annual event has to stop. That is
what we are saying. We cannot afford any more. Therefore let us
make a commitment or let us make a real resolution in the House
that we may have this one and perhaps two more debates on
borrowing authority and no more.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to talk about the
budget. I would like to start by congratulating the Minister of
Finance.
The Minister of Finance has put forward a responsible, well
developed and, something members opposite have a hard time
with, fair budget.
(1320 )
It is a fair budget, a responsible budget and a good budget
because the government recognizes that it has a dual
responsibility when dealing with Canadian affairs. It recognizes
that it has a fiscal responsibility. That is why the budget is
prudent. It recognizes that we operate in a businesslike way but
recognizes that we are not a business. It recognizes that we need
to get full value for each of the dollars we spend.
In addition, the government recognizes that it has a social
responsibility and that certain things are done in government not
just to earn a profit but because they are the right things to do.
We do them because we recognize as a government that we have
responsibilities and obligations to individual Canadians. We
intend as a government to adhere both to our fiscal
responsibility and to our social responsibility.
I do not think there is any question in terms of fiscal matters
that our responsibility has been carried out and carried out well.
For the first time in almost a generation a Minister of Finance
established a deficit target last year. Not only did he hit that
target. He did far better than what he said he would be able to do.
Second, the minister set a medium term objective of 3 per cent
of GDP in the next two years. He set out a strategy that will see
us do that. It is a clear and concise strategy. It is an achievable
plan that will see our deficit reduced to 3 per cent of GDP.
Despite what members opposite might say, this is not a smoke
and mirrors budget. These are real cuts. This is not what
happened in the past where the talk of reduction was simply that
we would spend a little less than the increase we had planned.
These are real cuts in actual spending and they are being done
10343
with no personal income tax increases. They are real reductions,
despite what the member opposite said.
In the first year we will cut expenditures by $3.9 billion. In the
following year, 1996-97, it will be $5.9 billion. In the third year
of the plan it will be $7.2 billion. That is a decline in a
three-year period of almost 19 per cent. It is the largest decrease
in government since we demobilized after the second world war.
The minister in establishing the budget did two very
important and prudent things. First, his estimations in terms of
growth and interest rates were very prudent. In terms of growth
he projected a smaller amount than what the average private
sector suggested. In terms of interest rates, both short and long
term, he set his projections higher than what the private sector
was suggesting. He built in a cushion to ensure that the budget is
fiscally responsible.
Second, he set up contingencies in the next two years: a
contingency of $2.5 billion in the first year and a contingency of
$3 billion in the second year. He has made what I believe is an
important commitment, that if he does not need the
contingencies to achieve his deficit reduction targets the
moneys will be used to further reduce the debt.
The minister has gone about setting a budget like we do when
we set our household budgets or our small business budgets. He
has taken what was in front of him, set out a reasonable plan over
a reasonable period of time, built in contingencies and come up
with a strong, workable plan.
In addition to the fiscal responsibility the minister has
recognized the social responsibility. Although we are to cut
some funding from social programs, it is important to remember
than when the budget is fully implemented we will be spending
as a government more than $50 billion on the social safety net of
the country, more than $50 billion to protect the men, women
and children of Canada. That is an important principle which the
minister understands. It is an important Liberal principle and I
am proud to sit with a government that recognizes it.
It is a budget that is fair and equitable because it asks all
segments of Canadian society to participate in the exercise. It
does not ask one part of Canadian society to carry an unfair
burden. It is not suggesting that some segments should not have
to participate at all. That is why the budget covers a wide range
of areas.
(1325)
Large corporations have been asked to participate by
providing some increased revenue. They have been asked to
participate by a decrease in subsidies going to businesses.
The federal government is putting its own house in order first.
It is going to cut its expenditures by 19 per cent. That is the
largest part of the cut.
Individuals have been asked to participate as well, as they
should, not through increased income tax, not through taxing
RRSPs, not through taxing dental and health benefits, but
through a modest tax on gasoline.
He asked the provinces to participate as well. He asked them
for a 4.4 per cent participation which is only half as much as
what the federal government is doing itself. I think that is
important. It is absolutely ludicrous when provincial premiers
suggest that we as a government should totally exempt them
from participating in the deficit reduction exercise.
Finally, as members of the finance committee which did a
prebudget exercise unlike what the member opposite suggested,
we adhered to the three principles that came out of the
committee meetings. The first was that expenditures should be
the largest portion of the action, not taxes. We did that with a 7:1
ratio. Second, we had to get our own house in order first. We did
that with a $29 billion three-year cut in our own expenditures or
a cut of 19 per cent. The third was that we would be fair and
equitable. We did that by having all segments of Canadian
society participate.
In conclusion, let me say unequivocally that I support the
budget. I support the Minister of Finance. I support the
government. We have achieved the dual objectives of fiscal
responsibility and social responsibility. I am proud of what the
minister has accomplished.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank you for this opportunity to comment on the budget tabled
by the Minister of Finance last Monday. Beyond the rhetoric and
eloquent speeches, a cold hard look at this budget uncovers the
extent and consequences of the federal system's inability to
reform and to respond adequately to the aspirations of
Quebecers and of Canadians.
Author Jean-François Lisée recently published two works
whose titles are evocative of the con job the government has just
pulled, the havoc it has wrought, and they are in the back of my
mind as I analyse the unseen side of the finance minister's
budget, the hidden aspects of its condescending rhetoric which
does not tell us the truth about what is really at stake.
First of all, this budget misleads Canadians when it purports
to be hard on everyone. This is not the case. It attacks the
neediest members of our society, who will bear the brunt of the
major cuts, and leaves undisturbed the large corporations and
banks. Large corporations will still be able to escape the tax
man, and banks will be taxed very minimally, compared to their
astronomical profits.
10344
Second, this budget misleads Quebec and the provinces,
when it claims to be courageously attacking the federal deficit,
when in fact it is offloading the greater part of that deficit onto
the backs of the provinces. Seven billion dollars in expenses
have been transferred in this manner, but no power went with
it.
Third, this budget is destructive of social programs, and in
particular health programs. The official speech conceals the
truth of the matter, when it implies that the principles
underlying the Canada Health Act are not affected and remain
unchanged. Some treat when the federal government orders the
meal for Quebec and the provinces and leaves them to pay the
tab.
Fourth, and this is the most disturbing, this budget flies in the
face of the government's claim to be embracing flexible
federalism, the latest version of its favourite theme. There is no
flexibility in this budget, other than that demonstrated by the
Minister of Finance when he sidesteps his responsibilities and
dumps them onto the provinces. Everything else remains
unchanged. National standards, spending authority, overlapping
of departments in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
(1330)
With this new budget, the government is once again waging an
all out war on the least fortunate members of society. For the
second year in a row, the unemployed and the small wage
earners are bearing the brunt of the cuts, while major
corporations and banking institutions go nearly unscathed.
The finance minister announced new cuts to the
unemployment insurance program, while he will only
temporarily increase capital tax for major banks. He will beg
banking institutions for a paltry $100 million, while, in 1995,
the Royal Bank alone recorded profits of around $1.2 billion.
Moreover, this government refused to listen to all those,
including the Bloc and the Conseil du patronat du Québec, who
were asking for the elimination of all business subsidies. The
finance minister chose instead to cut $300 million from social
housing instead of using the $1.5 billion still earmarked for
business subsidies.
Is this the federal approach?
Major corporations and banks can rest easy. The finance
minister clearly indicated in his budget that, once again, the
unemployed and the poor will be stuck with paying the bill for
the inefficiencies of this unworkable federalism; at the same
time, he maintains, until the end of the century, the privileges
enjoyed only by the rich through family trusts.
The budget is very clear: within the next two years, the federal
government will deprive the provinces of 7 billion dollars worth
of transfer payments for health care, post-secondary education
and the Canada Assistance Plan for which provinces will have to
pay out of their own pocket. This is what we call offloading your
deficit onto the provinces. Indeed, the federal government
should put its financial house in order, but not at the provinces'
expense.
Quebec is being loaded down with a big chunk of Canada's
deficit, while, for its part, the federal government keeps
interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions. Quebecers will keep on
paying the cost of all the duplication inherent to the federal
system. We will still have two health departments, two human
resources development departments, and two environment
departments, to name only a few.
This is the new Canada promised by this bad budget. This
so-called decentralizing budget is, in fact, nothing but an empty
shell, since the federal government will continue to intervene in
areas of jurisdiction belonging to the provinces.
The irony in all this masquerade is that, while cutting by 27.1
per cent the transfers to Quebec, the federal government
continues to impose to the provinces the same national
standards, in particular those coming under the Canada Health
Act.
In 1979, when that bill was proclaimed, the federal
government was paying 45 per cent of health and
post-secondary education costs. Since transfer payments where
frozen in 1992, the federal share has been reduced to 29 per cent.
With the new measures contained in this budget, the share of the
federal government will be down to a new record low of 15 per
cent.
How can the minister have the nerve to want to impose
national standards when the federal share of health care has
dropped 35 per cent since 1979, despite a substantial increase in
health care costs, and will decrease again more than 55 per cent
with this new budget?
It seems to me that the federal government will have no choice
but to leave to the provinces complete management of the health
care system.
I said earlier that this budget will mean the floundering of our
social progams as we know them today. We all know that Quebec
and the provinces are faced with very steep increases in the costs
of health care. This is mainly due to the following factors: aging
of our population, new and more expensive medical
technologies and a substantial increase in the cost of drugs.
Just like previous budgets when the government froze all
transfer payments, in this budget, the government announces
massive cuts to transfers to Quebec and the other provinces of
funds earmarked for health.
(1335)
It does not matter if these transfers are combined with others
to create one single envelope, the result will be the same: there
will be less money for health care and the government will be
jeopardizing the fundamental principles of our health care
system.
10345
The finance minister should have been honest and open with
the Quebec and the Canadian people. He should tell them that
these cuts to the provinces mean the end of our health care
system as we know it now, because that is the real issue here.
Look, for example, at the recent statements made by the prime
minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who
contradicted the Minister of Finance who said, and I quote:
``The conditions of the Canada Health Act will be maintained.
For our government, those are fundamental.''
How can the Minister of Finance still imagine and argue that
Quebec and the other provinces will be able to continue to
deliver the same quality of health care services to the people?
How can Quebec and the other provinces implement the five
principles of the Canada Health Act imposed by Ottawa when
the Minister of Finance passes on to them billions of dollars of
deficit by means of cuts to the social programs?
The Minister of Finance should have shown courage and tell
upfront to his fellow Canadians: ``Unfortunately, because of the
errors we have made, mainly in the Chrétien and Lalonde
budgets, we can no longer afford our health care system as we
know it now''.
Instead of assuming his responsibilities, the finance minister
is trying to get out from under them. The government shuns its
responsibilities when it passes its deficit on to Quebec and the
other provinces. This government is misleading the Canadian
people by not telling them that the health care program is
doomed because of this budget.
Let me conclude by saying that this budget is misleading,
since it does not mention the cuts that are still to come. It widens
the gap between the rich and the poor in our society and puts an
end to a good number of features of our social programs.
Canadians must know that. Quebecers in particular must be
aware of it before they make a final judgment on the federal
regime, which obviously fails to solve its own problems and,
even more, to renew itself according to the expectations of
Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a
pleasure to comment for a few minutes this afternoon on the
budget that was presented this week.
I want to start by passing on the comments that I made to
members of the press in my riding when I spoke to them on
budget night. When asked what my reaction was I said it was one
of excitement because this is not the first budget that I have
seen. I certainly have not been present for the considerable
number that some members in the House have, but this is the
seventh one.
This budget fulfils the expectations and hopes for the majority
of Canadians. I have been telling my constituents for the last
number of weeks and months as they offered suggestions to the
government that our challenge was to meet the requirements out
there with fair and equal treatment for everyone along with
being effective. We met those criteria.
We know that two situations in Canada today are clouding the
issue. One is the uncertainty of the future of the province of
Quebec. I am pleased to say that the majority of the people in
Prince Edward-Hastings say: ``My Canada includes Quebec''.
Fortunately for all of us, more and more Quebecers are
realizing that every day and they have every reason to. More and
more Quebecers are realizing that a strong central government is
what is good for this country and what is good for everybody. All
of us will be better off as Canadians and as human beings if we
are part of the family we call Canada.
The finance minister pointed to the second cloud which is the
debt and the deficit. I do not have to remind anyone of the size of
that: over $500 billion in debt, a $42 billion deficit a year ago,
some $80,000 a minute to cover the interest on it, and I could go
on.
I need to say no more in emphasizing the fact that the
government has a tremendous challenge. Our country has a
tremendous challenge. This challenge can only be successfully
met with competence, compassion, reform and hope. We made a
great step toward that on Monday night with the budget.
We have been honest with Canadians by saying that we too
know there is a lot more yet to do. What we did on Monday night
was done by pushing the needed measures as close to the edge as
possible and doing it without playing havoc with the economy
which is growing at a faster rate than just about any other
country in the world. Certainly it is the fastest of any of the G-7
countries. Things are on the move. Perhaps they are not moving
as fast as we would like but they are certainly on the move and
they are going in the right direction.
We knew we were being watched. We were being watched by
the international community, by the money markets, the
domestic financial institutions, the domestic money markets,
the business community. We were being watched by everyone,
including all Canadians.
We did what was needed but we did not enjoy it. I can say we
did not want to do it because it is not nice to say that we are going
to reduce employment, that we are going to have to make some
changes. When I say we did not want to do it, it was not because
it did not need to be done. It did need to be done. As the Prime
Minister has said so clearly and so often, we did it because it was
necessary.
It reminds me of some advice I gave to the finance minister
leading up to the budget and the slogan used by the prominent
company, Nike: Just do it. And we did it. We did it by making $7
worth of cuts for every $1 increase in revenue. We did it after
10346
having listened to Canadians in the greatest consultation process
that has ever taken place leading up to a budget.
We did it without increasing income tax. We did it without
taxing dental and employer provided medical plans. We did it
without making many changes that would affect to any great
extent registered retirement savings plan contributions.
We did it without taxing lotteries. Many people thought we
would. A number of people said not to tax lottery winnings. I
told them that if they were to win a million dollars and had to pay
tax on it but did not want to, I knew some people who would take
their ticket for them.
We did it without changing the capital gains tax for small
business and farmers. In so doing we again recognized the
importance of small business and farmers in the Canadian
economy.
Yes, we did it on the revenue side by increasing the tax on
gasoline 1.5 cents a litre. I think that is fair and equitable from
coast to coast. We also did it by cutting the size of government.
Yes, I recognize that people in Prince Edward-Hastings riding
in the civil service will have to contribute and will be
contributing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It being 1.43 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 73, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
(1345 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, because of the ministerial
statement we should be starting private members' hour in 15
minutes. However, if members are agreeable and with
unanimous consent perhaps we could start private members'
hour immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair might be of
some help if the chief government whip would approach the
Chair for a moment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant
to what we discussed briefly earlier, if you were now to seek
unanimous consent you would find that instead of suspending
the House for 15 minutes, which is what we would normally do
at this time, we could perhaps start immediately with private
members' hour, as no other bill is before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.50 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10346
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-247, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child care
expenses), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present my private
member's bill C-247, an act to amend the Income Tax Act on
child care Expenses.
This bill would give all parents a tax deduction of $5,000 or
$3,000 per child to assist them with the increasing costs of
raising their children while at the same time eliminate the
current tax discrimination against stay at home parents and
those who do not use day care. All parents would have the same
deduction available to them regardless of their incomes, status,
marital status, labour force, or chosen method of child care.
(1350)
I would like to read an excerpt from a discussion paper that
was sent to me, not by a special interest group but by Cheryl
Stewart and Sandra Evans of Ontario. It reads:
We are Canadian mothers who work at home full time nurturing our children.
We both had successful careers in the paid workforce prior to choosing to stay
home and raise our children.
We are concerned about the direction that this process is taking toward
institutionalized child care and how it is virtually ignoring other forms of
care-particularly those who choose to care for their own children.
According to Statistics Canada, 68.5 per cent of women in
two-parent families with children under three, and 62 per cent
with children between the ages of three and five, remain at home
on a full time basis or work part time. When all women in
two-parent families with children under 16 years of age are
taken into consideration, 57.6 per cent have decided to either
remain at home full time or work part time.
10347
These figures show us there is a large percentage of women
who have made their choice to stay at home with their children.
Despite this fact, they are not entitled to the same tax treatment
as those who use day care.
As a direct result, our courts are filled with cases of
individuals and families alike who feel that the Canadian
income tax system discriminates against them. Calgarians, Jim
and Laurie Boland, for example, were told in Federal Court that
a parent that chooses to be at home with a child is not entitled to
the same privileges as those who pay for child care.
The judge ruled that the Income Tax Act admittedly denies the
Bolands equal benefit under the law but because stay at home
parents are not ``a discrete and insular minority'' they are not
protected by the charter of rights and freedoms.
This is just one example of people fighting a system that does
not reflect the realities of society. Currently provisions in the
Income Tax Act make the child care expense deduction only to
families who pay institutions to look after their children. The
deduction can only be claimed by the lower income spouse of a
married couple, which makes it useless when one parent stays
home to raise the children.
In other words, if you put your child in receipted day care, the
government will reward you, but if you opt for a different
arrangement like most Canadians do, you are on your own. It is
just a matter of time before the courts overrule this decision.
Maybe it is time for the legislatures in Canada to set the agenda
as opposed to responding to court decisions.
You only have to look at how the Thibaudeau decision on
child support payments sent the Minister of Justice scrambling.
The fact is that this legal discrimination must and should stop.
As the dynamics of the family continue to change, parents
should be free to choose the method of child care that best suits
their situation, as opposed to having government reward one
choice over another. It is the choice that I am trying to
emphasize today. Flexibility and freedom of choice should be
the key elements of our approach to child care.
It is obvious that people cannot afford non-subsidized day
care and have limited choices other than to stand in line and wait
for a spot in a subsidized program. Why not give them the
financial means and the options to choose other forms of child
care? Provide all families with the $5,000 tax deduction, leave
the money in their hands and let them choose whether to stay at
home; unregulated day care, nannies, relatives or friends are the
best options for them.
Interest groups all talk about the need for more flexible child
care. Here we have true flexibility. Leave more money at the
source and stop financially encouraging families to choose
outside receipted child care.
Let us look at this from a different perspective, a different
angle. Currently there are 360,000 child care spaces in Canada,
150,000 of which are subsidized for low income families. Is the
answer more spaces as the Liberal government thinks, or is it
more choices as I think?
The purpose of my bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to
allow the deduction of a fixed amount of $5,000 or $3,000 as
child care expenses, depending on the age of the child,
regardless of the income of the parent and the amount of child
care expenses actually incurred. Quite simply, the bill provides
for a straightforward income tax deduction per child, up to age
14, to any taxpaying parent regardless of the method of child
care chosen.
(1355)
Therefore, Bill C-247 is based on three fundamental
principles: funding the family, not the institution; giving
freedom of choice to parents for their preferred method of child
care; addressing the shortcomings of our current system and the
subsequent increases in the financial burden on Canadian
families.
The fact is that Canadian families have been taxed to the hilt.
With Bill C-247 parents would be free to choose how to best
spend their money. If they choose to send the kids to day care, so
be it. If they choose to have one parent stay at home to raise the
children, let us give them the freedom to make that decision. My
main concern is to treat everyone equally. Leave money in the
hands of the people who earn it and need it, and let them make
their own choices on how to run their lives.
The vast majority of federal funding for children's programs
in Canada is provided in the following ways. There are actually
six different mechanisms by which people get assistance.
The child tax benefit went into effect in January 1993,
replacing the former family allowance program as well as the
refundable and non-refundable child tax credit. This program
delivered benefits of $5.2 billion between July 1993 and June
1994.
The Canada assistance plan, which comes under the human
resources department, shares in the cost with the provinces and
territories of providing social assistance and welfare services.
This program delivered benefits totalling $2.8 billion in the year
1993-94.
The third mechanism is the child care expense deduction. It is
a tax measure intended to assist parents with the cost of
receipted child care. This program cost Revenue Canada just
over $330 million in fiscal 1993-94.
The fourth mechanism is the equivalent to married tax credit,
which is a non-refundable tax credit available to single parents
to help ease the burden of raising children alone. Only one child
can be claimed. This program cost the federal government just
over $565 million in fiscal 1993-94.
10348
The fifth mechanism is the goods and services tax credit of
$213 million per year.
In addition, the Liberal government in the red book promised
to spend an additional $1.4 billion with the provinces to create
150,000 regulated, non-parental child care spaces over the next
three years. This is apparently on hold with the latest budget.
Hopefully that will be confirmed later on today.
Currently in Ontario there are about 7,000 vacant child care
spaces in non-subsidized day care, while 25,000 people are on
waiting lists for subsidized day care. If we put stay at home
parents or any families that do not use outside receipted day care
on the same financial footing as those who do, then some of
those child care spaces would be freed up as parents choose
different options and the list of 25,000 would shrink.
The government could then take part of the revenue that it was
going to spend on more spaces and target it specifically at the
poor families in the form of subsidies and benefits. That would
be a true social program for the truly needy, a welfare assistance
program that helps people who are in need, if it is a
demonstrable need.
We are considering spending billions of dollars to apply a
national program and national standards to families that are
different in composition, situation, work and educational
schedules, income, age, cultural and linguistic profiles, urban
and rural settings, and the list goes on. The only common
denominator I can see is that these people all have children.
Does it not therefore make sense to give families the
economic tools to make their own decisions depending on their
own specific needs? Let us consolidate the list of programs
which I outlined and adopt Bill C-247 for all wage earners and
introduce a social welfare package that, I submit, would be of
significantly less cost.
(1400)
If one totals the programs I have mentioned, it is over$8 billion. We can certainly have a two-level plan and make the
cost for the social and welfare programs a lot less.
Using Revenue Canada statistics, using the government's
main statistics bank, for taxes filed in 1993 it is estimated that
Bill C-247 would cost the federal government $3.6 billion in tax
revenue losses. One can call them tax expenditures.
The government may come up with another set of figures that
says $6 billion but maybe the cost is $4 billion or $5 billion.
What is a billion these days? People seem to throw it around like
it does not matter.
The question that begs to be asked, however, is where that
money comes from. Where does the money come from for this
new program that everybody gets a deduction? The answer, 92
per cent of my bill is related to families with incomes above
$30,000.
Simply put, one needs income to claim a tax deduction. Last
year the $5.2 billion child tax benefit which was designed to
help lower income families paid out $2.1 billion to families with
incomes in excess of $30,000.
If members narrow the targeting of the child tax benefit to
those making $30,000 and under, that would free up $2.1 billion
to pay for Bill C-247. Do not forget I said there is a two-tier
system, over $30,000 and under $30,000. We have just freed up
$2.1 billion to help cover the costs of Bill C-247.
Where does the additional $1.5 billion come from? If I stick to
my $3.6 billion in costs, which I could round up to $4 billion if
the government would like me to, a portion can come from the
$1.4 billion. We have found $2.1 billion now. A portion can
come from the $1.4 billion that will be spent on subsidized day
care, the future spending they will not have to spend. Leave the
current day care facilities in place and reduce that list of 25,000
people who are waiting. They can go to the ones that are empty
in the private day care centres or they might choose other forms
of day care.
Eliminate the need for the equivalent to married tax credit, the
$565 million, because quite simply with Bill C-247 single
parents would be left with more of their own money and be able
to claim more than one child as is currently the case.
They would not need this assistance because as the recipients
of child care payments, they would have the offsetting deduction
to eliminate the tax payment. There is another $560 million.
The final costs would be made up through the elimination of
handling charges on the money that is redistributed by Ottawa
through tax credits. The beauty of a deduction is that the money
stays at the source, leaving more disposable income for people,
lower processing fees for Ottawa and greater netbacks for
everybody.
I believe that the power of the lobby for day care is overly
evident in governmental policy to date. In his social reforms
discussion paper, the Minister of Human Resources
Development addressed day care spaces and flexible work
arrangements for parents but said nothing about current taxation
inequities, charter challenges or, more specifically, stay at home
parenting.
One of the biggest single problems that this government has is
that it always fails to identify the right problem, just like the
deficit and the debt. It wants to lower the deficit. However that is
just a contributing factor to the debt. It should be attacking the
debt and how to solve that problem.
Such a move would have been too racy, the Minister of Human
Resources Development said on a Calgary talk show, to consider
a proposal of deductions for children. I fail to see what is so racy
about a tax break for people who work just as hard in the home,
10349
but it is obvious that someone with a different view has the
minister's attention.
The red book deals once again with the day care spaces but not
with other significant issues affecting families in the 1990s. For
example, it specifically addressed a child care system that
enables parents to participate fully in the economic life of the
country. That is on page 35, for members opposite.
In other words, do not stay at home, work. What about people
who choose to directly participate in the lives of their child? Is
this not valuable? When the Tories were in power they proposed
Bill C-144 which basically stated that parents of children six
and under would be able to double the child care expense
deduction of $2,000 in 1988.
(1405 )
For the benefit of larger families the plan would have
removed the $8,000 family limit for child care expenditures.
Parents staying at home to care for their children or those
without receipts for child care expenses would have been able to
claim an additional $100 tax credit per child in 1988 and $200 in
years after that; not significant amounts, but recognition of the
problem was a step in the right direction.
Bill C-144 was hammered by the lobby groups for
subsidizing for profit care and spending money on tax breaks as
opposed to subsidized spaces. It died on the Order Paper, on
October 1, 1988.
Day care advocates continue to claim that true equality for
women cannot be achieved until a universal day care system is
in place. I argue that a balance must be struck to encourage a
system that enables parents to participate fully in the economic
life of the country and/or if they so choose to participate fully in
the raising of their children.
The key word and the key problem this bill is attempting to
resolve is choice, eliminating the discrimination. The current
legislative agenda does not recognize that people want the
freedom and resources to choose what is best for their children.
They are tired of governments and government bureaucracy
trying to influence their actions through old-fashioned social
engineering.
I recognize that child care comes under provincial
jurisdiction. This is the federal contribution to that system. In
conjunction with provinces they could discuss the various ways
and means of developing the social safety net to target those who
are truly in need.
Bill C-247 is of national interest as it addresses the highly
contentious issues of national child care, funding for child care
spaces, the discriminatory aspects of the Income Tax Act for
individuals using non-receipted child care, the stay at parent. It
encourages the focusing of social spending to the truly needy
and provides families that are not in need of social programs
with tax incentives to spend their money the way they see fit.
The time has come to bring tax laws up to speed with the
modern era. We must modify present tax laws, not only to bring
about greater fairness but to reflect the changes that have
occurred in our society.
The Bolands from Calgary challenged the discriminatory
nature of the Income Tax Act. The Schachtschneiders
challenged the discriminatory nature of the Income Tax Act in
its apparent favourable treatment of common law couples as
opposed to married couples. Ms. Thibaudeau challenged the
discriminatory nature of the Income Tax Act in its treatment of
child care payment recipients.
Unless we act now the only way these issues will be truly
addressed in the House is if the Supreme Court or the federal
courts render a decision that contradicts or negates existing
legislation. We have an opportunity as legislators to initiate
discussion and action on this issue which, after all, is how things
are supposed to work.
The Income Tax Act is by no means perfect. Bill C-247 would
go a long way in addressing the reasons for the charter
challenges. Contributions to the work force should once and for
all be on the same level as contributions in the home. I
recommend that we stop playing one off the other and start
giving stay at home parents financial, political and social
respect. They deserve the opportunity to work not only in the
home but in the workplace as well. They deserve the opportunity
to live the lifestyle they choose to live on their own without
having to consider tax implications and the costs, the netbacks
or the net benefits they are receiving.
As I mentioned, the five or six existing programs are just like
the Income Tax Act. They make up part of the Income Tax Act,
with 2,137 pages of convoluted, mixed up mishmash that is
difficult to understand. If we took those six programs, combined
and consolidated them to make two, one for over $30,000 and
one for under $30,000, this government and parliamentarians
would be proud to present a system of child care better than what
we currently have.
(1410 )
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Calgary Centre for the opportunity to present the views of the
government on this issue. I appreciate the time being set aside
during private members' hour to give him, his colleagues and
other interested people the perspectives that I, as parliamentary
secretary, can bring to bear on this issue.
10350
[Translation]
Members will recall that the Reform Party's alternative
budget presented last week called for massive spending
reductions, including $15 billion on social programs.
It is surprising, therefore, that Bill C-247, tabled by the
Reform Party member for Calgary Centre, proposes action that
would increase federal and provincial tax revenue costs by a
whopping $6.5 billion annually. That is right, an extra $6.5
billion a year at a time when all Canadian governments are
striving to reduce both their deficits, and Canadians' tax bills.
Maybe the The Taxpayers' Budget should have been entitled Out
of The Taxpayers' Pockets.
Bill C-247 is also surprising given that Reform's budget says
that government must ``build on the Canadian tradition of
self-reliance-and make assistance available only to those who
are genuinely incapable of providing for themselves''.
However, Bill C-247 does not limit assistance to those who need
it. Rather, it would allow fixed child care expense deductions of
$5,000 or $3,000 for all, regardless of the income of the parents
or the amount of child care expenses, if any, actually incurred.
In effect, Bill C-247 would actually create a new child tax
benefit. And sadly, because it would depend on a taxpayer's
marginal tax rate, the benefits would actually be greater for
those in high income brackets than for those in lower brackets.
Unlike the measures proposed in Bill C-247, the current child
tax benefit targets substantial assistance to low and middle
income families with children.
Delivered monthly and tax free, it provides a basic annual
credit of $1,020 per child, plus $75 for the third and each
additional child.
That assistance is reduced by 5 per cent-2.5 per cent for
one-child families-of family net income over $25,921. Also
included is a work income supplement of up to $500 per family
with net family income under $25,921. This helps to meet the
extra costs associated with participating in the work force.
A supplement is provided for parents who choose to remain in
the home to raise their pre-school-aged children. This year, the
supplement is $213 for each child 6 years old or younger.
Assistance for families is also provided through the child care
expense deduction.
(1415)
It recognizes for tax purposes the child care expenses that
taxpayers must incur in order to earn income, to attend a
recognized educational institution full time or to take a
vocational training course.
The deduction acknowledges that these taxpayers have less of
a capacity to pay taxes than other taxpayers with an identical
income, but who do not have child care expenses. As a result, up
to a limit, income used to pay for child care expenses is not
taxable.
The deduction is applied to earned income in order to ensure
that tax assistance is provided for child care expenses incurred
to earn that income.
This reflects the general view that parents not employed
outside the home are expected, and indeed have a responsibility,
to look after their children.
Bill C-247 would completely change the nature of the current
deduction. It would also be prohibitively expensive at a time of
fiscal consolidation. As such, we can neither afford, nor should
we even entertain, the amendments proposed by the member for
Calgary Centre. I therefore urge this House to deny passage of
this bill.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Income Tax
Act (child care expenses) tabled on May 6, 1994 by the member
for Calgary Centre.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to
allow the deduction of a fixed amount of $5,000 or $3,000 as
child care expenses, regardless of the income of the parents and
of the amount of child care expenses actually incurred.
The existing statute does not apply to stay at home parents.
Only those families whose children attend profit making
establishments are allowed the child care expenses deduction.
The bill means that parents can decide how they want their
children cared for and deduct a fixed amount of $5,000 for
children seven and under and $3,000 for those aged eight to
fourteen, regardless of their income and the actual expenses
incurred.
Upon initial examination, this bill seems to make sense.
However, I would like to have more detailed information on
what it will cost, given that the deductions now allowed
represent the major part of day care costs for the government. I
would also like to know how many families and children would
benefit from this bill. The government must manage its
resources wisely. Given their scarcity, I would think that
priority must be given to women who work.
That being said, statistics show that in 1961, in 65 per cent of
families with a child under the age of six, one parent stayed at
home. In 1991, this sort of family structure represented only 12
per cent of families. Nowadays, over 70 per cent of pre-school
age children attend day care regularly while their parents work.
(1420)
Child poverty is increasing dramatically. The government's
cuts in social programs have further worsened the situation.
10351
In addition, the cost of raising children at home is rising.
Who would dare to say that those parents who stay at home are
not working? And yet, the monetary value of this work is not
recognized.
In this sense, the bill provides a modest financial benefit for
families in which one parent stays at home to care for the
children. We know that there are very often no more vacancies in
day care centres.
The present income tax regime is unfair to single income
families. The child care expenses deduction applies only to
two-income families, whatever the total. Families may claim a
maximum of $5,000 per child, for children less than seven years
old, and a $3,000 deduction for children 7 to 14 years old. No
deduction is allowed for one-income families because the
legislation assumes they have no child care expenses to pay.
These are the families who need financial support, particularly
single parent families which, in most cases, are mother and
children units. Children in those families are the first ones to be
struck by poverty.
In our modern world, we can see that, for a great many
families, it is vital for the mother to work outside the home. This
participation in the workforce is sometimes threatened by the
lack of child care services.
Under certain circumstances, women are forced to stay home
and that can cause serious problems. These women suffer from
isolation and lack of social recognition. Therefore, the
government should take the necessary steps to ensure their
social and economic equality. Years spent at home caring for
children result in a considerable loss of income and great
difficulties when reintegrating the labour force.
According to what I have just heard the hon. member for
Calgary Centre say, it seems the Reform members support this
bill for very old-fashioned reasons. Even though I tend to agree
with this bill, I cannot share the philosophy and the line of
thought of the hon. member sponsoring it. His objective seems
to be to promote a more traditional and conservative view of the
family. He would like to see women stay home in greater
numbers. I think this would be a move backwards that would
profit neither the women themselves, nor society which would
no longer benefit from their valuable contribution in important
areas.
On the other hand, we must examine this bill in the current
context of the government social policy which is very
regressive. There is a blatant lack of an overall and fair child
care program. And if we consider that a great number of women
choose to stay at home to raise their children, the bill proposed
by the hon. member for Calgary Centre makes sense, of course,
if that is the free choice of these women. Then, the government
must respect this choice, recognize the economic value of the
work of these women at home and give them this modest
financial benefit.
(1425)
This bill is far from being the ideal solution, but it gives the
opportunity to revive the debate on child care.
Our society wants children, but parents who have them and
raise them are penalized.
I support this bill only inasmuch as the mother or the couple
choose that kind of child care of their own free will. If they do
so, they should not be unduly put at a disadvantage by the
federal tax system.
Surveys show that the general public supports some kind of
government financial assistance to families where one parent
stays home to take care of children.
The government and our society should find a comprehensive
solution to that problem. I certainly hope the Minister of Human
Resources Development will examine this whole issue of
assistance to families and particularly children, because it is
urgent. The federal government should work hand in hand with
the provinces to provide more child care services.
I should add that comparative studies in the United States,
Canada, and Europe suggest that it is inadequate and unfair to
hand out money to families to pay for child care instead of using
tax dollars to fund a child care system, which is probably the
way of the future.
In conclusion, I would like to say that, eventually, we should
also examine the issue of assistance to families who take care of
the elderly, the chronically ill, or the handicapped.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have been asked by my colleague
from Port Moody-Coquitlam to present some aspects of our
position in the debate on Bill C-247, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act relating to child care expenses.
As stated earlier, the purpose of the bill is to amend the
Income Tax Act to allow for the deduction of a fixed amount of
$5,000 or $3,000 according to the age of the child, regardless of
the income of the parents and the amount of child care expenses
actually incurred.
The bill allows the deductions to be claimed by one parent,
either parent where the child is living with both parents or each
parent when the parents are living apart and the child spends
some time with both parents. In the case when parents are living
apart, the deduction would be split between the two parents
according to the amount of time each parent spends with the
child. The real purpose of the bill is to allow parents the freedom
to choose the method of child care for their children.
Today's economic realities mean that the role of government
has to be entirely rethought. Thirty years of more and more
government social spending has only produced less and less
security for Canadians. We in the House must face the challenge
10352
of turning our welfare state into a secure society which requires
a new philosophy of social security.
In discussing the issue of child support payments, it is best to
lay out some principles and then determine if the bill adheres to
the principles. There are five principles that we should be
following in the debate.
The first one would be the self-reliance of Canadians and to
recognize the family as the primary caregiver.
The second one would be to empower families, community
and charitable organizations to play an increasing role.
The third one would be to focus social spending on the need.
The fourth principle would be to entrust resources and
responsibilities to the level of delivery where it is most effective
or decentralized.
The fifth would be to reduce spending and limit government
spending.
(1430 )
On the first principle we must realize the increasing
importance of families and their role in the nurturing of children
and the viability of the economy.
Reformers support policies that allow families to be
recognized as serving a unique and important role and to be
given a choice in the method of child care their children receive.
There is a clear and fundamental philosophical difference
between the Liberals and the Reformers on the whole child care
and day care debate. Liberals believe in a state run day care and
promised $120 million for day care in their red book, which
incidentally was not met in the recent budget. This promise was
essentially fuelled by special interest forces and would result in
increased cost to all taxpayers. It is also an anti-family choice.
Reformers oppose a state run day care. We believe that day
care is most efficiently run by the private sector and that
government subsidization of day care, the nanny state, is not
financially sustainable. In these views we are supported by a
majority of Canadians who according to a recent Maclean's poll
prefer to raise their children in the home. They also believe that
parents must have the right of choice.
The second principle to follow is that a dollar left in the hands
of a family is more effective, more efficient and more desired
than in government programs. The present child care expense
allowance is intrusive. It interferes with parental decision
making by discriminating against those with families where one
parent stays at home to raise children. The bill would empower
families with a real choice.
The third principle is focusing on social spending on need. It
may appear that the bill does not focus on need since the bill
provides a deduction regardless of the income of the parents. It
should be noted that the bill is intended to work within a flat tax
system.
The fourth principle is to entrust resources and
responsibilities to the level of delivery where they are most
efficient and most effective. Under this principle it would be
prudent to eliminate the child tax credit and replace it with a tax
deduction.
Why should more money be sent to Ottawa, churned through
the government bureaucracy and then funnelled back to
Canadians? This results in less money being available to those
who are really in need.
Under a tax reduction the parents would determine the best
use for the money. They could apply it to their own needs. It
would make them choose responsibly and they would see the
direct result of the money.
The fifth principle the bill addresses is the reduction of
government spending because the cost of a tax reduction would
be offset by the elimination of the tax credit. The bill would
allow parents to stay at home resulting in greater employment
opportunities. There would be no need for a national day care
program. Savings would also result because funding would be
directly to individuals and families and not to institutions and
professionals.
In conclusion, the bill recognizes that families are the best
hope for a bright future and that healthy families, not
dysfunctional types, are a source of strength for future
generations.
The bill moves away from the folly of state run day care
programs generated by special interest groups that favour
government intervention and social engineering. We must
rethink our responsibilities and our priorities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for Calgary
Centre had given an indication that he wanted a few minutes
under right of reply.
The House must understand that no other member can speak
after the member closes under right of reply. I hope he can do
this in the matter of two to three minutes.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are
two comments I would like to make, just to wrap up. When we
heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
basically he said that the program would cost an extra $6.5
billion.
I want it entered into the record that what he is not doing and
has failed to recognize in my comments is that this bill would
consolidate the current existing programs which add up to
slightly over $8 billion and offset the cost of this program. Even
if we use $6 billion as the cost, what he has failed to do in his
budgetary planning is to recognize that those people who make
$30,000 or more get $2.1 billion of the child credit out of that
$5.2 billion. We must subtract that from the $6.5 billion.
10353
With the lack of need to spend the $1.4 billion on future day
care facilities, given that the present ones would be sufficient
to handle the demand for the waiting list of 25,000 people,
those would be additional funds that would be available.
Although the Liberals now are not going to spend that money,
which they promised they would in the red book. It looks like
another broken promise from their election trail.
In summary, it is an important mathematical dollar item to
consider. We have to consider whether the current system with
six different ways of providing child care assistance in this
country is sufficient. Is it meeting the needs of the people? My
presentation today has shown sufficient cause for the need to
address this. It is not sufficient.
There are some solutions. I have offered some. It may not be
the total answer, but it offers a solution through consolidation
and giving people the choice, helping to put the money in the
families' hands and letting them decide how to spend that
money. After all, they earned it in the first place. They should
know better how to spend it, not the state and not funding
institutions.
This government should consider a method of child care
support and child care payments in its social engineering and its
social package that would truly leave more money available for
people. Let them have the choice. Also, reduce the overall cost.
Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance said, if we consolidated this plan it would save this
country $1 billion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There being no further
members rising for debate, and the motion not being designated
as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired. Paper.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For those
members present in the House, I would like to seek unanimous
consent. I know this bill is non-votable and was deemed as such
by the subcommittee. However, after due consideration by all
members in this House, would the members give unanimous
consent to make C-247 votable?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like
to move that the bill be not now read a second time, but because
of discriminatory challenges to the Income Tax Act and
Parliament's commitment to end child poverty by the year 2000,
that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and that
accordingly the bill be withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Accordingly the order is
dropped from the Order Paper. It being 2.40 p.m. the House
stands adjourned until Monday, March 13, 1995 at 11 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.39 p.m.)