CONTENTS
Thursday, March 30, 1995
Bill C-319. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 11255
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.) 11255
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11255
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 11255
Bill C-76. Motion for second reading 11257
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 11291
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11293
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11293
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11296
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11296
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11296
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11296
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11298
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11298
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11298
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11299
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11299
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11300
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11300
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11300
(Motion agreed to.) 11301
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion 11301
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 11309
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 11309
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 11309
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 11310
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 11310
11255
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 30, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
19 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-319, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses).
He said: Madam Speaker, the intent of this bill is to amend the
Canada Elections Act so that registered political parties would
not receive reimbursement unless they met two thresholds. At
present, the threshold is to have spent 10 per cent of the
allowable election expenses. This bill would add another hurdle,
that the party would have had to garner 2 per cent of the total
votes cast as well as having spent 10 per cent.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
On the order: Private Members' Business
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs of Bill C-303, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous
intoxication).
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to
withdraw Bill C-303 which was the bill similar to the
government's Bill C-72 on self-induced intoxication. Our party
is firmly in support of the government's Bill C-72 and we do not
need to debate this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise again to present another petition in this course of
action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the
early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this morning to present a
petition on behalf of the constituents in my riding of
Yorkton-Melville.
In light of the fact that the Saskatchewan government is on the
verge of balancing its budget and allowing Saskatchewan
taxpayers to see the light at the end of the tunnel, they request
that Parliament reduce government spending instead of
increasing taxes.
I have 18 petitions like this one. I will not go through all of
them as they are all very similar. I chose one which was
representative of the entire group.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam
Speaker, this morning, I have the pleasure of tabling in this
House a petition signed by some 160 seniors criticizing the
government for installing a voice mail system.
11256
The petitioners say, among other things, that they are entitled
to appropriate service-a fair description, in my opinion-and
call on the government to abandon its plan to install voice mail,
particularly for seniors.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition containing approximately 200 signatures from the
Slave Lake area of my constituency.
The petitioners ask that Parliament move toward a balanced
budget through reduced government spending, not tax increases.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the pleasure of tabling three petitions.
[English]
The first petition is in conformity with Standing Order 36.
The petitioners request that Parliament oppose any amendments
to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase ``sexual orientation''. It is signed by 100 petitioners.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition has 59 signatures and deals with the enactment
of legislation to have mandatory protection for insurance
companies through Comcorp or its successors. The petitioners
call upon Parliament to provide a two month period similar to
the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation program.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
final position is signed by 26 petitioners from my riding. They
call upon the government to enact legislation to prohibit the
importation of new handguns as well as a minimum 10-year
sentence for any conviction resulting from the use of a firearm
in the commission of an offence.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in this petition the petitioners, Canadians of the
Islamic faith, want the government to consider guardianship as
an option to adoption. Guardianship would include the same
legal and moral obligations as does adoption now.
These petitioners point out that their request is in accord with
their religious beliefs. They would like to see discussions begin
now so that changes could be made in the very near future, in
line with the points I have raised.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.
The first petition is signed by a number of residents of
Canwood and Shellbrook, Saskatchewan in the north central
part of the province.
The petitioners note that the majority of Canadians believe
that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual
couples should not be extended to same sex relationships.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
``sexual orientation''.
(1015 )
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
The second petition, Madam Speaker, is signed by a number of
residents of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, from
the communities of Speers, Richard, Maymont, North
Battleford and Mayfair.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House of
Commons that a very vocal minority of citizens are requesting
Parliament to institute a dual marketing system for wheat and
barley. The petitioners request that Parliament continue to give
the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in the marketing
of wheat and barley. The petitioners also request that Parliament
expand further the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers to
include all grain and oilseeds.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
157 and 158.
[Text]
Question No. 157-Mr. Hill (Macleod):
What are the names of the private health care facilities, by province/territory,
that charge patients user fees, as defined by the Minister of Health?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): On January
6, 1995 the Minister of Health wrote to all provinces and
territories informing them that facility fees being charged to
patients at private clinics are user charges contrary to the
Canada Health Act. Provinces and territories were given until
October 15, 1995 to put into place the necessary legislative or
regulatory framework to ensure that medically necessary
services are provided on uniform terms and conditions wherever
they are offered. Some provinces have already announced plans
to develop such frameworks. As provinces and territories have
until October 15 to complete these efforts, it would be premature
11257
at this time to name facilities that after October 15 may not be
operating in such a way as to cause a deduction under the Act.
Federal/provincial consultations will take place in connection
with this issue.
Question No. 158-Mr. Hill (Macleod):
What is the total annual sum of money, by province/territory, that private
health care facilities bill patients as user fees, as defined by the Minister of
Health?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): On January
6, 1995 the Minister of Health wrote to all provinces and
territories informing them that facility fees being charged to
patients at private clinics are user charges contrary to the
Canada Health Act. The letter further stated that where a
provincial plan pays the physician fee for a medically necessary
service delivered at a clinic, it must also pay for the related
hospital services provided or face deductions for user charges.
Provinces and territories were given until October 15, 1995 to
put into place the necessary legislative or regulatory framework
before the penalty provisions of the Act are implemented.
Therefore the total sum billed to patients that might be deemed
user fees after October 15 depends on how each province and
territory responds to the deadline and cannot be determined until
the deadline has passed. Federal health officials will consult
with their provincial and territorial counterparts in connection
with this issue.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
11257
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (for Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec) moved that Bill C-76, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 27, 1995, be read a second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, last month , this government
introduced a budget that has been described as historic. The
description is apt, for it was a budget of fundamental reform and
national renewal. Today, we are considering legislation that will
help turn those goals of reform and renewal into reality for the
benefit of all Canadians.
The budget redesigns the very role and structure of
government itself-because getting government right is
essential to getting the economy right. The budget achieves
dramatic savings to secure our deficit reduction targets-real,
bottom-line savings based on prudent economic assumptions.
And this fiscal reform will continue to pay off, because the
structural changes introduced by the budget will deliver
savings, not just over the next two years, but every year
thereafter. It is a tough budget, but it is also a budget of
commitments kept and meaningful results.
Just as important, it is a budget of nation building-because it
is firmly rooted in the principles of economic leadership;
compassion; and increased fairness. Before describing the
specific measures in the legislation, I would like to say a few
words about the importance of passing it on a timely basis.
Canada's economic future remains at risk because of a $550
billion debt. A huge portion of government revenues are
consumed by the cost of servicing this debt. That's money that
could otherwise be spent to provide Canadians with services and
programs, or to reduce the amount of taxes we pay.
The debt also makes us unacceptably vulnerable to financial
markets and the harsh impact of interest rates. The unexpected
increase in these rates since last year's budget has put
tremendous pressure on our deficit targets. Meeting our targets
is essential to strengthen confidence and bring interest rates
down. This, in turn, is essential for greater growth and more jobs
for Canadians.
(1020 )
[English]
The budget takes the actions necessary to meet these
objectives. To hit our targets, we are implementing cumulative
savings over the next two years of $15.6 billion. Over $13
billion of the savings will spending cuts. There will be no
increase in personal income tax rates.
Going beyond, to 1997-98, our reforms will deliver a further
$13.3 billion in savings for a three-year total of $29 billion.
This is the largest set of actions in any budget since
demobilization after the second world war.
We are also taking firm steps to increase tax fairness and close
loopholes. The budget delivers almost $7 in spending cuts for
every $1 in new tax revenue. The actions set out in the budget
involve changing the size and shape of government by hard
choices on priorities. By 1996-97 program spending will fall
from $120 billion last year to just under $108 billion.
11258
By 1996-97 our financial requirements, the amount of new
money we will have to borrow in the financial markets, will
be down to $13.7 billion or 1.7 per cent of GDP. That is better
than every other G-7 country. Most important of all, by
1996-97 the debt no longer will be going faster than the
economy. That is the key to fiscal stability, to putting our debt
ratio on a permanent downward track.
Canadians realize the importance of achieving fiscal targets.
They know this is the budget our economy needs. They affirmed
this in the consultations leading up to the budget and they
reaffirmed it in the response to the budget itself.
Financial markets have also recognized that the budget will
promote an improvement in public finances. However, to secure
the savings that will lead to this improvement, we must pass the
legislation as expediently as possible. Anything less would
compromise our commitments to a secure and prosperous future
for ourselves and for our children.
There is no need for further budget background. It has been
extensively discussed in the House. Let me turn therefore to the
specific elements of the bill before the House.
Provincial transfers. One of the most important elements of
the bill is the reform of transfers to the provinces. The federal
government wants to create a transfer system that functions
better and is fiscally sustainable. The centrepiece of this reform
is the replacement, beginning in 1996-97, of established
program financing for health and post-secondary education and
the Canada assistance plan, with a single consolidated block
transfer, the Canada health and social transfer.
The Canada health and social transfer represents a new
approach to federal-provincial fiscal relations. This new
approach is marked by a greater flexibility for provincial
governments, and more sustainable financing arrangements for
the federal government. It continues the evolution toward more
mature fiscal relations.
Although provinces will have greater flexibility in addressing
their priorities, the budget made it clear that the principles of the
Canada Health Act will be enforced. There will be no change in
the principle that provinces must provide social assistance
without minimum residency requirements.
We believe the new system will be more effective in meeting
contemporary needs. Our fiscal situation demands that it also be
less costly than the current system. That is why, when the CHST
is fully implemented in 1997-98 the total of all major transfers
to provinces will be down by about $4.5 billion from what it
would have been if it had been transferred under the existing
system. However, to put this into perspective, the reduction will
be equal to about 3 per cent of the aggregate provincial
revenues.
We believe our approach to provincial transfers passes three
important tests. First, the federal government has hit itself even
harder. Second, we have given the provinces ample notice of our
intentions. Third, the reduction in transfers is equitable across
all provinces.
(1025 )
In addition to the introduction of the Canada health and social
transfer, the bill also introduces other measures that will help
reduce the cost of payments to the provinces. For example, the
government is proposing to reintroduce to the fiscal
stabilization program a provision which will trigger payment
under the program only when economic conditions cause
provincial revenues to decline by more than 5 per cent. The
fiscal stabilization program compensates provinces if their
revenues decline from one year to the next due to economic
circumstances.
When the program was introduced in 1967, it provided
compensation only in situations where the economic conditions
caused revenues to decline by more than 5 per cent, that is, in the
event of a severe economic downturn. The program was
amended in 1972 to provide compensation if province's revenue
fell at all.
Despite that change only two payments were made under the
program between 1967 and 1990. However, the combination of
the last recession and low inflation has triggered recent
stabilization payments to virtually all provinces.
Now that inflation is low and stable, even a minor economic
downturn can cause a decline in a province's revenue and thus
result in a stabilization payment. This is not consistent with the
intent of the program and is not consistent with current fiscal
realities. Therefore, the government is reintroducing the 5 per
cent eligibility threshold to the program. This measure will take
effect for stabilization claims in 1995-96 and subsequent years.
The federal government will continue to play a major role in
stabilizing revenues of provincial governments. However, it
will do so only in times of severe economic shocks, as was
intended when the program was originally introduced. There are
no immediate savings associated with this measure.
The bill also includes an amendment to the Public Utilities
Income Tax Transfer Act, PUITTA. Under PUITTA the federal
government transfers to provinces and territories most of the
federal corporate income taxes paid by privately owned
electrical and gas utilities.
These payments were intended to level the playing field
between privately owned utilities which pay income tax and
provincially owned utilities which under the Constitution do
not. However, it is up to the provinces and the territories to
decide whether or not they will pass these savings through to
utilities companies or to consumers.
11259
Most provinces and territories do not rebate the payment to
utilities or consumers. The majority retain it as general
provincial revenue. Moreover, none of the provinces rebate its
own provincial income taxes to these utilities.
The Standing Committee on Finance recommended that the
federal government eliminate PUITTA transfers. Under the
current fiscal circumstances, the continuation of PUITTA
payments can no longer be justified. Therefore, the legislation
proposes that PUITTA be terminated as of March 31, 1995. This
measure is expected to reduce expenditures by an estimated
$200 million in 1996-97 and $280 million in each of the two
subsequent fiscal years.
The bill contains a final measure affecting transfers to
provincial governments. It concerns the vocational
rehabilitation of disabled persons Act or the VRDP. Under this
act the federal government pays 50 per cent of the cost incurred
by provinces in assisting disabled persons to become
employable. As part of the government's reform of social
programs, the maximum contributions to the provinces under
the VRDP will not exceed the 1994-95 levels starting in
1995-96. VRDP entitlements are expected to be about $168
million in 1994-95. This measure will result in estimated
savings of $4 million in 1995-96; $8 million in 1996-97 and $12
million the year after.
Let me turn now to another major area dealt with in today's
bill, assistance to business. In the course of program review,
departments across government took actions to reduce business
subsidies. Such subsidies frequently fail to achieve their desired
objectives. Many work counterproductively, discouraging
adjustment and innovation. Overall the government is proposing
to cut business subsidies by 60 per cent. This includes
agriculture and transportation subsidies that were designed
decades ago.
(1030)
The bill proposes to repeal the Western Grain Transportation
Act, WGTA, and to terminate the western grain transportation
subsidy paid to railroads effective July 31, 1995. The reform of
the WGTA will result in savings of $2.6 billion over the next
five years.
However it is more than a deficit issue. The elimination of the
subsidy will encourage the development of value added
processing and the production of higher value goods. It will
result in a more efficient grain handling and transportation
system. It will help maintain our market access for grain sales in
foreign countries and comply with our obligations under the
agreement established with the World Trade Organization.
A number of further initiatives will facilitate the transition to
the new system. They include a payment of $1.6 billion to
owners of prairie farm land.
Mr. Taylor: That is not enough.
Mr. Walker: For the NDP it is never enough. The bill
provides for the regulation of maximum freight rates that can be
charged by railway companies to move grain from the prairies.
The transition from these maximum regulated rates to
commercial rates will take place over a five-year period.
The bill also proposes the elimination of the Atlantic freight
subsidies under the Atlantic region freight assistance program,
ARFAA, and the Maritime Freight Rates Act, MFRA. These
measures to take effect July 1995 will save nearly $100 million a
year.
The Atlantic freight subsidies have proved inefficient in
reducing shipper costs. They have, moreover, encouraged
companies to structure their investments and organizations to
meet regulatory criteria rather than for sound business practice.
The subsidies are of marginal and declining importance to
regional economic activity since transportation services in the
region are now much more competitive than they once were.
To help ensure that elimination of a subsidy contributes to a
better transportation system, the budget announced a five-year
$326 million transportation adjustment program. Provinces will
be able to target assistance under the program to meet local
shippers' needs and upgrade infrastructure. Among other things
it should help modernize the highway system in Atlantic Canada
and eastern Quebec.
A third area of concern is transfers to persons, particularly the
veterans program. An initiative as sweeping as program review
must inevitably touch upon some programs that provide
payments to individual Canadians. When the Department of
Veterans Affairs underwent review the decision was taken to
preserve all essential programs and services for veterans who
had served Canada. However the department took steps to
control cost, eliminate overlap and duplication, and return
programs to their original purpose.
Accordingly the bill proposes that the war veterans allowance
be discontinued for former members of resistance forces and for
allied veterans living abroad for more than six months within a
calendar year. As well, new allied veterans will be ineligible for
war veterans allowance unless they were pre-war residents of
Canada.
Further, effective from budget day no new applicants will be
accepted under the education assistance program because it
duplicates other available programs. Also the veterans travel
program will be restructured so that the benefits are
rationalized.
A fourth area of concern is consular services. Not all
departments offer the same scope for savings under program
review. However each is contributing to the restructuring
process. Cost recovery is one such step. The Department of
Foreign Affairs,
11260
for example, will be shifting a greater portion of the cost of
consular and trade development functions to the prime users.
Therefore the bill includes provision that would authorize the
department to levy an additional fee for Canadian travel
documents such as passports. As a result of the measure the cost
of a regular five-year passport is expected to rise between $20
and $30. However, even with the increase, the cost of a Canadian
passport will still compare favourably with that of many other
industrialized countries.
The measure will help the Department of Foreign Affairs to
maintain the high quality consular services it currently
provides.
(1035)
The next area is the public service. The measures I have
outlined along with other initiatives arising from program
review mark the transition to a more focused, effective and
frugal federal government. Such a government will need fewer
employees to deliver programs and services.
At the time the 1995 budget actions are fully implemented
federal employment is expected to decline by 45,000 or 14 per
cent. The government appreciates the valuable service its
employees provide. We are committed to managing the
reductions in a fair and orderly fashion.
In keeping with the commitment the bill proposes to change
the public sector compensation act to allow for an early
departure incentive. The incentive can be taken up by as many as
13,000 to 15,000 employees in the departments most affected.
We estimate the cost of the program for the public service, the
military and certain separate employers and crowns to be about
$1 billion, which will be included in the 1994-95 fiscal year.
Other proposed changes in the act will allow for cost neutral
changes to non-salary terms of employment and for certain new
kinds of leave. For example, employees will be permitted to take
off blocks of time and have their incomes averaged over the
year.
In addition, we are proposing amendments to the Public
Service Employment Act that will give public sector managers
more flexibility in staffing arrangements. This would include,
for example, the block transfer of employees with their
functions within the public service.
Employees affected by the downsizing who decide not to take
advantage of the departure incentives will have a reasonable
period of time to find employment elsewhere in the public
service, but that period cannot be indefinite. The government
simply cannot afford to pay people for not working.
Accordingly the bill also includes amendments to the
workforce adjustment directive so that surplus employees in the
departments most affected who decline departure incentives
will cease to be paid after six months and will be laid off one
year thereafter unless alternative employment is found.
The vast majority of items in the bill are obviously about
reducing the deficit. However there is one that relates to
financing the deficit and the debt. The bill contains amendments
to the Financial Administration Act that will enable the
government to efficiently sell debt securities to individual
Canadians under the retail debt strategy. The amendments will
allow the federal government to offer Canadians improved
access to a family of safe and secure Government of Canada
obligations.
The proposed amendments include new authority for the
government to issue securities without physically printing
certificates, thereby promoting more efficient and less costly
electronic transfers.
The amendments will also enable government to buy its own
securities at the time of issue. This way they can be sold to retail
buyers through a special government agency set up for the
purpose.
There is one final measure in the bill I should like to mention,
locked-in RRSPs. Currently holders of locked-in RRSPs are
limited to purchasing life annuities with the funds. In order to
provide such individuals with greater flexibility in managing
their retirement income, the bill includes an amendment to the
Pension Benefits Standards Act that will allow holders of
locked-in RRSPs to purchase life income funds.
Today's legislation will play a key role in setting our country
on a course to fiscal responsibility and to governmental renewal.
The legislation will help ensure that our budget goals are
translated into real performance. It draws directly on the advice
we have received from across Canada. It focuses on the total
economic and social picture before us and addresses the
challenges we all face.
The budget and the bill reaffirm the government's
fundamental objective of sustaining growth and job creation.
They achieve that by meeting the fundamental requirement of
restoring fiscal health by refocusing government on priority
roles and needs.
In summary, Canada needs and Canadians support the
legislation. They have already demonstrated support, and I urge
all members of the House to do likewise.
(1040)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak again
to some elements of the finance minister's budget through Bill
C-76, which implements, in particular, three important
provisions regarding transfer payments to the provinces, rail
trans-
11261
port and part of sea transport, as well as labour relations in the
Canadian public service.
If I may, I would like to focus my remarks on the part of Bill
C-76 dealing with transfers to the provinces. I will let my
colleagues address other important aspects of Bill C-76 during
this debate but, if I may, I would like to focus my presentation
this morning on the important issue of transfers to the provinces.
As members know, Bill C-76, as announced in the budget
speech by the Minister of Finance, provides for the elimination
in 1996-97 of two federal transfer programs. The first program,
commonly called the Canada Assistance Plan or CAP, is the
federal government's contribution to the various social
assistance programs implemented by the provinces. This
contribution amounts to 50 per cent of the social assistance
budget in most Canadian provinces.
The second transfer program to be eliminated, commonly
called EPF or Established Programs Financing, is the federal
government's contribution to the cost of provincial health care
and post-secondary education.
Starting in 1996-97, Bill C-76, which derives from the
finance minister's budget speech, would replace these two
programs with a single payment called the Canada Social
Transfer.
There is a snag, however. Before giving the money to the
provinces, the federal government would slash the funds
historically allocated to the Canada Assistance Plan, health care
and post-secondary education. One might say that, in the next
few years, the federal government will make cuts to this
proposed single payment, this block funding, to the provinces.
It will cut transfers to the provinces by $7 billion over the next
three years. I would put it to you, as we have repeatedly said
before and as we can never say often enough, that this so-called
reform of federal transfers is just a plot to offload onto the
provinces deficit problems that the Minister of Finance is
unable to solve.
In 1996-97, the cuts in transfers will be distributed among the
provinces according to each province's share of transfers for
Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance
Plan. Under clause 15 in Part V of Bill C-76, Quebec will be
deprived of more than $650 million as of next year.
In 1997-98, the Canada Social Transfer-imagine calling it a
social transfer-will be distributed among the provinces
according to criteria to be negotiated. Although technical, the
distribution criteria are crucial for the financial future of the
Canadian provinces, and Quebec in particular.
Although my demonstration may appear technical, I urge you,
Madam Speaker, to pay attention because it is of paramount
importance in helping us understand the smoke screen, the
fraud, the sham that is the reform proposed by the Minister of
Finance.
If the criteria established to determine how this fund will be
distributed among the provinces, if the method of distribution
remains the same as it is today, Quebec will have a $1.2 billion
shortfall in 1997-98. I put it to you that this is not likely to
happen since, according to the Minister of Human Resources
Development, the method of distribution may be changed
because, for example, Ontario-which elected a large number of
Liberal members-demands such changes. Ontario, the
wealthiest of Canadian provinces, feels discriminated against
under the current distribution criteria because it does not receive
a share consistent with its demographic weight within Canada.
(1045)
In spite of what it may have been saying since the tabling of
the budget, the federal government wants to change the
allocation criteria of the fund, which was originally targeted for
social assistance, health and post-secondary education, and use
the demographic weight of the provinces as the primary
criterion for allocating these moneys. In other words, Ontario,
which has the largest population, would get the largest share,
even though it is also the richest province. We keep asking the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister about this issue, and
neither one will deny the intention to split the Canada Social
Transfer according to the population criterion.
If this is the case, and if our fears are founded, the result
would be catastrophic, particularly for Quebec's public
finances. Such a system might also be unfair. Indeed, if the
population of a province is the criterion used, as suggested by
the Minister of Human Resources Development and not denied
by the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, Quebec would
absorb 41.7 per cent of the total reduction in provincial
transfers, in 1997-98.
If this allocation criteria is used, Quebec's shortfall will go up
from $1.2 billion, based on the current allocation system, to
close to $2 billion in 1997-98. Quebec's public finances would
already suffer a loss in 1997-98. The federal government is
saying to the Quebec government: it is your problem; we did not
have the guts to assume our responsibilities, but you do it. A
shortfall of $2 billion is not peanuts.
Two billion dollars. And the government has the nerve to
imply that it might not be the case. The members opposite do not
deny anything, yet we are told that this might not be the case.
Even if the current criterion is maintained, there will be a $1
billion shortfall. If you use the population as the allocation
criterion for this federal money, that shortfall climbs up to $2
billion.
11262
Someone will have to do some planning in Quebec. We do
not know what awaits us? Why is that? It is because this
government lacks the courage to get down to work, to assume
its responsibilities and exert tighter control over Canadian
public finances, but it is also because it is incredibly
hypocritical. This government knows that Quebec is about to
launch a referendum campaign and that Quebecers will have
to make a crucial decision this year.
Consequently, it does not want to show its true colours. It does
not want to show that the federal system is obsolete and going
bankrupt. It does not want to show that the federal budget will
hurt Quebecers, who will have to pay more and more taxes for
fewer and fewer services, and who will witness a crisis in their
provincial public finances, thanks to Ottawa. The federal
government is hiding all that.
I can tell you that the allocation of federal money based on the
population criterion is being formally discussed among top
government officials. These senior public servants are saying:
do not mention the fact that we told you. Do not mention the fact
that this government is hypocritical, that it is waiting for
Quebecers to decide on their political and constitutional future
before giving them a shock treatment and making them pay and
get bad news year after year, since this federal system can no
longer survive and can only cause serious damage to Canadian
public finances. Where is this said? Nowhere. Why? Because it
would be tantamount to telling Quebecers: ``Look, this is
hurting you and it will continue to hurt you year after year''.
(1050)
This system is taking us nowhere, with the morose political
and social climate it will be creating for the next few years,
because cosmetic and hypocritical changes like those regarding
transfer payments to the provinces will not fix the basic problem
of the system. The problem is that it is a big machine, totally
outdated and completely dysfunctional, no longer capable of
meeting the needs of the 1990s and of the next century. The
government will certainly not tell us that before the referendum.
Regarding transfers to the provinces, Bill C-76 also contains
a provision that I consider cynical and arrogant, particularly as
far as Quebec is concerned. Clause 13, Part V, provides for the
maintenance of national health standards and the introduction of
new national standards in the areas of social assistance and
post-secondary education. Provinces who do not comply will
lose their entitlement.
Imagine that, they will be cut off. As if what we get back from
the federal government in the form of transfer payments was all
Ottawa's to begin with. As if these public funds were a gift from
this munificent federal benefactor to the provinces. The fact is
that this is taxpayers' money being redistributed to taxpayers in
Quebec as elsewhere.
In Quebec, we pay the federal government $30 billion in taxes
each year, $30 billion. And they are threatening us? They say
that new national standards on social assistance and
post-secondary education will be introduced and that provinces
who do not comply with these standards-which may be sheer
nonsense in relation to the socioeconomic and cultural reality in
Quebec-will see their transfers cut off.
Madam Speaker, can you imagine what that could mean to
have, in Quebec, education standards imposed by the
anglophone majority in Canada? Do you have any idea? Can you
imagine how this sounds to Quebecers, with all the historical
references we have?
Can you imagine Clyde Wells, in Newfoundland, with his
friends and accomplices elected to the federal Parliament,
determining indirectly, through Canada-wide standards, the
content and goals of the education system in Quebec? Can you
believe that we will be entitled to only 25 per cent of the power
of decision over post-secondary education matters? Is that what
the people of Quebec want? I do not think so.
They should know, however, that this is what this government
stands for. We know what the introduction of Canada-wide
education standards means. It means that Ontario,
Newfoundland, the anglophone majority in Canada will have a
say in how our education system, this system through which our
identity and culture as Quebecers is perpetuated and passed on
from one generation to the next, should operate. That is what is
proposed, what this says.
We are told not to worry because, before Canada-wide
standards can be implemented, negotiations will be held with
the provinces and a consensus will be have to be reached. This is
not a guarantee that there will be no Canada-wide standards.
Given this government's record, a government that forced the
repatriation of the constitution upon us, in spite of the numerous
objections raised by Quebec, and the Quebec National Assembly
in particular, we can easily imagine that these Canada-wide
education and social assistance standards will be implemented.
This measure may not have a financial impact, but I can
assure you that its political impact and the impact it will have on
Quebec's culture and cultural future are indeniable. That is what
is unacceptable to the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois.
(1055)
It should come as no surprise that this bill contains a provision
that thumbs its nose at historic facts and ignores the need for
Quebecers to control 100 per cent of their future, their culture
and what they are. It should come as no surprise that this
political bludgeon should materialize in a bill on public
finances.
I am certainly not surprised, and this week I had the same
reaction when a motion was tabled in the House on Quebec's
representation in the House of Commons, asking for
guarantees-as was the case in the draft constitutional
agreements that followed the demise of Meech Lake-that
Quebec would have
11263
25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, and I even saw
Quebec members of the Liberal Party vote against the motion.
I saw the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, the newly
elected member, the other guy's brother, rise in the House to say
he was against guaranteeing 25 per cent of the seats in the House
of Commons. I saw the Minister of Finance and member for
LaSalle-Émard rise in the House to vote against guaranteeing
Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. This
is a man who represents Quebecers, Madam Speaker, and he rose
in the House to vote against this guarantee of representation in
the House of Commons.
So it should come as no surprise to see one of the main pillars
of the preservation and renewal of Quebec culture, our
education system, bludgeoned in this way, and I am referring to
the possibility that national standards will be imposed and that
decisions will be made elsewhere on the orientation, content and
objectives of our education. I am no longer surprised. Nothing
would surprise me in this Parliament. Nothing would surprise
me, coming from this Liberal government and its few
distinguished members from Quebec.
It is a disgrace. I felt sick to my stomach this week when I saw
that. I had the same feeling I did last week, when I saw a member
from Manitoba speak out against revoking the conviction of
Louis Riel for high treason. This was hard to stomach,
especially from a member for the same riding Louis Riel
represented before he was hanged for high treason. What is
going on here? I knew, and we could tell from the outside before
we were elected, and now we can see it firsthand. What is
happening here is a disgrace, a patent denial of our history, and
again, this refusal to make amends for certain historic facts that
are a disgrace to Canada and Canadian federalism.
They tell us: Do not worry, national standards will be
negotiable. It does not say anywhere in this bill that national
standards will require unanimity or a consensus among the
provinces. The federal government reserves the right to apply
them whether the provinces agree or not. Here, the old guard is
up to its old tricks: the current Prime Minister, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Human Resources
Development were all there in the previous Liberal government.
They are up to their old tricks of wanting to tell the provinces
what to do and arrogantly imposing a centralist vision on all
Canadian provinces, including one province they feel is just like
the others, and they say that right here, and I am of course
referring to Quebec.
It is the same gang that misled us in 1980, when those
federalist members, now ministers, were out on the hustings.
One is now Prime Minister. They went around saying: If you
vote no in the referendum on sovereignty, it will be a yes to
renewed federalism, yes to decentralization and yes to
flexibility. A year later, they literally shunted Quebec and the
Premier of Quebec and Quebec's aspirations aside, saying: We
have an agreement, the federal government has an agreement
with the other Canadian provinces, and Quebec will have to go
along. That is happening now with a very ordinary bill to
implement certain provisions of the budget of the Minister of
Finance.
(1100)
The old gang, the one responsible for the show of force in
1981, patriated the constitution. We have to keep saying this. We
tend to forget what happened. Despite the near unanimous
decision of the Quebec legislature, the Liberal government of
the time patriated the constitution. This was the government of
Mr. Trudeau, who is no longer a member here, and his
acolytes-the present Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister of Human Resources Development and
others. The Liberal government, at that time, also ensured
Quebec's exclusion. I tell you I see the hand of the old gang in
this bill. This is the gang that is telling Quebec: ``Forget your
nationalist and sovereignist claims, that is all over, you are
going to be included. You will have to bend and we will make
you bend'', to the delight of the Reform Party members.
The government's objective with regard to transfer payments
to the provinces is clear. The government presented things
clearly too. It wanted to avoid having to make difficult decisions
this year, because, with the Quebec referendum, it would mean
revealing the failure of the federal system. Furthermore, it
wanted to try and minimize the impact of cuts in social
assistance, post-secondary education and health care transfers
to the provinces. These cuts are serious.
The government, and its Minister of Finance, is an old hand at
deception, illusion and hypocrisy. It managed to leave the
impression that these cuts would hurt neither Canadians nor
Quebecers. It managed to do what it wanted. Things this year do
not look too bad, really. However, for next year, it covered up the
fact that everyone is going to have to pay and that it is going to
be tough and will keep on being tough. It will keep on being
tough until 2050, because the system is outdated and does not
work anymore.
I will tell you that the shortfall the Quebec government will be
facing in the next few years is equivalent to the operating
budgets of all of the hospitals in Quebec, except those in
Montreal and Quebec City. This is a considerable amount. The
money to operate all the hospitals in the outlying regions, that is
what the federal government is cutting from its transfers to the
provinces.
In other words, in this budget, with regard to transfers, the
federal government is making Quebec and the other provinces
shoulder the offensive part of the reform, which the Minister of
Human Resources Development was unable to complete, for the
moment, and which the Prime Minister wanted to keep under
11264
wraps this year for strictly political reasons. I tell you-this is
unacceptable.
In essence, the approach, the thinking, by the Minister of
Human Resources Development is more or less as follows. I
would not be stating it too directly by putting it this way: social
programs and unemployment insurance have to be cut in order to
stimulate job creation and growth. Imagine, Madam Speaker,
hitting the unemployed and the poorest people in our society in
an effort to stimulate growth and boost job creation. What great
thinking. It sounds like Liberal thinking to me. It sounds like
Liberal ideals.
I tell you, as is often said: this Liberal government is the most
Conservative government Canada has ever had. Its thinking runs
totally counter to Liberal thinking.
(1105)
And I repeat, it is too important not to, that we have noticed
over our 16 months here that the government believes it should
cut social programs and unemployment insurance in order to
create jobs and stimulate the economy. Even the
ultraconservatives of the last century were less direct, less tough
than that.
An hon. member: Less hypocritical.
Mr. Loubier: You are right, dear colleague, most
importantly, they were less hypocritical. But why should we be
surprised? Earlier, we talked about the failings of the old Liberal
gang coming out again in the national standards issue and the
push to bring Quebec into line. And other old flaws are surfacing
too. Relatively new old flaws, however, because they only go
back a few months. They only seem old because we were so
shocked by what they said that it seems that they have always
been saying it.
Why should we be shocked by the ultraconservative
philosophy of creating jobs and kick starting the economy at the
expense of the unemployed and the most needy, when a few
months ago the Prime Minister himself said to a group of
influential Toronto business people, a bastion of federalism and
of extreme right-wingers, maybe even friends of the Reform
movement, that the unemployed all sat around and drank beer?
The leader of the country and of the government, the Prime
Minister himself, said that the unemployed sit around and drink
beer.
In light of this, what is so surprising about creating jobs and
kick starting the economy at the expense of the unemployed
when the philosophy of the country's number one man, the head
of the government, is not to help the unemployed, not to create
jobs, but to call them all beer drinkers?
How do you expect the government to take a different
approach in Bill C-76, which by the way, basically says the
same thing as the Prime Minister except in more diplomatic and
eloquent language, when the Prime Minister's opinion is that the
unemployed, the people displaced by the structural changes in
the workforce, all just sit around and drink beer?
Why should it come as a surprise that the Minister of
Transport was cynical and arrogant during the latest dispute,
when he once again used bully tactics, harshness instead of the
civilized options proposed by the official opposition? Once
again, in front of a large audience, he said things that were so
revolting that union representatives walked out on him. He said
how do you expect railway workers with only a grade nine
education to understand what is going on? Just imagine the
arrogance and cynicism it takes to say such a thing, that railway
workers cannot possibly understand what is going on because
they only have a grade nine education, and for the Prime
Minister to say that the unemployed like to sit around and drink
beer.
In your opinion, what kind of bill, what kind of vision of
social and economic development for Canada can come from
people with that kind of attitude? Such things as cutting the
unemployment insurance fund, cutting everywhere. That is the
Prime Minister's vision, which the Minister of Transport and the
Minister of Labour both share.
This is not surprising, here I digress from the bill, but it is not
surprising because last year, the Minister of Finance took $600
million from the unemployment insurance fund without batting
an eye, this year, he will take $2.4 billion and next year, $4
billion. That is their full employment policy, the full
employment of all means available to them to take from the
unemployed all means at their disposal to replace a lost job with
one of equal quality and to participate in the growth of the
economy which has been stunted since the 1990 recession.
Overall, the federal government will cut transfer payments to
the Government of Quebec by 32 per cent between 1994-95 and
1997-98. That is a lot. A $2 billion shortfall to be made up has
been mentioned, but 32 per cent is enormous.
(1110)
I repeat, this is no gift. The federal government is not giving
us a gift. It is not a gift from any other source either. It is money
from Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. The government is telling
us that it is making cuts, but keeping certain other transfers. It
cuts 32 per cent of our own money, which it redistributes in the
areas of health care, post-secondary education and social
assistance and we have absolutely no say in the matter.
No one at the prebudget discussions, and I attended all of
them along with my hon. colleague for Témiscamingue, some of
my colleagues went several times, no one told the Minister of
Finance to do what he did. No one ever told the Minister of
Finance he should avoid his responsibilities and offload his
11265
problems onto the provinces. No one told the Minister of
Finance he should blithely cut unemployment insurance.
At no time, during the hearings held across Canada, from east
to west, in the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces
and British Columbia, at no time did anyone say that education
should be cut. On the contrary. Education is fundamental to the
success of nations today. No one ever said it should be cut.
No one ever said there should be cuts in health care either.
Canadian nationalism is built in part on social programs, and the
health care system in particular. Canadians are proud of this
system. No one called for cuts to this system. What we got,
however, was a 32 per cent cut over the coming years. I can
count on my fingers the number of people who advocated this
route to the Minister of Finance. I could even name them for
you, but it would be a waste of time, and I have other things to
say.
I will name one, Thomas d'Aquino, the head of the Business
Council on National Issues. He told the government to slash
everywhere, everywhere that is, but in subsidies to Canadian
business. He was the only representative of business to tell the
government not to cut the $3.8 billion paid to business or to
suggest it be done gradually to avoid having a harmful effect. He
never said, however, that a $7 billion cut in the unemployment
insurance fund would hurt. It was not a major concern for him.
Some business people suggested cutting transfer payments,
but these are not the people the government has to serve if it
really cares about meeting the needs of the citizens of Quebec
and of Canada. It should be working for ordinary people in
Quebec. But their hands are tied when they form the government
and come against those who finance the federal party. That
cannot be stressed enough.
When a bank contributes $45,000 to the Liberal Party of
Canada, should we be surprised to later learn that the bank, and
all banks in fact, do not pay their share of taxes? Why should we
be surprised to see that they only have to pay a temporary tax,
staggered over two years, which will bring in a paltry $100
million, even though banks made $5 billion in profits this year?
That is what happens when there is no policy on the public
financing of parties. That, and other things.
Regarding this 32 per cent cut in transfer payments over the
next few years, I would say that although Canadian federalism
was at one time profitable for Quebec, we all agree on this
point-if we go back 30 years, as did one study recently, or 20
years-so, yes, it was profitable at one point, but it no longer is.
They should stop trying to fool us.
Even André Raynauld, a good Liberal economist, whom I
regard as very competent, a former Liberal minister at that, said
when he appeared before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission in
1990, that from 1988 on, Quebecers had not been getting more
from the federal government than they were putting in. That was
in 1988, but since then the difference between the $30 billion in
income taxes and other taxes that Quebecers pay into federal
coffers and what the federal government gives in return has
grown.
We are in the red. Look at it from any angle you wish, go
ahead and crunch the numbers and try to make it look as if the
deficit were equally shared by all the provinces. Between you
and me, it is an exercise in futility. We all know that the right
calculations, the true credit and debit entries show that Quebec
gets less from the federal government than it contributes. And
this deficit will only grow over the next few years.
(1115)
And the reason is precisely because it represents 32 per cent
of federal transfers to the provinces, including Quebec, 32 per
cent less in federal transfers. In the case of one of the items, we
were told that we were receiving more than we were paying.
That was before this year, with reference to the unemployment
insurance fund. But, this year, the fund will no longer have a
surplus. This means that the contributions of employees and
employers in Quebec will also correspond pretty much to what
unemployed Quebecers receive. Even if the trend continues,
there will be a deficit of 188 million dollars with respect to what
employees and employers in Quebec are paying and what
Quebecers will be receiving in unemployment insurance.
Therefore, not only is there no longer a surplus, but there are
cuts of 32 per cent in federal transfers, and, as is always
forgotten, that will be on top of this deficit. Given this deficit,
the federal government's expenditure items need to be looked at
carefully. We have always said, and it is even truer today, that
the most important expenditure items are those which stimulate
the economy, such as research and development, purchases of
goods and services, expenditures in the agricultural and
transportation sectors, and so forth, the expenditures that
contribute to prosperity, economic growth and job creation. But
in Quebec, these growth promoting expenditures are a concern.
For 25 years now, Quebec has indeed had a surplus, but a surplus
in terms of unemployment and social assistance benefits. And
this surplus situation is attributable in part to structural
problems in the Canadian economy. The problem was also that
this system did not meet the needs of Quebecers in need.
And so we were told: ``There are problems, but do not
complain because you are getting larger transfer payments''.
This is no longer the case. Now, there is no longer any attempt to
provide any relief for the increasing unemployment and poverty
in Quebec, and, in addition, the transfers necessary for the
11266
economy are not available. Hardly an advertisement for
federalism. We have seen better elsewhere.
If at least-for there is nothing in the budget that I find
acceptable as far as transfers are concerned-there had been
some sign of a real, not just a cosmetic, improvement. Even the
financial community has issued a warning, saying that, in the
first year, the government's rating was being maintained, but
that it was being watched. But no real improvements were made.
The big federal machine, the heartless federal machine that is
cut off from the needs of Quebecers and Canadians, rolls on.
No departments are eliminated. There is a transfer of
expenditures, of deficit responsibilities to the provinces.
Because the minister lacked the courage to assume his own
responsibilities, he is letting the provinces do the dirty work, but
the system as such remains unchanged. The big, inefficient
system is still in place. They will say that we disagreed with
them. Not only did they not do anything, not only did they not fix
anything, but they hurt the provinces, the most disadvantaged,
the unemployed, the people on social assistance, and they are
about to do the same to seniors.
I would have liked to address the issues of transportation,
labour relations and the disgraceful layoffs in the public service.
Again, we never said that we should not cut fat throughout the
entire system. This has always been our policy, except that there
is a way to do it while showing respect for the workers. It is easy
to see, however, that this government has no respect for
anything. It does not even comply with the Canada Labour Code.
It tried to silence us in last week's debate on the rail dispute and
refused an opposition motion for more civilized labour relations
and a return to work with the possibility of collective
bargaining.
If only for the issue of transfers, I would like to propose a
motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Châteauguay:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following therefor:
``Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 27, 1995, be not now read a second time but that it be
read a second time this day six months hence.''
In other words, the Minister of Finance should go back to the
drawing board and do his homework, because he acted in a
disgraceful way, even in trying to meet his goals some time in
1997-98.
(1120)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate. The
hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, I tabled the motion, you read
it and asked if we approved the motion. Some hon. members
shouted ``yes'', others ``no''. I do not understand what happened
after that. Can you tell me?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I asked if it was the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. The answer was
``no''. So, we are resuming debate.
Mr. Loubier: No, Madam Speaker. We answered ``yes''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will get back to you on
this matter in two or three minutes, after taking advice. You may
be right, but I would like to wait for further advice.
Mr. Loubier: Normally, Madam Speaker, one would expect
the Chair, after putting the question to the House as a whole, to
ask us to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' and then, if you declared that the
motion was negatived, we would have stood up. But we were
waiting for this cue to stand up.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will get back to you in
a moment.
(1125)
Order. Resuming debate on the motion of the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, pursuant to Standing Order 67(1).
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it saddens me that we have to debate Bill C-76
today. This bill implements laws allowing the government to put
Canadians another $32.7 billion in debt. It saddens me even
more that the government feels this is acceptable. It is not
acceptable. It is a deplorable act of financial incompetence of a
weak kneed government.
The government borrowed a few pages from Reform's
taxpayers budget in order to cut spending in some areas. The
Liberals only did half the job, however. They would have been
much better off following all of our suggestions, not just a few
select pages. A lot of the rhetoric was right, but a lot of the
numbers were wrong.
Because of the Liberal's failure to make all of the necessary
cuts to get Canada back on track to financial good health, we
continue on the debt treadmill. The budget is the minimum
possible budget. The Liberals cut only enough to compensate for
the additional interest charges their over spending has created.
The net effect of the bill which implements a budget that
creates a greater indebtedness is before us, and deficit financing
continues into the future. The only reason the deficit goes down
at all is that the Liberals plan to take over $10 million more out
of the economy.
11267
Even if everything goes their way, they will still have a $25
billion deficit which is unacceptably high. The finance minister
and the Liberals do not get it. The Minister of Human Resources
Development seems to think the role of government is to
continually come up with new and exciting forms of taxation.
The Minister of Finance hesitated to rule out the Tobin tax or
any other new taxes. This is the best way to bankrupt a country.
The government simply cannot solve the nation's financial
mess by taking more out of the economy through taxation.
No nation has ever spent and borrowed its way to prosperity.
Quite the opposite is true. Many great nations and empires have
fallen because of the growth of government and taxation.
Perhaps the most prominent among them is the Roman Empire.
When faced with the oncoming barbarian hordes, many of the
outlying states decided to throw their lot in with the barbarians,
saying: ``Better the barbarians we do not know than the taxes we
do know''.
Not only some in Quebec but some folks in the western
provinces are using the huge debt and growing taxation as a
platform for seceding from the federation. For the sake of
national unity we need to eliminate the deficit quickly.
As well, the only way the Liberals will ever be in a position to
bring taxes down is to completely eliminate the deficit. We
know they will not do it by 1996-97. If the Liberals have a plan
to do it after that, they will not share it with Canadians. This is
bad news for the Deputy Prime Minister. She made quite a
performance out of announcing that she would resign if the GST
were not gone within a year. They cannot bring down taxes while
running a deficit, so I suppose her career is over. That is a
shame. I am sure the House will miss her shrill voice and her
partisan, illogical grandstanding. She has looked after herself,
however, with a generous two tiered MP pension plan.
As well as being a bad budget for the Liberal Party it is also a
very bad budget for Canada. That is the important matter I want
to deal with this morning. Apart from the negative impact of
continued debt and taxation, the budget creates some inequities
in the country.
The cuts made by the government have a very lopsided
impact. For instance, the agricultural industry in western
Canada is hit harder than any other industry. The loss of the
Crow benefit will have obvious long term effects on the
industry. The gasoline tax will hit farmers particularly hard.
Farming is a very fuel intensive industry and travel is a necessity
in rural areas. The government has increased the input costs for
farmers, increased the cost of getting the product to market and
offered no hope of tax reduction in the future.
(1130 )
Farmers realize many of these things are necessary in order to
save the country from financial collapse. What angers farmers is
that so many others got off so easily in the budget. If everyone
had been hit as hard as agriculture, the budget would have been
balanced. We would have had something to show for our effort.
For years farmers have been saying they do not mind doing
their share and losing the rail subsidy if other subsidized
agencies do the same. Farmers have been hit with a 30 per cent
loss to their safety net programs and the entire loss of their
transportation subsidy in the west.
At the same time the CBC only gets kicked with a 4 per cent
reduction in its subsidy. Does the government feel that a 4 per
cent cut to the CBC is comparable to a 100 per cent cut to grain
transportation?
The removal of the Crow subsidy appears to have been a last
minute decision. It appears pressure was put on the minister of
agriculture to find more savings and so he axed the Crow
without thinking through and planning for the implications. The
minister of agriculture calls it a buy out, but the value of the
WGTA is much higher. Some suggest it is more like $7 billion
rather than $1.6 billion. He should have more accurately called a
Crow buy off at fire sale prices because the federal purse has
been mismanaged for so many years by Liberal and
Conservative finance ministers they simply do not have the
money for a real buy out.
For years the Reform Party has been calling for a long term
plan for moving the agriculture industry toward a market
system. The government has had a year and a half in office to
plan for this transition but it has done nothing.
The government waited until the last moment and then sprung
this crow buy off on farmers with almost no warning and no plan
for implementation. To date the minister of agriculture has not
been clear on who the buy out money is to be paid to, how the
amount will be calculated, what the tax implications of the pay
out will be for farmers or any of the other dozens of questions
that my constituents and farmers across the west are asking.
I am starting to believe the minister's offices cannot answer
these questions because it has not even thought through many of
these problems yet. The elimination of the Crow benefit has
been poorly designed, very ad hoc and in a desperate manner.
The minister of agriculture campaigned on the red book
promises to develop a long term plan for agriculture.
I want to take a few minutes to look at what the Liberal red
book says and what the minister of agriculture has been saying
to Canadians. In the red book the Liberal government promised
to develop an overall policy for the agri-food sector which will
build upon three component strategies: developing new
domestic and international markets for Canadian food products;
reducing input costs to make farming more viable; introducing a
new whole farm income stabilization program that assists farm
families to secure their long term future.
11268
The one that jumped off the page when I looked at it was
reducing input costs to producers. The government is increasing
the input costs to producers. It is doing it through taxation on
fuel and by its continued borrowing of money that has to be
paid back through both interest charges and principal
eventually; farmers have to play a role as they are generators
of the GNP.
The red book went on to say that it would preserve policies
and programs such as supply management. As soon as the
Liberals were elected they were forced to change the nature of
supply management as a result of the GATT agreement.
Reformers knew this was coming. The whole world knew it was
coming. The only people who seemed to think it was not coming
were the Liberals. They campaigned they would preserve supply
management in the state it was in before the GATT agreement.
That was absolutely misinformation to give to the Canadian
public. It is unfortunate they would perpetuate this type of
propaganda in their election campaign.
They also said they would craft stabilization programs to
minimize the impact of market price fluctuations; government
support in developing new commercial markets for
commodities in which the agri-food industry has a competitive
advantage; sustainable agriculture practices to maintain and
improve the quality of land and water; emission oriented
research to increase productivity and create quality products to
meet market demand.
They are very nice words but where is the beef? We have not
seen anything yet from the minister of agriculture and there is
certainly nothing in the implementation of the budget that would
indicate that any of these promises in the red book are about to
be fulfilled.
(1135)
In the first throne speech agriculture was not even mentioned.
It certainly does not seem to be a very high priority with the
government.
Actions speak louder than words. Let us look at the record of
the agriculture minister and the government since they came
into power. As far as agriculture was concerned, 1994 was a year
of indecision and inaction. It will be remembered by most as a
year comprised of consultation and study groups that were not
intended to be genuine but rather as a way of avoiding making
tough decisions.
Issues that were pursued through legislation in the House
were rather insignificant and inconsequential such as Bill C-49,
the department of agriculture reorganization bill, Bill C-50, the
Canadian Wheat Board research check-off act, Bill C-51,
amendments to the Canada Grains Act, certainly not of any
consequence to the industry.
Outside the House of Commons the minister of agriculture
was heavily criticized over his handling of the durum wheat
dispute with the Americans. After months of posturing the
federal government caved into the American demands that
Canada place self-imposed caps on shipments of wheat to the
United States.
The minister also reneged on the promise he and the Prime
Minister made during the election campaign. They made the
promise they would hold a referendum on the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board and barley marketing. They did not carry
out that promise.
For 1995 the minister of agriculture is again making some
promises and we will be watching to see whether he carries them
out. He said in the Western Producer of January 5, 1995: ``It is a
year when we can really see the turning of a corner on a lot of
issues. I think 1995 will be a very active and vigorous year in
which a number of these issues will come to a head and be dealt
with''.
We are well into 1995 and to this point we have not seen very
much positive by way of performance by the minister of
agriculture. There certainly does not seem to be much in the
budget to get excited about.
The minister of agriculture in 1994 delayed introducing
legislation that would end the backtracking of grain from
Thunder Bay to the west. It is a very costly and terrible practice
which he had the power to correct. He said he would but then
delayed the implementation of the act which would correct this
problem and cost producers more money.
From the Western Producer on November 17, 1994 the
minister said: ``I cannot tell you what the amount of the Crow
benefit will be. I have to tell you in all candour and honesty that I
will expect the number to be somewhat lower and that is a
product of the harsh fiscal reality we are living in at this time''.
The minister was still giving farmers some indication the
Crow benefit would be with us. When this budget came down,
which we are implementing through Bill C-56, the Crow was
gone. Why was the minister indicating payment would only be
reduced when it would be eliminated? These were not the
signals farmers needed to make decisions over the winter
months as to how they would operate their farms in the current
crop year.
Another very interesting issue important to agriculture
producers goes far beyond the agricultural industry; it affects all
exporters, transportation of our product to port.
I again quote the minister of agriculture from the Western
Producer, March 10, 1994: ``I do not want to jump to
conclusions about what is needed''. This was with regard to
labour problems that plague the grain transportation system: ``I
do not want to jump to conclusions about what is needed but I
merely observe that it is important that all the players work on a
way to
11269
avoid this ever happening again in the future. The situation
where losses occur for the grain industry because of a dispute
outside their control is not acceptable''.
That was a little over a year ago. He said it was not acceptable,
that we had to deal with the west coast port labour dispute and
lockout. As we very well know, we had to deal with the issue of
the west coast ports again and the rail strike.
(1140 )
When the minister said it was not acceptable, the problem is
he realized it was not acceptable but he did not do anything
about it. What is really sad is that he had the opportunity to do
something about it. He could have supported the hon. member
for Lethbridge when he introduced Bill C-262 in the House. It
was a votable motion. The Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food could have supported it. It would have legislated
final offer arbitration for essential services such as the transport
of grain to tidewater from the farm gate. The minister of
agriculture recognized the problem was unacceptable. He had
the opportunity to do something about it and he failed to do it.
That is unacceptable to western grain producers.
With respect to research for agriculture, the minister of
agriculture said it is fundamental and needs to rank very high in
what we do in the future:
I have not yet had the tough conversation I expect I will have at some point
with the Minister of Finance. If you are inconsistent in your research objectives
or your research funding you can do a lot of long term damage. I would like to
be able to reallocate resources within the department of agriculture should that
prove necessary, to make sure that vital things like research do not get
fundamentally undermined in the process of reworking the budget. I actually
would like to see the situation (funding levels) improved. That may be a bit
ambitious in the short run in the face of necessary restraint but the fundamental
objective for the long term has to be to increase research and development.
That is from the
Western Producer of January 27, 1994.
In the budget the minister did not follow through on his
commitment. The way I would interpret it is that he was saying:
``I do not think I can increase funding for research. I will going
have a tough conversation with the Minister of Finance.
Certainly we are not going to reduce it''.
What the finance minister did in the last budget was cut
funding to agriculture research. He is asking the private sector
to make up the difference. Perhaps that is a fair request. We
could debate that in the House. The problem is the minister of
agriculture said something else. He did not follow through on
what he said. Not only did he cut funding for research, he also
cut seven research station facilities across Canada.
He also said research for the smaller sectors of agriculture
would be those hardest hit. What if that had been our policy in
the past? There would have been no research to develop canola,
one of the greatest assets in the western regions. Perhaps we
would not have developed the lentil market we have had we
followed the agriculture minister's policy. Perhaps because of
his policy we will not develop the herbs and spices market to its
full potential. That is a step which would harm diversification
rather than assist it. The minister said he is committed to
diversification and a broadening of the scope of agriculture. The
agriculture minister's actions and his words do not line up.
I would like to return to the situation of supply management.
What has happened is very unfortunate. Specifically on on
article XI the minister of agriculture stated:
It is no secret that there is not a great deal of support for our position among the
other GATT members. But we will continue to fight for that position. Our bottom
line is that we will do what we have to to protect supply management.
It was obvious to the whole world, surely it was obvious to the
finance minister, that Canada stood alone in its defence of
article XI and that there were to be changes. The agriculture
minister should have done the responsible thing and
communicated the reality of the situation to agriculture
producers. He should have done that before the election rather
than waiting until after the election. Now their support is so slim
they can do nothing whatsoever and they will have to go along
with the changes proposed in the GATT agreement in 1994.
With respect to international trade, in campaign ads in his
attempt to win the Liberal nomination in Regina-Wascana in
1988, his material contained the following:
This election will be the most crucial in our lifetime. It demands strong,
decisive action to stop the bad Mulroney trade deal which threatens our future
and our very way of life.
That is from the
Leader-Post of September 15, 1988.
(1145 )
As the whole world knows, we need trade agreements. More
of them are being put in place every day. We also know the
Liberal government, including the minister of agriculture,
campaigned against the free trade agreement. However, once the
Liberals got into power they did nothing to change it although
they said they would change it. They said they had wonderful
changes planned for the North American free trade agreement.
Once they got into power they made no changes whatsoever.
Again, what the agriculture minister said and his actions were
two separate things.
11270
During the 1988 free trade debate the agriculture minister
said that the current Minister of Finance and he stood strongly
against the trade deal. He said it was not a fair deal but a sellout
of our nation. How could it be a sellout in 1988 and then
supported in 1993?
There are some real positive aspects to the North American
free trade deal. Certainly it is not the perfect deal. Maybe there
is no such perfect deal. The problem is that the minister of
agriculture and the Liberal government flip-flopped on the
issue. They did not keep their word. It is very unfortunate that
we do not know what direction we can take from the words of the
agriculture minister and his colleagues.
I would like to read one more quote with regard to the durum
wheat dispute last year with the Americans. The agriculture
minister said:
Those on the other side of the border who might think that action can be taken
against Canada with no consequences, should think again. There will be
consequences-I want our American trading partners to know that Canada is
not going to roll over and play dead-For every action there will be a reaction.
That is a quote from the Ottawa
Citizen dated March 30, 1994.
In the newspaper The Western Producer the minister said:
``No deal is better than a bad deal''. That was April 16, 1994. As
we know, the minister of agriculture caved into the Americans
and agreed to export restrictions of 50 per cent of previous
exports to the United States of Canadian durum. Again that is
very regrettable. Again the minister of agriculture did not match
his actions and his words.
I want to read one final quote regarding the agriculture
minister because the Canadian people need to be aware of this. It
is with regard to deficit reduction. As members know, for some
time Reformers have called for the government to come to grips
with the deficit. I have a very interesting statement made by the
minister of agriculture in the past with regard to the deficit. He
said it is more than irresponsible, it is immoral. Those are the
words of the agriculture minister.
I agree with the minister of agriculture. It is immoral to pass
on the deficit and debt to future generations. However, the
agriculture minister is part of a government that is adding
billions of dollars to the debt by annual deficits, last year, in the
current budget and in the one that is projected for next year.
I have three primary criticisms of the Crow buy-off in the
Liberal budget. I would like to put those on record. First, the
government's action on the Crow benefit comes as too little, too
late. Three years ago Reformers suggested that the funds for the
transportation subsidy for grain should be rolled over into a
trade distortion adjustment program that would protect
producers from damage received as a result of the grain trade
wars. We did not hide this information. It was very public. The
Liberals had access to it when they came to power. They
determined that they would stick with the old Crow until they
could bargain it away in the GATT negotiations when they had
no cards left to play in the deck.
Second, the government should have designed and introduced
a transition plan prior to the discontinuance of the Crow benefit,
not a year or more after it ends. It seems incomprehensible that
the federal government would end the Crow benefit on July 31,
1995 and then say it is going to introduce a transition program in
the 1996-97 fiscal year. That is really putting the cart before the
horse. The Liberals are going to eliminate something and then
not have any idea what they are going to put in place for
transition. I cannot fathom that thinking.
Third, the government is justified in reducing support to
agriculture if, and only if, it reduces spending in other
departments and programs by equal amounts so that farmers do
not carry an unfair portion of the pain caused by fiscal restraint.
This has not happened. In many cases, which I will mention in a
few minutes, the federal government has actually increased
spending. This is unacceptable. The minister of agriculture has
obviously not considered those most vulnerable to the loss of the
Crow, namely young renters. I have had many calls from young
farmers in my constituency who are renters. They will lose at
both ends with the Crow buy-off. First, they are not recipients of
the $1.6 billion buyout. Second, they will bear the cost for the
additional transportation with the ending of the subsidy. This is
truly regrettable because often these young farmers have a
pretty tight cash flow situation and low equity. They are not able
to go to their banker and command the same infusion of cash for
their operations. It is very difficult for them to plan to farm
again this year.
(1150)
I want to really stress this. I am not complaining about the
cuts in support to agriculture. I will say it again so that it is clear
to the House. I am not complaining about the cuts in support to
agriculture. Probably Reform would have done some of the
cutting differently and I think better.
I want to point an accusing finger at the government because it
did not level with Canadians about the way cuts would be made.
It did not level with farmers about how cuts would be made.
Particularly it did not level with the western grain farmers about
how cuts would be made. It did not level with supply
management about how it would deal with that industry. It failed
to fulfil its promises. That is truly regrettable.
While farmers took a triple whammy in the budget, the
government continues to subsidize special interest and
advocacy groups such as the National Action Committee on the
Status of Women and others. It continues to provide huge tax
breaks and subsidies to big business and doles out millions to
western economic diversification and other regional agencies.
The Lib-
11271
erals are still planning on sending billions of dollars overseas
while cutting programs for Canadians.
I thought it would be interesting to go through the budget and
the estimates for this year and take a look at the areas where
spending is actually rising. The result is quite interesting and I
would like to share my findings with the House.
Spending by the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will rise
by about 70 per cent from last year to $17.5 million. The
Canadian Museum of Civilization will receive 22 per cent more,
bringing the total to $46.2 million. The Canadian Museum of
Nature's budget goes up by 33 per cent to almost $25 million.
The National Gallery of Canada gets a 23 per cent increase to
bring its budget to over $33 million. The list continues. The
National Museum of Science and Technology gets a 25 per cent
increase to $20.5 million. The Status of Women Co-ordinator
gets a-wow-322 per cent increase to $15.2 million. I know
that farm women do not support that increase to the budget for
the status of women.
The increase to the Immigration and Refugee Board, $11
million. Perhaps it is to install more hidden cameras. This is
very interesting. The finance department gets a $9.7 billion
increase. With a bigger deficit and a bigger debt comes a bigger
finance department. That is a real reward for incompetence.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal receives a $500
million increase. The Federal Office Regional Development
Quebec, $34 million; the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, $38,000; the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans,
$121 million. Maybe he will be able to buy some more
extravagant furniture with the increase in his budget.
National Health and Welfare is receiving an extra $321
million. It is spending more money while services are eroding.
The Medical Research Council, $2 million; Statistics Canada,
$5.5 million; the justice department $500,000; Indian and
northern affairs, $285 million. That one year's increase is equal
to a six-year Crow transition fund. It is just appalling. The
Federal Judicial Affairs Commissioner, $1 million; the Tax
Court of Canada, $180,000; the Atomic Energy Control Board,
$165,000.
The Senate of Canada, $1,000. It actually gets an increase and
its members do not even show up for work most days. The Privy
Council Department, $4.5 million. More money for the people
who brought us the Fowler-Doyle affair. The Canadian
Intergovernmental Secretariat, $250,000; the National Round
Table on Environment and the Economy is a new agency and its
entire $3.3 million budget is new spending. The security
intelligence review committee, $6,000, more money to reward
recent poor performance; the correctional service, $50 million;
the RCMP, $10 million; the RCMP external review committee,
$91,000; civil aviation tribunal, an extra $15,000; Treasury
Board Secretariat, an extra $32 million; western economic
diversification, an extra $26 million.
(1155)
All of this is new spending. Those departments and agencies
are all having their budgets increased while farmers are taking it
in the neck. It is not fair.
Overall government spending has moved up since the Liberals
took power. In 1993-94 total government spending was $158
billion. The Liberals came to power. In 1994-95 it was $160.3
billion. That is an increase. This year in the budget it is projected
to be $163.5 billion. Spending is increasing. It is not decreasing
despite some of the spin doctor campaigns that the Liberals are
promoting to say that they are reducing the deficit and cutting
spending. They are actually increasing spending.
The government has sent a clear message that it feels special
interest groups, business subsidies, regional patronage handouts
and foreign aid are all more important than the agriculture
sector. The budget is nothing more than a raid on the income of
hard working Canadians so the Liberals can continue to fund
their pet projects with $1 billion of additional tax revenues to
help them along.
The budget is a failure. It fails to get Canada off the debt
treadmill. It fails to demonstrate that we can avoid hitting the
wall. We are already seeing the ill effects of the budget in the
value of our currency. The U.S. dollar is plummeting versus
other international currencies and our dollar is losing ground to
the Americans. The Canadian peso, as it is becoming known, is
at constant risk and interest rates may rise because of the weak
budget.
It is interesting that the minister of public works is planning to
issue a $2 coin. It indicates how little value our currency holds.
Soon a coke machine will require a two buck piece for a can of
the real thing. The coke will know doubt be more real than the
money we use to buy it.
In an effort to prevent a rout on the Canadian dollar and a
decrease in our credit rating, the Minister of Finance, the Prime
Minister and other members of cabinet have been trotting
around the world trying to convince our creditors that we are
still a good credit risk. The very fact that our status is in question
demonstrates the seriousness of the problem caused by the
government and its Liberal and Conservative predecessors.
The best way to sum up the budget is to read a poem written by
Dr. John Robson. The poem is based on Casey at the Bat by
Earnest Lawrence Thayer. Dr. Robson apologizes to Mr. Thayer
for sullying his poem by including Liberals in it. I would like to
read the poem to the House. It is called Marty at the Bat:
11272
It looked extremely rocky for Canadians that day;
The deficit was growing; how short time was none could say.
So when Wilson died on OAS, and The Maz did the same,
A pallor wreathed the features of the patrons of the game.
A straggling few then went off shore, leaving there the rest,
With that hope which springs eternal within the human breast.
For they thought: ``If only Marty could get a whack at that,''
They'd put even money now, with Marty at the bat.
But the PM controlled Marty, and Coppsie always sounding off,
And the former was a pudd'n, the latter face down in the trough.
So on that stricken multitude a deathlike silence sat;
For there seemed but little chance of Marty's getting to the bat.
But the PM gave him Finance, to the wonderment of all.
And the much-despised Coppsie saw her influence free-fall.
And when the dust had lifted, and they saw what had occurred,
The HRD man had folded, and Marty could ride herd.
Then from the gladdened multitude went up a joyous yell-
It rumbled in the mountaintops, it rattled in the dell;
It struck upon the hillside and rebounded on the flat;
For Marty, mighty Marty, was advancing to the bat.
There was ease in Marty's manner as he stepped into his place,
There was pride in Marty's bearing and a smile on Marty's face;
And when responding to the cheers he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Marty at the bat.
Ten million eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with ink,
Five million tongues applauded when he sat him down to think;
Then when the writhing Moody's ground the rating in its hip,
Defiance glanced in Marty's eye, a sneer curled Marty's lip.
And now the budget '94 came hurtling through the air,
And Marty stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the deficit unheeded sped;
`No need for haste,' said Marty; `Strike one,' the markets said.
From the benches, black with Lib'rals, went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of vast spending when the tax can rise no more.
`Kill him! Kill the lender!' shouted someone in the stand;
And they might well have defaulted, had not Marty raised his hand.
With a smile of Liberal charity, great Marty's visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult, he made the game go on;
He produced no mini-budget, and once more tax dollars flew;
But Marty still ignored it, and the markets said, `Strike two.'
`Fraud!' cried the maddened Lib'rals, and the echo answered, `Fraud!'
But one scornful look from Marty and the audience was awed;
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew their Marty wouldn't let his chance go by again.
The sneer is gone from Marty's lips, his spreadsheet's clenched in hate,
He swears he'll cut most drastically, before it is too late;
It comes to budget time again, the deficit still high;
And Marty swings beneath the ball, and hits an infield fly.
Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
I think it's in Reformland where Presto has got it right;
And somewhere children laugh, and adults raise a festive cup,
But there is no joy in Canada-Paul Martin has popped up.
(1200)
This budget implemented by Bill C-76 raises taxes. It
increases the debt by over $100 billion over three years. It offers
no hope of tax relief to Canadians. No member of this House
who has any concern for the welfare of their children and
grandchildren can support a bill that enables the government to
increase the debt load and therefore the future tax load we are
leaving for them.
I call on all members of this House to join with my Reform
colleagues and me to defeat this budget implementation act.
Canada and Canadians deserve better.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon.
member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe.
It might have been quicker if the hon. member had read War
and Peace into the record, but if brevity is the soul of wit, then
the poem was neither brief nor perhaps particularly witty.
It has been said by another poet that nothing is either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. That poet was speaking to attitude.
We just had a very good portrayal by the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster of the Reform Party attitude about
the budget.
He was very effective as a prophet of doom and gloom in
speaking about the budget. Quite frankly, as most Canadians
know and indeed as the previous speaker well knows, perhaps to
his chagrin, the budget is being very well received by
Canadians. Although every decision perhaps is not what
Canadians would have liked, in general the budget is being very
well received and for some very good reasons.
I would like to speak first to the process the hon. Minister of
Finance followed in this budget and indeed in his first budget.
There has never been a more open and transparent process which
has taken place by a finance minister. There has never been a
greater opportunity for Canadians right across this land to have
input into the budget.
There is very good evidence of that in my riding and in the city
of London, Ontario where I live and part of which I represent.
The finance minister was in our city for an open forum with a
cross-section of groups from London and the surrounding area
and other individual Londoners. He received tremendous input
during that evening.
All members of Parliament have the opportunity to hold
special meetings. I know that most of the members on this side
of the House held special prebudget consultations with their
constituents.
(1205 )
With the encouragement of the hon. minister, Canadians have
never had a better opportunity for input into the budget. Whether
one accepts and likes every single budget decision or not,
universally the process very correctly is being praised.
It is my view that the budget is both balanced and fair. Now we
come to what I said in terms of attitude. We can adopt the
philosophy of the Reform Party and the attitude of doom and
gloom and that everything is negative, or we can face the fact
that yes, there were significant cuts which had to be made. They
were necessary. In some cases I would say they were regrettable
but necessary.
11273
It is quite clear that Canadians expect us to come up with a
more efficient, more effective, leaner but not meaner
government in this country. To cut, slash and burn at a more
hectic pace, which is what is being suggested by the Reform
Party, would produce a much meaner government and a much
meaner society which is something I reject as a Canadian and
Canadians generally reject.
We had very good evidence of that on October 25, 1993.
Canadians were given a clear choice between a gradual,
common sense, determined approach to reducing the deficit and
debt in this country as outlined in the Liberal red book, and a
much more dramatic and draconian approach to the deficit and
debt problems put forth by the Reform Party. Canadians spoke
very clearly in October 1993 about what choice they preferred.
Indeed, they have endorsed that choice again with the reaction
we have seen to the budget in the weeks since it was brought
down.
Why is that? In my view it is because Canadians understand
that if private sector businesses are facing the situation where
they must downsize and become more efficient and effective,
then so too must governments. It is not incumbent on any
government more than the federal government to show by
example that this must be done.
I heard repeatedly from my constituents the phrase to just
share the pain equally and all Canadians will support it. Just
make sure we are spreading it out equally. That is exactly what
my constituents have told me. Urban constituents, rural
constituents, people in business and in farming, all of whom I
represent, have told me they are content with the budget and
they think we are on the right track.
One of the best indicators of the budget being very fair and
balanced is the fact that we are now up to eight provinces out of
10 that have claimed to have been the hardest hit by this budget.
That is one of the clearest signs that the budget is fair and is
trying to treat all provinces as equally as possible.
Critics from the left are saying the budget was much too
tough. Critics from the right are saying that the budget was not
tough enough. Perhaps the surest way we Liberals have of
knowing we have reached the right, common sense, balanced
decision is just to acknowledge the fact that at the same time on
the same decision on this budget we were getting criticism from
the right that it was not tough enough and from the left that it
was much too tough.
Some hon. members: We must be right.
Mr. O'Brien: That is right. As my colleague says, that must
obviously give us some evidence that we must be right.
Canadians certainly feel that we have reached a balanced
position in the budget.
We have met our targets. For the first time in over 10 years a
finance minister has announced deficit targets and has actually
held and met those targets. He has exceeded those targets. In just
a year and a half this minister has produced two budgets both of
which have cut spending and have begun the important
government restructuring which must take place as we move
toward the 21st century.
In the next three years over $29 billion in savings will be
realized. I remind members that there are $7 in cuts for every $1
in revenue in this budget. It is quite clear to Canadians that this
budget turns the corner. It puts us on a national diet, if you will.
It indicates the way in which we must start to seriously attack
this deficit problem with the view to totally eliminating it when
that is possible.
(1210 )
The minister's two year rolling target is a sensible determined
way to go about this. No, it is not endorsed by the Reform Party,
which wants to be much more slash and burn in its approach, but
then again Canadians do not generally endorse that view.
The reaction I have had in my riding to this budget has been
quite favourable. My constituents are pleased. Canadians from
coast to coast to coast have indicated repeatedly that they are
pleased. No, not with every single decision in the budget but
they are pleased in general that the minister and the government
are on the right track.
In my riding I have formed an agricultural advisory
committee. The previous speaker from the Reform Party pretty
much solely addressed large parts of his comments to
agriculture. The farmers I represent have made it clear that yes,
they took a hit, but they acknowledge that business subsidies
were cut by 60 per cent. The farmers I represent feel that the
finance minister got it about right.
It would seem that except for Bob Rae who has an election
coming up pretty soon which he would like to duck and some of
his colleagues in the NDP-
Mr. Calder: Bob who?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, it will soon be Bob who? Except for those
people on the left and the Reform Party-I prefer to call it the
excessive conservative party-except for those two parties on
the extremes in this country, most Canadians have reacted
favourably to the budget. That is the reality. That is the fact. I
know it is not popular to members on the other side but then
again, that is life.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest as the member opposite was
going through some Olympian hurdles and patting himself on
the back for the marvellous job they did.
11274
Reference to the Olympics would be fair and accurate
because the Liberals do have this new Olympic sport. It is
called low hurdles. No matter how tough it is, you can only
bruise your shins going over the Olympic low hurdles of the
Liberals.
We know we have to take some serious hits and Canadians by
and large are prepared for it. They are anticipating it and want to
do it. We do not want to leave a bankrupt country to our
grandchildren. The essence is that it must be fair. If it is not fair,
it will not meet with public acceptance on a broad base.
My specific question has to do with the fairness of the budget.
It has to do with the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.
How is it that this affects one province disproportionately, the
province of Alberta? It affects Nova Scotia and Alberta, no other
province in Canada.
The hon. parliamentary secretary said that the reason it is
being cut is that it is not being passed along from the province to
the individual taxpayer. Does it matter? Is it any business of the
federal government what the provincial governments do with
that money? It does not belong to the federal government; it
belongs to the province.
The idea behind that tax was to ensure that all utilities were
treated fairly. An enterprise that establishes itself in Nova
Scotia or in Alberta has relatively the same base of taxes for its
utility demands.
The hon. member's arm must now be relaxed after all that
patting himself on the back. Would he speak to the fairness of
two provinces, Nova Scotia and Alberta, being singled out for
this punitive tax measure, which is $70 for every single
homeowner in either province?
Mr. O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from
my colleague.
I recall for him that I applauded the efforts of the finance
minister. Then again, I just joined the vast majority of
Canadians who are neither in the Reform Party nor perhaps
Reform Party supporters in applauding the minister for a job
very well done.
(1215 )
As to the specific question, it is interesting that my colleague
singled out Alberta. I would not say he was whining, but I am
tempted to think that it sounded a bit like a NIMBY type
complaint. Then he corrected himself because he heard
information from this side of the House that Nova Scotia was
being hit by the same measure.
It was not something that was aimed at the province of
Alberta. My colleague had to correct himself in asking his
question. The government felt there was no good reason for the
measure in that it had to be reformed and it was not aimed at one
particular province.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. If his
constituents are so pleased, is it not because the government is
hiding the truth? Did the hon. member tell his constituents that
the federal government was not making any effort to recover the
$6.6 billion in unpaid taxes? Did he tell his constituents that
they are the ones who will end up paying for the cuts of over $7
billion in federal transfers to the provinces, because the
Minister of Finance lacked the courage to put his own fiscal
house in order, and chose instead to dump his deficit problems
on the provinces?
Did he also tell his constituents that 70,000 companies did not
pay taxes, including CN, which made profits of $400 million and
did not pay one cent? Mr. Tellier is certainly privileged. Does
the hon. member tell the truth to his constituents?
[English]
Mr. O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I ask for the indulgence of my
colleague to give me the gist of the question again. I had to step
outside as he began his remarks.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Could the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot repeat his question?
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, this is ridiculous. I am not
going to repeat all that I said.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Fine. I was not sure if
you were expecting an answer or not.
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget. I am reminded of how different one
year in the life of a government can be. A year ago following our
first budget we were roundly scolded by both the media and our
constituents that we needed to do more to cut the size of
government to address the deficit.
One year later we have listened, consulted and acted. Not
surprisingly we have a budget that has been roundly praised by
the media and our constituents as being pragmatic and realistic,
a budget for our times.
There are times when fundamental changes must be faced. For
Canadians 1995 is a time when choices and change are still
possible without destroying the ideals or the principles we as
Canadians hold dear.
The government came into office because it believed that jobs
and growth must be the nation's top priority if we are to create a
climate of economic well-being for all Canadians. To achieve
our goal we must act now to restore the nation's fiscal health.
11275
Over the next three years the actions in the budget will
deliver upward of $7 or spending cuts for every $1 of new tax
revenue. By 1997-98 the deficit could be brought below $19
billion if interest rates and income growth conform with the
average private sector forecast rather than with our cautious
assumptions.
After extensive review the budget overhauls how government
works and what government does. We must redesign the role of
government in the economy. We can no longer design programs
with one hand in the taxpayer's pocket. The role of government
should extend only to those things that government can do best,
leaving the rest to those who can do it better.
(1220 )
The budget puts our priorities into action. Between this fiscal
year and 1997-98 annual spending will have decreased by $25.3
billion in expenditure cuts. For example, annual spending will
decrease by $1.6 billion in defence, $550 million in foreign
assistance, $1.4 billion in transport, $600 million in natural
resources, upward to $900 million in human resources
development, approximately $200 million in fisheries, $900
million within industry, and almost $450 million in agriculture.
As a result of the cutback and reform of programs the public
service will be reduced by 45,000 positions over the next three
years, representing approximately 20 per cent of the total
government workforce. This is not downsizing government. In
my opinion it is right sizing government.
As mentioned, a key principle of the 1995 budget is to
redesign the role of government in the economy. The decision to
dramatically reduce subsidies to business shows that principle
at work. The simple fact is that the subsidies often did more
harm to businesses than help them as they fostered a relationship
of dependence that had nothing to do with good business
practices. That is why the budget cuts business subsidies by 60
per cent, from $3.8 billion last year to $1.5 billion by 1997-98.
Areas where subsidies will drop sharply include agriculture
and transportation. We can no longer afford subsidies designed
decades ago which today are actually restricting and restraining
adaptation, diversification and competitiveness.
Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies are being
eliminated for a savings of $2.6 billion over five years. However
there will be transition measures. We will make a one-time $1.6
billion payment to prairie landowners and invest a further $300
million to help establish a more efficient grain handling and
transportation system. As well we will co-operate with
provincial agriculture ministers to develop a national whole
farm package. It will encourage innovation and diversification
while producing a 30 per cent reduction in federal contributions
to agricultural safety nets.
The Atlantic freight subsidies are also being eliminated for a
five-year savings of $500 million. This will be balanced by a
five-year transition program, including help to modernize the
highway system in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.
Our cuts to subsidies extend far beyond the agriculture and
transportation sectors. At Industry Canada subsidies will be cut
in half, from $525 million in 1994-95 to $264 million in
1997-98. The remaining spending will focus on initiatives in
high growth sectors in partnership with the private sector.
A new role for regional development agencies will see them
focusing on small and medium size enterprises. However the
assistance will rely on loans and repayable contributions rather
than on direct subsidies. As a result subsidies from these
agencies will drop from $700 million to $234 million over three
years.
Subsidies to cultural industries are also being reduced,
including an 8 per cent reduction to the postal subsidy. As well
we are eliminating the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act
which returns to the provinces the taxes paid by privately owned
utilities. As a result major energy subsidies will virtually
disappear, dropping from $410 million to $8 million.
These subsidy cuts are vital components in restoring Canada's
fiscal health. We also recognize that there are times and places
where government can and should assist the private sector in
today's fast changing global environment.
(1225 )
Nowhere is this more evident than in agriculture and
agri-food where the government is committed to a growing,
competitive market oriented industry that is profitable and
responds to the changing food and non-food needs of domestic
and international customers.
In support of its vision for Canada's agriculture and agri-food
sector the government will, besides the changes already noted,
provide $1 billion in credit guarantees for the export of grains
and other agri-food products. The government will enhance
trade and market development programs to support exporters
and potential exporters through the creation of a new agri-food
service, including the agri-food trade network, a new agri-food
2000 program, and the establishment of the agri-food marketing
council.
As well it will streamline our research infrastructure and
reallocate resources to matching investment initiatives up to
$70 million per year by the end of the decade. That is $35
million from government and $35 million from industry, a
dollar for dollar match. The government will allocate $60
million per year to enhance the sector's ability to respond
effectively to an environment of new market opportunities and
fewer subsidies.
11276
The program will support better access to capital, new
management skills and better infrastructure including improved
access to information and technology.
It will reduce dairy subsidies and undertake consultation with
industry on the use of remaining moneys to enhance the
industry's competitiveness. Additionally it will eliminate the
feed freight assistance subsidy in 1995 and redirect
approximately $60 million over the next 10 years to encourage
agriculture and agri-food development in Atlantic Canada,
eastern Quebec, northern Ontario, British Columbia, Northwest
Territories and Yukon.
Under the Farm Improvements and Marketing Co-Operative
Loans Act the government is proposing to increase the amount
of loan guarantees from $1.5 billion to $3 billion to assist in the
process of adaptation and change.
The government's proposals in the agriculture and agri-food
sector represent significantly the necessary change. With the
current fiscal situation we must shift to activities that enhance
the industry's ability to compete and succeed in the
marketplace.
In conclusion, for too long governments have known the need
for change, the need for renewal, but have lacked the will. The
government has consulted with the people of Canada, including
the agriculture community. I urge members to pass the bill.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question
of the member who during his remarks placed a considerable
amount of emphasis on agricultural issues, particularly the
elimination of the grain freight subsidy which the budget and the
bill bring forward.
The single most devastating element of the budget is the
elimination of the Crow benefit, the transportation obligation of
the government with respect to ensuring that we have
agricultural exports of grain.
The member and the government are aware that regardless of
what diversification occurs on the prairies and regardless of
what value added industries are in place, anywhere from 60 per
cent to 80 per cent of grains grown on the prairies will remain for
export. As a result the increase in costs for freight will be
substantial and the reduction of income for farmers and the
communities they support will be substantial.
I know the government has spent some time in calculating
how it would eliminate the subsidy and save the departments of
transport and agriculture some money. I wonder if the member
has seen any analysis or evaluation that points to or
substantiates the evidence the government says is available
concerning the long term implications of the withdrawal of the
Crown benefit from the prairie economy. Has the member seen
any analysis, evaluation or study regarding what the elimination
of the subsidy will mean to the prairie economy?
(1230)
Mr. Calder: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the
hon. member, that I have not seen a report that means to say
these studies have been completed. This is an ongoing procedure
right now. We have come up with $1.6 billion to anticipate any
property loss that will be experienced by prairie land owners and
there is a $300 million program there to soften the blow also.
The issue we really have to look at is the commodity of
moving potash in the prairie provinces and moving the
commodity of wheat. The transportation costs for the two by the
railways has to be the same. The farmer cannot carry the extra
cost of having his wheat be more expensive to move and still be
competitive on the world markets.
That tells me there has to be a unified front of all the industry
players. Everybody has to come up with the most efficient,
effective way of moving grain for the international markets.
That is the process going on right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, since the hon. member is so fond of figures, I want to
ask him if he realizes that the February 28 budget does nothing
to improve the medium term indebtedness of the federal
government.
If the hon. member did examine the figures and the
assumptions contained in the budget, I want to ask him the
following questions: What will be the average annual growth
rate of tax revenues, for the next three years, based on the
Minister of Finance's budget? What is the average growth rate
of operating and program expenditures anticipated in the
Minister of Finance's budget? Finally, what is the expected
indebtedness level of the federal government in 1997-98,
according to the Minister of Finance's budget?
If the hon. member looked at the real consequences of the
budget of his colleague, it might be a good idea for him to
answer these three questions.
[English]
Mr. Calder: Madam Speaker, if I could give the hon. member
answers to question like that, I would be a millionaire in the
stock markets.
We have listened to the forecast from the private sector as to
what the anticipated growth will be for this year and next year.
Our assumptions have been lower than that.
I will crunch some figures. We started 1994-95 setting our
budget figures at $39.7 billion. That was to be the deficit. By
1996-97 the figure is being set at around $24.3 billion. That is a
$15.4 billion cut over two years. We know we are adding to the
accumulated public debt which is also costing us.
11277
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I am delighted with this opportunity to speak to the
amendment moved by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
Since we first came to the House of Commons on October 25,
1993, you have come to recognize the spirited style of the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. Although style is not
necessarily a guarantee of competence, I think the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot passes the test. He is both spirited
and competent, and I want to commend him on the way he
defends the interests of our party and the interests of Quebec.
(1235)
This motion, and I will read it quickly, says that the hon.
member moved, seconded by the hon. member for Châteauguay,
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following therefor:
``Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 27, 1995, be not now read a second time but that it be
read a second time this day six months hence.''
I must say that I do not claim to be as competent as the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot in this particular area, so I
asked him to explain the purpose of this amendment. For the
benefit of our listeners, not necessarily in this House but outside
the House, I would say that the purpose of this amendment is to
let the Minister of Finance go back to the drawing board, to ask
him to go back and do his homework.
I have a 16-year old son in high school, and when he shows
my wife and me some work that is not up to par, we tell him to go
back and do his homework. That is the purpose of the
amendment: to ask the Minister of Finance to go back and do his
homework.
Why? Because there are a number of questions worth asking
Canadians and Quebecers who are listening. Is this budget
realistic when fails to mention $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes
which are not recovered? Is this budget realistic when it is so
reluctant to tax Canada's big corporations? According to the
statistics, between 62,000 and 70,000 companies in Canada
make a profit and do not pay a cent in taxes. Is that normal?
Should a democratic society like ours accept this double
standard, when the middle class and the poor are getting poorer
and the rich and the big corporations get richer at their expense?
Is this normal? Is this acceptable from a social point of view?
I am convinced that all these people who are having lunch in
their kitchens, every time they get the mail and see their bills
piling up and interest rates go up, all these people wonder
whether they will be able to afford a new car two or three years
from now. Will this young couple be able to afford a house two
or three years from now, a roof over their heads? Will they be
doomed to live in poverty? Will our prospects seem better two or
three years from now, or are we going to go back into a
recession? These are considerations that this legislation totally
ignores.
Something else. Are these tax loopholes normal? Is it normal
to see millionaires who do not pay taxes and, in some cases,
draw unemployment insurance benefits? That takes some doing.
In any case, on the Île d'Orléans and the Beaupré flats, people
say: ``C'est le bout'', which means adding insult to injury.
Family trusts. When he brought down his budget on February
27, the Minister of Finance announced that the family trust
system would be abolished. He forgot to point out it would be
abolished in 1999.
This means, if I am a very rich family that has a family trust, I
have until 1999 to adjust to the new rules and to find other tax
loopholes, other investment vehicles so that I can continue to
shelter these amounts. So the question is whether all this,
whether this budget is normal, acceptable and realistic in the
Canada and Quebec of 1995.
(1240)
When I go back to my riding on Fridays and on the weekends,
people often stop me at the corner store or at the shopping centre
to tell me that it did not hurt as much as they expected. This may
be true, but we have to look beyond the words to see how vicious
the budget was. I tell these people to wait for the Quebec
government to bring down its own budget to see how the federal
budget will affect them.
And if I was talking to the people of Ontario, I would tell them
to wait and see what kind of problems the Ontario government
will have. The budget includes a decentralizing measure whose
only aim is to offload part of the deficit onto the provinces and
make them pay for something else. We will see how much
Ontario and Quebec have been affected, when they bring down
their budgets. The finance ministers of the two provinces have
already mentioned this, in any case.
It is almost a truism to say that the real budget promised this
year will be carried over to next year, once again. Why is the
federal government waiting until next year, we might ask? Is it
expecting the Quebec referendum to be held in May or June and
therefore putting off the offensive cuts in health care, education
and social assistance until afterward? I ask you. Is this not the
case?
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, however,
promised the introduction of flexible federalism. Is this flexible
federalism? Now we have a real idea of the cost of the status quo
and of a no vote in the upcoming referendum.
11278
Coming back to transportation, which is the field with which,
as my party's critic, I am most familiar. I said, in reaction to
this budget, that the federal government had decided to hold
a garage sale with Transport Canada. Why would I say such a
thing?
I said it because the Martin budget announced program review
cuts of $1.1 billion, or 50.8 per cent of expenditures between
1995 and 1998. If we include the cuts from the preceding budget,
Department of Transport spending will be reduced by $1.4
billion between 1994 and 1998. In fact, the measures in the
Martin budget will allow the government to save $2.6 billion in
the Department of Transport over three years as a result of the
program review.
We should look at what makes us think that the government is
getting out of transportation. Well, there are the moves to
privatize announced in this budget, the planned
commercialization of the air navigation system. First of all, let
us be clear that most of the employees affected by
rationalization in the government will be transferred to the
private sector. A non-profit corporation will be set up, looking
after the 5,800 employees now working for the air navigation
system.
I would remind the hon. members that our party is not
necessarily opposed in principle to the creation of a non-profit
corporation in the move to commercialize the air navigation
service. However, I and my party still have questions about this
plan that we would like answered. Among other things, what
would be the value of the assets transferred and what would the
transfer cost? Before giving our full blessing, we will need
answers to the questions that we will be asking at the appropriate
time.
The second sector in which the government has announced
plans to privatize is Canadian National. It will be recalled that
the report of the government group, composed entirely of
Liberal members-no members of the official opposition or the
Reform Party were included-recommended that before CN
could be put up for sale, its debt should be reduced, its profits
increased and the network rationalized, among other things.
(1245)
Again, it should be pointed out that CP's offer to buy CN for
$1.4 billion was totally unacceptable. This point was debated,
and we had the opportunity to agree with the government that
offering $1.4 billion for CN's assets was totally unacceptable.
We do agree on that.
It remains to be seen, however, how much CN's privatization
will actually bring in. Let us not forget that CN is the property of
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. So, it should not be sold at
bargain price to friends of the regime or those who make
donations to the Liberal campaign fund. In that regard, the
official opposition will play its role as a watchdog, to see if CN's
purchase price reflects its true value.
The Bloc Quebecois is now the only party defending the rights
of the workers, including the right to strike in Canada, as
evidenced by the NDP's failure to show up last weekend, when
special legislation was passed to force resumption of operations
in the railway industry. So, we will have to make sure that the
rights of CN workers are not trampled in the privatization
process, that their rights will be maintained. We will certainly
get to talk about this issue again.
Also contemplated in this budget as part of the privatization
effort is the commercialization of operations under the national
airports policy. A task force was appointed by the Government
of Quebec to provide assistance to those municipalities and
local groups who wish to undertake negotiations with Ottawa on
this subject.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Quebec's
labour minister, Jacques Léonard, on taking a very worthwhile
initiative in support of municipalities which may be facing
airport privatization or even closure, because the problem has
not been resolved. Considering that the airport in Sept-Îles lost
$1.9 million and the one in Baie-Comeau, $1.2 million, while in
Val-d'Or the airport is also running on a deficit, we have to ask
ourselves if municipal taxpayers will be able to absorb these
deficits?
It is important to bear in mind, when the federal government
invests in our regions, these funds are not gifts to us. As a matter
of fact, it is our money because, as far as I know, Sept-Îles
residents receiving services from the federal government which
is building an airport pay federal taxes through automatic
payroll deductions or, in the case of professionals, make tax
payments, so they are entitled to receive services from the
federal government.
A fourth target for privatization in this budget is the motor
vehicle testing centre in Blainville, which should remain in the
hands of the government but whose operation will be handed
over to the private sector in the course of this year. Negotiations
are apparently under way. On this particular subject, we reserve
comment as we have received information regarding some
goings-on that are not very-I do not want to make a religious
comment, but my colleague from Chicoutimi is suggesting that I
should say not very kosher.
It is true that, like the hon. member, I come from the
Saguenay. There seem to be some dubious goings-on with
regard to this operation, but I cannot go any further because I
want to save this for questioning the Minister of Transport in
due course.
This budget provides for the revocation of the Western Grain
Transportation Act and the elimination of a $560 million
subsidy. This subsidy created, once again, a double standard in
Canada, especially in the railway sector.
11279
(1250)
We realized that in the railway sector-and this comment
does not apply only to Quebec-, there are two different criteria
to determine the profitability of rail lines in Canada: everything
east of Winnipeg had to be profitable in order to survive and
continue operating, while everything west of Winnipeg was
considered to be a subsidized service. This in turn led to some
very strange things. They even discovered that some trainloads
of grain were shipped to Vancouver via the port in Thunder Bay
just to qualify for the subsidy.
I remember when we were kids and we used to play
Monopoly. After going around the board, we would pass ``Go''
and claim $200 before continuing to circle around. This truly
reminds me of a game of Monopoly.
By eliminating this subsidy, the government will put an end to
this game of Monopoly. We would like to be supportive and say
that this is a good measure, but there is always an unfortunate
aspect. In this case, it is the fact that the budget provides
compensation-and I hope that farmers of Île d'Orléans and the
Beaupré shore will not choke when they hear this-to the tune of
$2.9 billion to western agricultural producers.
Mr. Loubier: Untaxed.
Mr. Guimond: Untaxed, the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot just pointed out.
We have to ask ourselves whether it is normal or acceptable,
in 1995, for a democratic society to implement such provisions.
This is why westerners have not been too vocal. They do not
complain too much about the fact that the Western Grain
Transportation Act will be repealed, because they know that
they will get $2.9 billion in compensation.
I say to Quebec agricultural producers: ``Put on a smile, the
federal taxes you pay will help your competition''. These
subsidies will help western producers to change their
production, and who is to say that they will not replace their
grain production with meat, poultry or dairy products. And they
will do it all with your federal taxes. This is incredible.
The bill also repeals the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance
Act. Subsidies totalling some $99 million, and perhaps as much
as $108 million, depending which of the two figures I have is
accurate, are provided for the region located east of an
imaginary line called the Jackman line, in the Beauce region,
including the Gaspé peninsula and all of Atlantic Canada.
Again, we are talking about subsidies totalling some $100
million.
This program will be eliminated. As a transitory measure, the
budget provides for a five year, $326 million transportation
adjustment program. Bloc Quebecois members representing
eastern Quebec will probably express their views on this issue,
since their region will be eligible for the moneys which will be
made available to either improve the highway system or support
programs for secondary or tertiary processing.
In any case, I represent the riding of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and I am not directly
concerned by this issue. However, I think that the residents of
eastern Quebec, the lower St. Lawrence region, the Gaspé
peninsula and the riding of Bellechasse are in a good position to
know how this adjustment fund could be used.
I did meet business owners from that region who told me that,
sometimes, this subsidy was ineffective-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but the period for debate is over. We now move
on to questions and comments.
Since there are no questions, we resume debate. The hon.
member for Egmont.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Algoma. I am happy
to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-76, an act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 27.
(1255)
I speak in support of the bill. I commend the Minister of
Finance for the excellent job he has done in developing a budget
that has been embraced by an overwhelming majority of
Canadian people and international money markets.
On the one hand there have been complaints, as we heard from
the Bloc Quebecois, that the minister went too far. On the other
hand the consensus of the Reform Party is that we did not go far
enough. However, the general consensus of Canadians is that the
budget was a reasonable and fair effort to address the problems
faced by the nation.
The people of Canada indicated very loudly and clearly that
they wanted the minister to move decisively to address the
problems of the debt and the deficit. They wanted to see a
definitive plan by which the country could be moving toward a
balanced budget and beyond to a surplus budget. Canadians also
indicated that they did not want any increases in personal
income tax, and there was none.
I am happy to say that the fundamental thrust of the budget
addresses in a fair, equitable and balanced fashion the demands
of the Canadian people. The budget responds to the need to put
Canada's fiscal house in order. Granted, there will be some pain
but I believe that the burden of deficit reduction has been
distributed fairly. The confidence of the Canadian people is
being restored as they realize spending is tightening up and that
they will be getting better value for their tax dollar.
11280
Many of the provisions in the budget have already been dealt
with. Those remaining are being handled today with Bill C-76.
However the message is clear and the message is consistent.
The government is getting its own house in order. It is
downsizing. It is focusing on cutting expenditures and not on
raising taxes.
The targets set by the Minister of Finance indicate that we are
moving toward the much desired position of a balanced budget.
It is reassuring that we are moving in this direction in a fair and
humane fashion. We must never lose sight of the fact, though,
that some parts of the country are not as economically
advantaged as others.
The principles upon which the country was founded require
that the federal government maintain a program of
redistribution of wealth so that no Canadian should have to
endure diminished social security simply because he or she lives
in one province as opposed to another. One of the main standards
by which we are measured against other countries is the degree
of caring and compassion we show to one another. Less
fortunate Canadians must be protected.
I realize the system of federal transfers must be reformed. It
must become more efficient, more effective and more
sustainable. Without this kind of change our capacity to fund
would be seriously constrained, maybe even terminated. Some
critics say that the proposed changes which consolidate the EPF
and CAP into the Canadian social transfer put some social
programs at risk. I suggest that without a sustained effort to
address our deficit and debt problem the same social programs
will be put at even greater risk.
However, in my province of Prince Edward Island there is
considerable concern about the possible effects of the new CST.
I am sure the Minister of Finance understands that the fact a
province has more flexibility and more capacity to be innovative
is of minimal value if the resources, the dollars, are not
available to work with.
When the minister is negotiating with the provinces I am sure
he will keep this in mind. Though the budget document indicates
that national standards especially under the Canada Health Act
will be maintained, there is still concern in economically
disadvantaged areas that there could be some difficulties
encountered. It is encouraging that included in the process of
change is a commitment to a co-operative approach whereby a
new federal-provincial fiscal relationship will be established.
One area about which Canadians were quite vocal was
taxation. They wanted no increase in personal income taxes, and
there was none. They wanted no changes to RRSPs, and there
was virtually none. They wanted health and dental plans left
alone, and they were left alone. They wanted big business to pay
a fairer share. This has happened with increased taxes on large
corporations, a surtax on corporate profits, and a tax on deposit
taking institutions.
The public got hit with a small tax it did not particularly want,
but I have not heard many complaints about it. That was the 1.5
cent per litre tax on gasoline.
(1300 )
Overall, for every $1 in new revenue the government cuts $7
in spending. That ratio is a fair and balanced way to approach
our deficit and debt problem. It is also reflective of the
sentiments of the vast majority of the Canadian people.
One of the areas of budget cuts that did impact negatively on
P.E.I. involved the transportation subsidies. The cuts to the
freight subsidies will be supplemented for a number of years
with transitional funding in the amount of $326 million. There
were cuts to the dairy industry. The dairy people did expect
some cuts there, especially when they saw the Western Grain
Transportation Act being abolished.
One thing not counted on in the budget was the hit from
Human Resources Development Canada whereby the farmers
will suffer the loss in the agriculture employment program.
Hopefully over the next few weeks we can develop a program
which will ease the burden on the farmers as they ease out of this
well used program.
Atlantic Canada is sharing in the pain of deficit reduction.
Two items in the budget which had relatively cosmetic
treatment, which would seem to be due for major surgery over
the next year, are seniors benefits and UI. I am pleased the
government is renewing its commitment to seniors so they will
have a system of protection that is fair and reliable.
In order to do that the CPP, OAS and GIS must be sustainable.
In making the changes that will make it sustainable I asked the
Minister of Finance to keep in mind concerns such as those
expressed by John G. Bates of Etobicoke. He said:
I'd gladly trade all the benefits that I'm supposed to be getting as a senior for
a return to a level playing field for those over and under age 65. -return my
right to work beyond age 65-allow me to be eligible for employer paid health
and dental plans-allow me to get tax breaks allowed others through RRSPs and
work related deductions and credits.
Discrimination because of advancing age is the last bastion of the bigot.
I would caution the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Human Resources Development that frequent UI users are not
automatically abusers. In my riding the main industries are
fisheries, agriculture, tourism and forestry. They are all
seasonal. Workers in these industries are needed every year.
Some of them cannot simply be retrained or shipped out to
higher employment areas.
I want to use a quote from the columnist Peter H. Nicol in the
Ottawa-Carleton Review:
The most significant word to come out of the federal budget speech is the
word change. Not the millions of dollars slashed here, the millions of dollars
promised there, numbers which are virtually meaningless to those of us who
can't balance our cheque books. The word change was the crux of the matter,
for it was the first indication that the federal government was prepared to face an
issue that the public had been aware of for some time; that is to say that if
Canada is going to survive in either the financial or political sense we must
make fundamental changes both in our political structures and in our personal
lives.
11281
The change the Minister of Finance talked about was not so
much in terms of dollars, although they will play a role, but
more in the philosophy of government. The minister asked what
role the government should play in the lives of the people of the
country and the answer he received was less.
Paternalistic government seems to becoming a thing of the
past with the government once again becoming a tool instead of
a solution. That is no bad thing.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. He started off by
saying that one of the objectives of this budget was to put the
government's fiscal house in order, in a way that is fair and
equitable.
I wonder what he means by fair. Does he realize who is going
to bear the brunt of all these budget cuts? The provinces, which
will be stuck with billions of dollars they will have to raise
themselves.
(1305)
Young people will be affected by cuts in a number of
employment programs and in the money required for
post-secondary education. Cuts will also affect the public
service, but only the base, not the higher-ups in their ivory
towers, with the biggest paychecks and the biggest expense
accounts. This morning we heard about the trips these officials
make. Not the people who work at the bottom but those who are
up there in their ivory towers in each department, the generals
who are chauffeured around in their limos. They are not affected
by the budget.
I am also thinking of farmers. The hon. member said a few
words about them in his speech. Yes, farmers will be affected by
cuts to employment and other programs.
I am also thinking of the unemployed. This has almost
become a dirty word to members opposite, because to them, the
unemployed are just a lazy bunch of beer drinkers. Since last
week, they are cheaters as well, and an army of public servants
has been recruited to try and recover negligible amounts, while
we do not even bother to recover $6.6 billion in taxes
outstanding. Most of this amount is owed by large corporations.
When the hon. member talks about everything being fair and
equitable, I wonder at whose expense. What is so equitable
about it, if everybody can use family trusts and tax loopholes to
shelter their money?
Not once did the hon. member mention job creation. What job
creation programs has this budget proposed, especially for
young people?
[English]
Mr. McGuire: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
As we read the newspapers over this past month and a half we
saw provincial government after provincial government, New
Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and
probably tomorrow Prince Edward Island, coming in with
balanced budgets.
The hon. member says we are offloading to the provinces. Is it
fair for the provinces to expect the federal government to
subsidize the provincial balanced budgets and not address our
own budget problems? If he answered that honestly he would
say no. We have a major budget problem, not only an
accumulated debt but in our annual deficits.
We see provinces balancing their budgets. We know most of
the provinces receive transfer payments of one sort or another.
They are looking very good in front of their people and getting
all kinds of support and applause for doing so. A lot of the
money to those provincial governments is coming from the
federal government.
I do not think any fair minded provincial premier would say
we should not address our budget deficits at all; that we should
continue sending money to the provinces and to individuals that
we do not have and have to borrow year after year.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to follow my colleague, the member for Egmont, in
participating in the debate on our most recent federal budget, a
budget which speaks to a whole new attitude toward governance,
a new attitude by the people of Canada because they see good
leadership.
(1310)
After many years, finally again they are seeing good
leadership in their government; the kind of leadership that
breeds confidence. Even though Canadians are having to accept
a share in the national effort to reduce our annual deficit and
ultimately the debt, they recognize it is a small price for putting
the country back on track.
Some of our critics take issue with jobs and say we have not
addressed that. Fundamentally the budget is about jobs. We
cannot properly take our place on the world stage if our financial
house is not in order.
When our finance minister was faced with the challenge of
creating a budget, he had to deal with the view of our nation
from outside and from within its borders. The view from outside
11282
was we had to deal specifically with the problem of our deficit
and debt. If we did not we would pay the price over the short,
middle and long run with higher interest rates, more instability
with respect to exchange rates, more uncertainty with respect to
inflation.
The international marketplace, whether we like it or not, does
influence the domestic marketplace. Our finance
minister-great credit due to him-has found that delicate
balancing point between dealing with the need of the
international marketplace to have confidence in the future of our
economy while at the same time respecting the need of
individual Canadians and their communities to have confidence
in their government, to know their federal government is there
standing behind them even though we have had to take difficult
measures at this time.
No doubt we face more challenging budgets in the years
ahead. I can refer to a recent Angus Reid poll that indicated
some two-thirds of Canadians who were polled support the
budget.
They have concerns. My constituents of Algoma are like other
Canadians. They support the budget but they know they will feel
the effects one way or another. The budget was fair because
Canadians will feel it but they will also know and feel those
efforts are worth the trouble.
Our finance minister in finding that balance has created a
situation in which the cuts are as evenly spread across the
country as possible without hurting the most disadvantaged. As
the member for Egmont emphasized, he did it without
increasing personal income taxes. That is of great credit to him.
He listened to Canadians. He listened to the finance committee,
which held prebudget consultations last fall.
I am honoured to be a member of that committee. When we
listened to Canadians last fall from all areas, they told us in no
uncertain terms we have to do something with the deficit.
The absence of whining among the witnesses was remarkable.
The absence of whining after the budget is remarkable.
Canadians understand something had to be done. It is testimony
to the quality of leadership that the budget met the objectives of
the international community and the objectives of most
Canadians.
The finance minister had to respect the traditions of the
country. One of the most fundamental traditions is the network
that is our social safety net. It is one of the features of our
country that sets us apart in this world. It is one of the features of
this country that makes us one of the most desirable nations in
which to live.
(1315)
All of us are aware the safety net is under review and we are
expecting legislation later this year. The best way to secure the
safety net is to have a strong and vibrant economy. The
government and our finance minister have done just that.
I want to address some of the things my constituents will have
to face. We have a transparent government. We consult with
people and we share with them what needs to be done.
For some, their deepest worries are about pensions. They need
not worry because the minister has done nothing to create
concern in that area. In fact, he virtually has not touched the
whole issue of RRSPs.
My constituents will have to share with Canadians
everywhere as we cut expenditures. Some of those areas include
the string of several dozens of small craft harbours in my riding
of Algoma in northern Ontario. These are small recreational
harbours and some not so small. They have developed over the
last 20 or so years in support of tourism in the marine industry.
This government is not throwing out the baby with the bath
water. What this government is saying to the provinces and in
my case to the local governments: ``Work with us, let us find a
way to continue these local facilities. Let us do it in a way that
gives you more local control over these facilities''.
I have spoken to a number of municipal leaders in my riding.
The response has been very positive to this government's
initiative to say: ``Let us partner with you. Let us preserve these
facilities. Let us work with you so the local governments can
take these over and manage them themselves, instead of having
management from Toronto, Ottawa or elsewhere''.
Many of my constituents had concerns about the federal
RRAP program, which is a CMHC program that assists lower
income people with needed home repairs. To the credit of this
government the program has not been cut. I want to assure my
constituents in that regard. The funding for the rural residential
assistance program which was committed in the 1993 campaign
is still there. Unfortunately there was a large backlog created in
that program because the previous government cut the program.
Now many people are lined up who need important work done on
their homes so they can safely and healthily live in them.
There is a federal mining research laboratory in Elliot Lake. It
is a CANMET lab. Likewise with this lab, the federal
government did not say: ``We are closing the doors. This
laboratory has to be closed because the mining industry in the
community is on the verge of total closure''. Instead, the federal
government has said to the community: ``Let us partner. Let us
find a way to attract other research into this facility so we can
make a more viable research effort in this community. Let us
partner with the province; let us partner with the private sector
and others to create a viable situation for mine related research
and other kinds of research in this community''.
The government did not take the old hatchet to programs like
we have seen previous governments do, when they had the nerve
to even try. When they did do it, it was done without thinking.
This government did not and does not do that. A tremendous
11283
amount of forethought has gone into the planning of the required
adjustments needed to the finances of this country.
(1320 )
The budget sets us on the road. It is a complement to last
year's budget which I believe will lead to a balanced budget in a
few years time. It will cause investment, jobs and all the other
fruits of economic growth and strength this country and the
people of Canada deserve.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate you on your splendid work in the chair. I listened
attentively to my colleague and was surprised by his statement
that Canadians across the country expressed confidence in this
budget.
I am sure my colleague has not visited Quebec in a very long
time, because he would have heard for himself what Quebecers
think of the budget. It is easy, of course, to say that we will all
have to make small sacrifices, but, it will be those already most
disadvantaged, such as the seniors, who will be making most of
them.
You know, in a region such as mine, the Saguenay-Lac
Saint-Jean region, where unemployment is very high, young
people are forced to go elsewhere just to try to find
work-unsuccessfully. When we see this happening in pretty
well all the regions of Canada and cuts being made to transfers
to the provinces, we have to assume that the government does
not care about educating young people.
My question concerns these transfers. Does my colleague
realize that most of the budget cuts to transfer payments for
health care and post-secondary education will be made in 1996,
1997 and 1998? This year's cuts, even though they will hurt, will
be smaller than the ones in the years to come.
What is the government's strategy here? Instead of creating
jobs, it is pursuing a strategy of showing Quebecers that
federalism is effective, which is not true. It is trying to delay the
effects of the budget until as long as possible after the
referendum.
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Chicoutimi for his comments and question.
I visit Quebec often. When I am in Ottawa I live in Quebec.
That should put his concern in that area to rest.
Mr. Fillion: Where?
Mr. St. Denis: Near Wakefield in the beautiful Gatineau hills.
The hon. member talked about the transfers and what the
federal government is allegedly doing to impair the ability of the
provinces to do their job. To spend $63 million and counting on a
referendum campaign is not exactly the wisest use of money. I
submit to him that Quebecers would like the provincial
government to focus its attention on economic issues and not so
much on the sovereignty campaign. His message and his
question should more fairly be put to his provincial counterparts
but nonetheless, I will answer his question.
(1325 )
The strategy is quite transparent. Through the proposed CST,
the Canadian social transfer, it is proposed through block
funding to give the provinces more jurisdiction over health,
post-secondary education and social services within a
framework of some form of national standards to be agreed on
with the provinces.
There is a strategy. It is transparent. It is obvious. I submit
that the member for Chicoutimi should really discuss this with
his provincial colleagues.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in rising to speak to Bill C-76, the budget
implementation act, I want to make it clear from the outset that
the Reform Party will oppose this bill as a whole.
This bill in some ways is like Bill C-68, the gun control
legislation in that it is a bill with more than one part. Some of it
is wholly unacceptable, but other parts with some minor changes
would be acceptable to the Reform Party of Canada and to me.
Reform currently has a motion before the House to separate
the gun control bill into two parts so that we could examine each
main idea on its own merits. I wish we could do that with this bill
as well. Bill C-76 is an omnibus bill dealing with more than one
subject at once. There are public service issues. There are
transportation and federal-provincial transfer issues and so on.
Since I am fortunate enough to be critic for renewal in the
public service, we have examined the areas which deal with the
public service. I have found some things I like and some things I
do not like one bit. I am here to say what we like and what we do
not like about the public service portion of this bill. I want to
expose some very serious shortcomings indeed.
I want to go through the first 10 clauses of the bill. I will give
my comments on each of the important clauses and then draw
some conclusions from what we have found.
Section 39 of the Public Service Employment Act allows
public servants who work in a minister's office for more than
three years to bump other public servants, to be appointed in
essence without competition. This is unfair in some cases. I am
pleased to report that public servants declared surplus will not
11284
be able to be bumped by the staff of the ministers. Those
declared surplus in this act will move to the top of the priority
list for job offers. That is a fair and reasonable thing to do.
I have been disturbed by other parts of the act. Allow me to
quote from a letter written by the President of the Treasury
Board to the Professional Institute of the Public Service last
July. He was writing about the work force adjustment directive
which is an umbrella agreement between Treasury Board and the
unions that represent indeterminate or regular full time
employees of the Government of Canada.
Members opposite should listen very closely to what the
President of the Treasury Board wrote on July 22, 1994: ``This
government has stated in the past and remains committed to the
principle that the employment protection provisions in the work
force adjustment directive will only be changed through
negotiations''.
To me this promise does not speak of unilateral action; it
speaks of a process of consensus. What is the main purpose of
the first 10 clauses of Bill C-76? The main object is to break a
promise. This bill unilaterally without negotiation changes the
provisions of the directive.
The government tried to negotiate. It took a long time but not
all unions would agree to change the directive. Therefore the
government went ahead and broke its promise. Why is this little
broken promise so important? I will be glad to tell you why this
is so important and every public servant in the federal
government should be listening right now.
The government made all sorts of promises during the last
election campaign. The Ottawa Citizen reported a few days ago
the contents of a brochure sent out during the campaign under
the name of a man who today is the minister for renewal in the
public service.
The brochure read: ``Public servants, enough is enough. The
Conservatives have used public servants as scapegoats and
treated them with contempt. I pledge to protect public servants
against job loss''. He is the minister who is sitting in the House
now. That is another wonderful promise from the government,
but today that promise lies in shreds along with 45,000 public
service jobs.
(1330 )
It is ironic that the Liberals in the last election campaign tried
to stir up fear among the public servants about what the Reform
Party might do to their job security in the days ahead. Many of
them put their trust in the Liberal Party, hoping that nothing
would be changed, that the words of the minister would hold
true. The Liberals were happy, of course, to promise the moon as
long as they could get the public service vote.
The President of the Treasury Board was happy to promise
that the workforce adjustment directive would only be changed
through negotiation. It was easy to promise that. If he was not
sure he could deliver on that promise, he never should have
made it in the first place. All public servants should beware
Liberal promises. They have proven today with this bill that
their promises are not worth the paper on which they are written.
As the financial situation of the government becomes more
and more serious, more and more promises will have to be
broken. In just two years the interest alone on the national debt
will be $51 billion. Total program spending will be barely
double that, just $108 billion. Social programs and the public
service will be reduced to a shell because the Liberal
government feels free to make promises but does not intend to
lay the fiscal groundwork in order to be able to keep them.
This bears repeating. The threat to social programs and the
threat to our public service does not come from fiscally
conservative people such as myself. The threat to the public
service and social programs comes from people who will not and
do not have a plan to balance the budget and bring the deficit to
zero. That is where the threat comes from and the budget does
not address that.
Further to this concern, I want to say a word about fiscal
responsibility. I received an anonymous letter today from a
public servant who talks about the air navigation system of the
Department of Transport. There are 6,600 employees in this part
of the department and the public servant alleges in this letter:
``Transport Canada employees expect to be terminated with full
severance and cash out packages and immediately be offered the
same jobs in a new commercialized air navigation services
organization with no interruption. Some retiring people can be
expected to be hired back on contract as they are now''. That
would be a real travesty.
We need assurances from the minister that this will not
happen, that it will not be allowed to happen. The public servant
who wrote this letter suggests that this boondoggle could cost
the taxpayer in excess of $200 million.
We in the Reform Party of Canada will watch the Liberals. We
will hold their feet to the fire to make sure that they are not going
to merely transfer from the public service an equally expensive
and maybe even a more expensive contracted service in another
sector, just for the sake of saying they met a bottom line on the
job count. That is something that must be watched because the
key is fiscal responsibility and economic savings to the
government. If it cannot show that, if it cannot prove that, then it
should not be axing the jobs to begin with.
With tongue firmly in cheek, I would suggest perhaps that the
Reform Party is not as sophisticated as the Liberal Party. The
Reform Party sticks to the economic, bald faced facts and offers
the unvarnished truth. It is not prepared to promise the world to
the public service or to anyone else. Reformers are willing to
face the situation as it is and be responsible with taxpayers'
dollars. All we promise to do is to act immediately to preserve
11285
what remains of our social programs and what remains of our
public service over the long run.
Reform promised the opposite of the Liberals in the last
campaign. We promised a smaller government. We promised
spending cutbacks. Ironically, the cutbacks that the public
service has experienced since the Liberals took power are
already and will be in the long run far, far more than what the
Reform Party promised under our zero in three plan of the last
election.
If Reform had been elected government, the public service
cutbacks would have been accomplished a year ago. We would
be within one year of balancing our budget. All the worse would
be behind us. Interest rates would be lower. Our economy would
be growing by leaps and bounds. We would be in a good position
to keep our most valuable social programs and the core of our
civil service permanently intact. Because of Liberal inaction
and because it took 18 months to get the first serious budget on
to the table, all public servants will continue to suffer year after
year. The government will continue to whittle away at the public
service until it is reduced to a shell and no negotiated
settlements, no agreements, no three-year suspensions, no
promises will mean anything when that happens.
(1335)
The government has set itself up for another promise. It has
only suspended the workforce adjustment directive for three
years. Conveniently, this is just beyond the next election. We
know what kind of a carrot the government will dangle in front
of public servants at that time, don't we?
The government will be expansive. It will be benevolent.
During the next election campaign, if the economy is still doing
well, it will play to the public service vote. It will promise that
the freeze is almost over and the workforce adjustment directive
will return. Trust us again, government members will say.
However, if the economy is doing poorly the government will
play to the taxpayer. It will say that it had to suspend the
workforce adjustment directive.
No matter what is done, the government plays to the audience
of the day. It is enough to make one a permanent political cynic
watching the government flip-flop on its promises.
Public servants will remember the President of the Treasury
Board when they are declared surplus under the authority of the
bill. They will remember the minister for renewal in the public
service and his boastful words during the election campaign. He
said: ``Public servants, enough is enough. I pledge to protect
public servants against job loss''. That is a good promise.
However, 45,000 jobs later it is a pretty empty promise. He knew
it at the time. Yet government members continued to make the
promise during the election campaign, knowing full well that
when they were on the government side of the House they would
not be kept.
I will address another subject, term employees. The
incentives, job offers, notice periods and other things which are
offered under this bill do not apply to term employees, as
opposed to indeterminate or permanent employees. Term
employees have no status whatsoever under the workforce
adjustment directive. Some of them have worked in government
for years, but they have no status.
The 45,000 positions spoken of in the budget are all
indeterminate positions. That could mean, for example, that the
24,000 term employees could be laid off at any time, in addition
to the 45,000, with absolutely no incentive programs, no
retirement packages, no appeal, nothing. I call on the
government to treat term employees with fairness and not to lay
them off in order to be able to afford more handsome payoffs for
some of their own friends in the system.
My concern is with clause 3 of the bill. It lays out a plan for
public servants. It empowers the cabinet to offer an early
departure incentive and then it gives public servants a choice.
They will have 60 days to choose whether to take the offer and
go, or to refuse the offer, sit tight and hope for another job. They
will remain on staff for a period of six months and then move on
to unpaid surplus status for an additional 18 months. If there is
no job offer after 18 months, they can be laid off.
The minister's officials have already admitted that a lot of
jobs are going to be declared surplus. There will not necessarily
be work for the surplus public servant to do when his or her job
disappears. Yet under the bill the surplus worker will receive six
months' pay regardless, in some cases for doing nothing at all.
All members of the House will remember that the President of
the Treasury Board promised just a few weeks ago that no
employee would be paid if he or she was not working. This was a
fundamental, unbreakable, unshakeable promise on behalf of
the President of the Treasury Board; that no one would be paid if
there was no work to be done. Yet like so many other promises,
this one too has been laid aside by this bill.
I would like to move on to clause 9 of the bill which mandates
a change to the Financial Administration Act. Section 7 deals
with the delegation of authority. I have real accountability
concerns on this one because it says that Treasury Board may
authorize any person who is part of the public service of Canada
to perform functions or powers that it is able to delegate. That
clause reads differently in the Financial Administration Act.
The way it currently reads is actually safer, it is more restrictive.
It says that anyone authorized under the Treasury Board may
under the current regulations ``authorize one or more persons
under his jurisdiction to exercise or perform any such power or
function''.
11286
(1340)
It may be a small thing but it is a dangerous concept. No
longer do we have separate jurisdictions. We collapse them all
into one. It is a dangerous dilution of accountability and an
unwise splitting of ministerial authority.
A deputy minister of Environment Canada could delegate
some of his power to an official from National Defence. To
which minister would the civil servants then be accountable? In
the case of conflict whose orders do they follow? Both ministers
would have a valid claim on their services and their actions and
indeed both ministers could be held accountable for what they
did.
In the end what would happen is a public servant would do
something wrong and one minister could say it was really not his
department, it was the other minister's department and vice
versa, back and forth. Any accountability will be lost. This is a
move in the wrong direction.
In the end no one would be accountable for the actions of that
type of public servant. I sincerely hope that this clause will
never see the light of day. I hope our members will be able to
address it more fully in committee.
I want to dwell on clause 8 which gives tremendous power to
the Public Service Commission, a power which should not be
given to it. I want to talk about the competitive process of job
applications for a moment.
Western democracies have always depended on checks and
balances. This is born out of a basic mistrust of government, I
think a valid mistrust of government. It is an attitude which
says: ``We think you are doing okay right now, but we don't
know what you would do if the checks and balances were not in
place''. That is why we have opposition parties in the House of
Commons. That is why we have opposition parties in
committees and so on. It is in order to scrutinize the actions of
the government.
Checks and balances are very important. They are vital for the
health of a western democracy. When we see that an opposition
party, for example, in some third world country is getting
mistreated by the government we see that democracy, and that
country in general, is in trouble. There are checks and balances
right through our system.
One check against nepotism, bribery and other forms of
corruption in government is the competitive process. This
means that people get jobs through merit and not because they
are someone's friend. That process is open to scrutiny. It is fair.
It means that we get the best person for the job.
The selection process within the federal government is really
quite fair. All the checks and balances are in place to make sure
nepotism does not take place.
That is why I feel such concern when I read clause 8 of Bill
C-76. We are in a period of flux right now, a flurry of activity,
where the departments are downsizing and there is a certain
amount of chaos in a big reorganization of government. During
this time there is a chance that the vigilance and the controls are
not going to be as strong as they have been in the past and as they
usually are.
Clause 8 empowers the Public Service Commission during
this chaotic and stormy time to appoint an employee without
competition to another position within the jurisdiction of the
deputy head for which in the opinion of the commission the
employee is qualified. This is a dangerous departure from the
merit principle.
Reformers believe that a system of checks and balances is the
only way to ensure that corruption is weeded out of the system,
and the competitive process is the check on the public service
that is missing under this clause of the bill.
All sorts of irrelevant qualifications could be used here,
anything from ``I'm a good friend of the decision maker'', to
``I'm a relative of somebody else you know'', to the pressure
that sometimes can be imposed from the outside. That departure
from the merit principle is a serious departure that public
servants should be very alarmed about. At any rate, people can
be appointed without consideration of merit using this clause.
(1345)
I agree with the idea the commissioner should be able to
appoint surplus people to different departments. However, again
the merit principle in the competition should continue in that
process.
If merit does not need to be a factor in this clause and if the
competitive process can fall by the wayside without a backward
glance in this clause, the government can use it for other
purposes as well. Even under the current regulations of the
Public Service Employment Act there is already in place a
system under the employment equity plan by which a member of
an employment equity group can be appointed to a position in
accordance with an employment equity program excluding
merit, discrimination and geographic area with no right of
appeal. That is a serious departure from the merit principle and
something the government should not be delving into. I rest my
case.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I did enjoy the hon. member Fraser Valley
East's speech on the budget. However, I would like to ask him if
he has given consideration to the fact the deficit and debt did not
11287
happen overnight. It has accumulated over a period of time.
With respect to the budget, we are taking a planned period of
time to deal with it very prudently and efficiently.
When the hon. member says we have no plan, we did have a
plan and we made promises according to the plan to reduce the
deficit. That is the number one priority on Canadians' minds
today.
If the member feels the budget is something he cannot vote
for, as he has indicated, why was the budget presented a few
weeks ago by the Reform Party so heartily rejected by all
Canadians and this budget so readily accepted?
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
intervention. It may be jumping to a conclusion to say the
Reform Party's alternative budget was not well accepted. When
I read editorial comments from the Globe and Mail, when I read
the Financial Post, when I read comments from other people
who have looked at the substance of our alternative budget,
there is widespread acceptance that we must have a balanced
budget. Although we may quibble about some details or some
finer points, the essence of the argument remains sound that we
must have a plan to balance the budget. The Liberal budget has
no such plan. In the Liberal budget the hope is to get it down to 3
per cent of GDP, twenty billion or twenty-five billion dollars.
The irony of it is although they can say this may be kinder and
gentler because they will not take as many steps as the Reform
Party, in essence what they are saying is that with the cuts we see
now, we ain't seen nothing yet. To get it from $20 billion down
to zero, they will have to make significant, serious cuts.
The interest component of their budget is going from $38
billion to $51 billion in three short years. How can that be a good
thing for the Canadian economy? How can that help to preserve
social programs? How can that help to preserve the core of the
public service? How can they hope to meet the legitimate needs
and the legitimate concerns of the needy people when they are
promising them that within three years they will spend an
additional $13 billion on the interest component of the budget?
There is no compassion in a budget that says there is no plan to
balance. The compassion lies in having a plan to balance. When
it is balanced we can offer security of social programs, tax relief
and some assurance about where we heading into the future.
Unless they can offer that, Moody's and the rest of the economic
fiscal world will say the budget the Liberals are presenting is not
good enough.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wanted to ask my colleague two questions. How would my
colleague explain the fact that Canadians generally and the
business community in particular have been extremely
supportive of the budget and have also supported the initiative
of reducing the deficit at 3 per cent of GDP?
(1350)
I heard some comments that were not supportive of the
government's initiatives with respect to the civil service. Could
my colleague tell the House what the Reform Party's options are
in reducing the civil service?
Would it provide an early departure initiative, an early
retirement initiative? Would it permit counselling? Would it
provide other types of assistance such as working with
communities for the creation of jobs?
If it is yes, how can he be critical? He should jump up and
applaud.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for those
questions. They allow me to clarify both the weakness of the
Liberal budget and the soundness of the only alternate budget we
have seen that will balance the budget in the short term to offer
the security I am talking about in the long term.
What the budget does, to give credit, is signify a change in
attitude in government spending. For the first time ever we see a
government that has actually seen the light and has turned the
corner. It has gone from what is a hopeless situation of
increasing deficits to one of modest deficits.
The trouble is-this gets down to the security of the public
service-there is no security in offering continued deficit
budgets. What possible security is there when someone is
loosing their house and not making their mortgage payment?
Why does one see cutbacks in health care transfers from the
government? Why does one see cutbacks in welfare transfers?
Why does one see cutbacks in training, cutbacks in the military,
cutbacks of 45,000 in the public service? One sees it because the
government cannot balance the budget. Until it can balance the
budget there is no security in any of those programs.
When we brought forward our zero in three plan three years
ago we proposed a cutback of 15 per cent in the public service
because we were up front and honest. A cutback of 15 per cent
would have been a cutback of around 30,000 or 35,000 public
servants. We were up front about that.
The government went through the election promising no job
losses by the minister of public service renewal. He promised
something he could not deliver on. We would have had our
program in place. The budget would be within one year of being
balanced.
There would have been certainly a job loss of 35,000 public
servants but already 45,000 public servants are laid off under the
budget. We are not done yet. There will be more contracting out.
There will be more private and not for profit agencies. There
will be more initiatives by the government in years to come to
11288
make sure public servants pay more than their adequate share of
pain for the government's inability to balance the budget.
Come to grips with the fact that the best security one can offer
the public service is a balanced budget soon so that there is not
the continual whittling away year after year the security the
public service deserves.
That is what is happening on that side by failing to address the
debt and deficit problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to tell the Chair that I will be splitting my
time with the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester. On
behalf of the constituents of Brome-Missisquoi, I would like to
congratulate the Minister of Finance, who lives in my riding, for
the courageous budget he tabled on February 27, 1995, five days
after I was sworn in and became an official member of the
House.
In the February 13 byelection, one of the mandates I was
given was to ensure the good management of public finances.
That is what we in the Liberal Party are currently doing. Canada
is on the right track. We kept on having visions of a deficit out of
control. We absolutely had to review the federal government's
activities. The result was that we introduced a series of cuts, and
I believe that the government made wise choices. The thousands
of people I met during the election campaign told me that the
government should trim the fat, not increase income taxes for
individuals.
(1355)
That was what it did in the budget. The support that people
have given to the Minister of Finance's budget proves that
Canadians want to eliminate the deficit as quickly as possible
and that the remedies he is using are fair.
The Liberal government set realistic and firm objectives for
itself during the election campaign, which we are now in the
process of attaining. It is important to keep the momentum
going. We will reduce the deficit to $32.7 billion in 1995-96 and
then to $24.3 billion. By 1996-97, the deficit will have sunk to
its lowest level since 1974-75.
The measures in the budget will fundamentally change the
size and structure of the government machine. Program
spending will be reduced from the level in last year's budget,
$120 billion, to close to $108 billion in 1996-97. The size of
government will be substantially reduced over the next three
years. Compared to 1994-95 amounts, departmental budgets
will be reduced by close to 19 per cent. The budgets of some
departments will even be cut in half. All told, these measures
will create savings of approximately $17 billion over three
years. As a result of this vast reform of federal programs, 45,000
jobs in the public service will be cut over the next three years.
Of course, it would have been unreasonable to cut program
spending without trimming the public service. We will never rid
ourselves of the deficit unless we trim the fat in government and
improve management and efficiency.
These are but a few of the specific measures in the 1995
budget allaying the concerns of my constituents and all
Canadians. The role of regional organizations, for example the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, will change,
as they will be called on to help small and medium size
businesses by means of loans and repayable contributions, not
grants. My constituents will be happy to know that they will still
be able to count on their MP and the federal government when it
comes time to open up a small or medium size business.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have another chance to
speak shortly after question period, he still has some time
remaining. However, since it is 2 o'clock, we now proceed to
statements by members.
_____________________________________________
11288
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to join with the member for Brant in drawing to the
House's attention the issue of land mines.
The International Red Cross estimates that every 15 minutes
someone is killed or maimed by a land mine. Before question
period ends today three more people will become innocent
victims.
In our world there is no place for such indiscriminate,
anti-personnel weapons. Every year some 10,000 people are
killed by these devices and many more are injured. There are an
estimated 65 million to 110 million uncleared land mines in the
world and an additional 10 million to 30 million new land mines
being produced every year.
I am proud to say that Canada does not take part in the
deployment of these devices and that the government has
endorsed the UN's convention on inhumane weapons.
I sincerely hope that during the United Nations review
conference in June the government will strengthen Canada's
position and place a complete moratorium on the deployment of
these weapons.
Let us not forget that today's theatre of conflict is tomorrow's
farmland or refugee camp. Innocent men, women and children
11289
are dying. Since 1975 land mines have claimed an estimated one
million victims, mostly in the developing world.
Let us help bring an end to this war on the world's poor.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although
the situation in Burundi is getting critical, and ethnic massacres
might start any day now, all the United Nations Security Council
is doing on the matter is considering appropriate measures to
bring to court people who might commit actions which could be
construed as genocide.
It is astounding to realize how fast the international
community has forgotten what happened in Rwanda. Rather than
trying diplomatic means to defuse the situation and planning for
the quick deployment of multinational forces should the conflict
degenerate, the UN is preparing for a post-genocide period.
Canada's attitude toward this partner state in the
Francophonie is just as disappointing as the attitude of the
Security Council, and it shows a total lack of leadership.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think
the Canadian taxpayer will be appalled to know that $200,000
has already been spent to purchase one-half of the AZT exhibit
at the National Gallery of Canada. I think they will be even more
outraged to realize the National Gallery intends to spend more
money to purchase the other half of the exhibit which is
currently on loan and on display.
AIDS is a largely preventable disease. I am sure most
Canadians will agree with me that the money would be better
spent educating our young people on the dangers of promiscuity
rather than on an exhibit such as this one.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
greatly concerned about the recent announcement concerning
changes to the Canadian forces recruitment operation in New
Brunswick.
According to the Minister of National Defence he has decided
to close the Canadian forces recruitment operations in Moncton,
reduce the detachment in Bathurst, and move the main
recruitment centre from Saint John to Fredericton.
The province of New Brunswick once again is being hit
extremely hard by these closures, especially from the closure
and moving of the main recruitment centre from Saint John to
Fredericton.
The minister has stated that the move will save $180,000.
However, does the minister realize that the move will remove an
annual payroll of $1 million from Saint John? These jobs are
permanent jobs that have a positive impact on the economy of
Saint John, Moncton and Bathurst.
I ask the minister and the Liberal government to please stop.
New Brunswick has already had its fair share of cuts in the
budget.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should
come as no surprise to anyone that the people of Manitoba, and
especially the people of Provencher, are generous people with
big hearts.
Statistics Canada has declared that Randolph, a small
community near Steinbach of only 130 residents, has the most
charitable citizens in all of Manitoba. Despite its size it is truly
large when it comes to donating to charity. According to
Statistics Canada the median donation given by people in
Randolph was $1,890, which means that 50 per cent of the
population gave more than $1,890.
Last year it was Blumenort, another Mennonite community in
my riding of Provencher, that was reported by Statistics Canada
as having the median, again in Manitoba.
It makes me very proud to be representing Manitoba's most
giving, most charitable citizens. I congratulate the generous
people of Randolph and Blumenort.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the protection of human rights is a universal
concern. In this respect Canada has played a respectful role on
the international scene.
Often we do not put a face to the issue of human rights.
However today the city of Ottawa is graced with the presence of
Ajit Singh Bains, retired Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court
and the Chair of the Punjab Human Rights Organization. He has
also been the victim of many human rights abuses at the hands of
the Indian government, including being charged under the
notorious Tada law.
Only international public outcry has assured that Justice
Bains is able to travel to Canada to make his views known about
the conditions in the Punjab.
11290
I hope members will join with me in saluting the efforts of
this remarkable man in bringing justice to the people of the
Punjab.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge the hard work
and dedication of a group of my constituents who have taken it
upon themselves to make a difference in our riding.
They call their initiative Heritage Vision '95. It brings
together the communities of Chisholm, Nipissing, Himsworth
South, Powassan, and interest groups that have united for a
common cause.
Heritage Vision '95 plans a community heritage park,
including an interpretive centre, a tourist information centre, an
agricultural centre and a refurbished eight-sided rotunda that
will serve as a band shell. The historic Clark House will be the
park's focal point.
Heritage Vision '95 chair Dennis Andrews and his hard
working team of volunteers have what it takes to see the project
through to completion: shared objectives, the will to work
co-operatively and the desire to persevere with volunteer time,
labour and motivation to accomplish the goals.
(1405)
Community spirit starts and grows because small groups of
people wholeheartedly believe that they can make a difference.
Heritage Vision '95 will do just that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during a recent debate, the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that the
physicians who approved the use, by Silken Laumann, of a
certain drug, banned by the Olympic organization, which
resulted in her losing her medal, had to be Spaniards.
This comment has, rightfully, offended the Spanish speaking
community of Quebec and Canada. The present dispute between
Spain and Canada over turbot stocks must not be used as a
pretext to insult people of Spanish descent whose contribution
to the development of Quebec and Canada is very important.
The Bloc Quebecois is denouncing this unacceptable
comment by the parliamentary secretary which is tarnishing the
image of Quebec and Canada, countries which have always
welcomed immigrants from all over the world.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a delegation from various government departments
including Status of Women is now in New York for an
international conference.
Proposals from the conference will dictate the agenda for the
fourth UN World Conference on Women to be held in Beijing in
September 1995. The government has established a $102,000
bureaucracy to co-ordinate the effort.
The appointed unrepresentative Canadian delegation has
proposed an amendment to the conference's platform for action
that discrimination based on sexual orientation be recognized as
a barrier to women.
How could the government justify spending tax dollars to
promote a policy on the international front that has failed to
receive approval from grassroots Canadians on the home front?
I call upon the government to cease and desist from
subverting the democratic process and the rule of law by
covertly promoting its own agenda on the international stage.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, after months of public hearings, consultations and
study, a Senate committee has concluded that aboriginal
soldiers were poorly treated after they returned from the two
world wars and the Korean war.
The committee now recommends that the federal government
apologize to aboriginal veterans and create a scholarship fund in
the name of the thousands of aboriginal soldiers who fought for
Canada in overseas theatres of war.
I have followed the Senate hearings closely and have listened
to the testimony of the many veterans who spoke of the
difficulties and discrimination they faced after they returned.
Now that the Senate committee has confirmed what the
Minister of Veterans Affairs has long denied, I hope the federal
government will take its own initiative and begin the process
that will adequately address the grievances so well articulated
by aboriginal veterans during the past year.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
all members to join me in welcoming three distinguished human
rights activists to Parliament Hill. Ajit Singh Bains, Jasdev
11291
Singh Rai and Jaswant Singh Khalra will be discussing human
rights in India this afternoon in room 209 of the West Block.
The issue of human rights violations in India is a very
important one for Canadian parliamentarians. Given the
growing interest in building on our excellent relations with
India through expanding trade opportunities, it is crucial the
issue of human rights is not forgotten.
Various international organizations from Amnesty
International and Asia Watch to the United States state
department have expressed concerns with human rights
conditions in India. It is imperative that Canada use its strong
ties with India to effect improvements in the human rights
situation there.
I say to these gentlemen: ``Sat sri akal''.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to those who confuse the European Union, for the most
part non-elected officials and bureaucrats, with Europe, the
British House of Lords has now spoken out.
The Lords have rebuked the British government for
supporting a country, Spain, that has been shown to be a fish
pirate nation which has depredated stocks everywhere in the
world, including the North Sea.
The Lords have praised Canada for an appropriate action to
enforce the principles of the Law of the Sea laid down years ago.
They have asked Canada to lend them our minister of fisheries
so that they would have somebody in Brussels who would stand
up for British fishermen.
To the European Union fisheries commissioner who seems
rather light in the knowledge of fisheries and of contemporary
international law, the Lords invoke the words of Queen
Elizabeth I:
I have the heart and stomach of a King-and pour foul scorn (on you)-or
(all the princes of the Commission who) dare to invade the borders of my realm.
(1410 )
Thank you to the British House of Lords for having a sense of
humour and for reminding us that the International Law of the
Sea no longer licenses predatory overfishing and spoliation of
the earth's dwindling fish stocks.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers are realizing that independence is not the best way to
meet the real needs of the outlying regions.
During the hearings held by the regional commission on
Quebec's future, the PQ vice-president, Mrs. Monique Simard,
warned her party not to enshrine in a new constitution the
powers of the regions. Instead, she said that it might be wiser to
deal with decentralization through legislation, adding: ``You
cannot amend the Constitution at the drop of a hat''.
Our government agrees with Quebecers that we can achieve
much more through administrative agreements than with
another constitutional debate; we can only hope that the Parti
Quebecois will eventually discover this virtue of federalism. Let
us hope that the Parizeau government will decide to co-operate
with the Canadian government, because this is what the vast
majority of Quebecers want.
* * *
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Senator
Jean-Claude Rivest and the former Liberal health minister,
Claude Forget, warned Quebecers, not against sovereignty, but
against the status quo. They fear that, should the no side win,
Ottawa might play a dirty fiscal trick on Quebec, shutting the
province out of international money markets.
It would appear that the drastic cuts made by the last budget to
transfer payments to the provinces are only a beginning. This is
not surprising. Indeed, transfer payments to Quebec were cut by
more than $14 billion between 1982 and 1995.
After the failure of the 1980 referendum, Quebecers were
played a dirty constitutional trick. Should they choose the status
quo this time, the federal government might play a dirty fiscal
trick on them. It must be said that the Prime Minister sure knows
how to play dirty tricks on Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government says that it is looking for suggestions on ways to
trim costs. We have found a way.
Air travel cost the government $275 million in 1993-94.
While some departments were reasonable, others were not. The
11292
Privy Council Office has only 650 employees but took 2,400
flights, nearly one-third of them business class. That is four
flights per employee. The same with Environment Canada:
22,000 flights but only 6,000 employees. The Canada Labour
Relations Board flew high with 42 per cent of its flights in
business class.
For the grand-daddy of them all, nearly half of all
government flights were booked by national defence with
190,000 flights not including peacekeeping and military
missions. DND alone spent $83 million.
There is an invention the government should know about. It is
called the telephone. I call upon the government to show some
leadership, let its fingers do the walking, and reduce flights by
15 per cent in the coming year.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the nation's capital, long considered
one of the greatest capital cities in the world, has been rocked by
bank robberies, armoured car heists, drive-by shootings, and
most recently the shooting of two police officers.
Most, if not all, of the criminal acts have been done with the
use of illegal firearms. We have to rid our streets of criminals
and the government's crime control legislation is a step in the
right direction.
I have long supported tougher punishment for anyone
convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime. To
this end, the government is proposing a mandatory minimum
sentence of four years in prison in addition to a lifetime
prohibition against possession of a restricted firearm.
While I commend the government for the initiative it is not a
strong enough message. Last April I proposed to the justice
minister a 10-year mandatory sentence. My proposal is hard
line and will send the right message to all criminals in the
country.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has proposed that the final document for the upcoming
UN World Conference on Women reflect the full diversity of
women. A paragraph was inserted to recognize the fact that
many women face numerous barriers due to various factors
including sexual orientation.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this paragraph was unanimously adopted by the
54 members of the European Economic Commission, including
the United States. Canada's position reflects the policy
approved by the government after consultations held prior to the
preparatory meetings.
(1415 )
[English]
Canada has an obligation to reflect the domestic situation in
international meetings. Seven provinces and the Yukon
Territory include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination in their respective human rights acts. The courts
have interpreted the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination and
would be in contravention of the charter otherwise.
The Minister of Justice has stated he would be introducing
legislation amending the Canadian Human Rights Act. Many
people are anxious for this amendment. Hopefully it will happen
soon.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth United Nations conference on women will be held in
Beijing this September. The purpose of this conference is to
review the status of women worldwide and to place women's
equality high on the global agenda.
At this conference Canada will propose a paragraph for the
final communiqué stating that women face many barriers to
equality, one of which is discrimination due to sexual
orientation.
Some have resisted inclusion of this paragraph in the final
communiqué. However, this position is consistent with the
domestic situation in Canada where the human rights codes of
seven provinces and Yukon already include sexual orientation as
a prohibited ground of discrimination. The federal government
has stated its intention to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination.
Domestically and internationally the government remains
committed to the equality of all people and I am proud we will be
taking a leading role in Beijing on this issue. It is the right and
decent thing to do.
_____________________________________________
11292
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during a special debate called on very
short notice, the Minister of National Defence mentioned
several scenarios which included maintaining our peacekeeping
force in Croatia and Bosnia or concentrating our efforts in
Croatia, the final decision being left up to the UN. Although he
emphasized the need to continue the rotation of the troops, he
also indicated
11293
that Canada's participation in these peacekeeping missions
could not last indefinitely.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could he
indicate the government's official position on the presence of
Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia, considering
that the stance he adopted during the debate yesterday was
ambiguous, to say the least?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has decided to maintain Canada's
troops in the former Yugoslavia in the same configuration in
which they are now. Every time changes occur, either in Bosnia
or Croatia, there may be changes in troop deployment, and that
is what the minister pointed out. However, Canada's presence in
the former Yugoslavia will be maintained for the next six
months.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, less than 24 hours before the current mandate of
the peacekeepers in Croatia expires, could the minister or the
Prime Minister tell us what has transpired from negotiations
between UN officials and the Croatian government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are over there under UN supervision, and we
regularly discuss with UN leaders to determine where our troops
should be deployed. These discussions are going on all the time.
The troops are now in two locations. For the time being we will
stay there, but, as the minister said, we may be asked to move
and replace troops at another location. We have had similar
rotations in the past, and as the minister pointed out yesterday,
there may be more in the future.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the UN's supervision is not absolute and
that we still have some say in the conditions under which we
operate. I have the following question for the minister.
I ask the Minister: Instead of inviting parliamentarians to take
part in piecemeal debates, as he did yesterday, would he commit
himself to a debate on a general definition of the terms and
criteria for Canada's future participation in peacekeeping
missions that exceed the narrow parameters of his bill?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has been very accommodating over the last year and
a half in terms of having these debates.
The debate last night was not a restricted one. The hon.
member spoke rather eloquently and we appreciate support for
the continuation of our troops in Bosnia and Croatia.
(1420 )
I do not think he can fault the government for providing
opportunities for these kinds of debates. He also has the vehicle
of opposition days if he wants to get into it in greater detail.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday,
the minister offhandedly minimized the importance of the many
cases of suicide within the Canadian Forces, particularly among
soldiers returning from peacekeeping missions, including those
in the former Yugoslavia. The minister's attitude is surprising,
to say the least.
How does the Minister of National Defence explain the fact
that members of the military are more inclined to turn to outside
help rather than use military resources in order to overcome
their difficulties and adjustment problems upon returning from a
mission?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not
say what the hon. member said I did. I was asked yesterday by
one of the members of the Reform Party about an apparent
increase in suicides, which is of great concern to us, at the base
in Valcartier.
While it is true the suicide rate in the armed forces is lower
than that of the population as a whole, there is no question that in
the last year there has been a slight increase in suicides at the
base in Valcartier.
Some preliminary work has been done on that to see whether
there is any cause and effect. A Reform member yesterday
asserted this had something to do with deployment in Bosnia and
Croatia.
We cannot make that statement because there does not seem to
be that tie in. Most of the suicides that occur, including these,
deal with domestic reasons, family matters. We want to get more
information, more analysis. That will require more extensive
interviews. We will try to get full information for hon. members
so they can have their fears allayed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to point out to the minister that the suicide rate at
the base in Valcartier alone is higher than in the population as a
whole.
Does the minister not recognize that if Canadian soldiers
returning from peacekeeping missions refuse to rely on the
in-house resources available at the Department of National
11294
Defence, it is because they are afraid of compromising their
careers within the Canadian Forces?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been increased programs that the departments have put in
place in the last year or two at the various bases to deal with the
stress of members, especially those who have been serving in
peacekeeping.
If we look at the last seven or eight years, when Canada has
been quite involved in peacekeeping assignments, the suicide
rate has not increased abnormally and there is no established
link between service overseas and suicide.
As I said yesterday, even one death is of concern to all of us
and we will try to get more facts so that all hon. members can
appreciate the true nature of the situation. If there is cause and
effect, we will have to do something about it. I cannot
categorically state that today, but we will get the information.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to peacekeeping in Croatia and Bosnia, it
has been the Reform Party's position that the government should
develop clear criteria to determine whether Canada should
involve itself in such situations, how long we should stay and
when we should get out. Last December we proposed four
minimal conditions for continuing our presence in Bosnia, only
one of which has been met, which is why we counsel withdrawal.
Will the Minister of National Defence outline the minimal
conditions which he feels must be met in order to justify keeping
our peacekeepers in Croatia and Bosnia?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
mission has to be viewed on its own merits. Obviously the
criteria are somewhat subjective. It depends on the hostilities in
question. It depends on the threat and the requirement made by
the United Nations.
I would like to remind the hon. leader of the Reform Party that
the special joint committee looked into this matter last year and
made some very useful recommendations about peacekeeping in
general, some of which have been adopted by the government.
(1425 )
It is important that we make sure before we go into any
situation we understand the strategic reason for entering an
engagement, the costs and the likelihood of success.
That is why when we engaged in Rwanda last year for six
months we extended it by a few months. We have engaged in
Haiti for six months.
I want to remind the hon. member the original commitment to
Bosnia and Croatia was made by the previous government. I
understand why it felt pressure to take part in that engagement.
We have a difficult situation, one that is difficult to extract the
United Nations from. It is a commitment we are prepared to
continue indefinitely.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister said one of his criterion was not
wanting to let the UN down. Surely a more important criterion is
not wanting to let Canadian peacekeepers down.
Our peacekeepers are not adequately equipped to do the job.
They are not getting the leadership they deserve from the
minister and the government, and morale is at an all time low.
There have been six suicides in six months in the royal 22nd
regiment, the same regiment that will be returning later this
month.
What concrete steps is the minister taking to remedy the
morale problems and the equipment deficiencies being
experienced by our peacekeepers in Croatia and Bosnia?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what a
sad situation when the leader of one of Canada's political parties
on the eve of re-engagement in Croatia and Bosnia, for which up
to 2,000 people will be leaving their base in Valcartier, makes
unfounded allegations about the nature of equipment and
morale. I totally reject these assertions.
My parliamentary secretary has very kindly given me a copy
of the special joint committee report. On page 29 there are
certain criteria outlined adopted by the committee. His members
signed on to that report. These criteria are followed by the
government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we simply asked the minister what he was doing to
bolster the position of our people in Croatia and Bosnia. That is
hardly undermining their position.
All Canadians share a concern that a withdrawal of
peacekeepers from Croatia and Bosnia without adequate
replacement could result in wholesale tragedy for innocent
victims. If that is our priority concern, should the government
not have been doing a great deal more to mobilize world opinion
against atrocities being committed there, particularly to
mobilize European support for peacekeeping?
What is the government doing to mobilize world opinion
against atrocities in former Yugoslavia and to pressure our
11295
European allies in whose backyard this is occurring to play a
bigger role in the peacekeeping and humanitarian mission there?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised at the hon. member's comments. I believe 40 per cent
of the troops now in Yugoslavia are from European nations. I
would like him to make that statement to the ministers of
defence and foreign affairs from Britain, France, Holland, Spain
and other countries in Europe discharging their duties very
effectively in that theatre.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Yesterday, Canadian authorities apprehended Tsara Rahmani,
a 30-year old Algerian student, upon his arrival at Mirabel
airport. French authorities had expelled him because they
suspected him of belonging to the radical wing of the Islamic
Salvation Front.
Since this individual is strongly suspected of terrorist
activities, does the minister intend to take immediate action by
launching an investigation and, if need be, deporting him
quickly from this country?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true the person in
question was apprehended by our officials at Mirabel airport at
approximately eight o'clock last night. He was questioned
immediately by immigration and CSIS officials. Those officials
have also been in touch with European agents. We have detained
him overnight. The questioning continues.
(1430)
I certainly appreciate the kind of support the member is
offering. Obviously this country should not harbour individuals
who have ill motives. Once we establish the facts, we will move
accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
complete contrast to Mr. Rahmani's case, a thousand Algerians
already in Canada are claiming refugee status because they fear
falling victim to the surge in fundamentalist violence if they are
deported to Algeria. Does the minister intend to give special
consideration to their fate?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is something we are closely
monitoring. Certainly in terms of the inland determination
system, it is true that a number of Algerians have sought refugee
status. They are moving through the province of Quebec
particularly and are going through the Immigration and Refugee
Board.
We are also in concert with the UNHCR, the prime
international vehicle for overseas resettlement. I have had
occasion to discuss this with the Minister of Foreign Affairs as
well as the Prime Minister in the last number of months. We
certainly are prepared to be part of an international movement in
terms of facilitating those in greatest need. However, we should
distinguish that from the case we are currently looking at.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in response to my question on the tragic
suicides reported at Valcartier the minister stated: ``The rate of
suicides is lower in the armed forces than it is in the population
as a whole''.
However a review of relevant Statistics Canada data shows a
suicide rate of .02 per cent, whereas the rate at Valcartier for the
past year is .12 per cent, or six times higher. It should also be
noted that the suicide rate at Valcartier among peacekeeping
forces sent to the former Yugoslavia is still three times higher
than in the population at large.
Given these facts, will the minister not agree this issue must
be addressed before more troops are sent to Bosnia and Croatia?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member of the Reform Party is distorting what I said. I said
yesterday that the suicide rate in the Canadian Armed Forces
was lower than the suicide rate generally in the population of
Canada and that is absolutely true.
I have acknowledged that there has been an increase in
suicides specifically at that one military base. In response to my
colleague from Charlevoix I gave the assurance to the House
that we will try to get more information to see what causes are
related to these specific suicides and the increase in suicides in
the last 12 months.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): I am
encouraged by part of the minister's response that we will get
more information.
The deployment regulations state that personnel must have 18
months between peacekeeping rotations, yet since 1992
Valcartier has sent 5,000 troops to the former Yugoslavia. Given
the manpower situation at the base, it is clear this regulation is
being disregarded.
Given the tragic consequences this appears to be having on the
troops, will the minister explain why deployment regulations
are being ignored?
11296
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two
weeks ago I visited the base at Valcartier.
I saw many of the men and women in action preparing for
their assignment. I specifically asked a number of them as to
whether they had gone before. Some said yes. I asked: ``Does it
bother you to go back again?'' They said: ``No. We want the
challenge to serve our country''. That is the attitude of these
young men and women who are serving our country.
The hon. member and his colleagues should start to rethink
their strategy in trying to undermine the efforts of our soldiers
fighting to establish world peace in the former Yugoslavia.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Kanesatake Mohawk leader Jerry Peltier said that he
was still planning to go ahead with his plans for a casino in
Kanesatake. At the same time, he indicated that he would not
negotiate the terms and conditions under which this casino can
be opened with the Quebec government, but only with the
federal government, on a government-to-government basis.
Does the Prime Minister confirm that, contrary to how things
were done in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where negotiations
were held with the provincial government, his government has
agreed to negotiate the opening of a casino in Kanesatake
directly with the band council, as requested by Jerry Peltier?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the statement was made by Mr. Peltier. I do not think
that any firm commitment was made in this respect by the
Minister of Indian Affairs on behalf of the federal government.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask
the Prime Minister this: in his capacity as leader of the
government, can he undertake not to allow his government to go
over the head of the Quebec government and negotiate the
opening of a casino in Kanesatake with the band council, when
he knows full well that casinos, lotteries and games clearly
come under provincial jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think there are discussions are under way between the
Minister of Indian Affairs and people from that reserve who
wish to set up a casino, but I have heard nothing about
negotiations concerning definite plans to open one. This is, of
course, a place where relations with the Government of Quebec
are somewhat strained, as we all know. Therefore, caution is in
order and, personally, I will wait to hear from the Minister of
Indian Affairs before commenting any further.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the head of the
Somalia inquiry, Justice Gilles Letourneau, has stated that the
Privy Council Office was informed personally by Anne-Marie
Doyle about her conflict of interest with Robert Fowler.
Why did the Privy Council Office not tell the defence minister
and why was the government's ethics counsellor not
immediately asked to rule on the matter?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
answered most of these questions yesterday in reply to the
leader of the Reform Party.
As I have said publicly on a number of occasions, I was not in
full possession of the facts with respect to this individual. It is
something that was very unfortunate and we regret it.
We will make sure in choosing a replacement for Ms. Doyle
that we will find someone of equal stature. We will be a little
more thorough in checking all aspects so that we do not have
these questions emanating from the Reform Party. They are
diverting attention from the very essential work the inquiry has
to do.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this morning
Liberal strategist Mike Robinson stated that the defence
minister probably wakes up in the morning wondering what land
mines someone might have planted for him when he arrives at
his department.
If the minister cannot control or trust his staff, does the
minister not agree that he needs to restructure his entire
department from the top down?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of
the things that consoles me every day is that I do not wake up
every morning to look at the hon. member or his colleagues. I
have my family around me.
As far as I am concerned, I do not want to minimize the
problems in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are dealing with
them on a day to day basis.
If the hon. member and his colleagues would take time out to
visit the military bases, to visit the rank and file members, I will
make all the arrangements for them. I will go with them. They
can have access and they would find that members of the armed
forces are very distressed at the line of questioning coming from
that party.
11297
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Yesterday, just days before travelling to Berlin to attend the
World Climate Conference, the Minister of the Environment
finally admitted that her government will not be able to meet the
commitments made in its red book with respect to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
(1440)
In the light of Canada's incapacity to control its greenhouse
gas emissions, how can the Minister of the Environment content
herself with presenting in Berlin a mere strategic plan, when
what the 1992 Rio accord called for was a true action plan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I
repeat today that we cannot be satisfied with stabilization only.
The commitment agreed to in Rio was to achieve stabilization
by the year 2000.
I can assure the hon. member that, in developing our action
plan at the federal level, we will go beyond federal stabilization
commitments. That being said, when we table a master
agreement like the one reached with the provinces, in spite of
Quebec's absence, we must work together with all the provinces
to ensure that their action plans also go beyond stabilization.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec has done its homework in this area, but the minister
made it clear in an interview given to Le Devoir yesterday that
she had not done hers.
Is the minister's proposal, which will almost certainly be
rejected by the European Union, not in fact part of a plan to
create a diversion to mask her incapacity to fulfil Canadian
commitments?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that, on
an issue as vital as greenhouse gas emissions, the Bloc
Quebecois would rather play politics than join in the search by
developed and developing countries alike for a global solution
to a global problem.
We are confident. Brazil has accepted our Berlin proposal and
we expect support not only from developing but also from
industrialized countries in finding a global solution.
We, in the Liberal Party, do not live in a small world. We live
in the big world.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
All Canadians are vitally concerned with the continued
negotiations in preservation of the world's fish stocks and the
jobs of fishers everywhere, as well as the food for the next
generations. They support the strong stand taken by the minister
on the turbot issue.
Can the minister advise the House what progress is being
made in the negotiations at Brussels to save the Atlantic turbot
fishery?
An hon. member: Brian for the Academy Award. Tell us
about Broadway.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by my own side.
An hon. member: The envelope, please.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We anxiously await the minister's reply.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the negotiations in Brussels are going on
today and are constructive. They focus primarily on the area
singled out by the Prime Minister some two weeks ago as the
matter of primary concern for Canada. That is the question of
conservation and enforcement.
We have had the support of the country and unanimous
support in this House of all members and all parties. It is deeply
appreciated by the government and has allowed us to take a
strong position.
(1445 )
We have said that sustaining the species is what matters most.
We have said we would put our priorities, as the Prime Minister
indicated two weeks ago, on conservation enforcement. We are
making progress in that area. We hope the talks will conclude
successfully but we have learned to be patient, to make sure we
do it right rather than do it quickly. We will see what happens.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Last November I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs why
his department was funding environmental groups whose main
purpose was to actively discredit B.C. logging practices in
North America and in Europe. Since 1990 the Western Canada
Wilderness Committee has received over $754,000 from foreign
affairs, environment, human resources development, heritage
and natural resources.
11298
Does the Prime Minister support providing federal funding
to groups whose main purpose is to undermine our number one
industry in Canada, forestry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these groups have been helpful because most of the
provinces have improved, quite dramatically, the way they
harvest forests. It is helping make our case when we are abroad.
We have to be careful. For example, we are asking people to
help protect the fishing environment of the sea. We have to do
the same thing in Canada. When we have groups in Canada that
want to harvest trees in a proper fashion, they are not causing a
disservice to Canada, they are helping us to do the right thing.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
some of us may recall seeing Stumpy, that large cedar tree stump
from the Clayoquot in my riding on Vancouver Island, around
Parliament Hill last fall.
The Western Canada Wilderness Committee not only took this
stump across Canada at taxpayers' expense, but is planning to
take it to Berlin next month to discredit, again, the Canadian
forest industry.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he act
immediately to cancel all funds to this group, which has not only
cost taxpayers $754,000 but continues to cost the Canadian
economy millions in lost revenue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
underlined how important it is for Canada to have sustainable
forestry practices. The work of organizations such as the
Western Canada Wilderness Committee reinforces the notion
for an international forest practices code where all countries can
be judged on a level playing field.
The member would be the first to criticize the government if it
did not have a proactive international stance by which it shares
Canada's sustainable forestry practices with those of other parts
of the world. That is what we are attempting to do, working with
environmental groups, rather than damning them all as the
Reform Party would do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
According to the monthly report published by Quebec's income
security department, during the month of March, over 800,000
Quebecers had to rely on social assistance. In spite of the
recovery, this increase is a source of real concern, particularly
since the under-25 group accounts for 40 per cent of the new
welfare recipients.
Will the minister finally recognize that this increase in the
number of young welfare recipients is the direct result of his UI
reform, which excludes young people from the program, and
will he admit that these young people are the first victims of UI
cuts?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer the
hon. member's question is to cite some useful facts and figures
which she will be interested in knowing.
The employment gains which took place during 1994 mean
that we have been able to reduce UI claims by some 10 per cent
over 1993 and helped more than 200,000 Canadians get back to
work without exhausting their benefits. In fact, if we look at the
figures more closely we find that the exhaustion rate was down
by 25 per cent in 1993-94 over 1992-93.
(1450 )
It shows what is contributing to the reduction in the
unemployment benefit rate, which is that far more Canadians
are going back to work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister cannot ignore the fact that a StatsCan report indicates
that the proportion of unemployed covered by the UI program
went from 77 per cent, in 1990, down to 53 per cent, in 1994.
There are fewer recipients, even though more people are out of
work.
Will the minister finally recognize that, if the number of UI
recipients decreased so drastically, it is not because the number
of jobless dropped significantly, but because more and more of
them are excluded from the UI program and have to join the
welfare ranks?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the StatsCanada report
shows that one of the distressing areas of concern that we should
all share is the fact that numbers of Canadians are unemployed
for longer periods of time. It is one of the really disturbing
phenomena taking place in labour markets. We are not alone. It
is taking place around the world.
Rather than admitting to some great guilt, we should be
coming together to work to find solutions to the problem. That is
one reason why we are looking seriously, as the hon. member
knows, at developing more active employment programs.
To give one example, we have just initiated and will be
starting on April 1 some 20 pilot projects across the country
using wage supplements to help those long term unemployed to
get back into the job market.
11299
If the member is interested, I can give examples of seven
such projects in the province of Quebec. It is that kind of real
effort that we have to come together on to find new answers
to help along-
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
On January 1, 1995 the CRTC launched an innovative tax grab
on Canadian cable subscribers. It ignored its previous decision
to issue a rebate to consumers which would have caused cable
rates to decrease. Instead, half of the money will go to line the
pockets of cable giants such as Rogers.
Why will the Prime Minister not protect the interests of
Canadian consumers by getting rid of this hidden tax?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that the country and the government over time
has been very grateful to the CRTC. It has been able to protect
the Canadian cultural content of the delivery system through its
broadcast system.
The growth of Canadian arts, culture and performers has been
a vital part of the responsibilities administered by the CRTC
through its vigilance and its application of the rules of the will of
the House.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question was very specific. It was specifically focused on the
CRTC and the issue of the current innovative tax grab, as I say.
However I appreciate the eloquence of the hon. member.
The CRTC has flip-flopped on the consumer rebate. It has not
only imposed an information highway tax but it has also
required these companies to pay into a Canadian program
production fund. This is nothing more than a tax to subsidize
Canadian content. Consumers will no longer stand for this
behaviour from the CRTC.
How can the Prime Minister justify this tax without having
consulted the Canadian consumer?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should think through the outcome of her
observations and her direction. It would mean that a worthy and
considerate member of the ministry would have to resign as a
result of interference in an arm's length organization.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
(1455 )
Next week the minister leads the Canadian delegation to the
first conference of the parties on climate change in Berlin. Why
is this conference so important that the minister is personally
attending and what is the Canadian government's position on
climate change?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question from a member of the standing committee on the
environment.
The reason it is such a crucial issue is because if we fail as a
globe to address this very critical problem, we will see a
situation by the year 2050 where the island of Prince Edward
Island will be completely under water, where the lower
mainland of British Columbia will suffer massive flooding and
where there will be severe fires on the prairies as a result of
drought.
Ten years ago people laughed at scientists' claims for the
codfish stocks and we know now the price we paid.
The Speaker: I am sure we agree that all questions from all
hon. members deserve an answer and that the answers should be
quite succinct and to the point. If the hon. Minister of the
Environment has not finished, I give her the floor.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point. I
will only point out that the same naysayers that we are hearing
now on the opposite side of the House were the same kinds of
people who 10 years ago said we should do nothing about the cod
stocks.
Global warming is a crucial world issue and we will address it
with a global solution in Berlin.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The assessment made of the federal government's Youth
Strategy in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick is devastating
for this program. Part III of the 1995-96 Estimates indicates that
the evaluations did not reveal significant improvements in terms
of job opportunities, compared to what could have been
anticipated without the Youth Strategy program. The
Canada-New Brunswick Youth Strategy also increased the
participants' dependency on social assistance.
Will the minister recognize that his Youth Strategy is a big
flop?
11300
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to
point out to the hon. member is that at this moment-give or
take a few numbers-we have been able to work with the private
sector to enrol over 10,000 young people in new internship
programs in a wide variety of fields such as horticulture,
electronics, car repair, logistics, software development.
We are giving our young people a chance to move from formal
schooling into the workplace by giving them real, direct work
experience training. That is the heart of our youth strategy. I
think it is one of the most successful programs in the world.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last year only 27,000 immigrants came to Quebec, well short of
the expected 40,000. Despite that incredible drop and despite
taking a share of immigrants far lower than its share of the
population, Quebec will still get $90 million for immigration or
about three times as much per capita as Ontario.
Does the minister of immigration agree it is completely unfair
for the federal government to give a province a share of
immigrant funding that is vastly disproportionate to the number
of immigrants actually accepted?
(1500 )
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we talked about for some
two hours in the standing committee this morning, when we talk
of settlement it is not only a question of looking at dollars and
cents, particularly with respect to the province of Quebec which
has nurtured an agreement over the course of 20 to 25 years
where Quebec does settlement very well.
In other provinces, in talking to the Alberta minister
responsible for immigration, it is not simply a case where
everyone wants the same kind of agreement as Quebec or
Ontario. There needs to be some flexibility under the guise of a
federal immigration policy to allow enough regional and
provincial nuances so they too can articulate the priorities.
It is in that spirit that we will fashion provincial-federal
agreements that will work for the benefit of the country in all its
regions.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Tomorrow funding will run out for many career counselling
centres across the country that give career counselling to
women, immigrants and others who need assistance to find
work. At this point staff and clients are in limbo not knowing if
these services will continue.
Earlier today the minister said he would like suggestions on
helping to get people back to work. Many of these centres have
success rates of up to 85 per cent.
Will he commit to continuing funding for these career
counselling centres?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact
centres the hon. member refers to but as of yesterday I signed off
on a number of the career outreach programs that will serve the
clientele there.
Clearly as we are going through a transition year moving into
the new human resource investment fund there will be
adjustments along the way.
If the hon. member has specific centres in mind I would be
glad to receive them and I can indicate to her which ones I have
already approved.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Colin Shepherd, member of
Parliament in the British House of Commons and Chairman of
the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs could
tell us what is on the legislative agenda for the next few days.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, tomorrow, that is
Friday, and Monday, the first item on the agenda is second
reading of Bill C-76 to implement the budget, then, on Tuesday,
we will have an opposition day for the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
On Wednesday we will return to second reading of Bill C-68
respecting firearms. The back up legislation on all days will be
Bill C-69, the redistribution bill, and Bill C-75, the farm bill. If
not disposed of earlier we expect to deal with these items on
Thursday.
There have been discussions among the parties and there has
been an agreement that the House not sit on Friday next week.
11301
Accordingly, I ask for unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That the House shall not sit on Friday, April 7, 1995 provided that, for the
purpose of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on that day.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
11301
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-76 an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled
in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will resume debate
with the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who has five
minutes left. After that, there will be a five-minute question and
comment period.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I was saying earlier, the residents of
Brome-Missisquoi will be glad to know that they can still
depend on their hon. member and on the federal government for
help if they want to start a small business.
The people in Brome-Missisquoi are known for their
entrepreneurship and their capacity to develop new niches and
to adapt quickly to new sets of rules on the world market.
I want to get back to spending. Expenditures at National
Defence will also be drastically reduced. Business subsidies
have been cut by 60 per cent. Because of the deficit and our
current financial situation, we can no longer afford to maintain
subsidies introduced ten years ago, which are now eroding our
capacity to adapt, to diversify and to remain competitive.
We will also transfer certain programs to other levels of
government and privatize some of our operations. For example,
airports and marinas will be transferred to local authorities and
CN will be privatized this year. Moreover, and this is very
important, departments will have to prepare three-year business
plans, which will be subject to parliamentary and public
scrutiny.
The federal government is cleaning up its backyard, but other
levels of government must do the same. The provinces will have
to review their programs also.
Speaking of cleaning up, I urge the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot to do some cleaning-up in his own
mind. During his remarks this morning, I heard him criticize the
way some Quebec members have voted. This is the budget of a
responsible government that knows exactly where it is going.
Does the Bloc know where it is going? They are preparing to
hold a referendum so that they do not have to sit here anymore,
but at the same time they are trying to ensure that Quebec will
have 25 per cent of the seats in the House. This is hypocrisy. Do
they want to stay or do they want to leave?
I believe in a flexible federalism, a federalism based on
dialogue and consensus, not on hypocrisy. Members of the Bloc
know full well that it takes a constitutional amendment to
change the rules of the game between the various levels of
government, but they are still trying not only to confuse people,
but to provoke them. We had an opportunity to see, when the
vote on the Bloc's motion was taken, the kind of contempt that
members of the Bloc feel toward those who do not share their
views. It bodes well for the referendum. The remarks made
today by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot show once
again that, for the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, it is
just «believe it or die».
The constitution of our country, Canada, guarantees a
minimum of 75 seats for Quebec. I hope that Bloc members,
after their defeat in the referendum, will have the decency to
separate themselves from this House and go back to Quebec to
work real hard at helping Quebec population grow. I might
indicate to them that there are many ways to go about it, one of
which is certainly not to maintain a political and economic
climate contaminated by the Bloc, but rather to foster job
creation in a strong economy. Then, Quebec will be strong in the
true sense for Canada and within Canada, and we will no longer
remember the hypocritical tactics devised by the Bloc members
and their cousins in the PQ.
To get back to the budget, there is also the new Canadian
social transfer. Globally, the major transfers, including
equalization payments-which, for that matter, are not affected
by this budget-will be 4.4 per cent lower than what they are
now. At the same time, the other spending reductions the federal
government is imposing on itself will reach 7.3 per cent, almost
twice as much.
To summarize the budget, it proposes to reduce spending by
$7 for every $1 increase in revenue. The in-depth reorganization
of the machinery of government announced in the budget
confirms the faith of the people of Brome-Missisquoi in a
flexible federalism evolving in a secure environment for all the
classes of citizens, young people, students, families and seniors,
and also in a secure environment with regard to our political and
trade relationships with all our neighbours, who are well aware
of the rules of the game here in Canada.
(1510)
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the new
member for Brome-Missisquoi has adjusted quickly to the
House of Commons. We can see this from the gratuitous insults
he is flinging at the Bloc Quebecois. This member who, during
the election campaign in Brome-Missisquoi, carefully avoided
all the debates with his adversaries, is using some rather
aggressive language for a new member, now that he is elected.
11302
He prompts me to ask the following question when he says
that the federal government has put its house in order in its
budget and that the provincial governments should do the same.
I would like to hear his comments on this matter. Of course we
want to see the federal government put its house in order; that
is what we have been asking it to do since we were elected.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the reduced
transfer payments under the new Canada social transfer, with
cuts of $2.5 billion next year and $4.5 billion every year
thereafter. Does the member think that that it is a good way to
reduce spending if, in the end, it costs the provinces more to
maintain the services which their money was already used to
provide?
I would say that yes, the federal government has been putting
its house in order, but only by dumping problems in somebody
else's backyard. Is this what it calls flexible federalism, the
brand of federalism it prefers? I would like to hear the member's
comments on this subject.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. First, I must say I have just been through an election
campaign in Brome-Missisquoi where I met many citizens.
The citizens of Brome-Missisquoi, as those of other regions in
Quebec, have asked for a budget that would not increase
personal income taxes and that would trim the fat.
This is exactly the kind of budget that minister Martin
presented. When we speak about putting our financial house in
order, and that is what trimming the fat is all about, I think that
Mr. Martin's budget does just that. The other part of the
member's question deals with the new Canadian social transfer
program.
The minister announced that this new transfer program would
be implemented only a year from now in order to give the
provinces the opportunity to adapt to the new realities. This new
Canadian social transfer program gives Quebec a global
envelope where budgets for universities, health and social
programs will be consolidated and the province will be free to
manage them as it pleases. This is what we mean by new,
progressive, flexible federalism.
As for the amounts mentioned by my colleague, I must say
that the global cuts in federal programs account for a decrease of
7.3 per cent for all federal programs here in Ottawa.
But, for a year, the cuts in provincial programs will mean a
reduction of 4.4 per cent only. The federal government is much
more severe with its own programs than with the provinces and
this is very important. It would be important also that Bloc
members go back to their ridings and meet with their
constituents. They would see that this is the type of federalism
they want.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that during a recent election
campaign his constituents told him certain things. There must be
farmers in Brome-Missisquoi and I would like to know whether
they told him they would like to see a 30 per cent cut in the dairy
credit.
This will drive up milk prices and penalize low-income
families. Did anyone tell him that when he was seeking the votes
of farmers in Brome-Missisquoi?
(1515)
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I reply to
my colleague. During the election campaign, farming was, of
course, one of the topics, particularly in a riding such as ours,
which borders the United States. Given its location, the new
GATT and NAFTA international trade rules are important at this
time.
I am on the point of creating a sort of advisory committee with
all the farmers in Brome-Missisquoi to look at how we can
adapt as quickly as possible to the new international trade rules,
including those of NAFTA. The State of Vermont is across the
border from the riding of Brome-Missisquoi and I think that
together with the farmers not just in my riding but throughout
Quebec we will find ways of adapting to the rules of the new
world economy.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House to address
second reading of Bill C-76.
As I have stated previously, this budget may be viewed by
future historians as a watershed budget. It is a very definite
turning point in the history of this government, in the
government of the day, when it had the courage to make the
really tough decisions, to make the necessary cuts in spending in
accordance with responsible financial management.
The budget redesigns the very role and the structure of
government. It is a budget which achieves large savings to reach
the deficit reduction targets set out in our red book plan. This
budget is the cornerstone of the foundation of sustainable
finances, sustainable social policy and sustainable economic
policy for the future of Canadians. The budget is about nation
building. It is about values and principles rooted in fairness
among the regions, compassion, and above all, economic and
financial leadership.
The future of the country is at stake with a debt of $550 billion
and annual deficit budgets for more than a decade now. Because
of this, a huge portion of government revenues are consumed by
the cost of servicing this deficit and debt, money that could
otherwise provide services and programs for Canadians or better
still, reduce the amount of taxes we pay. The unexpected
increase in these rates since last year's budget has put
tremendous pressure on deficit targets. Meeting our targets is
essential to strengthen confidence and bring interest rates down.
This in
11303
turn is essential for job growth and more job creation for
Canadians.
Over $13 billion in savings will be realized through spending
cuts and there will be no increase in personal income tax rates.
Going beyond to 1997-98, our reforms will deliver a further $13
billion in savings for a three year total of $29 billion. This is the
largest set of actions in any budget since the war years in the
1940s.
We are also taking firm steps to increase tax fairness and close
loopholes. The budget delivers almost $7 in spending cuts for
every dollar of new tax revenue. That is very significant, a 7:1
ratio of spending cuts to taxes.
The government accepted the challenge not only with this
budget, but with several budgets to come, to work toward a
balanced budget. This is not politically expedient, but it is the
right thing to do.
The measures taken in the budget will ensure that Canadians
can face the economic challenge of international competition
and that we will be able to do so with growth and confidence.
This budget is about restoring confidence in government and
confidence in Canadians.
Measures which were taken last year in the first budget of this
government showed positive results in our economy. Economic
growth is at 4.5 per cent which is the strongest of the G-7
nations. 1994 was the most impressive year ever in Canadian
exports. We showed a massive trade surplus with the United
States and inflation was at its lowest in three decades. There
were improved business profits and some 433,000 more full
time jobs.
A snapshot of our growth is found in Statistics Canada's
report on railway car loadings. It showed that in a seven day
period ending February 21, 1995, just a few weeks ago, the
number of railway cars loaded in Canada increased 3.7 per cent
from the same period a year earlier. Revenue freight loaded
increased 6.9 per cent to 4.6 million tonnes. Piggyback traffic
tonnage which is included in total carload traffic increased 9.5
per cent during the same period. Tonnage of revenue freight
loaded as of February 21, 1995 increased 19.8 per cent from the
previous year.
(1520)
That is growth. Growth in freight means growth in GDP where
it should be and not growth in government.
Cuts in government spending mean pain. The budget is about
pain. However, the pain was spread fairly to all regions. In the
west, grain transportation subsidies were eliminated, while in
the east the Atlantic region freight assistance program was
abolished. However, both the west and the east, including
Quebec, will receive transitional funding helping to alleviate
shipper hardship and upgrade transportation infrastructure.
The bill also proposes the elimination of the Atlantic freight
subsidies under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and
the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This measure will take effect in
December of this year. It will save nearly $100 million.
The MFRA and the later ARFAA subsidies derive from
recommendations of the 1927 report of the royal commission on
maritime claims, the Duncan commission. The report noted that
the BNA Act had guaranteed construction of the Intercolonial
Railway, an obligation long met at the time the Duncan
commission was appointed. The commission concluded
however that there was a particular intention behind the
enactment of this guarantee and on its interpretation of this
intention recommended a reduction in freight rates.
Therefore, we had the Atlantic freight subsidies program.
However, it has proven inefficient in reducing shipper costs.
Moreover, it has encouraged companies to structure their
investments and organizations to meet regulatory criteria rather
than for sound business reasons. The subsidies are of marginal
and declining importance to regional economic activity, since
transportation services in the region are now more competitive
than they once were.
To help ensure that elimination of the subsidy contributes to a
better transportation system, the budget announced a five year
$326 million transportation adjustment program. Provinces will
be able to target assistance under the program to meet local
shippers' needs and upgrade infrastructure. Among other things,
this should help to modernize the highway system in Atlantic
Canada and eastern Quebec.
The people of Nova Scotia know that the backbone of the
economy is small business and that Atlantic Canada ended 1994
with the highest rate of growth per capita. Our region grew by
2.7 per cent. This was followed by the prairie region.
One of the most important elements of the bill is the
reformation of transfers to the provinces. This represents new
federalism. The federal government wants to create a transfer
system that functions better and is more fiscally sustainable.
The centrepiece of this reform is the replacement beginning in
1996-97 of established programs financing for health and
post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan with a
single consolidated block transfer, the Canada health and social
transfer.
The Canada health and social transfer represents a new
approach to federal-provincial relations. This new approach is
marked by greater flexibility for provincial governments and
more sustainable financing arrangements. It continues the
evolution toward more mature fiscal responsibility.
The Liberal government approach to provincial transfers
passes three important tests. First, the federal government has
hit itself harder through cuts. Second, we have given the
provinces ample time, that is, one year notice of our intentions.
11304
Third, the reduction in transfer payments is equitable. This is
where the fairness comes in again.
Under the previous government the 1980s were a time of
greed, a time of surplus and a time of waste. The 1990s under the
present government are a time of basic need, not greed, a time of
high efficiency and productivity, and a time of sustainability,
not waste. It is a time to sustain our finances as well as our
environment, our resources and as we all know, our fish stocks.
(1525)
We made a commitment to the men and women of Canada to
reduce the deficit while restructuring social policy. We take that
commitment very seriously.
The budget of February 1995 is more than a bunch of
numbers. It is one part of a very large social plan, an economic
plan, as well as a financial plan. It maps out a very prudent and
courageous incredible path, not only for our generation but more
important, for the next generation of young Canadians to come. I
urge all hon. members to support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Cumberland-Colchester spoke about the changes to freight
subsidies in eastern Canada. The way she presented it, in a very
positive manner, is of course self-interested. However, I must
say that this measure changes the whole picture.
Last week, there was a debate on railways. Now, they want to
change the shipping assistance program and focus more on road
transportation of goods. We must realize that in the past, many
businesses had their goods shipped by rail. What did this mean?
It meant that they avoided making abusive use of road
transportation which, we know, is bad for roads at certain times.
It is all very well to talk about a form of flexible federalism
because money is transferred to the provinces so that they can
carry out public infrastructure projects. However after a few
years, when the roads are a mess, everyone knows that it will be
up to the provinces to repair and maintain them with their own
funds. I would like to hear her comments on this. She can
contradict me if she can. I believe that it is a short sighted view.
It harms rail transportation which was appreciated by many.
The need to build a railway was even the pretext used to create
the Canadian confederation and what do we have? All of a
sudden, in order to control its expenditures, the federal
government transfers an equivalent amount on the short term
from the railways to road transportation or to businesses. I
would like to hear what the member has to say about this transfer
and about offloading such expenditures onto the provinces.
[English]
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Lévis for his comments. We have enjoyed a valuable asset in the
rail system in building this country.
Many times I have gone through the province of Quebec,
growing up in New Brunswick and living in Nova Scotia. It is
part of our whole eastern heritage, part of our whole country.
These assistance programs are antiquated. They have come
through the British North America Act in 1920, 1930, 1940. I
say again that they are antiquated. It is important that we update
and modernize. Our manufacturers, our grain growers, our
furnace makers in Nova Scotia, our farmers, wherever they are,
in Quebec or Nova Scotia have the same needs: to move
products to the marketplace.
I cited some statistics taken by StatsCanada four weeks ago.
Trains have increased some 19 per cent in freight in this country.
If time permitted, I could address the question of railways, how
a line in Nova Scotia from Sydney to Truro, my hometown was
sold. It has become privatized. It was losing a million dollars a
year and now it is making several million dollars a year. The
amount of freight moving through those lines has increased.
This is happening with short lines across the country. They are
becoming profitable.
By taking the subsidies away we are allowing our
manufacturers and farmers to have more flexibility. We are
allowing them to be more efficient in the 21st century, to
modernize and to look at creativity under a world trade
organization as well. The transitional funding allows us to get to
that point and to upgrade the highways.
(1530)
The hon. member for Lévis knows as well as I from
Cumberland-Colchester that the highways between Quebec
and Nova Scotia certainly need upgrading so that we can share in
trade wealth a lot better between each other.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank you for allowing me to speak in this House on Bill C-76,
an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 27, 1995.
In its budget, the government announced a series of measures
that jeopardize our social programs. Bill C-76 confirms what we
feared most and shows the extent of the damage done to Quebec
and to the provinces by the federal budget. Cuts in transfers to
provinces amount to $7 billion. That is $7 billion of the federal
deficit reduction taken off the back of provinces. These new cuts
in transfers to provinces come on top of all the unilateral cuts
made in the few last years that were so stridently criticized by
11305
the government members who were then sitting in the official
opposition.
We must recall that, between 1977 and 1994, the federal
government's share of social program financing, that is for
health, education and welfare, dropped from 47.6 per cent to
37.8 per cent. Bill C-76 is the confirmation of a sharp drop in
federal funds, which is supposed to reach 28.5 per cent within
two years, by 1997-98.
After so many years of offloading its responsibilities onto the
provinces, the federal government still does not understand that
reducing transfers does not solve in any way the fiscal problem
that all Canadian governments experience. By imposing dual
jurisdictions in fields that are not federal according to the
Constitution, the federal government is preventing any real
solution to the crisis in Canada's public finances, whether at the
federal or the provincial level. In the end, the real losers are the
taxpayers we are here to represent.
I said earlier that this budget would be the end of our social
programs as we know them. We all know that Quebec and the
provinces are facing a breathtaking rise in medicare costs. This
raise is mainly due to factors such as an aging population, new
and more expensive medical technologies and significant cost
increases in pharmaceutical products.
In the last budget, as was the case in previous budgets which
froze transfer payments, the government announced substantial
cuts in transfers to Quebec and to the other provinces for health
care. It does not matter that, under Bill C-76, transfers for this
program will be lumped in with other program funding in one
transfer, the Canada social transfer. The result will be the same.
Less money will be available for health care, and in this way, the
government has chipped away at one of the foundations of our
health care system.
The Minister of Finance should be honest and open with
Quebecers and Canadians. He should admit to them that such
cuts in transfer payments will put an end to the health care
system as we know it, because that is what is at stake here.
The claim that all of these cuts will have no impact on the
health of Quebecers and of Canadians and on the health care
system itself is false. I cite as proof the recent statements made
by the Prime Minister, when he quietly and furtively introduced
the new concept of guaranteed fundamental or basic health care
services for Canadians. By even talking about minimum
standards, which have not been specified or determined, as
being essential, the Prime Minister only draws more attention to
a cross-Canada phenomenon: a two-tiered and two-speed
health care system.
The two-tiered health care system is gathering steam from the
well established tendency in the system which, unless there is a
spectacular about-face, will become the norm. On the one hand,
a normal or basic service will be covered by health insurance
and, on the other, a fully loaded, specialized service will also be
available for those who can afford to pay the user fees, to buy
private insurance or to finance their health care in another way.
(1535)
As for the two-speed health care system, it is well entrenched
throughout Canada: slow public services for those who cannot
afford to pay and fast private services for those who cannot
afford to wait but can afford to pay.
No one in this House can deny that our health care system as
we knew it has undergone radical changes across Canada. The
two-level and two-speed system is no longer a
doom-and-gloom scenario but a reality.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance solemnly
declared, and I quote: ``The conditions of the Canada Health Act
will be maintained. For this government, those are
fundamental''.
Bill C-76 reimposes these national standards while, at the
same time, cutting the financial resources needed to maintain
them. It is pitiful double talk: although we want a Cadillac, we
will only make payments for a bicycle.
They are saying that the provinces should find ways to make
up the difference and trying to pass this off as an example of
flexible federalism. How can the Minister of Finance still think
and maintain that Quebec and the provinces will manage to
provide the same health services to the population? How can
Quebec and the provinces manage to maintain all five
conditions of the Canada Health Act imposed by Ottawa, when
the Minister of Finance is offloading onto them a deficit in the
billions of dollars through cuts in social programs?
The Minister of Finance should have shown some courage and
should have been straight with his fellow citizens by telling
them: ``Unfortunately, because of our past mistakes, in
particular at the time of the Chrétien and Lalonde budgets, we
can no longer afford to maintain our health care system as we
know it today''. The Minister of Finance is dodging his
responsibilities instead of facing up to them. This government is
dodging its responsibilities by transferring its deficit to Quebec
and the provinces. This government is misleading the people by
hiding the fact that the health care programs are about to sink as
a result of the budget.
Bill C-76 takes out two heavy mortgages on the Canadian
health care system. On the sole basis of the obscene interest
rates resulting from the federal government's inability to bring
under control the public finance crisis it has created, the health
of our patient, the taxpayer, is not about to get better.
The Martin budget and Bill C-76 implementing it take out a
first mortgage on the general state of health of our fellow
citizens. All studies conducted here and elsewhere clearly show
the cause-and-effect relationship between poverty and the state
of health of the population. By making cuts to social housing
and unemployment insurance, attacking the unemployed rather
than unemployment itself and reducing transfers to the Canada
Assistance Plan, the government is launching a full-scale
attack against the most disadvantaged in our society. For the
11306
second year in a row, the unemployed and the working poor will
be the budget cuts' main victims, while large corporations and
financial institutions will be spared for all practical purposes.
The Minister of Finance announces further cuts to the
Unemployment Insurance Program but only a temporary tax on
the capital of large banking institutions. The minister will beg
for a mere $100 million from banking institutions, when the
Royal Bank alone made over $1.2 billion in profits last year.
In addition, this government turned a deaf ear to requests
from all sides, from the Bloc and the Conseil du patronat alike,
to eliminate all business subsidies. Instead, the Minister of
Finance chose to make cuts of more than $300 million in social
housing rather than going for the remaining $1.5 billion in
business subsidies. That is the federal approach.
Large corporations and banks can sleep in peace. The Minister
of Finance clearly indicated in his budget that, once again, the
unemployed and the disadvantaged will bear the brunt of the
financial problems of this inefficient federal system, while at
the same time ensuring that wealthy Canadians may continue,
until the end of the century, to benefit from the advantages that
flow from the establishment of family trusts.
So, this is one way Bill C-76 attacks the health of Canadians.
In time, sparing the rich by squeezing more and more money out
of the disadvantaged, the government is, in fact, taxing the
health of the latter.
(1540)
In this land of renewed and flexible federalism, the idea is to
be rich and healthy not poor and in ill health. The second attack
of Bill C-76 on the health area is a direct attack on the
provinces' capacity to meet national standards in health care at a
time when the federal government is substantially reducing its
transfer payments. There is a certain irony in this way of
proceeding. The federal government is cutting its transfer
payments to Quebec by 27 per cent while at the same time
developing national standards like those arising from the
Canada Health Act and imposing them upon Quebec.
Quebec is expected to absorb a large portion of Canada's
deficit, while the federal government continues to interfere in
Quebec's jurisdiction. Quebecers will continue to pay for the
duplication imposed by the federal system. There will still be
two health departments, two human resources departments, two
environment departments, and so on.
As for the health sector, if the federal government can no
longer afford to meddle in this field of provincial jurisdiction, it
should get out completely and leave it to the provinces, with the
appropriate means of financing. This way, the federal
government would at least save all the administrative costs
related to its programs, which duplicate those of the provinces.
One example is the pre-natal program established last year by
the health minister, which is identical to the Quebec OLO
program. Both the federal government and the provinces would
gain and, in the end, the public would get more for the same
money.
In Quebec, as in the rest of the country, people now realize
that they can no longer get deeper into debt if they do not have
the means to pay. Canadians and Quebecers balance their budget
by reducing waste and frivolous spending. In every household,
people consult each other to avoid buying the same item twice.
By taking on two major financial commitments in the health
sector, the federal government clearly shows that it still does not
realize the seriousness of its financial situation. The only
appropriate remedy would be to stop spending, in fields which
do not fall under its jurisdiction, just for the sake of satisfying
its compulsive need to centralize.
Canadian finances suffer from an acute case of federalism. In
order to centralize everything, federal initiatives duplicate and
overlap with provincial ones, regardless of the costs, or net
results in terms of services to taxpayers. I draw the attention of
this House to the eloquent silence of the health minister
regarding the negative but foreseeable effects which this bill
will have on health care services in Quebec and in Canada. If the
minister is at all receptive to what goes on in her department, she
must be aware of the serious impact of this bill on our health
system.
She must see the flaws of a system which is obviously and
quickly leading us to a two-level program. Since the hon.
member assumed her functions as Minister of Health, she keeps
on repeating that Canada's system is the best in the world and
that she cares so much about Canadians' health that she will
never sacrifice the five major principles underlying the Canada
Health Act.
But the facts do not bear this out. If the minister will not
sacrifice, as she claims, these major principles, her colleague,
the Minister of Finance, has no scruples about doing it, although
not directly, since that would require a good dose of
straightforwardness, but indirectly. Principles or not, the
Minister of Finance slashes the established programs financing,
thus making deep cuts into the health care system.
The minister may claim over and over her attachment to the
principles underlying the legislation, but what happens if the
necessary financial support is not provided? The principles
gradually but surely fall into oblivion. Those are the facts of the
matter, and they are becoming more and more obvious to
Quebecers. Canadians all over the country would not rush to
private clinics the way they are doing if the attachment of the
health minister to the principles of the Canada Health Act was
11307
shared by all, and particularly the Minister of Finance, who is
showing just the opposite with Bill C-76.
(1545)
I realize that the Minister of Health cherishes the principles
which, at the time, were instrumental in establishing what she
invariably refers to as the best health care system in the world.
However, I do not think that, cherished though they may be,
these principles had any impact on the government's budgetary
decisions. It is clear that the minister failed miserably in her
attempt to obtain the appropriate financing for our health care
system.
Perhaps I may recall for the benefit of hon. members what the
Minister of Health had to say about the impact of the cuts and
freezes imposed at the time by the Conservative government on
transfers to the provinces for health care programs.
The minister said in 1992, and I quote: ``Cutting back on the
transfers in these areas has not contributed to better
management of our health care system''. She went on to say:
``We have literally forced our deficit on to the provinces and
said to the provinces they have a choice: they can either increase
their taxes or cut back on their services. What we have seen in
many instances is a mix of the two''.
Then, still in the same speech, the minister indicated the
following: ``Cutting back on the transfers in these areas has not
contributed to better management of our health care system.
They have only contributed to the cutbacks and to the fear that
we feel now across the nation as the middle income group, which
is the largest group of Canadians, are frightened and afraid of
what is going to happen to them in the future. Will there be a
health care system for them, will they be able to get the drugs
that they need at the prices they can afford to pay when they need
them, when they get to be a certain age? There is this feeling that
perhaps the federal government is letting go of its
responsibilities in this matter''.
So what does the Minister of Health have to say now about her
government's responsibility for health care, when the bill before
the House today offloads $7 billion of the deficit to the
provinces by cutting transfer payments? Since she probably
knows better than anyone else the serious consequences of these
cutbacks, what did she do and what is she doing now to defend
her position before the Minister of Finance?
In fact, the Minister of Health has abdicated her
responsibilities. When the last budget was brought down, she
formally announced there would be a national forum on health,
as promised in the red book, to be chaired by none other than the
Prime Minister. We were told the health care system would be
spared until the conclusions of the vast public forum were
known.
While the Minister of Health was unable to hold her forum,
which was going to provide all the answers, her colleague, the
Minister of Finance, wasted no time and spared no expense on a
course of action. The national forum, the discussions and the
reforms were all to be scuttled; blind, uniform and unilateral
cuts were the answer.
The Minister of Health who must see the same two-tiered
two- speed system we see everywhere in Canada, should have
the courage to rise in this House and denounce the unilateral
decisions of her colleague, the Minister of Finance.
Bill C-76 proves to us that the Minister of Finance is not
getting caught up in his colleagues' proposed reforms. In the
case of the Axworthy reforms, he did not wait for either the
report or the recommendations. The agenda for reform was so
vague, there was no time to wait. This was the case also for the
national forum on health. At the rate things are going, with the
health department dragging its feet and finance charging away at
a gallop, there will probably be no more money for transfers by
the time the Minister of Finance gets a whiff of a
recommendation from the national forum on health.
In the final analysis, this bill is the antithesis of flexible
federalism. Nothing in it, in the facts or in the measures
announced alters the status quo in the slightest. On the contrary,
it confirms the governments imperialist propensity to conduct
its business with the provinces by presenting them with a fait
accompli. It is true to its vision of ever more centralized
federalism.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this point. The bill conceals
serious consequences for the future. It continues to widen the
gap between the rich and the poor in our society and condemns
many aspects of our social programs to certain death. The
people of Canada have to know these things. More specifically,
the people of Quebec have to know them before they make a
final decision on the federal system, which is clearly not
managing to solve its problems and is even less successful at
changing to meet the expectations of Quebecers.
(1550)
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Drummond.
Earlier on, she talked about our health care system and the
negative effect that this budget would have on drug costs and on
Canada's health care system. Yet, I did not hear the hon. member
say a word about what really has an impact on the system, drug
patents, which, interestingly enough, the Bloc Quebecois
supports.
My question is based on reality. The reality is that the health
care system is falling into ruins because of an annual increase of
12 per cent caused by the system that the previous government
left behind. My question for the hon. member opposite will be
11308
simple: While things are so equal, with this being the truth, how
can she say that this government, which is more committed to
preserving the health care system than any other preceding it, is
destroying the system; how can she fail to tell the true story, fail
to recognize the impact of drug patents, especially in the
Province of Quebec, where people can no longer afford to buy
drugs like they used to in previous years?
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, the role of the federal Department
of Health at the outset was to transfer sums of money for certain
programs being established at the time, like the EPF which was
calculated per capita. But, the government, because it holds the
power to spend, decided to reduce its deficit by cutting and
freezing transfer payments.
The demand for health care in the provinces has increased and
freezing transfer payments has reduced the provinces' ability to
manage their health care system. Last year, the decision to
extend the freeze meant that billions of dollars were not
transferred to Quebec, and these billions of dollars which the
Province of Quebec did not receive obliged it to reduce the
services offered in hospitals. This year, transfer payments will
be cut even more.
That is not the role of the Department of Health. The
department is supposed to transfer moneys owed to the
provinces. Regardless of how it will come about, the result will
be that funding for health care will be reduced and it is the
provincial governments who will get the squeeze when the
population or the costs of new technology and pharmaceutical
products rise. And now, the provinces have to do the dirty work
associated with the cuts in transfer payments for health care
services. The government should limit itself to transferring the
moneys it promised at the very beginning, in 1967, when it
imposed standards, when it imposed the principles of the
Canada Health Act.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since we did
not have time to discuss it, and my colleague for Drummond is
the health critic, I would like to ask her what she thinks of the
absence of the provincial governments from the national forum
on health.
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I find it completely absurd,
because the Liberals had promised a national forum on health
during the election campaign with all the provinces being
invited to review the system as a whole, since they are on the
front line and are primarily concerned, as it is they that manage
the health care system. And then the government ignored the
provinces.
(1555)
It probably invited people who are doubtless competent. But
this is not their role. It is the role of the provinces. The ministers
of health of each province have something to say. They know
what they need.
The situation is absurd. Millions more are being spent for
what? We will end up with one more report on the shelf, and that
will be the end of that. We will move on to another electoral
program in which we will be promised a new national forum on
health.
[English]
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear
about the comments made by the member for Drummond. Once
again the Bloc Quebecois demonstrates that it is not prepared to
live up to the reality of why the health care system is in such bad
shape and has badly deteriorated.
The reality is that when drug prices increase by 12 per cent a
year it affects the province of Quebec and every other province.
They are undermining health care costs.
The Bloc Quebecois demonstrates once again that it is
prepared to play all sorts of sleight of hand and to use a good
budget like the one presented by the Minister of Finance for
another agenda. If the member is concerned about the health
care system, will you and your party not agree that-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I remind members
to direct their interventions through the Speaker.
Mr. McTeague: I wish the member would respond adequately
to the following question. How is it possible that the Bloc
Quebecois and the member are interested in attacking the budget
without dealing with the reality that drug prices are undermining
the health care system and not the budget of the finance
minister?
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon.
colleague. I would like to know how his constituents react to
being told that the Minister of Finance is cutting transfer
payments to the provinces for health care. In Quebec, if there is
a shortfall of $1.2 billion, who is going to suffer? Your
taxpayers, sir.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I encourage
members equally, and perhaps I should do it more forcefully, to
direct their interventions through the Chair.
Mrs. Picard: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.
Taxpayers will be the ones to suffer. However, these are the
very taxpayers who, along with Quebecers, provide $30 billion
in taxes. Quebecers were promised that funds for health care
would be returned to Quebec to cover the cost of administering
their health care system, since its administration is a provincial
and not a federal matter.
11309
Now we are talking about drugs. In the present budget,
regardless of the method of transfer, there is not enough money.
There is not enough money to manage our health care system
and in fact to pay the cost of drugs, which is on the rise, and
to pay for medicine for seniors.
I reject this bill, which cuts health care and unemployment
insurance once again on the backs of the most disadvantaged.
This is what I object to.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do have my supporters; it is a great delight to hear
their applause. It is probably because they basically know what
topic I will deal with.
(1600 )
It is a pleasure to rise in support of the budget because it
breaks new ground in a way that has generally been overlooked
by the media and by some members of the House. I am speaking
of the fact that the budget, for the first time, declares that the
government is going to put some restrictions on the funding of
special interest groups. It will be setting out some guidelines to
bring order to what has been over the years a very bad situation.
For many years government funded advocacy groups have
controlled the political agenda. The government, in calling to
account special interest groups, will not only save a lot of
money, it will also change the way in which politics are
conducted.
The innovation that the government has introduced requires
all cabinet ministers to take personal care in the funding of
special interest groups. It has given Treasury Board very
specific guidelines. The Minister of Finance did not mention
them in the budget so I will tell the House what the guidelines
are.
Basically when a minister is deciding whether a group should
get government funding, the first question asked is how large the
public benefit will be because of the activities of the group. If
that group is going to do a great service and be of benefit to
many people, then the guidelines dictate that it should get
special attention for funding. However, if a group can raise the
money itself then ministers are instructed to give it less
attention for funding.
If a group has a very narrow focus, then the guidelines suggest
that it should probably find its own funding. That is a very
important point. Many advocacy groups, single agenda groups,
have a very narrow focus. Many Canadians believe that these
groups should raise their own money to further their own causes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I must
interrupt the hon. member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the
following bills: Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority
for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1995; Bill C-79, an act
for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1995;
Bill C-80, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1996.
_____________________________________________
11309
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Beverley McLachlin,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 30th day of
March, 1995 at 4.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
_____________________________________________
11309
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1605)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-76, an act to to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to be interrupted with such good news.
I will carry on. I was describing the guidelines the treasury
board specifically developed for ministers to decide how they
should fund special interest groups-
An hon. member: You are going to be interrupted again.
11310
11310
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable
the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate chamber.
(1615)
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate
chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in
Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning
on April 1, 1995-Chapter No. 8.
Bill C-79, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the
public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31,
1995-Chapter No. 9.
Bill C-80, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the
public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31,
1996-Chapter No. 10.
_____________________________________________
11310
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say, being a critic of special interest groups,
that I occasionally ruffle feathers. I have for a long time been
expecting to hear knocks at my door. When royal assent
happened it was a great pleasure to realize that it was not yet
another special interest group but the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod. I am deeply grateful for that.
I was talking about special interest groups. I should like to
take the opportunity to explain to the House a distinction that
needs to be made in the context of my remarks. There are two
basic types of special interest groups. There are those that
provide services to the public. The government is very
interested in seeing that happen. Many of them are charities and
non-profit organizations. There is another category, the special
interest group that is basically an advocacy group or a lobby
group which pushes its own agenda.
The development of guidelines for ministers to cut funding to
special interest groups is a brave move on the part of the
government. It will require considerable courage on the part of
cabinet ministers. They will be reviewing organizations wherein
it is sometimes difficult to discern the difference between a
group that is providing an important service to society and group
that advocates for a particular category of society. There will be
reaction.
(1620)
Many ministers who try to ensure that limited government
funds go where they will be most effective will be subject to a lot
of criticism. Politicians do not generally like criticism. This is
one of the reasons preceding governments never tackled special
interest groups. The government is prepared to take that
criticism and do what is right. That is very important.
Sometimes it is very difficult to know where best to cut
funding to groups that provide services which may no longer be
effective. Cabinet ministers will be confronted with the
situation where occasionally they will issue orders, funds will
be cut back by bureaucratic decree and some groups that deliver
very important services to the community may be injured.
This is where the individual member of Parliament comes in.
We on all sides of the House should help the ministers to cut
spending in interest group areas and ensure the spending is cut in
such a way that the groups which are doing good work in society
are preserved. Certainly MPs know better than the bureaucracy
who is most deserving in their ridings. Basically that is the
responsibility of an MP.
I wish I could report that each ministry has issued a report or a
description of its plans for cutting funding. This is not the case
because the ministers are approaching a problem that has been in
existence for a very long time. It will take a while to bring it
under control. In some ministries it will be more difficult than
others.
For example, the industry minister has moved very swiftly.
Within weeks of the budget coming down he produced a paper
showing a great number of groups that had traditionally received
Industry Canada money for community programs. They may be
businesses but they are still community programs. He moved
very swiftly and many of the programs are slated to be
discontinued. I look down his list and empathize with the
minister. It is very difficult to cut some programs. However it
has to be done and we can see that the minister has done it wisely
and well.
Health Canada is a ministry with an enormous infrastructure
for funding special interest groups of every sort, lobby groups,
care groups, service groups: anything we would care to think of.
It will take about three or four months before we really see what
the health minister is doing in that regard. However I have good
news. The health minister has moved to cut the funding of the
11311
anti-smoking promotional campaign from $180 million to $64
million.
This is a fine example of a minister moving in the spirit of the
budget. We are all in agreement that smoking is bad for our
health. However we are not in a position any more where we can
afford to fund essential promotional campaigns that are nothing
more than advertising and propaganda exercises which may be
better done by our schools. This will release millions of dollars
in Health Canada for programs that deal directly with the health
of Canadians. The health minister has shown courage, has done
what is right and would get the support of most Canadians.
Turning to foreign affairs, I cannot give details but I know that
the minister is moving very responsibly on the program. We will
see limited funds for foreign affairs, for helping the
disadvantaged in other nations. We will see the funding being
done with a great deal more care and a higher percentage of our
taxpayers dollars going to people who can most benefit by them.
(1625 )
I will comment on human resources development, one of the
hardest ministries in terms of implementing this program. The
minister understands the absolute necessity of ensuring that
limited dollars get to Canadians who need them most, Canadians
who are suffering and will directly benefit. We should watch the
minister very carefully. I am confident we will see changes in
the ministry that will result in a far better use of the taxpayers
dollar.
However, it will be difficult for the minister because he will
come under a lot of criticism. We should get behind him and
support him as best we can. It is a very difficult job. I do not
envy what he has to do.
This exercise is very worthwhile. Canadians have long
perceived a large problem with respect to government funding
of interest groups, be they advocacy groups or service groups. I
regret to say there has not been the accountability that is
necessary, particularly in a time when we do not have the money.
It was all right maybe 15 years ago. Maybe governments felt
they had much more to spend then, but right now we have to
make sure that we spend wisely and well. This is a situation in
which there has been very poor accountability.
I could talk at great length about where special interest groups
have used their money unwisely, but let me just deal with one
particular area, the area of fundraising. I have done quite a bit of
study on special interest groups. I have had to focus primarily on
charities because non-profit organizations do not have to fill in
a return that I can track and charities do. The charity information
return will at least give some hard data on what particular
special interest groups are doing with respect to accountability
of public funds, be it money they received from government or
money they raised from private donations.
It is very instructive. I will just take members through a few of
them. For example, the Canadian Council for Multicultural and
Intercultural Education is an organization that is basically
trying to get the message out with respect to race relations and
ethnic relations. It calls itself an educational service. I am sure it
is a very worthy cause.
However, let us look at the council's charity information
return which I have here. We would think the organization has
the potential to attract funding from many groups in society, not
just ethnic groups. We see that it received absolutely no private
donations whatsoever in 1993. When we read its information
form further we discover that it received $191,915 from
government.
This raises serious questions. Why cannot an organization
like this one raise some of the money on its own? This is the type
of thing the new guidelines are addressing and the type of
question the guidelines raise. If it has a constituency why does it
not get money from that constituency?
Let us try another one. The Canadian Foundation for
Children, Youth and the Law is an organization that raised some
private donations. It raised $4,058, not a large sum. However
from federal and provincial grants it received $420,874. The
organization is promoting knowledge and appropriate
implementation of laws affecting children. We would think such
an organization could do better than raising $4,050 in private
donations. Yet we see it is not there. I am not saying it is not a
worthy organization but surely if it is that worthy, it ought to be
able to get some funding from the public at large.
(1630)
Moving right along, there is the well known charity Kids Help
Phone. This charitable organization is designed for 24-hour
phone counselling for teenagers, crisis lines. Backing it up is a
foundation which is the fundraising arm of the charity. There are
parallel charities, one an organizational charity and one a
foundation. We have to combine the two.
The total in donations this organization received from the
public was $3,615,000. Then I look down and see in the forms
which I have here that it spent $1.55 million on its actual
charitable activities. In other words, of the private donations it
raised, only 43 per cent actually went to its charitable activities.
In other words, 57 per cent, $2,061,000 went to management,
administration and fundraising. For every dollar people
donated, 57 cents did not go to the actual charitable endeavour.
11312
This is a very good organization in its purpose. I do not want
to indicate that I do not approve of what it is doing. However,
Canadians demand a better fundraising effort on the part of the
charities they are supporting than what we see here.
When we start examining these things we can take quantum
leaps. I will now take a quantum leap to look at another charity,
Wildlife Habitat Canada. This charitable organization is
dedicated to improving wildlife habitats anywhere in the
country and even in Britain.
This organization has managed to raise $9,601 in private
donations. In provincial and federal government donations it
received $2,711,000. It is important to keep these figures in
mind: $9,000 in private donations and over $2 million in federal
grants. It did raise funds, the $9,000, and in fundraising costs it
spent $85,211. There is this incredible situation of an
organization principally funded by government which spends
$85,000 on fundraising and raises only $9,000. That is $8.75
spent for every $1 raised.
Canadians have good reason to question that type of activity.
The average, ordinary taxpayer donated over $2 million to that
charity which obviously has a fundraising problem of a very
high order. And so it goes, unhappily.
There is another one, the Canadian Ethnocultural Foundation.
It actually spent $14.40 for every $1 it raised. It is not a very
effective fundraiser either.
I could go on at great length. I would not want to do so because
it is late in the afternoon and I fear I would depress you, Mr.
Speaker. There are many hundreds of organizations like these
that have problems.
Let me conclude my remarks by reading from a letter. This
campaign is something I have taken a specific interest in and
there has been a little news coverage from time to time. I have
received over 250 letters from Canadians who agree that
Parliament should be carefully examining how we fund all
interest groups.
(1635)
The spirit of that was captured in this one letter from an
organization which states: ``We are a registered charity
ourselves. However we do not accept funding from any level of
government. This has meant that funding has been lean at times,
particularly in 1991 to 1993. But if one is doing anything
worthwhile there are always citizens and foundations willing to
support your work. This is perhaps the truest test of the value of
a non-profit body''.
Nowhere along the line does this government, nor do I as an
individual, propose cutting funding absolutely from all interest
groups. Many interest groups have an important role to play.
They can do things that government cannot do. They can reach
out to people in society because they are out there in society.
However we have to make sure that those groups we do support
are the ones which can most effectively represent the interests of
Canadians.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as always when the hon. member opposite is speaking
the ears in this Chamber perk up. I say this quite sincerely
because when my hon. colleague speaks, usually it is about
something worthwhile and we can learn something if we listen. I
would therefore most sincerely seek the counsel of the hon.
member.
If we are looking at special interest groups and the financing
of special interest groups via the public purse, certainly we in
this House are no different from or worse than anybody else in
that donations to political parties or campaigns receive a tax
credit. We get beneficial treatment under the Income Tax Act as
compared with another charity.
I would ask the member opposite to consider the following. If
a private member's motion from the opposition were to come
forward which would have the effect of ensuring that donations
made to political parties would be subject to the same scrutiny
and the same tax advantage as any other charitable donation,
would the member opposite be supportive of such a move?
Mr. Bryden: I thank my colleague for the very good question.
I never indicate how I will vote for legislation I have not seen
beforehand.
I have great sympathy for what he is saying. The advantage in
tax receipts political parties get versus charities is an area which
needs to be reviewed. We have to philosophically ask ourselves
whether it is really necessary that political parties enjoy that
kind of advantage. There are some questions there as we would
not want a situation to arise where politicians cannot support
themselves.
One thing on this whole issue of special interest groups is at
least the politicians, the Reform Party, the Bloc-and I
particularly mention the Bloc because it has some very strong
ideas about ceilings on political donations. This matter is
something that needs to be reviewed and examined
philosophically. We do not want to make it difficult for
politicians to raise money. On the other hand, we ought not to
have an untoward advantage. Certainly I would agree absolutely
that the books should be wide open on any donations any
politician receives.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon.
member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe talk about
possible cuts to the funds given to what he calls interest groups.
However, his list of organizations contained a large number of
what I would call community groups, which the hon. member
urged to put greater reliance on fundraising. I feel that he is very
sincere and that is why I will ask the following question. At the
11313
very end of his speech, he addressed the issue of political party
financing.
(1640)
As you know, political parties in Quebec are currently
financed only through individual donations, although in
Canada, any corporation, union or group has the right to
contribute to the financing of federal political parties. They
make fairly large contributions. However, we in the Bloc
Quebecois have decided not to rely on donations from
corporations, businesses and special interest groups, because of
Quebec's Bill 2 respecting political party financing as it was
then called.
To follow his reasoning, would the hon. member agree at
some point to a review of the legislation regarding political
party financing in Canada in order to restrict such financing to
individuals?
You also know that, at the federal level for example, unlike
the situation in Quebec-I am not as familiar with the situation
elsewhere-even individuals are allowed to claim tax credits of
75 per cent, which means that the federal government gives $3
for every dollar given by an individual to a political party. Does
the hon. member think we could start with political party
financing in order to set an example? We should at least restrict
financing to individuals rather than to community interest
groups which, hit by government funding cuts, also have to deal
with reduced social services, leading to an increase in the
number of clients.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the advisability
of a law restricting political party financing to individuals in
order to avoid the abuses that may exist at this time.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that remark. I have
examined the political donations from the last election
campaign for the Liberals, the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois. I am aware of who put what money where. The
member would find that by and large, corporations are not heavy
spenders, at least during election campaigns.
I did find what I thought was a major abuse that would interest
my colleague opposite. The New Democratic Party during the
1993 election received $1.5 million from the Canadian Labour
Congress which in turn has been a major recipient of
government funds for its labour education program.
The member opposite, and I think all members would agree
with me, I would be happy to see a law, if we could phrase one,
that would forbid special interest groups that receive
government funding from passing that government funding on
to any political party at any level.
If the member is looking for that kind of review, I would
heartily endorse it.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the comments of the government member surely
cannot go unchallenged.
The member expressed great concern about government
revenues supporting labour education with the CLC. The
member seems to be totally blind to the government largesse to
the banks and vested interest groups through what is called tax
expenditures that run into the billions of dollars.
The member took great glee and satisfaction in denouncing
Kids Help Phone which helps kids in emergency and suicide
situations. Funds are being cut to this organization and that
organization, many of which are staffed by volunteers who work
hard at what the government should have been doing anyway.
However government keeps cutting back and cutting back.
The member took great pride in going after kids organizations
and organizations which help the needy and poor. He did not say
one word about the tremendous assistance this government and
previous Liberal and Tory governments have given to the very
wealthy and the very rich. Governments have allowed the Royal
Bank of Canada to have millions and millions of dollars in profit
and to pay zero amount in taxes. The government allows a teller
with the Royal Bank of Canada to pay more dollars and cents in
taxes than the bank does. Do we hear one word of protest about
this inequity and the unfairness? The member enjoys going after
kids and kids' organizations that help the poor, the weak, the
sick and the elderly. He certainly does not go after those who are
the powerful, his friends, that helped to elect him.
(1645)
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this is well spoken by the member
who represents the party-
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know the question which
the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle raises is important
and serious. I am also cognizant of the fact that the hon. member
for Hamilton-Wentworth has been interrupted more often than
not since four o'clock for various reasons. However, with one
minute remaining, I wish the House would give the hon. member
for Hamilton-Wentworth the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada keeps a record of
political donations. It is a legal record. We can search as much as
we want and we will not see enormous funding from the Royal
Bank or any other large corporation to any political party other
than the $1.5 million the Canadian Labour Congress gave to the
NDP, which is ten times the donation of any organization to any
political party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
11314
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Medicare.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are a tough breed and it is a good thing. They will
have to be tough to face what lies ahead.
Bill C-76 provides for the legal implementation of the
measures contained in the February 1995 budget. Among the
initiatives contained in the bill is the new block funding plan
which will alter the transfer of payments to provinces for health
and education. The passage of Bill C-76 will, as well, facilitate
the termination of the Public Utilities Income Transfer Tax Act.
Let us get on with it. The House has wasted enough time and
taxpayers' money debating measures which are secondary to the
main problem in Canada. While the Liberal government directs
its energies to useless mandatory gun registration, the national
debt steadily rises.
Today the debt stands at $547,758,477,000. That is
approximately $39,000 per taxpayer and over $18,000 per
capita. Canadians are worried about their future and they are
depending on their elected representatives to straighten out this
mess. We had evidence of that earlier in the year when the polls
showed that Canadians were ready for a tough budget. They
recognized that the debt was out of control and expected the
Minister of Finance to bite the bullet. Instead, the finance
minister's plans were torpedoed by his left leaning cabinet
colleagues.
He is not the first to have his plans watered down. In fact, for
the last 20 years successive ministers of finance have declared
war on the debt and we have not seen any results. One after
another they have succumbed to the whims of political fortune.
One by one they have shown disregard for the Canadian
taxpayer. Now we are so far in debt that our legacy to our
children will not be something to cherish. Their debt riddled
inheritance will bring them a future full of fiscal instability.
There was a short-lived budget back in 1979 that dared to be
different. The new government of the day inherited the leftover
Liberal debt and what was then the highest debt ratio among the
major industrialized countries. Some things never change.
Canadians saw what happened to that government. It started to
put its fiscal house in order. The Liberals defeated that budget
and the rest is history.
(1650)
In 1980 the Liberals regained power and allowed the debt to
escalate. When they finally were defeated in 1984 the Tories,
who learned their lesson in 1979, took a vow never to be so
fiscally responsible that it would jeopardize their power.
In the end, this philosophy helped to bring about not only their
defeat but their unprecedented drop into oblivion. Today, even
the Canadian economy is sinking faster than that 1979 budget.
The Minister of Finance refuses to predict when his budget will
be balanced. He continues to talk about balancing the budget
but he does not tell us when.
Interest costs on the debt continue to grow. Inevitably this
will result in a loss of security for Canadians, robbing them of an
independent future. The minister made sure he could meet his
deficit target by using what most economists consider to be
conservative assumptions.
He is instituting new rolling two-year targets, whatever that
means. That way he can change the target as the interest rate
fluctuates. He padded his budget with enough hidden taxes to
ensure that there would be sufficient tax revenue growth over
the next two decades to allow him room to meet his deficit
targets.
The bill, as I mentioned earlier, will terminate payments made
under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. This is one
of those hidden personal taxes found in the budget. It is a
selective tax on the people of Alberta, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland and Yukon, but particularly Alberta.
It is estimated that the average Albertan could lose $70 per
year in disposable income as a result of this measure. The
village of Warburg, which is in my constituency, estimates that
the cost to the village will be $4,000. One might say that this is a
rather insignificant amount but it is not. It is a 10 per cent
increase. When one factors in the impact of the current belt
tightening by other levels of government, it adds to the
increased costs facing small municipalities in Alberta that are
still the backbone of the rural areas.
Why would the government single out these provinces for tax
increases? How can one province be taxed and not another? Is
this the Liberal version of fairness? Even though Alberta will
bear the brunt of the tax, we can only assume that there was
nothing untoward in the minister's decision. It is hard to
convince residents of Alberta otherwise, especially after they
have heard about the study conducted by the University of
Calgary economist, which was reported by Canadian Press on
Monday.
That study not only confirmed that Quebec was the biggest net
winner from Confederation but it also confirmed that Alberta
was the biggest net financial loser. Between 1961 and 1992,
Quebec received some $168 billion more from the federal
treasury than it contributed in other revenues.
Over the same period, the taxpayers of Alberta paid $139
billion more into the federal treasury than they received, thanks
in part to the national energy policy. It makes you wonder why
we in Alberta want to stay and why they want to go.
We would like to be treated equally but the government seems
to have other ideas. It continues to seek out new ways to tax us.
Even with the new creative method of deficit accounting and
other moneys generated from the budget, the deficit target of 3
per cent of GDP is still far from adequate.
11315
While 3 per cent of GDP would be the lowest deficit in 20
years, it is irrelevant when one considers that the net federal
debt has risen to 73 per cent of GDP. Despite the federal
reductions outlined in the budget, we cannot hide from the
problem of increasing debt.
A year from now the debt will be in excess of $600 billion and
the interest on the debt is expected to go up by about $8 billion to
top the $50 billion mark.
(1655 )
When the Prime Minister boasts about the 3 per cent deficit
target, all he is really saying is that the growth of the debt will be
slowed. The debt may grow at a slower rate than it did in the
past. That is not really anything to boast about when one
considers that the $42 billion spent on interest payments is $4
billion higher than a year ago.
What is the reason for that jump? It is the $2.5 billion for
interest on the new debt that has accumulated. Our past deficit
now requires interest and it is the $1.5 billion for which higher
interest rates are responsible. Program spending will only be
reduced by some $12 billion over the next three years while the
interest charges will grow by $13 billion. We are not gaining. We
are paying more and getting less.
The reality is that Canada has a debt problem, not just a deficit
problem. The government was elected 16 months ago. How long
do we have to wait before it gets on with tackling the problems
of the 20th century? The debt clock is ticking and the Liberals
are still fiddling. Someone should tell them that they do not have
a lot of time left. Canadians know all too well that if a
government does not address these sorts of problems in the first
two years of its mandate, it is not likely to implement any
difficult decisions in the face of an impending election or in the
last half of its mandate.
Canadians are demanding action. They want government and
politicians to be accountable. If the government shunned
traditional Liberal practice and did the right thing for
Canadians, it would find those very Canadians willing to
support it.
The problem is that the Liberals do not have a plan to take
Canadians to their ultimate goal of deficit elimination and tax
reduction. They do not have a plan to solve the labour disputes
over a long term. They do not have a long term plan to reform
social programs. That is particularly obvious when one looks at
the new Canada health and social transfer act. This is the much
touted initiative that rolls established programs financing and
the Canadian assistance plan into a new block funding
arrangement.
The idea may have some merit but it presents more than one
dilemma for the provinces. There are no financial projections,
for one thing, beyond 1997-98. How can provincial finance
ministers make their fiscal projections for the future with any
degree of accuracy if they do not know how much they can
expect from the federal government?
Canadians want to see some light at the end of the tunnel and
they do not want it to be the headlight of an oncoming train.
They want to know that the fiscal sacrifices that they have to
make will not be done in vain.
That is why the Reform Party took the unprecedented action
of presenting a budget that explained how the deficit could be
eliminated in three years. It is too bad for Canadians that they
elected a government that lacks vision. The only solution the
government can come up with is to drop everything on the
provinces. We do not think that is fair. By transferring additional
tax points to the provinces, our plan offers them a dependable,
growing revenue base to fund health and education over the long
run.
As a farmer, I have come up with a way to explain the
difference between the Reform Party and either the block
funding proposal or the existing arrangement. This does not
involve teaching a person to fish or giving him a fish. It involves
a chicken and an egg.
Under the existing arrangement, the federal government
keeps the chicken and gives the provinces a dozen eggs. All the
eggs have strings attached. That means the federal government
can unilaterally make the decision to give less eggs to the
provinces.
The Canada social transfer involves giving the provinces a
carton of eggs with one or two eggs missing and still with strings
attached to the carton. The federal government continues to hold
the chicken and can continue to remove the eggs from the carton
it sends to the provinces.
Neither of those situations sound like perfect situations. The
Reform Party proposes to give the provinces the chicken.
(1700 )
The government budget tells the provinces their transfers will
be cut. We would work with provinces to develop national
standards for health care and education. The Reform taxpayers
budget showed with reasoned determination Canadians can
emerge from the tunnel into the sunlight. The Reform budget
offers Canadians hope for the future. Under our plan there will
be enough money to support those who are unable to help
themselves.
The real threat to social programs is the failure of the Liberal
government to control the deficit and the debt. The government
will do and say anything to prevent Canadians from realizing
this fact.
11316
Reform wants Canadians to know the real facts about the
future. This is 1995 and the Liberals are still trying to come
to grips with the 20th century while Reformers are planning for
the 21st century.
For instance, social security has always been provided only
through the delivery of costly bureaucratic centralized
government programs and agencies. If the government does not
come to grips with this program now social programs will not
survive this century.
Reform's vision for the future of social programs contains
ideas which will generate affordable, cost effective and people
effective programs that will provide greater personal security
and freedom from dependence on government for all Canadians.
At the heart of Reform's new social vision for Canada is the
concept that we can get more social security for dollars spent by
changing the division of responsibility between Canadians and
their governments. The Reform budget proposes to balance the
budget in three years. The Minister of Finance continues to duck
the issue. He knows at the rate he is going he will never bring in a
balanced budget. A balanced budget is not simply an end in
itself, but a means to an end. It is the first step in building a
strong, vibrant economy for future generations.
The Reform budget offers hope for the next generation and a
chance to escape from the burden of debt. If quick and decisive
action is taken sooner rather than later the impact on
employment will be minimal and measures will lead to more
permanent positive employment for Canadians than the red
book plan of slow deficit reduction.
It is inconceivable how the government could ask Canadians,
who have the fastest growing personal tax burden in the
industrialized world, to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction
without first putting its own house in order.
Last month the government announced an agreement had been
reached among Liberal MPs to reform the gold plated MP
pension plan. The only really good aspect about the plan was the
opting out provision and that provision was intended to pit one
Reformer against the other and split our caucus.
I cannot deny that was the strategy but it did not work. It did
not work and this Reformer cannot wait for a chance to opt out of
that plan.
The government made sure that senior Liberals and youthful
cabinet ministers will be protected. At the end of their days here
they will receive cash for life courtesy of the beleaguered
Canadian taxpayer. The taxpayer can only dream of such
financial security. The media charge of a double standard rings
pretty true.
Where is the hope? At the rate we are going none of us will
live long enough for this mortgage burning ceremony.
Canadians are beginning to realize this government is not any
better than its predecessors. If the government had any heart,
any real concern for Canadians, it would deal with this debt now.
In case there is any question, I will not be supporting the bill.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend my colleague for a tremendous speech
addressing the problems.
I would like to ask the member a question since he is the
labour critic. Every time we see our economy picking up and we
see a glimmer of hope that we can increase our revenues,
management and labour seem to have a fight and we disrupt the
economy with strikes or lockouts or whatever. I have a feeling
with our being involved in transportation if we do not settle this
issue very soon our transportation system will not be even able
to deliver eggs to the provinces, never mind the chicken.
(1705 )
How would the member address this, because I think it has to
be addressed?
Mr. Johnston: The Reform Party has introduced in the House
a private member's bill dealing with final offer arbitration. It
has come to the point, particularly about the sort of disputes my
colleague is talking about, at which labour and management
have come to rely on back to work legislation. It has therefore
become an impediment to the collective bargaining process
rather than something that would enhance it.
When the parties are this far apart for 25 months, as we have
seen in this past dispute, it is a very good indication they are
relying on back to work legislation. Labour knows it will not be
out for eight months. It might be out for only eight or ten hours
before Parliament starts to talk about back to work legislation.
Management also has the same assurance.
There is really no incentive for them to get their positions
closer together in real down to earth bargaining. The bill
soundly defeated in the House I would appreciate seeing come
back from the government side. I hope the Minister of Labour
would come up with some similar legislation as as a tool for both
labour and management to get them to sharpen their pencils, get
their positions as close together as possible. At any time one
party or the other could ask an arbitrator to step in and select all
of one position or all of the other position. That would
encourage the two parties to get as close together as they could
in their negotiations on their own.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to participate in
this debate on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions
of the budget tabled on Parliament on February 27, 1995.
11317
In fact, many of the proposals contained in the excellent
budget tabled by the Minister of Finance are reflected in this
bill. We can see how the budget will be implemented as tabled
and approved not only by the vast majority of the hon. members
of this House, but also by a large proportion of Canadians.
[English]
We are dealing with the bill today but we are also dealing with
a motion brought before the House. The bill today is to put in
place the budget which has received widespread support from
the Canadian public. If members want to know how widespread
that support is, I will tell them.
Gallup Canada says the budget is the most popular in all its
years of budget polling. This is a record budget in terms of
popularity. Roughly half of Canadians, 49 per cent, who are
aware of the recent federal budget believe it will strengthen the
economy according to a recent Gallup poll; 38 per cent believe it
will not strengthen the economy. Almost 50 per cent more think
the budget will create more jobs than those who think otherwise.
This is the opinion of Canadians. This is a valid opinion.
Let us listen to what many experts say. I do not mean members
of the Reform Party, I mean real experts. Jason Myers of the
Canadian Manufacturers' Association said: ``I am impressed. I
applaud the Minister of Finance for what he has done''.
(1710)
[Translation]
``This is a good budget'', said Ghislain Dufour, from the Conseil
du patronat. My friend across the way will understand what I
have just read.
Mr. Duhamel: Our two friends across the way will be
delighted to hear that.
Mr. Boudria: All our friends across the way will. I will not
say how many, because that would point out to the presence or
absence of members. That is why I will just say ``all our friends
across the way'', out of respect for the authority of the Chair and
all parliamentarians.
Let me quote another distinguished Canadian: ``This is a real
budget built on real measures'', said Michel Audet, the
president of the Province of Quebec Chamber of Commerce.
[English]
Now let us hear more about what Canadians said about this
budget. Sherry Cooper, economist at Nesbitt Burns, said it is a
terrific budget, there is no smoke and mirrors. I am not quoting
the Reform Party MPs here. I am quoting real, knowledgeable
people. There is a difference.
Lloyd Atkinson of MT Associates: ``This is one of the few
budgets I have seen in a very long time where the promise was
matched by the reality''.
Stephen Van Houten of the Canadian Manufacturers'
Association: ``This is really the first serious attempt at deficit
reduction we have seen in this country in a long, long time''.
Even Reform members could agree with that.
John Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business said the Minister of Finance has the biggest job ever
and he came through. Jeff Gundy, an economist at Wood Gundy,
said the minister has more than met if not exceeded market's
expectation.
When does a budget get this kind or praise? Seldom if ever.
This kind of praise has probably not been heard since the last
time there was a Liberal government. It certainly was not heard
when the Tories were in power.
Let me tell members what the budget does and what we are
striving to do with the bill. We are talking about deficit
reduction. We are talking about reducing our deficit to 3 per cent
of GDP as we promised in the red book and to further reduce it to
1.7 per cent of GDP. We will continue in that line of progress
because we as Liberals are committed to doing things right, and
we will. We are committed to doing things fairly, and we will.
[Translation]
We are also talking about spending cuts in this budget. We
made a promise and, once again, we delivered the goods. We had
promised to reduce the budget through expenditure restraint
and, for every dollar in new tax revenue, there will be seven in
reductions in this budget. Bill C-76 seeks to implement these
reductions and implement this budget the Minister of Finance
has given us.
At the risk of displeasing certain hon. members opposite, I
must say that this budget is very popular with the Canadian
people.
[English]
Notwithstanding the immense popularity of the budget,
Canadians want us to move ahead to cut the costs and save
taxpayers dollars in the way we on this side of the House want to.
[Translation]
An amendment to the bill was just moved. It reads as follows:
``That Bill C-76 not be read the second time now, but rather in
six months time''. According to the hon. member opposite, a
budget enjoying that much popularity should not be read the
second time. It makes no difference to him that Canadians want
this budget passed, the Bloc member does not want it. And
because he does not want this budget, he is saying: ``Never mind
that Canadians want this budget, they will not have it. Too bad''.
11318
(1715)
This shows a lack of respect toward Canadian voters who want
this budget to be implemented immediately, as the hon. member
for the riding of Ontario said it so eloquently.
Canadians want this budget passed by the House.
[English]
Earlier today an official from the Department of Finance was
telling me it would cost millions of dollars a week if we did not
have the bill passed by the end of June. Millions of dollars a
week would not be saved. Millions of dollars a week which we
promised Canadians we would save would not be realized if the
House does not adopt the motion today.
That is what the Bloc Quebecois is asking us to do, not to read
the bill now and to do so six months hence; not to save the
millions of dollars we want to save, not to have the cutbacks in
expenditures we want to make and not to reduce the deficit in the
way we are trying to do. That is what it wants. It does not want us
to succeed. It wants us to fail.
Why does it want us to fail? I do not understand. Why would
any hon. member in the House not want the budget to go ahead? I
cannot understand it at all.
[Translation]
As for Reform Party members, they want the budget to
include more cuts. As you know, they also wanted to eliminate
old age pensions. You cannot trust these people. We, Liberal
members, want a budget which is realistic, fair and equitable. It
was not easy to draft this budget and it will not be easy to
implement it either.
However, Canadians realize that this budget is fair. They are
saying: ``We may have to tighten our belt, but so will everyone
else, including the government, the private sector and others.
Since this is a joint effort for the good of our country, we are
prepared to do it''. So, everyone is prepared to make a sacrifice,
except Bloc Quebecois members, who want to table a motion to
put the Minister of Finance's budget on the back burner.
I say to the members of the Bloc: go to your ridings and ask
your constituents if they oppose the budget tabled by the
Minister of Finance in this House, on February 27. As I said
earlier, the overwhelming majority of Canadians will tell you
that this is a very good budget.
Let me give you a few statistics about the budget. Again, this
is from Gallup Canada. Just listen, you will see how positive the
reaction was to this budget. ``In 1985-during the Mulroney
years-28 per cent of Canadians felt that the budget would get
the economy back on track, while 47 per cent did not think so''.
In other words, Canadians opposed that year's budget in a
proportion of two-to-one.
Let us now go 1989, for example, when the Leader of the
Opposition was a Conservative minister. In 1989, 26 per cent of
Canadians felt that the budget of that year would get the
economy back on track, while 53 per cent did not think so. Did
the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean vote against that budget?
Of course not. He supported it, even though more than half of all
Canadians opposed it.
Today, 49 per cent of Canadians feel that this budget will get
the economy back on track, while 38 per cent do not think so.
There are a lot more Canadians everywhere who think that this
budget is good. It was well-received, even in the riding of the
member opposite. Yet, what does the Bloc Quebecois propose
today? It proposes a motion which, again, reads: ``That Bill
C-76, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be not read a second
time but that it be read a second time this day six months
hence''.
(1720)
It seems that some members of the Bloc Quebecois feel they
should support a budget if the public is against it and condemn
the budget if the public supports it. Does that make sense to you,
Mr. Speaker?
This is Bloc logic. They do everything in reverse. Just Bloc
logic. Well, I think the hon. member should listen to what
Canadians are saying, and I see there are more and more of them
who seem to be interested in what is being said this afternoon.
More and more people are showing an interest, not necessarily
in what I am saying, but in the provisions of Bill C-76. I am
willing to bet that many parliamentarians are here to find out
why the motion presented by the finance critic for the Bloc
Quebecois is wrong, and no doubt they are going to say why hon.
member should vote with the government to obtain speedy
passage of this bill.
Let the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois rise in his seat
immediately to tell me if I am wrong. Mr. Speaker, as you can
see, we have yet to hear from the hon. member, as I speak.
Nothing. Complete silence on the other side of the House-
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We know the
Chief Whip for the government is quick on his feet but I think he
knows perfectly well that we cannot refer in this House to the
absence of another member, even in jest.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Lévis has certainly raised a very important point regarding the
customs and practices of this House, and I am sure that
considering his experience, the Chief Whip is very familiar with
this rule. He may proceed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would never mention the
absence of a member, and I would certainly not belabour the
point. I will now continue my comments, and I would urge hon.
members to listen carefully, because as they probably know, the
11319
vast majority of Canadians support this budget and the passage
of Bill C-76.
[English]
The last thing Canadians want right now is for us to say
collectively that we have a great idea, let us wait six months
before passing the budget. Mr. Speaker, could you sell that in
your riding? I do not think my constituents would be convinced,
after telling them a month ago that we have a budget, if I said
now we have changed our minds and we will not implement it
for six months. That is what the Bloc Québecois wants us to do.
I will wait to see how the Reform Party votes on Bill C-76.
That will be interesting. Will its members vote to delay the cost
cutting measures for six months, thereby further increasing the
deficit? That will be an interesting. We will find out in a few
days.
Assuming the amendment of the Bloc Québecois is defeated,
will Reform members vote against cost cutting, saving
taxpayers dollars and trying to put the economy back on track, as
we have been doing and will continue to do through Bill C-76?
That is the challenge right now. I will bet there are some Reform
members caucusing as we speak, discussing this important
issue. If they are not caucusing because they are all here in the
House, perhaps after we adjourn tonight they will caucus.
Perhaps the leader of the Reform Party and other Reform
members will have a caucus to discuss how they will vote on Bill
C-76.
I can give them advice. The so-called budget they presented
to Canadians would have been a disaster. What they wanted to
do was cancel pensions for virtually all seniors. That is not the
way to go. The numbers which did not add up in their budget are
not the way to go.
Mr. Penson: Where is your plan?
(1725)
Mr. Boudria: Our plan was tabled in the House on February
27. Our bill is right now before the Canadian public, Bill C-76.
We know where the Liberals stand. We know the Liberals
want to reduce the deficit, put the economy back on track,
restore integrity in government, like we said we would do in the
red book and like we are delivering.
We want to know which side the Reform Party is on. How will
it vote on the amendment not to have these cost cutting
measures? Will it vote for the amendment, thereby depriving
Canadians of these cost cutting measures? Will it support the
Bloc Quebecois?
On the other hand, once the amendment is disposed of will it
vote with the Liberals as an effort to join all Canadians or at least
the vast majority in terms of putting in place these budgetary
measures? Will it again vote not to cut the deficit the way we
want to do, presumably meaning it does not want for the deficit
to be cut?
I am proud to be voting for Bill C-76, although not because it
is the sweetest of medicine. Some of the measures are not the
sweetest of medicine. Some of the measures are strong but will
make the patient, the Canadian economy, better in the short run
and in the long run.
If we can do that working together to make the economy
better, we can provide jobs for a large number of Canadians.
That is why we were sent here.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain, as requested by the hon.
member in his speech, why our motion asks for a six-month's
postponement for this bill.
Quebecers and Canadians are starting to realize what this
budget is about and to notice the very real impact of this budget
and the severe cuts it contains. Let me give a few examples. I
was told earlier that the people in my riding and other ridings in
Quebec agreed with these cuts. So what are these people doing?
They call us to ask questions about certain decisions. I intend to
ask the hon. member about that.
First, they decided to cut funding, without prior notice, to all
agencies engaged in international co-operation, across Quebec
and across Canada. No more money will be given to
international co-operation agencies. Why did they do that?
Because they want to keep them from making a connection
between poverty in the South and poverty in the North and from
realizing that they will have to develop some kind of solidarity
between the two, because this government has no truck with
solidarity. All it does is increase the gap between rich and poor,
and that is what the members of an agency in my riding called
CREM are starting to realize, and there are plenty of agencies
like that across Canada.
Another example. They decided to cut all experimental
research on sheep. All ovine research in Canada, some of which
was being done at the Experimental Farm in La Pocatière, for an
industry that is developing rapidly, now that sheep growers are
increasing market share in Canada. It is now 25 per cent. It has
been going up for several years. They say that the funding freeze
will save money in the short term. The result: no more research
and development, which means that people in Quebec and
Alberta who raise sheep will have to go it alone. It is no longer
the government's business. And you call that useful cuts and the
right thing to do? Maybe you should have taxed the banks first.
I have another example, and I would appreciate your
comments. The latest news is the decision to make cuts at
Canada Employment Centres: terminals instead of people. Do
you think that is a wise decision? Would you not agree that a
six-month postponement is a good idea after all?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite ought
to know that his colleague, the same one who a little earlier
today, and I can see him, moved a motion not to proceed with
this bill, said many weeks ago that he wanted to cut what he
called fat in government, a kind of shapeless mass, according to
11320
the hon. member, as if there were this huge mountain of fat we
could cut into.
Government is not like that. I was a public servant for years,
and that is not how things work. When cuts are made, it means
something is taken out. There is no such thing as cuts that are not
felt.
Of course, if we try to save money, we have to cut services.
What we have to do now is do our very best to put the economy
back on track. We have made a good start: 421,000 new jobs
since this government came to power, and this is only the
beginning. Things are going to get better all the time.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I may be allowed a
personal opinion, I wish we could go on.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________