CONTENTS
Monday, April 3, 1995
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11378
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and of amendment 11384
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11384
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11392
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11394
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11401
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11402
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 11402
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11404
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11404
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11404
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11404
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11404
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11405
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11405
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11405
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11405
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11406
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11406
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11407
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11407
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11407
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11408
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11408
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11410
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11410
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11410
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11410
Motion for Concurrence in 71st Report 11412
(Motion agreed to.) 11412
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11413
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11413
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and amendment 11415
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11423
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11431
11375
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 3, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should designate the
period from April 20 to 27 of each year as the week in which we commemorate
the issue of man's inhumanity to his fellow man to remind Canadians that the
use of genocide and violence as an instrument of national policy by any nation
or group at any time is a crime against all mankind which must be condemned
and not forgotten.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to present
my motion to the House. The motion calls for designating the
week of April 20 to 27 to commemorate the issue of man's
inhumanity to his follow man.
I chose April 20 to 27 because April 19 and 20, 1939 was the
beginning of the Holocaust committed by the Nazis against the
Jewish population. April 27 was the end of the apartheid regime
in South Africa which gave the South African population the
right to vote; the one man, one vote concept.
I want to present to the House the definition of crimes against
humanity. The first time this term was used was in the London
Charter of 1945, the structure and basis for prosecution of major
war crimes before the international tribunal at Nurnberg. Crime
against humanity presents a distinct category of international
crimes. Article 6(c) of the charter defines crimes against
humanity as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation
and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian
population before or during the war; or persecution on political,
racial or religious grounds in execution of all in connection with
any crime within the jurisdiction of the tribunal whether or not
in violation of the domestic laws of the country where the crime
was perpetrated.
I have personal experience with violence, genocide,
deportation and the beginning of a new life. On many occasions,
Mr. Speaker, you have spoken on this crime. I invited you down
when I was working for the Armenian community in my home
town of Toronto.
I will tell the House about my experience this year in July
when I went to the Middle East for the first time since 1967
when I left. It was my intention to visit Der-zor where
documentation shows that hundreds of thousands of people were
deported from their ancestral homelands and driven to Der-zor
and left there to die or were killed by the Ottoman Turkish
soldiers at the time.
Even today when one goes there and puts a hand in the sand
one has to go down only six inches to pick up the bones and
remains of human beings. The river running through Der-zor is
a very historical scene to Canadians of Armenian origin and
many other Armenians living throughout the world because in
that river we saw bodies floating in the same way we saw bodies
floating last year in Rwanda. I saw that river, I walked in that
river and I remember the past, 1915.
My personal experience with the holocaust of Armenian
origin was in 1965 when I was only 17. I knew the extent of the
holocaust that my ancestors went through. Since then and before
that many other people went through the same crimes against
humanity.
I regret to say that so far humanity has never brought a single
person to justice. Even with what we saw last year in Rwanda,
today there is not one single person accused of crimes against
humanity. When will we take charge and outlaw this crime and
punish them so they will not be able to repeat the crime and then
enjoy the fruits of their crimes against humanity?
As I mentioned, April 24 was the beginning of the Armenian
genocide committed by the Ottoman empire in 1915. On that day
300,000 intellectuals were rounded up from their houses and
taken into the desert. The leadership of the community was
taken so there would not be resistance to this crime that was to
be carried on for the next eight to twelve months.
As a result of the holocaust 1.5 million people were murdered
and another 500,000 were deported from their homelands. As of
now the crime remains unpunished.
My motion calls for this not to be forgotten, but it never says
not to be forgiven. Forgiveness has to come when those who
committed the crime ask for forgiveness. They also should be
ready to be forgiven because forgiveness is the nature of human
11376
beings. We cannot forget because if we forget we are condemned
to repeat it.
We all know very well what happened to the Jewish
population in World War II beginning in 1939. Adolf Hitler had
many excuses, but as far as I am concerned there is no good
reason to commit violence or genocide in any shape or form.
This cannot be comprehended by an ordinary person. There is no
reason to commit, especially in this case, crimes against
humanity.
(1110)
The world was silent. It stood silent while six million Jews
were slaughtered. Nobody said a word until the war was over.
Why did we have to wait until the number reached six million
before we spoke up? Why did we have to wait until the numbers
reached 1.5 million before we spoke up? Why can we not make
our position known to everybody that this will not be tolerated?
In 1975 in Cambodia in a city of three million, two million
were wiped out. We did not say a single word. The UN did not act
in any way. Is this the way to treat criminals? We cannot tolerate
this forever.
Today in Yugoslavia UNHCR estimates that more than
100,000 Bosnians were massacred and 300,000 were deported.
Again, there is not a single international tribunal to punish those
who commit these crimes so they will not be repeated.
I spoke earlier about Rwanda. We had discussions about
whether to send our troops to Rwanda for peacekeeping. I stated
in response to a member of the opposition that we should have
discussed this issue further.
In two weeks half a million people were killed. Technology
has advanced so much that half a million people can be killed in
two weeks and yet we in this country and other countries sit back
and ask what to do next. I propose we do something about it now.
Let us declare the week of April 20-27 the week of man's
inhumanity to his fellow man so we can educate the younger
generation that crimes against humanity must be punished.
There is no escape when a crime is committed, be it a small or a
large crime.
Even today violence is taking place in the Middle East.
Yesterday a three-year old child was killed for no reason. Who
will stand up and condemn this violence against innocent
people?
In 1939 when Adolf Hitler was giving his orders to SS units to
slaughter the Jewish population, he said: ``Who remembers the
extermination of the Armenian people today?'' That was on
August 9, 1939. Today is April 3, 1995 and I hope and pray the
House will remember the message of Adolf Hitler was wrong in
1939. A continuation of this cannot be tolerated.
Many ministers of the government and members of
Parliament spoke against genocide in the past. I quote three of
them. The hon. member for York West on April 24, 1985 in the
House said: ``Today the Armenian militia commemoration
serves to remind us all in a profound way of the importance of
fulfilling our commitment to human and minority rights''.
The Deputy Prime Minister said: ``It is not simply a question
of a problem over there in a far away country. It is a question of
human rights, not only for the Armenian community but for all
communities''.
For the last 25 years on April 24, I have demonstrated in front
of the Parliament buildings along with many thousands of
people. I and many members of the House have spoken against
genocide. We should continue to do that because it is very
important to remember. We have to ask ourselves what has
happened over the last 25 years of protest, of demonstration and
condemnation. The House was silent.
I call on the House to recognize these crimes against humanity
and to make sure we know Hitler was wrong, that the world
remembers and the House remembers.
(1115 )
Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the Chair and this House, I
would like this motion to be a votable item if possible.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member could bring it up at
the last minute or two and ask that by unanimous consent it be
made a votable item or he could do it now if he wishes. Which is
his preference?
Mr. Assadourian: I will wait because there is going to be an
amendment made to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. member for Don Valley North for tabling this
motion to designate a week to commemorate the victims of
genocide. I also commend the hon. member for Saint-Denis.
The hon. member for Don Valley North is very involved in his
community. In fact, he is the first member of the House of
Commons of Armenian origin and, as such, like all the members
of his community, is very concerned about the issue of genocide
and the suffering of its victims.
Since I am in favour of recognition by the Government of
Canada of the genocide of the Armenian people, I welcome the
opportunity to speak to this motion today. Because I also feel
very close to this community, on February 1st this year, I wrote
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to condemn a decision by the
Armenian president to prohibit temporarily the FRA
Dachnaktsoution Party, in December 1994.
The motion, therefore, proposes that, to ensure that this crime
against humanity is condemned and we remember the genocides
of the past, the Canadian government designate the period
11377
between April 20 to 27 of each year as the week to commemorate
the victims of genocide.
I must point out that the suggested date coincides with the sad
anniversary of the first great genocide of the twentieth century,
that of the Armenian people in April 1915, when more than one
million people were killed. In fact, the purpose of the
amendment I will move later on will be to express what is
implicit in this motion.
I would like to quote what was said by a survivor of this
genocide, Aram P. Aivazian, who wrote an important book
entitled: Armenia usurped by genocide and treachery. This book
describes the horror of this crime against humanity and
subsequent government denials. Mr. Aivazian wrote:
[English]
``As a survivor in Canada, I am left with a daily echo of these
memories, the brutally ignored and shamelessly denied tragedy
of the Armenian holocaust. The rest of humankind have their
own places in the sun, but not my fellow exiled Armenians who
lived under foreign flags, deported by brute force and massacred
with no option to return to their enslaved homeland''.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, these words could apply to all who have been
exiled or deported from their homeland. The steadfast refusal to
recognize the Armenian genocide, this first holocaust of the
twentieth century, is an attitude we must condemn, because
denying that it exists is the ultimate step in the process and
constitutes a form of indirect support. Silence is a form of
consent.
This Liberal government, when it was in the opposition,
supported recognition. Now that it is in power, it should, with
the opposition's support, specifically condemn the Armenian
genocide. However, this government now subordinates human
rights to political and economic interests, which goes against
traditional Canadian values.
I want to remind my colleagues in this House that many
political figures in Canada have come out in favour of
recognizing the Armenian genocide. The hon. Marcel
Prud'homme, now sitting as an independent in the Senate and
former Liberal member for Saint-Denis, intervened twice in
1990 and 1993, to ask the Conservative government to recognize
the Armenian genocide.
In March and April 1980, the Ontario Legislature and the
Quebec National Assembly passed a resolution asking the
Government of Canada to recognize and officially condemn this
genocide and the atrocities committed by the Turkish
government against the Armenian people.
On May 11, 1984, the Hon. Sinclair Stevens rose in the House
to recognize the existence of this genocide and to say that action
was necessary. On May 27 and 28 1984, the hon. members for
Edmonton Southeast and Willowdale, members of the present
government, spoke to this House on the subject of the Armenian
genocide.
I shall, if I may, quote what was said by the hon. member for
Edmonton Southeast:
[English]
``But the Armenian slaughter is an act of history and we
cannot wipe clean for the Armenian descendants by pretending
it never happened''.
(1120)
[Translation]
Finally, in May 1985, in the Quebec National Assembly,
Gérald Godin, who is recently deceased and who was, at the
time, the Minister of Cultural Communities, reiterated his
condemnation of the genocide.
His motion was seconded by Claude Dauphin, the Liberal
member for Marquette and by Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, who is
now a Conservative senator. At the time, she said that, in
international relations, because of economic and other ties
Canada has with Turkey, the federal government was known to
exercise extreme caution before taking any initiative. She added
that the peoples' court, in Paris, had confirmed in a decision on
April 16, 1984 that there had indeed been a genocide.
Until people take more positive action to stop it, there will
continue to be a sort of conspiracy of silence surrounding the
genocide of the Armenian people. It must be brought to light; it
must be given international recognition.
Le Devoir of May 23, 1984 carried long extracts of a lecture
given at McGill University by the former Minister of Justice of
Quebec, Herbert Marx. It said, and I quote: ``After giving the
background to the tragic events of 1915-16, Mr. Marx expressed
his outrage at the fact that the genocide of the Armenian people
was never officially recognized because of interventions by the
Turkish government at the United Nations''.
On April 20, 1994, I rose in this House, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, to call upon this government yet again to recognize
this genocide.
On April 22, 1994, two other members of this House made
statements in this regard, including the hon. member for Don
Valley North, who not only denounced the Armenian genocide
but called on the Government of Canada to recognize it. He said,
and I quote: ``-I call upon the Government of Canada to
recognize and condemn the Armenian genocide and formally
request the Turkish government to assume responsibility for this
atrocity once and for all, as Germany did for the six million Jews
in World War II''.
Considering all these expressions of sympathy and
declarations, how can we not recognize the existence of the
genocide?
11378
On June 18, 1987, the European parliament recognized this
genocide, as did the Russian parliament, more recently, on April
22, 1994.
For this reason, the hon. member's motion is so appropriate
today. We should not forget such a crime against humanity.
Canada should not side with countries which have chosen to
forget and which are relying on time to wipe away the memories
of it.
On April 23, 1994 I and several other MPs attended a
commemorative evening in Montreal, which drew several big
political names. The guest speaker, Mr. Hrayr Balian, the
permanent representative to the UN in Geneva of an NGO which
defends human rights, said that the challenge facing the
international community is prevention. The best prevention is
ensuring that the persons responsible for past and current
genocides be punished for their heinous crimes.
He added that relations between Turkey and the Republic of
Armenia cannot be based on ignorance and denial of the past.
One of justice's basic goals is that the perpetrators of a crime be
held responsible and that the rights of the victims be protected as
much as possible. For there to be justice, the truth must be
revealed, demonstrated and the guilty parties must admit their
guilt.
In this sense, I can only deplore the fact that the motion is not
a votable item, and our party will support the petition made by
the hon. member for Don Valley North that it be votable. We
would also like to reiterate our support for the request that the
Government of Canada specifically recognize the Armenian
genocide.
In closing, setting aside a week to commemorate victims of
genocide is a step towards recognizing the Armenian genocide,
and a real step towards preventing the reoccurrence of this kind
of crime against humanity. To this end, I move, and the member
for Frontenac seconds:
That the motion be amended by adding the phrase ``particularly to mark the
80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide'', after the word ``government''
and before the words ``should designate''.
(1125 )
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the motion of my
esteemed colleague from Don Valley North. The motion is to
recognize April 20 to 27 as a week to remember man's
inhumanity to man and to recognize that genocide and violence
must be condemned and not forgotten.
Since the close of the cold war, people have expected that the
world, liberated from nuclear threat, would be more peaceful. In
fact, we expected a peace dividend that could strengthen our
own economy and which could be used to bridge the huge chasm
that exists between those of this world who have and those who
have not. However, as the years have shown, the reality has been
much different.
With the collapse of the U.S.S.R., ethnic tensions long
suppressed have been unleashed. The rise of the nation states to
fight over dwindling and finite resources, the exploding world
population especially in developing countries and
environmental degradation have all combined to unleash an
orgy of violence and bloodshed which affects millions of people
every year.
More recently, Rwanda has seen half a million people killed
within two months. Burundi has seen 100,000 people killed in
one month. In Angola 1,000 people are killed per day. The
situation in the former Yugoslavia which blew up and killed so
many thousands is yet a tinderbox and can explode at any time.
These are the more obvious examples.
There are many more hidden, dirty little conflicts that
occurred in the world to which the western world was oblivious,
such as the Kurds in northern Iraq. In Sudan for years people
have been killed. There was killing in East Timor and Sierra
Leone. The list goes on and on. It is an embarrassment to the
world community.
If there is one thing the world has demonstrated in the face of
this carnage, it is its impotence to deal with these situations and
in fact, the precursors of these situations, even when the writing
has been on the wall for so many years. The response of the
international community has been a succession of collective
sighs, groans and handwriting. The world does not get involved
and when it does, it is too late for the thousands upon thousands
of civilians who were killed.
It is important to realize that it is not those who have arms
who bear the brunt in these conflicts; it is the innocent men,
women and children who are slaughtered indiscriminately and
are defenceless. Once we do get involved, it is costly both in
terms of our dollars and in terms of our people who we put in
harm's way.
Furthermore, the groundwork for future carnage has been
laid, for in these civil conflicts hatreds will be branded into the
psyches of generations to come. Children are told by their
parents to hate Muslims, to hate Jews, to hate Chechens, to hate
Tutsis, to hate Hindus, Tamils, Croats, and the list goes on. They
in turn tell their children who tell their children and the cycle
repeats itself with deadly efficiency. Memories are long for
these carnages and hatred dies a difficult death.
There were in fact over 120 conflicts in the world. In the
future we can see the pots boiling over in Burundi, Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and even in Kenya. Some only with extreme
restraint have prevented this from occurring, such as in Tibet.
The people there deserve a lot of credit.
11379
If there is not a radical change in the way foreign policy
occurs in this world, there will be an increasing number of these
conflicts. In fact, peaceful nations will exist as a sea among a
river of blood and turmoil.
Why should we get involved? Apart from the obvious
humanitarian aspects, perhaps the easiest way to describe it to
the people of our country and other countries is to preserve our
basic self-interests. What occurs half a world away will wind up
on our doorstep. Borders are porous and people migrate. They
migrate from areas that have not to those that have, from areas in
conflict to those which are peaceful, from areas which are
resource depleted to areas which are rich in resources.
People will come here in droves and our current economic
situation is ill equipped to deal with it. Furthermore, it will
affect our societal and economic situations so that we will not be
able to help our own people and we will not be able to help those
in have-not areas.
We must have a plan. In short, what we must do is prevent the
conflict before it happens. To prevent the problem we must
understand it. I think it is wise for us to distil the problem down
to its simplest form. We must simplify it down to its common
denominator, which is the individual.
All individuals must have their basic needs met. These
include food, shelter, water, medical care. I would also add safe,
effective birth control, education, good governance and a fair
judicial system. When a person has all of these it is very difficult
to incite someone to commit violence against other people.
(1130)
Therefore the world community must recognize the
precursors of conflict and have a system to address them. Set up
a list of transgressions by offending groups such as genocide,
gross transgressions of human rights, the abuse of a country's
economy, overt military spending, subjugating a people and
trampling on their democratic rights. All of these have to be
considered. With this list there should be another list of the
consequences that the international community can mete out to
these individuals.
Despite all that has been said before, the United Nations is
probably the best bet today. Diplomatic initiatives must be put
forward: sanctions where necessary, along with decreasing
non-humanitarian aid or eliminating it to those belligerents,
using the IFI as an economic lever to force belligerents apart so
that they have to solve their problems. Rather than solving them
at the end of an assault rifle, solve them at the diplomatic table.
I would also add a word of caution. We make a fundamental
mistake in diplomacy. We ordinarily assume that those we are
dealing with across the table actually represent the best interests
of the people. That is not always the case. History has borne that
out. Not all people have the best interests of all of their civilians
at heart; rather they often have the best interests of their
specific tribe, and I use that in the broadest sense, at heart. It is
important for us to realize that and to understand it when we go
into these discussions.
The world is looking for a leader to do this. It is looking for a
middle power, one with an impeccable reputation, one with no
history of imperialism or materialism, one with a proven track
record and one that is widely respected. I would submit that that
country is Canada. We can organize the middle powers to set up
a system to influence the world body to prevent these conflicts
from occurring, to set up those systems that I have just described
of transgressions and penalties that need to be elucidated in no
uncertain terms to the international body.
The ultimate power to do this would be the United Nations. I
have a few simple suggestions. Expand the security council to be
the G-24; decisions on votes need a two-thirds majority;
eliminate the power of veto; and, to help with the financial
crisis, if you do not pay you do not vote, if you do not vote you
do not have any power.
These are some suggestions I have that we can put to the
international community to help the United Nations deal with
these problems.
International aid must also be revamped to help people to help
themselves in a sustainable fashion that is culturally sensitive.
We must focus on the basic needs to enable people to provide for
themselves if they are not going to go ahead and try to commit
atrocities on other individuals and provoke the conflicts that
have plagued us throughout our history for so long.
I would also decrease government to government aid and
increase the influence of NGOs. This would be in keeping with
today's restricted budgets and the necessary cuts that must come
from all aspects of government, including ODA.
Having said all this I will close. Every year we commemorate
the Holocaust and World War II and say never again. The reality
is that never again occurs again and again and again. This is a
tragedy from Angola to Burundi, to Cambodia, to Tibet, to the
former Yugoslavia. These tragedies have occurred and
frightened all of us.
Mankind has continually demonstrated efficiency in
committing atrocities against his fellow man with impugnity.
The world has said nothing. We have learned nothing.
I hope as we approach the new millennium that Canada can
take it into its heart to realize that part of its grand destiny is to
take a leadership role on the world stage to link those parts of the
international community and construct a forceful, powerful,
peaceful bulwark against those individuals and groups that wish
to stir up conflict and stir up animosity.
11380
(1135 )
I hope we will support this motion on man's inhumanity to his
fellow man. Also I hope we understand this is not a matter of
choice but a matter of necessity.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a genuine honour for me to address the House today in support
of this important motion. I commend my colleague, Mr.
Assadourian, the member for Don Valley North, on his
initiative.
The twentieth century has seen two world wars and numerous
historic conflicts, but crimes against humanity are still not
relegated to the past, atrocities are still committed daily in too
many countries, where civilians are subject to torture,
enslavement and mass deportation. Every day, we witness the
persecution of minorities because of political beliefs, race or
religion. Although the Geneva Convention condemns such
actions, they continue to take place.
[English]
Motion No. 282, introduced by the hon. member for Don
Valley North, will bring Canada, as a member of the
international community, one step closer to helping to eradicate
from our world these unacceptable acts.
It is essentially a moral question that we ask. Can we continue
to be an active member of the international community and
allow these atrocities to continue? I think not. We must first be
able to internationally acknowledge that atrocities against
humanity are unacceptable, then allow for the legislation to
follow.
[Translation]
As representatives of a country renowned for its support of
human rights, we know that Canadians condemn genocide and
the use of violence as an instrument of power. By not
recognizing such actions for what they are, we support them as
national policy.
It is a sad commentary that the media too often still can look
to the horrors of crimes against humanity for their headlines.
[English]
A brief historical overview of only a few of these acts will
give everyone the proof they need to acknowledge that these acts
are criminal and should be condemned.
The Armenian genocide which took place during the first
world war is perhaps the most vivid example of genocide as an
instrument of national policy by the Ottoman Turks. What
makes the Armenian genocide such a particular example is that
unlike the genocide of the Jewish people which took place
during the second world war, the international community did
not try the war criminals or even formally acknowledge the
massacre took place.
While several countries such as Italy, France and Israel have
passed parliamentary decrees formally recognizing the
Armenian genocide, the international community as a whole has
not taken the steps necessary to condemn these horrible acts of
inhumanity. There are unfortunately many examples of such
atrocities, some well known, others such as the Asia Minor
catastrophe of 1922, not so well known.
By the end of the first world war there were close to two
million Greeks inhabiting the region of Asia Minor on the west
coast of present day Turkey. The Greek population has lived in
this region for over 3,000 years. In 1922, these people, like the
Armenians and other minorities of Turkey, were subjected to the
first ethnic cleansing of the 20th century.
During the summer of the tragic year, 600,000 Greeks of Asia
Minor were exterminated by the forces of Mustapha Kemal, the
father of modern Turkey. Another 1.5 million people were
forced to leave their ancestral homes and then dubbed as
refugees in Greece. These acts were not sporadic or spontaneous
but a cold, calculated policy of the new Turkish state to establish
an ethnically pure population. In this orchestrated act of mass
murder, the Turkish government also burnt and destroyed
thousands of churches, schools, even cities and towns that were
identified with the Ioanian Greeks.
These atrocities were witnessed by foreign diplomats,
correspondents and thousands of individuals from every walk of
life. The international community did nothing to condemn the
atrocities taking place.
(1140 )
Although the United States, Britain, France and Italy had
ships and troops stationed on the coast of Asia Minor, they
refused to intervene. The failure of these countries to condemn
the actions of the Turkish government encouraged other states to
practise genocide as government policy. The Holocaust of the
second world war offers the most graphic example of
inhumanity by a modern state.
In 1974, Turkey once again embarked on a course of action
that led to the invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. Once
again the cycle of violence and destruction was an integral part
of the Turkish policy. Thousands were killed during the invasion
and approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced to
abandon their homes and become refugees in their own country.
I had the occasion to visit Cyprus this past January with some
of my colleagues. We witnessed firsthand what is the reality of
the Cypriots living in Cyprus. Over 1,600 missing persons are
still unaccounted for.
Turkey was condemned by the international community but
except for peacekeeping, no action was taken to force the
Turkish government to withdraw its occupation forces. Instead,
the government in Ankara proceeded to establish a puppet
11381
Cypriot-Turkish state and transplant thousands of Anatolian
Turks to increase artificially the Turkish population of Cyprus.
In northern Cyprus the Ankara government has made every
effort to erase any traces of Cypriot cultural identity. This has
not only destroyed the economy of northern Cyprus, it has
practically eliminated the cultural heritage of the Greek-Cyriot
community, a community that had developed a unique identity
among the people of the Middle East and Asia. What was once a
prosperous region and home to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the
northern part of the island has become an economic and cultural
wasteland.
Unchecked aggression only leads to further acts of barbarism
and genocide. That is why we must all lend our support to
Motion No. 282. In the last four years, we have witnessed the
cataclysm that has befallen the former Yugoslavia. All the
warring factions are guilty of mass killings, ethnic cleansing
and cultural genocide to varying degrees but the cycle of
violence has not stopped. We only need to look at the mass
murders that have taken place in Somalia and Rwanda to
confirm the fact.
I add that as recently as two weeks ago, Turkey was bombing
the Kurdish minorities in the northern part of Turkey. In all of
these examples, the killing, destruction and forcible movement
of populations have been acts of deliberate policy and not
random excesses of rebel or uncontrolled government forces.
By acknowledging these historical examples as crimes
against humanity, we are acknowledging that past and present
crimes are unacceptable. We must do our part as
parliamentarians to encourage the international community to
make greater efforts and prevent future crimes against
humanity.
By passing this motion, we are one step closer. In addition I
ask the hon. members to adopt this motion with the amendment
as a votable motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support Motion M-282 put forward by my colleague, the hon.
member for Don Valley North, to designate the period from
April 20 to 27 of each year as the week in which to
commemorate and pay tribute to the victims of crimes against
humanity and to strongly condemn such crimes, in particular the
use of genocide and violence.
[English]
I congratulate my colleague from Don Valley North for this
motion.
[Translation]
I also support the amendment moved by my Bloc colleague
for Ahuntsic. As you know, I immigrated from Chile in 1974
following the September 11, 1973 coup d'état. More than 30,000
Chilean men and women were killed or reported missing under
General Pinochet's dictatorship. It was a very dark period in
Chile's history. Opponents of the military regime fell victim to a
kind of genocide. Other dictatorships and civil wars in Latin
American countries, including Argentina, El Salvador, Brazil
and Uruguay, caused the death or disappearance of thousands of
people. International organizations and global public opinion
were powerless to stop these gross and flagrant abuses of human
rights.
(1145)
Fortunately, all this is in the past and a wind of democracy is
now blowing across Latin America. However, the people have
demanded that their new democratic governments enact laws
providing for prosecution of those responsible for these terrible
crimes and compensation for the families of victims. In Chile,
for instance, President Patricio Aylwin apologized on behalf of
the government after publicly recognizing that such crimes had
indeed been committed.
It must be pointed out, however, that the efforts made to
uncover the truth and punish those responsible for these actions
have been rather limited so far. There must be no prescription
for crimes against humanity. The UN must take more concrete
initiatives in this area. Conventions have been signed but are not
being enforced. A case in point is the current slaughter in the
former Yugoslavia, which we are all powerless to stop or bring
under control.
In 1985, following the atrocities committed in several
countries of the hemisphere, the Organization of American
States adopted the Inter-American Convention Against Torture.
Today, the OAS is more active in the area of human rights
violations and tries to promote democracy as a means of
preventing such violations in the future. But these efforts need
to be stepped up and Canada, which joined the OAS in 1990, can
do much more in that regard. The international community
cannot and must not tolerate these violations of international
law. We must learn from past mistakes and the inhumanity
displayed by certain countries, governments and military or
police forces.
I rose in this House on numerous occasions to denounce the
genocide in Rwanda in 1993 and 1994. On the eve of the 21st
century, it is unthinkable and intolerable that such situations
continue to occur.
Canada must do its share, following the civil war in Rwanda,
notably by taking in refugees. So far, according to my
information, ICSI has not processed more than a hundred
refugee claims. It is obvious that Canada is not rising to the
occasion with respect to Rwanda.
And unless the international community, and the UN in
particular, mobilizes, the same thing is bound to happen in
Burundi, where thousands have died already and many more are
fleeing, mostly women and children.
11382
We must ensure that the same atrocities that were observed in
Rwanda are not repeated in Burundi.
Both before and after being elected to this place, I have
repeatedly denounced the Armenian genocide of 1915-16, in
which more than one million were killed.
I take this opportunity to, once again, show solidarity with the
Armenian community in Quebec and Canada, a community of
which the hon. member for Don Valley North is a member. I
congratulate him on his excellent work on that issue.
Also, I rise in my place to denounce most vigorously the
crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews in the Second
World War.
(1150)
All present or future generations must remember the
holocaust in which six million Jews were exterminated. In a few
weeks, we will be commemorating the anniversary of the
Holocaust. I will take part in the ceremonies marking that day
and, on behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, we will, once
again, denounce the slaughter of European Jews during the
Second World War.
I also take this opportunity to tell the Jewish community how
much we appreciate their tremendous contribution to Canadian
and Quebec society at every level, whether economic, political,
cultural or social.
I hope that the international community will work relentlessly
to ensure that no horrible crimes of the sort are ever committed
again.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate today. I want to commence my
remarks by complimenting my colleague, the hon. member for
Don Valley North. His ideas and contributions since he became a
member of Parliament, particularly in the area of international
human rights, are truly appreciated.
All of the speakers this morning have talked of the horror of
genocide. We all know that there is common international
condemnation for violations of humanitarian law. Of these
violations, genocide is the gravest of all crimes recognized at
international law. Indeed, in light of the evidence of the acts of
genocide committed by the Nazis in World War II, the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide was signed by Canada on November 2, 1948 and has
been in force since December 2, 1950. Over 100 members of the
United Nations are parties to the convention, which creates a
binding, legal obligation for contracting parties to punish
persons responsible for genocide.
In the convention, genocide is defined as any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such: killing
members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group.
Canada has long been a leader internationally in the defence
of human rights and promotion of humanitarian law. As a
signatory to the genocide convention, Canada has undertaken to
punish persons for genocidal acts committed in time of peace
and in time of war.
Genocide is the worst of crimes. It commonly takes the form
of murders, disappearances, torture, arbitrary imprisonment and
exile, and often it is committed by governments or rebel groups
against its opponents or ethnic and religious minorities. Recent
events in the world have demonstrated that genocidal acts are
still commonplace.
Most recently, compliance with the obligation to punish
persons responsible for genocide has been facilitated by the
creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia, established by the UN Security Council. The
international tribunal, though not established in the context of
the genocide convention, is an international penal tribunal as
contemplated by article VI of the convention. Article IV of the
tribunal statute gives its jurisdiction over the crime of genocide
committed in the former Yugoslavia.
We are strongly committed to the international tribunal and to
ensuring that all those responsible for the atrocities of genocide
are brought to justice. We were one of the first countries to call
for an international war crimes tribunal and a Canadian is one of
the 11 judges elected by the UN last fall. A former member of
the National Defence Judge Advocate General's Office is
working as the international law adviser to the prosecutor's
office, and Canada has contributed over $500,000 to the UN
Commission of Experts and to the tribunal. In order to assist the
tribunal in its investigations, Canada is in the process of
attempting to locate victims and witnesses of war crimes who
have resettled in this country.
The United Nations Security Council is also considering
establishing a tribunal for Rwanda along the lines of the
international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This tribunal
would be responsible for investigating and prosecuting those
persons responsible for the genocide and other atrocities that
occurred in Rwanda earlier this year. Again, we support the
establishment of this tribunal, which, for the reasons of
consistency and administrative convenience, would have links
to the Yugoslav tribunal.
11383
(1155)
In the same spirit, Canada is committed to the creation of a
permanent international criminal court that would have
jurisdiction for the most serious crimes, including genocide.
The report on the draft statute for the court, submitted by the
International Law Commission after receiving comments from
many states, including Canada, is being debated at the United
Nations sixth committee this fall. In its intervention at the
debate, Canada called for the holding of a diplomatic conference
next year to establish a treaty, which would create a permanent
court with a series of preparatory committees leading up to the
conference. Canada intends to fully participate in the
conference and provide support for the court once it is
established.
At the domestic level we have responded to international
obligations by amending domestic laws to give Canadian courts
the jurisdiction to try persons charged with committing
genocidal acts. Genocidal acts can be prosecuted in Canada
using the provisions of the Criminal Code. The definition of war
crimes and crimes against humanity in the code make
punishable in Canada many of the acts defined as constituting
genocide in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide. Whether the genocidal acts could be
prosecuted as war crimes or crimes against humanity depends on
the circumstances of each case.
The Criminal Code can apply to acts committed in the past as
long as at the time and place of commission they were
considered as international crimes. The criminal courts of
Canada have jurisdiction if the accused is found in Canada and
where international law would recognize universal jurisdiction
by any state over the offence.
The Department of Justice crimes against humanity and war
crimes section has the mandate with the RCMP to investigate
and prosecute cases of genocide committed and prosecutable in
such circumstances.
Therefore, Canada will not be a haven for the architects of
genocide and will use all the legal remedies available to it to
ensure that those who come to Canada are brought to justice. Not
only does the Criminal Code provide for the prosecution of
genocidal acts, but it also creates an indictable offence of
advocating or promoting genocide, genocide being defined as
killing members of any identifiable group or deliberately
inflicting on it conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction with intent to destroy in whole or in part
that group.
I strongly believe that people of the world should be permitted
to live in peace and security, free to speak their language,
practise their customs and associate with one another. Those
responsible for enormous crimes against groups deserve to be
prosecuted and, if convicted, punished to the full extent of the
law. In Canada, I am proud to say that we have both the legal
framework and the moral and political conviction to do so.
My colleague for Don Valley North wants to designate a week
for commemorating genocide. I believe genocide is so horrible
that the memory of past genocides will always be with us. We
should always be aware of genocides currently being committed
and we should always be on the lookout for acts that could lead
to more of this horrible crime. The commemoration of past
genocides must not distract us from new ones.
For this reason, while I share the member's indignation at the
most horrible crime against humankind, I must say that I would
be concerned if we were to designate a particular period of time
for commemorating genocide. Genocide should be a
preoccupation in our daily lives. No particular week should be
needed to remind us about the human tragedy of genocide.
In conclusion, I am proud that Canada does have the legal
means necessary to deal with this crime both internationally and
domestically. While I support the spirit of the hon. member's
motion, I must in this case be against it.
The Deputy Speaker: There are still approximately three
minutes left in the debate. Does anyone else wish to rise to speak
on the matter?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Don Valley North
will close the debate.
Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes
to thank those who supported my motion. I really feel that this
motion was an important one for Canadians and for the people
who suffered from crimes against humanity.
However, I especially want to express my sincere
appreciation to members of the governing Liberal Party who
supported it, the members of the opposition and also members of
the Reform Party. He who runs away may live to fight another
day.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall we call it twelve noon?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
11384
11384
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from March 31, 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. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
I want to say that I agree with my two colleagues, the hon.
member for Ahuntsic and the hon. member for Bourassa.
Indeed, we all know Armenians who directly or indirectly
experienced the hardship suffered by that nation.
Let us now turn our attention to Bill C-76, which was
carefully reviewed by our critic, the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who knows a great deal about public
finances, particularly at the federal level. Bill C-76 seeks to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled by the
Minister of Finance. I want to discuss the impact of that budget
on the agricultural industry, which is one of the most seriously
affected.
The proposed cuts are far from having an equal impact on the
various regions of the country. The Liberal government has
abdicated its responsibility toward the agricultural sector. It is
abandoning one of the most dynamic industries in Canada and in
Quebec. The agri-food sector accounts for close to 10 per cent
of our GDP, 15 per cent of the total employment, and almost 25
per cent of the surplus of goods. Between 1987-88 and 1994-95,
the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food's estimates was
reduced by a whopping 33 per cent, and that includes the
subsidies provided under the WGTA. We are talking about a 33
per cent reduction in financial resources; this is one third of the
total budget over a five-year period.
If you look a little farther down the road, it is estimated that,
by 1997-98, the agriculture and agri-food budget will have
diminished by 58 per cent. This is ridiculous. This morning, I
was looking at a publication called Farm and Country, which is
sent to Ontario farmers. The cartoon on the front page showed a
beautiful Holstein cow with a farmer sitting on his little stool
and trying to milk the cow. But nothing was coming out.
If this government continues to slash in that sector, this could
well be the fate of Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry.
(1205)
As a percentage of total government spending, amounts
allocated for agriculture have dropped dramatically. In
1987-88, the total budget for agricultural and agri-food, as a
percentage of the budget for all government envelopes, was 3.5
per cent under the Conservative government. In 1994-95, the
fiscal year that ended yesterday, it was 1.6 per cent. In 1997-98,
it is expected to be only 1.2 per cent.
This government seems to have cut itself off completely from
the agricultural sector. We have said so before and we will say it
again: it is outrageous to treat the agricultural industry this way.
If we look at the kind of cuts that will be made, it is clear the
government does not have its priorities straight. Furthermore, it
is not prepared to deal with the problems and consider the long
term impact. Bill C-76 repeals the Western Grain
Transportation Act, the WGTA. The legislation will be replaced
by a series of measures that will continue to regulate grain
transportation, despite elimination of the Crow Rate.
Included in this budget is compensation for western producers
who are affected by this cut. The government intends to offer
$1.6 billion to owners of farm land, to partially offset the drop in
land values that will result.
Interestingly, even if a producer did not grow wheat during
the past year, he will be entitled to compensation. I see the hon.
member for Brome-Missisquoi across the way. I am anxious to
see whether he will react to this injustice, in a country where we
now have two classes of farmers: those who are compensated to
the tune of $1.6 billion, not taxable, while dairy producers in his
own riding will suffer cuts averaging $4,485 and get absolutely
nothing.
Yesterday, he was in Cowansville, the riding of
Brome-Missisquoi, to sing the praises of his government's
policies. I assume he did not say a word about the unfair
treatment of our Quebec farmers as opposed to western farmers.
Mr. Marchand: For shame.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Yes, for shame, Mr. Speaker.
During his election campaign, he said he would speak out,
loud and clear, for Quebec and for the riding of
Brome-Missisquoi. However, he has kept a very low profile,
not bothering to speak out even once to defend the interests of
the farmers in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, a riding that
has so many outstanding farms.
As I said before, not a penny of tax will be collected on those
$1.6 billion. And in addition to the $1.6 billion, there is another
$300 million, but the government does not even know how it
will spend it. Nevertheless, an additional $300 million has been
provided, to be included in the budget over the next five years.
(1210)
Every time we see an example of inequity or injustice, we
intend to rise in this House and vigorously condemn the
government. And I urge my colleagues from Quebec to avoid a
recurrence of what happened last week, when Quebec's
entitlement to its fair share of seats in Parliament was attacked
and to rise in the House and say no, we will not go below 25 per
cent. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi rose in the
House and
11385
was applauded by his anglophone colleagues when he joined in
the attack on his own Quebec.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate today. As I commence my
remarks, may I add a special word of congratulations to one of
our newest colleagues, the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi. We are particularly delighted to have him
here in the House of Commons to speak so clearly for the people
of his riding and for les gens du Québec.
The Liberal government has introduced a budget that reflects
what Canadians want. We are aware of the current economic
realities and we have made choices. They were tough choices.
However, the choices not only get government right, they get the
economy right.
We stated our promises in the red book and we have acted on
them. The economy is growing. New full time jobs are being
created and we continue to move forward without compromising
our integrity or our history. We simply will not tear apart the
social fabric that keeps us together. That being said, it does not
mean that the social fabric does not have to fit a bit tighter and a
bit smaller than it used to.
Canadians have said they want less government, fewer
personal taxes and more fiscal responsibility. This is a
check-list. It is a list that we not only read but implemented in
our budget.
The budget takes fundamental action across government
programs and operations. It implements a comprehensive
examination of departmental spending. Our focus will be on
what is essential. What government does best it will continue to
do. What government does not do best it will see that there is a
way in which the private sector can take over. We will continue
to utilize our resources in the most effective and efficient
manner.
We are not living in the surplus 1960s. For some of us who had
our political beliefs and, to some degree, our characters formed
in those surplus 1960s, it has been a difficult adjustment, but it is
one we have made. We must operate our programs with
accountability and with conscience. We simply cannot afford to
have overlap and redundancy within government programs.
However, spending cuts will be made with compassion. They
will be made protecting the most vulnerable. Fairness will be the
hallmark and it will ensure that all regions of Canada, all
Canadians, everyone who lives in this, the greatest country on
earth, will share the burden.
Canadians said they were over-burdened by taxes and could
not afford another increase. The Liberal government listened.
There has been no increase in personal income tax. We can
understand the financial burden that Canadians are facing
because each one of us in this House faces it as well, and we
refuse to increase their load.
The budget incorporates some tough choices, but it does not
forgo compassion, nor does it lack vision. The Canadian vision
will continue to glow with strength, opportunity and prosperity.
Over the past year and a half we have seen the creation of
433,000 full time jobs. We have seen a decrease in the
unemployment rate of 1.7 per cent. We have observed the
strongest growth rate in six years, at 4.5 per cent.
(1215 )
This is only the beginning. It can be seen that the Liberal
government has listened to Canadians. We have implemented a
budget which reflects the economic realities of our time and also
offers hope for a prosperous future. I will mention just some of
the things this budget has done.
It has cut business subsidies by 60 per cent. It promised a
smaller public service with 45,000 fewer positions. That is
something of great concern in my own riding of Halifax which is
the third largest public service town in Canada.
There have been major reforms of programs such as
agriculture and transport. Programs have been merged,
consolidated and commercialized. There is increased cost
recovery. Again, this is an area about which I am very
concerned, that is, in the department of immigration with the
new right of landing fee of $975 per adult immigrant.
There is the new Canada social transfer to the provinces in
1996-97. Unemployment insurance reform will be in place by
July 1, 1996. There is a course charted for public pension system
reform to make it fairer and more sustainable in the long term.
Tax fairness as I mentioned before will be improved. There
will be tighter rules for tax deferrals, foreign and family trusts
and R and D incentives. New measures to ensure the collection
of taxes owed is a measure the hon. Minister of National
Revenue has already spoken about quite eloquently.
RRSP contribution limits will be reduced. Retiring allowance
rollovers are phased out. Overcontribution allowances are cut.
There will be higher taxes for corporations and large banks.
There will be dramatic cuts in departmental budgets. Some will
be halved in a three year period.
11386
There are $7 in expenditure reductions for every $1 in new tax
revenues. There will be a three year savings of $29 billion, $25.3
billion of these from these expenditure cuts.
It is quite clear the government has followed its promises both
in the red book and in the speech from the throne. It is quite clear
the Minister of Finance listened, as did his cabinet colleagues.
They listened to Canadians and they acted upon the
consultations.
It is quite clear the Prime Minister and the Government of
Canada stand together in supporting a smaller and more efficient
government but also a government that will remain fair, true to
its roots and true to its history.
I am delighted that I can stand and say without reservation
that I think the majority of Canadians support Bill C-73, an act
to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning
April 1, 1995. They know their government is working for
Canadians and will continue to do so.
These times are not easy. They are not easy for civil servants.
They are not easy for workers across this country. They are not
easy even perhaps for members of Parliament. But Canada is a
country with a huge and tremendous and glowing future
provided that we have good stewardship. It is my belief that this
government, this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance and
this cabinet provide this kind of stewardship.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I
will deal with three aspects of the 1995 Liberal budget and Bill
C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.
First, I will outline the cuts in agriculture spending and make
some general comments on the cuts. Second, I will ask some
questions on behalf of Canadian farmers about what will follow
the WGTA. These questions and many others have been asked
over the months since this budget was tabled in the House.
Third, I will discuss how the shortcomings in the overall budget
might affect farmers and the agri-food industry.
First, how do the cuts in agriculture spending compare to the
cuts in other sectors of federal government spending? How do
the cuts on payments to farmers compare to cuts in operating
costs of the department itself?
(1220 )
Farmers have obviously been asked to shoulder an unfair
portion of the spending cuts in this budget. I am not saying the
cuts should have been the same percentage in all areas of
government spending, but by any measure, agriculture was hit
disproportionately hard. Had cuts been made in other sectors in
a fair way, this would have produced a balanced budget and all
the positives that go along with a balanced budget. To illustrate
this point, I will give a brief summary of the cuts in agriculture
spending.
In the agriculture department overall spending was cut by
about 20 per cent. Total funds available for 1994-95 are $2.1
billion. There was a $445 million cut in spending in this budget
to the agriculture department. These cuts came in safety net
funding, subsidies to dairy farmers, research, and user pay fees
for inspections and those types of things. As well, there were
some cuts in the department itself.
There are also cuts in agriculture from the transport
department. The Crow rate, $560 million a year, was the largest
single cut to farmers and is effective July 31, 1995. The Atlantic
Feed Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act
will be eliminated by July 31, 1995. The cost for this subsidy
was $99 million a year.
To summarize, the total cuts in agriculture spending from the
transport department are approximately $660 million a year by
the end of the third year. Total cuts to agriculture spending from
the agriculture department itself are $445 million per year. Total
cuts to agriculture spending in this year's budget are
approximately $1.1 billion. By any measure, this is
disproportionately weighted toward agriculture.
When the cuts in agriculture spending from transport and the
agriculture department are combined, the reduced spending to
farmers is 40 per cent in this budget. There is almost 50 per cent
in cuts in payments when payments to the railways and direct
payments to farmers are included.
How do the cuts to farmers outlined in this budget compare to
the cuts in the operations of the agriculture department? The
cuts in the agriculture department were 20 per cent compared to
almost 50 per cent in cuts in the direct payments to farmers and
the railways on the farmers' behalf. There is no balance when
comparing those cuts.
I am not saying these cuts should not have been made. Rather,
there should have been more balance across all sectors of
government spending when compared to spending on the
operations of the department itself. Later I will talk about the
negative effects of the government not going far enough in this
budget.
Farmers also needed a transition time to adjust to these cuts.
For example, Reform proposed a trade distortion adjustment
program nearly five years ago. This would have provided a
gradual phase out of the WGTA benefit, putting the payment
immediately to farmers so they could provide for the loss in the
WGTA payment as was needed. It would have also provided for
a fund to compensate farmers against unfair trade practices in
other countries.
This transition time was desperately needed by farmers so
farmers would have time to make the necessary changes in order
to recoup the losses suffered as a result of this budget. Not only
is there no transition time, but there are not enough substantial
changes to allow farmers and agribusiness to become more
efficient.
11387
Some changes were made but they did not go far enough. For
example, in branch line abandonment, the reductions that will
be allowed are limited and uncertain. In car allocation, the
method used will be based on historic allocation. That does not
provide well for the changes which are needed to make this
system more efficient. The Canadian Wheat Board will still be a
government controlled body instead of a farmer controlled body
which is what it should be and what farmers want it to be.
(1225)
Payouts will be made to farmers under this budget. First, in
regard to the WGTA there will be a $1.6 billion compensation
package. The stated intent is to compensate farmers for a loss in
land value which will result from the loss of this $560 million a
year subsidy. When we examine this it allows for about a one
and a half to a two year transition time for grain farmers. It is too
short a transition time. There would also be a $300 million
transition fund but we do not know where it will be spent and
how it will be used. There is too much uncertainty.
In feed freight assistance the payment is eliminated entirely
but there will be a $326 million transportation adjustment
program. Again, it will be paid out over five years. The detail
beyond that does not exist. The uncertainty is unacceptable.
Governments have talked a lot about trying to help stabilize
the agriculture industry. It seems to me that they have caused a
lot of uncertainty and instability. That is certainly the case with
this budget. More questions have been left unanswered than
have been answered.
I want to ask some of the questions which have been asked of
me by western Canadian farmers over the past month. They
concern the loss of the Crow benefit payment and how the
payment will be made. Other questions concern the
compensation and transition packages.
The stated purpose of the $1.6 billion WGTA payout is to
compensate farmers for a loss in land value resulting from a loss
of this benefit. If this is the intent, then why would the payment
not be made on all farmland? If grain land loses its value, then
would not other land lose its value as well?
Why did the minister call on owners and lenders to pass the
payment on to renters and lessees? This seems inconsistent with
the government's stated intent which was to compensate for the
reduced land value. If the real intent on the other hand is to
provide transition funding to grain farmers, then why is this not
acknowledged and why is the payment not structured
accordingly?
There is a second area of questions I will ask on behalf of
farmers. Does the minister have any advice for renters or those
leasing land and who are part way through a lease or rental
agreement right now? These farmers will be caught paying up to
$35 an acre more in freight costs for crops they will be seeding
over the next two months. Because of crop rotations and
herbicide planning, it will be difficult to make the appropriate
adjustments in crop seeding to help reduce the added costs by
changing to higher value, lower volume crops or indeed moving
more into livestock and growing feed or providing pasture for
livestock.
Does the minister feel it is reasonable to make a policy change
which will have the magnitude of impact with virtually no
transition time and no transition funding? That is the case for
lessees and land renters. I am sure there are thousands of farmers
renting land, and many in the minister's own riding I would
suggest, who are looking for advice on how to deal with this
unanticipated extra cost. I doubt very much they will be looking
to the minister for this advice.
The third area of questions farmers have asked over the past
month since the budget and indeed before it also has to do with
the WGTA and the loss of that benefit. I have several questions
to ask on behalf of western grain farmers regarding how the
payment will be calculated and when the payment or payments
will be made.
The budget implementation bill does state that payment will
be based on 1994 acres seeded to grains and an adjustment will
reflect historic productivity. This leaves many questions
unanswered.
(1230)
For example, how will historic productivity be determined? If
the payment is based on 1994 grain acres, those who have been
moving acres from forage to grain land in a rotation may be
completely missed in terms of a payout. People who read the
market signals and who made the appropriate moves could be
completely missed by this payment through no fault of their
own. The last question is when will farmers receive their
payment or payments?
Another area is what measures will be taken to allow the
system to become more efficient and to give farmers more
flexibility in marketing. I have seen very little evidence this
exists.
The Liberal government by not going far enough in the budget
will make life for Canadian farmers very difficult. Cuts in
agriculture are not matched in any way by cuts in other areas of
federal spending. As well, changes which would allow farmers
to make up for some of the losses in payments from government,
or which would allow farmers to cut costs, are inadequate.
Changes that would allow farmers more direct access to markets
are non-existent.
11388
The inadequacies in the budget will make the next few years
very difficult for farmers. However, there is another overriding
factor which if not dealt with quickly will make the future most
difficult for farmers, other business people and all Canadians.
This overriding factor is the continual increase in interest
payments on the debt. Interest payments on the debt have
increased from $39 billion a year, when the government took
office, to $51 billion with the finance minister's own figures, an
unacceptable increase in levels.
What this will mean to farmers is more cutbacks next year and
beyond, higher than necessary interest rates, little hope of
reducing input costs to help compensate for increased freight
costs, losses in government payments and more uncertainty
regarding the future of social programs. Farmers will face these
extra costs and difficulties because the budget does not set a
definite date for eliminating the deficit.
I have provided a summary of the cuts in agriculture. I have
asked some of the yet unanswered questions regarding the
WGTA payout. I have outlined the major, overriding factor,
interest payments on the debt, which threatens farmers in so
many ways.
Farmers need some answers in order to provide certainty in
their lives. I am asking the government to give some answers
which will allow certainty to replace the instability and
uncertainty farmers will feel and have felt as a result of the
budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
budget was tough, but fair.
[English]
Most commentators have indicated that is what the last budget
was all about, tough but fair. That is quite a feat when one looks
at the country, the extent of the various groups represented.
Provinces and the territories believe it has been fair to them
overall. The regions are reacting positively in the sense that no
region seems to have suffered more than others. Men and women
are feeling as if neither one of the two groups has been
disadvantaged over the other. There is some sensitivity to those
who are both younger and older. There is as well a response in
terms of reductions to Canadians at various levels of
remuneration.
I am proud that the Liberal Party has never claimed
perfection. It wanted a good budget, if possible a very good
budget. That is exactly what was accomplished.
(1235)
To be fair, opposition parties have done what they do best,
criticize the budget. That is their role and I respect that role as I
believe we all do. However, it would have been quite novel if
they had not only criticized but made specific suggestions as to
how it could have been improved. There is one exception, which
I will speak to in some detail, where the Reform Party put
forward a budget. I will share with my colleagues and with
Canadians what kind of response it was.
One of the unfortunate realities about budgets and reductions
is one cannot reduce or change without affecting people,
unfortunately sometimes negatively. We have in the budget
attempted to minimize the discomfort, the hurt and the negative
impact. I will give a couple of examples with respect to the civil
service. There are going to be massive reductions as a result of
an analysis of those things the government feels it ought to
continue to do to remove the duplication. There will be
programs eliminated, some reduced, and some jobs will be lost.
However, if one looks at the early retirement incentive, the
early departure incentive, and the other initiatives undertaken
by government to attempt to cushion the departures of those
particular civil servants, one gets a good sense of how concerned
we are to be fair and responsible.
In spite of any number of programs, it is quite clear it does not
remove the hurt or the disappointment. That is unfortunate but it
is reality. To think one can come forward with a budget that
somehow would undertake some significant changes and yet not
have any impact whatsoever less than positive would be
dreaming in technicolour.
In a recent poll 73 per cent of Reform Party supporters
thought the Liberal budget was a move in the right direction.
This is really astonishing.
[Translation]
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that 73 per cent of supporters
of the Reform Party, which had wanted to go much, much farther
than the government, nevertheless felt that the budget was a
move in the right direction?
[English]
The budget is a result in large part of an analysis of the
programs government was involved in and decisions made to
either remove those programs or reduce them substantially
because we recognize there was significant duplication.
[Translation]
My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois make frequent reference
to overlap and duplication. This budget represents an
extraordinary effort to eliminate much of it.
[English]
Hundreds of appointments have been reduced as a result of
this. We have talked about the reduction to the civil service
which is important and extremely difficult. There have been
many other reductions and cuts.
11389
Rather than applaud the budget-as a member of the
government I would be expected to be supportive-I want to
share some of the things said by third parties, people who are not
part of the government.
Jayson Myers of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association
said he was impressed and applauds the minister for what he has
done. Ghislain Dufour, Conseil du patronat, said it is a good
budget. Peter Wolford, Retail Council of Canada, said it is a
good budget on several fronts. Sherry Cooper, economist with
Burns Fry, said it is a terrific budget, there is no smoke and
mirrors.
Stephen Von Houten, Canadian Manufacturers' Association,
said it is really the first serious attempt at deficit reduction we
have seen in this country in a long time. ``He has more than met,
if not exceeded, the market's expectations'', said another
observer, a person not part of the government.
[Translation]
I could go on quoting. I will, however, add only two or three
more so that the people listening will get an idea of the breadth
of the budget's acceptance.
(1240)
For example, ``Serious action was necessary and, remarkably,
the government took it. After years of tinkering, making minor
adjustments, and across-the-board cuts, the federal government
finally had the political courage to tackle the problem in a direct
way'', Peter Boswell, columnist and political science professor
at Memorial University.
``In attacking the deficit by reducing spending, one must take
care to take aim only at waste and not at productive government
expenditures. Well-targeted cuts, like those in the budget, will
not put a brake on growth'', editorial comment, La Presse.
I conclude with this quote: ``While the opposition parties
twist and turn in the wind, Mr. Chrétien quietly and effectively
stays the course-the most popular prime minister in many a
year, at a time when public mistrust of politicians is epidemic''.
So many people have expressed their support for the budget.
So many people have said that, for the first time, the budget was
heading in the right direction. As I said earlier, this is not a
perfect budget. There is no perfection in this world. This is,
however, a budget that is moving in the right direction and one
that has been accepted by the vast majority of Canadians in the
provinces, the territories and the regions.
[English]
This is the first time since there have been these kinds of
statistics that there are more people in favour of the budget, who
see it as a positive measure, than there are against. That is quite
an accomplishment.
Subsequent to the budget the Liberals increased their
popularity with Canadians to 60 per cent from 55 per cent, while
all other political parties decreased in popularity, with the
exception of one which increased by 1 per cent.
The Reform Party put out a budget. If one looks at media
quotations on that budget, they show quite a contrast. I will not
have time to read them all, which disappoints me because some
of them are very good.
Shane McCune of the Vancouver Province wrote on February
22, 1995: ``A 57-page document from the Grumpy and Dopey
school of finance-comic in its stupidity and tragic in its
meanness''. ``The proposals are very simplistic and little more
than playing with arithmetic,'' said John Bulloch, president of
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He criticized
Reform's detailed plans, particularly its proposal to cut $3.4
billion from UI.
Professor John Loxley said: ``The Reform Party's economic
analysis is horrendous and completely ignores basic principles
of budgeting''. An editorial in the Vancouver Province reads:
``It's also vague on details and big on assumptions where it suits
Reform. Unfortunately that's the whole problem with the
document. It suits Reform, but how about Canada?''
``It would be nice if we could cite just one way in which
Reform is helping the country or itself by producing such an
incomplete and controversial alternate budget at this time. Alas,
we draw blanks'', wrote Stewart MacLeod of the Guardian. An
editorial in the Vancouver Sun reads: ``Reform's vision
represents return to the law of the jungle where it's everyone for
himself or herself and the devil take the hindmost''.
The Montreal Gazette: ``In his zeal to drive a stake through
the deficit's heart, leader Preston Manning just may take the
country with it. He's taking the easy way out, the lion's share of
the cuts as aimed at those who can't fight back''. A further quote
reads: ``Empowerment seems to be a word for whatever a
Reform government wants to impose on a group of citizens.
Seniors, for example, are to be empowered by reducing
pensions''.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by further stressing that,
while the budget is clearly not perfect, it is moving in the right
direction.
[English]
We are already starting to build next year's budget and I invite
all of my colleagues to pitch in and make it an even better
budget.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
budget is really heading in the right direction as my colleague
11390
across the way claims, ordinary people have every reason to be
very worried, because in reality this budget is two-faced. And
when I use this expression, I mean it in the usual sense.
This budget says two different things, depending on the
people or groups involved: Quebecers or the rest of Canada.
(1245)
The government said that the budget promotes flexibility and
would satisfy Quebec's desire for decentralization.
However, in some cases, why were the people who had
believed the promises of flexibility and decentralization so
surprised by Bill C-76, which was supposed to make it possible
to implement the promises made in the budget? I will read to you
clause 48, which amends what is referred to in my version, the
first version of the bill, as the Canada Health and Social
Transfer. I will allow myself to dwell on this Canada transfer for
a long time.
So, clause 48 says the following:
13. (1) Subject to this Part, a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be
provided to a province for a fiscal year for the purposes of (a) establishing interim
arrangements to finance social programs in a manner that will increase provincial
flexibility;
This pertains mostly to Quebec.
(b) maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act-
At this point, the five conditions contained in the Canada
Health Act are listed. But, surprisingly, they added extra-billing
and user charges, which are mentioned almost as principles.
Then, they add the following, which is the most important and
the most surprising to those who were naive enough to believe
the ministers who promised that this was going to be a flexible
budget:
-maintaining national standards, where appropriate, in the operation of
other social programs.
This sentence can be taken in no other way than as an
announcement of the federal government's intention not to give
greater flexibility or more room to manoeuvre to the provinces
regarding the organization of their social programs. The only
way to read this sentence is that the federal government intends
to become more involved in the development of national
standards.
Therefore, on the one hand, they talk about flexibility, but, on
the other, we see the truth. The truth is that this is the beginning
of a push to centralize more. But, of course, a subclause does
stipulate that the Minister of Human Resources Development
must meet with his provincial counterparts to seek and secure
mutual consent. Nowhere does this subclause state that mutual
consent will become par for the course, and what is more, there
is nothing guaranteeing, on the contrary, that if no agreement is
reached-and the agreement is contingent on the central
government in the first place-the government will not impose
its own vision for social programs.
This is very serious because, contrary to what the party
opposite would have us believe, the budget is not balanced. It
contains some less-than-straightforward cuts. Where it hits
hard, where they say it will hit hard is among ordinary people. It
does this in two ways, by the savings that the federal
government will make until 1997-98.
(1250)
As for the cuts to the central government's cash payments to
the provinces, which are calculated according to formulas I will
not get into but which are supposed to take each province's
respective wealth into consideration, they should save the
central government $12.3 billion over three years.
Although lower figures of $2.5 billion and $4.5 billion have
been quoted, all transfers should be taken into account. These
transfers would have taken place but the cuts, the provinces'
shortfall and the central government's savings are all new. The
new policy calls for slashing social programs like health care,
education and social assistance in order to save $12.3 billion
over three years by asking the provinces to decide where to cut.
The central government claims that it is flexible. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Nothing better illustrates the
meaning of the expression ``two-faced''. In fact, the central
government imposes standards for social assistance. It is
removing a number of them but still leaving some. It is
toughening health standards and reserves the right to impose
additional standards, while forcing savage cuts on the provinces
and the most disadvantaged, who are more likely to need these
services.
This is a two-faced budget because it does not seem to tackle
anything this year whereas next year and especially the year
after, there will be, there will have to be drastic cuts to health
care, education and social assistance. In two of these three areas,
the government is reserving the right to cut transfers if it feels
that the provinces are not abiding by national standards. Far
from improving access, far from decentralizing, the government
is centralizing powers.
What is worse is that, on the one hand, the government is
forcing the provinces to cut while, on the other hand, it is using
unemployment insurance as a cash cow in order to cushion itself
against the next recession, while the provinces will have to bear
the brunt of welfare cost increases that will continue to occur as
they did during the recent recessions. The government is
cushioning itself by transferring more and more costs to the
provinces, thus bleeding them dry and putting itself in a position
to make them a generous offer to intervene directly in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. It is already making such announce-
11391
ments with respect to the long-term unemployed and child
poverty.
Who can be against helping the long-term unemployed and
poor children? You understand what is happening. Yes, it is a
reform of federalism, which had been supporting provincial
programs since 1960. They are reducing funds to the provinces,
starving them. Instead, with the cushion provided by UI
premiums, they will offer the services directly from Ottawa.
The Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Prime Minister had both promised us that reforms would be
carried out. Reforms are indeed under way but they are
unconstitutional, they are grave and they will become even
radical in the years to come.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-76, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled on February 27, 1995,
and specifically the Bloc amendment thereto.
The 1995 budget was one of the most important in the history
of Canada. It was a budget of fundamental reform and national
renewal.
(1255)
On October 18, 1994 the Minister of Finance addressed the
finance committee and indeed all Canadians. I would like to
quote the finance minister. At that meeting he stated: ``We came
into government to help build a better Canada, a Canada of jobs
and growth. That is our only goal and it is because of that that we
must act decisively on the debt challenge today. We must not
waste this recovery.''
That commitment continues to be met by this budget and it is
reflected in the confidence level of the financial markets, of the
business community, and indeed of the Canadian people.
The budget incorporated numerous provisions for all sectors.
The deficit targets have been met using prudent economic
assumptions. The total savings from the budget actions of $29
billion over three years are the largest set of actions since the
demobilization of the second world war. The deficit was planned
to be cut to 3 per cent of GDP or about $24.3 billion in the
1996-97 year. If the private sector economic forecasts are right,
the deficit will likely be lower.
New borrowing from financial markets is down to $13.7
billion in the 1996-97 year or 1.7 per cent of GDP, less than
projected for the national government of any other G-7 country.
Debt to GDP begins to decline in 1996-97 as the debt grows
more slowly than the economy.
The deficit reduction was largely due to expenditure cuts. The
budget delivers $25.3 billion of cumulative spending cuts over
three years, with $16.9 billion from the top to bottom program
review. Almost $7 in expenditure reductions were made for
every $1 of new tax revenue over the next three years. As all
Canadians know, there is no increase in personal income taxes.
Program spending will decline from $120 billion in 1993-94
to $107.9 billion in 1996-97. This is the lowest program
spending in relation to the size of the economy since 1951.
There has also been a dramatic reduction in departmental
budgets. Several have been halved over the three years. As all
Canadians know, 45,000 public service positions were cut as
part of the budget.
In addition, there were structural changes to ensure that we
have continued savings. There is a fundamental change in the
structure of program spending, which will keep the deficit on a
downward track. Major cuts in business subsidies were made.
They are down by 60 per cent from $3.8 billion in 1994-95 to
$1.5 billion in the 1997-98 year. Many programs have been
consolidated, merged or commercialized.
The new Canada social transfer to the provinces in 1996-97
has been created to provide more flexible, sustainable block
funding. Unemployment insurance reform is intended to be in
place by July 1, 1996. A course has been charted for the reform
of our public pension system to make it fairer and more
sustainable in the long term.
The burden of the restraint must be shared equitably among
all Canadians. Impact of budget actions have been equitably
distributed across Canada. For instance, the transfers to the
provinces declined 4.4 per cent from 1994-95 to the 1996-97
year compared with a 7.3 per cent cut in other federal programs.
It demonstrates that the provinces have been asked to contribute
far less than the federal government.
The increased cost recovery in other fees, such as the $975
immigration fee per adult immigrant, also recognizes that social
programs must seek to provide self-funding to the greatest
extent possible. There have also been new measures to ensure
the collection of taxes owed. Tax fairness has been improved
with tighter rules for tax deferrals on foreign and family trusts,
R and D incentives, and RRSPs. There are also higher taxes for
corporations and large banks and, as we know, a small excise tax
increase of 1.5 cents per litre to help reduce the deficit.
One of the specific provisions within the budget that is of
particular interest to me is the provision that deals with the tax
deferral of unincorporated businesses and self-employed
businesses. Businesses that are self-employed or
unincorporated have the opportunity under the tax act to choose
a year end that suits their needs. It does not necessarily have to
coincide with the calendar year. That was brought in initially to
provide businesses with the opportunity to have the cash flow
they would need in those start-up periods so they could continue
to establish the business.
11392
(1300)
The tax deferral of those deferred months is a permanent
deferral. Take for example a business that has a year end of
January 31. It means that the income from the past 12 months
ending January 31, 1995 would not be reported until his or her
personal income tax return was filed in 1996, which would not
be until April of that year at the latest. Theoretically businesses
would have a permanent deferral of up to 11 months. The budget
changed the law so that after 1994 all businesses will have to
declare income on a calendar year basis.
We understand the treatment involves a catch up of the
deferral of reporting that income. To provide the transition
period available, the budget proposes that the recouping of those
taxes will take place over 10 years, 5 per cent in year one, 10 per
cent in years two to nine and the balance of 15 per cent in the
10th year.
In addition, the government has extended the filing date for
the tax returns of these taxpayers until June 15, although the
taxes otherwise owing have to still be paid by April 30.
Most parliamentarians have made very clear their views on
the budget. The most important aspect of the budget reaction is
how Canadians feel about it. I would like to very briefly read
some of the figures from the latest Angus Reid poll on the
budget. First, more than two-thirds or 69 per cent of Canadians
surveyed said they believed that the federal government is on
the right track with the overall approach they have taken in the
budget.
A majority of respondents from all major socio-demographic
segments of the population endorse the overall direction of the
budget. A clear majority of Canadians in every region support it.
A majority of Canadians, some 57 per cent, say that the
budget is better than most federal budgets in the past decade or
so. Fifty-six per cent of Canadians also say that they are more
confident in the federal government's ability to manage the
economy as a result of the budget.
I could go on but I think it is clear to say at this point that
Canadians are happy with the work we have done. The biggest
debate that has been going on has to do with the size of the debt.
There is no question the government is committed to
eliminating the deficit and to start paying down our debt. At
$550 billion, it represents a substantial expenditure to service
that debt.
Canadians, I know, are aware that the government is
committed not only to hitting a target of 3 per cent of GDP for
the deficit by the end of the third year but to getting it as low as
possible as quickly as possible, but in a fair and compassionate
manner.
The renewal of Canada's fiscal health must include
compassion. That is a very important issue. Canadians must be
consulted on the kind of Canada we want. Those who rely
continually on government must be weaned off their
dependency for social handouts.
The government can no longer afford to subsidize the payrolls
of businesses through UI. The system must be restructured to a
bona fide system of insurance. Also the government can no
longer afford to sustain the same level of social spending.
Seventy-five per cent of the people on welfare are employable.
We must pursue every opportunity to promote job creation and
training for Canadians so they can have meaningful
employment.
The Canadian people spoke up very clearly on how they felt
about increased taxes and the minister responded in the budget.
The job of restoring the fiscal and social well-being of Canada
has begun. We have work to do on behalf of all Canadians. It
must be done in a fair and compassionate manner.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-76 and the budget.
A saying that comes to mind is that great parties must be ready
not only to take advantage of opportunities but to make them. In
the case of the Liberal government, we have in dealing with the
budget a party that is taking advantage of an opportunity where
it can. The advantage it is taking is that for so long, taxpayers
have been crying out for governments to balance their books.
They knew full well that had to be done. This is not some kind of
brilliant idea the Liberals have to balance the budget or to cut
costs. It is actually something that has been forced on them.
(1305)
How did they take advantage of the opportunities that have
been presented to them? How did they make opportunity? For
instance, I did not see some form of taxpayer protection act, as
the Reform Party put forward. I did not see an indication in the
budget for legislation that would guarantee balanced budgets.
Those are what one makes out of a budget exercise. Those are
the opportunities one makes. All they did was react to some
extent to public opinion. That is unfortunate because they did
not act far enough.
Some of the comments made here today were: ``We did what
is best. We reflect what Canadians want. We clearly have the
majority of support from Canadians''. I often wonder where
those general sweeping statements come from because in my
riding that is just not the case. By and large, the people I talk
to-I try to talk to as many as I can-are basically saying the
Liberals wimped out in the end.
They went for 3 per cent of gross domestic product. In three
years they will overspend by approximately $25 billion a year.
Over the life of this Parliament they will accumulate debt in the
11393
amount of one hundred thousand million dollars or better. I
hardly think that is anything about which to be standing up in the
House claiming to have come up with some wonderful ideas.
Nowhere have I heard of the impact on the young people that
are depending on us to balance the books. We keep getting this
rhetoric: ``Look what we have done. Look how tough we have
been''. That is not the case.
I work very closely with what we call an advisory group in my
community. The 11 people in that group are geographically
selected. I sit with them on Saturdays once a month. They
provide input from their selective geographic area as well from
people they deal with on a business basis. We went through the
budget. Not surprisingly, it came out quite similar to many
things being said about some things that should be cut.
I want to give the House an idea of what the people in the
advisory group had been talking about. They said there should
be selective cuts to old age security. Some of these people are
seniors themselves. They suggested there should be selective
cuts to unemployment insurance, no cuts to veterans'
allowances and pensions. There should be selective cuts to
universities and colleges, major cuts to CAP-the transfers for
welfare payments-major cuts to health and reductions in
transfers to have-not provinces.
This is not a group of Reformers but people trying to balance
the budget as best they can. Recognizing that the social system
has to stay in place, what better way than by balancing the
budget first? After all, the larger the debt gets, the more interest
payments we have to make and the less operating funds we have
to pay toward programs. That makes so much common sense.
Every time we make a speech we should not have to repeat and
repeat it. The government knows what it has to do. What it is
trying to do is put enough rhetoric forward with the hope the
Canadian people are going to buy what it is saying. Just wait
until Moody's has a really good look at what is going on and our
bond rating starts going downward. It will be asking about the
taxpayers' budget the Reform Party put forward. It is only a
matter of time.
(1310 )
When I talked to the advisory group in my community its
members gave me some suggestions to bring to the House. I
want to express them today. These are some of the comments
from these folks. ``It hurts less to cut with a sharp knife than a
dull one''. These comments are unsolicited. They are telling the
government to get it over with. Balance the budget and get on
with the economic and social life that we have planned for our
young people and our seniors. We cannot keep going ahead with
this umbrella of debt sitting over us in deficits and unbalanced
budgets.
They also suggest that we should run government like a
business and not a charity. Can anyone imagine talking to the
Liberal government about running government like a business
and not a charity? That is a strange kind of terminology in 1995,
for the Liberals that is.
It was suggested that we run Canada like a household. They
have to live within their means. They just cannot go to the bank
and borrow and borrow past the ability to pay out of the incomes
that are brought into that household. They do not understand
how the government can say: ``We are doing such a good job
because in three years we are only going to overspend by $25
billion''. They do not understand that.
To stand here today and say the budget reflects what
Canadians want is hogwash. Because the government was
elected as a majority government, Liberals should not
misunderstand the fact that Canadians wanted to throw out the
Conservatives, not necessarily elect the Liberals. Everything
the government does here should not be construed by
government members as being politically and morally right on
behalf of the majority of Canadians. If the government makes
that assumption, it will be joining the other party from Jurassic
Park.
Canadians have been making more comments. ``Continued
deficits do not resolve the problem. There is $150 million going
to countries heavily in debt. What is Canada?'' They do not
understand why that is being done. If we seriously look at all the
cuts and reductions in expenditures, how come that is still there?
They do not understand that if a budget is so tough and strong,
why was an increase given to the department of Indian affairs?
Why is there such a pot of dollars that nobody is sure where the
money is going? All they are asking for is a little accountability.
Rather than accounting for the money in that department's
budget, more is added to it. One only has to look at the Auditor
General's report to see that there is something desperately
wrong in that department.
I remember the first several months we sat in the House the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said: ``We
are going to do away with the department''. What happens in
1995? Money is added to it. Someone can stand in the House and
say: ``We are only reflecting what Canadians want''. Go across
the country and ask Canadians if they want more money put into
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
You will get an answer.
Some other comments were made by these folks: ``Let people
look after themselves and not government''. We only have to
look as far as the regional development programs to see what
they are talking about. It does not take much to see what is
wrong with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It has
been giving grants, both by Liberals and Conservatives, to
virtually everybody to buy votes.
11394
We convinced the minister in charge of ACOA to drop the
granting process within ACOA. What does he do? He said: ``We
are going to give loans and ask that they be paid back''. Last year
alone the government wrote off $50 million in loans. What is the
difference between $50 million on loans that are written off and
a grant?
(1315 )
Ms. Meredith: It looks better in the books.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Yes. My
colleague says it looks better in the books, and that is exactly
what it is. That is a snow job just like a whole bunch of other
things in this budget. However, it is going to come back to haunt
you.
I have one minute, Mr. Speaker? It is funny how time flies
when you are having fun.
Let me give some other suggestions. They say we have to look
after our young people, keep them in mind, because there will be
no assets left for them. They talk about 3 per cent of GDP. It is
like shooting at the outside rings of a dart board. These are
comments from average, everyday, law-abiding, good Canadian
citizens. Yet we have the audacity to stand in this House and say
this is what the majority of Canadians want.
Finally, there are two other comments they made. Lobby
groups do not want cuts. Some social programs are the right of
the privileged. We should look at that. Another comment is that
potential is being squashed in the country.
If we cannot listen to each other in the House and we are going
to listen to all this rhetoric, maybe all members should end up
with an advisory group and take their advice. It seems a heck of a
lot more sound than what I have been listening to here.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to be able to take part in the debate on
my government's budget. I will start, perhaps, by giving an
overview and talking about the budget's objectives and
highlights.
This budget does what is necessary to bring the deficit under
control. These are the strongest fiscal measures adopted by the
federal government in 50 years. This budget guarantees that we
will bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the gross national
product by 1996-1997. It enables us to meet our deficit
reduction objective, without increasing personal income taxes.
For the second year in a row, the government has refused to
lower the deficit on the backs of taxpayers.
The program review introduced in this budget redefines the
role of government, with the result that the departments will
concentrate their efforts on the priorities of Canadians.
[English]
After the broadest prebudget consultation process in this
country, both the financial markets and Canadians alike have
told us that they want first and foremost for us to cut the deficit
and to put our financial house in order.
As the finance minister said himself: ``Come hell or high
water, we will meet our 3 per cent of deficit reduction by
1996-97''. However, there are ways to do that. We could have
used the Gingrich-Manning approach, the slash and burn
approach, and cut everything by 15 per cent to 20 per cent.
However, this is the wrong way. We have to do it in a fair
manner, taking care of the poor, the handicapped and the senior
citizens in our society. I do not think it is appropriate to cut 20
per cent of something that is good and keep 100 per cent of
something that is bad.
The new philosophy of this party is that if the government
does not have to do it, we will not do it; we will give it to private
enterprise.
Most Canadians approve of this budget. There are very few
people who complain about this budget. Of course, there are
those who want to destroy this country; they will not approve
something as good as this budget.
Unfortunately, the premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, along with
his strategists, had to go back to the drawing board. He was
counting on us to bring in a bad budget. He was counting on this
to start his provincial campaign. I have news for Mr. Rae. He can
call an election and campaign against the federal budget. He will
meet Brian Mulroney and his party, because in Ontario we can
take a lesson. I think the Ontario NDP government can take a
lesson from what we have done here at the federal level in terms
of deficit control.
(1320 )
This budget is necessary medicine for difficult economic
times. It is the strongest fiscal action by any federal government
in 50 years. It will result in a total savings of $29 billion over
three years; $25.3 billion will be saved by expenditure cuts. The
Minister of Finance is sending a strong message to international
markets that Canada is serious about deficit reduction. Cuts to
government departments account for half of the fiscal saving in
this budget. Departmental spending will be cut by $3.9 billion in
1995-96, $5.9 billion in 1996-97, and $7.2 billion in 1997-98.
For every dollar in increased revenue there will be $7 in
expenditure reductions. That is what Canadians told us they
wanted and that is what we did.
[Translation]
I would also like to speak about the impact of the budget in my
northern Ontario riding.
[English]
There can be no mistake that this budget was tough on
northern Ontario, as there were no incentives for natural
resources and about 80 per cent of the economy of northern
Ontario depends on natural resources. We knew this was to be a
11395
tough budget, but we in northern Ontario were prepared to
accept that. We know that we have to share the burden of taxes
and deficit reduction.
Let us look, for instance, at the natural resources department.
It suffered one of the largest cuts of all departments, close to 50
per cent. The new role of the department will be to focus on the
sustainable development of natural resources, the revitalization
of the natural resources sector, national and international
leadership, knowledge of the land mass and natural resources,
and health, safety and resource related environmental concerns.
It will maintain a presence in areas of federal responsibility such
as international trade and science and technology.
Due to the current financial situation, the government did not
renew both the mineral development agreements, the so-called
MDAs, and the forestry development agreements, the FRDAs,
which were cancelled by the last Tory budget in 1993. We said in
the red book that we would review those programs and we did.
We would have liked to have kept those programs for northern
Ontario and other parts of rural Canada, but we had to cancel
them because of the fiscal reality in the country.
However, the government responded in other ways. It
responded by taking action in eliminating unnecessary
regulatory barriers to mineral development. This was a key
priority identified by the mining industry.
The finance minister also told northern Ontario Liberal MPs
that after the budget was presented he would be willing to look at
alternative measures and incentives for the mining industry.
There is a campaign called ``Keep Mining in Canada''. It is a
broad based organization of industries from across the country.
That organization gave the budget an A-plus on the deficit
reduction side. However, it would have liked to have seen tax
based incentives for the mining industry. I have been pushing for
that for the last year. I am a little disappointed they were not in
the budget; however, I understand that the main thrust of the
budget was deficit reduction. I also understand that the finance
minister could not on the one hand, cut one sector, like
agriculture, and on the other hand, give more incentives to
another sector.
On the agricultural side, there are quite a few dairy producers
in my riding. Only a few years ago Canadian farmers were
caught in an international trade war that drove down crop prices
and farmers' incomes. With many disputes settled, agricultural
producers now receive more than a third of their income from
the market. Our government will introduce a national whole
farm stabilization program, along with crop insurance, instead
of basing programs on individual agricultural commodities.
In 1997-98 $600 million a year from the federal government,
in addition to $400 million a year from the provinces, will go
into this program. This is after a reduction of 30 per cent, with a
total savings of $250 million.
(1325)
The greatest impact on farmers in Timiskaming-French
River is the reduction of the dairy subsidy, which is 30 per cent
over a two-year period. It is believed that this reduction may be
made up in part by the cost of producing a pricing formula that
ensures a fair payment to producers.
The elimination of the western grain transportation subsidies
will save the government about $5 million annually. This will
open the western economy to diversification and innovation and
meet GATT requirements.
Since I only have two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I will address the
regional development programs. There was a reduction of over
$560 million by Industry Canada to ACOA, FORD-Q and
western diversification. That is a reduction of about 49 per cent
across the board. Fortunately for northern Ontario we have a
program called FEDNOR. We were getting approximately a 1
per cent share per capita compared to other programs in Canada.
True, with strong lobbying by northern Ontario MPs this
program was not reduced but increased by $18 million. For that I
have to thank the finance minister, who finally recognized that
northern Ontario was not getting its fair share of regional
development moneys.
It demonstrates that the Minister of Industry has listened to
the concerns of the northern Ontario caucus and has recognized
that northern Ontario was not getting its fair share of regional
development funding and has acted decisively to correct this
inequity.
Increases to FEDNOR will total $63.7 million over the next
three years. The breakdown in funding is as follows: in 1995-96,
$6.2 million to $23.3 million; for 1996-97 it will be up to $20.4
million; and in 1997-98 it will be up to $20 million again.
In closing I approve of my government's initiative to make
this regional development money available on a repayable loan
basis. I can say that the business people who are going to profit
from these programs in my riding are also in agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in this debate on the budget before us on
behalf of my party. There are many ways of looking at a budget.
One can theorize and get into a macroeconomic analysis of the
budget.
Personally, since the closure of the military college in
Saint-Jean was announced in last year's budget, I tend to look
for direct impacts on my riding. First, I look at the budget as a
whole and what impact it will have on Quebec, and then I look at
its
11396
real and potential impact on my riding. Today, my remarks will
focus on agricultural considerations affecting my riding.
While Saint-Jean is a semi-rural riding situated very close to
Montreal, it has many farms and dairy farms in particular. From
what I can see, these farmers will be hard hit by this budget
which has been before us for some time now. I will try to show
you how it will affect the farmers in my riding.
Overall, the budget for agriculture will be reduced from $2.1
billion to $1.7 billion, a 19 per cent cut, and 18 per cent of this
cut is in personnel, which means the salaries often already
allocated to researchers, because there are several agricultural
research stations, including one in Saint-Jean, that I will talk
about later. If we look at the budget as a whole, I think it is
important to know just what percentage is involved. Overall,
there is a 19 per cent cut to the Department of Agriculture, 18
per cent in personnel.
Now, let us look at the impact of this budget on Quebec. In this
area as in every federal area of activity, Quebec foots about 24
per cent of the bill, while farming in Quebec accounts for about
17 per cent of all farming in Canada, but we get back only 13 per
cent.
So, for the sake of equity, it would have been great to say: if
there are cuts to be made in agriculture this year, perhaps we
should make an effort to spare Quebec. Perhaps some cuts could
be made in Quebec but not as much as everywhere else. The
actual percentage was higher than the 19 per cent figure
mentioned earlier.
(1330)
I will tell you about the cuts affecting the Saint-Jean research
station, and you will see that these are significantly higher than
the 19 per cent figure for the rest of Canada. I mentioned the
percentages for Quebec as a whole.
The budget also proposes to close the L'Assomption research
station, which specializes in ornamental plants. It may be that
the private sector can take over this activity. That research
station was financed out of the budget of the Saint-Jean station.
Indeed, although the two facilities were in different ridings,
their budgets were centralized.
Quebec will also lose the La Pocatière centre. The
consequences of that closure were explained by the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I will get back to
this particular case later on. A number of documents which I
have here list the various research stations, and the reasons for
closing them. In the case of the La Pocatière station, the reasons
mentioned are highly questionable.
Let us now take a look at the impact of these measures in my
riding. The budget for the Saint-Jean centre is reduced by 32 per
cent, going from $5.6 million down to $3.8 million. As I
mentioned earlier, the overall cut is 19 per cent. So, after the
military college, the residents of Saint-Jean are once again
paying more than their share, this time in the agricultural sector.
The closures in L'Assomption in Saint-Jean will result in the
loss of 17 and 10 jobs respectively. If you exclude L'Assomption
and only take Saint-Jean into consideration, you end up with a
21 per cent cut. Once again, Saint-Jean residents are paying for
the cuts affecting the agricultural sector.
I seriously wonder about the meaning of this flexible
federalism which we hear about these days. Based on what we
have seen so far, this flexible federalism means that Quebec
must always do more than the rest of Canada. I showed that to be
the case with an example relating to agriculture. I also showed it
on numerous occasions last year with the military college. This
year, however, it is in the agricultural sector that this budget will
really have a negative impact in my riding.
I also have a document prepared by the Research Branch. This
is not the first such document which I come across. Last year, I
saw one from the National Defence Department. These
documents are simply a series of questions and answers
distributed to senior public servants in the various departments.
Research Branch officials received this particular one, which
merely repeats the answers to various questions. I think it is
important to touch on some of these issues.
We are told about the impact of the budget on federal
agri-food research in Quebec. This is what transpires: ``As far
as the food research and development centre at Saint-Hyacinthe
and the dairy and pork research centre in Lennoxville are
concerned, the impact will be minimal. The work being done in
these centres reflects the main priorities of the food industry-
There will be cut backs in the grain research program at the
centre for soil and crop research and development in
Sainte-Foy''. No further details.
The next item is research on small fruits which was being
done in Saint-Jean, a major production centre for strawberries
and raspberries. The paper simply says that research activities at
Saint-Jean will be terminated and transferred to the research
centre in Kemptville, Nova Scotia.
Imagine, under-funding is already a problem in Quebec and
Saint-Jean. Now they cut this program to transfer it to Nova
Scotia. The same paper provides a list of centres of excellence
where research is to be concentrated, apparently to be closer to
production centres and the industry. This makes no sense at all. I
condemn the fact that ten experts on small fruits research are
removed at Saint-Jean, in order to transfer the centre to Nova
Scotia. I cannot accept that.
11397
(1335)
Next question. Why did the government close down two
facilities in Quebec? The answer? There will still be a federal
research laboratory that will work on every aspect of the food
industry. Saint-Hyacinthe and Lennoxville are mentioned
again. So the policy seems to be that when we condemn these
cutbacks, they are supposed to answer: We are still maintaining
facilities at Lennoxville and Saint-Hyacinthe. Yes they are, but
part of the operation at Saint-Jean has been removed and
operations have been eliminated altogether at l'Assomption and
La Pocatière.
Why are they closing La Pocatière? There will be a significant
impact on ovine research in Canada and ovine, for the benefit of
our viewers, means sheep. However, we are told that the sheep
growing industry is relatively small. Just when they are starting
to develop some expertise at La Pocatière, the government says
they are going to stop because this sector is not significant. Once
again, a market niche that should be expanding because in
Quebec, we have the right kind of pasture for sheep, has once
again been sacrificed at our expense.
Taking the experimental farm at l'Assomption as an example,
they say that as a general rule, since this is research on
ornamental plants, the private sector will take over. They always
say to Quebec that, yes, we will be making cuts, but the private
sector will pick up the slack and the only changes, if any, that
need to be made regarding research centres and centres of
excellence, will be to move them closer to areas of production.
I have a list of all the centres of excellence in Canada and only
4 out of 19 are located in Quebec. Once again, we are not getting
a share proportionate to our population and to our contribution
of 24 per cent of the federal government's agriculture budget.
Voters in Saint-Jean are very disappointed. My colleague
talked about the 15 per cent cut a year for the next two years in
dairy farm, dairy production subsidies. In this case again,
Saint-Jean has huge dairy farms. These people are already
dealing with a war that is brewing between us and the
Americans; the Americans want NAFTA to prevail and we want
the GATT to prevail. We are already on the road to a war and the
only help the government is offering is to cut subsidies, while it
will compensate western producers for decreases in land values,
by means of loan guarantees and additional compensation of
$300 million during the transitional period.
I call that out and out injustice. Through this budget, the
electorate in Saint-Jean will lose 10 experts who were building
up a renowned expertise and to whom all farmers in my riding
constantly referred for their input. Now they are saying to the
strawberry and raspberry producers of Saint-Jean that they will
have to call Nova Scotia for advice, and I very much doubt that
production anywhere in that province surpasses that in my
riding. Lastly, Quebec's dairy producers are left out. Once
again, this budget, on the agricultural front alone, hits Quebec
and the electorate of Saint-Jean, and it is my duty to denounce it
in this House.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to join in the debate on
the budget.
In response to some of the comments about the group of
Liberals here today, they are different from some Liberals from
the past. It is the nature of the times. They have come with a
different perspective and it has shown up directly in the budget.
The overriding goal of the government since it came to power
has been jobs and growth. We believe good economics and good
social policies are one and the same thing. The most
fundamental way good social policy begins is with a job. We
must respond to the challenges of our times. We must adapt to
the new economy and the new infrastructure based on ideas and
innovation. The very nature of government must change. We
must develop a new notion of responsibility. The time has long
past when governments can or should do everything.
Several major things have happened. The world economy has
become truly integrated. We must think globally. Trade barriers
have been brought down. Communications are instant and
transportation is swift. Markets never sleep. There are no longer
any islands. Like it or not, there is no place to hide.
(1340)
Since 1984 our debt has risen by three times. Compound
interest is gobbling us up and the government now has a two
track approach to sustained and sustainable economic growth.
Growing economies produce jobs; economies that are not
producing do not produce jobs.
The key to growth is productivity, which is how well ideas,
workers, resources and investments are brought together in the
country's economy. It is about ingenuity, better management
and paying attention to the common sense of our workers.
How do we get high productivity growth increases, the only
way we can increase real incomes? We must first improve our
skills. We must have better innovation. We must provide a
welcoming climate for investment, and let no one forget it. We
must remove any disincentives we have created for people and
business. Those were disincentives created by government. We
must get our fiscal house in order.
The budget's plan introduces far reaching action to restore
fiscal health which is essential for a strong, growing economy.
The budget will fundamentally reform what government does
and how it will do it. It will bring permanent change in the way
government does business. The object is to get government right
so it can fill its social and economic mandates and be more
effective and sustainable. This will include deep cuts in the
11398
federal program spending, not simply lower spending growth
but substantial reduction in actual dollars.
That is fundamentally the philosophy of the majority of the
governing side of the House. In a party of the Liberal Party's
size there will be some who want to go further right and some
who want to go further left. However, they do realize the
government cannot be in every aspect of society.
I will comment on two or three things, overview of budget
details and the program review undertaken, the underpinning for
all of the cuts and directions of the government.
The budget is about getting government right so it can do a
better job of helping to get the economy right by sustaining
growth and confidence in creating new jobs while preserving
our ability to help those in need. To meet this goal the budget
delivers our commitment to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of the
economy in two years. Some say that is not enough. Believe me,
unless there is a target one can see on a daily basis, one will not
hit the target.
Despite the impact of higher than expected interest rates, if
economic performance is stronger than our prudent forecast, the
deficit could fall at a steeper rate than was forecast. Our fiscal
actions will total $29 billion in reductions over the next three
years, more than any budget since the post war demobilization.
In two years, program spending will be $10.4 billion less than
today. It is a cumulative cut and will go on forever.
Just as important, the budget also changes the very nature of
how government operates. This will ensure spending will be
restrained beyond our two-year target period. The deficit will
continue to fall, reflecting our commitment to eliminating it
completely.
To achieve these results the budget takes fundamental action
across government programs and operations. It implements the
results of the program review, which I will speak to in a few
moments, a comprehensive examination of departmental
spending. We will focus on what is essential and do it better. The
budget of some of the departments will be cut by one-half.
The budget also acts on a new vision of the federal
government's role in the economy, one that includes substantial
reduction in business subsidies. These will drop by $3.8 billion
this year to $1.5 billion in the year 1997-98. The budget reforms
major transfers to provinces, modernizing the
federal-provincial fiscal regime, making it more effective,
flexible and affordable.
(1345)
These wide-ranging reforms mean a smaller public service.
Some 45,000 positions will be eliminated, but we will manage
this difficult process as fairly as possible, including the use of
early departure and early retirement incentives.
This is also fair to the taxpayer. That is why the budget does
not increase personal income tax. However, there are measures
to improve tax system fairness. We eliminated the deferral taxes
on investment income earned by private holding companies and
we eliminated the ability of people to earn business or
professional income by the ability to pick their own fiscal year
end, an option that helps defer taxes, albeit only for the one year.
We are also eliminating all tax advantages of family trusts.
We are temporarily reducing our upper limit on the RRSP
contributions to $13,500 so benefits do not flow to people who
earn more than two and a half times the average wage.
It is clearly a budget that places absolute priority on the
expenditure reduction. It delivers nearly $7 in spending cuts to
$1 in new tax revenue.
Let me speak of the program review. The budget agenda is not
a plan for smaller government; it is a plan for smarter
government and for the reform of the very structure of
government and how it spends. The budget reflects the results of
the program review we launched a year ago, and the actions
taken to date secure structural reform irrevocably and deliver
significant savings beyond the two fiscal years for which we
have set firm deficit targets.
Achieving this goal demands wide-ranging bottom line
action, and that is what the budget delivers. The size of
government will be reduced substantially over the next three
years. Departmental spending will be reduced by 19 per cent
from the 1994-95 levels. For some departments, spending will
be halved.
I mentioned that in my previous statement, but I cannot
overestimate the realness of these kinds of cuts. In total, these
actions will deliver a three-year saving of almost $17 billion.
Let me be clear. These are real cuts in absolute dollars. They are
not measures that try to pretend that a drop in the rate of
spending growth is somewhat of a spending reduction.
Government programs are being redesigned by this review to
make them more efficient and cost effective. Regional
development agencies, for example, will play newer roles and
will focus on small and medium sized business, and assistance
will emphasize repayable loans, not grants.
A basic philosophy of the program review was that the federal
government should not be doing what someone else can do
better. As a result, we are devolving some programs to other
levels of government and we are privatizing other activities. For
example, fisheries and oceans will devolve fresh water
responsibilities to the provinces. Forest and mineral
development agreements with the provinces will be
discontinued. Airports and recreational harbours will be
transferred to local authorities,
11399
and the Minister of Transport will move this year to privatize
CN.
There was a lot of work done on all aspects of government.
The government we will see two years from now will be far
different from the government we saw at the beginning of our
tenure.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for the benefit of Canadians watching today, I would like to
repeat that this is a debate on the budget implementation act.
That does not sound like a very gripping topic, but it is very
important. Really what it means is that we are talking today
about how our government spends our money.
It is important to emphasize to Canadians that governments
have no money of their own. They simply use our money and
they use lots of our money. In many cases, Canadians feel that
we are supporting government instead of government
supporting us.
Be that as it may, it is very important that we examine
carefully and very logically how governments spend our money.
Because I am a human resources development critic for Reform,
I would like to spend the minutes I have to discuss the budget
implementation act and talk about how social program spending
is handled in this budget.
(1350 )
First, this budget is rather shockingly vague about how social
programs, particularly very important social programs, are
going to be handled by this government. For example, the
budget says that unemployment insurance will be cut a
minimum of 10 per cent. How much would be the maximum? We
do not know. The budget is silent. Who is going to be cut? How
are the cuts going to be made? When are they going to be made?
We do not know. The budget is silent on that and so is the budget
implementation act. We have big questions about that big
program that are not answered in this budget.
The second thing the budget says is that the two pillars of the
pension plan are going to be re-examined in order to make them
more sustainable. When are they going to be re-examined? We
are not sure. We were supposed to have a paper, promised by this
government, months ago. Now the government says it thinks it
will be in the fall. Canadians hope so, but experience has shown
that the time lines of this government are a little flexible, to say
the least.
Here we have the pillars of the pension plan, the Canada
pension plan and the old age security; they are going to be
re-examined. There are going to have to be some changes.
Those are code words for cuts, because we know there is no extra
money. But we do not know when. We do not know who. We do
not know how. There is a lot of vagueness in how important
programs are going to be handled.
The budget implementation act in part IV does talk about how
this new transfer to support health care, post-secondary
education and welfare is going to be handled. The transfers from
the federal government to the provinces for these three
programs have now been rolled into one big transfer of block
funding. Now this block has been given a nice name by Liberal
spin doctors. It is being called the Canada health and social
transfer.
Really the bottom line is that the moneys that used to go to the
provinces for these three programs are being cut substantially.
That in itself probably would not concern Canadians because
they know that we cannot keep funding these programs on
borrowed money. We cannot keep mortgaging our children's
future to pay for these programs. The real concern is that there
seems to be no coherent plan at all about the future of these
programs.
We can live with cuts; we accept that cuts are necessary. But
we need to know where that leaves us. Where is this going to
take us? Where it takes us is a big question mark. There are
absolutely no long-range plans, no game plan, on what is going
to happen, for example, to the funding for the Canada Health
Act, the medicare plan, our health care.
The provisions that are being put in place, the cuts that are
being made, are simply for the next two or three years and then
there is a commitment to talk to the provinces, to have some
kind of consultation. Then we will see what comes out of that.
I would suggest that health care is one of the most important
things to Canadians. All of us know our vulnerability to health
care problems. Yet here we have a very important program for
Canadians being cut, but there is no long term plan. One has to
wonder why this government could not have had a consultation
with the provinces, put together a long term plan in consultation
with other major players, and then come out with changes to the
game. But no. This government simply sat on the sidelines and
made changes to the rules of the game in mid-game, with
absolutely no idea of where this is all going to take us on a very
critical plan.
I do not think that is good management on behalf of
Canadians. Canadians deserve a lot better than that.
(1355 )
We have had several promises to come up with papers to deal
with pensions and the changes that are going to be needed in our
social programs. However, there is nothing for Canadians to
give us any idea of where we are headed on these matters. We
know we are losing our programs. We know they are being cut
back, and cut back without consultation with the provinces. For
example, about one-third of all provincial spending is on health
care alone. Yet changes are being made without any consultation
with the major players.
11400
The second thing that concerns me in this budget
implementation act is the punitive approach that is being
escalated in the matter of transfers from the federal government
to the provinces.
In the past, if the provisions of the federal government were
changed or not adhered to by the provinces, then transfers for
those programs could be cut. Now, under this budget
implementation act, any transfer to the provinces from the
federal government can be cut, even it if it is not referable to the
social programs that the provinces are trying to change.
The federal government has promised certain transfers to the
provinces. Now it can hold them hostage if it does not like what
the provinces are doing in any area.
These powers are very arbitrary. It gives arbitrary power to
the health minister to become the sole guardian of the Canada
Health Act. If the minister is ``satisfied'' that a province is not in
line with her own interpretation of the Canada Health Act, then
she has the authority to effectively become the judge and jury of
the provincial health system and can then ask cabinet to cut any
federal transfer to the provinces.
This is just unacceptable when we are dealing with such
critical programs. We need some certainty for our provinces.
When the health minister is asked how she is going to enforce
these new arbitrary powers that she has been given, she says she
will enforce them flexibly. However, when one examines the
legislation there is absolutely no reference to any flexible
interpretation of the Canada Health Act. In fact, we have
members of the government and the Prime Minister standing up
and saying: ``The provisions of the Canada Health Act will be
very firmly enforced by this government''.
So we are hearing again two different interpretations of what
is going to happen. If we are going to get our House in order and
if we are going to ensure personal social security for Canadians,
we need to have a great deal more certainty than we find in this
bill.
It is incumbent upon the government, when it is bringing
forward this kind of spending legislation, to tell Canadians how
it is going to work, to give them a plan that they can count on,
and to work with the provinces to make sure that the programs
we have can be counted on and have some type of long term
management rather than this cut and paste approach to what
have become very important programs for Canadians.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock, we will now proceed to
statements by members.
11400
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Sunday, April 2, the members of St. Stanislaus-St.
Casimir's Polish Parishes Credit Union held their 50th annual
meeting in the constituency of Parkdale-High Park.
Founded in 1945 by Father S. Puchniak, pastor of the St.
Stanislaus parish in Toronto, the Polish Parishes Credit Union
takes pride in being today the largest parish based credit union in
the world, with over 37,000 members and total assets of $223
million.
This unique credit union provides a full range of financial
services, including personal, mortgage and business loans,
RRSPs, RRIFs, OHOSPs, and automated teller services
worldwide.
The success of this progressive credit union, with branches in
Toronto, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Hamilton, Kitchener, Guelph,
Oakville and Windsor, reflects the growth and prosperity of
Canada.
It is creating together opportunity not only for its members
and families but for Canadians generally.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend's annual meetings of the Mouvement Desjardins are
proof once again of the huge success of the co-operative
movement founded in 1900 by Alphonse Desjardins. The total
assets of the Mouvement Desjardins have increased by 33 per
cent and are now worth $73.8 billion. Furthermore, this
institution has declared surplus earnings of over $314 million.
The Mouvement Desjardins has mirrored Quebecers'
dynamism, since its inception. In encouraging Quebecers to
invest their savings in Quebec, Claude Béland, the president of
the Mouvement Desjardins, said, and I quote: ``We have no hope
of winning the development war if we hand over our arms to
others''.
The success of the Desjardins movement is the result of an
economic development model based on co-operation. Quebec's
economic prosperity requires all participants in the Quebec
socio-economic scene to work together in the fight against
chronic unemployment.
11401
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, less than three weeks ago I asked the Minister of
Justice how he could guarantee responsible gun owners that his
gun registration system would be safe from computer hackers.
He accused me of fear mongering and conjuring up images that
frighten Canadians. Then he went on to state that without his gun
controls we would end up with a gun culture and would go the
way of other countries. We have not had his gun control laws for
the last few centuries and we do not have a gun culture yet. I
have to ask: Who is doing the fear mongering?
On Friday the Globe and Mail reported the arrest of yet
another computer hacker. He has broken into several databases
throughout the federal government and at IBM. If IBM cannot
defend itself from computer hackers, how secure will the new
national gun registry be?
I repeat: How can the justice minister assure law-abiding
firearm owners who comply with his new law that they will not
simply be providing gun thieves with a computerized shop at
home catalogue?
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the government team in the House of Commons and the
Senate and as chair of the Liberal women's caucus, it is my
honour to welcome back to this place the hon. member for
Beaver River.
Most here would agree that her presence has been missed. Her
contribution to the third party is significant and important.
Government members look forward to the hon. member getting
the Reform Party to focus on the real issues and making some
valuable contributions in improving the lives of Canadians.
There are only 54 women in this House. When one from our
ranks is missing, Canadians notice.
Once again, bon retour. We wish the hon. member continued
good health.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as economic growth continues to accelerate, this
government is making great strides toward steering Canadians
back on the road to competitiveness. Strengthening Canadian
industry will continue by building a healthier marketplace,
promoting workplace innovation, expanding trade, improving
our infrastructure and harnessing leading edge technology.
Etobicoke-Lakeshore business leaders who previously
impressed upon me the need to make Canada more competitive
are now telling me that we are on the right track. They support
the government's effort to assist the private sector in innovation
and job creation. Competitive wages, low manufacturing costs,
available tax incentives, encouraging research and
development, a suitable workforce and an excellent quality of
life all add up to an ideal community in which to do business.
I look forward to the Etobicoke-Lakeshore business
community and the government working together in a greater
partnership to build a more innovative economy.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sikhs throughout the world are celebrating
the 296th anniversary of the birth of the Sikh nation and the Sikh
faith. I am sure all members will join me in congratulating the
Sikh community on this auspicious occasion.
Sikh heritage includes a pledge to fight against tyranny and
uphold the principles of justice, equality, brotherhood, honesty,
the right of free and truthful expression and human dignity
among all the people of the world, regardless of colour, creed,
race, sex, religion or country of origin.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to share a traditional lunch
with you earlier today and would like to once again invite you to
attend a reception to celebrate the anniversary of Vaisakhi with
us in the Commonwealth room following question period.
Only through increased knowledge of diverse cultures can
Canada continue to be a country of tolerance and compassion.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Immigration is insensitive to the plight of refugees
who will now have to pay $975 in addition to the basic $500 for
permanent resident status in Canada.
Last Thursday, the minister stated that $975 was the price of a
colour television in Canada, intimating that the cost was within
everyone's reach.
In 1990, the average personal income in Haiti was $320; in
1992, the average income in India was $370 and, in El Salvador,
it was $870. These examples clearly illustrate the difficulties
faced by refugees accepted into Canada.
11402
The minister's remark demonstrates his profound
indifference to the financial and political realities of many
immigrants and refugees.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Department of Canadian Heritage has taken on the
appearance of a dying turbot flip-flopping on the slippery decks
of a trawler under siege. There is no focus, no direction and no
guidance from the minister who continues to be AWOL, awfully
weak and out of the loop.
What a string of broken election promises. There is the broken
promise of new copyright legislation due last spring; the broken
promise to Sports Canada for secured funding for amateur sport;
the broken promise to assist the Canada Council as it refocuses
its activities; the broken promise for a cultural policy review;
and the broken promise to give future direction to the CBC.
Canadian cultural organizations need guidance to shepherd
them into greater reliance on themselves and the private sector,
but the government is failing to provide that leadership.
What has changed since the Tories? Nothing. The minister is
having so many problems in his department that he has
appointed a former Tory cabinet minister to give him a hand.
And will he become the next fall guy in a government that no
longer seems to know the difference between a Liberal and a
Tory?
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many of my constituents have asked me to express their total and
enthusiastic support for the efforts of our government to stop
overfishing of turbot on the Grand Bank.
Although my riding of London-Middlesex is in
southwestern Ontario many miles from the Grand Bank, our
hearts are with the valiant people of Newfoundland and all
Atlantic Canadians as they struggle to save fishing as a way of
life.
Our hats are off to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as he
leads this important crusade. From coast to coast to coast,
Canadians applaud his efforts and the leadership of the
government. We stand shoulder to shoulder beside our fellow
Canadians in Atlantic Canada. Together we must and we will
save the fishery.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would
like to congratulate a member of the other place.
The hon. Senator Colin Kenny has introduced Bill S-7, an act
to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for internal combustion
engines. This bill would see at least three-quarters of the 38,000
federal government vehicles switched to alternative fuels. Bill
S-7 would generate estimated savings of $7 million per year and
would serve as an important step in cleaning up our
environment.
Bill S-7 is a positive addition to the recent announcements
made by the government regarding federal support for the
ethanol industry and the removal of MMT from gasoline. It is
clear that positive environmental policy is being developed in
both houses of Parliament.
My congratulations go out to the hon. senator and all those
who are working to improve the environment in which we live. I
will be happy to support Bill S-7 when it arrives in the House of
Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker,
Franco-Manitobans and the citizens of Beauce want to build a
better Canada where everyone is accepted and feels he belongs.
This is why they have decided to set up a partnership between
the stakeholders in the political institutions and business
communities of both regions.
Last week, Franco-Manitobans hosted a delegation from
Beauce interested in exploring possible exchanges in the
economic and cultural sectors that would promote better mutual
understanding.
I would like to commend this initiative, which corresponds
with the wish of French Canadians to draw closer to one another,
to live in harmony and to work together to create instruments of
growth and development. Such an association can only help to
create strong bonds of friendship among all Canadians.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week, representatives of the Beauce region in Quebec and
the French community in Manitoba met in St. Boniface to
discuss the possibility of a pact of friendship between these two
regions.
11403
This visit is part of a process that began last year to look at
possible exchanges between Beauce and the French community
in Manitoba in the economic, cultural, educational and
communications fields.
Our friends from Beauce had a busy schedule in Manitoba.
They met with the Société franco-manitobaine, the Association
of Bilingual Municipalities, the Chamber of Commerce, CKXL
community radio, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface,
the Société historique de Saint-Boniface, and I could go on.
This pact of friendship between the French-speaking citizens
of Beauce and Manitoba is a fine example of the manner in
which the two communities can work together to create jobs and
get to know one another better.
I congratulate the participants in this pact of friendship, who
are trying to build a Canada that is stronger and more united
within the Canadian federation.
* * *
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
recent events in Montreal, where bikers are fighting over control
of drug trafficking, point to an urgent need to enact antigang
legislation.
Yet, the Minister of Justice is still reluctant to act on the
requests made in this regard by the Bloc Quebecois and
members of the public.
According to a SOM poll published in La Presse last week, 80
per cent of Quebecers want an antigang law to be passed as
quickly as possible in order to solve a growing problem which is
threatening the lives and safety of peaceful citizens.
The Minister of Justice must consider the suggestions made
by the Bloc Quebecois if he wants to bring such criminal
activities under control. If the minister decides to turn a deaf ear,
he will miss an opportunity to protect citizens whose fears are
legitimate.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to remind all members of
this House of a birthday. The Canada pension plan is 30 years
old today.
Normally a birthday is cause for great celebration with
balloons, candles and of course my favourite, a great big
birthday cake. At 30 years of age you would think we could
celebrate a long vibrant time, but CPP is tired and sick with iron
poor Liberal blood.
Thanks to the Liberals, the Canada pension plan is another
victim of mismanagement. The CPP fund is not self-sufficient
and not actuarially sound. In order to be solvent, contributions
will have to triple over the next 20 years. The Canada pension
plan, introduced by a Liberal government 30 years ago, has been
so mismanaged that future Canadians cannot look forward to
collecting.
The recent budget does nothing to safeguard our social
programs and social safety net.
The Liberals have burst the balloons for today's celebration.
They have blown out the candles and have allowed our birthday
cake to go stale and mouldy.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of fisheries has taken a very strong stand on behalf of
the east coast turbot fishery. For that he is to be applauded.
While he goes to the wall to save the turbot, I urge him not to
forget the other coast of Canada.
The recent Fraser report and the Suzuki Foundation report
point out that the five species of British Columbia salmon are at
high risk due to overfishing and habitat loss. The report reveals
that many more serious issues face the west coast salmon fishery
and identifies specific initiatives requiring immediate action.
Our west coast salmon fishery is still a viable fishery. To
ensure that it remains viable, it requires immediate attention.
It was a lack of proper management that placed the west coast
salmon fishery at risk. I urge the minister of fisheries to give the
time, energy and support to the west coast that he has so
generously given to the east coast.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 3 and 4 the 43rd annual Carleton County
Spring Show and Sale of Steers will be held in Florenceville,
New Brunswick.
Nearly half the entries are from 4-H club members. These
youth are eager, responsible, committed to detail and capable of
competing under pressure.
All exhibitors will be judged based on demanding criteria.
Following the competition the annual auction will be held.
This year, all the exhibitors have joined together to donate a
steer which will be auctioned off with proceeds going to the
Volunteer Family Services Organization which serves the whole
region.
I congratulate the organizers of the 43rd annual Carleton
county show and sale. I wish them success again this year.
11404
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see
from the papers that members of the Reform Party are
considering combining with the federal Tories. The papers say
that the Reformers are disgruntled with their leader and they
want a new party led by the member for Calgary West.
(1415 )
It shocks me that members of the third party want to change
parties after less than two years in Ottawa. Surely they made
commitments in the election campaign to their constituents as
members of the Reform Party, not as Tories.
Have they forgotten their campaign promises? Have they
consulted with their constituents on this change of party? And
what about the so-called Reform budget that was presented
recently? What can it be worth if Reformers are going to jump
ship so soon after it was released?
We on this side of the House are proud of our party. We are
proud of our leader. We know we have great responsibilities as
the elected Government of Canada, but we are not daunted by
the challenges. We Liberals are going to stay the course to help
make Canada an even better place.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to bring to your
attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Boguslaw
Liberadzki, Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy of
Poland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: At the same time colleagues, I would like to
draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Madam
Haizhen Zhou, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress, Nanjing China, and her
accompanying delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
11404
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with its
Canada social transfer, the federal government claimed it was
giving the provinces greater autonomy and flexibility with
respect to social programs. But in implementing this Canada
social transfer, Ottawa is set to impose national standards for
social assistance and post-secondary education, totally
disregarding provincial jurisdiction over these areas.
How can the Prime Minister talk about flexible federalism
when his government is not only withdrawing from social
programs but also threatening to further penalize those
provinces that do not comply with the new national standards,
which amounts to imposing its views while at the same time
denying provincial jurisdiction over social programs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we plan to do is to ensure that adequate services
are provided to all Canadians. The hon. member should have
noticed that there are ongoing consultations among the
provinces and between the federal government and the
provinces to ensure harmonization from coast to coast. This will
give Canadians access to acceptable and adaptable services
wherever they go in the country.
There is already a high level of co-operation among the
provinces. The role of the federal government is to ensure that
the agreements reached are as uniform as possible so that people
can move freely across the country.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Prime Minister have the gall to ask the provinces to make up
the shortfall resulting from the federal government's
withdrawal, while at the same time relegating them to a mere
advisory role in developing new and much more restrictive
national standards, particularly with respect to health?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, health is covered by legislation. The five major
conditions governing health care in Canada-universality,
portability and the rest-are in the act. There is a clear
commitment by this Parliament with respect to maintaining
these five principles.
As for their implementation, discussions are under way
between the Minister of Health and her counterparts. We are
looking for the best solutions. If services are to be accessible to
all Canadians, when Canadians travel across the country,
whether on vacation or business, they must be able to rely on the
same services in other provinces as in their own. Everyone
agrees that Canada's health system is one of the best in the
world. We must ensure that it remains that way as much as
possible.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand from the Prime Minister's answers that, for him,
flexible federalism means that Ottawa is responsible for social
programs and the conditions under which these programs are
provided to Canadians, while the provinces are concerned only
with their administration, when they are facing enormous
financial difficulties following his government's withdrawal?
11405
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that all these things are done all the time in
consultation and collaboration with the provinces.
We have many meetings with them trying to co-ordinate the
actions of all the governments so the people of Canada can have
very good services in health, education and in the welfare
system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Human
Resources Development continues to claim, and I quote: ``That
is the whole point of consolidating the existing transfer system,
to give the provinces the freedom of choice to look at
programming which suits the individual needs of their own
areas. At the same time, it is a national program. There are basic
conditions and those conditions must be met''.
Does the Prime Minister realize that this federalism, based on
the imposition of national standards, is radically opposed to
Quebec's wish to have control over the intervention tools,
particularly in the manpower training sector?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not at all. Under the
proposed consolidated transfer the provinces will have a great
deal of flexibility in choosing priorities as to which issues they
wish to handle and how they wish to handle them.
Moreover, as we have put in the omnibus bill, there are some
basic fundamental principles such as those contained presently
in the Canada Health Act or those presently in the Canada
assistance plan which protect residency requirements that
provide the bear minimum requirements we expect the
provinces to adhere to.
When it comes to choosing programs or priorities it is up to
the provinces. We are giving them the flexibility to make those
as opposed to many of the restrictions that held back provinces
from doing the kind of innovative work they wanted to do which
was clearly and explicitly put forward as one of the assessments
and recommendations from the House of Commons committee
which assessed this problem as part of the social review.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government's position includes two components. The first one
talks about flexibility, while the second one provides that, if
necessary, national standards will be applied to other social
programs.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to convene a
federal-provincial conference to inform the provinces that,
from now on, his government will impose its views, not through
its spending power, but by making deeper cuts in the transfers, if
the national standards are not complied with?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development will
consult the provinces on his reforms. We are currently
reviewing the committee report on this issue. In the coming
weeks and months, the minister will hold bilateral meetings
with his provincial counterparts.
If necessary, and if he feels that it is everyone's wish to have a
meeting of federal and provincial ministers, I am sure that the
Minister of Human Resources Development will have no
objection. Consultations will take place. We do not intend to act
unilaterally. On the other hand, it is our responsibility to make
sure that adequate services are provided to all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
baseball is back and so am I. We will play some hardball.
On March 13, while I was away, I became a reluctant member
of the Liberal's pork pension for life club, a club that will give
the Deputy Prime Minister over $2 million, my immigration
minister friend over $3 million and the new president of the
CBC, Perrin Beatty, over $5 million.
I want to opt out of this ludicrous plan. Yet under government
guidelines I am trapped at the trough.
Will the government extend the opting out clause to include
MPs with six or more years service, not just new MPs as it says?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very happy to see the hon. member back and in
good health. She is sometimes better than her leader, so we are
happy to have her here.
For the last six years that she has been here she has not minded
being trapped. Now that she knows she is trapped she wants to
get out. It is kind of a coincidence because we never heard about
that when she was to be trapped.
This is a subject I find terribly disappointing. As of tomorrow
I will have been a member of Parliament for 32 years. I have
contributed to the pension plan 15 years too many. What I do not
like about that kind of question is the implication that when one
is a member of Parliament one does not earn every cent for the
service one renders to one's constituents and the people of
Canada.
11406
When I see good members of Parliament like her
downgrading her own value by telling people she is overpaid, I
must tell her she is not overpaid. None of us is overpaid.
Concerning those who are overpaid, the people of Canada will
do the right thing and kick them out in the next election.
I find it ridiculous for the Reform Party to think that members
of Parliament, who make half the salary of the lowest paid
hockey players in the NHL, are overpaid.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about pensions here, not pay. It is hardly any surprise
to the Prime Minister that I have been talking about MP
pensions. I have spoken about this for six years.
The ratio is that for every dollar I and other members in the
House contribute the government is putting in six to seven
dollars. That is the problem people have. We are locked into this
pension plan.
I want to opt out, the voters in Beaver River want me to opt out
and the Canadian taxpayers probably want all of us to opt out or
at least make it fair. It is up to the government to find a way. Like
the songwriter, I am saying please release me, let me go.
Why will the government not go beyond what the President of
the Treasury Board said and make more than cosmetic changes,
real changes to the MP pension plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member does not want a pension, she wants a pay
increase. The commission said that at this time perhaps the ideal
situation would be to give a better salary to MPs and reduce their
pensions. However, at this time the salaries of bureaucrats and
all other government employees in Canada have been frozen.
Members of Parliament and the public service have had no
increase for the last three and a half years. Perhaps in the
package they were overpaid in terms of pension but they are
certainly underpaid in terms of salary. The balance is pretty
good for those who are very good members of Parliament. In my
judgment there are very few members on my side who are not
earning every cent they are paid.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has said it cannot let all MPs opt out because it
needs to protect the stability of the pension plan.
The only things the government is trying to protect are the
lavish payouts to the Liberal frontbenchers, of whom there are
many. Perhaps their noses are firmly planted in the trough. Pay
and pension are different things. Let us bring them into line.
Will the government let the Deputy Prime Minister, the
immigration minister, the fisheries minister, the finance
minister and even the Prime Minister opt out of this lavish
pension plan when they have six or more years of service, yes or
no?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have served here for many years. The pension that
will be paid to me is something I have earned serving the people
of Canada.
In many ridings I see directors of hospitals and chiefs of
police and dozens of other people being paid out of public
money making more than members of Parliament. I am not
ashamed to face the people in my riding and tell them what I earn
and what members of the House earn.
Some people want to score cheap political points because they
cannot get the support of the people on the real problems of the
nation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister claims that negotiations between Canada and the
European Union are progressing at a rate that leads us to
conclude that an agreement is imminent. However, we are
witnessing a hardening of the position of spokespersons for the
European Union, especially Mrs. Bonino, European
commissioner for fisheries.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans report on the
progress of negotiations under way in Brussels, and does he still
maintain that Canada and the European Union are on the verge
of reaching an agreement?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
There are ongoing negotiations at this moment in Brussels
between the Canadian and EU delegation. The negotiations have
made very good progress over the weekend. Only a few matters
remain to be resolved in principle.
The member will realize that at the end of the negotiating
process the report of the negotiators will be sent to the
authorities in Brussels at the EU government and to the Prime
Minister and members of the cabinet for consideration. We hope
that occurs shortly. We hope that at the end of the day, as we have
always preferred, a negotiated and effective enforcement and
conservation regime is possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
considering the items still outstanding, how does the minister
11407
explain the presence of ten Spanish trawlers in the contested
area, as negotiations continue in Brussels?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of vessels in the
contested area. It is clear to anybody who looks at it objectively
that if there is one interest, if there are some people who have an
interest in not having an effective conservation regime and an
effective enforcement regime, as the Prime Minister has set out
as the priority of the Government of Canada, it is perhaps some
of the skippers, some of the captains and some of the owners of
those vessels.
Any agreement approved by the Government of Canada
subject to the mandate set out by the Prime Minister personally
is an agreement that would see the future of the turbot species
and all other groundfish species and straddling stocks
maintained not only for Canada, because this is not just about
Canada, but for all mankind.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Canadian advisory council on the status of women has
been disbanded. As of April 1 its president, Glenda Simms, is
out of a job. Despite this, the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women keeps Simms on the government payroll until the end of
October.
Both the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury
Board have stated in the House that if you do not have a job, you
do not get paid.
How can the government justify this extravagant waste of
taxpayers' dollars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is sometimes a need to keep people who have
been working for us on the payroll to help us finish a job and put
everything in order.
There is another element to that. When you make an arbitrary
decision to terminate an employment you give some time to a
person to adjust to the new reality. It is on these two points that
we have decided to keep that very competent woman on the
payroll for a few months. We need her and it will give her some
time to adjust to the new reality.
(1435 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
Mrs. Simms adjusts to the new reality, we hear now she is on a
taxpayer funded nine-day junket to the Philippines. While her
colleagues in her department are packing their bags, Mrs.
Simms and her assistant are packing theirs to go on this
wonderful trip to the Philippines.
Given that her job is finished and given that this trip is
redundant and frivolous, will the government commit here and
now to cancelling this junket?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why but
every time a member of Parliament or someone representing
Canada goes to another country somehow members in the
opposition feel it is a junket. This commitment was made in
November of 1994. When we as a country make a commitment
to another country we must honour and respect it.
To call this a junket is an offence to Canadians representing
Canada abroad.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
Last week at a press conference, a Mohawk resident of
Kanesatake condemned as unfair the system for allocating
property unlawfully occupied in Kanesatake.
Does the minister still maintain that a process for allocating
homes that ignores the expectations of law-abiding citizens
while rewarding those who have no respect for the law is
working well, as he said the other day in this House?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the
individual who has lodged the complaint. My friend should
spend more time checking out that person's background. That is
my primary observation of what is happening.
We have gone through an extensive list primarily through the
Mohawk housing authority. Those people in need have been
allocated the houses. The houses have been allocated to various
people by letter. What fairer system is there than that?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can
inform the minister that I know what I am talking about. Right
now, houses are allocated in Kanesatake as follows: whoever has
the biggest gun has the biggest house.
Does the minister realize that his department's tolerant
attitude merely encourages unlawful occupancy by residents
and constitutes a disavowal of the current procedure of putting
people on a waiting list?
11408
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to my friend, because he is
consumed with the Mohawks on this reserve, if he wants to talk
about tolerance he should talk about the broader aspects of
aboriginal people in Quebec.
I refer him to none other than Pierre Vallières, well known to
separatists, who said yesterday that Mr. Parizeau recognizes
aboriginal sovereignty but he does not give aboriginal people
the means to achieve it. He also accused the Parti Quebecois
government yesterday of discriminating against aboriginal
people by denying them the means to self-government.
We are providing the means, they are using them fairly and we
will work with them.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Page 88 of the Liberal red book states the Conservative
regime has deliberately undermined our national cultural
institutions. Given this fact, how can he justify putting a former
Conservative cabinet minister behind the wheel of the CBC,
unless it is to score cheap political points for patronage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had the opportunity to observe Mr. Beatty in the
House of Commons when he was a member of the government.
He has a lot of experience on the Hill. He was elected some 20
years ago and he has learned a lot.
He was available to do the job and I know he will do his best to
ensure the CBC becomes an organization which will adjust to
the new realities. His experience in Parliament will help him a
lot in communicating that goal to employees of the CBC and to
the Canadian public.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
amazing how things change. A year ago the former cabinet
minister was undermining national cultural institutions.
(1440 )
Given that the general public is fed up with making
millionaires of defeated politicians and then watching them
being appointed to federal boards and agencies, and given the
government's hypocritical stance on patronage appointments to
date, will the Prime Minister undertake to restore integrity, as he
promised in the red book, to the appointment process by
removing his exclusive franchise on the selection process and
creating a non-partisan board to make these appointments, of
course with his final approval?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is responsible. When we make bad
appointments, the people know who is responsible. We cannot
pass the blame to anybody else.
They are independent and when we give them an independent
rule, we respect that. Just because somebody has been a member
of Parliament does not mean they are disqualified. They had the
honour of representing the Canadian public.
I see some members of the Reform Party. They are not all
alike. I might be happy to appoint some of them some day.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
On Friday, the Solicitor General declared that the provinces
have jurisdiction over casinos and that the Kanesatake Mohawks
must obtain Quebec's authorization before building their
casino. Quebec's Minister of Public Security has already stated
that Quebec would refuse to approve the project for security
reasons.
Will the minister indicate what kind of negotiations are going
on between the federal government and the Kanesatake band
council regarding the construction of a casino?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preface and the
observation of the hon. member are correct.
The former government delegated jurisdiction for casinos to
the provinces. The province of Quebec, at least from press
reports, is not prepared to grant a casino in this case. No specific
negotiations are going on with the Mohawk communities on
casinos.
I have had general discussions with perhaps 100 First Nations
across the country from time to time as to what is the state of
casinos, what we can do to help them and this type of general
discussion. There are no specific negotiations on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister intend to clearly explain to the band council that it
is up to Quebec to decide whether a casino will be built on
Kanesatake?
11409
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that this does
not fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec.
We have allowed Quebec through an agreement to do this job.
Some provinces are doing it well. For instance in Saskatchewan
they have an agreement where there will be two classes of
casinos, one in Regina, four on aboriginal reserves with a split
of profits. Some are in chaos but some are doing well.
We intend to work with the provinces and work with the
aboriginal people to see if we can bring order to the chaos.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Whether it be paper mail or electronic mail, hate mail is still
hate mail. The availability of hate propaganda on the Internet is
a matter of grave concern for many Canadians.
Can the Solicitor General inform the House on what is being
done by the government to address the issue of the increasing
availability of hate literature on the Internet?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government believes that the use of the Internet as a
vehicle for hate propaganda or the facilitation of hate crimes is a
serious concern that deserves to be dealt with.
At the same time, because of the structure of the Internet not
coming within the clear jurisdiction of any country or countries
creates a serious problem when it comes to dealing with the
matter.
(1445 )
However, officials in my department, the Department of
Justice and the department of heritage are working on possible
solutions. Whether it involves the Criminal Code,
telecommunications legislation or an international agreement,
we are working to deal with this problem because we believe
Canadians do not want to see the Internet misused for the
purposes of hate propaganda.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the newspaper
La Presse revealed some very
interesting financial information about Alliance Quebec this
weekend. According to a report, this group, devoted to
protecting the rights of anglophones, has spent more than 75 per
cent of its budget on salaries and rent. Its budget of $1.2 million
comes from taxpayers. Membership in the organization
continues to dwindle, while other groups are doing an excellent
job while arranging for private funding.
Would the Minister of Finance explain how this type of
special interest funding fits in with his budget commitment to
change our approach to interest group funding?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government supports
minority language groups across Canada, whose leaders have
been democratically elected. These associations actively defend
the interests of their communities, and the Government of
Canada believes a dynamic anglophone community is important
for Quebecers as a whole.
We believe it is possible to promote the French fact in
Quebec, while recognizing and promoting the contribution of
the anglophone minority.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, even Alliance Quebec's past president was quoted as
saying that former employees and activists of Alliance Quebec
end up becoming political attachés, bureaucrats and Liberal
candidates.
The Canadian taxpayer deserves better. When is the
government going to get rid of this Liberal lap dog that is
masquerading as a special interest group?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last government lasted
nine years. It supported the same organization. It is important
that the Canadian government supports minority language
groups outside and inside Quebec. That is what we are doing.
That is what we will to continue to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. After nearly a year of
hesitation and pussy-footing, the Red Cross is finally starting to
contact individuals who were infected with hepatitis C between
June 1990 and February 1995.
Can the minister tell us why the Red Cross has decided to
contact only those who contracted hepatitis C between 1990 and
1995, when many were contaminated before 1990, as the Krever
inquiry has shown?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you that the hon. member recognizes that
there are many jurisdictions involved in this issue. I must also
say that a screening test was developed only in 1990. Of course,
the Red Cross is just beginning its search. We are eagerly
awaiting
11410
Justice Krever's recommendations on contacting individuals
infected with hepatitis C.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the hon. minister that this decision was
made by the Red Cross. Does she not realize that the Red Cross's
decision not to contact individuals infected through blood
transfusion before 1990 is unfair and puts the members of their
families at great risk of being contaminated?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat it in the other official language of the
country. No test was in use or available in Canada prior to 1990
to detect hepatitis C.
(1450 )
The whole question of hepatitis C and traceback is one that is
being seriously considered by all of the players in the country.
That includes hospitals, provincial governments as well as the
Red Cross and the federal government.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the Prime Minister about the list of concerns
that keeps growing and growing in what is surely to be a major
headache in St. John's West, Newfoundland.
RCMP reports present cause for searching the member's
company which may lead to as many as 10 charges of fraud
involving federally granted dollars.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. Will the Prime
Minister give the ethics commissioner the mandate by making
him accountable to Parliament so that he can investigate this
case that is giving headaches to the people in St. John's,
Newfoundland?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, you know our system of law. No one is guilty until
there is a conviction in court. A person has the right to defend his
or her point of view. I do not think the House of Commons is the
place to debate that.
At some time any member of Parliament can be subject to
accusations but in our criminal law system justice means that
nobody is guilty until found guilty.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am talking about ethics here, not criminal charges at this point.
The people of St. John's West, Newfoundland deserve a better
answer than that.
A recall petition has already been circulated in St. John's
West. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would not
agree that recall legislation would deal with this. As presented
by my colleague for Beaver River-
Mr. Speaker: The question as it is posed is out of order, as it
is hypothetical. I will permit the hon. member to try to rephrase
his question.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the Prime Minister if he supports the concept of recall
when it comes to the matter of ethics within the House of
Commons and members of Parliament.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think this member of Parliament has never faced any
accusation from any court and she is representing her
constituents very well as a member of Parliament.
In terms of recall I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had
a system of recall in Canada we would have a lot of byelections
from that corner from western Canada.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
The 1995 federal budget announced that the government will
merge the Canadian Coast Guard with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans effective April 1995.
Can the minister inform the House how much this
amalgamation will save the Canadian taxpayer? What
assurances can he give that combining the two services will not
reduce services to the marine industry?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
This proposal, which originated with the quick thinking of the
Minister of Transport who is looking for ways to consolidate, to
build efficiencies and to save the taxpayers money, has been
today officially approved by the Prime Minister. The merger of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast
Guard will result in some 168 vessels, including 42 offshore
vessels, working together, hand in hand.
We saw an example last week of how putting coast guard
vessels, officers and personnel, and DFO personnel together
working efficiently for Canada contributed greatly to
sustaining, to building and to protecting our offshore resources.
I thank the member for his question.
11411
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. The budget cuts made in
previous years have already forced the Human Rights
Commission to reduce the number of its information officers.
As a result, the number of public inquiries fell by 25 per cent,
while the number of complaints filed with the commission
continues to increase.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm that the Canadian Human
Rights Commission intends to reduce services to the public once
again by closing its six regional offices across the country
because of the Liberal budget cuts?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my information is that
the Canadian Human Rights Commission is reducing the
number of regional offices and centralizing the services it offers
to the Ottawa location.
The commission is a body that operates at arm's length from
government. Its resources have been reduced in recent years
because of fiscal realities. The way it chooses to respond to that
reality is a matter of policy for the commission. If it has
concluded that it can provide the services in the way that has
been decided on, then that is the way it will proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that
Commissioner Max Yalden has expressed concern over the rise
of intolerance in Canada, does the minister not agree that
closing these regional offices will undermine the protection of
rights in federal jurisdictions?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have thought,
based on the speeches and comments made by the chief
commissioner, that his primary concern about the lack of
tolerance in Canada has not had so much to do with the number
of regional offices the commission has, but rather the attitudes
in some quarters about human rights themselves.
The commission, which does its work so ably in serving the
Canadian public, has had to decide, as we all must, how to meet
its needs with diminished resources. It is apparently confident
that it can meet those needs with centralized services from
Ottawa.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in an
article in the
Western Producer the minister of agriculture is
quoted as saying that farmers who have sold to the Canadian
Wheat Board may have to pay the full freight rate for crops
delivered before July 31.
The minister is telling farmers that the WGTA benefit is
actually ending before the end of the crop year and not next year
as promised in the budget. This is unfair.
Can the minister at least tell western Canadian farmers by
what date they must deliver their grain to receive the Crow
benefit?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the
termination of subsidy programs, obviously it is necessary to
pick a date on which the subsidy terminates and after which
payments will no longer be made.
In the grains industry in Canada, the key date in terms of the
crop year is August 1, 1995. It is on August 1, 1995 that the
subsidy will come to an end.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, farmers
get hit with the loss of the Crow benefit. Then they suffer more
losses because of the rail strike and the other strikes. Now they
cannot even be certain about which grains shipped in this crop
year will be covered by the Crow benefit.
I wonder if there is anything the minister can tell farmers for
sure. Is the minister telling me that he cannot give them a
certain, definite date by which they must deliver grain in order
to receive the Crow benefit?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman
does not understand how the crop year works.
Many events flow through the normal production season. It
has always been August 1 of any given year on which the crop
year ends and the next crop year begins while deliveries go on
both before and after that date. One date must be chosen to make
a determination when certain events will occur. We have picked
August 1, 1995 as the only logical date that makes sense.
In the hon. gentleman's reference with respect to the labour
dispute that was settled a week ago by legislation, it might have
been a little more helpful had the hon. gentleman been here to
vote.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1500 )
The Speaker: That last statement was clearly out of order. I
ask the hon. minister to please withdraw it.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to withdraw the
remark if it offends the Reform Party.
11412
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has representatives in
Berlin today to engage in more talk about the need to improve
the way that we as nations respond to the world's growing
environmental crisis. At the same time here in Canada the media
is speculating about the possible dismantling of Environment
Canada because the department has become ineffective in
dealing with our own domestic environmental problems.
Can the government confirm today that it will stand with the
same political will to strengthen the federal role on domestic
environmental issues as it has shown in the defence of turbot
conservation and in support of the country's well-meaning but
nonetheless meaningless position at the Berlin conference?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Minister of the Environment, the Deputy
Prime Minister, is attending the conference in Berlin. Members
can rest assured that she will honourably represent this
government as she is wont to do in her inimitable fashion. She is
a very strong representative for us in Berlin.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns an issue that he
raised himself during question period about people being
presumed innocent until they are found guilty.
My question concerns the Pearson airport affair and the fact
that during the election campaign on this very matter the Prime
Minister said: ``The people have a right to know all the facts''.
Since then we have found that there is no finding of fact
whatsoever to support any wrongdoing. We have since learned
that he has had a personal involvement.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister and the
government whether or not they will hold a public inquiry on
this whole matter.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I regret very much that the hon. leader of the fifth party
has not seen fit to recognize the fact that the Prime Minister
stood in this House and denied categorically that he was
involved in any discussions relating to Pearson and that deal.
That was substantiated by a lawyer who allegedly had been
present when such a discussion was allegedly to have taken
place.
With respect to Pearson and in response to the hon.
gentleman's question, anybody who does not think there is
something wrong with the Pearson deal would have had to be a
member of the Mulroney cabinet.
The Speaker: I would like to draw members' attention to the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Senator Michael Beahan,
President of the Senate of Australia, and his fellow
parliamentarians who are visiting us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also, colleagues, today is a rather special day
for 23 remarkable young Canadians. They are with us as guests
of the House, of the National Capital Commission and the
surrounding area.
[Translation]
These young Canadians have distinguished themselves
through their talent, their determination and their achievements.
[English]
They are the winners of the 1995 YTV Achievement Awards.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
11412
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[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
16 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 71st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the associate membership of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, with the consent of the House and the
support of the Chief Government Whip, I move that the 71st
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, tabled in the House today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
11413
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by 25 members of my riding. They call upon Parliament
to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act
or to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which
provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, these petitioners are concerned with the amount of
violence and abuse in our society. They point out that violence
and abuse in the media are of particular concern to them and to
the people whom they know, particularly as it affects younger
children. They are concerned about all types of abuse and
violence.
They ask the government to ensure that the CRTC takes the
necessary measures in order to reduce it and if possible to
eliminate it. They point out that often what happens counters
what it is they try to do in raising their families. They do
appreciate some of the recent initiatives undertaken by the
CRTC and they want to applaud those.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to
present four petitions containing over 1,000 names.
The first one is from Mr. Kralkay of Prince George, B.C. The
second one is from Mr. Hackman and others of Prince George,
B.C. The third one is from Mr. Carvell of Houston, B.C. in my
riding. The fourth one is from the Fort Trap and Handgun Club
in Fort St. James which is in Prince George-Bulkley Valley
riding as well.
These petitions and the 1,000 names contained therein request
that Parliament support laws that will severely punish all violent
criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime. They
request also that Parliament support new Criminal Code
firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the rights
of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms.
They request the support of legislation that will repeal and
modify existing gun control laws which have not improved
public safety, have proven not to be cost effective, or have
proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or
unenforceable.
I personally support these petitions 100 per cent.
(1510 )
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 37
constituents of my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
This petition calls on Parliament not to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships, including
amending the Canadian Human Rights Code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to present two petitions today. The petitions are signed by
constituents of the riding of Red Deer.
In the first petition, the citizens express their disapproval of
special privileges being extended to same sex relationships and
the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian
Human Rights Act. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and
request that Parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 257 constituents.
The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament support laws that
will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in
the commission of crimes and that Parliament support
legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws
which have not improved public safety or have not proven to be
cost effective.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions concerning the extradition of Leonard
Peltier.
The first petition notes that at the time of Leonard Peltier's
extradition from Canada to the United States, the information
provided to the Canadian government regarding Mr. Peltier's
case was fabricated by the U.S. authorities. Since that time, new
information has emerged which indicates that Leonard Peltier
was framed for a crime he did not commit and for which he has
spent the last 18 years in prison. Key evidence was suppressed,
as found out under the freedom of information act. Perjury was
rampant throughout the trial and the key witness, Myrtle Poor
Bear, recanted her evidence publicly.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament lobby the
U.S. government for Mr. Peltier's return to Canada.
Madam Speaker, the second petition is similar to the first.
11414
It asserts that Leonard Peltier is innocent but still remains in
prison after 18 years. Under the U.S. freedom of information
laws it was found that the FBI had withheld certain evidence
which would have been helpful to Mr. Peltier's case. At Mr.
Peltier's first appeal in 1986 the court concluded that his
defence at the trial had been hampered by misconduct and
perjury.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament lobby and
advocate on behalf of Mr. Peltier to obtain a prison transfer to
Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is an
honour to present a petition called the Melanie Carpenter
petition which includes another installation of a few thousand
names.
The petitioners believe that many violent offenders and sex
offenders are being paroled prematurely or are being released
without proper treatment and rehabilitation. They also believe
that those convicted of dangerous and sexual offences should
remain incarcerated until they have successfully undergone
treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have
been completely rehabilitated.
The petitioners ask the Minister of Justice and the
Government of Canada to take whatever steps are necessary to
amend Canada's Criminal Code and the parole system to ensure
the safety and peace of our neighbourhoods.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have two petitions.
Several citizens of Canada state that because the inclusion of
the phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act
will provide certain groups with special status, rights and
privileges, and because the inclusion will infringe on the
historic rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion,
conscience, expression and association, they petition and call
upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which would provide for the inclusion of the phrase
sexual orientation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No.
105.
[Text]
Question No. 105-Mr. Cummins:
With regard to the mandatory use of mefloquine by Canadian forces
personnel, (a) what clinical or field studies did the Department of National
Defence undertake or fund into the possible adverse effects including the
impairment of judgment of the mandatory use of mefloquine by Canadian forces
while in Somalia, both while the personnel were in Somalia and on their return to
Canada, (b) what clinical or field studies did the Department of National Defence
undertake or fund into the possible adverse effects including the impairment of
judgment of the mandatory use of mefloquine by Canadian forces while in
Rwanda, both while the personnel were in Rwanda and on their return to Canada,
(c) what amount of alcohol was available on a daily basis to Canadian forces
personnel in Somalia and later in Rwanda who had received the mandatory
dosage of mefloquine, what adjustments or precautions were made to the dosages
by those administering the drug and what advice was given to persons required to
take mefloquine who might be expected to use alcohol during their tour of duty,
(d) what screening and other precautions were taken by those administering
mefloquine, and what advice was given to Canadian forces personnel in regard to
self-administered recreational body building, locally grown stimulants and
other such drugs that it could reasonably be expected that personnel might be
taking concurrent to their usage of mefloquine, (e) what ranks and occupations in
the Canadian forces were not subject to the mandatory use of mefloquine in either
Somalia or Rwanda and why were they not subject to the mandatory requirement
to take mefloquine and (f) why is the effective dosage of mefloquine taken by
Canadian forces stronger than the equivalent dosage given U.S. military
personnel and what are the possible adverse effects of such stronger dosages?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): (a)
None was conducted and none was deemed necessary.
(b) None was conducted and none was deemed necessary.
(c) The specific policy regarding the consumption of alcohol
is left to the field commander who determines the amount of
alcohol permitted per day during deployment. In Somalia,
members were not permitted any alcohol during the first six
weeks of their deployment, following which each member was
allowed two beers per day, except on special occasions where no
restrictions were imposed, e.g. regimental birthday. In Rwanda,
members are permitted two beers per day for six days of the
week with no alcohol one day a week. The field commander may
remove these restrictions for special occasions.
Until quite recently, there was no scientific evidence that
personnel taking mefloquine were at an enhanced risk of a
serious adverse interation when drinking alcohol. Further, the
prescribing information for mefloquine does not mention
concern about such an interaction. Thus, when Canadian forces
members were deployed to Somalia and Rwanda, there was no
evident need to warn those taking mefloquine about an
interaction with alcohol. However, a Canadian medical journal
has recently, on February 15, 1995, reported a single case of a
likely serious interaction between mefloquine and copious
alcohol ingestion which resulted in a temporary psychotic state
in the patient. This is the first reasonably documented reported
case among the millions of persons who have taken mefloquine
worldwide in the last decade, many of whom likely drank
alcohol, even substantial quantities, hence the risk of such an
interaction would seem quite small. In light of this report, it is
felt by the Surgeon General that it is prudent specifically to
caution members taking mefloquine against the concurrent
excessive use of alcohol; the necessary direction is being drawn
up. Reducing the mefloquine dosage to minimize potential
11415
mefloquine/alcohol interaction was not and is not recommended
since this would enhance the risk of getting malaria.
It is important to state that responsible use of alcohol is
already the expected norm in the Canadian forces for other
substantial reasons, e.g., injury control, whether inside or
outside Canada.
(d) The usual precautions for the prescribing of mefloquine
were employed. The Canadian forces have an education based
drug and alcohol prevention program, DAPP, to which personnel
are to be exposed annually. The Canadian airborne regiment had
a DAPP session for the junior non-commissioned members in
the fall of 1992 and for senior non-commissioned members and
officers before departure to Somalia. At the time of deployment,
there was no published literature that indicated an adverse
interaction between recreational drugs and mefloquine;
therefore, specific advice was not given to those who might use
recreational drugs when taking mefloquine, although it is
standard policy that recreational drugs are not to be taken by
Canadian forces members.
(e) There has been a longstanding caution against using
mefloquine among persons for whom dizziness might be
particularly detrimental. While there is no evidence that this
caution is necessary, out of prudence, the Canadian forces
follows it and mefloquine was not and is not used in certain
occupational groups, primarily pilots and divers. Hence, in
Somalia and Rwanda, pilots and divers were not to be prescribed
mefloquine.
(f) Mefloquine marketed in Canada is the European
formulation which has 250 mg of base drug. The U.S.
formulation has 228 mg of base drug, or 9 per cent less active
drug. Medical studies have been done on both formulations with
similar conclusions. It is unlikely that the minimally lower dose
in the U.S. preparation is of practical significance.
[English]
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, if Question No. 77 could be made an Order for Return,
the return would be tabled immediately. For the record, I note
that Question No. 77 is a starred question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
*Question No. 77-Mrs. Lalonde:
For each program respecting a component of unemployment insurance,
employment, child tax benefit, children's special allowances, negotiation and
administration of international social security agreements, income security and
social programs, namely EIC 1 to EIC 45, HWC 26 to HWC 42 and LAB 112, what
have been the (a) annual budgets and (b) administrative costs for each province
and territory since 1989?
Return tabled.
[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.
_____________________________________________
11415
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1515)
[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. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-76, an act to
implement certain provisions of the 1995 budget. I would like,
however, to preface my discussion on the specific aspects of this
bill with a few general comments about the budget.
The Liberal agenda with regard to deficit reduction was
clearly outlined in the red book and has been reiterated by the
Minister of Finance many times over the past 18 months.
Unlike the Reform Party we have not made unrealistic
promises to reduce the deficit overnight. Rather we have set, and
will continue to set, realistic goals until such time as the deficit
is eliminated.
There is no denying that some of the measures announced in
this budget are tough. However, the reality is that the time has
come to make these changes. The Liberal Party campaigned on
providing good government, and this budget underscores that
commitment by taking on the challenge of reducing the deficit
and modernizing government. I acknowledge that adjustments
will have to be made, but I believe that this will be for the long
term good of this country.
11416
Personally, I was relieved to note that the cuts announced in
the budget are fairly uniform from region to region. Unlike last
year, for instance, when I had to deal with the closure of two
Canadian forces stations in my riding, Atlantic Canada has not
received a disproportionate share of the cuts.
That said, I would now like to concentrate on the bill before
us. Where possible I would like to discuss the various aspects of
this legislation by focusing on the effect that these measures will
have on the province of Nova Scotia and, in particular, my riding
of South Shore.
One of the most important facets of this legislation is the
establishment of the Canadian health and social transfer. This
initiative, which converts established programs financing for
health and education and the Canada assistance plan into a
single consolidated block transfer, is a fundamental structural
change that will result in decisive deficit reduction. The result
will be a transfer system that is fiscally sustainable and more
effective in meeting contemporary needs.
This approach provides real benefits to both levels of
government and will reduce a number of longstanding irritants.
For example, the provinces will be free to pursue their own
innovative approaches to social security reform and will have
more control over how they meet their priorities. They will no
longer be subject to rules stipulating that certain expenditures
are eligible for cost sharing and others are not. As well, the
expense of administering cost sharing will be eliminated.
Some people have expressed concern that this change in
funding methods will result in the disintegration of national
standards. This is simply not so. The transfer will not be totally
unconditional, nor, as the Minister of Finance stated in his
budget speech, does flexibility mean a free for all. The
principles of the Canada Health Act will continue to be
enforced. There will be no change in the principle that provinces
must provide social assistance without minimum residency
requirements. Rather a set of shared principles and objectives
will be developed in concert with the provinces to underly the
new transfer.
It is also important to note that the equalization program will
remain intact and will continue to grow. This ensures that
provinces like Nova Scotia will have the ability to provide all
Canadians with a reasonably comparable level of service
regardless of where they live. Overall in the Atlantic provinces
equalization growth offsets Canada health and social transfer
reductions so that overall transfers will increase slightly to these
provinces. In fact, in Nova Scotia the percentage change in
provincial transfer entitlements has increased by .09 per cent for
1996-97.
The next facet of this bill that I would like to cover is the
elimination of the Atlantic freight subsidies under the Atlantic
Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates
Act.
(1520 )
These subsidies were provided to rail, trucking and marine
companies to defray the cost of shipping goods within the
Atlantic region and to central Canadian markets. However, a
recent analysis of this program has shown that they are no longer
serving their original purpose.
For instance, almost half of the $99 million spent annually
goes to ship goods within provincial boundaries. High tariff
barriers that restricted access by regional producers to markets
in the United States and abroad no longer exist.
Shipments to central Canada represent a small and declining
portion of the Atlantic region's market. In fact, only 13 per cent
of goods produced are sent to central Canada. Goods are also
being shipped further than need be in order to collect the
subsidy.
The elimination of this tariff will lead to increased efficiency
and, very importantly, will reduce the burden on taxpayers and
shift the cost of providing transportation onto those who use and
directly benefit from the system.
I was pleased to note that Transport Canada will be providing
$326 million in transitional funding to the Atlantic provinces to
alleviate shipper hardship, upgrade highways and transportation
infrastructure on a cost shared basis.
By turning away from broad subsidization and toward focused
and responsible investment in infrastructure and technology,
Transport Canada is helping to build an integrated and
affordable national transportation system, something that will
benefit all of Atlantic Canada rather than just one specific
sector.
Bill C-76 also contains amendments to the workforce
adjustment directive, the Public Service Employment Act and
the Public Sector Compensation Act that will facilitate a fair and
orderly downsizing of the public service.
It is estimated that about 45,000 federal public service jobs
will be affected by the measures implemented in this budget as a
result of program review. Some of these jobs will be transferred
to the private sector. Other reductions will be realized through
attrition, voluntary departures and layoffs. The impact that this
will have on the Atlantic region has not yet been determined, but
all indications are that a large portion of these cuts will be made
in the national capital region. This is due to the fact that
approximately one-third of the total public service workforce is
located in this region.
These cuts are the unfortunate part of the transition from a
public service that tries to be all things to all people to one that
offers Canadians a more limited number of high value programs
and services. The approach taken by previous governments of
11417
implementing across the board cuts is no longer a viable
solution.
This government is at the point where such a measure would
only result in good programs being penalized and working
conditions suffering. For too long federal employees at every
level have had to contend with heavier workloads and fewer
resources. It is now time for government to change, to
streamline its operations. As was noted in the 1994 budget
announcement, it is time to ensure that government's
diminished resources are directed to the highest priority
requirements, to those areas where the federal government is
best placed to deliver services.
As a result of this review, it has become necessary for the
government to enact changes to the various pieces of legislation
that govern the public service. These changes are necessary to
achieve our fiscal objectives.
Over the next three years there will be major changes to the
way government services are delivered. As a result, some
temporary measures are required to ensure that where there is no
work there is no pay.
Another measure in this legislation will see the termination of
payments under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.
This program involves the federal government transferring to
the provinces and territories 95 per cent of federal income taxes
paid by privately owned electrical and gas utilities. In turn, the
provinces were to transfer this amount to privately owned
utilities. Nova Scotia is the only province that actually utilizes
the transfer as it was intended, and I anticipate that Nova Scotia
Power and its customers throughout the province will bear the
brunt of this budget measure.
I am against this particular cut because it means that power
bills in Nova Scotia will increase. However, I realize that other
provinces are going to have to deal with the loss of this transfer
money as well in one way or another.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my overall support for the
1995 budget. I am very pleased to be part of a government that
has the will and determination to tackle this country's deficit
problem. It is about time that concrete action was taken.
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker,
unlike the members opposite, Bill C-76 leaves me with a bitter
taste. I find it hard to believe that the Minister of Finance does
not realize the impact, for the country as a whole, of this bill
designed to implement major changes, particularly as regards
those transfers to the provinces which relate to social, health and
post-secondary programs, and also to the Canada Assistance
Plan. The mere mention of these programs makes you realize
that the government means business.
Over the next three years, the Liberal government will cut $7
billion in the transfers to the provinces. What should Quebec
expect? In 1995, the reductions in transfers to Quebec will be
minimal, for the obvious reason that a referendum is expected
this year. The government does not want to make waves in
Quebec with this budget. However, when you see how generous
the federal government is with Quebec, you realize that, day
after day, it is implementing several strategies, instead of
governing and creating jobs, as it promised to do. In fact, the
Liberals were elected precisely because they promised to create
jobs. But, right now, they are only interested in implementing
their strategy. In 1996-97, however, things will change
drastically; they will get much tougher for Quebec, which will
have to make do with a $650 million shortfall.
It was recently said in Toronto that Canada had to make
Quebecers suffer. That process has started. The government is
starting to make Quebecers suffer with cuts in the transfers, and
the process will continue until 1997-98. Quebecers are told that
they will have to negotiate. How? Time will tell. Quebec has
been trying to negotiate with this Parliament for decades, but we
have never managed to agree.
Consequently, I fail to see why the federal government would
want to renegotiate the issue of transfers to the provinces. The
government willingly complies with the demands of the rich
provinces, particularly Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
Is the government considering splitting the resource envelope
for the main transfers by using as a criterion the provinces'
respective populations? If so, Quebec would have to absorb 41.7
per cent of the cuts to transfers. This would mean a shortfall of
close to $2 billion for Quebec, between 1997 and 1998. The
federal government is indeed deliberately trying to make
Quebec suffer. What really hurts though is that it is Quebecers
who do most of the damage, and I am thinking in particular of
the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of
Labour.
(1530)
Transfer payments to the provinces are not a bonus. These are
transfers of tax revenues paid for by the workers in each
province.
When Quebec finally patriates the $30 billion in taxes that the
people of Quebec pay the federal government every year, then
we will have all the resources we need to govern ourselves.
As a result of the federal government's cuts in transfer
payments to the provinces between 1982 and 1993, taxes paid by
Quebecers to the federal government increased 143 per cent.
Meanwhile, federal transfer payments increased only 50 per
cent.
11418
As usual, these cuts will come down hardest on the most
vulnerable members of our society. They will cut the federal
government's share of financing for social programs, from 37.8
per cent to 28.5 per cent within four years. Is this just another
way to hit Quebec? Cuts and more cuts, but they never refer to
putting people back to work in this country. And working at well
paid jobs, so they can work with dignity.
As a result of this budget, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
area lost 285 jobs at the Canadian Forces base in Bagotville,
although Quebec has only 13 per cent of Canada's defence
infrastructure and staff. And it seems that an experimental farm
in Normandin is either going to be closed down or lose a number
of jobs. There is still a great deal of uncertainty among
employees at Radio-Canada in Chicoutimi and at the National
Film Board. However, it is common knowledge that this area
was hit hard by the recession and unemployment. For several
years, it has had the highest unemployment rate. I do not think
my region and my riding will be able to overcome these
problems if we stay within this system.
Do hon. members not realize that by putting the unemployed
and welfare recipients back to work, we will increase tax
revenues, and that these tax revenues will in the end help Canada
out of its precarious financial position?
And by the way, as we put people back to work, there is
another way to save a lot of money: eliminate duplication and
overlap of services in many departments, including the
Department of Health and the Department of Human Resources
Development, since the provinces already have similar
departments.
I would say that 90 per cent of the people who come to see me
at my riding office are at their wits' end. They are no longer
eligible for unemployment insurance, so they are on welfare. We
have no way of helping them to get out of this morass. And I do
not think that the bill before the House today is the answer to all
these problems.
(1535)
I think we should take the surplus in the Unemployment
Insurance Fund, give it to the provinces and let them select and
conduct the courses and provide training that would be
appropriate for these people. I am sure that everyone would
benefit.
[English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the
budget for several reasons, one being I believe it addresses
Canada's present needs and prepares us well for tomorrow's
challenges.
The budget recognizes the need to remain within our fiscal
parameters. It recognizes the fiscal realities with which we are
faced and it reminds us that we as Canadians cherish certain
fundamental values and principles.
The other reason is I have a number of comments to make.
[Translation]
In the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised the
deficit would be reduced to 3 per cent of the gross domestic
product by the end of the 1996-97 fiscal year. This required
drastic measures. Canadians have told us that they do not want
tax increases and that they want cuts in government spending.
I think this is what we have done. However, if government
spending is to be cut, it means services have to be cut. I worry
about this, even though the financial world is satisfied.
[English]
In nationwide budget consultations Canadians told us they
wanted to be treated fairly and equitably. They wanted the
government to reassess its priorities and they were prepared to
undertake certain measures and see certain reforms if they were
to pave the road and build the foundations for a stronger and
more prosperous Canada.
Vancouver East is no different in this regard. In a series of
meetings with my constituents, one message was recurrent. In
defining the role of government and reviewing Canada's
problems and Canada's delivery of services we should be fair
and equitable. The residents of Vancouver East wanted to see by
and large a fairer tax system. The budget improves tax fairness.
Large corporations are expected to make a larger contribution
to help bring the deficit down. Both the large corporations tax
rate and the corporate surtax were increased by 12.5 per cent.
The capital tax on banks and similar large deposit taking
institutions will also be temporarily increased, but we must do
better. At the same time the government did not increase
personal income tax for the second year in a row.
[Translation]
In an attempt to spread the cuts among Canadians, a lot of
programs have been eliminated. This concerns me a lot. It
concerns me particularly because women, immigrants, children
and poor families need these programs.
Lots of families in my riding of Vancouver East are in crisis.
Lots of children in my riding will not complete their education.
They are caught in a cycle of poverty they cannot escape. These
children need help with programs that provide encouragement.
The announced cuts could have dire consequences.
11419
[English]
The residents of Vancouver East told me they do not want an
erosion of our social programs or the government to abandon its
traditional role in preserving social programs.
I support the government's continued efforts to encourage and
instil in individuals a greater sense of self-confidence and
independence. The government recognizes the need to protect
the weak and the needy, those who are unable to care for
themselves. We recognize there can be new partnerships that can
result in greater efficiencies and greater responsiveness.
The provinces will now have greater ability to design
programs more suitable and appropriate rather than being bound
by rigid rules. Nonetheless, there will continue to be national
standards for the new Canada social transfers, and the provinces
will be required to provide social assistance without imposing
any minimum residency requirement.
[Translation]
Naturally the new system is not perfect. I fear that we will not
be able to ensure all the provinces apply the programs
uniformly, and, as a result, social programs could be seriously
eroded.
However, if these measures are not taken, we could find
ourselves, in a few years, completely without social programs.
The change in transfers will come into effect next year. The
federal government is currently negotiating changes with the
provinces in the hopes that the provinces will administer the
social programs better, because they are more attuned to the
needs of their population. These changes represent cuts in
transfer payments of $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in
1997-98.
(1540)
Despite these figures, the cuts to the provinces are not as deep
as the cuts at the federal level. We have to work together to
ensure that those who really need assistance are not abandoned.
[English]
As for immigration, we all know immigrants have played an
important role in the building of our country and in the building
of Vancouver East. Immigration has been a success story in
Canada and doubtless Canada has benefited from the enormous
contributions of immigrants to Canada. Immigrants have helped
to build our nation and they will continue to help build our
future.
Vancouver East is evidence of the outstanding contributions
of immigrants and is home to a cross-section of numerous
ethnic cultures. Vancouver East is a culturally diverse riding,
with half of the riding being comprised of immigrants, the
largest group being the Chinese. Less than one-third of the
residents of Vancouver East were born in British Columbia, one
of the lowest figures in B.C. We must continue to encourage
immigration.
Many individuals have communicated to me that effective
integration of newcomers is essential to their success. On the
other hand, some have noted the substantial cost of the programs
and the need for everyone to live up to their responsibilities.
A clear intention of the budget is to reduce the federal deficit.
For the Department of Citizenship and Immigration this means
re-examining its priorities. In the nationwide consultations
conducted by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
the public stated immigration, refugee and citizenship programs
were valid and necessary for the development of Canada and
that there was little room for cuts to expenditures.
More recently under both the budget and program review we
have seen the implementation of cost saving measures and a
shift in some of the cost burden from the taxpayer to those who
benefit directly from our programs and services, including the
introduction of a new right of landing fee set at $975 per adult
over 19 years of age.
I greatly hope the new fee will be fair and equitable in its
practical application, that it will not unduly restrict or even
remotely discourage immigration to our country, however
alluring and magnificent our country may be. Granted, the
program provides a loan option for those individuals less
equipped to meet the new fee. However, we must be flexible and
we must be accommodating.
What if individuals come from deeply impoverished nations
where opportunity of education is unavailable to all and where
the skills and training required to function and be successful in
our society are lacking? The loan option is said to be based on
one's ability to repay the loan within a certain time period. How
can these individuals without the necessary tools to acquire
meaningful employment be realistically expected to repay the
loans within a three-year period?
I hope the requirement to repay the loans will be relaxed under
certain circumstances to allow individuals sufficient time to
develop the skills and training to allow them to find employment
or the means by which they might better be able to repay the loan
while at the same time independently maintain a decent standard
of living.
[Translation]
The last measure I would like to discuss is Canada's health
care system. The principles set forth in our health act must be
defended and maintained. They are: universality,
comprehensiveness, flexibility, portability and public
administration.
In the budget speech, we said, and I quote: ``For this
government, those are fundamental''. We must continue to
protect them, as they are. The government said it would abide by
these principles and it will.
11420
[English]
I believe my task is to make sure the poor do not become
poorer but are helped to get out of poverty, that women can
realize themselves and can be assisted in their endeavours, that
immigrants continue to be accepted and respected, and that
families be helped through difficult times and stressful
situations. That is a mammoth task which can be tackled only if I
can count on my constituents and on all Canadians. I am looking
forward to working with them for a better future. I know they are
willing to work with me.
Overall the budget is a success. We must be vigilant in our
commitment to supporting the pillars of liberalism: freedom of
the individual, equality of opportunity and compassion for those
who have less. I am very committed to these fundamental
principles and I know all of my colleagues are as well. Let us
work together.
(1545 )
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-76, the budget
implementation act, which is intended to legislate into law
certain aspects of the government's budget tabled in February. I
would like to focus my remarks today on how this bill and
budget impacts upon Canadians.
``Government really does know what is best for you, rather
than what you know yourself'', seems to be the message of this
government. Where is its trust in Canadians? Where is its
confidence in individuals, families and communities to make
their own best choices? I will attempt to illustrate the reasons for
my concerns in the next few moments.
I want to review the four principles the government put
forward in its budget. First, the government says it must get its
own fiscal house in order and focus on cutting spending, not
raising taxes. Before this budget was presented, I heard
Canadians say they were taxed to death. I heard Canadians say
they wanted no new taxes. Well, guess what? In this budget the
government gave them new tax.
The second principle is that the priorities of this country must
reflect the needs of the people. Canadians need an economic
plan that promotes jobs and growth. I do not think the
government gets it yet, that government does not create real
jobs; individuals create real jobs. The money left in the hands of
taxpayers will create real and lasting jobs.
The third principle it put forward was frugality, that every tax
dollar counts. I ask this government, does that include the tax
dollars that are going to go toward your pensions? Does that
make those tax dollars count, obscene pensions by this
government?
The fourth principle is that we must be fair among regions and
among Canadians. Again, I take that point. Is an illegal pension
plan for MPs fair to Canadians?
I would like to add a fifth item to this list of principles, and I
wish the principles had been followed. This principle is one to
add. We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person
and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family
unit as essential to the well-being of individuals in society.
The Reform Party has recognized the importance of family as
a principle since its very inception. The Reform Party has
established a task force on the family, which I chair, that is
developing policies that specifically address issues that directly
affect the family. This government must shift its focus and
seriously consider the impact of the policies, both in its budget
and otherwise, and how they apply to the Canadian family.
First, I would like to take a look at the debt-deficit
circumstances of our country. This government, as with
previous governments, is pursuing a reckless fiscal policy that
sees our national debt mushrooming to alarming proportions.
The total national debt as of today, April 3, 1995, stands at $540
billion plus.
The government has not laid out its plans to achieve a
balanced budget yet. It has only set a target of 3 per cent of GNP
for a deficit to GNP ratio. This target is totally unrealistic and
duplicitous. Our debt continues to grow with an ever present
deficit. The government's own statistics in its budget documents
show that since it has been in power the debt will mushroom to
$508 billion in 1993-94 and to a projected $603 billion in
1996-97, all other things being equal, $100 billion more in debt
within its mandate, and it considers this a wise budget.
The percentage of net public debt to GDP will increase from
71.4 per cent in 1993-94 to 73.4 per cent in 1996-97. World
standards would say that is completely unacceptable. The
interest payments on that debt have increased from $38 billion
in 1993-94 to a projected amount of over $50 billion in
1996-97.
I go back to my original statement: What do these statistics
mean to the Canadian family? First, it means Canadian families
are overtaxed. They have less disposable income because of
their high level of taxation, and that makes a virtual necessity
for two income earners to support a household. This government
is driving two parents out of the home to make a living.
As Statistics Canada recently reported, family income has
actually declined in real terms since 1989; that is, from $56,000
to $52,000 in real 1993 dollars. That is a decline of 7.5 per cent
from 1989 to 1993. Meanwhile, the number of dual income
families has been forced to increase. The decline in family
incomes from 1992-93 was 2.6 per cent alone. In the meantime,
day care demands increased thanks to taxation and government
policy.
11421
(1550)
The second thing these debt and deficit statistics mean is that
money will not be available for social programs that Canadian
families require.
The interest on the debt is consuming one-third of our tax
dollars. This means that with increasing debt and added deficits,
less and less money will be available to fund our needed social
programs. The government claims to be protecting the interests
of Canadians and their families. Yet even in this budget, under
the new Canada social transfers, block transfers to the provinces
will actually decrease from $26.9 billion in 1996-97 to $25
billion in 1997-98.
What is needed? A fiscal remedy is needed. The focus of
government spending on need and relief for the Canadian
taxpayer and family is needed. A whole new approach and focus
is needed by this government. Canadian families and
individuals must be empowered to create opportunities for
themselves and for their future. The government must get off the
backs of Canadians. This is the Reform Party's approach.
In February, before the government tabled its budget, our
party released its taxpayers' budget, the Reform Party's plan to
balance the federal budget and provide social and economic
security for the 21st century. This unprecedented action of
presenting a budget before the federal budget combines both a
remedy and relief.
First, this budget offers a clear solution for our fiscal
problems and the debt-deficit crisis. This plan includes a
balanced budget within the life of this Parliament. A balanced
budget will result in a government that lives within its means.
How do we achieve this? With $10 billion in savings from
government operations and $15 billion in affordable savings
from targeted social programs. The government has not yet
released its plan for achieving this vital goal, whereas Reform
has, both during the election campaign and now.
It is interesting to note that in Reform's zero in three plan
back in the election campaign, we predicted cutbacks of 30,000
in public service positions. This government at that time said
absolutely nothing. Now it throws 45,000 public servants out of
work and still keeps digging a bigger debt hole. That is not
giving the full story to the Canadian people.
Reform, by contrast, reduces government spending honestly
and realistically. At the same time, Reform offers a promise of
empowerment for Canadian families. We define empowerment
as the provision of better tools and increased opportunities for
individuals, groups and provinces to improve their own social
and economic security. This is relief.
How would Reform empower Canadians and Canadian
families? First, the taxpayer protection act, to give the taxpayer
a say in how government spends their hard-earned tax dollars.
This would say first, that government spending and taxes would
have to be balanced over the business cycle. Second, total
government spending and taxes could not exceed a constant
proportion of national income and could only be increased by
extraordinary legislative means. Such an act would prevent the
reoccurrence or continuation of our debt-deficit problem, which
has plagued government for so many years. It could be
somewhat like a taxpayers' rehab centre for a government
addicted to overspending. It would force discipline upon the
spending addictions of both government and its politicians.
Second, the empowerment of Canadian families would come
through reform of our social security programs. Politicians have
always worked with the premise that Canadians' personal
security needs are best met by government. This has led to a
centralized, bureaucratic, expensive system that is insensitive to
individual needs. This has ignored both the ability and
opportunity of many Canadians to help themselves and others.
Right now total spending on social programs in Canada
exceeds $140 billion. That is $18,000 for every family of four in
Canada. Reform would suggest that government programs may
in fact be the worst way of providing for the social security
needs of some of those Canadians.
We would like less government intervention in personal
security. We have suggested the RPSP to put the future plans of
Canadians in their own hands.
(1555 )
I would also like to see less government intervention in
families, where, rather than a national day care program,
government rewards and recognizes families for taking care of
their own children. We need less, not more government. We
need the empowerment of families, communities and local
organizations.
Reform has a vision for building a new and better Canada. The
security of Canada is not in government but in allowing wise
choices to be made by families and individuals in Canada.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House of Commons today
to speak on Bill C-76. This budget shows once again our
commitment to consulting Canadians.
The Minister of Finance has delivered a fair and honest
budget. It is a tough budget, some may argue, but the measures
introduced are essential if we are to face economic realities and
reach our fiscal targets.
[Translation]
For the second year in a row, the Liberal government has
refused to reduce the deficit at the expense of the Canadian
11422
taxpayer. This budget will allow us to meet our deficit reduction
goals without increasing personal income taxes.
This budget illustrates the difficult choices that confronted us
when we undertook to revamp federal programs in order to
increase efficiency without compromising the priorities of
Canadians.
The budget reflects the most thorough review of federal
programs ever. Through program review, the government
identified $16.9 billion in cuts to programs over the next three
years, not including transfers to individuals and to the
provinces.
[English]
Some additional highlights of this year's budget I would like
to highlight are the reform of government programs and
procedures to eliminate waste and abuse and ensure value for
Canadian taxpayers. We have just completed the largest
program review ever initiated.
The second is the move toward a fairer tax system, including
tighter rules for tax deferrals, foreign and family trusts, R and D
incentives, and higher taxes for corporations and large banks.
For too long corporations have been more or less excluded from
taxation. This is one step in the right direction in ensuring that
everyone bears the burden of this deficit.
Another highlight is the delivery of a new vision of the federal
government's role in the economy that includes a reduction in
business subsidies by 60 per cent over three years from $3.8
billion in 1994-95 to $1.5 billion in 1997.
At this point I would like to focus the House's attention on one
aspect of the budget that unfairly affects many Canadians of
Greek origin as well as other veterans. That is the announced
changes to the war veterans allowance program that would
return this program to its original intent. As a result, the war
veterans allowance and related benefits have been discontinued
for former members of the resistance. Also, all allied veterans
with post-war residency are required to reside in Canada six
months out of the year if they wish to continue to receive these
benefits.
These changes will affect approximately 2,895 former
resistance members in the Montreal region of whom 90 per cent
are Canadians of Greek origin.
On March 2, 1992 the War Veterans Allowance Act was
amended to remove the right of applicants with service limited
to a resistance group to qualify for benefits. However, existing
domestic resistance service recipients were to be grandfathered
if they maintained their residency in Canada. Moreover, foreign
resistance recipients were required to return to Canada and
resume residency within one year or risk losing their entitlement
to war veterans benefits forever.
More specifically, section 6.1 provided grandfathering to
those who qualified on or before March 2, 1992 and would
continue for life if they remained residents in Canada. There
were approximately 700 resistance claimants who returned to
resume residency in Canada. For some this brought on certain
hardships: separation from their families residing abroad,
resettlement, isolation.
While Canada is the only country in the world to offer such an
allowance to members of the resistance, the announced changes
will bring on added hardships to all individuals who depend on
this source of income.
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about the
problem of transferring individuals between the ages of 60 and
65 from one social program to another. To date the government,
through the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of
Finance, have shown sensitivity and understanding toward this
problem, especially regarding those people who are not yet
eligible for old age security.
(1600 )
Benefits were initially scheduled to be discontinued about
three months after the budget was tabled. However through the
interventions of myself and other members of Parliament we
have been given the assurance these cuts will not go into effect
until August 31, 1995.
I asked how much would the government really save by
having a group of persons transferred from one social program
to another, from war veterans allowance to welfare, or by having
a group, the allied veterans, return to resume residence in
Canada. There are about 740 in total living abroad. The average
age of allied veterans is 75.
We must compare the social impact of such a move. Would we
really save by having these people return to Canada and take
advantage of our social programs including health care?
I consider the situation of these individuals as unjust and I
made recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of National Defence on this issue, as have other
members of the House.
There has been some concern that benefits are being paid out
to persons who are no longer living. Therefore, I and other
colleagues have made recommendations that individuals could
register with the Canadian embassy in their respective
countries.
I appreciate the government's interest in finding a just
solution to this problem and thank the Minister of National
Defence for agreeing to review this aspect of the program
review in light of the difficulties these people will face in
returning to Canada.
I will continue to work with many colleagues in the House, the
Hellenic Canadian Congress, the veterans associations of the
Hellenic community and other concerned parties to see the
concerns of these individuals are addressed.
11423
Canada has not forgotten the contributions these veterans
made to the preservation of democracy during World War II. It is
the only country to offer this type of allowance to former
members of the resistance. I am proud that Canada offered this.
The issue of fraudulent claims has also been brought forward
as a reason for terminating the allowance. While there may have
been certain individuals who took advantage of the generosity in
this program, the majority are deserving applicants. The
government did not terminate the program because of the few
individuals who took advantage of Canada's generosity.
Cost effectiveness was the reason this allowance was
terminated. The targets will not be met when we consider the
cost to be incurred once these individuals cross over to welfare.
Most significant in the budget is that it marks the beginning of
a new era, a new way of managing the federation. It is a simpler,
more efficient way that accords with provincial responsibilities
to design and deliver key services. Many have seen this move as
a move away from traditional Liberalism based on the principle
of shared social responsibility.
Over the years successive Liberal governments have shown
their commitment to this value through their actions. Many of
the laws and policies they enacted remain the basis of our
system of social support through which we pool our resources to
create programs that benefit all Canadians and help sustain
people through difficult times.
We are presently in difficult times. The test for our
government will be to rise to the challenge and ensure the
announced social program transfers will not jeopardize our
standards of universal health care, unemployment insurance,
old age security, the Canada assistance plan and the Canada
pension plan.
These are part of the Liberal legacy and must remain in place
if we are to continue to be the country that is the envy of the
world. Poverty remains a growing problem for Canadian society
as we try to overcome the economic challenges facing our
country.
While the budget does not, as some members of the
opposition would like to believe, make its cuts on the backs of
our poor, their future must be brighter. Furthermore, the
structure of the economy is changing. As a result the family
structure is also undergoing changes. There have been enormous
increases in single parent families and in families with both
parents working and in families living in poverty, as is the case
in my riding.
The failed economic and social policies of the Conservative
government have left over 4.2 million Canadians living in
poverty, of whom 1.2 million are children. Sixty-two per cent of
families headed by single mothers are living in poverty with
their incomes failing.
The Liberals made a commitment in the red book to work
toward greater equality of social conditions among Canadians,
to redistribute opportunity more broadly so that many more
people have a decent standard of living and can build good lives
for themselves and their families, allowing them to live with
dignity and respect.
[Translation]
We must do everything we can to maintain our social
programs at current levels despite expenditure cuts. Like all
Canadians, we believe that we must strive to balance the budget.
We will achieve this responsibly and realistically, without
compromising the gains we have made over the last 16 months
in the areas of job creation and economic growth, and without
compromising the values and priorities of all Canadians and of
the Liberal government.
(1605)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, education, health and social assistance come
under provincial jurisdiction. Over time, however, Ottawa has
gradually encroached on these areas of provincial jurisdiction
through its spending powers. The provinces must abide by these
standards in order to receive federal funds. In seeking to enforce
its national standards, the federal government was compelled to
put in place a large public service, thus duplicating the
provincial public service.
These expenditures, also known as overlap or duplication, are
costing us roughly $1 billion a year at the Department of Health
and $1.8 billion a year at the Department of Human Resources
Development, at a time when there is so much whining about
budget difficulties. Bill C-76, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27,
1995, does exactly what its title indicates, that is, allow the
government to implement certain measures announced in the
finance minister's last budget.
It is crucial that all Quebecers understand this bill, which may
appear daunting at first because it deals with financial
management links between the federal government and the
provinces. These realities are very far removed from our fellow
citizens. Quebec men and women have better things to do at
supper time than talk about equalization, established programs
financing, or the Canada Assistance Plan. It is, however,
essential to pay attention because these three programs alone
represent transfers to the provinces in the order of $38 billion
for 1995-96.
Federal contributions to these programs are falling
dramatically and systematically from year to year. According to
Quebec's Minister of Finance, ``Between 1977 and 1994, the
federal government's share of social program funding in Quebec
for health, education and social assistance dropped from 47.6
per cent to 37.8 per cent. The finance minister's budget points to
a
11424
dramatic decline in the federal share, which would fall to 28.5
per cent by 1997-98''.
It is essential that citizens pay attention to equalization,
established programs financing and the Canada Assistance Plan,
because it is there that the federal government is hiding a large
part of its cuts. Some refer to this as the offloading of the federal
deficit onto the provinces. These cuts will cost Quebec
taxpayers close to $2 billion in 1997-98.
It is essential for the men and women of Quebec to understand
how these programs work and the changes proposed today
through Bill C-76, because this bill is the basic element of the
federal proposal in the referendum debate.
Quebecers may have heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs
speak of renewed federalism before the budget was tabled. He
travelled throughout Quebec saying, ``You just wait and see,
after the budget is tabled, we will talk about a new Canada''.
Others may have heard some federal spokespersons talk about
decentralized federalism. The people must be told that these
proposals are based on the bill before us today and that is why I
urge them to pay particular attention to this bill.
The finance minister's budget wants to impose on us what we
rejected in the 1992 referendum. Let us have a closer look at the
federal government's proposal as compared to the sovereignty
option offered by the Quebec government to its people.
(1610)
To do so, we must understand how tax transfers are made
between the federal government and the provinces. For social
assistance, health and education, these transfers are made under
three major programs.
The first one, the fiscal equalization program, is prescribed by
the constitution. It is the program under which wealth is
redistributed among the wealthier and poorer Canadian
provinces. Quebec is now one of the poorer provinces. In 1982,
the federal government capped the amount of equalization
payments.
Last January-that is, January 1994-the Liberal government
extended this cap for another five years with Bill C-3. By
putting a cap on equalization payments, the federal government
is defeating the very purpose of the program, which is to help
bridge the gap between wealthier and poorer provinces. Since
the equalization program was dealt with in another bill, namely
Bill C-3, there is nothing about it in Bill C-76.
The second major program governing fiscal relations between
the federal government and the provinces is called established
programs financing (EPF). Through this program, the federal
government provides financial assistance to the provinces in the
areas of health and postsecondary education.
When the EPF was first introduced in 1977, federal transfers
were supposed to be calculated on a per capita basis and
indexed. But as the federal government sees its financial
capability shrink away, it transfers less and less money.
The third major program is the Canada assistance plan, also
known as CAP. This program governs federal transfer payments
to the provinces for social assistance. In Quebec, the payments
made under this program cover 50 per cent of social assistance
costs.
What does Bill C-76 provide for regarding established
programs financing and the Canada assistance plan? It calls for
these programs to be abolished and replaced with a new program
called Canadian social transfer. And the proposed changes
would take effect in 1996-97.
The Canadian social transfer has two main characteristics.
First, it will save the federal government some money. Indeed,
the government is taking advantage of this change to
substantially reduce its contribution to the new program. The
second feature of the CST is the fact that, even if the federal
government provides more limited financing, it reserves the
right to impose standards and requirements to the provinces, as a
condition to that financing.
In 1996-97, the first year of the new system, the federal
government will contribute $2.5 billion less than what it is
currently providing to the provinces through the programs
which it is proposing to replace. In Quebec's case, this means a
loss of $650 million. In 1997-98, the resource envelope for the
provinces will be reduced by $4.5 billion, which could mean a
$1.2-billion loss for Quebec.
All told, the federal government is reducing its current
transfers to the provinces for health, social assistance and
post-secondary programs by $7 billion. Moreover, it does so
while introducing a new program called the Canada Social
Transfer.
The government should at least say: ``We have run out of
money and are forced to stop contributing to the financing of
these programs which, in any case, fall under provincial
jurisdiction. Consequently, we leave you with the responsibility
of managing these programs''. If the government did that, it
would eliminate duplication and overlapping, and it would also
save close to $3 billion in administrative costs. But that is much
too simple and logical for this government.
The federal government would rather continue to raise our
taxes, on gas, for instance, waste our money by duplicating
provincial initiatives, among other things, and reduce by $7
billion, over the next two years, transfers to the provinces. This
is what I call to dump the responsibility for the deficit on the
provinces.
11425
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, beside the Rideau Canal there are some information
panels from the National Archives. One panel shows the
beautiful Parliament Buildings when they were first completed
in 1866.
The text explains that when they were built, Centre Block,
East Block and West Block were supposed to house not only this
place and the other place but also the entire federal public
service.
(1615 )
Clearly, successive governments have vastly inflated the
federal role compared to its image at the time of Confederation.
If a percentage of that increase of federal size was due to things
like population growth, I would guess that same percentage of
expansion of the federal government could readily be offset
today by a full and thorough application of new technology.
Personally, I am strongly opposed to having so much federal
government with too many employees processing far too many
forms and thinking up even more rules and regulations to tie up
the private sector in red tape rather than producing real wealth.
How do we stop this expansion? One way would be to support
the motion of the Bloc Quebecois to hoist Bill C-76 for six
months, presumably leaving the federal government with no
way to pay its bills. However, I regard that suggestion as very
irresponsible and I urge my colleagues to vote against the
amendment. A much better way to downsize the federal
government is to eliminate federal interference in areas which
the Constitution clearly says fall under provincial jurisdiction.
As forestry critic for the Reform Party, I want to focus on the
ending of federal moneys going to industry on a 50/50 cost
shared basis with the provinces under the forestry resource
development agreements, or FRDA. They expired in most
provinces last week but have one more year in British Columbia
and Quebec.
FRDA II in British Columbia had a five year budget originally
set at $200 million, half from B.C. and half from the federal
government. One way to judge the probable impact of FRDA II
is to compare its budget to other spending on forest management
activities in the province responsible for roughly half of
Canada's forestry production.
This is according to the Compendium of Canadian Forestry
Statistics for 1993, the national forestry database as published
by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. On page 138 it
shows a B.C. total of public funding spent on forest management
including silviculture, protection, resource access and other
management expenditures for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 of
$1,518,956,000. Net expenditures by industry in B.C. for those
same purposes across the same years was an additional
$1,837,027,000.
In other words the $181 million which FRDA management
committee correspondence indicates will be its total
expenditure across five years must be compared to the
$3,355,983,000 of total public and industrial spending for just
three years. Clearly, the budget of FRDA II was only a tiny
fraction of overall spending on management of B.C. forest
lands.
According to the midterm evaluation of FRDA round two in
B.C. by Deloitte & Touche: ``The major impacts, which can be
quantified during the agreement period, should come from the
incremental silviculture investment projects. Approximately
$100 million worth of these activities are planned over the five
year agreement period''.
Regarding overall program evaluation, Deloitte & Touche
wrote on page 18 of the midterm evaluation: ``The total net extra
returns over costs and social return on investment or economic
gain expected from these silviculture operations to June 30,
1993 is in the order of $46 million''.
In other words, the major activities undertaken under FRDA
II have produced an economic net gain rather than a cost to the
public purse. Therefore, it should be no economic hardship for
the provinces to take over these activities themselves. At the
same time it frees the provinces from federal interference and
frees private industry from federal-provincial overlap in this
area which the Constitution clearly says comes under provincial
jurisdiction.
Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982 specifies the power
of the provinces in the areas of ``development, conservation and
management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry
resources'' including ``the rate of primary production
therefrom''. Nevertheless, because forestry is the number one
industry in Canada and produces a significant part of the entire
federal government revenue, the federal government has shoved
its way into aspects which really should be provincial.
When I say forestry produces a significant part of the federal
government revenue, I base that on a Price Waterhouse study
published in May 1991 entitled: ``The Forest Industry in British
Columbia 1990''.
(1620 )
Based on cubic metres of B.C. coast 1990 log harvest, the
total of all taxes and payments per cubic metre was $69.19
including $1.44 for municipal government, $29.47 for the
provincial government and $38.28 for the federal government
for direct taxes, employee taxes and payments like UI and CPP.
Although more than one-half of all government revenues per
cubic metre went to the federal government, it is the province
which bears the major costs of administering regulations for day
to day forestry practices.
11426
This example is according to a brief entitled ``The Cost of
Regulation in the B.C. Coastal Forest'' prepared by the Council
of Forest Industries of B.C. in September 1992 for the
Vancouver region for 1990-91. The actual provincial costs of
regulating the industry were: harvesting, $9.97 million; basic
silviculture, $20.42 million; inventory, $1.2 million; integrated
resource management, $2.7 million; research, $750,000; and
administration, $22 million. The total is $57,065,000.
If my mathematics is correct, the province picks up the costs
but the federal government's share of income received from the
coastal crown allowable annual cut of 19.02 million cubic
metres, which was the average of 1988-91 was $728,085,600. I
remind my hon. colleagues, that is the federal take from only
one B.C. region out of a total of 36 regions. This should provide
ample federal funding for the international role on forestry as
well as help the overall economy.
Of course, since this study was completed, the B.C.
government has introduced a whole new program of forest
regulations in an entire series of booklets which makes earlier
regulations look like child's play.
Although many B.C. municipal councils have been writing to
complain about the ending of the federal funding to FRDA II, I
am also hearing from my constituents that they want a balanced
federal budget as soon as it can be achieved without undue
hardship for those truly in need.
Based on the figures I have mentioned today, I believe I have
demonstrated that ending federal funding for FRDA should not
have a significant impact on the forest industry, nor impose
undue hardship, generally speaking. Moreover, by helping to get
the federal government out of day to day forest management,
ending federal funding to FRDA can help downsize our bloated
federal bureaucracy. Since long term returns from FRDA
activities are a net asset to the public purse rather than a
liability, this is one way to downsize the federal government at
no loss to the provinces.
Finally, last year's report by the House Standing Committee
on Natural Resources said in recommendation number 11 that a
possible third round of FRDA should go to ``development of
forest ecosystems and landscape management techniques and
the continuation of financial assistance to private woodlot
owners''. Even the private woodlot owners in Nova Scotia when
I visited there were complaining about the bureaucracy and
overlap of FRDA and did not expect FRDA to continue.
In conclusion, I wish to oppose the BQ amendment to Bill
C-76 on budget implementation. I give my support as the
Reform forestry critic to federal downsizing in the realm of
natural resources as demonstrated by the ending of the forest
resource development agreements.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, the budget brought down by the government should be
given points for public perception, and the federal government
for improving its image. The impression is given that the
government has hit hard. The impression is given that it has
reduced the deficit and done everything it possibly could to turn
Canada's economy around.
I heard a number of comments in this House that were
extremely frustrating for me. One was that this budget was fair
and equitable, hard but equitable.
According to the press clippings I read after the budget was
tabled, those who complained loudest were the banks, who said
it was a very harsh budget.
(1625)
All the banks said that this government hit their profits very
hard, including the president of the Royal Bank. Which means
the government came down very hard. In fact, in the budget the
banks were asked to contribute $50 million annually, but only
for two years, which means a total of $100 million.
Consider that last year, the six chartered banks made a net
profit of 4.3 billion dollars. I am talking about net profits, what
the banks have left after covering all their expenses and salaries.
These are net profits: pure profit. The banks raked in 4.3 billion
dollars last year alone for their shareholders and owners.
When the government says in the budget that the banks will be
asked to contribute $50 million for two years, this means barely
1 per cent of their net profits for last year. This is all part of a
general trend we are seeing in a government that is probably
following the example of its Conservative predecessors by
supporting the wealthiest in our society. That is very obvious. In
fact, not only is the banks' contribution towards paying off the
debt extremely small, their taxes have been going down
compared with the kind of profits they make. There are statistics
and studies that show this very clearly.
I am, of course, referring to those who are among the
wealthiest members of our society. The president of the Royal
Bank, Mr. Taylor, pocketed over $2.5 million in salaries,
bonuses and loans last year. The story is the same for other bank
presidents.
Very clearly, this government favours the rich, and the rich
are getting richer with this budget and the government's
mentality. The proof lies in the fact that the government did
nothing about family trusts, that it did not tighten corporation
tax credits, and that even subsidies to Canadian business were
reduced by only 60 per cent over three years. All this to say that
the government has demonstrated its intention to protect the
strongest and richest.
11427
If we go to the other end of Canada's social map, we see this
government's hard-heartedness, its immorality and its lack of a
sense of justice in cutting $300 million in the public housing
sector in its budget. Cutting three hundred million dollars in this
sector means asking society's most vulnerable people to pay a
share three times that of the banks. People who live in public
housing earn an average of $10,161 a year-a very long way
from Mr. Taylor of the Royal Bank, who earned $2.5 million last
year.
In the public housing sector, the government has called for
cuts of $100 million this year and the next three. This means
that, since 1994, not a single cent has been spent on new housing
construction.
(1630)
Since January 1994, this government has put the key in the
door, has not invested a cent in new housing projects even
though the demand for low-rent housing has continued to
increase. There are 80,000 homeless in Canada, the most
beautiful and the best country in the world, as some members of
this House would say. Yet this country has 80,000 homeless.
Canada needs 600,000 new housing units. Yet not only has this
government not invested a cent in new housing, it has cut $300
million from the social housing budget.
That is no longer cutting the fat. However, cutting $50 million
is hardly even trimming the fat from the banking industry.
Cutting $300 million for social housing is not trimming the fat,
it is cutting to the bone with an axe. They are asking the most
needy and vulnerable in society to cough up even more than the
president of the Royal Bank of Canada. Is that what you would
call a fair and just budget? I ask you, Madam Speaker. Not in my
opinion. Any Liberal who rises in this House to say that it is is
guilty of the greatest hypocrisy of all times, because there has
never been a bigger need for social housing in the history of
Canada, and it is a basic need.
A $300 million cut to social housing represents a 10 per cent
cut in the annual operating budget of each low-rent building in
Canada. That means that the window that lets in the cold will not
get repaired this year. The roof will go unrepaired. That means
that the building itself will continue to deteriorate.
An hon. member: It is being abandoned.
Mr. Marchand: Indeed, we have abandoned this sector. That
means that the standard of living of these people will go down.
And who are these people earning an average of $10,161 per
year? They are single-parent families, widows, seniors, and
handicapped people. We are asking the most vulnerable people
in society to make contributions that they cannot make. It will
push these people further into squalor than they already are. Are
these measures fair for Canadians?
I can accept, along with everybody else in the House, that real
measures must be taken to reduce the deficit, but not at the
expense of the most needy, the most vulnerable. In its budget,
the government directly attacks, head on, blindly, the families
and individuals who are the weakest and most vulnerable in
society, and hits their essential needs. It is like saying to the
weakest, infants, babies, children, that they will have to eat less.
It is like taking away from these people their ability to meet their
most basic needs.
It is unfair. I am for debt reduction, but why did the
government not take the $300 million from the banks in its
budget?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Canadian
Wheat Board; the hon. member for Chateauguay-MIL Davie
Shipyard; the hon. member for Don Valley North-Human
Rights.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-76, the budget
implementation act.
I have been here all day listening to the speeches of my hon.
colleagues. I get an uncanny feeling that we are seeing the
results of the Peter Pan school of economics at work. You
remember Peter Pan, Madam Speaker. He was the person who
said: ``If you really believe you can fly, you will fly''. What I am
hearing from countless members is that if we cut deeper, if we
lay off public servants and if we dismantle all kinds of social and
economic programs, watch Canada prosper. That requires an
awful lot of faith in something.
(1635)
I see across the aisle my hon. colleague from
Notre-Dame-de-Grace. He was one of the few government
members who had the courage to say that the kind of programs
that decade after decade of parliamentarians on behalf of
Canadians have struggled to build are being dismantled in a
matter of hours by the government.
It is no mistake that Canada is the number one country in the
world in which to live and raise families. However, the reason
for that is the whole set of very progressive social programs that
the government is in the process of dismantling as quickly as
possible.
Today reminds me of a story I read when I was a kid. I think it
was Robert Louis Stevenson who wrote The Wreckers. This book
was about a group of people who lived on an island in the South
Pacific. On one side of the island was a rocky shoal out in the
11428
surf. At night they would often put lanterns out on the rocks to
give the impression to passing ships that it was the harbour
entrance. As the ships entered this so-called harbour, which in
fact was a shoal of rocks, the ship smashed up into pieces and
these unscrupulous pirates and others went out and looted the
ships. They misrepresented the harbour entrance.
I have a feeling this is what we are doing here. I cannot believe
what I am hearing my colleagues say. For example, I heard a
number of my Liberal friends say that the red book set out a
whole number of promises and they have kept them. I remember
the red book stating: ``This NAFTA deal with the United States
and Mexico is not good for our businesses and our working
people and we will dismantle this program unless massive
changes occur''. There were virtually no changes at all. Now the
Prime Minister has not only signed us into NAFTA, he is trying
to sign us into an extension of NAFTA with countries like Chile
and others. It was one of the major commitments that was made
to the Canadian people and was the basis on which they gave the
Liberals their support.
The other crucial one was the GST. I remember my Liberal
opponent in Kamloops saying: ``If you elect me as a Liberal
representative we promise to abolish the GST''. As a matter of
fact, the deputy leader said: ``If that GST is not abolished I will
resign my seat because I am so committed to doing this''. Here
we are, 18 months into the Liberal term of office, and nary a
whisper about the GST's abandonment. As a matter of fact they
did suggest we change the name. Maybe that was their version of
abolishment, to abolish the name of the GST because we are sick
of it.
Those were two major promises given to the electorate.
Another one was child care. I remember the hon. member from
Winnipeg on countless occasions standing up in the House of
Commons saying that child care was crucial to the economic
development of the country's future. With increasing single
parent families and two spouses in the workplace, child care is
not a luxury or a social program, it is critical to economic
development. Was there even one mention of child care in the
budget? Nary a mention. When I put the question to the Minister
of Human Resources Development he said: ``We will be working
on that as long as all of the provinces agree''. I can predict the
outcome of that.
Then the environment was going to be a priority. That was
critical because we all agreed that all of these other programs
were essentially irrelevant unless we really came together and
worked hard to preserve the quality of the Canadian
environment. What have we done? Wait and see. I bet that in a
matter of weeks we will be dismantling the environment
department. It has been virtually gutted of any consequence,
therefore we might just as well toss it out. I can see that
announcement coming.
I could go on and on about broken promises but I think they
are well known and I do not have to keep it up.
However, government members have been saying: ``We had a
balanced, just and fair approach''. Fair for what? I remember my
friends opposite giving a standing ovation to the Minister of
Finance on budget day. I will read from the budget: ``First, the
existing large corporations tax will be increased by 12.5 per cent
effective immediately in order that big companies contribute
more to help bring the deficit down''. People rose to their feet
and applauded because the Liberals were getting tough on the
big companies, on capital.
(1640 )
Let us look closely at that. The capital tax is 0.2 per cent. It is
going to skyrocket from 0.2 per cent to 0.22 per cent. Now 0.22
per cent is an increase of 12.5 per cent, but it is infinitesimal. It
is virtually meaningless. You can imagine the big corporations
snickering when they heard that. However, the impression was
that there was balance because the government was hitting big
corporations hard.
The government also said in the budget it would take on the
banks. The government imposed a temporary tax for one year.
What does that mean, a temporary tax for one year? Nobody in
the House would dare to stand and suggest that the banks were
getting a tough ride, so the government said that it would get
tough and impose a temporary tax which would only last one
year.
Where is the balance? I do not think there is a single person
who would not admit that the victims of the recession are the
hardest pressed today. Where are the major cuts coming? The
major cuts are coming from training programs, educational
programs, health care programs and all social service programs.
Who benefits from those programs the most but the victims of
the recession, the unemployed and the poor people of the
country. Those are the people who the government is hitting. A
little tap on the nose for the big corporations, a little tap on the
head for the big banks, and everyone else will get whacked.
We have a deficit problem. We have a serious debt problem.
However, let us ask the question. What was it that caused the
debt? How did we get into this bloody mess? We have to go no
further than to ask Statistics Canada. In 1991 Statistics Canada
conducted a major study into the cause of the debt. The study
indicated that our $560 billion debt was caused by three items.
Fifty per cent of the debt is the result of compound interest, in
other words, monetary policy. The government set a certain
monetary policy which we heard about the other day when it
became clear that the Minister of Finance and the Governor of
the Bank of Canada had entered into a sweetheart deal. The
Minister of Finance promised that he would not allow inflation
to rise above 3 per cent. He said he would do anything to keep it
down, which meant high interest rates. Today we have one of
11429
the highest interest rates in the industrialized world. Fifty per
cent of our accumulated debt is the result of that.
Forty-four per cent of our accumulated debt is the result of
tax exemptions. There are all sorts of tax exemptions, tax
programs, tax loopholes, et cetera. $38 billion a year is lost
through that sieve. Again, $38 billion has not been collected as
the result of a whole set of tax breaks. I am not going to suggest
for a moment that none of them are any good. However, virtually
none of them do the things that we want them to do. Forty-four
per cent of our accumulated debt comes from tax breaks.
Let me ask my Liberal colleagues across the way if they really
support the notion that escort services should be a legitimate tax
deduction. If they do not they should stand up and say it. Do they
really believe that luxury boxes should be written off as a tax
exemption? If they really do not believe that they should stand
up and criticize these things. There are huge holes in the tax
system which allow $38 billion to remain uncollected year after
year.
Now we come to the crunch. Six per cent of the government's
accumulated debt since the mid-1970s is as a result of
government programs like the armed forces, the RCMP, health
care, pensions, et cetera. If we only look at social programs it
comes to 2 per cent. What did the government do? It focused on
the 2 per cent that caused the debt as opposed to the other 98 per
cent.
The government has actually got it reversed. Rather than
dealing with monetary policy and tax reform, it decided to take
on those who have been victimized by the recession. I say to my
Liberal friends: Shame on you. To my Reform friends I say:
Double shame.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
to speak on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of
the budget. I guess one could call this an omnibus bill because it
deals with measures regarding the public service, health and
social transfers, fiscal stabilization, the Public Utilities Income
Tax Transfer Act, veterans, securities, fees for passports, the
Atlantic freight assistance program and the Western Grain
Transportation Act. That is quite a handful all wrapped up in one
bill.
(1645)
While I have some serious concerns about many of these
measures, today I am going to focus on only three of these areas.
Being a westerner from Alberta and representing farmers in my
constituency, the Western Grain Transportation Act of course
comes under serious scrutiny.
The Reform Party has always supported the elimination of
subsidies, but we do not see any particular reason why the
farming community should be singled out for elimination of all
the subsidies in their particular area when everyone else can
continue on at the public trough, collecting billions and billions
of dollars.
We are seeing the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies
eliminated. That of course raises serious concerns for the grain
farmers in the western part of the country.
The Minister of Finance in the budget said that there will be a
one-time payment of $1.6 billion to the owners of prairie
farmland. While I can appreciate that many farmers rent their
land from landowners, it seems rather strange to me that the
landowner would be the recipient of a subsidy based on the
production of the land when it is the farmer who does the
farming who incurs all the costs of growing the grain, fertilizing
it, harvesting it, storing it, shipping it. He bears all the risk, yet
the $1.6 billion is going to the owners.
It is an unfair way of phasing out this subsidy, one, because
farmers are being singled out for the elimination of the subsidy,
and two, because this money is going to the landowners and not
the farmers themselves.
In my riding we have an alfalfa plant, which has also been a
recipient of the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies.
Alfalfa may not be a household name or a product that everyone
buys, but they do produce 850,000 tonnes of alfalfa pellets and
cubes valued at more than $100 million. Over 90 per cent of
their production is exported. The elimination of this subsidy is
going to have a devastating effect on this particular industry in
my riding.
Alfalfa pellets are a high volume, lower value product than
grain. Therefore, the transportation costs make up a much
higher percentage of the total cost of the product when it is
landed in a foreign country such as Japan, which is one of the
major importers of Alberta alfalfa. The elimination of this
subsidy is going to have a devastating effect.
Last week we legislated back to work the workers on the
railroads. If we thought the elimination of this subsidy was tied
to or coupled with the increase in productivity on the railroads,
then we would be able to keep the transportation costs under
control. I do feel that the alfalfa plant in my riding is going to be
particularly hard hit by these measures without offsetting help
in some other area through, as I mentioned, increased
productivity in the railroads.
Canada as a whole of course is going to suffer. Here is $100
million in export sales that is in jeopardy; there are 1,000 jobs in
jeopardy. I think the minister of agriculture should take these
things into serious consideration and perhaps make some
representations to the Minister of Finance regarding what
should happen to the alfalfa industry in western Canada.
11430
(1650 )
In the area of the public service, Bill C-76 implements some
changes to the workforce adjustment directive. These changes
allow the President of the Treasury Board to declare 45,000
public servants a surplus commodity. As Reformers we have a
very deep and real concern for the civil servants and their
families who are going to be losing their jobs through the
workforce adjustment directive.
Since the election we have talked about the need to get the
cost of government under control, that downsizing has to be
done. We realize that is important. But we must also remember
that the Liberals are the ones who said: ``We are not going to
touch the workforce adjustment directive; we are going to leave
it where it its''.
In July 1994, in a letter to the Professional Institute of the
Public Service, the President of the Treasury Board stated that
the workforce adjustment directive will only be changed
through negotiations. I do not think Bill C-76 is negotiating
with the public service. This is a big, heavy hammer that is going
to say that for the next three years the workforce adjustment
directive is set aside and we are going to eliminate 45,000 civil
service jobs.
If this is the way the Liberal government negotiates and the
way it has handled the economy, the deficit and the debt and
when it says one thing and does the opposite, we will have no
idea where this country is going. The litany of broken promises
made in the red book gets longer and longer every day.
The workforce adjustment directive is only being set aside for
three years. I was wondering how the government can honestly
say that government downsizing does not require the
elimination of the directive altogether. Is this just another empty
promise of the Liberal government when first it said: ``We are
not going to touch it,'' and now it is saying: ``We are going to set
it aside but only for three years''? Let us hope that in three years
it is not in a position to express an opinion on the workforce
directive because it is likely that in three years it will find
another reason to set it aside for a longer period of time.
I think this government should do its homework and should
come to realize that government should be fundamentally
changed and downsized. It should come clean with the public
service and honestly say that the directive may have to be
eliminated and not suspended.
These short term politically expedient measures with the
previous Tory government bought labour peace through
granting job security. I think we are seeing another situation
where the government says one thing and the long term policy
may be quite different.
The government is allowing these people who are declared
surplus to stay on the job for six months, with or without work.
Then, for 12 additional months after they are gone, if a job is
found they can be brought back without putting the jobs out to
competition.
We are seeing all kinds of ways that the Liberal government is
waving the wrong flag.
We are debating employment equity, where the merit
principle is thrown out the window. Now they are saying they are
going to reserve the right to bring workers back within 12
months and eliminate the competition for jobs. All these things
say that fairness is being flouted and that the Liberals are
governing without any real sense of direction as to how to set an
example in this country.
In the short time I have left I would also like to register my
opposition to the elimination of the Public Utilities Income Tax
Transfer Act. It is patently unfair to Alberta because it will bear
the brunt of this at $173 million in additional costs to the utility
services. It is going to add 7 per cent to the price of electricity in
Alberta. In Alberta the utilities are privately owned and they
now have to pay federal income tax. But Ontario Hydro, Quebec
Hydro, B.C. Hydro, and all these other crown corporations of
provincial governments are exempt from federal tax.
(1655)
Therefore, I would like to be on record as opposing that
particular item in Bill C-76.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-76, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 27, 1995. I had the honour to second the motion
moved by my colleague, the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, last Thursday, March 30, 1995.
The purpose of this motion is to send the finance minister
back to the drawing board to redo the budget he dared table in
the House, which the Bloc Quebecois is doing its utmost to
denounce. I am proud to have seconded this motion because the
finance minister's budget hides its true nature and claims merits
it does not have.
For the 1995-96 fiscal year, the budget does not introduce any
changes as far as transfers to the provinces are concerned.
Everything is being postponed until next year so that Quebecers
will not find out before the referendum that federalism is a
failure. However, starting in 1996-97, the federal government
will arrange to shift its deficit to the provinces to the tune of at
least $7 billion.
This is how the government will go about it. First, it will
eliminate two major programs under which funds are transferred
to the provinces, namely the Canada Assistance Plan and
established programs financing, replacing them with a new
program called the Canada Social Transfer. This new program,
the Canada Social Transfer, will have to take into account the
cuts announced in the finance minister's budget. These cuts will
amount to $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98
11431
for a total of $7 billion. The amount of these cuts are in the
budget.
By reducing transfer payments to the provinces this way, the
federal government is transferring its public finance load onto
the provinces while at the same time keeping the related tax
points and the spending power in every area. In spite of all the
good things promised in the budget, clause 48 of Bill C-76 is
unmistakably clear; under this clause, Quebec will be deprived
of $650 million in 1996-97.
In 1997-98, the budget for the new program, the Canada
transfer program, will be divided among the provinces based on
a criterion that remains to be negotiated. If the criterion
ultimately chosen is the one currently in use, this would mean a
$1.2 billion shortfall for Quebec in 1997-98. It could even be
steeper, because no decision was made yet regarding on what
basis calculations will be made.
In fact, the federal government seems to grant the requests of
wealthier provinces, notably Ontario. Equalization aside, the
government is seriously considering distributing all major
transfers to the provinces on a per capita basis. If that were the
case, Quebec alone would have to bear 41.7 per cent of the cuts
in transfer payments in 1997-98 on account of its population.
Therefore, Quebec would see its shortfall for 1997-98 increase
from $1.2 billion to $1.9 billion.
This goes to show that this budget claims to have merits it
does not have, as glaringly evidenced by the cuts to be expected
next year. Another clear indication is the government's
commitment to maintaining national standards. Bill C-76
maintains health national standards and provides for the
introduction of new national standards for social assistance and
post-secondary education.
(1700)
Federal support will be withheld if the provinces do not
comply with these standards. This centralizing and arrogant
form of federalism has nothing to do with decentralization.
These national standards will limit the provinces' autonomy in
their own fields of jurisdiction, at their own expense. Again, the
new standards which will be implemented coast to coast will not
serve the interests of Quebec's distinct society, particularly in a
sector as vital as education.
The bill provides for new national standards before
negotiations have even taken place. The federal government is
announcing the outcome of such negotiations before they are
even underway. There is nothing in this legislation to indicate
that the federal government needs a consensus among the
provinces to implement new national standards. Let us not
forget that the federal government has the authority to
unilaterally impose such standards through legislative
amendments. If the provinces reject these standards, they will
lose federal support, which, ironically, is provided with the
money collected from provincial taxpayers.
Therefore, the new Canada Social Transfer will impose a
$7-billion cut to the provinces. In addition to that, clause 48 of
Bill C-76 provides that a province must make mention of the
Canada Social Transfer in all its advertising and documents
related to the health services provided by that province.
Let me give you another example: As the critic for Veterans
Affairs Canada, I noticed that Bill C-76 seeks to reduce
benefits, allowances and compensation. Clause 42 provides for
the gradual elimination of education assistance to children of
deceased veterans.
Clauses 68 to 72 eliminate allowances to allied veterans in the
Resistance, as well as allowances to uniformed allied veterans
who immigrated to Canada. Finally, clause 73 provides that any
compensation paid to a veteran attending a review committee
hearing of his application for disability pension will be
eliminated. These provisions amount to a loss of benefits for
veterans. This is a case of penny-pinching.
In short, this budget truly reflects what federalism is all
about. The federal government would like to be perceived as the
almighty protector and authority. But Quebecers will not be
fooled and they will not hesitate to express their dissatisfaction
with this system and say that the trickery is over and that they
are prepared to take control of their destiny once and for all. In
the meantime, it is essential to postpone second reading of Bill
C-76 for six months, to give an opportunity to the Minister of
Finance to do his homework. This is the purpose of the motion
which I seconded and which I still support.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-76.
A lot of misinformation has gone on recently with respect to
the budget. I would like to correct some of those statements.
The budget is going to sound the death knell for many things
we hold dear to our hearts as Canadians, in particular the social
programs of the country we have spent so many years and
decades forming. These social programs have set us apart from
countries like the United States; set us apart from countries that
do not take care of those who are underprivileged in society as
we in Canada have done much to the envy of people in other
countries.
11432
(1705 )
Contrary to what many people believe, the budget poses the
single greatest threat to those social programs. It is not
something we should be proud of, but rather ashamed of. I will
explain why.
The big ogre in all of these talks about budget and finances is
not the deficit. The big ogre in this is the debt, that huge
expanding volume, almost impossible for us to comprehend,
now at about $560 billion and three years from now will be about
$660 billion.
Where will we get the money to pay even the interest on this? I
will show the House. Imagine what we spend every year to be a
pie. That pie would be circular and would represent $160 billion.
Of that pie, $40 billion goes to pay the interest on the debt. The
$120 billion remaining goes to pay for government programs
and social programs.
Three years from now with an added $100 billion to the debt
we will see interest rates on the debt at $50 billion, not $40
billion. That will force our country to decrease its spending on
government programs and social programs from $120 billion to
$102 billion.
I ask the people of the country to ask themselves where we
will get the money to pay for those social programs if we will
have $18 billion less to deal with. There are two options. Either
we have increased growth in the economy, which should occur to
some extent, or raise taxes. The latter is not an option but will be
something the government and provincial governments will be
forced to do to pay for the programs we have come to enjoy. If
we do not we will have to decrease services in important areas
like health care and education. These are very important
programs we have come to enjoy.
I will give some real time examples of the first option, one
very close to my heart. Here are some facts about health care in
British Columbia. Prince George, a city in northern British
Columbia which actually serves one-half of the province, has
lost 80 per cent of its orthopedic surgeons. That leaves one left
to serve one-half of the province. It has lost 50 per cent of its
obstetricians and gynecologists and its only neurosurgeon,
among other specialists.
Why have these people left in the last year and a half? Not
because they want to get more money but rather they found it
intolerable to work under the fiscal restraints imposed on them
not only by the province but by the federal government. There is
dual culpability in this situation. It is not held by one arm of the
government or the other.
The reason is twofold. We have increasing demand for health
care services and more expensive technologies and we have less
money to pay for them. We also have an expanding and aging
population. As we look into the future, if we look at the
demographics of the population in the country, we can see that
situation will not change for the better but rather for the worse.
Those demands will increase.
Some tragic situations have occurred in northern British
Columbia. People have to be flown out of that hospital. Doctors
working there have to find spots in Edmonton, Calgary and
Vancouver for people to be treated, people sometimes with life
threatening injuries, people whose injuries are being treated too
late for them to get the adequate treatment required to survive
and to come back to functional normality. In a rich country like
ours that is an embarrassment and a crying shame. All we need
to do is speak to those people to see what happens.
What happens in northern British Columbia is not isolated.
This also happens in Victoria. A colleague called me and said he
has a 40-year old patient. She is getting vertigo, which means
the room spins. They think she has a tumour in her brain stem,
part of her brain. She will wait two months to get her CAT-scan
and her MRI scan is booked on the 12th of never.
Madam Speaker, if you were that lady, what would you think?
What a tragedy to have that happen in our country. If she had
enough money she would go to the United States and get these
services done in a matter of two or three weeks. That is a
two-tier system; a health care system which we have right now,
contrary to what government members say.
(1710)
On one hand the government says it will take money away
from Canadians under the guise of cutting, that is remove $8.4
billion from provincial transfer payments, and it will bring
down the federal deficit. That is simply not true. All the
government is doing is putting the onus back on to the taxpayers
and the provinces. It is not fair.
I suggest a constructive alternative solution. It requires a
change in philosophy, an openness of mind and a desire to
change things for the future. It is a leap of faith which would
provide a better health care system for all Canadians.
Let the federal government take it upon itself to define the
essential health care services and ensure all Canadians,
regardless of income, are covered. Nobody in this party wants to
see anybody have any part of their essential health care services
withheld because they cannot pay for them. That is something
we are fighting against and it is something we will continue to
fight against in the future. We want to ensure that every
Canadian is covered by these essential services. However, we
cannot go on expecting public health care to pay for everything
in existence. It simply cannot do that. Therefore let us define
those services and ensure they are covered across the country.
Let us give the provinces the power to raise money to pay for
their health care services. That would entail amending the
Canada Health Act. It would not destroy it, it would amend it.
11433
There are many good aspects to the Canada Health Act the
Reform Party wants to preserve.
However, the government cannot on one hand take money
away from the provinces and on the other hand tell them they
cannot raise funds. That is not fair. Let us enable them to raise
funds. That would perhaps provide for a two-tier system in
which there is a private system and a public system.
We must understand the federal government can take the
responsibility and say to the provinces that if they have a private
health care system only private moneys would be exchanged.
Not a penny of taxpayers dollars would go into that private
system. It is a fallacy to assume we in this party want to have
taxpayers money going into a private system.
It would enable the public system to have decreased waiting
lists and it would also provide more money for the public
system. Some would choose to use the private system. The
bottom line is that people on the public system would receive
their essential health care services in a more timely, more
expeditious and more efficient fashion.
This is an unequal system but we have an unequal system now.
Is it not better to have an unequal system which provides better
health care for all Canadians than to have the present system
which will worsen as time goes on? The Canadian public, when
it understands that, would agree. We in this party would support
the government if it would take the initiative and do that. To
stick its head in the sand and say nothing is wrong is completely
untrue.
The provincial government in British Columbia was forced to
implement a stop gap measure of $18 million just to lower the
MRI waiting list and the waiting list for coronary artery bypass
grafting. Those lists have 700 or 800 names. If a person is
waiting for open heart surgery, I am sure they would find it
extremely disconcerting to find out they have to wait five
months. Senator Keon mentioned the waiting list for
non-emergency heart surgery in Ottawa is now five months.
That is a travesty.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the great national party and defender of the most vulnerable, the
party that used to lean more towards the NDP than towards the
Reform Party, the party that was so full of the words pride and
dignity is no more. It has caved in to repeated attacks from the
wealthy and the financial community who just happen to be
friends of the party.
Yesterday's Liberal Party has turned into a kind of
progressive conservative reform party. That is what we can call
that party now, whose members sit across the way. With this
latest budget, the members opposite, these progressive
conservative reform members, have abandoned their basic
principles. The vulnerable, the sick, people in substandard
housing, the unemployed and the elderly, all these people who
need the government's special attention, have been abandoned
in the name of deficit reduction.
The message from the government benches sounds hollow. It
is also less than forthright, because it would have the public
believe that all these vulnerable people and our social programs
are to blame for the fact that the federal government is bankrupt.
This is a misrepresentation of the facts, and it is unacceptable.
By sending this kind of message, members opposite, which I can
no longer call Liberals or ``Rouges'', are questioning the very
role of government.
Is this role not supposed to be to help the weakest in our
society, to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living,
that our collective wealth is distributed equitably and that those
who have a measure of wealth should participate in this
collective effort? Is this not the government's mandate?
Unfortunately, members opposite, those former Liberals with
their millionaire Minister of Finance, are stupidly caught up in a
one-track economic and financial mind set, totally oblivious to
social principles and human values. Pretty soon, if we replace
the Minister of Finance with a calculator, no one will notice the
difference. The government will add and subtract without
considering the disastrous impacts of these cuts.
The Minister of Finance of this new progressive conservative
reform party represents the exact opposite of Robin Hood.
Instead of taking money from the rich to give to the poor, the
Minister of Finance takes money from the poor to give to the
rich.
Could we expect anything else from a failed Robin Hood who
is himself a millionaire and who admitted that he was familiar
with the whole range of tax exemptions? He even owns a fleet of
ships, some of which fly flags of convenience to avoid Canadian
taxes. What a wonderful example of sharing and participating in
our collective responsibilities! He prefers to protect his wealthy
friends at the expense of those who are less well off.
I am thinking of those notorious family trusts-billions of
dollars sheltered from the tax man. In this case, the minister
decided to protect his friends for another five years. I think it is
shocking to protect The Cadillac crowd and cut benefits to the
unemployed.
What about the government's fiscal options? For instance, the
banks are taxed a modest $100 million while the Royal Bank
alone, a good federalist, made more than $1.2 billion worth of
profit last year. How do you justify this fiscal decision, when
last year, taxes paid by seniors increased by $500 million?
What about the thousands of businesses that pay no tax, while
workers just keep paying more?
11434
The choice of the members opposite is clear in this budget.
Their preference for the rich is obvious. The federal government
is the protector of the well-to-do and the financial community.
In the end, it is the lower and medium income taxpayers,
always the same, who are affected. The unemployed, the
disadvantaged, the sick and the homeless are paying for this
budget, in which the government lacks the courage to reach into
the impenetrable pockets of the more well off. This budget will
mean real hardship: lower UI benefits, fewer assistance
programs and shrinking health insurance.
Seniors are given a break, this year. However, it is not hard to
guess the intentions of the Minister of Finance.
(1720)
Following the referendum, he will once again go after old age
pensions and cut seniors' income, which in many instances, is
the bare minimum. Our seniors are entitled to reasonable living
conditions. They are also entitled to certain small pleasures.
When the minister's axe falls next year, I fear these small
pleasures will disappear, and their quality of life will decline.
Women will be hit even harder by the federal government's
choices. The concept of family income to be included in various
programs affects them directly, because they are the least well
off and the most dependent on their partners. By a single stroke,
program universality will end for many women, who will thus be
condemned to continued economic dependence and poverty. It is
a real scandal.
The fact is that the disadvantaged and the middle class are
getting poorer. The other fact is that the rich are getting richer.
And the government is biting into these facts with gusto-it is
broadening the gap between the poor and the rich with its budget
and tax choices. What shameful choices.
The budget of the millionaire of finance is just for show. A
series of cuts here and there, cuts without vision. And the
members opposite are all pleased and smug about this
ineffective budget, designed solely to provide a short term
response to financial markets. For over 17 months now, the Bloc
Quebecois has been asking the government to do its work
seriously. The Bloc demands that the government get to the real
root of the problem: duplication and deep, structural
unemployment.
The Finance millionaire ignores these two issues. But,
remember the credo of the red book, the bible that was shelved
immediately following the election: jobs, jobs, jobs. Where are
all of the jobs so promised, which were supposed to kick-start
economic recovery? Obviously, the opposite has happened.
Economic recovery is creating jobs, jobs, jobs, not government
action. Inaction is more like it.
Nice election promises will not fight poverty. One of the best
ways of doing it is to give people the opportunity to acquire a
certain wealth through employment. That is a solution seriously
worth considering.
Work, employment combat poverty. Where are those major
and effective job-creating measures? Nowhere to be seen. The
federal government's infrastructure program distributed mere
crumbs, and, now, the government is idling. The people opposite
are bragging about jobs that were not created by them, but by the
economic recovery which, for the most part, was powered by our
neighbours to the south.
The federal government does not want to recant. The system
is made that way and the faith that the people opposite have in
their system is as tough as nails. The decentralization that they
say they are going to implement in the budget is an empty shell,
a cover for a vast offloading operation onto the provinces. In
fact, it is the deficit that is being decentralized, not powers.
Still, before the budget, the carrot they dangled was the
possibility of the federal government withdrawing from
provincial areas of jurisdiction and transferring to the provinces
the corresponding financial resources. Nothing but smoke and
mirrors. The budget does the opposite: it perpetuates a
domineering central government and ten subservient provinces.
Quebecers will soon make a decision on their future. I am
convinced that they will reject this domineering federalism and
this government which is eating away at the social fabric to
please financiers.
Quebec needs all of the tools available if it wants to build a
fairer society based on something other than purely pecuniary
values. Globalization of markets, international competition,
profits, economic development at any price are all well and
good. But, what use are they if the population is abused and
neglected? Quebecers will make their own choices.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it gives me pleasure to speak on this bill.
During the last couple of months since the bringing down of
the budget, I have been a little disappointed at many of the
things I have heard. Members on the government side have
talked about the number of occasions they have gone into the
communities and towns throughout Canada and have talked to
people at various gatherings and now government has a clear
understanding of what Canadians want. Government then comes
down with what it did and the rhetoric begins.
(1725 )
I find it strange because I too have been out to various areas,
not just in my own riding but throughout the country. Maybe I
operate a little differently than government members do but my
conversations are with farmers while sitting on the tailgate of a
pick-up truck or with a policeman while riding around in his
cruiser. I do that rather than sitting with top bureaucrats or other
elites.
11435
When I go into a prison I do not spend my time in the warden's
office. I get to the grassroots population, the guards and people
who work closely with the inmates. I go to the coffee shops and
meet with nurses coming off shift from the hospital. I sit down
and listen to what they have to say. Government members say
they have conferred with people but I would like to know why
they did not get the same message I got.
People ask such questions as: ``What are they doing? We do
not quite understand. Why will they not accept the idea that the
pension is gold plated and at least be willing to say that they
should do their part?'' When we look at the figure of $1,239,000
going to this gold plated pension plan, we sit over here and
complain. They do not have the guts to stand up and say that yes,
they should do their part but they do not.
I have pulled some figures out of the public accounts and if I
can pull these out of public accounts, anybody can. People
should be told that the public accounts indicate that last year this
government spent $374 million on language instruction. In the
immigration and citizenship section the figure is $298 million.
People would like to know what that is all about.
The funny part is that when we get into multiculturalism we
see these big million dollar figures. Most of the people I talked
to are immigrants and they asked: ``What are they doing? Why
are they spending their money on these things? They are nice but
at the same time our health programs are going down the tube.
Education is going down the tube. Protection is going down the
tube and even defence which is important is being cut and going
down the tube''.
There is welfare out there for the needy. In a pig's eye, it is for
the greedy. There are single mothers who ask: ``Why can I not
get some help? I am single. I have kids. I am divorced and
having problems. Why can I not have some help?'' I do not know
the answer.
All you people on that side do is chatter. You do not give
answers to anybody. You play the old political, yap, yap, yap,
blah, blah, blah and say nothing. You have been doing that for 30
years. Now we wonder why we have a $560 billion debt and this
huge deficit every year?
People tell me they do not understand. I tell them: Come and
listen to the Liberals and you will understand. That is the way
they have been operating for 30 years. They will not even give
up their little blue cars. On occasion a minister might walk or
take the green bus like the rest of us. But no, leave the cars
sitting out front with a driver. Let the engines run, it does not
matter. Then they walk in here and talk about the millions of
kids who are living in poverty, while their cars are running and
their chauffeurs are waiting. That is what they do. There is no
sign whatsoever that they are interested in giving up anything
that would help. A selfish lot right from day one.
(1730 )
We talked to the people and we came up with a taxpayers'
budget. They say we have priorities and why do the Liberals not
have priorities. This is what the people are saying. Obviously
their budget does not match what people are saying. Three per
cent of GDP means a $25 billion deficit in three years. Is that not
wonderful? We will be paying $50 billion in interest. We will
have another $25 billion worth of debt.
We are doing our part but perhaps we should listen to the NDP.
There is bound to be a pile of dollars out there that we can gather
in because we need more revenue. Tax them more. Spend more.
Do everything we possibly can.
With respect to justice, it costs $40,000 per year to house our
inmates and we have something like 17,000 inmates. If we
multiply that-we do not have to be too sharp, we can even be a
school teacher to do that-we come up with millions and
millions more dollars. It is $40,000 to take care of an inmate.
Even one of the Liberals said we have 1,700 from other
countries and perhaps we should deport them. I applaud that.
That is a good idea. That came from the other side of the House.
Good grief, why do the members not listen to that member? We
have 1,700 non-citizens sitting in our jails and it is costing us
$40,000 a head. Let us send them back. Let us deport them to
their countries. That would probably be the worst punishment
they could get. Why do we not come up with solutions to what is
happening in our judicial system?
If the member for Halifax would only pay attention she might
even learn something; I doubt it but she might. I would imagine
she has opted out of her pension plan so she can talk a lot.
Ms. Clancy: No she has not and she will not either. You may
quote me.
Mr. Thompson: I will quote her, she will not either. Of course
I did not expect any different.
I can recall not too many years back I was told by certain
officials in the justice department that once upon a time there
were countries interested in negotiating a deal by which they
would contract and house our convicts for us, that they would
save us a lot of money. Perhaps we need to start looking at that.
Perhaps we need to contract with other places to help us with this
problem.
The whole crux of this is coming from the people of this
country. When we talk to the people, when we talk to their
bosses, even though they do not act like bosses-the taxpayer
happens to be their boss, I will remind members just in case they
have forgotten-they are quite upset that we do not seem to
come up with priorities in the House and say we have to take care
of health, education, protection, we do need a defence, we want
11436
to make sure the needy are well looked after when it comes to
our welfare system. We have put together their thoughts.
I doubt if anyone sitting over there even took time to read it.
After all, that did not come from a Liberal, so why look at it. It
cannot be any good if it does not come from a Liberal. For the
past nine years before the Liberals came it was not any good if it
did not come from a Conservative. Before that it was not any
good if it did not come from a Liberal. We play this silly game
year after year. We all say we need to do something different.
I have not seen anything different; different name, different
faces but the same old Tories, same old stories. Nothing has
changed.
(1735 )
Mr. Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While
the hon. member for Wild Rose was speaking about the
government hearing the message of the people, asking why it
was not hearing the right message, the hon. member for Halifax
made the comment ``because people in the east are smarter''.
This is an affront to western Canadians-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, that is a point
of debate and not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me, in the next few minutes, to speak to-
Madam Speaker, would it be possible to have quiet?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order!
Mr. Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is a
pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-76, An Act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 27, 1995. Ultimately, in practical terms, the purpose of
this bill is to modify certain legislation, following the tabling of
the budget with its sometimes devastating consequences.
As I examined this bill, my attention was caught, in particular,
by some of the legislation affected, including the first part on
public sector compensation, where we can see the results of the
government's consistency. If this bill is passed, 45,000 federal
public servants will eventually lose their jobs, and yet you will
recall, Madam Speaker, that ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' were what the
red book promised.
The ideology continues to be the same. Faced with labour
relations problems last week, the government did not hesitate to
impose back-to-work legislation on workers who wanted to
avail themselves of their right to strike, but who did not even
have the time to do so, having first been locked out and then,
twelve hours later, legislated back to work. Sometimes, this
government is only too consistent.
I also noted that the Western Grain Transportation Act will be
adjusted, and yet we know that following the abolition of these
subsidies in the West, there will be compensation of three billion
dollars, while subsidies to Quebec dairy producers will be cut by
30 per cent, with no mention of compensation. We realize that
the member for Brome-Missisquoi will not be leading the
protest.
Finally, of course, there is the main body of this budget, which
announces cuts in transfers to the provinces over the next three
years of $7 billion, including $2.5 billion-around 40 per
cent-in cuts to the Quebec government. Quebec, with only 25
per cent of the population, will assume 40 per cent of the cuts.
And this is consistent too, not just for this government, but for
the entire Canadian federal system.
It is consistent because, if one looks at the figures since 1982,
Quebec has been cut $14.3 billion over 12 years. In other words,
the government of Quebec, regardless of which party was in
power, averaged cuts of over a billion dollars. It is no wonder
that the impact of these perverse cuts is being felt in education
and health and throughout the system. One only has to think
about the community organizations that face repeated cuts
resulting from this system based on concealment, on shifting the
burden to the provinces and on irresponsibility.
They may laugh, especially since they come from Quebec and
have just been elected. Some have not yet realized it. Some
people are slower than others. All these cuts and those to come
are to be implemented without any changes in Quebecers' tax
rates. Quebecers will continue to send between $28 billion and
$30 billion to Ottawa. For over a decade, we have seen that
compensation in the form of subsidies and tax transfers is
steadily declining, while Quebecers' tax rates are being
maintained.
(1740)
In this regard, it is sad that these cuts are being implemented
on the backs of the most disadvantaged in our society, that is,
patients in hospitals, the unemployed, welfare recipients,
retirees and seniors. We feel that these people are being
sacrificed because of an administrative choice, a societal
choice, an ideological choice made by this government. My
colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, talked about this
earlier. In light of the finance minister's situation, it is difficult
to make different choices.
I am very happy about the movement that was born in my
riding last week, which is going to sweep across Quebec. This
proposal by the Trois-Rivières chapter of Solidarité Québec
will be put to all of Quebec through Solidarité populaire
Québec, a movement that will result in a national Quebec
petition calling for a commission of inquiry on taxation. I want
11437
to commend the people of the CEQ, the CNTU, the FTQ, the
nurses' federation, the union of professional employees of the
Quebec government and the union of Quebec public servants,
who joined forces to put together a massive petition denouncing
the federal government and calling for an inquiry on taxation.
In the end, when they talk about social programs, what do they
really mean? We are talking about redistribution of wealth. And
when less and less is being distributed, what happens? Wealth is
concentrated. That is the evil-the cancer sapping the economy
not only in Canada but also throughout the Western world- that
has to be denounced and dealt with quickly. Wealth should be
distributed, not concentrated as is presently the case.
The government appears to want to distribute wealth, but one
must not mistake appearance for reality because, in reality and
at the expense of the provinces, it is merely standardizing. It was
already standardizing the area of health while at the same time
reducing funding. Now, it will do the same not only in the area of
social assistance but also, and this is a precedent, in the area of
postsecondary education, killing two birds with one stone. On
the pretence of bringing the debt under control, the government
interferes in a totally unconstitutional way in a area of
jurisdiction which, as we know, is very dear to the Government
of Quebec in particular and, in Canada as we know it today, is
recognized in the constitution as an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction.
Where will this lead? When cuts are this extensive, it means
that social programs will have to be chopped as well. It will
become necessary to either cut back funding for education and
social assistance or raise taxes or both. But what is disgusting
and wicked about all this manoeuvring on the part of this
government is that it is designed to pass the buck so that it can
wash its hands of the matter. That is what Lise Bissonnette was
referring to when she spoke of imperial federalism.
An hon. member: A dictatorship.
Mr. Rocheleau: Finally, I would like to say a word about the
future of Canada, because this whole process is part of a vast
operation. This is not our saying; it was reported in Le Journal
de Montréal on March 30, 1995, that two Liberals were fearing a
fiscal attack against Quebec. The two Liberals in question,
Jean-Claude Rivest, recently appointed to the Senate, and
Claude Forget, former Liberal minister in the Quebec
government, both distinguished and well known Liberals, said
that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada was preparing a major
administrative and tax reform in Canada.
(1745)
Mr. Rivest added that, in his opinion, there was nothing to fear
at the constitutional level but the same could not be said at the
fiscal level; there is an opportunity for initiatives, whether
constitutional or not, that could change the rules of the game one
way or the other. That is was is happening.
So, on the eve of this historic public consultation in Quebec, I
hope that, in the Canada of the future, as it now appears,
Quebecers will make the right decision.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member referred to the fiscal coup which is in the
making, which could also be called the Stéphane Dion strategy,
and which seeks to hurt Quebec after the referendum. We are
bracing ourselves for that.
On the other side of this House I see Quebec members who
support this legislation, who smile and who do not dare get up to
protect Quebec's interests, as they claimed they would do when
they were elected. Now that they are here, they are a lot more
polite and conciliatory. They are members of a party in office, so
they want to protect their personal career. This has priority over
the interests of the people, the riding and the Quebec nation
which they are here to represent.
I want to say a word about the last federal budget and its major
component, which is the new structure of transfer payments.
This is an extraordinary camouflage exercise, and I will tell you
why. The government is trying to make us believe that it will be
more flexible, that things will go better and that the same
services will be provided with less money. Less money, more
standards and probably more controls.
I participated in an English radio talk show, in Montreal, with
the Minister of Human Resources Development. The moderator
asked: ``Does this new Canada Social Transfer mean that the
federal government will no longer have control over transfer
payments''? The minister replied: ``No, quite the contrary. We
will have more control than ever before. We did not have
controls in certain areas before, but now we will''. All this
remains to be defined.
Of course, the federal government will invite the provinces to
come and negotiate with a loaded gun to their head: ``If you do
not want to lose even more federal support, then approve these
standards''. An internal document circulating among party
ranks indicates that this is just the beginning. Other financial
objectives will be set.
After these initial cuts of $7 billion to transfer payments,
which will primarily affect Quebec, the process will continue
since we must solve the federal government's financial
problems. This, without any consideration for the problems
which will result from this process, particularly for some
provinces, including problems related to their credit rating and
to the
11438
imbalance which these measures will create in provincial
budgets.
Let me put transfer payments in their proper context, because
this is a complex issue. I want to point out some specifics for the
benefit of those who are listening to us. There are currently three
main types of transfer programs. First, there is the Established
Programs Financing, second, the equalization program, and
third, the Canada Assistance Plan. Let me review them briefly
one by one.
First, under Established Programs Financing, taxpayers pay
taxes to the federal government who, according to certain
criteria, sends part of the money to the provinces for their health
and post-secondary education programs.
As for equalization, it is a measure of wealth redistribution or
rather a measure of redistribution among the provinces of the
capacity to generate income. Seven provinces benefit from the
equalization program; the amounts they were entitled to were
recently capped. Whenever something is expensive, they put a
limit to it so that the costs will not increase too much in the
future.
So, one of the first bills that the government tabled before the
Parliament was Bill C-3, to limit equalization payments so that
they would not increase too much. And yet, the objective of this
program is to redistribute wealth. Consequently, that bill meant
limiting the ability to redistribute wealth.
Obviously, the Liberals have lost this concept in the last few
weeks or months, or even in the last years. They should now be
called the old Liberals, since they look more and more like
Conservatives. Even if they do not like to hear that, they must be
called by their name, they must wear the hat that fits them.
(1750)
The third type of transfer payment is the Canada Assistance
Plan. That is mainly in the welfare sector. The government is
funding a part of provincial spending in that sector.
So, there are these three components. Let us take equalization
payments from that, because they are not affected by the new
Canada social transfer. All there was to say on this is that the
government has limited the potential growth of that system.
In the new Canada social transfer, the two other types have
been amalgamated: the Canada Assistance Plan and Established
Programs. They become one single program.
Obviously, because this government intended to cutback
post-secondary education and attended the demonstrations
made by students-I remember well seeing them on the
Hill-they said: ``It is true. When they are told directly that
education or health will be cut, they react. Therefore, we should
mix everything together and proceed with cuts thereafter. This
way, they will not be able to say that we have made cuts in a
specific area, be it education, health or social welfare.
Provincial governments will be totally free to choose where to
cut. That is flexible federalism''. That is what you are told. You
are free to choose in what area you will cut: education, health or
social welfare. That is what this government is defending,
almost with a smile, in joy and almost with conviction. This is
veryastonishing.
This new Canada social transfer will reduce the amounts
transferred by $2.5 billion, not this year, obviously, because it
knows perfectly well that this is a very important year on the
Canadian political scene because of what is going on in Quebec.
Therefore, it is waiting. Since it does not want to decide now
how to define the new Canada that it wants to build, it will
reduce the amounts transferred by $2.5 billion next year and by
$4.5 billion the following year, without saying who will be
affected and to what extent. All that is known is that it will
happen in the second year, that $650 million of the $2.5 billion
will be cut in Quebec, and that in the following year, as much as
$1.9 billion of the $4.5 billion could be cut in Quebec.
Quebec would assume more than its share since the criteria
used for allocating funds under the Canadian social transfer are
going to be reviewed. Given the lobbying efforts which will be
made by the wealthiest provinces, such as Ontario, one can be
sure that these provinces are going to try to get a bigger share.
Furthermore, we are all aware of the upcoming election in
Ontario and of the possibility that their Liberal colleagues will
be elected. They are going to show great compassion for their
colleagues and no doubt help make their transfer payments more
generous. Again, Quebec would assume more than its share. As I
said earlier, these cuts could add up to $1.9 billion.
During the two minutes remaining, I will show how
intolerable it is to implement all these cuts while insisting on
maintaining the same standards and probably raising them. All
the while federal members of Parliament are strolling through
their ridings, patting themselves on the back and claiming that
we have an extraordinary health care system. They say to their
constituents that they will be protected, that they will define
standards. They will do it and the bill will be paid not by the
federal government, but by provincial governments. They are
the ones who will be stuck with the difficult job of deciding how
to do it. The federal government will only ask them to adhere to
standards-that will probably be raised-with less money. Go
figure.
We do not want to allow for flexibility or to leave the
governments some room to adjust. We prefer to remain good
members of Parliament and, as such, protect the principles and
preserve the universal aspect of social programs. So we let them
manage the monetary aspect of the matter.
11439
This is basically what this budget does, although it tries to
hide it. Here is another point that I was just about to forget. This
budget talks about tax points, equalization and cash transfers.
What is being cut by the budget are the cash transfers to the
provinces. This is the part which is changed and remixed.
The government adds up cash transfer payments, equalization
and also tax points, on which it has no control whatsoever, and
says: ``Look how little we are cutting''.
This is a terrible cover up by people who, during the election
campaign, were going around with their red book in hand saying
that their objective was a more open, a more transparent
government, so transparent in fact you could almost see through
the front cover of the red book. They were going around
everywhere saying: ``We are going to have something very
understandable, very clear so that people know what the
government is doing''.
(1755)
This budget manipulates, messes around with and monkeys
with figures to make people believe that they will hardly be
affected. This is what we have to expect from a Liberal
government which has become more conservative than the
Tories and has grown more and more like the Reform Party. This
is the kind of Canada this government is shaping. For our part,
we are going to have to explain all this to people who will have a
choice to make.
We will have the opportunity to conduct the same debate in a
few months since the government will only implement its new
vision next year, being afraid of doing it before the referendum.
We will be there to remind Quebecers, before they make a
choice, that they have to find out who these people who govern
us are, where they are leading us and what will the consequences
be.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the debate on the
budget and whether or not it should be delayed. I believe that
although the budget is not really what I would have liked to have
seen, the government had better get on with it and start
instituting some cost cutting measures. If the government were
to be prudent, it would come up with another budget in the fall to
continue the process and start working toward a balanced
budget.
I come from a province that is often criticized for living in a
different world. It is the province of British Columbia. It is quite
true, we do live in a part of the country that is quite different
from the rest of Canada. The Rocky Mountains separate us from
the rest of Canada. Because of our separation from the rest of
Canada, our trade has been north-south. Our communication has
been with our neighbours to the south.
My riding is on the Canadian-American border. We are not
afraid of Americans. We are not afraid of trading with them or of
being friends with them. We have established in our province a
relationship with the states of Washington, Oregon and
California that has developed its own economy. It is very
distressful for me to see, because of the strength of the flow of
goods and commerce north and south, that some Canadian
businesses in my riding and in neighbouring ridings have chosen
to move their businesses south of the border. They have not only
chosen to move their businesses south of the border, but they
have taken jobs south of the border. The reason they gave me is it
is because of the cost of doing business in Canada. A lot of the
cost of doing business in Canada is made up of high taxes and
regulations that governments impose on the business
community. It troubles me that these businesses are taking their
money and their jobs and moving south.
It gives me some encouragement when I hear of groups such
as Cascadia, which is an economic union between some of the
northwestern United States and some of the western provinces
of this country. I believe it is a union that includes Alaska,
Washington, Oregon and northern California, with Alberta and
British Columbia. It is an economic union that has some
powerful economists and business people who are looking at the
potential of a more secure economic union between western
provinces and the western United States. That gives me some
faith that there are other ways of addressing some of the
problems that are created by the government.
I would hate to think that this economic union, which seems to
be blossoming, might ever become a political union. It is
important that I represent my constituency and my country in
saying that this government has a mandate from the people of
this country to try to reduce the cost of government so that
businesses, not only in my constituency but in all constituencies
across the country, will stay in Canada, will keep the jobs in
Canada and will keep the money in Canada.
It is my concern that this government take seriously the task it
has at hand, to make sure it is up front with Canadians as to what
reducing government spending will cost. The government must
be honest, it must be forthright, and it must look to the future of
this country, not just to what is happening today.
(1800 )
It is very important for the government to get on with the
business at hand, not to delay implementing the budget, but to
get on with implementing it today. It is just as important for the
government to look at coming back with another budget, a
mini-budget if you will, that will carry it forward until the next
budget year.
11440
I would like to think this is only a first step, albeit a small
step, in a process of the government balancing a budget.
Canadians expect that. The Reform Party, in listening to what
constituents are telling us, has come up with a vision which
seems to be lacking from the government. It is a vision that
looks at balancing the budget in the near future, not in 10 years
when it is too late.
It is very important that we balance the budget as soon as
possible. Only then can the government start eliminating an
interest payment, or at least reducing an interest payment, and
start eliminating the debt that has accumulated to over $550
billion. Our children and grandchildren can expect nothing less
from all of us but to look at that very real problem, the problem
that in three years time, if the government continues with its
plan, we will be paying $50 billion in interest payments.
At least the Reform Party has acknowledged the problem, has
identified the solution to the problem is short term pain for long
term gain. In its taxpayers budget, the Reform Party has been up
front, honest and has shown the Canadian public what is
necessary for the country to get its financial house in order. The
Reform Party has shown vision when it has talked about other
ways for people to look after their own interests, to look after
their own economic needs.
We have been visionary in looking at what is wrong with the
system as it stands today and where we can go with it. When we
talk to Canadians about the potential of an RPSP, a personal plan
where they invest in their own future to look after their own
needs, it is something Canadians can understand and they look
for.
I do not know how many constituents I have talked to have
contributed to the unemployment insurance plan and find that
after 30 years of working it is not there for them when they need
it. I do not know how many Canadians I have talked to in my
constituency have contributed money to the civil servant
pension plan or the RCMP pension plan or the defence pension
plan, the armed forces pension plan. They think that money is
sitting there in a pension plan, that it is protected. In reality that
money is in the big black hole and is part of our national debt.
There is no security in there for any of these people who are
looking at the Canadian pension plan or the individual pension
plan. That concerns them. They look at this visionary RPSP
where they are contributing to a plan that is there for them when
they need it. They decide how much they will take out to assist
them when there is unemployment or any other situation. They
look at that as a new way, an interesting way, an interesting
concept and something they can really get into.
I look forward to the days and months to come of expanding
on that idea and sharing with Canadians how that can work for
them. Canadians are looking to their government to have that
kind of vision, for their government to be able to look for new
ideas, not always falling back on the old way of doing things.
The old way of doing things which the Liberals brought in
many years ago, 30-odd years ago, in deficit budgeting followed
by the Mulroney Conservatives, has put us in this position. It is
incumbent on the government to start taking the lead from the
Reform Party with a newer vision and to start looking for some
real answers instead of doing things the stale old way that only
gets us deeper and deeper into debt.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, in
speaking to Bill C-76, I would like to draw the attention of this
House to what is really at stake in the budget tabled last
February 27 by the Minister of Finance. This bill is supposed to
be an act to implement certain provisions of the budget,
according to the wording in the bill.
(1805)
These provisions will change the financial and social
framework of this country, independently of any constitutional
or administrative agreement with the provinces.
The creation of the new Canada social transfer to replace the
Canada assistance plan and the program to fund established
programs will completely change the division of financial
resources between Ottawa and the provinces in the future.
Through this Canada social transfer, the federal government
will reduce drastically its contributions to the funding of health
and social programs. Clause 48 of part V of the bill mentions,
and I quote: ``Subject to this part -for the purposes of (a)
establishing interim arrangements to finance social programs in
a manner that will increase provincial flexibility; (b)
maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada
Health Act''.
Despite the talk of greater flexibility for the provinces, the
federal government is going to reduce its financial contribution
substantially and the provinces will have to implement all
aspects of the Canada Health Act, including the key components
of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality,
portability, accessibility, extra billing and user charges. How
can the provinces be flexible when they must comply with all
provisions of the Canada Health Act while Ottawa is reducing its
financial contribution to health care and social programs in
general?
Given the current overtaxation of the middle class, which, it
must be said, remains the real cash cow of all levels of
government, and the chronic indebtedness of the federal and
provincial governments, the provinces will have no room left to
manoeuvre. Although the federal government is withdrawing
from financing, it will continue to make the rules.
11441
For 30 years, the provinces have been fighting against federal
government interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Until now, Ottawa used to compensate for invading provincial
jurisdictions by footing part of the bill. Today, Ottawa is
interfering even more, even if it is paying less. It is transferring
onto the provinces the horrible task of increasing taxes and
cutting elsewhere. The federal government is literally putting
the provinces in a straitjacket. It even goes as far as forcing the
provinces to refer to the Canada Social Transfer in all their ads
and documentation concerning the health services they provide.
All this window-dressing only to cut $7 billion on the backs of
the provinces through the implementation of the Canada Social
Transfer.
So, Bill C-76 will offload the federal deficit onto the
provinces; since the legislative framework for health-related
matters will stay the same, the federal government will only
have to transfer its deficit.
Because of the pressure exerted by the richer provinces, the
federal government is seriously thinking about changing the
envelope for the main provincial transfers, except of course for
the equalization payments which will in any way be
significantly reduced beginning in 1996-97. As I was saying,
the government is thinking about reducing the envelope for all
provincial transfers according to the population figures instead
of the wealth index which is now being used. If distribution is
based on population, as the government is contemplating, then
Quebec will have to deal with almost 42 per cent of all the cuts
made to the provincial transfers in 1997-98.
Bill C-76 even provides for new health criteria and paves the
way for new criteria in the areas of welfare and post-secondary
education. Is this what the flexible federalism the Liberal
government has been pushing for is all about?
Education is a very sensitive area for Quebecers who make up
a distinct minority in Canada. The prime minister's centralizing
federalism does not recognize this reality, and that is why more
and more Quebecers do not want to be part of a country whose
government shows so little sensitivity to their cultural identity
and their most legitimate aspirations.
Quebecers are puzzled about one thing: Quebec's debt is at
$70 billion, whereas the Canadian government has borrowed
about $126 billion in the name of Quebecers since 1972.
Therefore, Quebec's share of the federal debt is 45 per cent
higher than its own provincial debt, although the latter remains
high.
(1810)
Quebecers have come to wonder how a federal government
that has done so poorly in managing their hard-earned money
can still be trying to impose its will upon a Quebec government
that is also closer to them from a cultural standpoint.
By withdrawing its funding and by forcing the provinces to
comply with new national standards, the federal government
will be dealing, in a few years, with provinces whose tax base
will be considerably weakened. This will give yet more power to
the central government which will have greatly reduced its
fiscal obligations and which will be in a position to interfere
even more in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
The newspapers reported last week that Jean-Claude Rivest,
an independent senator, and Claude Forget, former health
minister in Quebec, fear a fiscal coup by Ottawa after a victory
for the ``no'' in the Quebec referendum. My colleague from
Trois-Rivières talked about it very eloquently a while ago.
Mr. Rivest and Mr. Forget, who have good connections within
the federal government as reported in the Journal de Montréal
on March 30, have no reason to worry. With this Bill C-76 and with the budget tabled on February 27, the federal government has already launched its fiscal coup against Quebec, even though the referendum in that province has not yet taken place.
Neither the finance minister's budget nor the bill before us
today contain any provisions about the tax system, especially as
it applies to families and young households, the only ones that
would be likely to stimulate consumption and economic activity
and to give some breathing room to provinces, which could
intervene more freely and more energetically on their territory
and in their particular jurisdictions by involving the
stakeholders.
The centralizing federalism practised by the Liberals goes
against every attempt at decentralization toward the provinces.
Therefore, we must strongly reject Bill C-76.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendment the
Bloc has put forward. It wants to delay the implementation of
the budget for six months. I am sure it has a political agenda
behind this amendment. I would imagine that it is to try to add
more credence to its failing sovereignty program. I can think of
no other reason for an amendment like this.
However, I suggest the government delay the implementation
of the budget for eternity. This is not a budget the Canadian
people were asking for. While the hon. member for Halifax a
short time ago said eastern Canadians were smarter than western
Canadians, there are a whole lot of western Canadians who
apply some good, common sense to getting this financial crisis
and the House in order.
I want to paraphrase part of a speech by Mackenzie King in
the House in 1935. What he was saying applies to the situation
we have today. He said that when a government loses control of
its currency and credit in effect all talk of democracy in the
country is both useless and futile. That is exactly the situation
the country is in. We have lost control of our currency and credit.
Every decision we try to make in the House is influenced by the
11442
fact that we are some $500 billion in debt. We have an annual
interest payment of some $47 billion.
As we discuss issues in the House, no matter what they are,
industry and trade, Indian affairs and northern development, the
health problems or the social problems, they are influenced by
the fact that our country is seriously hemorrhaging in debt.
Every decision we make has to take into account that we owe
$500-plus billion and we are paying an annual interest rate to
service that debt of some $47 billion. We are being held captive
by the irresponsible spending that was started during the
Trudeau administration and carried on by the successive
governments under Tory prime ministers Clark and Mulroney.
(1815)
Before the Trudeau administration came to power we were
basically running a balanced budget. We had a small national
debt that was perfectly manageable. Somehow the special
interest groups got to the Trudeau government and said:
``Listen, if you will give us more of this and more of that, we
will vote for you''. The Liberal government heard that message
and thought: ``This is a good thing. Let us go out and tell all of
Canada they can have whatever they want and not to worry about
paying for it. As long as they vote for us, we will give them
whatever they want''. They instilled in this country, in the
Canadian people, during those years an attitude of entitlement,
that the Canadian people were entitled to every single thing they
wanted. The government told them: ``Do not worry about paying
for it. We will borrow the money and sooner or later we will get
around to looking after the debt.''
Well, now some 28 or 29 years later, look what this got us. We
have a half a trillion dollar debt and an interest payment that
would pay for all the social programs in this country if we did
not have it. This government talks about its famous red book and
its promises. This government is trapped by the promises in the
red book. The Canadian people are demanding that the
government get control of its financial house. The Liberal
government knows what it has to do. The Minister of Finance
knew what he had to do, but the soft-headed Liberals in that
party would not let him make the drastic and severe cuts that are
needed.
They are trapped by the promises in the red book. The red
book says: ``We will bring the deficit within 3 per cent of our
GDP''. Big deal. That can be done by increasing the GDP.
Spending does not have to be cut. That is fine as long as the
economy stays buoyant. But what happens if there is a downturn
in the economy, as was forecast in The Globe and Mail just a
couple of days ago?
Under the government's budget plan and deficit reduction
plans, if we have another downturn in the economy our fiscal
house is headed for disaster once again. The government will
use the same excuse the Tory government used. It will say:
``Well, there is nothing we could do about it. We inherited this
debt from the Tories.'' The Tories said: ``There is nothing we
could do about it. We inherited the debt from the Liberals.''
The Canadian people are sick and tired of excuses. They want
action. The people who invest in business in this country are sick
and tired of excuses. They want action. Everywhere we go in this
country people are saying: ``We want a balanced budget''. The
Liberals say: ``Oh, no. Sorry. Canada does not need a balanced
budget. You do not know what you are talking about. We have a
plan that is going to cut the deficit to $25 billion in 1997 and
everything is going to be okay. It is a feel good budget''. At the
same time they are going to add $100 billion to our debt and
maybe another $10 billion to the interest payments.
Madam Speaker, any economist will tell you that if you are
deeply in debt-as a matter of fact, my wife will tell you,
because she runs our household budget and does a darned good
job, that the time to reduce your debt is when things are good,
when you have a good paying job. Let us apply that same simple
principle to this budget. This government should apply that
same principle. Things are pretty good in this country right now.
Now is the time to make some drastic cuts and get rid of the
deficit. Get the fiscal house of this country in order.
The Canadian people, the consumers in this country, have no
confidence in the financial affairs of this government. If they
did, consumer spending would be far higher than it is now. The
investors in this country have no confidence in the future of the
financial plans of this government. If they did, investment
would be higher now. That is where we have to target. We have
to get back people's confidence in the investment community.
(1820)
I would like to tell the Liberals how they can be heroes. All
they have to do is balance the budget. Give the Canadian people
a definite time line to balance the budget. Regain the confidence
of the Canadian people in the way the government handles the
fiscal problems. Get rid of the deficit. Say to the people: ``We
have shown you that we have our financial crisis under control.
We have eliminated the deficit''.
Once there is a balanced budget the Liberals can say to the
Canadian people: ``We think you have confidence in us once
again. Here is what we want to do. About 30 per cent of our
national debt is foreign owned. Let us bring that foreign owned
portion of our debt home. We are going to issue something
similar to a war bond. We are going to declare war on our foreign
debt. We want all Canadians to invest in these war bonds''. That
is something saleable, but only when Canadians are confident
once again that the government is in control of its financial
house.
11443
I think many Liberal members would agree with that. I thank
the hon. member for her support. I think it is a good idea.
This budget should be thrown out the window. This
government should bring in a budget with a definite time line on
balancing it. If it is 1997-98, so be it; if it is 1998-99, so be it,
but give Canadians a light at the end of the tunnel. Show
Canadians the government is serious about getting the deficit
and debt under control. Only then will confidence be returned to
this government.
I can assure you that confidence will be returned once again in
1997-98 when the Reform Party of Canada forms the
Government of Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate on the
Bloc amendment with respect to Bill C-76, the budget
implementation act.
What we have seen is an effort by the Liberal government
opposite to try to get a handle on its budget without considering
the effects on the economy in western Canada or the effects on
the national economy.
What this budget has done is described in one word in terms of
an impact on the province of Saskatchewan and on rural Canada.
The day after the budget there was a one word headline in big
bold black letters across the front of the Leader Post. The word
was ``devastated''. Western Canada and rural Canada have been
devastated by two major planks of that budget. I refer
specifically to the elimination of the Crow benefit and the
abandonment of rail lines in rural Canada.
The present minister of agriculture used to be a parliamentary
secretary to Minister of Transport Otto Lang back in the
mid-seventies. At that time the Liberal government attempted
to commence the dismantling of the Crow rate as it was called
then. The minister of agriculture who sits in this government
today was defeated in 1979. He was defeated in 1980. He was
defeated a number of other times provincially after that
involvement with Otto Lang and the Liberal government to
dismantle the Crow rate. He was re-elected in the 1993 election
and was appointed minister of agriculture. In one fell swoop of a
budget not only does he dismantle the Crow benefit but he also
eliminates it entirely from the rural Canadian population.
What we see as a result of this very treacherous act on farmers
who supported him in the last election is an act of betrayal. The
minister of agriculture has stood in this House and betrayed
rural Canada with the elimination of the Crow benefit. For the
members opposite, as a result of this budget, I predict that not
this summer, not this fall, perhaps not even next year, but in the
next election which is held in this country no Liberal members
will be elected in the province of Saskatchewan.
(1825 )
The budget and the elimination of the Crow benefit will be the
major reason for the defeat of the minister of agriculture and all
of his Liberal colleagues from Saskatchewan.
What is the argument for abolishing the Crow benefit? If the
argument is that the Crow has to be cut to conform with the
GATT, farmers do not buy it. The requirements of GATT can be
otherwise met. At least that is an argument. If Canada cannot
afford the subsidy, at least that is an argument. What is the
argument for essentially scrapping this transportation policy
and putting nothing in its place? It is not fair.
It is also not fair to reduce dairy subsidies by 30 per cent, but
transport subsidies to Saskatchewan grain farmers are cut by
100 per cent. We know Ottawa has a deficit and debt problem,
but we must do our bit. This means we should tailor the suit to fit
the cloth.
The scrapping of the Crow has left serious questions
unanswered. In the short term the issue of who gets the $1.6
billion payout and how and when it will be distributed must be
answered now for the farmers in very clear terms so they can
make informed decisions about this year's operations.
More important, Ottawa must look at the long term because
these long term costs will be high. The former chairman of the
agriculture committee, who is participating in this debate from
his seat, is quite upset with the fact that farmers are upset with
his government and his party for having eliminated the Crow
benefit.
I can assure the member that when the next election is called
even the Alberta members in the Liberal Party will be defeated
as well and perhaps also those from the Liberal Party in
Manitoba.
I want to recognize the impacts to farmers in Saskatchewan of
the abolition of the Crow benefit. Swift Current is a city in the
western part of the province. The tonnage, the freight rate for a
tonne of grain, will increase from $13.82 in 1994-95 to $28.58
in 1995-96. That is about a 125 per cent increase. Also, the
projection for 1996-97 shows the freight rate for a tonne of
grain will increase to $32.28, a further increase.
In the eastern part of our province, the southeast where we
have a Liberal member sitting, in Estevan district, the increase
will be from $11.80 per tonne in 1994-95 to over double, $23.48
in 1995-96. For 1996-97 the projection is $34.64, tripling the
current rate.
Those in the eastern part of our province will be hardest hit.
The overall result barring crop adjustments will be a loss of
$320 million a year in net farm income in Saskatchewan alone.
This represents a drop in income of about 50 per cent for farm
families, and any shortfall in grain prices will compound their
loss.
11444
At the same time, federal safety net funding is to be cut by 30
per cent over the next three years, again hitting mostly the grain
sector. We see substantial increases to transportation in Atlantic
Canada for highways and roads but we do not see any
comparable increase for the loss of the Crow benefit which will
severely impact our good road system in Saskatchewan.
Ottawa's changes to the regulatory system mean that as of
January 1, 1996 some 500 miles of light steel rail lines will be
subject to abandonment with no review, affecting 48
communities in Saskatchewan. Another 3,000 miles of branch
lines become eligible for abandonment after an as yet undefined
review process, affecting another 383 cities, towns, villages and
hamlets. This fast tracking of branch line abandonment means
higher trucking costs and the further one is from a main line, the
higher those costs will be. For instance, the distance from Kyle,
Saskatchewan to the nearest main line is about 70 kilometres;
from Val Marie it is about 150 kilometres.
What about the higher road maintenance costs to support this
increased trucking? Who pays for this? I am encouraged Ottawa
finally recognized the road impact, but the $300 million
adjustment spread over six years and across three provinces with
only part of this designated for roads-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Your time has expired.
_____________________________________________
11444
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1830)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you once again for giving
me the opportunity to address questions to the government
which the people of Saskatchewan, particularly farm people and
the communities they support, are concerned about.
On March 17, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance, the Minister of
Transport answered, inadequately, two important questions I put
to the government in regard to the Liberals' plan to eliminate the
Crow benefit.
First, I want more information with regard to the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board and its request for regulatory control
over freight rates. The minister was aware that the Canadian
Wheat Board asked the federal government to give farmers a
short term break on freight rates and I agreed with the board.
There is no debate about how the elimination of the Crow
benefit will affect the increased costs of shipping grain by rail.
Those costs will increase dramatically. In fact, for the benefit of
those who are uninformed here in the Chamber tonight, it should
be noted that when taken to its lowest common denominator, the
average benefit of the Crow rate to a Saskatchewan farmer in
1994-95 terms is $15.63 per tonne out of a total grain freight
cost of $30.35 per tonne. On an average sized farm this means an
average increase in costs of $10,000 to $12,000 per year per
farm as of August 1, 1995. As members heard me say in my
speech in the House last week, this means a community increase
of about $1 million for every delivery point in the province.
Given no other changes, the government's decision to
eliminate the Crow benefit will result in a doubling of farmers'
shipping costs at the same time that farm income support from
the federal government will drop by 30 per cent over the next
three years. There is nothing to say that when the federal
government removes itself from the business of helping to move
grain to port by rail that the railways will not immediately
increase the cost of the freight. The Canadian Wheat Board,
most Saskatchewan farmers and I would like to see some sort of
regulatory control put in place to ensure that there are no
immediate or later unnecessary increases imposed on farmers
during this most vulnerable time.
On March 17 I also raised the question of the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board because no studies have been done on
this subject. The government is eliminating the Crow benefit
with the stated intention of reducing the amount of grain grown
on the prairies in favour of more crop diversification. With less
grain, especially wheat, and with the need of the Canadian
Wheat Board to have a secure supply of product on hand for our
many customers around the world, I want to know if the
government has spent any time studying what the long term
implications of the decision to eliminate the Crow rate will have
on the Canadian Wheat Board and the security of its supply.
In a supplementary question I expressed concern about the
pending payout of $1.6 billion. It is already acknowledged that
farmers' costs will be increased by the elimination of the Crow
benefit and it was speculated from day one that land values
would decrease. Now it seems that the Liberals are
acknowledging that land values will decrease and, as a result,
they are putting in place a financial compensation package
which seems to only address the decrease in land values.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am responding to the hon.
member's question of March 17.
11445
The WGTA reform will have a major impact on our grain
handling transportation system. The Ministers of Agriculture
and Agri-Food and Transportation, in consultation with all
stakeholders, have developed plans and strategies to assist
farmers in making the transition to a new market environment.
This will include a legislative and regulatory framework
which will assist in the achievement of efficiency gains. For
example, the provision of the National Transportation Act will
help to foster competitively priced grain transportation services
and cost savings for farmers and shippers. A system will be put
in place to ensure the provision of necessary information,
monitoring and review processes. These in turn will be used to
track system revenues, costs, efficiency achievements and an
appropriate sharing of benefits. In other words, provision has
been made to pass efficiency savings on to the farmers.
(1835)
Regarding the hon. member's concerns related to the
government's ex gratia WGTA payment, it is important to note
that the transportation subsidy had an impact on land values.
With the elimination of the subsidy, the payment addresses the
subsequent changes in these land values.
In addition, the payment is decoupled. This means it will be
market neutral with respect to future production and marketing
decisions of producers. It is also in keeping with Canada's
international trade obligations.
It is important to note the government's assistance is not
limited to this payment. Saskatchewan will share in a $300
million adjustment fund.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
my remarks tonight follow up on my question to the Prime
Minister on December 8, 1994, about the contract awarded to
Saint John Shipbuilding without a call for tenders; the MIL
Davie Shipyard, which had submitted a bid, was wronged in the
process. Here is the question I asked:
How can the Prime Minister explain that, despite the clear directive issued by
him to the president of the consortium, Mr. Ken Hall, Hibernia has refused to
redress the injustice to which he has himself so strongly objected?
The Prime Minister answered:
I think the company should not have acted in this way. I have said it clearly,
but since we own only 8.5 per cent of the company's shares, we cannot force it to
change its decision. I still think it is a bad decision for both the Newfoundland
shipyard and the Quebec shipyard.
The answer given by the Prime Minister is not complete. In
my opinion, it is not true that the federal government is not in a
position to force its views on the Hibernia project. It is true that
the federal government owns 8.5 per cent of the shares in the
Hibernia project for $340 million, but the Prime Minister forgot
to tell us that the government invested $400 million more in
1992, when Gulf pulled out. The federal government also pays
almost $100 million in cost overruns. It granted $1 billion in
subsidies and gave $1.7 billion in loan guarantees. More over, it
undertook to pay the difference in production costs between the
market price and $25 a barrel.
Let them not pretend the federal government is just any other
investor. It is the main investor in the project with $3 billion out
of $6 billion. The Prime Minister should have taken a tougher
stand and demanded that the consortium follow his directive.
Hibernia is the perfect image of Canadian federalism with the
lobbyists making the decisions and the Prime Minister carrying
them out. As a result, we have policies which lead to waste and a
debt of $500 billion, megaprojects which are ruining us and will
never be profitable.
Of the five modules ordered for the amount of $100 million,
two were made in Korea, two in Italy and one in Newfoundland,
following construction of a shipyard 25 per cent of which was
paid for out of our tax money. We were told that the study
recently claimed that MIL Davie was not profitable, but who
produced this study? It was Ernst & Young, which contributed
$116,452 to the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the last
election and received federal contracts worth $2.4 million in
1993-94. Can Quebecers trust such a partisan study? What I
would like to know is if the Prime Minister will make a
commitment to ask the consortium to grant the contracts for the
construction of future tankers to MIL Davie as was done for
Saint John Shipbuilding, that is without a call for tenders?
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
member.
The hon. member was not satisfied with the response of the
Prime Minister to his question of December 8, 1994. The
question at the time related to the process followed by the
Hibernia consortium last fall when it became necessary to
remove some work on drilling modules that had commenced at
the Marystown shipyard in Newfoundland. The work had fallen
seriously behind schedule.
In order to avoid jeopardizing the schedule for the entire
project, an outcome which could lead to severe cost overruns,
the Hibernia Management Development Company decided to
place the completion of this contract in the hands of another
shipyard on relatively short notice.
The contract was transferred to Saint John Shipbuilding for
completion in New Brunswick without giving the MIL Davie a
formal opportunity to rebid on the remaining work. The member
knows that MIL Davie had submitted a bid on the contract when
it was originally tendered but lost out to Marystown.
11446
After the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board
reported on the process, followed by the HMDC, the
Government of Canada and the Prime Minister again asked the
Hibernia consortium to review its decision. The owners did
review the decision and four out of five concurred with the
chosen course of action.
With an 8 per cent ownership interest in the project, the
Canadian government is not in a position to direct decisions
taken by a basically private sector consortium.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the member.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.41 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)