CONTENTS
Thursday, May 18, 1995
Bill C-92. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 12761
Bill C-328. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 12761
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12762
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12764
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12768
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12772
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12775
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 12787
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12788
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12791
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12791
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12791
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12792
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12792
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12792
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12792
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12793
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12794
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12794
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12795
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12795
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12796
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12796
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12797
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12797
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 12797
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 12798
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12801
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12803
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12808
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12811
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12812
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12812
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12815
12757
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 18, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a question of privilege today because I feel my privileges
as a member of Parliament were severely breached during
committee proceedings last night.
As the House knows, the Standing Committee on Human
Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons was considering,
clause by clause, Bill C-64, an act respecting employment
equity. During debate on clause by clause my first amendment
was ruled inadmissible by the chairman, the hon. member for
Winnipeg North, on the grounds that it was only available in
English.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the rules of Parliament state that a
member may move an amendment in the language of his or her
choice. This happens all the time. No notice is required and the
onus is on the chairman and the clerk of the committee to
provide the translation to members of the committee if needed.
The chairman's ruling was immediately challenged by
members of my party but overruled by the rest of the committee.
In supporting a ruling on a matter over which the committee had
no authority in the first place, the committee breached my right
as a member of Parliament to move amendments to a very
significant piece of legislation.
(1015 )
I approached the chairman and the clerk to try to obtain an
explanation of this obvious breach of my privilege. In a
questionable justification of his ruling, the chairman explained
his actions in an inconsistent manner, ruling my amendments
out of order because I was ``not a member in good standing of
the committee'', which the clerk immediately refuted. I was a
member in good standing.
The chairman's subsequent behaviour was reprehensible.
Legitimate motions were tabled and immediately ruled out of
order. Debate was cut off. The questioning of witnesses was
curbed. The list goes on and on. On more than one occasion we
were put in a position to challenge the ruling of the chairman. I
believe the record, upon review, will speak for itself.
As an example, the committee had agreed to adjourn at
midnight. I brought to the attention of the chair that midnight
had come and gone and he continued with the next motion. At
the end of that motion, which was voted and carried by the
government side, I again brought it up that it was past midnight,
according to our previous agreement, and they passed a motion
without a vote.
I recognize that committees are masters of their own destiny,
but democracy must prevail. I will quote from Speaker Fraser in
his ruling of 1987, which states:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be
debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be
available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics
should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support
for their point of view.
Despite this, the members of the committee then proceeded to
move time allocation, restricting the debate to five minutes per
clause, and this after two hours of committee proceedings. Five
total minutes was given for all parties on this clause by clause.
This is totally unacceptable. There were clauses last night on
which not only was I not allowed to move an amendment, I was
not allowed to utter one word of debate. I cannot do my job as a
member of Parliament if I am not allowed to move amendments
and debate amendments. It is just absolutely unacceptable. I do
not know what I can do. I am a bit beside myself.
In his conduct last night, the chairman of the committee, the
hon. member for Winnipeg North, overstepped his authority.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule on this very important matter
and you suspend clause by clause consideration until such time
as you do rule, because the committee sits as we speak. I am at
your mercy. I know not what to do. I cannot speak and I cannot
move amendments. I give up.
An hon. member: No, don't give up.
Mr. Strahl: No, I do not give up.
12758
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know at least one other member wants to address
this representation, there is a point of privilege.
The first thing I want to submit to the House is that the
committee has not yet reported. As per the conventions of this
House, if a committee has not yet reported the House is in no
position to rule as to whether or not there has been a prima facie
case of privilege.
Notwithstanding that, even if the committee had reported to
the House, the committee itself would be the master of its own
business pursuant to the rules this House has established for the
committee.
Mr. Strahl: Do you call that democracy?
Mr. Boudria: Standing Order 108 and other standing orders
of this House are clear in that regard. Therefore, it is my
submission that the chair should not be ruling on this at this
time. However, in the unlikely event that the chair does decide to
rule on this issue at this time, I want to make representation to
the Speaker in regard to the substance of the alleged point of
privilege.
First, there has been an allegation made today that there was
some sort of an attempt to prevent the member from speaking on
and studying this bill thoroughly. This bill has been the subject
of study for five months. Yesterday alone, the committee sat for
over six hours and adjourned at 12.05 this morning. This hardly
sounds like an attempt by anyone to stifle debate.
(1020 )
The next thing that is important to add at this point is that yes,
it is true that an hon. member of the committee did propose to
limit the time of debate per motion. That was not a government
attempt. It was a member of the opposition. Therefore an
accusation that the government is trying to stifle the opposition
would not be totally accurate. In fact, the motion in question,
which duly carried, was proposed by an opposition member and
carried by the committee as a whole.
On the issue of the motions, it should be noted that there were
a number of amendments proposed yesterday. As a matter of
fact, I am told that some 40 amendments had been proposed
prior to the committee sitting yesterday. And yesterday
amendments in a stack several times thicker than the original
bill were proposed by one member.
At the first occasion on which the amendments were
proposed, the member in question was not a duly signed member
of the committee. Therefore all the amendments he proposed
were out of order because the member had no standing before
the committee. Later on the member was afforded an
opportunity to become a duly signed member of the committee
as per our rules. In other words, his whip signed him in. I
understand at that point he was able to move the amendments.
If I can speak to the issue of the amendments and the language
for a moment, it is true of course that the House and its
committees have permitted and will permit an amendment to be
produced in only one of the two official languages. We have
done that before. But it is equally true that a substantial
document of the House must be, not only because of the
Standing Orders but because of elementary courtesy, produced
in both official languages, because our rules make it such and
simply because of the volume, in order to enable all members to
participate.
May I suggest that when someone moves a stack of
amendments several times thicker than the bill itself, that rule
then must apply as well. In other words, several hundreds or
dozens of amendments should be translated, again in order to
accommodate all members of the House to participate. It is not a
matter of one or two amendments where one member can listen
to the interpretation system and hear the three or four words
proposed to be amended. We are talking here of hundreds and
perhaps thousands of words being amended in a particular bill.
That courtesy was judged by the chair of the committee to be
essential to the good functioning of the committee and
ultimately of the House.
I am told the chair did rule as well that some, if not a large
number, of the amendments were not substantive but were
dilatory in nature and nothing else. I am told, as an example, that
someone wanted to exempt people working in restaurants from
being obliged to hire people of different ethnicities and so on.
Mr. Speaker, you have already recognized that is not even in the
area of federal jurisdiction. An amendment such as that and
several others, according to the committee, had little or no
purpose other than to stall the process of the committee after
five months of deliberations and six hours of sitting in one day.
The purpose was not at all to amend the bill.
Finally, the committee did adjourn nominally at five minutes
past midnight. That was invoked as part of the alleged point of
privilege. The House will know that adjourning five minutes
later than the usual time when there is general agreement on the
committee is not exactly something unprecedented in order to
complete the business before the committee.
(1025 )
After three hours of debate on one clause of the bill the
committee judged it was for the betterment of the committee
that a time limit of five minutes per clause was appropriate. The
committee decided that by virtually unanimous consent, with
the exception of one or two members. The committee did make
that decision with full democratic principles in mind, as it had
the wisdom and the right to do.
12759
The committee has not yet reported to this House. When it
does report to the House, any member who was not a member of
the committee-as is the case of the hon. member who proposed
the amendments initially-is perfectly in order to produce
amendments again at report stage, if the Speaker and his very
able staff determine the amendments are in order.
Therefore, in my view there is no point of privilege. Even if
the points raised by the hon. member were valid-and I submit
they are not-this would not constitute a point of privilege now
but only at a later date.
I believe hon. members worked very hard on that committee. I
know the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and
several other members have worked very hard. They stayed up
very late last night to continue the work after five months of
deliberation.
Perhaps some people are not in agreement with the bill. That
will not change by invoking points of privilege in this House,
which are not really points of privilege at all, and even if they
had been, they were not invoked at the appropriate time. I
submit the chair of the committee ruled properly with the able
advice of his clerk and staff, and did make the committee
function to advance the legislation before the committee, as is
the role of the chair. He did nothing different from the usual
work of a committee chair. I am sure I speak on behalf of most
members of this House when I say he is an outstanding
committee chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, may I add two clarifications so that my colleague will
not keep the chair in the dark about certain facts. In accordance
with common practice, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East
was allowed to introduce unilingual amendments during
proceedings.
You should know that as soon as we started our proceedings,
the committee clerk asked all participants several times to hand
over their amendments, so that they could be translated and
made available in both languages. What is at issue here is that, at
the start of the proceedings, my colleague from Fraser Valley
East was tempted to table some 30, if not more, amendments.
Given this pile of amendments, we in the official opposition
asked that they not be considered, since one basic element of the
rules adopted by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is
that all documents and amendments tabled during proceedings
must be available in both languages.
I should point out to you that the Reform Party has
representation on the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure.
They supported these rules and I am concerned about the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East's lack of courtesy and respect for
francophones. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that I
mentioned during proceedings that-again, in accordance with
common practice-we agreed to let the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East introduce handwritten unilingual amendments.
You should know that we have always tried to co-operate and
that the hon. member is quite brazen, to say the least, in claiming
that his remarks were cut off, as a look at the time allocated
shows that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East took up
between 80 and 90 per cent of the time available for debate. It is
only after a two hour filibuster based not on content but on form
that we felt the need for consent, as part of committee
proceedings, to suggest to the chairman that we should be able to
call for a vote after spending five minutes on each clause under
consideration.
(1030)
In a fit of generosity, the chairman proposed that 15 minutes
be allocated, and you may be surprised to hear that my colleague
from the Reform Party was opposed.
So I am counting on the Chair to hand down a ruling that will
respect the rights of francophones in this country.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East on the
same point of privilege. I would ask the hon. member please to
make his intervention at this point fairly brief.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is important to clarify several
facts, as the Speaker was not able to be at our committee last
night.
One thing is that the member who made the intervention from
the government side was not there either, but he may have been
fed some wrong information.
Originally I sat at the committee table and proposed a motion
about calling more witnesses. It had nothing to do with clause by
clause. At that time it was pointed out to me that I had not
submitted my form to the clerk about being a member of the
committee. I immediately gave the sheet to the clerk of the
committee and to the chair so that I could take part in the clause
by clause voting.
After I had submitted my proper documentation to the clerk,
and I am sure the Speaker will check with the clerk on this, then I
moved my amendments. They were then ruled out of order and
tossed away. I asked for them back and could not get them. I
could not even get them. I had a stack of amendments. All of
them were taken and they went into a black hole or wherever
they go.
We were not restricted to five minutes per motion which
would have been bad enough. It was five minutes per clause.
12760
Even the government side had as many as three or four
amendments per clause which were read out with an explanation
and that was considered the total debate. It was not per motion,
per amendment, or per subamendment. It was per clause. We
passed entire sections, sometimes running an entire typewritten
page in the bill, without a word of debate.
It cannot go on, Mr. Speaker. It is going on right now. Clauses
are being passed without debate. You cannot allow that. I do not
know what to do. I could go back there and stomp on the table,
but they are just passing clause after clause without debate. It
cannot continue.
My final point is it is interesting that the member mentioned
that the committee did adjourn at 12.05 a.m. which is an
admission that it did go past the hour of adjournment, not that it
was not pointed out to the chairman. I brought attention to it in
two different points of order that we had agreed to stop at
midnight. The chair said we must continue with it. Another
amendment was passed. I said that it was now really past
midnight, it was five minutes after midnight. I said that I could
not see that we could proceed. The chair hit the hammer and
passed the amendment without even a vote. The amendment was
passed without a vote.
How can you pass an amendment without a vote? You cannot
do it. To say that this is somehow speeding up the procedure, I
guess it is. Speeding up procedure does not involve trampling on
the rights of members of Parliament who want to debate the
clauses and have the right to bring amendments in both official
languages. If members on the government side think they are
appealing to some unknown masses out there by running
roughshod over the rights of members of Parliament who have
the privilege of bringing forward concerns from their
constituents, it is hypocrisy, it is dictatorship, it is despotism
and it is out of order.
The Speaker: Order. Colleagues, I have listened to this
question of privilege. I think I have enough information. I am
starting to get the complete drift of what went on.
Hon. members from time to time become frustrated in their
work because things are not going one way or another. That is
understandable. That is about par for being here in this place.
Things do not always go the way we want them to go. I want to
point out some of the similarities that hon. members have
brought to the attention of the Chair.
(1035)
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East said in his opening
statements that indeed the committee is master of its own
destiny. The reason for that is that with all of the standing
committees that we have, if we had appeals from the committees
to the House then the time of the House would be taken up with
these appeals.
Speaker Fraser in an earlier ruling has indeed said that there
are exceptions to everything. From what I have heard here today,
it would seem to me that the committee which is master of its
own destiny by a democratic way of coming about it has decided
to proceed in a particular way. If one, two or five members
disagree, again the disagreement is noted.
When a member asks the Chair to make a ruling, as an
overwhelming rule the Chair has always waited for a report to
come from the committee to the House. In this report the
grievance that was brought up, if the committee decides to
report it, would be brought to the House.
Here, all of us together would have a chance to look at it and
make a decision as the House because we, the House, are
masters of our destiny. Speakers in the past most of the time
have given great latitude to committees because of the far
reaching importance of the work they are doing and have waited
for them to come to the House.
It is my decision at this point that I do not have a report from
the committee in front of me. Therefore, I do not want to make a
ruling until the committee as a body brings this report up. It
could be that the hon. member will have a question of privilege
to bring up at a future time. I do not discount that but it would
seem to me that at this time I would rule that there is no question
of privilege.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of
privilege but in a different vein-
The Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the question of privilege.
That question of privilege is now put to one side. If the hon.
member has another question of privilege that he wants to bring
up I will listen to it, but if it is on the same question of privilege I
beg the House to accept the ruling of its Speaker.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I guess I need some clarification from you on one
instance.
I want to bring forward another very important issue. First of
all my understanding of the standing orders is that a question of
privilege must be brought forward at the first opportunity. How
can we justify saying we have to wait until a report is given
before a member can put forth a question of privilege when he at
the same time must put forth a question of privilege at the first
opportunity?
My hon. colleague has brought forward what is a very
legitimate question of privilege at his very first opportunity. I
appeal to you on that basis.
The other thing I would like to bring to your attention is that
there are changes in the standing orders. This is the first
Parliament in which these changes have been implemented. It
may mean that a new precedent is being established and it may
be very important for you to play a role in establishing a proper
precedent.
12761
When bills are submitted to committee prior to second
reading, this House forgoes second reading debate. The House
is sacrificing an opportunity to debate in the House so that
would happen in committee. There are 180 minutes permitted
of debate on a motion to submit the bill to committee prior to
second reading. There really is no second reading debate. The
vote on second reading is held without debate.
Therefore, it is very important that a precedent be established
to allow proper debate at second reading. The spirit of the
agreement to change the standing orders was so that
amendments could be brought forward at committee and that
proper time could be taken to deal with the clause by clause
study.
(1040 )
Mr. Speaker, on that basis I ask you to consider very carefully
what precedent is being established here, whether or not the
rights of members are protected under the standing orders as
they now stand in light of this new procedure. I think it is very
critical and may be repeated many times in the future in the
House and in committee. I just want to make it very clear that we
are concerned.
The Speaker: I would accept the intervention as a point of
clarification.
Your Speaker is guided at all times by the rules decided upon
by this House. If a member has a grievance, the member could
appeal to the Speaker for clarification, if you will, but there are
other avenues that a member can take for doing the same thing.
Perhaps the member would want to bring it forth with the
committee on rules and procedures.
However, for your Speaker today, in this particular instance
that was brought forward, I have listened to all interventions and
in my view there is not a question of privilege. A point of
privilege might be brought forward in the committee itself. Who
am I to tell members how they should go about their business?
As I am thinking here, I do not know that this was brought
forth as a point of privilege in committee. I do not know that. All
I know is what the members here have brought in front of me. On
the basis of what members have said here today in this House,
then I would rule that there is no point of privilege.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts. When the Auditor General of
Canada tabled his report in February 1994, the issue of pension
overpayments, which reached between $120 million and $200
million, in the auditor general's estimation, was raised
repeatedly.
For the committee, behind the figures lay a more important
issue: the department's ability to efficiently manage pension
programs. This prompted the committee to meet twice with
senior officials of Human Resources Development Canada and
the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
In this report, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
makes a number of recommendations, which, for the most part,
have an implementation deadline. The dissenting opinion of the
hon. members of Chicoutimi and Joliette is appended to the
report.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that
the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1045)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to transfer
from the Department of National Revenue to the Department of
Human Resources Development the responsibility for assessing
job insurability under the Unemployment Insurance Program.
There are several advantages to doing this. We believe that the
larger number of points of service maintained by the
Department of Human Resources Development could mean
much shorter processing times.
Also, there will be a better understanding of the case at hand,
since files will be processed locally by individuals who will then
be in a better position to assess particular circumstances. I think
this will help develop a fairer rule of construction. That is, at any
rate, the spirit in which I table this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
12762
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a
privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents
of the city of Kamloops who point out the social programs of
Canada form the very fabric of our country and define us as a
civilized and compassionate nation.
The petitioners point out the struggle to build universal health
care, old age security and other valued institutions is a proud
part of our heritage. Consequently they are petitioning the
federal government to maintain and enhance these social
programs, the right and heritage of Canadians.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present a very extensive petition on another
matter. The petitioners from Logan Lake, British Columbia,
point out all the benefits mining provides to Canada,
particularly in our trade balance. Therefore they call on
Parliament to take action that will see employment in this sector
increase, promote exploration and rebuild Canada's mineral
reserves to sustain mining communities and keep mining in
Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
present a petition signed by a number of residents from
throughout central British Columbia who point out that
Canadians, particularly women and children, are becoming
increasingly fearful of walking our streets in our
neighbourhoods. They believe many violent offenders and sex
offenders are being paroled prematurely or are being released
without proper treatment or rehabilitation.
They point out a number of concerns and therefore call on the
House of Commons and the Minister of Justice to take whatever
steps deemed necessary to amend Canada's Criminal Code and
parole system to ensure safety and peace in Canadian
neighbourhoods.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I suggest that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12762
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1050)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ) moved:
That this House deplore the federal government's delay in responding to
Quebec's demands with regard ato the education of young Aboriginals in the
Quebec North amounting to $199 million, to the compensation of $135 million
under the 1991-92 stabilization program and to the $79 million claim for
expenses incurred during the events at Oka in the summer of 1990.
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the motion. Before getting into the thick of things, I also
want to thank my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, for
asking me to table this opposition day motion. It is a sign of trust
to have been asked to be the first one to speak on this motion,
which gives an eloquent example of the way the federal system
works.
In the next 20 minutes or so, I want to explain why the official
opposition tabled this motion today, and also what that motion
means. Indeed, what are we talking about when we refer to the
three issues mentioned in the motion, namely the claim for
expenses incurred during the events at Oka, the refund of
education costs for young aboriginals, particularly in the Cree
territory located in Northern Quebec, as well as the payments
under the stabilization program.
I will try to explain not only the costs related to these claims,
which are estimated at over $330 million, but also the costs
related to this whole operation. This is why I said at the outset
that this motion-and this is why we are tabling it today-very
clear shows the flaws of the Canadian federal system.
Sovereignists are often criticized on the grounds that they
only rise in this House to claim more and more rights for
Quebec. Indeed, we often hear the argument, from Liberal as
well as Reform members, to the effect that Bloc members are
always trying to get more for the Quebec government. The same
comment is also made regarding the Parti Quebecois
government by our federalist friends.
This motion shows to what extent-I am not sure if I should
use the word ``normal''-traditional federalism is flawed. I
would even go so far as to say that, in this specific case,
federalism works against Quebec's interests.
Mr. Milliken: Oh, oh.
12763
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): If the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands gives me a moment,
I will try to convince him, assuming this is possible, of the
appropriateness of my comments.
In fact, the $330 million claim of the Quebec government was
presented and renewed by Quebec's intergovernmental affairs
minister, Louise Beaudoin, this week, here in Ottawa, when she
met with her federal counterpart to claim something that, in one
particular case, has been owing for more than ten years.
The motion refers to three issues. The first one is the expenses
incurred during the events at Oka, in the summer of 1990.
Everyone remembers what happened then, particularly these
days, when there is a risk that these events could be repeated,
because of some aboriginal people in Oka.
(1055)
We all remember that, in 1990, the Quebec government was
faced with enormous costs for public safety, or for law
enforcement, as a result of the crisis in Oka and Kanesatake that
I mentioned a moment ago. Of course, given that public safety
was at stake, and that the crisis related to the native issue, which
is under federal jurisdiction, it was totally appropriate for
Quebec to ask the Canadian government to pay the additional
amounts associated with the need to call in the Quebec
provincial police.
A request for payment of $84 million was submitted. An
amount of $5.3 million has already been reimbursed by the
federal government, which leaves approximately $79 million
still to be paid. The crisis goes back to 1990, but the bill remains
unsettled. How did our politicians react to the request for
payment, when a federalist government was in power in Quebec,
during Mr. Bourrassa's, and then Mr. Johnson's Liberal
governments? What was the federal politicians' answer to the
Quebec government? In September 1993, the Minister of
National Defence in the former government refused to
reimburse the total amount requested, following the Oka crisis,
because these events, he claimed, resulted from a situation
related to public order, not public good.
Such a position is totally ridiculous, and I submit that the
present government, through its critics, is still making that
claim. This is utterly ridiculous. I ask the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of National Defence,
the Minister of Justice and the whole government to talk to the
people of Kanesatake and Oka, to check if their well-being was
not affected during those events. The government should be
ashamed of using such a ridiculous argument, and realize that
this issue must be settled right away.
A second issue deals with the education of young aboriginals
in northern Quebec. This is a claim made under a
federal-provincial agreement signed under the James Bay
Agreement, which provided that the Quebec government and the
federal government would pay the costs relating to the
education of young natives, especially the young Crees of
northern Quebec.
There is an outstanding account in the order of $119 million,
the payment of which has been demanded for nearly 10 years
now by successive Quebec governments and, I repeat,
governments of federalist allegiance.
(1100)
I do not think any member opposite can deny that the
Bourassa government wanted to get an agreement with the
federal government at any cost.
If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has any doubt
about that, he should confer with his colleague from Outremont,
who was a member of the Bourassa government and made the
same demands when she was the Minister of Education.
I repeat that, under a federal-provincial agreement, both
levels of government share the costs of education of young
Crees. But the population has increased, more young Crees have
registered for several courses or have decided to take more
training, so that costs have been higher than forecasted. The
federal government's position is that those claims are not
justified, and that it has not been consulted. Therefore, it refuses
to pay the claim for $119 million submitted by the Quebec
government.
At a time when the federal government's intention to set
national standards concerning shared costs program such as
post-secondary education and health is being discussed in this
House, we should take a hard look at these issues. When we
realize that agreements signed by both levels of government are
not being complied with in day to day operations, are we to
understand that the federal government will set its so-called
national standards each and every time the Quebec government
asks the federal government to assume its financial
responsibilities? Will Quebec get the same kind of response:
that the federal government was not consulted on each and every
one of those expenses, that all the invoices have not been
provided, and that a thorough examination is in order before any
amount is reimbursed to the Quebec government?
Let me remind the House that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs' answer was that he will ask his
officials to meet with those of the Quebec government in order
to study the whole issue more thoroughly. The issue has been
dragging on for ten years already. They are saying, in fact, that
they will take the time they need, that they are in no hurry. As the
minister said again this week: ``I do not want to raise the hopes
of Quebec politicians by implying that this issue can be easily
settled''. No, no and no, these things must take time. We have to
ask our officials to meet, to discuss, to chat, in order to try to
come to an understanding over an agreement signed-this bears
repeating-more than 15 years ago.
12764
The last demand involves compensation of $137 million
demanded not only by Quebec's current government but also by
its previous governments. I repeat, these are not new demands
brought forward by the current government of Quebec, Mr.
Parizeau's government. These demands were first made 10, 5
and 3 years ago by the previous federalist Liberal government.
Stabilization payments are made under a very complex
program that I will not even try to explain to you because I
cannot make head or tail of it myself, but the program is
designed to restore some kind of fairness in terms of the
expenses the provinces must incur to fulfil their own
responsibilities. The federal government has committed itself to
review each province's tax revenues and to compensate
provinces whose tax revenues are lower than expected for
various economic reasons or because of the economic situation.
The government seeks to stabilize provincial revenues through
this program, which it set up on its own initiative.
(1105)
Twice, the Quebec government asked for compensation and
twice its demands were turned down by the federal government.
The last time that demand was made by the current Minister of
Finance in Quebec, the federal Minister of Finance replied: ``If
you want to get compensation to the tune of $137 million under
the stabilization program, your only option is to take us to
court''.
After hearing all about progressive federalism, or progressive
status quo as our colleagues opposite like to call it, now we have
courtroom federalism. In other words, when we want the federal
government to respect programs it has introduced, we have to go
to court to obtain justice. It is the new way of doing things of the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of
Finance, who say: ``Let us go to court''.
With all due respect, this reminds me of what a Quebec
humorist, père Gédéon, not to mention any names, used to say:
``We will go to court even if we lose, and we will go all the way
to the Supreme Court''. The Liberal government's attitude is
somewhat similar. It admits that it owes money to the Quebec
government, but to drag things out, to make sure the matter takes
years to settle, it says to the Government of Quebec: ``Go to
court''.
In conclusion, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that
this was a good example of the way federalism operates. I also
said that I wished to underline the costs that this entails. We are
speaking, of course, about a justified and recognized claim. The
government's officials acknowledged that the amounts
mentioned are correct.
Can anyone imagine the human and financial costs generated
by all these discussions on these three simple claims?
Mr. Cauchon: It is fear mongering.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Do we
know how many civil servants, and the member for Outremont
could perhaps look into this, at the federal as well as the
provincial level, met, talked on the phone, exchanged letters and
piles of documents? All these costs for the taxpayer must be
added to the claim of $333 million.
If we had this money, if Quebecers could realize the enormous
costs of federalism, I am convinced that they would at once
choose to become sovereign. They would do it because the day
we are able to assume our own responsibilities, the day we are
able to make our own decisions concerning our collective
future, we will not have to listen to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs say to us: ``Go to court; let us ask our
civil servants to get together''. We will be able to make our
decisions, and this is what the motion tabled by the official
opposition is all about.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the
last speaker. Unfortunately, I did not sense in his speech the real
human dimension of the problem faced by natives in Quebec
and, let us be frank, in all areas of Canada.
The debate revolves around a ten-year old dispute between
Quebec and the federal government. And I would point out that
the federal government has already paid out a considerable
amount of money.
However, I will leave it to my colleagues on this side to make
speeches that will undoubtedly be brilliant and informative for
the opposition.
(1110)
What I find unfortunate in the statements of the opposition is
the fact that they did not speak about the social, human and
economic situation in which Quebec's natives live. I think that it
would have been more humble, more humane for the opposition
to focus more on the means of helping these people to improve
their lot. This has been a point of contention for several years
now.
I remember that in 1981, under the PQ government, 1,000
police officers invaded-that is the word, invaded-the
Restigouche reserve. That was unfortunate and I think that that
is when the relations between natives and Quebecers began to
deteriorate. I believe that we do not do enough for natives. I
think that we should encourage dialogue instead of resorting to
fear mongering, threats and statements like: ``If it had been up to
Quebec, we would have solved the problem long ago''.
12765
I ask the official opposition to make a proper evaluation of
the situation and not to confuse the issue with sovereignty and
with the upcoming referendum debate. I think that the first step
should be to consider the economic and social situation of
Quebec's natives as well as their problems. I think that that
should be the real subject of the debate. It is not a money issue,
but a human issue that we should address in a co-operative
fashion.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks, but I feel
compelled to remind him of certain facts. I do not want to give
him a history lesson, but I think that there is no relationship
whatsoever between the events in Restigouche and the matter we
are discussing today. I am sure that, if my colleague takes the
time to consult his history book, he will recognize that these two
matters are not related.
However, I agree with him when he talks about the need to
deal with the real problems facing native populations. I wish the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine would
convince his colleagues to adopt a similar position because, in
recent years, it is exactly what every Quebec government,
whether federalist or sovereignist, has done in relation to the
James Bay agreement, especially in relation to the matter we are
debating, that is the $119 million claim for the education of
young natives in northern Quebec.
The government of Quebec has striven to offer quality
services to native people and to meet their needs, which means
that when there is an increase in the clientele, there must be an
increase in spending on health care or education, as is the case
here. That is what the government of Quebec has done over the
past ten years, and it is the federal government which has been
tight fisted with its money. If the government of Quebec had
waited for the federal government to honour its commitments,
natives in the north would never have had the level of services
they are getting today, thanks to the Quebec government.
So the point raised by my colleague for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is most interesting. I ask
him to convince the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
the Minister of Finance to contact the Quebec Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs immediately to settle the issue. We
agree on this. Quality services have been delivered and now the
time has come to pay the bill. Unfortunately, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs will do the same thing he did in the
case of the Charlottetown referendum in 1992: he will first lose
face, then he will change his mind and agree that he must
reimburse the government of Quebec.
(1115)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if we are going to talk about
amounts, it should not be forgotten that the federal government
paid out close to $450 million for Northern Quebec natives.
However, I would have another question. The point has been
raised of Quebec's historic dispute with the federal government
over the last ten years. We were not in power during this period,
but I know that a certain Leader of the Opposition, here today,
was a member of that government.
Yesterday, in fact, we learned, because we asked the question,
that he was never aware, at the time, of the claims that were
made by the province of Quebec. It is regrettable that the least
fortunate members of society are being used to generate
propaganda, to engage in grandstanding, as well as to promote
sovereignty and independence at whatever cost.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition where he has
been for the last ten years and why he did not, when he was a
member of the government in power, do something about the
Quebec government's claim?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Madam
Speaker, I hope that we are not going to spend the entire day
listening to this sort of nonsense. It just shows how few
arguments the government can find to reject the legitimate
demands of the government of Quebec. Responding with
references to the former government, and specifically to the
Leader of the Official Opposition, who was a member of that
government over six years ago-having left it before the Oka
crisis-shows, in my opinion, just how few arguments they can
muster.
I hope that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will
come up with something more serious. As someone familiar
with the workings of federalism, surely he will be able to
convince us, with copious arguments, that he is right, without
spouting the sort of nonsense we have just heard.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will vote against the motion presented by the
hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, for a very
simple reason.
The federal government is not late in making the payments
referred to by the hon. member, and this includes Quebec's
demands with regard to the education of young Aboriginals in
the Quebec North, compensation under the 1991-92
Stabilization Program and the claim for expenses incurred
during the events at Oka.
Perhaps the hon. member will withdraw his motion after
hearing the government's point of view. In fact, if Quebec's
demands were so legitimate, I think, with all due respect for the
hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, that his
leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, would have
presented the motion himself.
12766
Monday I had a chance to discuss the matter with Mrs. Louise
Beaudoin. It was a cordial meeting during which we reviewed
the cases mentioned in the opposition motion and discussed the
mechanisms available to us to deal with these matters.
[English]
Madam Speaker, Mrs. Beaudoin and I met earlier this week to
discuss these matters. Our meeting was productive and focused
on the substance of the issues and on finding ways to solve these
issues in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers.
[Translation]
We both agreed to continue discussions on these matters
through existing mechanisms. We both agreed to make every
effort to find the right solutions without wasting any time.
(1120)
In the process, I want to ensure that the outcome is fair to both
parties, including Canadian taxpayers.
I will be brief, but I will take the time to explain the
government's position on each of the demands mentioned in the
motion. First, the claim for expenses incurred during the events
at Oka. Quebec submitted a bill for $130 million under the
disaster financial assistance agreements and estimated the
federal government's contribution at $84 million.
The federal government found that only $5.3 million seemed
to meet the criteria for this program. The rest of Quebec's claim
was not, in our view, covered by the program. We were not
convinced it was up to the federal government to pay the cost of
overtime-this is an understatement-accommodation and
transportation for officers of the Quebec Police Force, for which
the Quebec government was claiming $58 million.
I may recall that at the time the federal government had, at the
specific request of the Quebec government, provided the
services of the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, federal
expenses incurred by the use of the Canadian Forces at Oka
totalled $122 million.
Expenses covered under another program are not eligible,
which explains why the Auditor General has been asked to take a
very close look at Quebec's expenses. In other words, there are
regulations that determine which expenses are eligible and
which are not. In this case, considering additional claims made
by the Province of Quebec which, we feel, are unjustified, we
asked the Auditor General, a third party who enjoys credibility
among all Canadians, including Quebecers, to check Quebec's
additional claims.
We are hesitant to pay the bills submitted by the Government
of Quebec, not out of meanness, but because our goal is to be
rigorous and fair in administering the public purse. Mrs.
Beaudoin mentioned that the funds claimed are for Quebecers;
however, our responsibility is to manage funds for all of
Canada's taxpayers, including Quebecers, and that entails
ensuring that the bills submitted to us are justified.
That is why we called on the auditor general, from whom we
hope to obtain an impartial opinion. He has indicated that the
results of his audit will most likely not be available until June or
July 1995. In the meanwhile, he asked the federal government
and the Government of Quebec to send him a detailed
breakdown of all of the costs incurred and the related receipts,
normal requirements for any in-depth audit. For our part, we
have provided all of the information he requested.
The federal government, therefore, is waiting to see the
conclusions of his audit. That is what I said to my counterpart in
Quebec, Mrs. Beaudoin, and this is clearly the fairest process to
use, and we must let it run its course. All taxpayers expect their
governments to rigorously manage public funds, and that is what
we are doing.
Now, what about the $135 million claimed under the fiscal
stabilization program? Once again, the federal government's
position is very clear. We will apply the program rules to all
claims, be they from Quebec or from any other province.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Regarding the case at hand, the fiscal stabilization program
was implemented to assist provinces whose revenues drop
radically because of an economic downturn.
(1125)
The claim of $135 million for 1991-92 is not valid in our
opinion, because the Government of Quebec's loss of revenue
that year was not related to the economic situation. The Minister
of Finance has therefore determined that the stabilization
program does not apply.
However, the federal government has already paid an
instalment of $125 million, that is, more than half the amount
Quebec has claimed for 1992-93, because, in this case, we felt
the legislation criteria were met.
As I indicated to Mrs. Beaudoin last week, the legislation
does not provide for arbitration. The only alternative for the
Government of Quebec, if it does not share our viewpoint on the
application of the legislation, is, clearly, to appeal our decision
under the procedure provided in section 19 of the Federal Court
Act to resolve disputes between governments. Differences in
interpretation of legislation are matters to be decided by courts
of law rather than by politicians. I have even said that, if
necessary, our government would be prepared to help Quebec
out in such an appeal by providing all the necessary information.
Before going on to the third claim, I would like to draw the
attention of the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead to
the fiscal stabilization program I have just been talking about.
12767
I am a Liberal, and Liberal is spelled with a capital ``L'',
which means I believe in the principle of solidarity and in
sharing the wealth. I believe as well that government has a role
to play in this. A program like the fiscal stabilization program
enables us to express Canada's social solidarity in concrete
terms.
The public understands that these programs have criteria,
naturally, in order to prevent abuse and to ensure that public
funds are managed wisely and in their interest. And the criterion
of loss of revenue due to economic slowdown seems to me a very
valid one.
Now we come to the last matter, the claim for the education of
young aboriginals in northern Quebec. This week, I told the
Quebec minister that the federal government, far from dragging
things out, was anxious to see this issue quickly settled. I say it
again today and I would like to explain why it took so long to
deal with this issue.
Both governments have agreed, in the James Bay and
Northern Quebec Agreement, to share the education costs of
young Crees of the Cree School Board on a 75-25 basis, that is
75 per cent for Ottawa and 25 per cent for Quebec. One of the
reasons for that is that the Cree School Board serves a student
population which varies from year to year and which includes a
number of non-aboriginal students whose education costs are
met by the province of Quebec.
The agreement states that budgets must be approved by both
parties since amounts to be compensated depend on the
education budgets, including capital budgets, teacher salaries
and the proportion of aboriginal students and non-aboriginal
students in the student population.
The Quebec government has always been reluctant to let the
federal government play a role in budget approval, despite our
repeated demands. Even though it never approved those
budgets, the federal government already paid $464 million to
Quebec. Therefore, we cannot be accused of being deadbeats.
All they can say is that, since Quebec did not provide us with the
information necessary to determine which amounts should
ultimately be paid, we are protecting Canadians interests by not
giving it a blank check.
Since the federal government did not take part in the decisions
regarding the education budget, it is important that we
understand the basis on which those decisions have been made
before we decide whether a supplementary payment is
appropriate or not. We refuse to sign a blank check for amounts
which may not be owed.
(1130)
This being said, and I conclude on that, the federal
government always assumed its responsibilities towards natives
and fulfilled its obligations under the James Bay Agreement.
To conclude, the federal government is a reliable partner
seeking co-operation, but managing carefully taxpayers'
money. I am calling upon the sense of responsibility of the hon.
member for Megantic-Compton-Stantstead and his
colleagues from the official opposition, and ask them to
understand that fact. I am convinced that it is what Canadians,
including Quebecers, expect from us.
We will continue to deal with real problems, the problems for
which we were elected by the people of Canada, the problems to
which we were asked to find solutions. The Government of
Canada, our government, is an honest, open and reliable
government. A government which deals with provincial
governments in an equitable manner and looks at issues in good
faith.
We are always willing to work with provincial and territorial
governments in the interests of Canadians. This is why I will
vote against this motion and I urge fair-minded opposition
members to do the same, in the interests of Quebecers.
This is what we are doing and this is what will be done in the
future.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to get back to some of the points raised by the
minister who, a few months ago, was a keen advocate and
defender of flexible federalism. Could it be that he is
abandoning his lofty notions of flexible federalism to champion
the cause of courtroom federalism? This is the conclusion one is
inclined to draw from his speech.
The minister says that it has not been proven, beyond any
doubt, or close to that, that the sums being claimed were indeed
spent on young aboriginals according to the James Bay
Convention. And yet, his government did not show the same
scruples last year when the press reported that every year native
people in Canada receive $1.2 billion without a census to
establish their exact number.
And yet his government-I understand, I lay no blame-paid
the money anyway although it meant that later on, it might have
to make up the shortfall or withhold certain sums; it still took
action. In the present case, I believe the minister is dead set
against Quebec. He will not budge, no matter how legitimate the
claims Quebec has against the federal government.
I just came back from a committee meeting. We learned that
in Canada there are 298 public sea ports, and the present federal
government is unable to say whether they are indeed public or
private. For years now, it has been guesstimating. Sometimes, it
assumes they are public and sometimes not.
Does the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
know that, in his riding, there is a port in Chandler which is still
being funded even though it is not known whether it is private or
public? Ottawa keeps on acting as if it were public and belonged
to the federal government. Funnily enough, scruples only
happen when Mrs. Beaudoin makes claims on behalf of Quebec.
I
12768
find this intolerable on the part of a man who prides himself on
being responsible.
The minister, if he was that honourable, could have agreed
with Mrs. Beaudoin on a certain amount to pay. Even if we
cannot come to terms on the final numbers, we know that not
everything is free, including in James Bay. He could have acted
in good faith and paid out an approximate amount, which he
most likely owes, even though it would have meant he might
have to make up the difference or withhold part of the money to
be paid some time in the future under the same convention or
program.
(1135)
In conclusion, I am not surprised that the minister intends to
vote against our proposal, but I will ask him to refrain from
saying that he is doing it in all good faith.
Mr. Massé: Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the main
objective of the opposition member is for the federal
government to manage taxpayers' money with justice and
honesty. I agree with him entirely. That is why, in the case of the
Oka claim, even though we had already paid $122 million to
Quebec under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements,
when we decided that we did not have to pay anything else,
instead of just saying: ``No more, we owe you nothing more'',
we went to the extreme courtesy of naming a third party to audit
the books once again in order to give the province of Quebec
another chance.
It is also the reason why we asked the auditor general, who is
certainly the most credible reference in the matter of fairness
and good management of public funds, to go once again over all
the invoices, to try to determine if we still owed something to
Quebec. If the report says we still owe certain amounts to
Quebec, if we owe money, we will pay up.
As far as fiscal stabilization is concerned, I mentioned earlier
that we have reviewed all the payment criteria and have come to
the conclusion that no amounts were owing. Quebec is not the
only province in this case. The situation is the same for
Saskatchewan. This province also presented claims which, in
our judgment, were not in accordance with the established
payment criteria, so the amounts requested were not paid to
Saskatchewan either.
In the present case, the opposition will, once again, have to
congratulate us because we chose not to pay amounts that were
not owed. But, to be perfectly fair, we came to the conclusion
that we had to allow Quebec, as well as all the other provinces,
to appeal our decision and our interpretation of the criteria.
Clearly, the provincial government should not appeal to us,
since we concluded that there was no money owed as far as
stabilization was concerned, but to a court of law since it is the
interpretation of the law which is being challenged.
In the third case, our friend from the opposition suggests that
we at least give an amount corresponding to expenditures as a
whole and hammer out the adjustments later on. But what have
we done so far? In fact, in all these years, we have given $464
million to the province of Quebec for the education of aboriginal
people. However, as the province of Quebec did not fulfill its
responsibilities according to the James Bay agreement, we were
not able to verify if there were other amounts that could be
owed. Once again, to be as fair as we could, we proposed that a
group of civil servants study the amounts given, the school
board budgets, their capital budgets, the make-up of the student
population, to see if other amounts were owed.
I say again, if we come to the conclusion that we owe some
money, we will pay up. I conclude by saying that not only did we
pay our fair share, but also we went the extra mile to give the
province of Quebec every recourse possible and to ensure its
claims are reviewed.
(1140)
In this case, if opposition members are fair-minded about
this, if they try to see just how well the federal government has
managed the taxpayers' money and to understand the fairness
principles involved, I am pretty sure that they will vote against
their own motion.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to tell the minister that
I find his comments rather insulting, especially when he said
that, in his view, I was not important enough to move such a
motion in this House. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
suggested that the Leader of the Official Opposition is the one
who should have done so. I do not know if he thinks the same
about members speaking for the Liberal government, because
that would mean that only the Prime Minister has the right to
speak in this House.
As regards the very substance of the motion, I would like to
say to the minister, who prides himself on being a Liberal with a
capital L, that although the stabilization program precisely aims
at helping the neediest provinces, these last few years, a
province such as Alberta received $174 million in 1982-83, and
Ontario, a rich province, according to government spokesmen,
received $227 million in 1990-91 and $284 million in 1991-92
while the Government of Quebec was denied the same
conditions.
Mr. Massé: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member of
the opposition is confusing the equalization program with the
stabilization program.
The object of equalization payments is to give the have-not
provinces the possibility of providing public services of a
quality similar to those offered elsewhere. That is why
equalization payments are not made available to the wealthiest
provinces, but only to those less well-off. That is not the object
of stabilization payments.
12769
The object of stabilization payments is to stabilize provincial
revenues. If your revenues, according to the criteria, are lower
than before, the federal government offers a compensation. If
they are not lower or if they are but because of something that
the provincial government itself has done, then there is no
compensation. That is what happened.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, Reform members will be splitting their time.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in debate on the
Bloc opposition motion before the House concerning additions
to the long list of Quebec demands again laid before the House
and ultimately the Canadian taxpayer. I have a hard time
denouncing the federal government's tardiness in the face of
these spurious and ongoing demands. It is heartening to see the
government and particularly the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs exercising some prudence and caution in doling out
resources the government does not have.
I suspect the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister,
flushed with success from her 1994 coup in Ottawa when she
pried $37 million out of the federal coffers for the referendum
on Charlottetown, felt this trek to the capital would immediately
result in the payout of $333 million.
Today we have the Bloc shilling for Quebec's
intergovernmental affairs minister and solely as usual for the
province of Quebec by way of an opposition day motion. Unlike
September 1994, this time others have a chance to participate in
the Canada-Quebec sweepstakes.
The motion calls on the House to denounce the federal
government for not paying an additional $119 million which
Quebec claims is the unpaid federal share for educating Indian
and Inuit children in northern Quebec over the past nine years.
Federal officials contend that some $450 million has been paid
in this spending envelope and that conditions set forth under the
James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and northeastern
Quebec agreement have been contravened as a consequence of
overspending by the Quebec government.
Who is right? Has the Quebec government sought approval
from the federal government to do so? Who knows? A Bloc
motion and a trip by a provincial emissary are not good enough
for me.
(1145)
The 1995-96 estimates for Indian affairs indicate spending of
over $825 million on all elementary, secondary and
post-secondary education for natives. On the post-secondary
side it indicates an increase of $34 million over 1994-95. In the
1992-93 fiscal year departmental spending in education was
$711 million. This year's estimates indicate a $114 million
increase over a three-year period, or roughly what the province
of Quebec is asking for by way of its alleged shortfall.
No one is denying any person access to a complete education.
In the instance of aboriginal education certain comprehensive
funding agreements or alternative funding arrangements have to
be met. Political posturing and using the current political
sensitivities by way of an implied threat will not get my party to
support another $119 million being anted up, no matter how
charming the messenger.
Allow me to turn to the second demand of the motion as
orchestrated by last week's trip by the provincial
intergovernmental affairs minister. In this instance the House is
being called upon to denounce the federal government for not
reacting to Quebec's demand for the government to apply the
federal fiscal stabilization program and help out Quebec during
these difficult fiscal times to the tune of $135 million.
Quebec claims drastic drops in revenue and thus qualifies for
support from the emergency program. The provincial minister
and the Bloc have good memories, since the claim for the
payment of $135 million goes back to 1991. What was the
revenue shortfall in Quebec in 1991? What was the emergency
situation? These seem like reasonable questions. Since the Bloc
was not in power in 1991 it is nice to see the Bloc carrying the
can in Ottawa for Robert Bourassa.
Under the fiscal stabilization program certain conditions
must be met for eligibility to funding. In 1991-92 and during
this recession five provinces were found wanting and received a
total of $418 million. Quebec and Saskatchewan were found not
to be eligible at that time. However, in 1992-93 Quebec
received $125 million from the fund. If the Bloc feels so
strongly about the case, why not follow the federal
government's suggestion and go to court? Why would it ask
Parliament to give carte blanche approval to meet this demand?
We understand that the legislation and regulations of the
Fiscal Stabilization Program Act were met and no favourites
were played. However, because Quebec was involved and was
turned down this was somehow considered suspect immediately
and that we should go to arbitration. No way.
The issue is simple. Everyone is aware that it is one of an
overall separatist strategy to make taxes and tax sharing the real
issues in the sovereignty referendum. The Quebec finance
minister has already threatened Quebecers in his recent budget
by claiming that a no vote would mean higher provincial sales
taxes to offset federal cuts in transfer payments. The leader of
the PQ claimed that the federal debt burden had been shifted
solely on Quebec and that he could not talk seriously of a cost
effective and flexible federal system.
The Bloc has joined the bandwagon and continued the
blackmail by way of this motion. It is interesting that neither of
these two leaders will discuss budget projections or provide
information on what a yes vote would do. We all know it means
even
12770
higher taxes for Quebecers. According to a recent Fraser
Institute study they would be a whopping 25 per cent higher.
Whom are the Bloc trying to kid? This is rank amateur
blackmail.
(1150)
The motion calls upon the House to denounce the federal
government's tardiness in meeting the Quebec government's
claim of $79 million for costs of using the Sûreté du Québec in
the events at Oka in 1990. The issue requires some historical
perspective so I will trace the debacle largely instigated by the
Sûreté du Québec, the police force for which we are being asked
to cough up another $79 million.
Some very strange decisions were made at Oka by the Quebec
government. On July 11, 1990 Sûreté members stormed the
Mohawk barricade a Kanesatake. In the ensuing gun battle a
police officer was killed. As a result we had a standoff which
lasted 78 days. Soon after the events of July 11, police began
blocking food and medical supplies destined for Mohawk
residents at Kanesatake.
Widespread criticism led to a lifting of the blockade on July
26. Talks began between the parties and on August 8 the Prime
Minister appointed as mediator Chief Justice of the Quebec
Superior Court Alan Gold. At the same time the Prime Minister
said he would make the Canadian army available if Quebec
needed it.
On August 12, Justice Gold announced some agreement and
two days later it was announced that the Quebec government had
requested the Canadian army. A force of 2,500 soldiers moved
in. The next day it was announced that the army would replace
the Sûreté at the barricades. This was completed on August 20.
Talks were going nowhere, and on August 28 the army was asked
by the premier to remove the barricades.
The motion is a one dimensional litany of Quebec complaints.
The Bloc is not truly displaying its position as official
opposition. It would be better served devoting more attention to
national issues and less time on purely political posturing to
serve one province.
I cannot support the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon.
member and I am somewhat surprised by his paternalistic
attitude regarding the claims that are being made.
The claims made by the Quebec government at this stage are
about adjustment and correspondence to criteria and things of
that nature. We are not here to question the way governments
have acted. In that regard, I think that the hon. member's
attitude was more or less appropriate when he asked if the
gouvernment had acted in a relevant way and when he suggested
it should act in such and such a way in another situation.
However, as regards fiscal stabilization, I believe this raises
an important substantive issue. We are told that the Quebec
government should go to the courts since it received an
unqualified refusal from the finance minister. Should we not
question the relevancy of a fiscal stabilization agreement in
which the federal government is both judge and judged? Indeed,
the government will give the money if the claim is considered
justified, but the government is also, through the finance
minister, the final authority allowing the disbursement.
Should such an agreement not be considered as a form of
domineering federalism where the father decides what is good
for his children? As if the provinces were the children of the
federal government. Should we not ask ourselves something?
(1155)
Should there not be, for this type of agreement, an
independent body which could decide on the relevancy of claims
in cases of disagreement between the federal and provincial
governments? This way governments could be spared legal
battles which entail useless expenses and necessarily lead to
political claims, like the ones the Quebec government is
making, when one of the parties involved refuses to agree to a
claim considered to be justified by the Quebec government.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: Madam Speaker, in terms of the fiscal
stabilization issue, I have a lot of problems with the issue in a
broader sense. We have an equalization arrangement that was
reaffirmed for five years last year in Parliament. It was based on
government and on party discipline voting. The agreement is
one whereby the fourth most prosperous province, the province
of Quebec, is receiving something in the order of 40 per cent of
equalization payments. That has created some major contention
in other parts of the country.
In terms of the actual question of dealing with whether the
judge and jury on arguments within that framework should be an
independent body, I have some sympathy with the argument.
Otherwise it is very prone to political manoeuvring whether it is
from a provincial jurisdiction or the federal government.
That is the rationale for including the courts in the process but
perhaps there is another way to do it other than through the
courts.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is stimulating for me to rise today to address the Bloc
motion which denounces the government for its tardiness in
addressing Quebec's demands for outstanding payment in three
critical areas.
What does the Government of Quebec want? If we examine
the request we see that the Parti Quebecois or the Government of
Quebec says that it is owed $79 million for costs incurred during
12771
the Oka crisis of 1990. This bill is mainly for overtime paid to
the Quebec provincial police. Quebec claims that Indian affairs
is a federal jurisdiction and the government has a crisis fund
from which the money should be paid.
On the surface it seems like a reasonable request and is
reasonably justified. If we were to get into the details we might
find room for argument. After all we all know that if the
provinces request through their attorneys general the aid of the
civil power for their police it is a provincial obligation to pay.
In any event, Ottawa says that it has already paid $5.3 million.
It has asked the federal auditor general to review the claims on
both sides and propose a fair division of costs. This seems like a
quite reasonable position which I submit should be given a
chance to work.
The second claim on the part of the Parti Quebecois or the
Government of Quebec is for $119 million for moneys spent on
the education of young natives in the James Bay region of
northern Quebec. The spending of $119 million for the
education of natives was very laudable and worthwhile.
The PQ claims that the 1978 James Bay agreement contained
provisions for Ottawa to pay a portion of the costs, but that since
1987 it has refused to pay its full share. The response from
Ottawa is that it has already spent $450 million over the past
several years and that additional costs were incurred by the
province of Quebec without federal approval. According to
reports, Ottawa is quite willing to discuss this matter in further
detail but Quebec is unhappy with the pace of the negotiations to
date, if not the negotiations themselves.
(1200)
I submit that the negotiation process should be encouraged so
that a fair and equitable agreement can be reached on this
important matter. It seems that in this play between the
government and the PQ and even the BQ, Reform has almost
taken the position of honest broker.
The final claim of the PQ is for $135 million under the
stabilization payment programs for 1991-92. The PQ says that
richer provinces, including Ontario and my province of British
Columbia, got money under the program which compensates
provinces if they lose revenue because of an economic
downturn.
Ottawa's reply in this case is that the finance department
analysed Quebec's application on the same basis as other
provinces that applied that year and the application was turned
down, as was that of Saskatchewan. If that is the case, then
Quebec has no claim.
Having looked at the demands and Ottawa's response to these
demands, it is also very important for all of us to look at the
motivation behind these claims. The Parti Quebecois is
currently engaged in a campaign to separate Quebec from the
rest of Canada. The PQ is calling it a sovereignty campaign but it
is just that, a campaign to separate.
We read in the polls that the campaign shows the separatist
side is losing. We must ask ourselves the question: Could it be
that the PQ and their BQ allies are simply looking for an issue to
help buoy the sagging separatist cause? If we examine the theory
we see that such a tactic could bring positive gains to the yes
side.
First, if Ottawa refuses to pay, the PQ and the BQ can tell
Quebecers that Ottawa just does not care. That it is just another
example of why Quebec must separate from Canada, because
Ottawa cannot be trusted to live up to its commitments.
If Ottawa gives in and pays what the PQ says it is owed, then
the separatist forces can trumpet: ``This is a victory against
domineering Ottawa''. Either way, the PQ and BQ can score
political points. This is what troubles me about the bills being
presented by the PQ and the motion presented by the Bloc today.
It appears to be motivated by crass politics and is not a genuine
desire to enhance the lives of Quebecers.
At the same time I have to applaud members of the Bloc for
their dogged determination to bring before the House issues that
affect their constituents, the people of Quebec. They are very
good at that. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate
that this determination is not based on anything more than
achieving the Bloc's stated political goal of separation.
I must also admonish the Bloc for neglecting its role as the
official opposition. If the Bloc wants to maintain the role of
official opposition, it has to widen its focus and begin to address
the many greater areas of common concern in Canada. It must
not be allowed to simply use its position to further its own
agenda.
Dedicating limited supply days to debating motions such as
the one we have before us today means that the affairs of the
nation as a whole are put on the back burner while we all address
issues which affect just a limited portion of our society. That is
the problem. To me it is an abuse of the parliamentary process
and to a large degree an affront to the majority of Canadians,
even to Canadians in Quebec who are tired of seeing themselves
used as nothing more than pawns in the political games being
played by the Bloc and its PQ allies in Quebec city.
(1205)
If the PQ and the BQ want to separate, then let them hold their
referendum without delay and let Parliament get on with the
business of running Canada for all Canadians. It is time for
parliamentarians to demand the Bloc either fulfil its role as the
official opposition or step aside for a party that is willing to do
the job. The Bloc must not be allowed to hold Parliament
hostage any longer.
12772
It is within the power of Parliament to remove the mantle of
official opposition from the Bloc and bestow it on a true
opposition party. This has not happened to date because the
Prime Minister appears unwilling to do it.
Therefore I appeal to Canadians from coast to coast to coast to
write the Prime Minister and ask him why he is an accomplice to
these political games; ask the Prime Minister to allow the House
to conduct a free vote on which party should be the official
opposition.
It is time for us all to move forward in the interest of all
Canadians. The Bloc is hindering this process with the type of
motion that is in front of us today. Canadians say enough, and I
say enough, and enough to the motion before the House as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I suppose my colleague for
Nanaimo-Cowichan got carried away, to have made such
comments. I usually have great respect for what he says in the
House. The speech he delivered in the last ten minutes shows
how our friends from the Reform Party are unable to give any
serious consideration whatsoever to the legitimate demands of
the government of Quebec.
I have two points to make. The member explained, during his
ten minutes, that the tabling, by the Bloc Quebecois, of a motion
asking the federal government to act properly and stand by
agreements it made under the statutes governing our
institutions, is nothing more than separatists bringing up a local
problem for partisan purposes.
I am sure my colleague cannot, in all conscience, maintain
such an absurdity. He knows perfectly well that what the
opposition is asking this morning, what the present Quebec
government is asking, is what the Quebec has been asking for
ten years in one case, five years in another case and three years
in the last case. These demands date from the days of the
Bourassa government. As I mentioned in my speech, Mr.
Bourassa cannot be accused of thinking separatist thoughts.
My second point is that I was surprised to hear such comments
from a Reform member who is always asking the federal
government to stop interfering, to let the provinces act in their
own field. He is asking even more-he would like the powers of
government to be decentralized. He would like us to have a
smaller federal government.
When the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, rises in the
House on a motion that basically has the same goal, my
colleague is blinded by partisan considerations and he lowers
the level of debate to a partisan debate. I think there is no room
for such behaviour in this House. I hope my colleague will take
advantage of the few minutes he has left to refocus his thoughts.
(1210)
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I must say that I partly agree
with the hon. member's words. He is certainly right when he
says that the Reform Party is against big government, against
too much government and against too much control by Ottawa
over the provinces.
I agree that we would like to have decentralization as
outlined. But at the same time, and I will repeat what I just said.
I see in the Bloc's motion a totally political manoeuver to bring
the separation issue into the debate today.
I can say that I heard the Bloc previously describe federalism
as dominating. I also agree with that. But we have to change the
government, we have to change the system first. We need
decentralization, but we do not have it yet. We must work in
order to achieve it.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I find it rather deplorable that some people will
say almost anything to score political points in the House. I
understand that the hon. member might be very interested in
forming the official opposition, but an election will be held only
after the Bloc Quebecois is gone.
I would like to say to the hon. member that it is in Quebec that
the Oka crisis happened. It is Quebec that has problems with the
federal government with respect to payments for aboriginal
education. It is Quebec that has problems regarding
stabilization. That is why we are here, to defend Quebec's
interests.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, of course they have problems
in Quebec. Of course they must stand up and defend them, but I
will come back to what it is I am saying.
We want to be the official opposition and yes, we will wait for
a byelection to have it happen properly. In the meantime, the
Bloc is doing nothing more than being the advocate of
everything in Quebec and is not acting as the official opposition
for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise at this stage in the
debate, especially after a speech by the Reform Party on a very
important motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois.
I think that we should put the cards on the table and look at
what is really happening. The motion is very clear. It is aimed at
denouncing the federal government's delay in paying the money
it owes Quebec. This government owes Quebec $79 million as a
result of the Oka crisis, $135 million under the 1991-92
stabilization program, and $119 million for problems related to
12773
the education of young aboriginal people in northern Quebec.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and the federal government know
that these amounts are owed, but they are not doing anything
about it.
It is normal for the Bloc Quebecois, for Quebec MPs elected
by Quebecers to defend Quebec's interests in Ottawa, to table
such a motion on an opposition day, because it is in the news.
This week, a Quebec official met with her federal counterpart to
claim the tidy sum of $333 million. You expect us to remain
silent while this is going on? No way. We have been sent here
with a clear mandate, which we intend to fulfil, and we will fight
for this money because it is owed to Quebec. We will work to get
it.
(1215)
Again, this issue gives us the opportunity to show clearly that
Quebecers made a very definite choice in the last federal
election because, as you know, Madam Speaker, this issue has
been dragging on for years. Let me take a minute to give you
some background information. We did not make anything up.
The Bloc Quebecois and the big bad separatists in Quebec had
nothing to do with this. Once upon a time, there was a federalist
government called the Bourassa government in Quebec; it was a
Liberal government. In the last Liberal budget tabled in the
Province of Quebec, the Bourassa government indicated that the
federal government owed $300 million to Quebec.
Is this something that big bad separatists made up? No,
Madam Speaker. If the allies of our friends opposite, those who
will share their platform in the Quebec referendum scheduled
for this year, if the Liberals mentioned this $300 million in their
budget-and we know that they are pals with our friends
opposite-it is because this amount is really owed. It remains to
be paid.
I had a prepared speech but I think that I will set it aside and
speak from the heart instead, because this is much too important
an issue. I think you can push, but only so far. Our motion refers
to three demands of the highest importance. Let us look at them
one at a time.
First, there is the Oka crisis. What was this crisis? Well, Oka
is in Quebec. Certain Indians claimed a strip of land in that area
in the 1990s, and the Quebec provincial police, as well as the
Canadian Armed Forces, had to be called in. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said so himself. He reported having
spent $122 million on these measures. And we are supposed to
believe that these were not emergency measures related to a
disaster, that, to use his own words, public order and public good
are slightly different?
If it were strictly a matter of public good, what was the army
doing there? Why did the government spend $122 million? Can
you tell me, Madam Speaker? Because there was an element of
public order involved, which is directly covered by
federal-provincial agreement in the definition of disaster. This
may sound like a strange term, disaster, but that is what the
agreement says, and letters were even exchanged by the two
levels of government, in which the federal government
recognized the events in Oka were a disaster under the terms of
the agreement.
Correspondence exchanged between the provincial Liberal
government and the federal Conservative government at the
time provides that the Oka crisis is covered by that agreement.
An amount of $139 million was spent on that in Quebec. How
did the federal government pay its debt? It gave $5.3 million.
Then, it said: ``The federal government is acting in good faith. It
would pay the total bill, but the issue relates to public good, not
public order''. Such an interpretation can only be made in bad
faith. When $122 million was spent because of the existence of a
threat to the public, either the federal government pays the full
amount or, if it does not want to respect its own agreements or
thinks that it will not be able to fulfil its commitment, it should
not sign such agreements with the provinces. This is what is
deplorable.
Governments, whether they are Conservative or Liberal, are
all the same. In fact, whether we are talking about the
Conservatives, the Liberals or the Reform Party, it is all the
same when it comes to looking after Quebec's interests. They
are all opposed to these interests. This is the case and we have a
very good example of that here, where Reform, Liberal, and
Conservative members are working hand in hand. They belong
to different parties, but they all react in the same manner
regarding this issue. They are all opposed to Quebec's interests.
(1220)
They put Quebec in its place. That is what federalists want to
do, put Quebec in its place, and that is what they have been doing
for 30 years. And then, they wonder why there is a sovereignist
movement in Quebec.
There is a very precise order to the events in the Oka crisis.
All the ministers who dealt with that issue have that
correspondence. They know that the $139.7 million Quebec
spent on that issue was not money spent for a futile purpose; it
was spent to maintain public order. There was a major crisis
going on. Those events involved the death of one person, and
there was the need to intervene. That is why that money was
spent, through the Quebec provincial police force.
It must be remembered that there is a provincial police force
in Quebec. The province provides its own police services. What
would have happened, say, if such a crisis had taken place in
Manitoba, a province without a provincial police force? The
events would have been monitored by the RCMP. Who would
have paid? The federal government. Would the federal
government have passed the $139.7 million bill on to the
province of Manitoba? I doubt it.
12774
Let us look at what is going on now with federal-provincial
agreements on law enforcement services between that province
and the federal government. The federal government provides
police officers, and pays them, but it cannot even pass on the
bill to get full payment for the services it provides to that
province. Some might think that the member for
Berthier-Montcalm is putting forward figures without
knowing what he is talking about, but those are not my figures.
The Solicitor General of Canada is the one who pointed them
out. The solicitor general has been saying year in and year out:
``You cannot even recover all the costs of the RCMP services
you are providing, and you should''.
And then, we are told that in a case like the Oka crisis that
could have happened anywhere in Canada, the whole bill should
be passed on to the province. Madam Speaker, this could only
happen here. It could only happen in Quebec. It is the only
province that has to argue to have the federal government pay its
bills. We should not forget the Charlottetown referendum. How
many times did we have to raise the issue in this House in order
to get the federal government to pay the $35 million it owed?
Quebec paid twice for that referendum that was forced upon it.
The federal government imposed that referendum, and we had to
pay for it twice.
It is only when the government opposite examined the issue,
set aside its political interests and partisan considerations that it
handed a $35 million cheque to Quebec, because that claim was
indeed justified.
The situation is exactly the same with the Oka crisis. Quebec
is owed $79 million. Now, who is going to pay?
I would now like to say a few words about the second claim
concerning the education of young aboriginals. I am particularly
pleased to do so when the minister is here. He will certainly
confirm what I have to say.
Is it not strange that, here again, we had agreements between
both levels of government on the education of aboriginals? One
point should be clear. Aboriginal affairs are a federal
jurisdiction. When the federal government steps outside its
jurisdiction, we take it to task. What we have here is exclusively
under federal jurisdiction. Let the government abide by that nice
Canadian constitution it so eagerly defends in the House. Let it
honour its signature. Here again, we have a federal-provincial
agreement under which the federal government is supposed to
pay 75 per cent of costs and Quebec 25 per cent. The minister
gave an excellent explanation earlier. A few young whites live
on the reserve, and their education is a provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, Quebec should pay for their education.
(1225)
The federal government should also pay for the natives living
on that reserve and on all the reserves in northern Quebec.
Following the James Bay agreement, both levels of government
reached an excellent agreement under which the federal
government and the province of Quebec split some of the costs.
Between 1978 and 1987, this approach worked very well. The
federal always paid as soon as it received the bill sent by the
Quebec government. In 1987, the federal government stopped
paying. Why? Because it argued that the bill was too high and
that the expenses had increased too much. Why had these
expenses increased? Simply because the birth rate has increased
on the reserve as well as the number of young natives, and more
natives had gone back to school. The Quebec government was
providing more education services and more classes to the
natives. So, the federal government said: ``Oh no, the expenses
have gotten out of hand; we will no longer pay''.
Today, the minister had the nerve to say: ``Look, we are acting
in good faith. We paid $450 million''. Yes, but they stopped
paying in 1987. Is that what he calls acting in good faith? Is that
what flexible federalism is all about? Is this the kind of
federalism in front of which we should grovel like the members
opposite? Without Canadian federalism, there is no salvation? I
do not think so.
In cases like this one, we will still be blamed for defending
Quebec's interests, even if the federal government obviously
owes us some money. And we are not talking about petty cash
here, but rather $119 million. We should give up $119 million
without saying anything. This is horrible. It is unacceptable.
What is even more unacceptable is for some members
representing Quebec ridings to rise and to criticize us because
we are defending Quebec's interests and asking for the money
owed to us. We want what is ours. This money is owed to us.
These Quebec members will still rise to try to sweeten things
up, to hide the truth and to tell us why they do not have to pay.
However, all the documentation we have clearly shows that
some agreements were reached and some promises were made
by the various levels of government concerned.
This only goes to prove that the system in which we live is
awful and cannot work. There are two nations in this country;
there are two countries in this country. We are totally unalike.
How do you think we can agree when they cannot even respect
contracts which they signed? Moreover, they invite us to settle
our disagreements in court. ``We do not agree, so let us go to
court''.
We can do that with the United States. A great Canadian like
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can say to his
neighbours who do business with Canada: ``Listen, if we cannot
reach an agreement, you can always go to court; that is what
courts are
12775
for''. But, to my knowledge, as long as Quebec does not say yes
to sovereignty, as long as Quebec is not a separate country, we
are still part of the system.
This is what the so-called flexible federalism is. Is this what
the blind advocate of flexible federalism is going to offer us? It
is scandalous. I think there is no better way to describe it than to
say it is scandalous.
The third claim, and not the least, is an amount of $135
million for the 1991-92 stabilization program. If my memory
does not fail me, it was not the big bad separatists who were in
power then, it was the Liberals.
(1230)
Indeed, the Premier of Quebec was the ineffable Robert
Bourassa, a federalist well known by our friends opposite, and
this man claimed $135 million. That tells you something. If a
man like Mr. Bourassa put down in his books that the federal
government owed Quebec the sum of $135 million, you need not
look any further, it is a minimum. No matter how you calculate
it, he was so afraid of displeasing his great federal friends, he so
often groveled before the federal government, that if he
submitted a claim for $135 million, you can be sure the federal
government owed this money to Quebec. There is no need to
look any further. We can make all kinds of complicated
computations, we can make a balance sheet say what we want, I
think everybody here agrees with that.
The fact remains that, if federalists like Robert Bourassa and
his cabinet, of which the present Minister of Labour was a
member, claimed such an amount, then that was probably the
amount due. I would like to hear from the Minister of Labour,
who was elected to protect Quebec's interests, since she is very
familiar with all the details of the claim. I would like to know
what she says to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Does she say that that is the correct amount as she used to
claim when she was a member of the Bourassa government?
Does she say that Quebec's claims like the one for the Oka crisis,
which she certainly knew all about as a member of the Bourassa
cabinet, are well founded? Does she say to the
intergovernmental affairs minister that the money owed for
northern Quebec natives' education should be paid? She was
once the Quebec Minister of Education. Does she say it should
be paid? Will she rise in the House? I am anxious to see how she
will vote tonight on the motion and to see if she defends
Quebec's interests as we do because it was for that reason that
we were elected. I am anxious to see her on her feet.
The federal government made written and oral commitments
to Quebec. It is accountable to the people of Quebec. Moreover,
it is the source of some of the problems we are faced with today.
The federal government should pay right away what it owes
Quebecers. Do the honourable thing and pay what you owe.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in such a delicate matter that
concerns not only our native people but also Quebec's honour,
we must not forget that, in 1990, the media in Europe, Asia and
all over the world criticized us for the way this dispute with our
native friends had been handled. It was not something that
Quebec could be proud of.
When I hear opposition members say that we, government
members, are not protecting Quebec's interests, I would like
them to tell me why they have decided to change their position
with regard to the referendum. Now they want to have an
association with the Canadian government even though they
claim that it does not honour its fiscal commitments. Everybody
knows that it is not true.
I would be curious to know the opinion of small
municipalities which have received funding for infrastructure
projects thanks to their support, to the co-operation of the
province and to the federal government's determination to put
Canadians and Quebecers back to work.
The members opposite say that the Canadian government has
not responded to the Quebec government's demands, but it is
absolutely false. It is the government of Quebec which called on
the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is the federal government
which spent $122 million. We must not forget that. You know,
Madam Speaker, this bill will not be paid by the government of
Quebec. It is through federalism, as it now stands, that we can
share our resources. That is what gives our country its strength.
The province of Quebec has a lot to gain by being part of our
great Canadian family.
(1235)
Of course, the fact that the federal government has paid $450
million for the education of natives in northern Quebec has
already been mentioned. I could talk some more about all the
programs which have benefited Quebec, but it is absolutely
wrong to say that the members opposite are speaking for
Quebec. I am a Quebecer, a Gaspesian and proud of it, and if an
opposition party which does not even represent the majority in
Quebec in terms of the popular vote thinks it can tell me-
Some hon. members: Not true!
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that
they only captured 48 per cent of the popular vote, and that the
Parti Quebecois only captured 44 per cent of the vote in the
provincial election. If they had the honour, audacity and
intellectual integrity to say to us tomorrow morning: ``We are
going to hold a referendum and the question will be: Do you
want to separate from Canada, yes or no?'', I assure you that
they would be lucky if 30 to 35 per cent of Quebecers were to
vote in favour.
12776
Therefore, I ask the members of the opposition why they
decided to go this route, if Canada really is the deadbeat they
make it out to be. Why would they still want to remain
associated with Canada if, according to them, the Canadian
federation is not worth the trouble?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, what a shame that the
hon. member opposite cannot tell an apple from an orange.
Understandably, both are fruit, but that is no reason to confuse
the two. Although we are no longer on the subject of the motion,
too much is at stake not to reply to the hon. member's question
regarding why we have proposed an association with Canada.
For one, we are not proposing an economic association with
the federal government; we are proposing an economic
association with the other provinces, with Canadians. It would
be an economic association between peoples, not between
governments. The federal government is the deadbeat; not the
Canadian people. The federal government has acted in bad faith;
not the Canadian people. The federal government is into petty
politics; not the Canadian people.
By asking this question, the hon. member has revealed just
how clueless he is about the referendum debate in Quebec. I
invite him to pay more attention to the debate on the
referendum, which I can assure him will be held in 1995.
Mr. Gagnon: I certainly hope so.
Mr. Bellehumeur: And I hope with all my heart that the great
defender of this great country, none other than the Prime
Minister of Canada, will join hands with the Conservative
member of this House, the leader of the Conservatives, and with
the Reformers too, because they all came out of the same mold.
They will all try to sell flexible federalism to Quebecers.
But we will also be on the scene to push our position. We will
also point out that the federal government's first reaction is
always to say no to Quebec. The hon. member made comments
on my speech, that is his right. But I find it strange that he did
not really talk about the important points I made in my speech.
Was money spent during the Oka crisis, yes or no? Did the
federal government consider it a catastrophe, yes or no? Did the
federal government send the army because it considered the
incident to be a catastrophe as defined under the accord, yes or
no? Why did the federal government spend $122 million, like
the hon. member said, if it had no business in Quebec, if the
incident really was a purely provincial matter?
Because Quebec asked it to? Of course. But that answers the
question of whether or not it was a catastrophe. How odd that the
hon. member did not talk about that. And regarding the $450
million, yes the federal government did spend $450 million on
education up to 1987. I would remind the hon. member,
however, that Quebec paid its share, 25 per cent or around $115
million.
The sum we are demanding is for all of the years after 1987 in
which the federal government did not want to pay, under the
same accord, the accord under which the federal government
had already paid in years past. We are asking for nothing more
than our due. The same goes for the stabilization payments.
(1240)
How strange that the hon. member did not go into detail, did
not explain why we were not entitled to claim these sums. No,
instead, he accused us of comparing apples with oranges
regarding sovereignty and would have you believe that we have
charted a new course. Had he only really listened to the Bloc
Quebecois since its arrival in this House, he would have realized
that we did not do an ``about face''; we are just openly repeating
things we have always been saying here. This is merely a
synthesis of our thinking.
The hon. members opposite can jeer all they want and call it
an about face. For us, it is the next logical step on Quebec's path
to sovereignty.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as you know, it was very hard
for Quebecers and for all Canadians to see this aggressive
confrontation with the aboriginal First Nations, watched by
millions of people throughout the world. I found it very
troubling.
And I think that this opinion, these feelings, are shared by
thousands, even millions of Quebecers. It was very
uncomfortable to realize that we did not get along with the first
settlers of this country.
That is now history. According to the opposition, it is time to
pay the bills. According to the Disaster Financial Assistance
Program, the DFAP, the government has paid nearly $210
million in assistance since 1970, so that the bill we were sent by
Quebec would represent nearly 40 per cent of the program's
budget for the past 25 years.
I agree the bill is pretty steep. It takes time, as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs explained, but the federal
government always pays its share. We are ready to negotiate. We
are ready to review. However, I do not think the opposition
should politicize the issue like this, because we are dealing with
Canada's First Nations, who arrived in this country long before
we did. And I think we owe them something. That is why I ask
the opposition to accept that 40 per cent of the federal program
will be paid to the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, not 40 per cent but 75 per
cent, according to the agreement. That is my first point.
12777
I think the hon. member is confusing the issue. Just compare
what is happening in Quebec with what happens in other
Canadian provinces. Aboriginal people are treated better in
Quebec. I think that as a member from Quebec he should at least
admit, here in the House, that we treat aboriginal people very
well. And I think they would agree.
Second, when I see a member rising in the House to say; ``Yes,
there is a disaster assistance program but we think the bill
submitted by the Province of Quebec is too steep, because then
we would have no money left for anything else''-now I ask
you, can we legislate disasters? Can we predict that we will not
have more than three? No compensation for number four?
I think it stands to reason that when the government sets up a
program and provides assistance under that program, it should
expect to foot the bill. Again, I urge the federal government to
pay its debts, because this is money it owes to Quebec. Pay now
and stop arguing.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to
address this motion today. Some very important issues have
been raised.
The hon. Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs has clearly
set out why the government will be voting against the motion. At
the same time it is important to understand this issue within the
broader context of what the government is doing on aboriginal
issues both in Quebec and in Canada as a whole.
The government was elected on a mandate from the Canadian
people to respond to issues of concern to aboriginal
communities. In the 1993 election we addressed these issues
head on in the famous red book. We stated quite clearly what a
Liberal government would do and now we are fulfilling our
commitments.
(1245 )
One of eight red book chapters is devoted exclusively to
aboriginal issues, in addition to references to aboriginal policies
in other chapters. Never before in Canadian electoral history had
aboriginal issues received such a high profile. The opposition
should bear in mind that on the strength of bringing these and
other issues to public attention we received a strong mandate
from the Canadian people.
In the red book we maintain that aboriginal people in Canada
want two things: first, a new partnership with government based
on trust, mutual respect and participation in decision making;
second, a strengthening of their communities. In the red book we
stated that our goal was a Canada where aboriginal people would
enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity
equal to those of other Canadians; a Canada where First Nations,
Inuit and Métis people would live self-reliantly, secure in the
knowledge of who they are as unique peoples; and, where all
Canadians would be enriched by aboriginal cultures and would
be committed to bringing their fair share of their potential to our
nation.
Perhaps most importantly, the red book set out our goal for
Canada where aboriginal children would grow up in secure
families and healthy communities, with the opportunity to take
their full place in Canada. This is our vision and I think it is
everyone's vision in this House. We have been moving step by
step to bring it alive. In the first year and a half of the
government's mandate, we have already made considerable
progress in Canada and in Quebec. I am not saying that this is the
end-all or be-all, but we have made some progress which I think
is significant, even though we have a long way to go.
In the first 18 months as minister I visited Indian and Inuit
communities across Quebec and I met with most Quebec chiefs
and several Inuit leaders. I have talked to Ghislain Picard of the
Assembly of First Nations; I have talked to Chief Max
Gro-Louis of the Huron; I have talked to Matthew Coon-Come
of the Cree; Jean-Guy Whiteduck; Brenda Gideon Miller; Joe
Norton, Dennis Ross, Jerry Peltier of the Mohawk; Marcel
Boivin; Bernard Jérôme; Simeonie Nalukturuk of the Inuit;
Zebedee Nungak of the Inuit; and Remy Kurtness. Perhaps
people are saying I am talking too much. They all tell me what is
being done, what needs to be done and how we can do better
things together.
We forget. We deal with the aboriginal people almost from a
point of ignorance. I was looking at the notes of Joseph-Elzéar
Bernier, the Baffin Island explorer, when he first met the Inuit.
This is from his own diary: ``After firing 19 shots, I instructed
an Eskimo to fire the 20th, telling him, you are now Canadian''.
That is how we started up there.
We forget that in Quebec there are 10 First Nations, over 40
communities and Inuit in the north. These communities are all
over the place. They are a suburb of Montreal, they are extended
along the St. Lawrence, they are in the interior and they are in
the far north. We forget that when Cartier first landed he lost half
of his people in the first winter. If it had not been for the Indians,
who taught him to put bark and cedar needles and water together,
they would have all died of scurvy. The Indians asked for
nothing. They asked for nothing. And that is the start of their
history.
We came here with a certain amount of avarice in our hearts,
telling these people: ``You've been holding this land for 5,000
years for us. It is really ours and we discovered it''. We forget
that they have a proud history. They had been here. They are
nations, they were nations and they will be nations.
Some 20 years ago the province of Quebec and Canada
solidified an important relationship with First Nations as the
first comprehensive claims in Canada, the signing of the James
Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the northeastern
Quebec agreement, fostered a sense of pride throughout Quebec,
and rightfully so. I must remind members of the Bloc that it was
former Prime Minister Trudeau who was on our side when this
agreement was signed, initiated, worked on. It was the present
Prime Minister, who had my job, who brought this agreement to
12778
fruition. The heritage of the Cree and the heritage of the James
Bay agreement is not only a proud heritage of our country, it is a
very significant heritage in the Liberal Party.
(1250 )
These modern treaties mark a pivotal point in our relationship
with aboriginal people, not only in Quebec but throughout
Canada. Much has already been accomplished under these
agreements, but given their extraordinary scope and complexity
it is not surprising that much more needs to be done.
When I visited the Cree communities in December I
continued discussions with Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come
and Cree chiefs regarding implementation of the James Bay and
Northern Quebec Agreement. As a result, work has been
undertaken to continue our dialogue on several key areas of
concern.
I am pleased to report that under the first self-government
legislation in Canada, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act of 1984,
significant progress has been made in bilateral talks on
agreement on funding a five-year operation and maintenance
budget for the regional and local governments.
We also recently reached an agreement with Chief Billy
Diamond of the Cree of Waskaganish for fresh water and sewage
treatment. I am pleased to report that the construction of the
community of Ouje-Bougougmou was written up in National
Geographic and in articles throughout the world as the way to do
things. I think every parliamentarian should go to
Ouje-Bougougmou and see how it is done and when we work
together how it can be done right.
Chief Abel Bosum has been with us from the beginning there.
He has lived with it. It is amazing. They took people from eight
or nine scattered communities who were living in shacks. They
met in a little house on a hill. They would come over in the
evening and meet with the architect with suggestions. They were
not just looking at plans. It was a living thing. They named each
street after their traplines. If we could duplicate that in the 605
First Nations across Canada, problems would be solved.
I want to tell the House what Billy Diamond had to do when
the Grand Council of Crees was started in 1974. Billy Diamond
gave his health and his family. This is what he said on June 28,
1971: ``This is our land. No one has obtained surrender from us.
We never lost it in war. We never lost it in battle. We never
signed a treaty. No one has taken it. And we are not allowed by
the Creator to let anyone take it from us''. That is the way we
started. They have only had three leaders: Billy Diamond, Ted
Moses, Matthew Coon-Come.
With the Government of Quebec and the Government of
Canada working together we can put things together, not divide
things or separate things. We can come up with the
Ouje-Bougoumous. That is what we have today. It is easy to
divide. It is hard to keep people together.
In the area of policing, the department of the solicitor general
signed a tripartite agreement on public security for all Cree
communities. This illustrates a common goal for the Crees to
govern themselves by assuming administration, management,
and supervision of its own police force.
We are also encouraged to see considerable progress made on
reaching an agreement to establish a Nunavik assembly of
government. Although primarily a negotiation between Inuit
and Quebec, Canada has been invited by both parties to have
representation at these negotiations and we have provided the
Nunavik constitutional committee with funding for these
landmark negotiations.
Canada has other involvement with aboriginal groups in
northern Quebec. We organized and participated with Makavik
Corporation in the Inuit forum, a meeting held on a regular basis
to examine progress and co-ordinate the application of the
implementation of the JBNQA in terms of federal obligations.
Canada signed the JBNQA implementation agreement with the
Inuit in 1990, which provides for an amount of $22.1 million and
various other commitments.
The Naskapis are also being innovative in developing
partnerships. We recently signed a five-year agreement on
housing and infrastructure and are discussing in concert with
other federal departments an employment creation strategy.
Ninety per cent of the time I am in the field with the aboriginal
people of Quebec they do not talk about self-government or
about the referendum or about separation. They talk about
education, infrastructure, water systems, housing, and their
aspirations. This is what they talk about.
(1255)
We talk about separation here. The intellectual dilettantes are
always talking about separation. The native people are talking
about things that are important to them and their kids: food on
the table, jobs, security. These are the things we were elected
for. We were elected on jobs, fiscal responsibility, getting on
into the future and that is why we are staying on that agenda.
Following our 1990 implementation agreement with the
Naskapi, I am pleased to hear Quebec is engaged in discussions
and looks forward to resolving various issues related to the
implementation of the northeastern Quebec implementation
agreement.
12779
Federal initiatives are not limited to northern Quebec. As I
said earlier, the aboriginal people are throughout Quebec. For
example, comprehensive land claims with the 12 Attikamek and
Montagnais communities are of enormous importance to all of
northeastern Quebec. I look forward to renewed and
rejuvenated negotiations that will lead to a fair and equitable
resolution of their outstanding and complex land claims.
It was odd, when I heard the Bloc speak today there was no
mention of the fact that David Cliche, whom I like, although we
disagree philosophically-he is a separatist and I am a
federalist-went to the Attikamek and Montagnais and offered
$400 million. That is not ancient history; that was a few months
ago. Nothing was said about this, but he presupposed that $300
million of that was federal money. While Quebec was taking all
the bows-I see the Bloc member smiling, but that is
correct-and David Cliche was taking all the bows and Premier
Parizeau was in the glow of this, $300 million of the $400
million was our money.
I remember one Bloc member standing up saying ``I am here
to defend the taxpayers of Canada'', which is what they were
elected for. They are not here to separate the country-they have
said that themselves; they are here to do their jobs. I do not
remember one Bloc member ever standing up and saying maybe
we have too much money in there. I think this is the first time it
has even been mentioned that $300 million of that $400 million
came from the federal coffers. Luckily, in a way, the agreement
was rejected.
There are also important developments involving the
Huron-Wendat First Nation right next to Quebec City. This is
interesting about the Huron. At one time the Huron were the
largest of the six nations and a profound part of our history.
Through disease, war and what we have done, they now have
only one reserve, which is near Quebec City at Loretteville. It is
very sad when this happens. We read so much about the Huron in
the books. There are a few in the United States, but only one
reserve in Canada.
I met with Chief Max Gros-Louis in November 1994. An
understanding has been reached among the federal, provincial
and Huron-Wendat negotiators to recommend the framework
agreement for very important negotiations of the application of
the Murray Treaty.
I have several pages on the Mohawk, who we hear about every
day. I will skip over that, because my time is getting short. I will
mention that it is working. The Mohawk round table is not the
end-all, but it works. We are now talking to the Mohawk. Judge
Réjean Paul is there and Michel Robert is there. It works. This
government came in, and there are no more Okas. We talked and
negotiated and dealt fairly with the Mohawks of Canada.
We are working with the Inuit, the Cree, the Naskapi, the
Montagnais, the Algonquin, the Attikamek, the Huron, the
Malecites, the Micmacs and the Mohawks in Quebec. I cannot
remember a time ever in the history of the country when any
government could say there was movement with all of these
people. That is what is important, not the fact that the Bloc
comes here today on behalf of the Government of Quebec and
tells us there is money owing.
(1300 )
It is important for us to work together when it comes to
aboriginal people. We can do a good job. As things are going
now, this country is not going to separate so we had better start
talking about the future. We had better not have such deep
wounds that we cannot heal them. That could happen even here.
We could create such deep wounds that we could never heal
them. We have to decide what is important to us collectively.
The Bloc member for Saint-Jean is out there in the field. He is
probably one of the more knowledgeable, maybe the most
knowledgeable person in opposition on what is out there with
the aboriginal people. He brings the concerns of food mail to
this House. He brings the concerns of aboriginal people across
this country. He made one mistake by going door to door in a
Mohawk village and almost got kidnapped by the Mohawks
because they did not understand he was a member of Parliament,
but these things come and go.
We have to establish what is important to us and what our
values are as people. If we do that, this country will survive and
we will do a good job for the aboriginal people.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
took the liberty of jotting down a few points while the minister
was speaking. I must say he has given us an extraordinary lesson
on aboriginal culture, and so we have not really completely
wasted our time, since, let there be no doubt, we have a lot to
learn from this culture.
You see, our purpose today was not to talk about aboriginal
culture, which has its merits, but to talk about the money the
federal government owes the Government of Quebec. It is just
money, nothing important. It is just money after all. It does
create a few minor problems, however. It is easy enough to say:
there was a crisis at Oka, which is in Quebec, so it is not a big
deal; Quebec can pay the costs or take the matter to court.
Whose responsibility was it to deal with the native people? The
federal government's. Now if I have properly understood the
minister, given that the native culture has so many fine qualities,
if the native people got angry at some point, it was because the
federal government had not done its job. If it did not do its job, it
has to assume the consequences.
12780
So you see the matter is a simple one. The minister says that
federal money would be used to reimburse the Government of
Quebec for what it paid out. Yes, but, there is a problem here.
There is a fundamental error in logic. It is not federal money,
it is taxpayers' money. While the Liberal government may have
red on its banner, it is not wearing a Santa Claus suit. It does
not print money. It gets its money out of the taxpayers' pockets.
Try asking the Minister of Revenue to wait two or three or four
years for his tax money, try saying to him: ``We will go to court,
and it will get settled that way''. It could create a few problems
for any taxpayer foolish enough to try.
No, it is not federal government money, it is taxpayers'
money. The shoe starts to pinch when Quebec taxpayers have to
pay twice-once when they pay their federal share and once
when they pay the provincial government. Who is supposed to
pay the costs the federal government is responsible for? Good
heavens, the logic is simple. It is the logic of integrity. It is the
logic of honesty. It is the logic of ``I paid out money for you
under an agreement, I sent you the bill for it, you agreed to pay
it-well, pay it then''. What was the answer to this? It was: ``See
you in court. We want all the details on these invoices''. Well,
good heavens-I certainly could not talk about good faith here.
I would be tempted to suggest to the Quebec Minister of
Revenue that he set aside from the GST money he collects an
amount equal to what the federal government is refusing to pay,
in the form of a guarantee. Once the federal government pays its
bill, the Minister of Revenue will release the money. If this is the
sort of language we have to use, then this is the way we will have
to put it: $300 million out of $400 million.
(1305)
The minister says: ``Mr. Cliche, in Quebec, has offered
aboriginals $400 million''. He forgot to say that $300 million
came from the federal government, in fact not from the federal
government but rather from the taxpayers. If the federal
government is so broke that it has to squeeze tax dollars out of
taxpayers and cannot afford to hand over that money to Quebec,
then it should separate from Quebec. Quebec then would be able
to pay $300 million out of those $400 million since it would save
a tidy sum of $30 billion.
The minister was very nice in his speech, very kind.
Unfortunately, he did not address the motion before the House.
To conclude, I have this question for the minister. In his speech,
the minister said right from the start that they were going to vote
against the Bloc's motion. Could he tell us therefore what we are
doing in this place all day long? Is it an exercise in futility?
Those people say from the outset that they are not going to
listen, that they are going to vote against the motion. Are we
wasting our time? No, we are not wasting our time because those
who are watching us on television will know the truth and have a
very good reason to resolve the issue this fall by voting in
favour of Quebec's sovereignty and making Quebec a winner.
[English]
Mr. Irwin: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon.
member that we spend $351 million a year in the Quebec region
for aboriginal people. We spent $980 million on the Crees, $552
million on the Inuit and $69 million on the Naskapi, for a total of
$1.6 billion.
[Translation]
We already gave Quebec $450 million for education.
[English]
Maybe I should not bother to mention it but $450 million of
our money went to Quebec on education.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has expressed the
problem we have. Quebec is saying that the Government of
Canada owes 50 per cent but we have no say on the amount of
money spent. We have no say vis-à-vis education with the
province of Quebec. It will call the shots. That is not
partnership. That is: ``I am doing it. I will send you the bill and
you pay it''.
At the same time, I wrote to Madam Beaudoin in April saying
that I would put my senior officials at the table to see if there is
common ground. We will count the various moneys owing to see
if we can find a just solution. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs has done the same thing but he has gone further and has
met with her. We are trying to do this in a practical manner.
I tend to agree with the Reform Party on one point. There are a
lot of games being played here today. The issue is not what is
owing to Quebec, the issue is separation. No matter which way
we cut it, this is it.
The problem I am having is that the onus is not on this
government to prove why separation is better. The Bloc is
having a difficult time with it. It is having a difficult time
explaining to Quebecers how they will be more sovereign if
Quebec separates.
The reality is that with GATT, with NAFTA, with what we are
doing with aboriginal people and within the cultural community,
there is more sovereignty for Quebecers under federalism.
There is more. They are starting to realize that. The Bloc is
failing in its argument. It is up to its members to put their
argument and convince Quebecers, not us.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
minister just said that they gave $450 million towards the
education of native people in Quebec. They have already used
this argument three or four times on the government side. But if
the bill comes to $600 million, it must be paid in full.
12781
When I bought a car, and was told by the salesman that it
came to $30,000, I did not stop paying at $20,000, saying that
it would have to suffice, that it was too much. I had to pay the
whole amount, and live up to my commitment.
Earlier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talked
about the principles of fairness and good management; he really
laid it on thick. But last year, around the same time, when we
asked for a royal commission on the Pearson deal, for the sake of
good management and good administration of public funds, we
were told that it was not possible because time was of the
essence. The whole matter had to be settled quickly for the
economy to keep going, and the country to function.
(1310)
One year later, what is the situation, Madam Speaker? We are
not too sure. Bill C-22 is in limbo, floating around somewhere.
What was supposed to cost $25 million, according to the
transport minister himself, has now sky-rocketed to $450
million. Why is it that today, when Quebec and Quebecers are
asking for what they are owed, all of a sudden the government
invokes these same principles it refused to apply to the Pearson
deal, even though a Liberal inquiry recommended legal action?
I would like someone to explain this to me. How could the
minister change that much within a year to the point of being
unrecognizable?
[English]
Mr. Irwin: Madam Speaker, in the James Bay and Northern
Quebec Agreement there are shared costs for instance for
infrastructure, water, sewers and so on which we have paid. We
are doing the accounts on that. It would be as inappropriate for
us to send the bill to Quebec saying to pay it without question as
I think it is inappropriate for Mrs. Beaudoin to say: ``Here is the
bill. Don't let a senior civil servant field it. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and I will deal with it. We will just
cut a political decision''.
I do not think, when we are dealing with large sums of money,
that we can do these things that way. There has to be proper
accounting. Senior civil servants who have the expertise have to
sit down and do the accounting. That is all this is, an accounting.
We accept that. What we do not accept is the Bloc using it as a
political ploy which it is. We accept it as accounting within our
normal relationship with Quebec, or any province in Canada
from B.C. to Newfoundland.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, as
critic for indian affairs, I will speak mostly about two of the
claims that are before us today. I could have chosen to get
directly to the point, but I thought it would be useful to look at
what Quebecers could do with $300 million, since this is
approximately the amount of the claim submitted to the federal
government which is now being discussed in the House.
There are quite a number of things Quebecers could do with
$300 million. The first one that comes to mind is probably, as
Minister Paillé said, an investment fund with a greater accent on
venture capital, that would give young entrepreneurs with
creative ideas the opportunity to go into business. We could
create 50,000 to 100,000 jobs with such a fund of $300 million.
There is chronic unemployment in Quebec. The
unemployment rate has always been higher in Quebec than in the
rest of Canada, because of decisions made here, in this House,
where we often choose to establish heavy industries and other
important job creating activities outside Quebec. We are stuck
with an unemployment insurance fund and we are being told:
``You are lucky because we give you more money than you give
us. We return more money to you in unemployment insurance,
social assistance, and education transfers''. Listen, you do not
build a society with unemployed persons and welfare recipients.
These people are hard pressed right now, and we have to put
them back to work.
I think it is appropriate that we should question the
government today, that we should introduce a motion which
says: ``Listen, ladies and gentlemen, pay your bills. You owe us
$300 million''.
I will now move on to the Oka question. Originally, the bill
was for $84 million, but the Liberal government finally paid
$5.3 million in 1992. At that time, the government looked at our
claim and said: ``We are paying $5.3 million, but the remainder
is not eligible''. Why is it not eligible? There is practically no
reason. I remind you that, at the time, the Quebec government
was Liberal and federalist. The man in charge was our former
Minister of Social Security, the ineffable Mr. Ryan, that
everybody knows and who tangoed with the federal government.
(1315)
He danced the tango in step. Mr. Ryan kept complaining, and
the federal government kept sending him letters saying: ``You
are exaggerating, we will not pay that much, we will give you
$5.3 million, but as for the rest, the $79 million, forget it.''
Mr. Ryan kept dancing with the federal government, he kept
exchanging letters with the federal government, and he kept
wringing his hands in the federal government's headquarters
here in Ottawa. He kept writing to ministers tearful speeches,
saying you must resolve this for us.
However, we never saw him demanding publicly the federal
government to pay the bill now, as the current Quebec
government is now doing after so much pussyfooting. We know
the federalist mind of Mr. Ryan, as I said, the ineffable Quebec's
Minister of Public Security at the time, and we understand that
he was content to dance the tango privately with the federal
government and never dared to do it publicly. So, we are doing it
today.
12782
Why do the expenses not qualify? We do not know, except
that, with the Parti Quebecois' arrival in power in 1994, as early
as December 1994, the then minister of public security was
asking his counterpart for the reimbursement. What happened
then is exactly what the minister wants to take us into today.
``We will do it with the auditors and the high officials. I suggest
that we meet''.
For five years, it has been only meetings. For five years, we
have been told that officials would get together to try and
resolve the issue, that the auditor general would also be asked
what would qualify and what could be paid.
It was a disaster that happened in Quebec in 1990, a disaster
that had an effect not only in Quebec and in Canada, but also
internationally. Several courts, several international fora dealt
with the Oka events. I think that Quebec qualified under
agreements signed between the federal and provincial
governments and providing for such a disaster.
Was it a disaster? I think that I could talk about it for hours,
because I certainly experienced the events, I saw them, I saw the
federal government's negligence in the Oka crisis. From our
point of view there definitely was a major crisis in Oka affecting
not only native people but Quebecers also.
It has become obvious that in the beautiful region of Oka
located near the Deux-Montagnes lake, where I go on a regular
basis, the tourist industry has been completely wiped out. That
region has become a desert from a tourism point of view. No one
goes to Oka any more. There are still events in Oka which prove
the carelessness of this government which sits around idly and
waits for things to take a turn for the worse. What is happening
during that time? The economy of the area and surrounding
areas is in bad shape, as a result.
Some officers of the Sureté du Québec had to spend weeks in
Oka at that time, far from their families. Who is paying the bill?
The government of Quebec is paying the bill, at present. As I
said earlier, there are agreements where in case of a disaster
there has to be some sort of sharing. In this case, Quebec is the
only one to pay the bill, except a paltry $5.3 million.
This government is still showing carelessness today. Just a
week ago a good friend of the Liberals, Michel Robert, was
appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. This man is a close
friend of the Liberals, the red lawyer par excellence, a man who
was on all strategic committees of this House, including the
Security Intelligence Review Committee.
That man played a key role in the Kanesatake negotiation. I
talk about carelessness because I also know the native people's
philosophy. According to their philosophy, you cannot suddenly
say that you want to negotiate, to set a timeframe and solve
everything in three days. This is not the way things work with
them. You need time to gain their confidence. I must say
however that Mr. Robert is a very good and very competent
negotiator.
(1320)
However, after only seven or eight months, as we were
beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, this
government appointed Mr. Robert to the Court of Appeal and
there we are, back to square one. What I am saying now is that
the federal government is controlling the pressure in Oka, as he
did in 1990. It raises or lowers the pressure depending on the
political context. Today, we are claiming $79 million, knowing
that this government has not done anything since 1990 to settle
the problem in Oka. In this context, I think the claim is
legitimate. As I said, it is another example of the carelessness of
this government.
What were we supposed to do in Oka? The major part of this
claim relates certainly to the presence of police officers there.
What evidence is needed to convince the government? Maybe a
videotape would do? They are quite in fashion. As was shown
recently, the government opposite only reacted when they saw
videotapes.
I recall events in Oka when the Sûreté du Québec was
systematically sandwiched between aboriginal people and their
opponents. I saw police officers torn to pieces. I saw on video
some of them, accompanied by friends, being carried out on
stretchers, because they had tried to separate two camps which
were trying to cut each other's throat, so to speak.
Now we are told: ``You take care of that yourselves. Public
security is Quebec's responsibility.'' We do not worry about the
fact that we are the trustees of aboriginal people, that we pay
them and that we give a certain amount to the Oka band council
every year. We simply continue to pay. You, however, will
continue to pay the bills when things go sour, and also when we
decide that things are taking a turn for the worse.
I think that Quebec's $79 million claim for these expenses is
quite legitimate. And I think that the Quebec government did the
right thing during that crisis by putting the Quebec provincial
police between the two factions that wanted to have a go at each
other.
They always fall back on the argument that things will be
monitored by the auditor general, that senior officials will sit
down together and keep an eye on things. I think that the
problem is on the federal side. We should appoint an auditor
12783
general who is above everyone and can check on the conduct of
this department, which not only increases or eases the pressure
as needed, but also perpetuates through dilatory tactics the
financial confrontation between Quebec and Canada. That is the
problem. The federal side does not want to settle the problem.
Whenever we present them with a bill, it is quite normal for
them to tell us, ``Let us sit down together and look at this with
our officials''. What Ms. Beaudoin wanted was a political
settlement. She wanted to meet with the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and settle this bill once and for all.
However, the minister's solution is, as always, to perpetuate the
problem. He says that the matter will be considered, that his
senior officials, his faithful servants, will meet with us, but he
refuses to settle the problem. The federal government will not
settle the problem. So we are always caught in an ongoing
financial confrontation with the government, and this
confrontation may go on if a motion like this one is not adopted.
Today's motion has launched a broad debate in which we are
trying to convince the people opposite that they must pay their
bills and settle their accounts.
I now move on to James Bay. We know about their open
mindedness. The minister gave us a very good presentation on
what is happening in Quebec in terms of culture. I could give a
presentation, but I would rather answer the questions of
Quebecers waiting for $300 million from the federal
government. I could talk about the Naskapi, the Cree, the Inuit
for hours, but that is not the subject of today's debate.
Neither is the fact that we always have to wait for
money-taxpayers' money, of course, as my colleague pointed
out earlier-from the federal government. We cannot say that
the federal government does not give any money. It must give
some. Because they are the trustees of Canada's aboriginal
people, they must provide these people with a minimum
standard of living. I do not deny that the federal government has
given money for that purpose. So has the Quebec government.
(1325)
Let me quote statistics showing that, as far as education is
concerned, the Quebec government did not rely on the federal
government. Otherwise, I think the James Bay Cree would have
been in a really bad position.
How does it work up there? There are three school boards; the
Cree, the Inuit and the Naskapi each have their own. Costs
sharing was on the basis of a gentleman's agreement.
Here is how costs were shared at the time. I have the table
before me. I read that, for the Cree-Naskapi, the Quebec
government was to pay 25 per cent of the costs involved, and the
federal government, 75 per cent. For the Inuit, the percentages
were reversed, with the Quebec government paying 75 per cent,
and the federal government, 25 per cent. We, in Quebec, care
about native education. I cannot give you the exact figures, only
the conclusions drawn from these statistics.
In terms of language retention, the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi do
better on average than natives in the rest of Canada. By
language, I do not mean French or English, but their native
tongue, which is Cree. Their language retention rate is clearly
higher than in the rest of Canada and we have Quebec and the
James Bay agreement to thank for that, for this agreement is a
model in Canada and several aboriginal nations used it as a basis
for negotiating with the federal government. I might add that the
federal government often refers to this agreement because, as I
said, it is a model.
Enrolment rates are also higher than for other native groups in
Canada. As for health, because they are more educated-this is
an important consideration-aboriginal people have an infant
mortality rate lower than the Canadian average. The life
expectancy in these three groups is higher than in the rest of the
native community in Canada. We can say that as far as the Cree,
the Inuit and the Naskapi are concerned, the Government of
Quebec has taken its responsibilities.
The government never accepted to sign the agreement-it is a
gentleman's agreement-and things went well until 1987.
Starting in 1987, the basis of calculation changed drastically.
Indexation was introduced, but without taking into account the
birth rate, which, incidentally, is twice that found in the rest of
Canada. Aboriginal peoples are currently a very strong drain on
the budget. The problem is easy to understand. The aboriginal
population is growing twice as fast as that of the rest of Canada.
With regard to adult education, it was found that a whole
generation-and that is true everywhere in Canada-of
aboriginal children were removed from their families and taken
far away, in an attempt to make them forget their culture and
their language. A whole generation, the one which preceded us,
of aboriginals completely missed the boat in terms of their
culture, their language, their recognition as a people and, of
course, their education.
There is some catching up to do regarding adult education in
Quebec's far north, and these people are working on that. There
is also an increased demand for services such as daycare, etc.
Aboriginal people in the far north have access to the latest
technology and knowledge, which allows them to have very
adequate education conditions, compared to the rest of Canada.
What is the federal government's reaction? It says that it will
pay back, but based on an indexation criteria, instead of
complying with the terms of the convention in effect at the time.
This government does not intend to pay its share in the current
year.
The finance minister's budget does not allocate any money to
repay the federal government's share under the James Bay
agreements. Earlier, the minister said that the government gave
$450 million. I want to correct him. He made a small mistake.
The amount is in fact $465 million. The government gave more
than the minister said it did. The problem is that if the original
12784
agreements had been respected, the federal government would
have had to pay $584 million. This shortfall of $119 million is
what we are claiming today.
I would like to quote another minister of the Quebec Liberal
government of the time, who is now the Minister of Labour in
this government.
(1330)
With three minutes left, I have just enough time to explain
what the education minister of the Quebec Liberal government
was doing back then. She too was waltzing with the federal
government. She took over from Claude Ryan, her colleague
responsible for public security, and sent her deputy ministers to
Ottawa with this message: ``Listen, this does not make any sense
in the education sector. You have to pay us back''. A number of
meetings were held but, of course, the federal government did
nothing.
My conclusion is what could Quebec do? What could the
Quebec government do, given the federal government's
negligence and inertia? Should we follow the example of the
Blood Indians and the Blackfoot nation I visited in Central
Canada and tell young aboriginals: ``Sorry, we do not have the
money this year, so you will not be sent to school''. We did not
do that. Even if the federal government is not paying its share,
Quebecers have decided to support the rights of native peoples
in Quebec, and young aboriginals are going to school.
Lack of funds will not prevent a single child in northern
Quebec from going to school. The Quebec government has
decided to take on this responsibility. What were we supposed to
do in Oka? Withdraw all police forces and let people fight? We
had a ethical vision of our responsibilities, and the Quebec
provincial police assumed a commendable attitude throughout
the crisis, trying to prevent such fighting. Having said that, I
would ask the federal government to abide by this gentlemen's
agreement. Up to now, this side of the House has behaved in a
gentlemanly way. I hope members opposite with the same
mindset will keep their promise and pay what they owe to
Quebecers.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
want to thank you for giving me a few minutes to reply and
maybe put a question to the member opposite. While listening
not only to that member of the official opposition but to all the
members of the official opposition today, I kept wondering if we
were living in the same world. I must tell you that, sometimes, I
think I am dreaming.
Today, these people are really speaking against Quebec's
interests. They claim they want to protect the interests of the
province of Quebec, but in fact they are trying to fool the people
in Quebec, who are mature enough not to fall into the totally
partisan trap the Bloc Quebecois has set.
The official opposition is asking the federal government to act
irresponsibly, but this could have serious consequences at the
political level. As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
said clearly this morning in the House, he has to manage the
public funds, a good part of which comes from Quebec
taxpayers. As a Quebecer, I am entitled to expect governments
to efficiently manage public funds and also to maximize their
benefits and manage them in the best interests of the population.
This is exactly what the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs is doing. He oversees the sound and responsible
management of the public funds in the best interests of the
Canadian population and also, needless to say, in the best
interests of the people of Quebec. The minister told us this
morning that he did everything he could. He helped Quebec as
much as he could by providing advance funds. Basically what I
would like to ask the member of the official opposition is this:
From what I understand in the motion before the House, would
he rather see the federal government act irresponsibly and
foolishly and waste the taxpayers' money? I do not think that
would be in the best interests of the province of Quebec.
(1335)
When we look a little more closely at this motion tabled by the
Bloc Quebecois, we find once again, and it could not be any
clearer, that the members of this party are not defending the
interests of the people of Quebec in general, but that they
are-and I will have the opportunity to come back to this later
today-putting forward their own agenda, which is the
separation of Quebec.
I believe that the situation or the problem is clear: we have a
responsible government versus people whose aim is complete
negligence. When we look at the situation, and I am a Quebecer,
the answer is clear. It is obvious that I support the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs whose aim is, first and foremost,
sound management of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Bachand: Madam Speaker, my colleague for Outremont
is probably dreaming. He said so himself. I think it is just
wishful thinking. As for us, we are having a nightmare listening
to such remarks from a member who comes from Quebec. I
would ask him to go back to his riding and ask his constituents,
who also pay taxes to the federal government, if they agree that
these services should be paid for by the Quebec government
alone.
Can his constituents and mine say that they will give Ottawa
$300 million less to pay this bill? The present system does not
allow it. Therefore, it is Quebec which must pay and which
comes up short. I find it sad that a member from Quebec would
make such remarks.
12785
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is really acting in
the public interest. I think he is acting in Ottawa's interest and
that, as a member from Quebec, he is forgetting that, when the
people of a province pay taxes to the federal government, they
are entitled to certain services in return. That is what today's
debate is all about.
We claim, with good reason, that Quebec was willing to
honour this gentlemen's agreement but that the federal
government has not honoured it. It owes Quebec $300 million
and it must pay its bills. That is what it must do in the public
interest. It has been five years in one instance and eight years in
the other that all audits have been completed. Now the time has
come to pay, and we are asking the federal government to do so.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, today's debate covers a broad range of federal government activities, and this interjection shows how desperately the Bloc Quebecois is trying to bolster support for the scenario rejected by a
The Bloc is obviously hoping to discredit the federal
government, but to no avail, for we are seeing a boomerang
effect here again today. In fact, this debate provides an
opportunity to appreciate the extent of the federal government's
prerogatives and responsibilities.
One of these responsibilities is addressed through the fiscal
stabilization program created under the federal-provincial
fiscal arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and
Health Contributions Act. The purpose of the stabilization
program is to provide protection to provinces in the event of
extreme downturns in economic activity.
More specifically, provinces faced with a year-over-year
decline in revenues due to a downturn in the economy, such as
the last recession, have access to financial assistance, subject to
specific rules set out in the act.
[English]
The compensation authorized by the stabilization legislation
is based on the province's year over year absolute decline in a
province's eligible revenues subject to three constraints. First,
changes made by the province in the rate or in the structure of its
provincial taxes must be factored out when measuring revenue
declines. The program compensates for revenue declines due to
business cycles and not for declines due to provincial decisions
to reduce taxes arbitrarily.
(1340)
Second, declines in resource revenues are subject to
stabilization only if and to the extent that the annual decline
exceeds 50 per cent. Third, since 1987-1988 the maximum grant
payable to a province is limited to $60 per provincial resident.
Assistance above that limit is at the discretion of the Minister of
Finance and would take the form of an interest free loan. The
litmus test in assessing eligibility to the stabilization program
is whether there is or was a drop in revenues due to general
economic conditions.
The stabilization legislation and regulations provide very
detailed rules about how to measure provincial revenues and
how to adjust for changes in taxation. It is these very same rules
that were applied consistently in dealing with all provincial
applications as the act requires us so to do.
Stabilization is a program for exceptionally hard times, which
explains why only three provinces have received federal
stabilization payments up to 1990. British Columbia received
$174 million for the fiscal year 1982-83; Alberta, $419 million
for fiscal year 1986-87; and Ontario received $227 million for
1990-91.
In order to be considered for stabilization payments, a
province must make a claim to the federal Minister of Finance
not later than 18 months after the end of the year to which the
claim should be applied.
[Translation]
Last December 7, the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin,
announced payments totalling $782.4 million in response to
applications from the provinces under the stabilization program,
including $418 million for fiscal year 1991-92.
These were final payments for 1991-92 in the case of seven
applications, and interim payments for 1992-93 in the case of
five applications.
Despite all the insidious and unfounded insinuations of the
Bloc Quebecois, these applications were processed according to
the letter and the intent of the fiscal stabilization program
legislation. All provinces were put on the same footing.
The Bloc Quebecois has implied that the federal government
used delaying tactics in settling Quebec's claims.
I urge the hon. member who moved the motion before the
House today to ask his own leader about the meaning of the term
``delaying'', since he is an expert on the subject.
[English]
With regard to the 1991-92 fiscal year, the Minister of
Finance made final payments to five provinces: Newfoundland,
$3.1 million; Nova Scotia, $55 million; Prince Edward Island,
$5 million; Ontario, $284.4 million; and Manitoba, $42.9
million.
The claims made by two additional provinces, Saskatchewan
and Quebec, were found not valid under this rule set out in the
act.
12786
[Translation]
Quebec's application for 1991-92 was not approved because
there had been no decline in revenue due to the business cycle,
which meant that according to the regulations, there could be no
compensation. That is all.
There was no question of unfair treatment, political intrigue
or partisanship.
The Minister of Finance also has the authority under the
legislation to make interim payments to a province where
applications are supported by currently available data.
For instance, on December 7, 1994, the finance minister
announced that interim payments be made to five provinces
based on fiscal year 1992-93, which included $125 million for
Quebec. In this case Quebec's application was valid, and the
federal government paid.
(1345)
I dare the Bloc Quebecois to make the same fuss about the
payment made to the Government of Quebec for 1992-93 that it
made to discredit the federal government concerning payments
for the fiscal year 1991-92.
In concluding, decisions by the Minister of Finance on all
provincial applications for stabilization are made in accordance
with the legislation and regulations. Furthermore, they treat all
provinces in a manner that is consistent and fair. These decisions
are final.
The stabilization legislation does not provide for arbitration
mechanisms. If Quebec wants to challenge the legality of the
federal decision, it has one recourse: to appeal before the courts.
Those who call this courtroom federalism do not know what
they are talking about. This year, the Government of Canada will
pay about $11.7 billion in federal transfer payments to the
Province of Quebec. That is what I call constructive and positive
federalism.
I will vote against the motion of the Bloc Quebecois because it
denies the facts and adds absolutely nothing constructive to this
debate.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, we are speaking today on the opposition motion of the
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead regarding
Quebec's financial demands. This should not be the greatest
surprise we in the House have ever had when speaking to a Bloc
supply motion on Quebec's financial demands, especially for
those of us who come from Alberta, British Columbia or Ontario
who have been well versed in Quebec's financial demands for
quite some time.
The motion we are debating is at the core of discussions
concerning why the Bloc is in Parliament in the first place. It is a
sad situation. The vast majority of Canadians look to Canada as
a home and a federation of 10 provinces because we are
Canadians. We do not boil the reasons for being Canadian down
to the bottom line on a balance sheet asking what is in it for us.
Many times when members of Parliament are debating in
committee the Bloc Quebecois-in fairness it is doing exactly
what it said it would do-is thinking solely about any policy or
law as it directly relates to Quebec. The question for them is
always how to protect what we have already while at the same
time perhaps getting a little more, wanting complete
independence but ensuring we get all the support we have had in
the past and what we may want in the future.
(1350)
To be spending a day of debate in the House on this motion is
not a major surprise. The Reform Party came to Parliament with
basically one overriding priority, to put the financial affairs of
the nation right. The overriding priority of many people who
supported the Reform Party and I am sure the government and
the Bloc as well was to get our financial affairs in order.
That should still be the number one priority of Parliament. It
must be the number one overriding priority of our colleagues
from the Bloc.
When I say financial affairs I mean everyone in Canada
including in Quebec. Unless we get our financial affairs in order
what will we be left with? What is the point of having an
independent bankrupt Quebec? There is absolutely no point in it.
The whole notion of splitting the country and expecting the
haves to have the same critical mass and to be as successful as
we are as a combined unit is crazy.
There are areas which would benefit right off the bat, for
instance those parts which have through equalization payments
been pouring billions of dollars eastward, much of which found
a home in Quebec for many years. We are not talking about
sovereignty association, we are not talking about splitting up the
marriage but retaining bedroom privileges. We are talking about
a new house, a new street, the whole shebang. Would the people
of Quebec think for one minute that equalization payments or
transfer payments from the rest of the country would continue to
flow into Quebec? Of course not.
Conversely, all the benefits Quebec brings to the country
would also be denied the rest of the country. That is how we
would be hurt dramatically by this notion of our colleagues and
friends from the Bloc who would want to take Quebec out of
Canada.
I have been talking about the financial implications because it
is the gist of the Bloc's motion, the financial implications of
Quebec in Canada. The bias of the motion, the bias of the Bloc is
it wants to make darn sure it will get more out of it and not lose
anything even if it splits.
12787
If we go beyond the bottom line on the balance sheet and talk
about what will happen to the country if Quebec takes a hike,
the costs will be far more than financial. It will cost us a tonne
in terms of our own sense of self-worth. It will cost us
dramatically in terms of what it means and what it is to be a
Canadian, the culture we share together. That we have been able
to nurture in an island the French fact in North America in a
sea of almost 300 million people, that we have a vibrant, strong,
successful, exciting Quebec and French culture here in our
midst would be lost.
A separate Quebec would find itself very quickly becoming
far more worldly in its outlook and far more accommodating to
speak the language of whomever would come in to spend money.
(1355 )
Since I have been living part time in Ottawa I have, as often as
possible, taken the occasion to vacation and spend weekends in
Quebec, particularly in Montreal. I have come to cherish the
time I spend there. A couple of weekends ago one of my sons
visited from Vancouver. I am trying to persuade him to go to
university in Montreal. I want him to have a sense of what our
country is all about. Quebec and the French fact and the
Quebecois are so vitally a part of our collectivity as a nation I
feel if he did not partake in that he would be losing something in
his life.
He lives in Vancouver. We went to Montreal and he had some
trepidation because although he has taken French in school for
about nine years he cannot speak a word of French. If we do not
use it we cannot learn it. He wondered how he would be received
as an English speaking Canadian. He is 17 and he was a little
nervous about it. Every experience he has had and I have had has
been one of complete comfort. People bend over backwards to
be accommodating, kind and generous.
That weekend in Quebec turned his mind around. I wonder
how many unilingual French speaking people in Quebec who
have travelled to other parts of Canada have been treated with
the same compassion, understanding, care and politeness. I
wonder if we could get more people to look beyond the balance
sheet of what it is to be a Canadian and to look at the value of
what English Canada and Quebec bring to this united body.
I ask Bloc members to consider what I have said as this great
debate unfolds.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest will
have the floor when we resume consideration of the business of
supply following question period.
[English]
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members.
12787
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to welcome to Ottawa several GM retirees and their
spouses. They have come from Niagara to visit the House of
Commons and the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull and
to enjoy the hospitality of our nation's capital.
My former colleagues and friends, some of whom are
veterans, have come to join in the celebration of the 50th
anniversary of the end of the second world war and to enjoy the
magnificent tulip festival.
Today I pay tribute to the GM retirees and their spouses and
wish them all the best during their visit here in Ottawa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on May 26, women of Quebec will go on a long
march, which will end up in Quebec City. Hundreds of women
from every community and every region of Quebec will gather
to repeat the action taken by American women factory workers
at the turn of the century.
Their slogan was: Bread and roses. The women of Quebec will
use the same slogan this year. The bread represents the need to
work and the roses, quality of life. The women will remind the
people of Quebec of these two essentials.
To help them achieve financial equity, women are demanding
a social infrastructure program, jobs, social housing and real
access to programs providing general training and job training.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the women of Quebec on
their initiative and wishes them a successful march.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister has been stonewalling Patrick Kelly's
application to review his case for a year and a half.
Kelly, a former RCMP officer, is in jail for allegedly killing
his wife but now the key witness admits that she lied on the
stand. The review of Kelly's case has dragged on and now the
justice minister wants Kelly's lawyer, Clayton Ruby, to sign a
gag order before documents key to Kelly's case will be released.
12788
The justice minister said:
We will disclose all of those records that are relevant to the issues raised in the
application and that will be done.
Now the minister is placing roadblocks in front of Kelly's
lawyer.
Why the secrecy? The information being withheld from Mr.
Kelly was collected at public expense by a public agency for use
in a public prosecution. What are the Liberals trying to hide and
what is in the documents that the Liberals are afraid of?
Why is there no justice in Mr. Kelly's case?
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to welcome to Ottawa the hon. Darlene Marzari,
B.C. Minister of Municipal Affairs; Mr. George Ford, her
deputy minister; His Worship Greg Halsey-Brandt, mayor of
Richmond and chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District;
Her Worship Beth Johnson, mayor of Delta; Hew McConnell,
manager of GVRD; and 15 young ambassadors of Canada.
Every year the Chinese Canadian Association of Public
Affairs sends a number of students of Chinese origin to Ottawa
for a week of meetings with parliamentarians and leaders of the
House parties.
[Translation]
Yesterday, I was pleased to have a number of young men and
women visit my office. They were accompanied by the
organizers. I have encouraged young Canadian students to take
part regularly in the political process.
[English]
Let me thank the Chinese Canadian Association of Public
Affairs for offering young Canadians such a great experience.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within every
cloud there is a silver lining.
Over the past few weeks we have all been exposed to the
realities of terrorism. The Oklahoma City tragedy has forced us
to realize that terrorism can happen even in North America.
I am happy to say that two women in my riding did not just sit
back in the wake of the bombing. Janice Koekebakker and Linda
Mathews, nurses in Woodstock, Ontario, spent a week in
Oklahoma City providing first aid treatment and consoling
rescue workers. The city of Woodstock and the Woodstock
Rotary Club should also be commended for helping to offset the
expenses of these fine nurses.
The London Free Press wrote in its recent editorial honouring
these two nurses: ``There are things all of us can do if we just
decide to do them''. These women realized that there was
something they could do and they were able to provide an
important service in a difficult time.
I thank these women on behalf of all of us.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I pay tribute to Hector Toe Blake who died yesterday in
Montreal. Toe was the greatest and most successful hockey
coach in the history of the National Hockey League. He was also
a great leftwinger.
As a coach he won eight Stanley Cups in 13 seasons. As a
player he played for 15 seasons with the Montreal Maroons and
with the Canadiens. He was on three Stanley Cup teams, one
with the Maroons and two with the Canadiens.
He won the scoring championship and Hart Trophy in
1938-39 and the Lady Byng Trophy in 1945-46. He was a
leftwinger on the punch line with Rocket Richard and Elmer
Lach, one of the most colourful and prolific scoring
combinations in hockey history.
He was named to the Hall of Fame in 1966, was on the first All
Star team as a player three times, on the second All Star team as
a player twice, and as coach of the All Star team nine times.
Toe Blake will be missed and long remembered in Montreal. I
think all Canadians will pay him tribute on this sad day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Prime Minister's discussions with President Yeltsin, the
Russian army has been relentlessly bombarding Chechen
positions and is continuing to bomb civilian populations.
In an effort to have done with the Chechens once and for all,
the Russian army is preparing to launch its elite corps in a final
assault against Chechnya. We have a hard time understanding
how the Prime Minister could say he was confident that the army
had already been replaced by the regular Chechen police force,
as President Yeltsin had assured him.
12789
The Prime Minister claims he put pressure on his Russian
counterpart, but he also said that his first priority was trade.
Today we are seeing the results. In addition to undermining
Canada's credibility, the government's double talk leads
nowhere.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the situation in the former Yugoslavia has deteriorated
to the point where it is surely time for Canada to take action
which reflects the reality there.
The Prime Minister says that Canadians do not cut and run
when the going gets tough. Reform supports that stance. We
know that Canadian troops have proven this many times over the
years in support of worthwhile causes.
Is it not time to consider the worthiness of the cause in Bosnia
and Croatia? What we have there are three antagonists who show
no interest whatsoever in achieving a peaceful resolution of
their differences. Rather than having a positive influence, the
UN has proven to be either a toothless tiger or perhaps has even
become part of the problem.
Others may have larger forces there but Canada's contribution
has been substantial, competent and reliable. Rather than sheep
following the French and British ram, is it not time for Canada to
lead by stating that unless there is immediate, unequivocal and
verifiable movement toward peace the Canadian forces will
commence preparations to withdraw from the region?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its
Quebec counterpart issued a study concluding that Quebec
benefits greatly from interprovincial trade. It shows that in
Quebec, 470,000 jobs depend directly on interprovincial trade.
Given these findings, it is disconcerting to see that the Bloc
Quebecois and the PQ are still adamantly pursuing Quebec's
separation, regardless of the huge economic impact such a
course of action might have.
Canada is financially advantageous not only for Quebec, but
also for all the other provinces. The recent signing of an
interprovincial trade agreement by the ten premiers opens new
opportunities for this important sector of Quebec economy. The
Canadian economic union already exists and it has proven to be
extremely advantageous for Quebec. There is no need to
jeopardize everything for the sake of satisfying the sovereignist
aspirations of the Bloc and the PQ.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at 5 a.m. on May 18, 1970, francophones all over
southwestern Ontario turned to 540 on their radio dials to hear:
``Bonjour Windsor, bonjour Tilbury, bonjour Pointes aux
Roches, bonjour Belle Riviere'', the first French words on the
most crowded radio band in North America.
CBEF 540 serves 50,000 francophones in Windsor,
Tecumseh, Sarnia, London, Paincourt and other vibrant
southwestern Ontario communities. For 25 years CBEF has
provided a vital link between francophones in southwestern
Ontario and francophones in the rest of Canada, indeed in the
world.
The Right Hon. Paul Martin, Senior, helped along a hard
working group of local francophones to make the station a
reality.
[Translation]
I want to congratulate it on its 25th anniversary.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois has finally yielded to pressures from the
powerful gun lobby. Yesterday the Bloc critic on justice issues,
the member of Parliament for Saint-Hubert, stated:
[Translation]
``Unfortunately, as soon as the topic of firearms comes up,
males get excited and agitated-And since women are not the
majority in the Bloc, male members put a lot of pressure on the
caucus''.
And yet, it should be pointed out that the Bloc Quebecois was
committed to supporting the bill, as mentioned by the Bloc
member for Saint-Hubert, on May 6, and I quote: ``It is a good
bill which provides for the registration and control of firearms''.
Women in Quebec will be very disappointed to learn that the
Bloc does not take into account their views which are
overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-68.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is doing an about-face in the issue of the
building of a new sport arena in Winnipeg. Two weeks ago,
Ottawa did not have any money to help the Jets. Suddenly, the
Minister of Human Resources Development seems to have
discovered plenty of it in several federal programs.
12790
There is no doubt that the pretext of the infrastructure
program is simply a smoke-screen for an inescapable reality:
Ottawa is about to give several millions of dollars of taxpayers'
money to the Winnipeg Jets, and never thought about lifting one
finger to help the Quebec Nordiques. There has never been such
double standard before. It is obvious that the only thing flexible
about Canadian federalism is fairness.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
imagine a place in which democratically elected members of a
legislature are not allowed to propose changes to a law. Imagine
then that they are not allowed to speak to the proposals of others
and if they protest they are summarily cut off by the majority.
Imagine a legislative body taking decisions without votes or
ignoring long established rules of procedure in order to deny
minority groups the right to be heard. Imagine a member of this
minority group daring to challenge and oppose such autocratic
rulings only to have the majority further restrict his rights by
denying him the opportunity to even ask questions.
These types of governments exist around the world. We know
that oppressive governments sometimes use the tools of
democracy to choke off reasoned debate even while spouting
false words about democracy and goodwill.
This kind of situation would be condemned by all members. I
only wish we were describing a third world country, but I am
talking about the standing committee on human rights and what
it did last night.
* * *
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that everyone from Oshawa is in the nation's capital. It makes
me wonder who is minding the store.
I am proud to acknowledge the presence in the nation's capital
today of members of 420 Wing, the Royal Canadian Air Force
Association from Oshawa, an organization of which I am a
proud member.
Some of the members here today have just returned from V-E
Day ceremonies in Europe. Incidentally they tell me that our
Prime Minister was the hit of the show in Holland and literally
moved everyone to tears. These are the men and women of
Canada whose sense of duty, dedication and love of their
country made that long ago victory possible.
We in the House would do well to exhibit the same patriotism
and loyalty to this country that my friends and comrades showed
in their youth and in truth to this day.
I will close with an admonition to all of us that was given to
the airman son by his anxious mother: ``My son, fly low and
slow''.
* * *
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week in Ottawa we celebrate the Canadian Tulip Festival. It
commemorates our friendship with the Netherlands and the
important role that Canadians played during the dark years of
World War II.
This month thousands of Canadians travelled to Holland.
They participated in celebrations commemorating the liberation
of Holland in 1945. They were welcomed into the homes,
villages and cities by appreciative Dutch families.
Liberty and freedom are taken for granted in Canada. In
Holland it is sincerely appreciated. The veterans who returned
were received as liberators who restored freedom for those who
had lived five long years under Nazi rule.
Canadian veterans, along with the Secretary of State for
Veterans, visited Canadian war cemeteries and paid their
respects to the many young Canadians who lost their lives in the
struggle. Only those who were in Holland for the ceremonies
could truly appreciate the tremendous respect, gratitude and
emotion the Dutch people have for their Canadian liberators.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Ontario have suffered throughout the nineties. They
bore the full brunt of the recession and their troubles were
compounded by an inexperienced, inept, high spending
provincial government.
Do members know that the NDP government in Ontario
continued to try to spend its way out of the recession two years
longer than any other government? It doubled the provincial
debt so that Ontarians now pay 20 cents of every tax dollar for
interest. Now the NDP is trying to blame the federal government
for its problems. We maintained the level of provincial transfers
for our first two years in office. We have given all provincial
governments ample notice about changes we intend to make.
Ontario needs a new government, a government which is
caring and competent. Ontario cannot afford to try another
inexperienced party. We cannot afford to stay with the NDP. We
must have a Liberal government in Ontario after the upcoming
election.
12791
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday the multinational Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy
protection, effectively cutting off another avenue for Canadian
women seeking compensation for faulty silicone gel breast
implants.
Despite the injury caused to Canadian women and the cost to
taxpayers, the federal government has never filed suit against
the manufacturers of these devices and continues to allow the
use of saline breast implants; another disaster waiting to
happen.
The federal government must act now and respond to breast
implant support groups who have urged the minister to provide
core funding to help them organize, to disseminate information,
to make sure that physicians are required to inform women
about the risk of implants, and to develop a national protocol for
the removal of faulty implants.
(1415 )
Canadian women want action and deserve action. The
government must respond now. It must no longer accept this
serious health risk to women.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
many times the justice minister has claimed support from
frontline police officers for his firearm control bill.
I would like to draw to the justice minister's attention that
times have changed. The minister must be caught in a time warp.
Not only have Canadians failed to support his firearm control
measures but the very frontline police officers he often mentions
are strongly opposed to his bill.
The frontline officers of Saskatchewan are against the bill, as
are those of Manitoba and Alberta. We all know the Yukon and
Northwest Territories authorities are against the bill. The police
association stated it had many concerns with the bill. The
Canadian Bar Association and aboriginals state the bill is
unconstitutional. And today New Brunswick jumped on the
bandwagon.
We have been told many times that many in his party are
against his bill. They did not bother to come around to vote last
time. Now the truth has been spoken I trust we will no longer
hear that the minister has full support for his Bill C-68.
12791
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government is about to invest $20 million in public
funds to give Winnipeg a new arena, just to keep the Jets in
Winnipeg. Unfortunately, Ottawa has never shown the slightest
interest in getting involved to keep the Nordiques in Quebec
City. Once again, the double standard rears its ugly head.
How can the Prime Minister use the Infrastructure Program to
justify paying $20 million to the Winnipeg Jets, when according
to our information, more than 90 per cent of that money has
already been spent or committed, leaving only $6 million in the
bank?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have an infrastructure program, and any decisions
made under this program are made jointly by the municipalities
involved and by the provincial government.
When we introduced the first Infrastructure Program, the
Quebec government and Quebec City decided to build a
convention centre in Quebec City, and the federal government
invested $26 million. At the time, people said they might need
an arena. The mayor of Quebec City, as reported in the media
this morning, said no, Quebec City's priority was a convention
centre.
In the case of Winnipeg and the Government of Manitoba, $15
million had not been allocated, and they asked us to allocate
them for the building an infrastructure in Winnipeg, an arena.
There are several precedents in this respect. In Alberta, the
government decided to invest $5 million in the arena in
Edmonton and $4 million in the arena in Calgary, all federal
money.
We respect provincial jurisdictions. We make the money
available to the various governments. A total of $15 million
comes from the Infrastructure Program. As we all know, the
Pan-American Games will be held in Winnipeg two years from
now, and they need certain facilities, so they want to combine
the facilities for the Pan-American Games with the possibility
to build an arena. So if the city and the province want a new
infrastructure, they can take the money that is there. There is no
new money for this program. This is money allocated to
Manitoba which had not yet been distributed.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would
the Prime Minister confirm that the $20 million Ottawa will give
in direct assistance to the Winnipeg Jets is well in excess of what
is available under the Infrastructure Program and will impinge,
as he himself said, on the budget set aside for the Pan-American
12792
Games, although none of the disciplines at these games will
require a coliseum or an arena of the kind that is going to be
built, and that the money will also come from the Western
Economic Diversification Office headed by his minister, the
member from Winnipeg?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just made it very clear that the $15 million comes out
of the money allocated to the Province of Manitoba. The
province decides, as was the case in Quebec and Ontario.
Ontario built a brand new convention centre; it also built a new
cultural centre in Mississauga; Vancouver used all the allocated
money for a new water treatment system. All these decisions
were made by the provincial governments.
In the case of Manitoba, the province decided to use the
money available to build a new infrastructure, a new arena, just
like Edmonton and Calgary decided to invest substantial
amounts in improving the arenas in Edmonton and Calgary.
There is no double standard here. There is only one standard;
this money comes out of the budget. We respect the preferences
of the provincial governments. In the case of Quebec City,
Mayor L'Allier made it clear that he was not interested in an
arena. He wanted a convention centre, and they will get their
convention centre.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, people
remember how the Minister of Industry insisted on a business
plan when the time came to invest money in MIL Davie in
Quebec City. And how he insisted!
Before the government-which is broke, in any case-invests
more than $20 million in public funds in the Winnipeg Jets,
could the Prime Minister tell us whether his government insisted
that the Winnipeg Jets submit a business plan, to ensure this
money is not wasted, and that the Jets provide guarantees that
they will not leave within the next three years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the provincial government and the municipal
government, we are investing in an infrastructure which is an
arena. We are not investing any money in the hockey team,
certainly not.
The private sector in Winnipeg has decided to raise funds to
buy the hockey team. We do not know whether they succeeded.
In any case, the Premier of Manitoba and the mayor of Winnipeg
decided that the money allocated for Winnipeg and for the
Province of Manitoba would be used to build a new
infrastructure, an arena.
In Quebec City, they opted for a convention centre. In
Vancouver, they decided to invest in a water treatment plant. We
respect the priorities of the provincial governments, but we
know that, if construction is going on, people are working, and
that is money well spent. That is why we introduced this
infrastructure program, which, by the way, has been a huge
success in Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if this money is not for the Winnipeg Jets but only for
an arena, the Prime Minister will surely not tell us that it is for
the free skating sessions on Saturday nights.
The federal government has decided to provide a direct $20
million subsidy for building this arena, for the sole purpose of
allowing the city to keep the Jets franchise. This announcement
came right after the Quebec Nordiques turned down the Quebec
government's proposal.
How does the minister explain the federal government's
sudden eagerness to help the Winnipeg Jets, even taking money
from outside the infrastructure budget, the day after the
Nordiques' owners rejected the Quebec government's proposal,
when Ottawa never expressed its intention to assist the
Nordiques?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that, with respect to the Quebec government's
proposal to the Nordiques, no one asked us to invest in an arena
as we are doing in Winnipeg. Even back in January, the first
project we approved was a convention centre for Quebec City, in
which we invested $26 million and which led to accusations by
the Reform Party that we acted too quickly for the benefit of
Quebec City.
Mayor L'Allier is reported in today's press as saying that
Quebec City's priority is not an arena but a convention centre.
And we respected the wish of Quebec City's separatist mayor. I
wonder why the members of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc
Quebecois are against our respecting the wish of Quebec City's
separatist mayor.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, $5 million was taken from the Pan-American Games
budget, even though Winnipeg maintained that it had all the
facilities needed for these games. The situation seems to have
changed overnight. The Prime Minister has just given us the
reason: separatists. This always gets a rise out of the Prime
Minister.
I would like the Prime Minister to admit frankly that the $20
million aid package to the Jets had been planned for a while and
that his government waited for the Nordiques' owners to reject
the Quebec government's proposal to make a public
announcement so that it would not have to provide the same kind
of assistance to the Nordiques.
12793
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not received one letter or one phone call from
anybody from Quebec in the case of the Nordiques. Never. There
was no timing arranged for that.
The people of Winnipeg and the business people of Winnipeg
might or might not buy the hockey team. The city of Winnipeg
and the premier of Manitoba have decided to take the money
allocated for infrastructure for Manitoba and put it into an arena,
exactly like the city of Edmonton, exactly like the city of
Calgary. The city of Vancouver decided to invest its money in a
sewage treatment plant. The city of Toronto is investing in a
conference centre. The city of Mississauga is investing in an arts
centre.
We respect the will of the citizens of Canada. What is wrong
with that? We are flexible enough to listen to all the premiers of
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal red book promised that the government
would move full steam ahead on aboriginal self-government
and on resolving outstanding land claims. As predicted, this has
led to unrealistic expectations on the part of Indian bands,
particularly in British Columbia.
Currently a huge percentage of B.C.'s land mass is claimed by
natives but the provincial government says it is only willing to
negotiate on 5 per cent and that self-government will not extend
beyond the powers enjoyed by municipalities.
Will the minister of Indian affairs now admit that his failure to
set realistic parameters for land claim negotiations and
self-government is feeding these unrealistically high
expectations and it is high time for him to correct these failures?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister treats this frivolously but he is headed for
a disaster in aboriginal relations in the province of British
Columbia.
Even his officials recognize that the federal government has
raised band expectations to unmanageable levels while keeping
the rest of the B.C. community in the dark. Despite memos from
the deputy minister and appeals from the Assembly of First
Nations, he stubbornly refuses to provide aboriginal groups and
Canadians with any limits on the federal position on land claims
or self-government.
I ask the minister again. Will he provide realistic guidelines
for land claim negotiations and aboriginal self-government at
least for the province of British Columbia?
(1430 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the
premise of the question. The issue of how much land, which is
what we are talking about, will be provided to the First Nations
is primarily a provincial responsibility since most of the
available land is in the name of the provinces.
The offer, or the leaked offer because I have not seen it, by the
province of B.C. is a question of a quantum of land. When the
aboriginal people of B.C. get the offer they will respond to it and
we will respond to it. But right now we provide money, the
provinces provide land and that is their provincial
responsibility.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in its land claim negotiation paper the British
Columbia government goes beyond land. It says that privately
owned land will not be on the table. It says that aboriginal
self-government will be restricted to municipal-like powers. It
says that status Indians should lose provincial and federal tax
exemptions once their land claims are settled.
Does the minister agree with the positions being taken by the
Government of British Columbia on these issues and if not, what
is the federal position?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the issue of privately
owned land, we have been consistent across this country to
protect privately owned land and we try to compensate in those
cases.
On the issue of taxes I find it passing strange that a province
would make an offer on what is clearly our jurisdiction. I have
made it clear to the province that the matter of taxation has to be
solved with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National
Revenue and Parliament at a national level.
As far as the question of status is concerned, this is something
we are always negotiating. The leader of the Reform Party must
realize that status is very important to aboriginal people for very
legitimate reasons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In an effort to reduce the debt of Canadian National, thus
making it easier to privatize, the government is apparently about
to buy this company's real estate assets, including the famous
12794
CN Tower in Toronto. These would be purchased at a price
higher than their true market value, to help CN bring its debt
down from $2.5 billion to $1.5 billion.
How can the Minister of Transport justify his government's
decision to invest considerable public funds in buying real
estate assets already paid for by Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's premise is completely wrong. It is
not the government's intention to pay anything for the real estate
assets of CN that will not be transferred at the time of the issue.
We have said that with the Department of Finance we will
negotiate an arrangement to give CN a credit for the market
value of any residual real estate assets.
The hon. member will know that the objective of the
government is to try to put Canadian National railways out into
the private sector in a condition that will allow it to operate in
the same environment as Canadian Pacific. There will have to be
some work done to reduce the $2.5 billion debt. I want to
reassure my hon. friend that whatever the government does with
respect to the sale of CN will be done in the very best interests of
the Canadian taxpayers, both now and in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Transport confirm his
government's intention not only to use public funds to buy
assets already paid for by taxpayers, but also to buy these assets
for more than their current market value?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, but I understand he
had his supplementary written down before he listened to the
answer, there is no intention on the part of the government of
giving any credit to CN that is in addition to any prior market
value that would be identified.
The sale of CN is a major undertaking. We understand the
opposition has agreed to it in principle. We hope we can
demonstrate that on a business basis this will be done in the best
interests of the Canadian taxpayer. Any evaluation of assets,
real estate or otherwise, will be done on the very best basis of
business and ordinary commercial practice.
(1435 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like
many other Canadians, I am a fan of our national sport, hockey,
but I am not a fan of taxpayer subsidies for professional sports.
The problems in Winnipeg and Quebec could be and should be
solved by the NHL, not the Canadian taxpayers. Private luxury
boxes and million dollar hockey players should not be
subsidized by overtaxed Canadians.
How can the Prime Minister justify reallocating
infrastructure dollars when hospitals are closing and Canadians
are risking their lives on unsafe roads?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the infrastructure program, as I think the Prime
Minister has pointed out, is based on local needs and local
priorities to create jobs, strengthen the infrastructure of our
communities so that we can attract additional investment dollars
and provide more jobs.
The hon. member has an arena in his own constituency which
also provides facilities for hockey players. He has supported
infrastructure projects in his province.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
arena in Barrie was never supported by this member of
Parliament at any time. The minister knows that. Arenas in
Barrie, Edmonton or Winnipeg never were infrastructure, in any
way.
The Minister of Industry has stated in this House that this
level of government will no longer continue to subsidize
business. Yet his western counterpart, the Minister of Human
Resources Development, is attempting to bail out another local
industry, the Winnipeg Jets.
Will the Prime Minister indicate what the policy of this
government is? Is it the status quo pork barrelling of the western
minister, or is it the let business thrive on its own policy of the
industry minister? They cannot have it both ways. Which way is
it?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, talking about having it both ways, who said: ``I am
writing to further offer my strong support for the project because
of significant job creation?''
The project in Winnipeg will create thousands of jobs for the
people of that city. It will create a great amount of economic
activity. It is a priority of the city, a priority of the provincial
government. Those are the rules under which we have been
operating the infrastructure program.
12795
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
looking at the Liberals across the floor, one would think we were
at the Winnipeg arena.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister is
about to privatize one of the most important federal crown
corporations, without restricting foreign ownership. CN, which
was established at a cost of billions of dollars in public moneys,
is an invaluable asset for Canada and Quebec. Should it come
under foreign control, it might not fully serve the interests of
Canadians.
Will the minister admit that, by overrating CN's assets, so as
to increase the market value of the corporation, he is in fact
using Canadian taxpayers' money to give foreign buyers an
indirect subsidy?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am truly moved by the hon. member, who is
concerned about CN's future as a Canada-wide venture, from
Halifax to Vancouver. At one point, I thought the member felt
our government had decided not to restrict foreign investments,
precisely to allow people like him, who want to achieve
independence, to have an interest in that company.
(1440)
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the Minister of Transport that Quebecers contributed 25
per cent of CN's assets. The minister is not giving us anything.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: That is true. Put that in your pipe and
smoke it.
Mr. Guimond: On another topic, and I hope to get an
intelligent answer, will the minister agree that it is possible for a
group of foreign businesses controlled by the same shareholder
to buy a majority of CN's shares, thus making it impossible for
the minister to ensure that CN remains under Canadian control?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the experience of Canadian Pacific which has been
operating as a private shareholder driven company since the last
century is such that there is no indication of any interest to the
extent that we should be concerned about foreign ownership.
What I am far more worried about and what the government is
concerned about is in order to have a successful issue of this
size, we are of a mind and of the advice we have received both
domestically and internationally that the issue is just too big for
Canadian investors to take up. We feel that protection for the
future of CN is really far more important in the context of our
restriction on 15 per cent ownership for any individual or
corporation.
The important thing here that everyone should keep in mind is
this is going to be the single largest transaction of its kind in
Canadian history. We are trading on a global basis. This railroad
has to be competitive in the global economy. We think that
restricting foreign ownership would not give the kind of signal
that we believe is important, that is, that Canadians want to do
business with everybody around the world. We are confident
that as is the case with CP, CN will be retained in a majority way
in Canadian hands.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
CBC and Cadillac Fairview have broken a deal over their lease
arrangements, perhaps costing the CBC and the Canadian
taxpayer up to $250 million. The actual cost remains unknown
because both the CBC and the minister's office refuse to make
public any of the deals of the arrangement.
My question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage is: If there
is nothing to hide, will he commit to making public all of the
details of this secretive deal?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was of course an intervention by the
courts. I will have to look carefully at what was decided.
Eventually the transaction will have to be confirmed by an order
of the governor in council. When we come to that point, I shall
be pleased to answer the question.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me continue. The CBC broadcast centre came in $138 million
over budget. It was supposed to get revenues from Bramalea and
Cadillac Fairview but now both companies are bankrupt. The
total lease cost for the building amounts to over $1.7 billion.
Now the government is poised to bail out of this $250 million
fiasco.
The broadcast centre has been a financial disaster from the get
go. Will the minister direct the auditor general to investigate the
financing of this broadcast centre boondoggle and table the
report in this Parliament?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take note of the allegations of our
colleague and will give her the same answer I gave earlier. I will
look into it and answer her questions.
12796
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has just told us that $15 million of the $20
million promised for the Winnipeg Jets will come from the
infrastructure program in Manitoba. Information in official
Treasury Board documents, however, reveals something quite
different.
How can the Prime Minister say, on January 24, that in book 3
of the Treasury Board Estimates, only $6 million remained for
the infrastructure program in Manitoba and talk today about $15
million? Where did the extra $9 million come from?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as regards the allocations for Manitoba, certain
projects were left undeveloped, and $12 million is available at
the moment.
Mr. Gauthier: So now it is $12 million. The figure is
changing.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Twelve million dollars is
currently available, according to the President of Treasury
Board. The Government of Manitoba decided to reallocate
certain approved projects, cancel them and replace them to
create an additional $3 million, bringing the total to $15 million.
(1445)
As I said earlier, the remaining $5 million will come from the
money allocated for the preparation of the infrastructures
needed for the Pan American Games. This adds up to the $20
million approved by the government. It has nothing to do with
the hockey team. It is a matter of giving the City of Winnipeg
and the Government of Manitoba their choice of priorities.
It is as if Calgary, Edmonton or the hon. member's city chose
to have arenas. This was the choice of the City of Winnipeg. The
mayor of Quebec City decided clearly, with the first project
approved, to put all the money available to Quebec City and the
region around it into a convention centre, which was already
well under way. This was the local officials' priority, and we
accepted it with pleasure.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the light of these latest rapid changes, how can the Prime
Minister agree to reallocating $5 million earmarked for the Pan
American Games to finance the Winnipeg Jets?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, clearly when you are holding the Pan American Games,
you have to have the necessary equipment. The City of
Winnipeg and the government of the province decided to use this
opportunity to build themselves a facility to meet both
requirements. This will be a good thing if it means saving some
money.
* * *
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
It will be remembered that, when the Saint-Jean military
college was closed, certain people claimed that the closure
would decrease the representation of francophones in the
Canadian Forces. We all know about the budget and the white
paper on national defence.
I would ask the Minister of National Defence to report to the
House on the situation of francophones in the Canadian armed
forces, and on their recruitment in particular.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must
thank the hon. member for his question. Contrary to certain
allegations that the closure of the Saint-Jean military college
would negatively affect the recruitment of francophones in the
armed forces, I am pleased to announce that we met our
recruitment objective this year for francophone officer cadets,
which was 30 per cent.
This clearly shows that francophones still and will always
consider a career in the Canadian forces to be worthwhile.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the American government is developing a hit list of
Canadian communication and entertainment companies in
retaliation for Canada's policy of cultural isolationism, a policy
that has already denied Canadian country music artists a
worldwide audience via country music television. Now Much
Music and Teleglobe are among companies who may be
sacrificed with this isolationist policy.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can the
minister deny that this government's anti-competitive cultural
policies will cost Canadians jobs and Canadian country music
artists worldwide exposure?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member that I did
indeed receive a letter from the United States trade
representative that indicates the intention to embark on a section
301 action against Canada if in the time immediately ahead it is
not possible for us to reach agreement on the issues the hon.
member has raised.
12797
(1450 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we will try again with perhaps the heritage minister or
the Minister of Industry.
Canadians have made it very clear: we support choice and
competition. These should be the guiding principles of a cultural
policy. Instead, it would appear that the Liberals favour
competition when it benefits the Liberal family compact.
Why is the minister sacrificing Canadian artists, Canadian
jobs, and consumer choice at the altar of Canadian cultural
isolationism?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision to delist CMT was made by the
CRTC pursuant to a long-standing CRTC policy. When CMT
entered the Canadian market it was aware of the CRTC policy
that it could be de-listed if a competitive Canadian service so
requested. That is the rule of the game.
The follow up is naturally in the hands of the American
authorities concerned. They have threatened retaliation. The
minister of commerce and foreign trade has indicated that the
letter from the secretary of state's Mr. Kantor received by him
will be replied to in due course. However, the policy is clear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury
Board. The official opposition checked the information network
Internet and found that at least 10 federal government
institutions provide information exclusively in English. Among
the guilty you will find the Department of National Defence, the
Royal Military College of Kingston, the Department of Industry
and the Department of Natural Resources.
Does the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible
for applying the Official Languages Act, intend to take
immediate action to ensure that these federal institutions and
organizations start offering information in both official
languages on Internet on the double?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have indicated before in the House, we certainly
intend to have the Official Languages Act and its regulations
upheld. Canadians should be able to get service in the official
language of their choice.
I understand the Internet primarily deals in the English
language. What we need to do, in terms of ensuring that our
government services are provided in both official languages, is
take the necessary action to help ensure that happens.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, federal documents should be released to the public
in both official languages simultaneously, not just in English
and later in French whenever they have the time. We must all be
treated equally. All that they have done is put a French title page
in front of an English document. That is what I call a one way
highway.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): In these hours
following the release of the CRTC's recommendations
regarding Canadian content on the information highway, is the
President of the Treasury Board not ashamed to face
francophones, knowing that some of the information the federal
government puts on Internet is only available in English?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated, there is changing technology. The
government certainly is committed to moving as quickly as it
can to ensure that people can have the services of this
government in the official language of their choice. A great deal
of progress has been made by this government to do exactly that.
I have indicated before in the House the new publications that
have been brought out to assist our departments in making sure
that happens, providing information to the public on where they
can get service in the official language of their choice and
publishing it in minority language newspapers. I can go on and
on.
(1455 )
The government intends to ensure that the Official Languages
Act and its regulations are followed so that Canadians can have
service in the official language of their choice.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
will know that the government has been appealing the Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench ruling that the gag law against third
party election advertising and free speech is unconstitutional.
According to recent press reports, the government's appeal in
Alberta is all but being laughed out of court. Will the solicitor
general save the taxpayers further expense and withdraw his
appeal of the undemocratic gag law?
12798
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have found from my
long experience arguing in courtrooms that it is very difficult
to predict from newspaper reports what the result of a case will
be.
I would caution the hon. member to be patient. We have made
our submissions, and out of respect for the court I think we will
await the judgment before making further comment.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
has already been defeated twice in the courts in the past.
Will the minister admit that the real reason for trying to
preserve this gag law in court is the same reason as that of the
previous government-that it is worried about organizations
and citizens who are going to make their obscene pension plans
an issue in the next federal election?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position we
advanced as counsel for the federal government was argued in
the courtroom, where it should be argued. That judgment is now
in reserve and I do not propose to comment on it until the court
has had an opportunity to express its opinion.
However, I can tell the hon. member that the next time this
government goes to the electorate it will do so very proud of the
fact that it fulfilled its red book commitments with respect to
pensions and every other matter.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National
Revenue.
Tourism is a substantial industry, worth billions of dollars to
the Canadian economy. On Sunday the minister announced the
opening of a new facility at the Vancouver international airport
to assist foreign travellers. Would the minister tell the House
how the new facility will help the economy and the thousands of
cruise ship passengers travelling through Vancouver?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly can.
We have approximately 700,000 cruise ship visitors coming
through Vancouver. These people put millions upon millions of
dollars into the economy of Vancouver. Yet I found to my
surprise when I became minister that they were waiting for up to
three hours at the Vancouver airport before moving down to the
ship terminals.
We have a new facility in place. It is temporary until the new
building is put in next year. Instead of wasting their time at the
airport, the cruise ship passengers will now have the opportunity
to spend their time in downtown Vancouver and spend their
dollars along with it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Indian affairs minister.
In a controversial move, Mohawks in Kanesatake are getting
ready to bury two of their members in the pine grove, in Oka, on
land belonging to the municipality of Oka. Meanwhile,
negotiations have been suspended because their friend, Michel
Robert, has been appointed to the bench.
Can the minister confirm that, for the past several years, the
municipality of Oka has been offering land to the federal
government-which it has not agreed to buy yet-in an effort to
put an end to the tensions between itself and the Mohawk
community in Kanesatake?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is potentially a very
volatile situation, and with my knowledge of the hon. member I
am sure he would not want to exploit it.
The situation is that two individuals, two Mohawks, drowned.
The Mohawks say that there is not enough property in which to
bury them and they have cleared a small plot of ground, which I
think is 20 feet by 20 feet. The mayor of Oka says that it is his
property. Judge Réjean Paul has been there. I think the minister
of security for Quebec has looked at it. We are trying to keep a
lid on it, and I think it would be highly inappropriate in the
circumstances for me to comment on it. It is better done quietly
and privately under the aegis of Judge Réjean Paul.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Immigration Association released a new poll that confirms that
even after having broken every promise it made to Canadians on
immigration, this government is still woefully out of touch.
(1500 )
Seventy-six per cent thought bogus refugees should be turned
around at the border with no appeal, and the majority agreed
with the Reform Party that civil servants and not politically
appointed friends of the minister should determine refugee
status.
12799
Will the minister finally listen to Canadians, put their
interests first and scrap the Immigration and Refugee Board?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is it a surprise after his trip to
Washington where he and his party allowed Newt Gingrich, Pat
Buchanan and that great visionary Sonny Bono to dictate
immigration policy? Those three want to bring the United States
back to the dark ages and this member wants to hook Canadians'
wagon to that. We say no thank you.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister, who has been doing a lot of
skating around the Winnipeg Jets issue.
Call it what you might, $20 million is being generated to
rescue the Winnipeg Jets. If the government is to proceed with
the rescue package would it at least consider taking an equity
position in the hockey club so it will be an investment as
opposed to simply turning its money over to the development of
an arena which is really a black hole?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not in the business of investing in hockey teams.
We are in the business of investing in facilities. Because the city
of Winnipeg wants to proceed with this project, it is quite
eligible under the infrastructure works program.
The infrastructure works program has created to this point
some 100,000 jobs, which is what this is about, creating jobs in
our communities, strenghthening the infrastructure. That is
where we have made our investment.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Darlene Marzari, Minister of
Municipal Affairs for the Government of British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: This concludes question period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for
Parliamentary Affairs if he could tell us what the order of
business will be in the House next week.
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will commence
second reading of Bill C-82 regarding the mint, followed by Bill
C-91 concerning the business development bank, Bill C-88
with respect to internal trade, Bill C-92 regarding the Canadian
Wheat Board, Bill C-54 concerning pension administration,
Bill C-75 respecting farm loans, Bill C-70 amending the
Income Tax Act and Bill C-65 concerning the reorganization of
certain agencies.
This will be followed by the resumption of debate on the
motion to establish a special joint committee on a parliamentary
code of conduct.
On Monday, May 29 if we have not completed this list we will
resume at the point we left off on Friday.
Tuesday, May 30 and Thursday, June 1 shall be allotted days.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, pursuant to the
Thursday statement, I would like to ask the government House
leader if the government intends to bring back Bill S-7, a private
member's bill dealing with operating government vehicles with
alternative fuels. Will he be bringing the bill back to the House
for third reading to determine passage before the summer recess
on June 23?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is before committee.
When the committee finishes its work and reports back to the
House we will be glad to look at it.
_____________________________________________
12799
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before question period I was speaking generally about
Quebec's financial demands not being a new topic for the House.
In the year and half I have been here Quebec's financial demands
have been front and centre every day.
It seems odd the Bloc would raise this as an opposition motion
in the knowledge that Quebec has done very well by being a
member of our great country over many years. It seems passing
strange that it would want to leave.
It is also a tragedy that most members of the Bloc seem to
think the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the
country is primarily financial. To the vast majority of Canadians
12800
the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country is
far more than a financial arrangement; it is spiritual, a
relationship among friends, brothers, relatives and family.
I recently introduced my son to Quebec and invited the people
of Quebec and in particular members of the Bloc to venture west
and east to see for themselves that Canadians are welcome in all
parts of the country. Quebecers are welcome in the rest of
Canada and the rest of Canada in Quebec.
Whether members of the House liked former President
Reagan or not, they will appreciate that President Reagan was
widely renowned for his masterful use of the media and his
ability to express thoughts and put complicated thoughts into
every day simple language. He was a master manipulator of the
media. People have to admit that.
It was passing strange that he had a portrait of Calvin
Coolidge in the cabinet room. Calvin Coolidge was regarded as
the president who had perhaps a most acerbic wit. He would
never say in three words what could be said in one word and was
generally regarded as a man of very few words.
President Reagan had a portrait of Calvin Coolidge in the
cabinet room because of Coolidge's ability to put very pithy
comments in very few words. I will deal specifically with what
Calvin Coolidge had to say about people, about responsibilities
and how we relate together as a society and what the role of
government is.
Calvin Coolidge said: ``The people cannot look to legislation
generally for success; industry, thrift, character are not
conferred by act or resolve. Government cannot relieve from
toil. It can provide no substitute for the rewards of service. It
can, of course, care for those who need care and recognize
distinguished merit. The normal must care for themselves.
Self-government means self-support''.
(1510 )
If we were to extend that the country would benefit greatly if
we would start to think in terms of self-reliance and
self-support. All provinces, all regions, rather than looking to
the federal government and asking what is in it for them should
be asking what they can give to the common good of the country
after they have looked after their own responsibilities.
Unless we are first able to look after ourselves how can we
presume to look after our neighbours? If we cannot first look
after our own province how can we presume to look after other
provinces? We need to be self-sufficient as individuals, we need
to be self-sufficient as communities, we need to be
self-sufficient as provinces. This will inevitably lead to
self-sufficiency as a nation and to the further strengthening of
the nation into the future; in my fondest dreams, desires and
wishes, a nation united, with Quebec very much a part of the
greater Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning, I listened to the beginning of the debate
which opened with the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead who, as usual, made a very
good and very interesting speech. But it had nothing to do with
the motion before the House, it was a speech on separatism.
For his part, as always, the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest made a very interesting and good speech. For the
Reform Party, it was an excellent speech. He said he had a
problem with the motion presented this morning by the hon.
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, which reads as
follows: That this House deplore the federal government's delay
in responding to Quebec's demands, with regard to certain
matters.
Does the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest agree with
me that the only reason for the motion is not to complain about
the delay, but to promote separatism and create
misunderstanding between Quebec voters and voters in the rest
of Canada? This is what is intended by the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead and his Bloc colleagues.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for the question. I agree the underlying thought behind the
motion is an opportunity to advance the cause of separatism in
the House.
It must be extremely frustrating for members of the Bloc to
have come to the House resolved to work faithfully to taking
themselves out of the House. The more time they spend here, the
more at home and comfortable they feel. The more time the Bloc
spends here, the more time the members representing the people
of Canada in Quebec spend here, the more it is indicative the
country is very welcoming to everyone.
I have a great deal of empathy toward the members of the
Bloc. Members of the Reform Party came here under much the
same cloud as members of the Bloc. We were expected by
members of the central Canadian media, by the people of central
Canada, to be some sort of monolithic neolists with our knuckles
dragging on the ground.
(1515)
Members of the Bloc and members of the Reform Party were
supposed to be fighting in the lobby. Much to everybody's
surprise they found out that we probably have far more that
unites us than separates us. The members of the Bloc came here
and got involved in what they did out of frustration with the way
the country is run. They felt left out of the affairs of the nation
and the fact that nothing ever changed.
12801
That is precisely the reason I am here today as well. As we
have been here for the last year and a half we have come to
know more about each other. We are going to be able to ask
the big question that is going to come, that is going to be asked
in Quebec.
It is my wish, desire, hope and feeling that no matter how the
question is posed in Quebec, its people will decide to remain
with Canada. Those of us in the House will put it behind us. That
is my desire, my wish and everything I do will be to that end.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am always
surprised to hear the Reform Party or the Liberal Party treat us
as if we were beggars, as if we are asking for some kind of
charity.
We are not begging for anything, far from it. We are only
asking the federal government for what is rightfully ours, our
part of the pie, the part that we sent to Ottawa. Through our
taxes, we send enormous amounts of money to Ottawa. All we
want is our due. Furthermore, we want the federal government to
meet its commitments.
The federal government does not keep its promises. A good
example of that is the health care system. When we introduced
the health care system in Quebec, the federal government
wanted to meddle in, so they said: ``We want to impose our
standards''. In order for Quebec to accept that, they added: ``We
will pay 50 per cent of all the health care costs in Quebec''.
Now the federal government pays only 30 per cent of the costs
and we have to pay the remaining 70 per cent. It must be made
clear that all the standards and structures were implemented on
the grounds that the federal government would pay 50 per cent
of the costs, not 30 per cent as it does now. Can you imagine
what kind of management nightmare this creates for Quebec?
All we ask is that the federal government accept its own
responsibilities. We are not begging, we are not asking for gifts,
far from it. We are just saying to the federal level: ``At least give
us back the money we send to you''. We are only asking for
justice. All we ask is that the federal government carries out its
promises.
This is why we have been saying for many years now: ``Since
you will not fulfil your commitments, we will levy all our own
taxes and we will send you whatever we see fit''. That is their
attitude towards us, and that is why we want sovereignty. We do
not want to be beggars, we want the federal government to keep
its promises and it does not.
That is what I wanted to convey to the Reform Party member.
He seems to know little about history. He is trying to convince
the Canadians that Quebecers are beggars. We are not beggars.
We only want what is rightfully ours, and we want respect.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, if I left the impression with
the hon. member that I thought the people of Quebec and the
Bloc were here as beggars that certainly was not my intention. I
do not think that is the case at all.
Bloc members are hard bargainers. The people of Quebec
have been very skilful in using their balance of power and their
electoral might for many years in extracting far more than their
just rewards from their association with Canada.
The people of Quebec have done very handsomely by their
association with Canada. The member speaks of the 50:50 cost
sharing in health care. Let us talk about Canada assistance. The
province of Quebec gets 70 cents of every dollar spent on
welfare. Ontario gets 50 cents and Alberta and B.C. get 50 cents.
How is it that the province of Quebec is considered a have not
province when it does not factor in its great and magnificent
resource of hydroelectric power? The petrochemical resources
of Alberta are factored in. Last year the province of Quebec
received $3.5 billion in equalization payments. Alberta has
contributed in the last 40 years something in the area of $100
billion toward equalization payments. Quebec has benefited by
about that amount.
(1520)
Therefore, for any member of the Bloc or any other member
from Quebec or anywhere else to stand and say that Quebec has
done poorly by its association with the rest of Canada is just
denying reality.
If Quebec were to decide, in its wisdom, to leave the
federation, it would be hurt dramatically because every nickel
that has been going to Quebec to subsidize and protect Quebec
industry or in direct cash transfers would come to a crashing
halt. The people of Quebec have to understand that. They have to
be looked square in the eye and told that if they decide to leave
this country we are going to leave our cheque book right here at
home locked safely in the drawer.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today
refers to three issues between the government of Canada and the
government of Quebec. Indeed, the Quebec minister responsible
for Canadian intergovernmental affairs raised them earlier this
week with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs in Ottawa.
This motion suggests that the government of Canada is using
delaying tactics in its relationship with the Quebec government.
That is not the case. In fact, what is going on here is totally
appropriate. It is a normal and constructive process of
relationship between two levels of government. And the Quebec
case is no different from any other.
12802
Since he became Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs 18
months ago, my colleague has met with his provincial
counterparts more than 20 times. Eighteen months in
government, more than 20 meetings. He met with his
counterparts in Western Canada, in the territories, in the
Atlantic area, in Ontario and in Quebec.
At these meetings, it is perfectly normal for provincial
ministers to raise issues with the government of Canada that
need to be solved. As usual, the government of Canada examines
them and, with the co-operation of the province concerned,
takes steps to find solutions agreeable to both parties.
Also, the government of Canada sometimes identifies issues
that it considers important. It then consults with the provincial
governments and, together, they agree on measures, once again
to reach fair and equitable agreements.
This process is not peculiar to the Department of
Intergovernmental Affairs. In the Canadian federation, this
approach is successful because all first ministers, ministers and
officials work closely together to achieve concrete and practical
results.
Our pragmatic federalism is based on a series of mechanisms
and intergovernmental meetings that allow our governments to
consult regularly and to solve their problems. These
mechanisms come under various forms: we have first ministers'
conferences, ministers' conferences, interprovincial meetings
as well as a lot of meetings at the level of the deputy ministers.
That is what makes our federation flexible.
(1525)
These various mechanisms and our flexible federation, as
well as the co-operation we were able to get from the provinces
and the territories, led to the following achievements. We were
able to sign agreements with all the provinces under the
infrastructure program; to reach an agreement to reduce
interprovincial barriers to trade and free movement of
individuals so as to reinforce our economic union; to sign action
plans with eight provinces and two territories to reduce
duplication and overlap; and to create Team Canada, led by the
Prime Minister of Canada, to strengthen our position on
promising new markets.
The object of the national infrastructure program was to
promote economic recovery by creating short term and long
term jobs through local investments, while meeting the obvious
need to renew and improve local infrastructures throughout
Canada.
Under this flexible program, municipalities, provinces and
territories can take into account their own priorities. The
completed projects for the most part have met the priorities set
by the local authorities, in accordance with the national and
provincial objectives and criteria and pursuant to the
federal-provincial agreements underlying the program.
The Agreement on Internal Trade provides for concrete
changes, implementation schedules and a complete process that
will help Canada become a real economic union characterized
by freer movement of people, capital, goods and services.
With the agreement on the reduction of duplication and
overlap, we are seeking to rationalize operations in areas
ranging from environment to small business support to tax
collection. The final result will be a streamlined government,
less regulation and bureaucracy and more efficient services
delivered directly and at a lower cost.
As for Team Canada's mission, it is an excellent example of
what modern federalism can accomplish. It showed us that we
can co-operate very effectively as a country to create jobs here
and open up new horizons for all Canadians. Team Canada had
quite an impact in the countries that we visited.
Everybody was impressed by the co-operation between the
private and public sectors and by the way the various levels of
government work together in the national interest.
These results are proof of our commitment to create jobs and
to stimulate economic growth in our country, to build together a
federation capable of facing international competition. That is
what a good government is all about.
But such results are possible only if governments negotiate
openly and in good faith. However, that does not mean that
federalism excludes any dispute. We know that.
In Canada, we must continually find a balance between
regional, provincial, cultural and language interests on one hand
and national interests on the other hand in what we can call a
state of constructive tension. I say it is constructive because it
forces the parties to try and meet local needs while taking
national priorities into account.
The government of Canada does not favour any region or any
sector of our society to the detriment of another. If a region is
hard hit by desertification, by a crisis in the fishing industry, by
difficult economic conditions or whatever, the federation can
come to the rescue thanks to our collective resources.
The name of the game is interdependence, and federalism
makes the necessary compromises between the various groups
and regions.
(1530)
As Alain Gagnon, a political science expert at McGill
University, noted, federalism is considered to be the expression
of democratic practices favourable to innovative policies and
political choices at the territorial level. As Canada faces the
future, it enjoys the clear advantage of being a federation.
12803
We know that both Quebecers and other Canadians fervently
hope that their governments will work to resolve the pressing
problems facing us. The time has come to turn the page and
set aside our political differences so that we can invest all our
energy in a common cause: to build a strong and united country
for the present and future generations.
It is in this spirit that the Canadian government is negotiating
with the Government of Quebec. We would like our opposition
colleagues to understand that the Canadian government cares
about Quebecers' interests as much as the Quebec government
does. With regard to the three items included in the motion
tabled by the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, the Canadian government has
acted in good faith. In every case, the process used was proper
and consistent with normal intergovernmental relations within a
federation such as ours.
I will certainly vote against the motion being debated today,
because it goes against the principles underlying good
federal-provincial relations in Canada. I know that every day
since the 1993 election, every time they ask a question during
Question Period, every time they make a speech in the House or
ask a question during debate, my colleagues always come back
to the issue of separation.
Yet, after listening to Bloc members for 18 months,
Quebecers have not changed their minds. Quite the contrary. If
we do an analysis over a given period, we see that Quebecers
have realized that they are better off staying in the Canadian
federation. Earlier, the hon. member for Longueuil asked his
Reform colleague a question about health care. He spoke about
the various original commitments and what we are now paying.
I am sure that the hon. member did not do it on purpose, but he
failed to mention that how much the federal government
invested in previous agreements, which were always negotiated
with and agreed to by the various provincial governments, is not
the only reference point. The federal government transferred to
the provinces, in exchange for that money, a portion of the tax
points it used to collect. Thus our responsibility has not
changed.
He is forgetting that, when this federation was born in 1867,
the federal authority was responsible for 60 per cent of taxes.
Yet today, it is the opposite. This federal system is constantly
changing to fit the circumstances. Indeed, every country of the
world recognizes that the federal system is one of the most
flexible government systems ever to be devised and
experimented. In fact, Europe has been trying to imitate it since
1950 but is still far from having achieved anything like what we
have. Of course there is room for improvement, but this is no
reason to want to destroy the system and throw it away.
I think that the past can vouch for it: thing always improve and
will continue to improve. I am convinced that, try as they may,
day after day, every chance they get in this House to convince
the people of Quebec that Canada does not work, my hon.
colleagues from the official opposition will fail and the people
of Quebec will remain in Canada because this country belongs to
them and that is a fact. That is one thing that my hon. colleague
and I agree on. Canada belongs to the people of Quebec, the
same way that Quebec belongs to Canada. We built this country
together. It should not be destroyed and we will do our best to
prevent its destruction.
(1535)
We hear people say that things are bad, that the federal
government is not paying its bills and is acting in bad faith. We
are talking about matters between two governments. Even in the
private sector, there are explanations to be given, questions to be
answered, before payment is made, and that is normal.
In fact, as my colleague, the minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs mentioned this morning, in one case, we made partial
payment and then said: ``Look, there is a problem here. We will
refer the matter to the auditor general. He will check into it and
report to us. We will do as he recommends''. We are still
waiting. We hope to receive his report in the near future and we
will abide by his decision.
We have already paid $450 million for education in northern
Quebec. We have nothing more to pay, but because the Quebec
government wants more, we would like to know why it cost so
much. No answer.
This kind of interaction is normal. Instead of making an effort
to discuss and find a way of creating jobs together, we gather
here for an opposition day. And the opposition comes and tells
us how we can go on wrangling and tearing one another apart to
show Quebecers and drive in their heads that this system just is
not working, that we do not pay our bills and so on. As the hon.
member for Longueuil said: ``The only option we have left is to
separate''. Not so, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that, with 128 years of
experience, this system is a model for the whole world.
There are thousands and thousands of people in the world who
would give anything to become Canadian citizens, to come and
live in this country, in spite of this so-called hardship our
colleagues opposite are taking about. This is a valid experience.
Our country is regarded as a model around the world and will
remain a model because the people of Quebec and Canada have
faith in this system that we built together and will maintain.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just heard
a carefully prepared speech, and indeed a very eloquent speech,
from the hon. member, who said that Canada is the envy of the
whole world.
12804
This sort of talk is starting to get on my nerves. Canada's
debt is close to $600 billion, our situation is like that of some
60 developing countries, and we are on the edge of the abyss,
but we keep saying: Yes, it is a great country. Rather, it was
a great country, but this is no longer the case, it is on the point
of collapse. Why? Because the federal government insists on
directing everything from the top, on centralizing all
responsibilities in Ottawa.
We are well aware that duplications cost between $2 billion to
$3 billion. And that is not all, however. Just take, for example,
our government's fascination with spending. It spent so much
money, from the 1970s until 1989, that inflation was the result.
The rate of inflation was jumping by 10 or 12 per cent per year. I
recall that vividly.
What actions did the government take, even if it was
responsible for that inflation? In the 1980s, it had to raise
interest rates up to 21 per cent, which killed the economy and
created a terrible recession. A great number of small and
medium-sized firms in Quebec went bankrupt. That is very sad.
(1540)
Some lost their jobs and experienced a lot of problems. I know
many business people who worked very hard and who still went
bankrupt in 1981-82. Why? Because the federal government
itself generated that inflation. It increased interest rates to such
a level that they killed the economy.
The federal government was the cause of that inflation and it
was also responsible for the recession. All that happened
because of its spending power. The federal government
generated the inflationary spiral because it was intent on
showing that it was indispensable, that it was giving money in
every sector, including economic development and tourism.
The same thing happened between 1984 and 1990. Again, the
government was responsible for the inflation. It also brought on
the recession in 1990. From 1990 to 1994, it increased interest
rates and triggered a recession. Once again, a lot of Quebec
entrepreneurs and small businesses suffered. Some of them
work 15 hours a day to build their businesses. So, the federal
government is the cause of the recession and all these problems.
This is why we want some stability. Stability does not mean
that the federal government must control everything and spend
the way it does to prove it is indispensable.
The problem with our current debt of 500 to 600 billion
dollars is that people are no longer interested in investing in our
country. They no longer want to invest because interest rates
fluctuate by 10 per cent every decade, while the value of the
dollar can be anywhere from 70 to 90 cents. How can an investor
who wants to export in the U.S. be interested in settling here,
when interest rates vary by 10 per cent over a five or six year
period, and when the unemployment rate fluctuates between 10
and 20 per cent?
There are pulp and paper companies which do well and then,
all of a sudden, they go belly up. Why? Because the value of our
dollar fluctuates. And why does it fluctuate? Because the federal
government does not know how to manage. Because it spends
too much in the hope of proving, to Quebecers in particular, that
it is indispensable.
These are the reasons why we have decided to take control of
our destiny. We do not want to fall in the same deep hole as this
federation, which does not understand the need to decentralize,
so as to improve our efficiency and ensure our success. Indeed,
we want to become sovereign because we do not want to fall in
the same deep hole of federation.
The hon. member for Saint-Léonard made very interesting
comments. He had a nice speech prepared in advance by his
friends. In fact, the Prime Minister himself probably told him
what to say. I am convinced that the hon. member does not
believe what he said, because he is an accountant. He
understands my point very well, and I am convinced that he
agrees with what I said.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for Longueuil. His remarks bear out what I was saying.
He said that the federal government is to blame for everything.
Is it the federal government's fault if Canada, in the 1980s, in
spite of all its problems-like high inflation and interest
rates-became a member of the G-7, a member of the seven
most developed countries? Is it the federal government's fault
if, for two consecutive years, the Organization of American
States has said that Canada is the best country in the world to
live in? Is it the federal government's fault if people do not want
to invest money? Does the fault for Canada's political instability
lie only with the federal government? We have been hearing
about separation for 30 years. Is the federal government to
blame for that?
Last year, we had the highest economic growth among
developed countries. Is that a sign of bankruptcy? Is the member
completely cut off from the global environment and completely
oblivious to what is happening in other countries? Does he ever
make comparisons? Statistics and international reports the
world over clearly indicate that we are a very good country. But
we do have a political instability problem, precisely because of
their ideas.
(1545)
As soon as they muster enough courage, instead of making
policy shifts often enough to make heads spin, they should put
the question clearly and squarely as to whether Quebecers feel
like separating. Then, we could truly get rid of the millstone we
have round our neck because of the separatists and, of course,
still improve our situation.
12805
When the hon. member says that Canada is bankrupt, he is
not aware of all the prestigious positions we hold in the
international community at all levels.
I would ask my hon. colleague to take that into consideration.
I know he came here at the same time as I did, almost 11 years
ago. Since he has had the chance to travel to most corners of the
world, if he tried to remember the countries he visited and what
he heard in his parliamentary travels, he would surely agree with
me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is barely two
minutes left for questions and comments.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the last few comments of the hon.
member, I cannot resist asking a question.
When we travel abroad, we are frequently asked why
Quebecers, with all their potential, have not yet decided to
withdraw from the Canadian federation to be more independent
like they are in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. People in those
countries control their own development, they know they pay
taxes to only one government, and they can easily understand
the reasons why they elect representatives.
Let me conclude by saying that, just like members opposite,
we have been elected by Quebecers. When we are told that we
have not accomplished anything, I have to remind the hon.
members that, in a period of two years, the Bloc was elected,
which was an obvious sign that something is wrong with the
Canadian federation, and a sovereignist government was elected
in Quebec. If the federal Parliament cannot grasp that message
sent by Quebecers, it must be because it is beyond reform.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member just said, I
am proud to be a Quebecer, because Quebec is a modern society
with a wealth of resources, and a society that is well recognized
throughout the world.
Since Quebec has been able to develop and come of age inside
the Canadian federation, why should it sever its links with
Canada? If it remains a part of Canada, as I am sure it will,
Quebec will be able to go on with its development and have all
its many talents recognized. If everything is so fine, why bring
to a halt such a valuable experience, which is the envy of the
world and which everybody would like to share in?
Mr. Speaker, even the hon. members opposite give good
reasons why Quebec should remain a part of Canada. If the hon.
member could ask the question, I am sure the answer would be
that Quebec will indeed remain part of Canada.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to what my hon. colleague for Saint-Léonard, in
eastern Montreal, had to say and I am always flabbergasted to
hear him speak as if he built this country and almost as if he were
the father of our vast and beautiful country.
Earlier, we realized that it is almost pointless for us to make
the demands mentioned in the motion before the House. The
partisan determination shown by our colleagues opposite
indicated early on that our efforts would be useless, that their
minds were made up and that, even if we argued all night, it
would not do us any good.
Since I have nothing better to do then, I will try to disprove the
nonsense uttered by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard. I want
to give him a brief lesson in history. It would not hurt the hon.
member for Edmonton Southwest to listen, since his knowledge
of the history of Canada also seems kind of lacking.
Towards the end of the last century, while 2 million
Quebecers, about to starve to death, were forced to leave their
country to go to work in the New England cotton mills, the
Canadian government sent for Eastern Europeans to settle in
western Canada. It gave them land, work animals, horses,
chickens, the right to cut timber to build their houses and a lot of
other things, and 50 per cent of these expenses were paid for by
the people of Canada, half of which then was paid by Quebec.
That is what they called profitable federalism. It remained a
profitable enterprise for a long time, but it had been even more
profitable in 1840, when the Union Act was signed. At that time,
Quebec formed the majority within that famous union.
(1550)
Our ancestors, not very well educated individuals who had
been pretty badly treated less than 100 years before by the
invaders who had come to strip them of everything they had,
used the old sock. They stashed away their savings, they did not
get into debt. The villages were not in debt. Quebec was not in
debt at the time. But Ontario, which was a hive of activity, had to
borrow large amounts of money in order to build infrastructures
for its towns. All the lines were blurred. The two debts were not
kept separate, with the result that the people of Quebec had to
pay over half the debt of Ontario, to the exclusive benefit of the
latter. This is yet another example the so-called profitable
federalism, as the Liberals see it.
I would say to the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that the Gaspé Peninsula,
where I was born, lost most of its inhabitants at that time. The
member must have, like me, one or perhaps many ancestors who
were forced to leave for the United States because they could not
make a living in this so-called great country. So I find it hard to
listen to people who have been here for something like 20 years
say that they helped build this country. I am willing, of course,
to acknowledge their qualities, their contributions, but many of
them profited a lot more from Canada than our ancestors did 250
and 300 years ago.
12806
And it boils down to the fact that we have rights in this
country and that we want them to be respected, that is all.
A lot has gone on here. A member of the Reform Party just
told me that, after 18 months, he has discovered that we are
alike. Frankly, I find that almost insulting. I resent it. Reform
members are in favour of the death penalty, ``Hang them quick
and do not waste too much rope, and then next, please''. That is
the philosophy of the Reform Party. Fill up our prisons with
whoever had the nerve to insult someone else. That is the
right-wing policy of the Reform Party.
I even heard a Reform member say in this House: ``My
children are not educated, I forbid them to get an education. It is
my belief and I adhere to it''. But if Canada needs an
ambassador, that member is frustrated that the government will
not give the job to his son whom he refused to send to school.
That is the Reform philosophy. It seems to be quite popular in
that region because there are quite a few of them in this House. It
is something that I heard here.
Anyway, Quebec is asking the federal government today for a
certain sum of money for the natives in the James Bay area. It is
time for the federal government to show off, as it has always
done. When it came to paying $279 million to give a school
board to a particular ethnic group in western Canada in order to
show the greatness of Canada and of multiculturalism, it did not
cut corners. It came up with the money. And when members of
the same ethnic group in Toronto asked the government to give
them the same thing it had given their friends in Vancouver, it
obliged. It did not matter if the cost was $250 or $300 million,
the government found the money. Quebecers did not complain in
those days. On the contrary, 74 out of this gang of 75 chose to
vote for those expenditures, in order to buy peace I guess.
One thing leading to another, we ended up with a $550 billion
debt. I wonder if Canada will not follow in the footsteps of Dow
Corning, the breast implant manufacturer, and file under our
Bankruptcy Act pretty soon. We are asking to be paid for the
services we have delivered to native people for which the federal
government is legally responsible. We gave them the same
education we gave young Quebecers who lived in the area. I
suppose it was a good education.
(1555)
Now the time has come to pay the bill but the federal
government is shirking its responsibilities. It is a bit like the guy
who goes to eat in a restaurant, pretends he is going to the
washroom after he finishes his meal, exits through the back door
and avoids the bill. That is what the government is doing right
now, or it looks like it.
Why not face up to a situation that exists and that deserves to
be dealt with, not because it concerns Quebec but because it is a
matter of justice. There was an agreement. The Minister of
Interdepartmental Affairs wants to refer this issue to
committees and to government officials, all that for a total
claim of $333 million. Yet, it took the government only 20
minutes to free up $20 million for the Winnipeg arena. Things
did not drag on in this case.
An hon. member: Not for the Jets. For the arena.
Mr. Lebel: For the Winnipeg Power Jets.
An hon. member: The jet set.
Mr. Lebel: Yes. The Power jet set. In this case, they found $20
million just like that. So, it is not so difficult to find $20 million.
But when ask for five, six, even seven years to resolve the
problem in Quebec, to settle Quebec's legitimate claims, they
politely refer us to their civil servants. Even a Jesuit-and God
knows that Jesuits are supposed to know everything-would
lose his way in this complex maze of negotiations.
I listened to the member for Saint-Léonard who praised this
great country where civic rights and freedoms are recognized
and respected. I will merely remind him of the 1970 War
Measures Act, the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the
spying on political parties which was thought to have ceased in
1970, although it was recently discovered that members of the
Reform Party are still being spied on, and the same probably
goes for us as well.
These are the freedoms referred to by the member for
Saint-Léonard. Some also spoke of transparency. I nearly
choked. Transparency! As if the Pearson deal was transparent. A
man named Nixon-we were not the ones who chose
him-studied the famous Pearson deal. His conclusions were
that there was something fishy. He recommended to the Prime
Minister that an inquiry be conducted in this matter.
I remember the Minister of Transport answering my questions
in this Chamber, saying: ``Come on! Let us move forward. We
do know that some individuals tried to take advantage of it''. He
could not deny it, the Nixon report said so, but he was saying:
``Let us move forward, and quickly. Let us settle this whole
matter. It will cost a maximum of $25 million''.
We can see how high the stack of bills is now. It is estimated
that claims of all kinds for breach of contract will total $450
million, and there are more to come. And yet, we demanded, we
asked for a royal commission to get to the bottom of this. But no,
it was urgent to proceed quickly and settle the whole thing,
regardless of the cost. What openness! Examples of this kind of
openness are legion. The heritage minister was not being very
open while lunching in a room next to the one where the fate of
the Canadian film industry was probably being decided.
Once again, he lacked openness. This is another example of
openness. For the first time, a CRTC decision is being reviewed,
at the request of the cabinet; by a strange coincidence, which, I
know, has a hand in a lot of things, it involves close relatives of
the Prime Minister, who stand to gain a lot. This is happening in
12807
this great country which is so dear to the member for
Saint-Léonard as are the underlying principles of federalism he
described.
(1600)
I could perhaps talk about the underlying principles of
federalism. They are nothing to write home about. Such noble
principles.
I remember reading, not too long ago, that when we joined
this country in 1867, about 50 per cent of the population was
French speaking in all four provinces and 50 per cent, English
speaking. At the time, we paid 300,000 pounds sterling to buy
the Northwest Territories, Rupert's Land, which today is
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta up to the Rockies. We
bought that from the Hudson's Bay Company for 300,000
pounds sterling at the time. Do not ask me how much it would be
today, probably as much as the national debt.
It remains that 50 per cent of the people who paid for that were
Quebecers, and they gave it away, for nothing, to those who
developed western Canada. Now they are telling us that we are
crybabies, that we are constantly asking for things we have no
right to. No matter what the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine might think, we paid for
western Canada.
If he wants to make some gifts, he should pay for them with
his own money, not with other people's money.
He said that people would give everything to live in this
country of ours. Yet, after the Minister of Immigration
announced he would be charging $900 to those who apply for
immigrant status, there was an uproar. People do not want to pay
even that much to come here. They think it is starting to be a bit
pricey. When making speeches we sometimes say things which
are far removed from reality. He almost said, at the end of his
speech, that we were pretty lucky to be part of the G-7. For us,
being part of the G-7 is as bad as being part of the Winnipeg Jets.
Ross Perot said, in the United States, that we were beggars on
horse back, that we had no business being in the G-7, given our
structure, our wealth, our economic activity; that the only
reason we were there is because the Americans needed our vote
to support them, to support their proposals. It is for that reason
that they put pressure on to get us in the game. However, we are
part of the G-7. When we compare ourselves to the other
member countries, we always come out seventh. Ross Perot said
that we are there because of their goodwill.
Some people lack the judgment to realize that it was, indeed, a
matter of charity. They see that as an honour. He said, as if he
were the one who created it, that Canada was beautiful. I like to
think that Canada was created by the Creator, not by the Liberal
Party of Canada.
I could say that Liberals made much more nasty things than
good ones. They should not try to take credit for the great
accomplishments of the Creator.
That being said, I think that Quebec's claims are justified, that
Quebec must go ahead with them and that all of us, in this
House, will always insit that what is Caesar's be rendered unto
Caesar. The money coming from Canadian and Quebec
taxpayers ends up in the federal treasury. Thirty seven cents out
of every dollar go to service the debt.
An hon. member: For the interests.
Mr. Lebel: Only the interests on the debt. So, there is not
much coming back under various forms. But that is not a
problem. When there is not enough to pay back, the government
borrows some. That still works. But the next year, there is more
money going towards the payment of interests on the debt, for
instance. And the government travels around the world,
especially in the G-7 bus, and it says: It is going well in Canada,
everything is fine.
(1605)
If it is going so well, why not respect its people? The natives
in the James Bay area have received an education that is neither
better nor worse than the one little Quebecers received in the
same area. The teachers gave the same to both groups, who were
often learning together in the same classroom.
Why would the federal government say today that it is not
sure that they were taught exactly what it wanted them to learn?
Why would the federal government say that it did not make a
decision on the quality of teaching, the condition of buildings
and school transportation and that it should have looked at all
that before paying?
Considering how fast the federal government moves, little
natives would be past university age and would still not have
started school. The government is capable of ordering endless
studies, and the more they cost, the more it orders them. What
would our debt be if the Quebec government had not decided to
act and had not stopped waiting so long for the federal
government?
There was also the aboriginal Oka crisis in 1990. At that time,
nothing was too good. Quebec was sending its provincial police
officers and they were working overtime, seven days a week.
They had to put out the fires. It was becoming urgent, especially
since the federal government was quite involved in the situation
there, because it was its fault if the natives were rising up about a
territorial issue.
For almost 130 years, it had done nothing to understand them
and to meet their needs. Again, when the time has come to pay
the bill, it said that we should have submitted the menu served to
policemen when they worked overtime-that maybe it would
12808
have substituted an orange or a piece of carrot for the apple. The
government is dodging and using delaying tactics, as the
member for Saint-Léonard said, to flee through the back door.
In closing, I must say we have no lesson to learn from these
people. They seem to have made it a point of honour not to
respect their commitments. The few times they did were when
their candidates were defeated and they promised them a safe
riding the next time. These are about the only times when the
Liberal Party really honoured its commitments.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was really shocked to hear
the hon. member for Chambly referring to this member for
Saint-Léonard as someone who arrived in Canada some twenty
years ago, as if I did not have the right to talk about or to defend
Canadian values.
I know the hon. member and I am amazed that he not only said
that but he even believed that. Though I was not born in Quebec,
I nevertheless see myself as a real Quebecer and a real Canadian.
I hope he will take time to think about what he said and that he
will withdraw his words and change his thinking. I hope he just
got carried away because what he just said is serious: it means
there are two classes of citizens in Quebec, those who were born
in Quebec and the others who were not.
If this is what the hon. member thinks, I hope he will have the
courage to admit it. If that is not what he meant, he should
clarify his thought and withdraw what he said. Such allegations
are serious and it is not the first time it happens in that party. I
hope, no, I am sure that Quebecers have always been generous
people, they have always welcomed people from other countries
and have treated them as their equals.
As I said earlier, I know the hon. member very well and I hope
he just got carried away and that was not his real thinking.
(1610)
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I also know the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard.
I remember that, not too long ago, during an opposition day
like this one in this House, when we were talking about the
proposed referendum in Quebec, the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria told me: ``So, as a francophone living
outside Quebec, I do not have the right to participate in this
debate''. I told her that no, she did not, but that the hon. member
for Saint-Léonard did, because he is a Quebecer.
If he is as honest as he claims, he will admit that I made that
statement here in this House; you can even look it up in
Hansard. No, that is not my intention. What I mean is that some
members have the nerve to lecture us here today, telling us that
they were the ones who built this country-at least that is how I
understood it-because we Quebecers are just a bunch of
``bums''. That is what the hon. member from the Reform Party
told us through his thinly veiled remarks. He suggested that we
wanted money, that we wanted things, that we came here to get
funds. That is what I meant. I meant that we francophones have
been in Quebec for 450 years, that we also contributed to this
country, that our contribution was at least as important as that of
more recent immigrants to Canada. That is what I meant, as the
hon. member for Saint-Léonard knows full well.
Indeed, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. That
is so true. Particularly in debates such as this one, it is common
for some people to twist what others have said. I am saying that
Quebecers who have been here in North America for more than
400 to 450 years on average also have the right to speak up, to
decide whether or not they were wronged in the past and whether
or not they paid more than their fair share, and to demand that it
not happen again. That is what the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard should have understood, and I know that, despite
his Mediterranean accent, he understands very well the French
spoken here. That is to his credit, and I commend him.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start
following the remarks made by the hon. member opposite.
It is really a shame that, once again, qualifications are made
as to who is a Canadian and who is not, who can live in Quebec
and who cannot.
It takes some gall to say that we are concerned only with those
who settled here some 350, 400 years ago. I find it despicable
that the hon. member of the opposition could claim that
newcomers to Canada, and Quebec in particular, did not do well
or contribute to the economic development of my province.
We must recognize one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that
ours is a country built on immigration. And the first to settle this
land were, to use the terms of the opposition motion, the
aboriginals. They are the real, original settlers. Next in line are
the French Canadians, Canadians of French descent, the
Bretons, the Scots, the Irish, the British and the Loyalists. Then
people from other countries came to Canada and Quebec, and
put their talents to good use in our country.
In fact, if the hon. member of the opposition cared to check in
his own ranks, he would realize that there are members who are
not old stock Quebecers in his own party. There are newcomers,
new Quebecers, not only within the Bloc Quebecois but also
within the Quebec government. Are they not real Quebecers? I
would like him to tell me.
12809
All we are asking the hon. member of the opposition to do
is to apologize formally in this House and withdraw his
remarks. I think that the honourable man he is will recognize
that the hon. member for Saint-Leonard and other newcomers,
so to speak, people who left their country of origin to settle in
Canada, have made an outstanding contribution to this country.
(1615)
I personally have a great deal of respect for every newcomer
who was admitted to Canada, who has elected to make Canada
his or her home, to contribute to its development. One even had
the qualifications and the courage to go before his peers and get
elected, becoming a full-fledged member of the House of
Commons. This gentleman was even appointed to cabinet. That
is why I am proud to be a Canadian: I can see that, among us,
there are people from various ethnic backgrounds, who are the
pride and glory of this country.
So, I ask that the hon. member of the opposition withdraw his
remarks on newcomers to Canada, nothing less.
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine were dancing the
cha-cha-cha in swinging doors. First, I never said that. I never
allowed myself to decide who is a Canadian and who is not-and
I never will. I will only say that I am not one.
I never said who was a Quebecer and who was not. René
Lévesque-a man whom I really appreciated and who came
from a Gaspe community close to that of the hon. member who
just spoke-once said something with which I fully agree,
namely that Quebecers were those who lived in Quebec,
regardless of their origin. Quebecers are those who want to live
in Quebec. As for myself, it was never my intention to insinuate,
either directly or indirectly, anything to the contrary.
If the hon. member wants to do politics on that issue for 10 or
15 minutes, fine. I do not have to apologize to anyone because I
did not insult anyone. However, I did want to point out to the
hon. member for Saint-Léonard that he has my admiration and
my respect. He knows that I was not referring to him and I think
he understood it full well. Again, I want to convey to him my
admiration, and that also goes for his family. That being said, I
do not make apologies. The hon. member for Saint-Léonard has
all my respect.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you
will understand that, before coming to the heart of the matter, I
would like to join the hon. member for Saint-Léonard and the
hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in
denouncing the remarks made by the member from the official
opposition, as well as explaining my feeling of dismay-to put it
mildly. These remarks are totally inconsistent with the values
we have developed in this country, the values we share and the
values we have in Quebec. The transcript will bear witness to
this.
I must say that, in addition to his personal attack on my
colleague, the opposition member took on aboriginal people as
well, saying that they were studying only because education was
free. There was something fundamentally contemptuous in
these remarks. They reflect the official opposition's deeply held
feelings of contempt, a state of mind disrespectful of people and
even more of the values they share.
In that sense, you will understand that I join my two
colleagues in asking, as a Quebecer, that the official opposition
member withdraw his words that I find unfortunate, to say the
least. That being said, I will now address the issue raised in the
official opposition motion.
(1620)
Anybody who cares to examine the wording of this motion, let
alone its substance, will realize that, once again, the people
opposite are basically trying to sell us a bill of goods. They are
trying to pull the wool over Quebecers' eyes. That same attitude
permeates all their policies. That can be said of the Bloc
Quebecois, but also, and even more so, of its head office.
Speaking of not being able to rise above petty politics, we can
find superb examples not across the way, but with the Quebec
government itself, a government whose concern ought to be to
look after the interests of the people. This is a serious matter.
What is at stake is the interests of citizens who put their
confidence in a government, thinking that it would try to build a
better society.
Among the most telling examples of the partisan attitude they
cannot shed, I should mention the finance minister's budget. It
is a real gem. When you resort to such an important instrument,
something so essential in any society, to engage in crass
political propaganda, something is really wrong.
Speaking to reporters, Mr. Campeau casually dropped these
remarks: ``If you vote on the right side at the referendum, we
may well live in an ideal world, and there will not be any tax
increase. It will be some kind of Garden of Eden''. Such
statements are a serious matter, coming as they do from the
Minister of Finance of Quebec. Instead of indulging in petty
politics, talking about the referendum, and trying to take Quebec
out of Canada, he should be working hand in hand with the
federal Minister of Finance in a responsible way to build a better
society, a society our children will be proud of, if only we can
tackle the real problems we were elected to settle.
Let us take the issues mentioned in this motion. They are
serious issues. When I say that these issues are serious ones, I
hear members of the official opposition commenting, a big
smile on their face, because they do not really care about these
fundamental and contentious issues. When we talk about the
demands made by a province, it is important. It is also important
for us, the federal government, to seriously consider the de-
12810
mands, to treat them fairly and, as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said, to act responsibly.
I must say that I have a lot of trouble understanding all the
animosity and fury with which the official opposition is tackling
these serious issues, because on this side of the House, as the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs pointed out earlier, we
are doing everything we can to ensure that the decisions are
made as soon as possible and in all fairness to Quebec and all of
Canada.
Since I do not seem to understand, would the official
opposition tell me if they would like us to pay without looking at
the bills, without checking if it is our duty as federal government
to pay for these expenditures? I sincerely doubt, Mr. Speaker,
that that is what the people in all the provinces expect from the
federal government. What we expect is a federal government
which does not waste the taxpayers' money and has a good hold
on the purse strings, and that is exactly what we are doing.
(1625)
In fact, not very well hidden behind this motion is a
pre-referendum political strategy. The official opposition wants
to create a smoke screen. It wants the people in Quebec to rise to
the bait. I think these members are basically scornful, and I am
weighing my words.
The three serious issues mentioned in the motion are being
used for partisan purposes, for referendum purposes. I must say
that I do not agree with that and I do not understand anything any
more. They are trying to lay down a smoke screen, but this is of
course premature. It is premature because, as we all know, the
government has not made a decision yet. On the contrary, it is
putting in place a procedure by which it will judge each claim on
its merits. Also, instead of waiting for the process to end, the
Bloc is trying to turn these fundamental claims of the people of
Quebec into a purely political question.
This proves that the Bloc does do not have the interests of
Quebecers at heart, but that it is only interested in its own
agenda, which is, at the risk of repeating myself, essentially the
separation of Quebec.
I believe that Bloc members should sincerely listen to
Quebecers. As I often say in this House, we were elected
democratically. We were elected for the promises we made to
Canadians. It goes without saying that the members across the
way are not fulfilling their promises. The government of Quebec
is not listening to the people. We were elected because we
promised that we would rebuild people's trust in government,
that we would have an honest government. We were elected
because we said we would deliver, because we said we would
tackle the real problems. They elected us because we promised
them we would be a basically responsible government. We were
elected because people trusted us not to throw their money out
the window. And I must say that the people of Quebec want
exactly the same thing.
I must also say that, by laying down a smoke screen, the
Official Opposition will not succeed in making us react in an
untimely or hasty way. On the contrary. In the best interests of
the people, the best interests of Quebecers, we will follow a fair
process to make sure that the hard earned money of the
taxpayers of Quebec and Canada is well managed. We will
certainly not fall into the trap set by the official opposition.
Speaking about good government and what the people expect
from their provincial and federal governments, I would be
remiss if I did not say a few words about intergovernmental
co-operation. People elected us to solve the debt and deficit
problem, create jobs, restore economic growth, help Canada
carve out a place in the new global economy, and develop a
labour force of which our country could be proud, which would
attract new companies and make Canada competitive not just
nationally but internationally as well. Co-operation is the key to
all of this.
(1630)
How can this co-operation exist when you have on the other
side of the House and in Quebec-and it is unfortunate-a
government which does not want the system to work? We do not
have to go very far to find some rather striking illustrations.
Let us take, for example, the last visit of the minister from
Quebec who came to Ottawa to meet with the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. Quebecers have to wonder if the
minister came to Ottawa to solve problems or to create
problems.
When we see the attitude of the members opposite and the
attitude of the Quebec government and the minister who just met
with our friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I
think that the answer cannot be any clearer. But the answer is
also unfortunate because the actions of the Quebec government
are far from being constructive. It is obvious that these actions
are very prejudicial not only to Quebec and Canada today, but
also to the future generations.
I have visited Quebec extensively these past few months, I
have talked to Quebecers and I can tell you that they are sick and
tired of these endless debates. They are really sick and tired of
seeing a government in Quebec that is taking steps but in the
wrong direction. People want increased co-operation, they want
a constructive partnership, they want fiscal consolidation.
These are all reasons for us to all sit down together and try to
solve these problems as soon as possible so we can start building
our economy and create jobs.
When I talk about misleading the people of Quebec, let us
think about what happened eight months ago, when Quebecers
placed their trust in a provincial political party which, you will
remember, spoke of the other way to govern. It reminds me of a
federal political party that spoke of the real power. According to
the people I met, when they chose the other way to govern, they
12811
wanted a responsible government, a government which creates
jobs, a government which is interested in what they have to say.
Well, let us see what this other way to govern in Quebec
turned out to be. It is simply a government that governs with its
eyes closed and its ears plugged and with only one thing in mind:
to achieve its own agenda. And everybody knows that the
agenda is the separation of Quebec. It is just unbelievable. This
reflects a lack of the most elementary respect for the public and
is a denial of the mandate they received from the electorate.
(1635)
They are trying to give the impression in Quebec that there is
something terribly wrong with the present federal system and
that some problems cannot be overcome within that system. Of
course, if you listen to them, you cannot get anything done
within the present system. I say that, if you are prepared to work
within the system, in good faith, there is much that can be done.
If governments could get together for two seconds, there are
some extraordinary things we could do in Canada today to help
this country enter the new era of free trade and maintain its
position internationally. There are some eloquent examples of
this. When we talk about the real problems, those people on the
other side of the House start shouting because they do not want
to hear the truth. They do not want us to tell the people of
Quebec that they are not acting in the interests of Quebecers.
That is why you hear them shout like that when we, Liberals
from Quebec who were elected as well, take the floor. Of course
they do not see us as Quebecers because we do not share their
philosophy, but we were elected in Quebec, and I am a proud
Quebecer, and I believe that if we do a good job we can build a
better and in fact exceptional Quebec and Canada.
There are some outstanding examples like the immigration
agreement, the agreement on interprovincial trade and the
agreements concerning la Francophonie. Finally, there is a lot
more we could do, but wasting our time on motions like the one
before the House today is not going to help us work in the best
interests of Quebecers and Canada.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first off, I
would like to call the hon. member for Outremont to order,
because he accused the hon. member for Chambly of saying
something that he did not say. I would also like to call the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to order for
doing the same thing.
I think we have a good example of how members opposite
play politics when they put words in the mouths of my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues. I simply wanted to say this for the record.
What they said about my colleague for Chambly is entirely
untrue.
He also accused the Government of Quebec of shirking its
responsibilities. I would call that sticking his nose into other
people's business. We all know that the federal Liberal members
from Quebec are not in the least bit, not even the tiniest bit,
interested in the Government of Quebec. They are much more
interested in making sure that Ottawa will control, manage and
centralize everything. Because that is their outlook, they could
care less about what is going on in Quebec right now. They have
never had great faith in provincial governments, at any rate. For
them, the only government, the only power in Canada, is the
Canadian government.
Forcibly, they can only consider the provinces as managers of
sorts. They confirmed this in the Charlottetown accord when
they gave all of the power to Ottawa and the right to administer
to the provinces. That is why this accord was flatly rejected.
They claimed that they were decentralizing and giving the
provinces the opportunity to manage or administer things. That
is not what Quebec wants. Quebec wants powers, not just the
opportunity to administer. And that is not just my message, not
just the Bloc Quebecois' message, it is the message of the
Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of
Quebec, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission.
(1640)
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission sure was a big
production, one of the biggest since Confederation. Altogether,
they received 600 briefs, heard 205 witnesses while 55 experts
were studying the issue. They concluded that for Quebec's
well-being, it had to be given at least 20 real powers, for
example, education, tourism, economic development.
And the federal government, with the support of the Liberals,
hatched a proposal which purportedly met all of Quebec's
aspirations. What hypocrisy!
Charlottetown gave Ottawa even more powers, and Quebec,
even more administration. They treated Quebec as if it were a
province like any other, with no particular status and nothing
distinct about it at all. Now, they butt in and would have us
believe that the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Campeau, the
eminent Quebecer who co-chaired the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission, is botching his job. That complaint probably came
from one disgruntled voter in Outremont.
And they are absolutely right when they say that we are
playing politics when we say that Quebecers will pay more taxes
if they do not vote for sovereignty. The federal Minister of
Finance decided to wait before adding to the Quebec tax burden.
He will hit Quebec next year only. Yes, we are in for it, and we
will end up sending our tax money to Ottawa, and the federal
government will skim a good billion from it before shipping it
back to Quebec. And it is very clear that, once again, the
Government of Quebec will be caught in the squeeze to some
12812
extent, because the federal government fails to live up to its
responsibility to give us back the money we send to Ottawa
through our taxes. It gives us back less than we gave. It promised
to keep paying. It made such promises. However, it does not
keep them.
So in all likelihood the Minister of Finance of Quebec will
have to raise taxes, because the federal government does not
assume its responsibilities, pure and simple.
There was talk of jobs earlier. When it comes to jobs, we know
that the job problem in Quebec is the federal government's
problem. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the federal
government talks of political uncertainty, but political
uncertainty does not take away jobs, economic uncertainty does.
Top American experts, economists, American business people
say so: they could not care less about politics when they are
looking to invest in Canada. They say: ``The reason we do not
invest in Canada is because of its economic instability''. This
economic instability is the federal government's doing, as
everyone knows. The Bélanger-Campeau commission report
said so, and it was approved.
So this fine speech by the member for Outremont seems
completely out of date to me. He did not understand. He really
has not grasped what is happening in Quebec. I do not know
where he comes from, but he is not from the same place as the
rest of us real Quebecers.
No, what I mean, really, is that the real Quebecers are those
who understand Quebecers. That is what I wanted to say.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to try too hard to
rise above our colleagues today. I have just been told that I am
not a real Quebecer. Come on. Let us have a little bit of respect
for who we are, for the society we represent and the values we
have in common.
They have just proved that I was right when I said that they do
not consider me a true Quebecers because I do not think as they
do. They just said it, it is as simple as that.
To get back to the member's comments, I will be kind and say
that remarks verging on demagogy, such as what we just heard,
do not deserve a response.
(1645)
However, on the subject of commissions-the
Bélanger-Campeau commission was mentioned-I will say that
the PQ regional commissions throughout Quebec were a clear
example of democracy being stifled. The commissions were
created with the idea that they were to draw the conclusion the
PQ wanted to see, namely that Quebec must separate, but in the
end it realized that this was not what people talked about. People
reminded the commissions that what they wanted the
government to do was to rethink the role of government, deal
with the economy and create jobs. But, despite this reality in
Quebec and throughout Canada, the PQ regional commissions
offered in their conclusion solutions and recommendations
which have nothing to do with the testimony they heard.
When it comes to commissions, I believe that the PQ national
commission is a telling example of a government which refuses
to listen to the people, which wants to manage, to rule, and to
govern with only one idea in mind. And we all know what that is.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to my colleague, the
member for Outremont. I know you will not allow me to say that
75 per cent of his comments were absolute lies, because I cannot
say that, but I will say that 25 per cent of what he said is
somehow related to truth and reality.
I would like to reply on one point in particular. He spent a
good part of his presentation discrediting the Parti Quebecois
government. He said that if all these issues before us, the issues
mentioned in the motion, are not solved, it is because there is a
separatist government in Quebec. The member for Outremont
devoted a good portion of his speech to that point.
The Parti Quebecois government has been in place for six
months. In Ottawa, the Liberal government has been in office
for a year and a half now. Why did they not settle these issues
when they were dealing with obedient federalists, ready to
accept any kind of compromise to come to an agreement with the
federal government? They had one full year to settle issues that
have been dragging on for ten years. They did nothing. It is easy
to see that the member for Outremont is taking us for a ride.
Does he really think Quebecers are all that gullible? He is trying
to delude us. He has lost all credibility in my view. He should
have chosen to face reality, talk specifically to the motion and
demand that his government find solutions to problems that
have been dragging on for ten years, as I said before.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, earlier, during my short speech, I
explained quite thoroughly how the federal government deals
with the claims. The public understands very well that we are
acting as a responsible government. So I am sure you see why I
will not reply to comments that seem to come from someone
who was not even here during my speech.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I always wondered what Pontius Pilate looked like
in the praetorium. I think we saw that this afternoon. I will say
no more.
We heard the hon. member making groundless accusations
against us when he ought to have been defending Quebec. We are
politicians in the House and our actions are political. We do not
have to be ashamed of it, since we are paid for that. The hon.
member boasts about the integrity of his government. It is not
because one says that one is honest that one is, but because one
acts honestly.
12813
(1650)
It is true that the population elected Liberals. Very often, it is
because people did not have a real choice. When people had one,
in Quebec, they elected the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gagnon: Not everywhere.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): No, but they did
have a choice. Sometimes, they had no choice, so they elected
Liberals.
What is important is the fact that this government has done
absolutely nothing since it took office. That is why it is so
popular. When one does nothing, one is not open to criticism.
This government has simply introduced in the House the
legislation the Conservative government left behind. Once the
Liberals introduced these Conservative bills, they had nothing
else to propose.
One thing should be important for them. They have a new
member who comes from Quebec and, as my colleague for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead reminded us, the federalists
had one full year to resolve the problem with the federalists in
Quebec. Now, the population was misled by the hon. member for
Outremont who barely mentioned what the whole issue was
about. I would like to give the facts about the issue before us.
First, the motion. What does the motion tabled this morning
by my colleague say? It says: ``That this House deplore the
federal government's delay in responding to Quebec's demands
with regard to the education of young Aboriginals in Northern
Quebec amounting to $199 million, to the compensation of $135
million under the 1991-92 stabilization program and to the $79
million claim for expenses incurred during the events at Oka in
the summer of 1990''.
That is to say the federal government owes Quebec $333
million.
An hon. member: That is not peanuts.
Mrs. Tremblay: That shows that this government which
claims to be a good manager of public money is very bad at
paying its bills. This government brags about reducing the
deficit, but to do so, it shifts its problems to the provinces.
We had already noticed it in the last federal budget, when the
federal government announced a cut in health and education
transfer payments. Now the government has decided it will not
pay the $333 million it owes Quebec. Yet, other provinces
received a positive reply and even got back what was owed to
them. Quebec has to wait once again, and the federal
government even suggested that it should not expect much.
When Quebecers ask themselves who defends their interests
in Ottawa, the answer is certainly not: the government of Jean
Chrétien.
Since we cannot count on government members from Quebec
to defend the interests of Quebecers, I will explain in simple
words the grievances of Quebec regarding the payment of $333
million, which is owed to us, but which the federal government
refuses to pay.
As the motion already mentions, there are three amounts of
money at stake. I will explain the $79 million, incurred during
the native crisis of the summer of 1990, which should have been
paid back to Quebec under the financial support agreements in
case of disaster.
(1655)
Nobody can deny the fact that the summer of 1990 was a
disaster in Quebec, in terms of what happened in Oka and, above
all, of the federal government sending in the army to deal with a
catastrophic situation. That is why these $79 million were spent
by the Quebec Ministry of Public Security and by the Sûreté du
Québec to maintain public order and protect the residents of the
affected area.
The cause of the conflict was simply that a native group
claimed to own the lands surrounding its territory. Natives are
under federal jurisdiction. That is why the Canadian Army
intervened in the Oka crisis.
Bill McKnight, then Minister of National Defence, told
minister Claude Ryan, in a letter dated January 24, 1991, that is
six months after the conflict ended: ``The federal government
has special responsibilities regarding the Indians''. In that
letter, he also made a firm commitment to the Quebec
government: ``In addition to the expenditures already approved,
we will provide financial help to the province, in accordance
with the guidelines on the implementation of disaster relief
agreements''.
This letter from the Minister of National Defence to the
Quebec Minister of Public Security is as clear as it can be. The
government admitted to having a disaster relief program and,
therefore, it was obligated to reimburse Quebec's expenditures.
In 1992, the government wanted to show what a good player it
was, so it admitted owing Quebec $84 million and that it would
give $5 million to the province, an action by which we think the
federal government indeed recognized its responsibility in this
issue. It still owes us $79 million. Why did the federal
government change its mind afterwards? Why is it now refusing
to recognize its responsibilities?
12814
The government used faulty reasoning to avoid paying. Let
us look at three of its reasons. First, it claimed it was making
a distinction between public order, that was supposedly in
jeopardy, and public well-being, that was not. These are the
sorts of nuances that the government is capable of invoking.
Beyond the fact that this distinction does not appear anywhere
in the disaster financial assistance arrangements, it is obvious
that public well-being was threatened by this crisis that
affected all Quebecers.
Second, there was political interference in this issue. Indeed,
it seems that the decision not to reimburse the expenses incurred
by the Sûreté du Québec was taken in 1992 by the Treasury
Board of Canada, despite an opinion given by its own experts
and the Office of the Auditor General, who had recognized that
at least a part of these expenses qualified.
So, how can it be claimed, as the minister did the other day,
that someone refused to open the books? If the Office of the
Auditor General has already recognized that at least a part of
these expenses ought to be reimbursed, someone must have
looked at the books at some point.
Third, the federal government gave as its criterion for
refusing the amounts of money involved. The hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine used this argument this
morning. Yet, the objective of the program is to help provinces
or territories to face a disaster the costs of which would be an
excessive burden on them. To accept the federal government's
claims is to not only go against the spirit of the financial
assistance program, but also to create a dangerous precedent.
(1700)
If we follow this reasoning, the federal government could
decide to stop paying old age pensions or UI benefits to
Quebecers, simply because it would cost too much this year. In
return, people would not pay their federal income tax, because
they would feel it is too high. One can see how such fallacious
arguments could lead us to disaster.
Let us be reasonable for a moment. There are laws and
regulations providing for the payment of certain sums to Quebec
under specific terms and conditions. Quebec citizens pay taxes
to Ottawa and they have the right to recover part of them.
Whether or not the Liberal government likes the legitimate
government of Quebec or the official opposition should not be a
factor. Our $79 million claim is only a matter of equity and
fairness.
I will now move on to the $119 million the federal
government owes Quebec for the education of young aboriginal
people. It owes us this money under the James Bay agreement.
In this case, the federal government seems more open, as it does
not deny having responsibilities in this area. However, it refuses
to pay, because these amounts were spent without a prior
agreement between the federal government and the province.
Of course, the federal government does not appear eager to
come to an agreement. It would then have had to pay its share. In
this whole matter, the Quebec government acted in a perfectly
responsible fashion. It acted like a reasonable man, as the saying
goes. Instead of abandoning the aboriginal people to their fate,
with no resources, to suffer from this wrangling between two
levels of government, instead of closing schools for one, two or
three years while this government negotiates an agreement, the
Government of Quebec took its responsibilities, kept the
schools open and kept young aboriginals in school, fulfilling its
part of the bargain as well as that of the federal government.
And it is still waiting. The Quebec government has been
waiting since 1986 for the federal government to pay back what
it owes the province for paying both the federal and provincial
share of expenditures. Now, if Quebec had decided to close
schools, the federal government would have dragged the Quebec
government all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and
the aboriginals would have gone to the United Nations to
complain about it. We took our responsibilities, Now, there are
bills to settle.
I am baffled though. We have had consecutive governments,
under Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Johnson for instance, that were
federalist. Yet, and that is what amazes me, you were unable to
come to an agreement among federalists and, as a result, the
sovereignists now have to get up in this House to protect
Quebec's interests.
Finally, there is this huge amount, $135 million, owed to
Quebec by the federal government under the 1991-92 fiscal
stabilization program. Liberal federalists in Quebec had already
put in a claim for this amount when they were in power. The
Minister of Labour could certainly brief the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on this issue.
As for the Minister of Finance, he flatly refuses to make any
payment. Once again, the government is applying a double
standard, since provinces much better off than Quebec-namely
Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia-already received
payments under the same program. In this case, as in the other
two, the amounts to be paid should be based on objective
criteria. Yet, the federal Minister of Finance refuses to go to
arbitration and settle the issue without seeking to score political
points. Instead, the minister suggested that the Quebec
government take its case to the Federal Court, and eventually the
Supreme Court. So much for the brilliant ideas of this
government. The government owes us money, but tells us: Take
the taxpayers' money. We will do the same. We will continue to
pay lawyers and go to court, even though we are perfectly aware
that, under the existing regulations and agreements, we owe you
that money. Is this the finance minister's idea of flexible
federalism and friendly
12815
administrative arrangements? We can only conclude that, with
friends like him, Quebec does not need enemies.
(1705)
I am beginning to understand what government and federalist
members mean by ``flexible federalism''. The expression refers
to a vision of Canada whereby Quebec must always yield to
Ottawa and English Canada. Let me simply tell you that the Bloc
will never ask Quebecers to yield. Quebecers are proud. They
want to take control of their destiny, and they will soon set up
their own country, in the upcoming referendum, with or without
those $333 million.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon.
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata while she kept hacking at
federalism and the Canadian government. I would like to hear
her criticize in the same way the threats made by the government
of Quebec and its Minister of Education, Mr. Garon, to the
university located in Rimouski, in her own riding.
Some people dare to accuse the Liberal members and to
accuse me, the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, an elected representative
from grassroots Quebec, of not standing up for Quebec and my
own area, and I find that totally unacceptable.
In my riding and in the vast majority of rural ridings in
Quebec, people are mostly concerned about the economy. They
are concerned about jobs. We are thinking about our future, but
we know very well that the federal government, the Canadian
government, is a worthy partner for us. I think the federal
government has shown in the last few weeks or the last few
months, in fact in the 18 months since it has been in office, that
we want to get Canadians and Quebecers back to work. We set up
an infrastructure program. In fact, the current government of
Quebec is glad to use it. It is glad to show that it can get some of
the workers in smaller localities in grassroots Quebec back to
work.
By the way, on the native issue, I have not heard the hon.
member say a word about their living conditions in Quebec and
elsewhere in Canada. They did not tell us about how dismayed
the whole world was when these unfortunate events happened in
Quebec and what it did to the reputation of Quebec and Canada.
True, I was not in Canada at the time, I was in Japan and, for a
while, in France. But, believe me, all my friends, my associates
and my acquaintances kept telling me about this problem with
natives in Canada. And it saddened me to know that the
government could not find a peaceful solution to the problem.
But the Quebec government did call on the federal government
for help. The premier of Quebec has the right to call on the
Canadian army in a very difficult situation.
That is what happened. It is Quebec that asked for the army's
involvement, not the Canadian government. The federal
government spent $133 million to send in the army and the
RCMP.
(1710)
The Canadian government spends millions of dollars every
year to maintain the peace elsewhere in the world and to ensure
that other countries will follow Canada's example. But I do not
want to digress. About the natives, it is the federal government
which takes on the responsibility of creating a healthy economy
at the local level for these people. We build houses and even
cabins for them. We do everything to help them.
All we are asking of the government of Quebec is that it stop
playing politics to the detriment of the most disadvantaged
people. Everybody here knows that natives are not the most
spoiled people in our country. Nevertheless, we hear the
opposition and even some government members say that natives
are treated differently. The claim that they are better treated than
most Canadians is false. Suicide, alcoholism and all the social
ills imaginable are more prevalent in aboriginal communities.
I grew up one kilometre away from an Indian reserve. And
believe me when I say that I saw with my very eyes how these
poor people were treated. People were reluctant to give them
jobs, to let them play on their hockey teams or to welcome them
in our French Catholic schools. Unfortunately, I think we all
should examine our consciences.
Today's debate was an example of negotiations to come
between a sovereign Quebec and Canada. We got stuck on tiny
details: who owed who $333 million, $79 million, $125 million
and for what, and how Quebec has been taken for a ride for the
past 125 years. How will we ever manage to negotiate? Now I
ask the people watching us on television, do you think that we
will ever be able to orchestrate a separation if, today, all they
could do was condemn the federal government for
wrong-doing? And they want to divvy up the debt, and share our
currency and passport? They just want to coast on Canada's
prestige.
The opposition should be told to go back to the drawing board.
This new approach they are proposing to Quebecers is utterly
unacceptable. They should just ask the question once and for all:
``Do you want to stay in Canada, yes or no?''
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, what is surprising about these
Liberal members of Parliament opposite is that they try to
distract people's attention and talk about any old thing. I spoke
of three specific matters: the federal government's debt to
Quebec of $333 million. We are not talking about peanuts, this is
a lot of money for a people that needs every penny to grow and
develop.
12816
The Liberals call $333 million peanuts because they are used
to wallowing in money with the Bronfmans and Power
Corporation and because there are ministers in cabinet who are
millionaires and who sail their boats under the Panamanian flag
to avoid paying taxes in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. The hon.
parliamentary secretary has risen on a point of order.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I described
$333 million as peanuts, what about the $2.5 billion we send to
Quebec every year?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. With all due
respect to my colleagues on both sides of the House, this was not
a point of order, it was a matter of debate.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the government of Mr.
Lévesque was the first to sign an agreement with the native
peoples. It was this government that went the farthest and that
accorded the most to the native peoples in 1985.
In 1990, the October crisis unfortunately cast a shadow over
relations between native peoples and the people of Quebec,
perceptions changed.
(1715)
This crisis arose, once again, because of the indecision of the
government of the day, a Liberal and a federalist government,
led once again by Mr. Bourassa. Both times the army moved into
Quebec, Liberal federalists were in power.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.15 p.m., it is my
duty pursuant to Standing Order 81 to interrupt proceedings and
to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division on the question now before the
House stands deferred until Monday, May 29, at the usual time
of adjournment, at which time the bells to call in the members
will sound for not more than 15 minutes.
The chief government whip has the floor on a point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would request unanimous
consent to further defer division until 5.30 p.m. Tuesday, May
30.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): To be sure the House
understands, the government whip has requested a further
deferral of the vote to Tuesday, May 30 at 5.30 p.m. Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would find
unanimous consent to commence private members' hour
immediately, in other words consider it 5.30 p.m. and to do the
same at the end of private members' hour, in other words finish
10 minutes ahead of time at the end.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed to private members' hour?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.20 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12816
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
following initiatives for addressing the underground economy:
(a) an enhanced information campaign to educate the public and to encourage their
participation in addressing the problem;
(b) a limited amnesty on interest and penalties otherwise payable when a taxpayer
voluntarily declares income previously undeclared;
(c) a tax credit to taxpayers on home improvements and renovations to provide an
inducement to create the essential paper trail and to serve as one of the primary
vehicles for the information campaign.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the underground economy materially
and adversely affects the lives of all Canadians and literally
costs us billions of dollars of revenue each year as a result. That
is why I submitted Motion No. 382 to the House for
consideration.
While the existence of the underground economy in Canada is
an undisputed fact, estimates as to its size vary widely depend-
12817
ing on the methodology employed to measure it. Estimates
range from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of GDP to over 20 per cent
of GDP; in dollar figures $20 billion up to $140 billion.
Even at the lower end of the range the revenue potential I
believe warrants further initiatives to realize the potential and to
contribute to the restoration of Canada's financial health.
There are good reasons why we should act now. As the finance
minister has said, everything is on the table. It is imperative that
moving forcefully on the underground economy be part of the
overall strategy to meet our financial targets. Now that the
economy is growing we must encourage as many people as
possible to integrate back into the legitimate economy of the
country.
The government currently has better tools to address the
problem of tax evasion, but tax evaders are also becoming more
sophisticated. Given this reality, it would be prudent to take
advantage of new provincial information sharing and other
initiatives before this new advantage is neutralized.
There are some general assumptions about the underground
economy I would like to note. There is the premise that once you
are underground it is very difficult to come out even if you
wanted to. That is primarily because people who are working
underground generally have offered arrangements and deals to
their customers and clients substantially below the otherwise
market price. That means customers come to depend on them.
In addition, once a taxpayer has evaded taxes and not reported
that income and paid those taxes, there is interest and possibly
penalties which grow over time and may grow to an amount
which would be prohibitive as far as the taxpayer's being able to
settle it.
Most of the underground economic activity is very difficult to
detect because there is no paper trail, no invoice which would
verify such activity. That is one of the aspects I hope to address
with Motion No. 382.
Some of the arguments for dealing with the underground
economy include the statement that if every Canadian paid their
fair share we would all pay less. We must all do our part and
fulfil our responsibilities and become part of the solution.
Since the recession clearly added to the underground
economy these new additions are the people we have to get back
before their dependency becomes irrevocable. I believe focused
efforts on certain segments will be most successful but a general
initiative should still have positive results because the first
wave of results will come from reminding Canadians of their
legal and moral obligations.
While the size of the underground economy is elusive,
Canadians consider it large enough to warrant attention. There
are a number of reasons people choose to participate in the
underground economy.
The first and most fundamental is basic greed, people taking
care of themselves at the expense of others. The second is a
belief in the myth that everyone is doing it and nobody is getting
hurt, which clearly is not the case. Some feel it is easy to get
away with because we have an honour system in our tax system
of declaring income. There also is a perception that no major
effort is being made to stop it. Some would suggest the income
tax system is too complex and too cumbersome to operate
within. We have matters such as the level of respect for
government and politicians. It is a problem in today's society.
(1725)
The objectives of the strategy to address the underground
economy generally include to recover revenue legally owing to
Canadians, to encourage voluntary compliance and to protect
the interests of honest taxpayers.
To educate Canadians on the facts about the seriousness of the
underground economy and how we can help is extremely
important. We need to demonstrate to Canadians the
government is appropriately discharging its responsibilities in
enforcing the law through tough but fair actions. We want to
eliminate illegal activity which harms the Canadian economy
and thus all Canadians.
Tax evasion compromises the government's ability to provide
essential social and economic programs. It leads to unfair
competition to honest businesses and it places an unfair burden
on honest taxpayers.
I refer to the 1994 report of the auditor general in relation to
the income tax system: ``The success of the tax system depends
ultimately on the public's willingness to meet its tax
responsibilities through voluntary compliance. This willingness
is fostered by showing respect for the taxpayers and gaining
their confidence through a proper balance between facilitation
and enforcement''. Today I am tabling this motion and its
proposals to address in part both of these aspects.
In the tax act there are consequences for failing to declare
income, to report a tax return. I will outline them very briefly. If
a taxpayer fails to file a return he or she can be subject to a
penalty of 5 per cent of the tax unpaid. In addition, there is an
interest charge of 1 per cent a month to a maximum of 12 per
cent. Failure to report income can get up to a 10 per cent penalty
on the income if the person were shown not to have reported
income in the previous three years. In all these cases interest is
compounded daily.
With regard to wilful tax evasion, the penalty prescribed is up
to 50 per cent of the tax owing. If the individual is charged there
can be an additional penalty ranging anywhere from an
addition-
12818
al 50 per cent up to 200 per cent of the tax plus imprisonment of
up to five years. Needless to say these penalties are very
extreme and reflect the seriousness of the problem of
non-compliance with the Income Tax Act.
I do not suggest the government is not interested or not taking
appropriate steps with the underground economy. Much to the
contrary, I believe the motion compliments much of what the
government is now doing.
As we all know, the government has entered into a number of
provincial information sharing agreements to assist in
detection, including joint audits, shared strategy and techniques
and training. There have been increased investigations and
audits, particularly in identified areas of high non-compliance.
These include home renovations, construction, auto sales,
restaurants and jewellery, as well as other service sectors.
The government has also embarked on a program of higher
publicity of prosecutions. It also has found that as a result of this
increased publicity the amount of voluntary disclosures has
doubled. Each year Revenue Canada handles 15,000 leads or
referrals as a result of its audit activity. It is working closely
with the key stakeholders, with businesses, professionals and
with the provinces to deal with tax evasion, the underground
economy and smuggling.
To give an idea of the extent to which it has that co-operation,
Revenue Canada has held consultations with more than 240
groups representing a wide range of industry sectors, including
the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian
Homebuilders Association, the Direct Sellers Association, the
Canadian Jewellery Association, the Canadian Restaurant and
Food Association, tourist associations and chambers of
commerce.
These initiatives have helped to refine our strategies, identify
areas of non-compliance and explore initiatives for improving
that compliance. I believe that Motion No. 382 complements
these initiatives by placing a greater emphasis on the role of the
Canadian public.
(1730)
I would like to suggest some general approaches which we can
consider in addressing the underground economy. Certainly the
information sharing agreements with the provinces will lead to
enhanced opportunities for the traditional audit. The public,
through an educational and information campaign should be
assured that the agents of law enforcement will get appropriate
support as well as become more effective. In fact in 1994-95
Revenue Canada's enforcement activities and its underground
initiatives are expected to add an additional $3.8 billion to its
tax assessment. Other approaches must concentrate on labour
intensive sectors and other high probability areas, some of
which I have already mentioned.
In launching a general information campaign to address the
myth that everyone is doing it, we are going to go a long way in
breaking the back of the underground economy. Most Canadians
will think twice if they know there is a serious and substantial
risk of being caught and that the consequences which I
previously outlined are very serious.
Tax evasion is a crime. It is not a victimless crime, as often is
argued. All Canadians are its victims because tax evasion leads
to among other things job losses and an increase in the deficit.
Honest taxpayers are carrying more of the burden of taxation.
Legitimate businesses are operating in an environment of unfair
competition, often leading to their bankruptcy. We must stress
the theme that people who evade taxes are in fact cheating
honest taxpayers, including the poor, the needy and the
disadvantaged.
We need to publicize the number of investigations, leads and
referrals which are received by Revenue Canada each year from
Canadians who know tax evaders and are very concerned about
the prevalence of tax evasion within our society. Many more
Canadians would contact Revenue Canada if they only knew that
those calls would be followed up. We must encourage and
promote voluntary compliance as well as enlist the support of all
Canadians. We have to ask them to just say no to tax evaders.
The preferred approach to non-compliance is voluntary
disclosure and voluntary compliance. That is why this motion
emphasizes public education and incentives for compliance
rather than some aggressive measures which others may
propose. The taxpayer must ultimately be treated fairly and with
respect.
The underground economy permeates Canadian society for
the benefit of some but to the detriment of all. Canadians must
realize that underground economic activity makes victims of us
all. Honest businesses are faced with unfair competition. There
are job losses because many of those businesses go bankrupt.
Health, education and other essential economic and social
services must be reduced because of the reduced revenue.
Honest taxpayers must pay more to make up for those who do
not pay.
Most Canadians have been faced with an offer to pay cash for
a lower price. What we do not realize is that to accept a deal
from a disreputable service provider is not only to condone the
crime but also to promote tax evasion. When someone offers a
lower price for cash but no invoice, not only do we lose the
revenue but the consumer also gives up needed protection.
In my experience we do get what we pay for. When we go
underground to provide services, or particularly when
consumers accept underground services, they can expect lower
quality work and lower quality materials because those
businesses do not have to comply and will not comply with the
industry regulations. As well and most important, consumers do
not get the protection and the guarantee they would otherwise
have if
12819
they had an authorized purchase order and/or an invoice. When
the customer goes underground as well, he has no recourse and
no protection.
This motion also asks the House to consider a couple of very
specific initiatives.
(1735 )
Members should be aware that in the United States 25 states
have at one point or another attempted to introduce or have
introduced amnesties of sorts where tax evasion is a problem.
I am proposing a limited amnesty. It is not very specific in
terms of its details, but is a limited amnesty of approximately a
two or three month period on interest or penalties otherwise
payable when a taxpayer voluntarily comes forward and
discloses and reports income previously unreported. I would
like to repeat that. The amnesty has to do with interest and
penalties, not the taxes otherwise owing.
Phase two of the amnesty would implement an enhanced
effort to crack down by engaging more investigators on a
contract or commission basis possibly. This phase would
continue as long as there is a favourable pay back.
With regard to ongoing efforts, we would report regularly to
the public on the success of the program and consider an
extension of the time frame as has been done with such things as
gun amnesties. Our analysis of those who come forward will
also provide information to the government which it can use to
focus future efforts, thereby creating a ripple effect of the
benefits.
This particular aspect of a limited amnesty is merely a
suggestion which may or not have merit quite frankly. It is the
kind of thing however I am hoping that the House will give due
consideration to in committee.
The second specific new approach I proposed in this motion
was an input tax credit. We must let the public know that when
they patronize a supplier for the cash price without an invoice,
they are actually condoning fraud. By refusing to do business
with those who do not give invoices, they will become part of the
solution.
After some work that I had done with the finance committee
particularly with regard to the hearings on the GST, one of the
facts that came out clearly throughout that process of public
consultation was the extensive admission of underground
activity in certain sectors. That was readily forthcoming,
particularly because honest businesses represented by these
associations and organizations were hurting. They were going
bankrupt. We were losing jobs.
The construction industry particularly related to home
renovations and improvements was found to have, based on the
information from those associations, anywhere from 25 per cent
to 40 per cent of its activity underground. That is over $1.5
billion to $2.4 billion. There is a substantial amount of tax
revenue lost to the government because that business activity
has not been reported by those businesses.
The proposal therefore states that as an inducement for the
public to be part of the solution, we offer a tax credit possibly for
the GST paid on home improvements or renovations. The
taxpayer would be required to submit an original invoice or at
least keep one available for a review should they be subject to
audit and submit it as part of their tax return or by a separate
filing.
The objective here is to create a real paper trail in an area of
abuse with which most people are familiar. Their reward is a tax
credit. Although that tax credit would reduce the revenues
otherwise available to the government, it does mean that we
generate reported income on which federal, provincial,
corporate or business taxes are paid on which withholdings for
payroll, health care and other source deductions that are
matched by the government also would come into the system,
thereby generating substantially more revenue.
This initiative would also I believe constitute an excellent
vehicle through which to educate the public on the problem and
to discourage generally under the table economic activity.
Finally, this initiative is basically geared to help support honest
businesses that are prepared to provide an invoice.
Consider someone who has been operating underground for
sometime who approached a prospective customer. If that
customer asked for an invoice, it is very likely that the business
person would refuse to do the business simply because they
would have to provide a piece of paper which would provide that
essential audit trail and be a verification of the economic
activity.
(1740 )
Initiatives like this may assist us in terms of dealing with the
underground economy.
I have taken the opportunity to speak with members of all
parties about the matter. I am finding across the House a very
strong interest in this subject matter because of its importance to
all Canadians.
I am not very concerned with regard to the specific initiatives.
The ultimate objective is for the House to adopt this motion as a
vehicle to bring the underground economy as an issue of
importance to all Canadians to committee. Then together we can
explore methods in which we can address one of Canada's most
serious problems, the underground economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 382
standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South.
When I read the motion and the accompanying material, I was
pleasantly surprised by the hon. member's trenchant analysis in
his short but very interesting paper. I must say he put his finger
on a fundamental problem in Canada's tax system, and I am
referring to the fact that a social contract between taxpayers,
12820
individuals and even businesses and various levels of
government has been broken.
This situation is so serious and so widespread, so deeply
anchored in our day to day lives that recently, when the premier
of Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, was buying furniture for his
residence, he was asked by the salesman: ``What do we do about
the tax?'' When we get to the point where even the Premier is
asked whether the tax should go on the bill, the problem is
fundamental and requires our full and undivided attention if we
are to find a way to deal with the underground economy and the
problems it creates for the tax system in Canada, Quebec and all
the other provinces.
There are some very interesting ideas in the hon. member's
document, and although the official opposition is not usually
fulsome in its praise for Liberal members, and you must be
aware of that, Mr. Speaker, when valid points are made, when we
are offered an intelligent analysis of a problem, we are open to
discussion, we are prepared to explore the best ways to deal with
a situation, especially one that concerns public finances.
Consider the three suggestions the hon. member for
Mississauga South explored in his motion. One is to inform the
public. Many taxpayers are not aware of the impact of certain
decisions or do not realize the overall impact of the decisions
they make every day as consumers. Here is an example. Before
the dollar dropped to 73 cents, when it was still 81 cents or 84
cents, people would tell us, and this was quite common: ``Last
week I went to the United States. I went shopping in the United
States, because it was cheaper''. That was not necessarily the
case, but that is what they said. And those same people were mad
as hell about the lack of jobs in Quebec and Canada.
The connection between what they do as consumers and what
happens to the economy and employment is not always clear in
people's minds. A campaign to educate the public about the
underground economy and the impact of acts of civil
disobedience, which is what we should call this today, might
improve the situation in the future and make taxpayers more
conscious of their obligation to contribute to the public treasury
through their taxes.
The second suggestion made by the hon. member for
Mississauga South also deserves our support.
(1745)
A limited amnesty for income tax returns of previous years,
not future years, should not encourage more people to evade
taxes. On the other hand, a limited amnesty for the payment of
interest and penalties on unreported incomes subject to federal
or provincial income tax could encourage some people, who
must feel ill at ease from time to time even if this practice is
almost institutionalized, to pay what they owe. People may feel
ill at ease by not fulfilling their civic duty to pay their normal
share of taxes.
The third option suggested is also very interesting. Every one
knows and talks about the fact, even if there are no
comprehensive statistics about it, that renovation and
construction is an area where the underground economy is
flourishing. This is why a tax credit for tax payers who do some
renovation could be an interesting idea to explore.
In short, the three proposals and the clearness of the analysis
are such that we, as the official opposition, will support the
proposal of the hon. member for Mississauga South because it is
an intelligent and articulated proposal which deserves to be
examined in depth by the standing committee on finance. I
invite my colleague, who will have my support as a member of
the committee of finance, to present his analysis and to suggest
various options to the committee, as he did when he tabled his
motion.
I also congratulate him for the clear thinking he shows on
page 1 of his document when he says: ``In the event of-this
refers to the present context-cuts in social programs and a
harsh budget-probably the last budget, and even the first one,
both were hard on taxpayers, especially the poorest ones-the
government will be blamed for not taking action in certain
areas''.
I congratulate him for having the courage to recognize that the
context is very difficult due to the budget measures taken by the
finance minister who is slashing transfer payments to the
provinces for social assistance, post-secondary education and
health, and is also taking, as of this year, $2.5 billion out of the
unemployment insurance fund.
My colleague for Mississauga South has the sense to
recognize that the government could be blamed for not acting in
the areas where it should. He thinks along the same lines as we
do.
For the past 15 months, as you know, we have been blaming
the government for not taking action in certain areas-we seem
to be exceedingly repetitive, but we will keep at it as long as it is
not done.
First, when Revenue Canada is not given the necessary
resources to collect unpaid taxes, which, over the years, have
grown to $6.6 billion, according to the auditor general, and 75
per cent could be collected, in his estimation, with the proper
resources, I agree with my colleague for Mississauga South, the
government could be blamed for not taking action and for not
immediately giving Revenue Canada the necessary resources to
collect the amounts owing, amounts which are not even in
question. We are not talking about avoiding taxes and the
underground economy, we are talking about taxes that have not
been paid because Revenue Canada does not have the resources
to collect them. The government is to be blamed for this.
12821
My colleague from Mississauga South said, and rightly so,
that we are watching the goings on in government and that this
is eroding our trust. Every day, we make new discoveries-so
does the auditor general each year-regarding more wastage
and lavish spending. We also are discovering places where the
federal government failed to close tax loopholes. On this point,
I agree with my colleague, who had the courage to say that his
own government failed to do what it should have done.
They have to practice what they preach. When we see that
people in government are still spending extravagantly and
wasting money, for example, the trip to the United States for
members of the Canadian armed forces for a rocket launching
competition, holidays for diplomats at the taxpayers' expense,
and when we see that the government just brushes these
questions off, I think we must all admit that the government is
sitting idly by, when it should be in action.
(1750)
Let us look at compliance with tax laws. This issue has been in
the news for the past two weeks. Once again, contraband
cigarette shops are opening up all over the place. It is obvious
and the government is not allocating the resources necessary to
ensure compliance with tax laws.
Here again I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for
Mississauga South. The government could be accused of not
acting where it should. All this must be straightened out, as far
as the tax system is concerned.
I am not talking only about the federal government, but all
governments. Restore confidence, make the public aware of the
consequences of not contributing adequately to the tax base, and
give a good example. I think these are the essential ingredients
to restore the social contract and to improve public finances.
I once again congratulate my colleague from Mississauga
South. The official opposition will support his motion.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise tonight to address Motion No. 382, which calls on
the government to adopt initiatives to bring people out of the
underground economy and back into the legitimate economy of
this country.
The member for Mississauga South seems convinced that an
enhanced information system campaign, a limited amnesty, and
a home improvement tax credit will do just that. Here we have
yet another Ottawa Liberal politician pushing for reactive
legislation to a problem, which does not address the
fundamental question of why people go underground in the first
place. It is for reasons like high taxes and confusing, complex,
and convoluted tax systems, GST administration and accounting
costs and the list goes on.
To set the tone of my speech I would like to read a quote that
was made by Alex Doulis, a very successful third generation
Canadian who like many has simply packed up and left this
county. He states: ``I left Canada in 1989 because I began to feel
powerless. I could not influence the direction of my life, which
was increasingly in the hands of the Government of Canada, and
the government was deaf. The problem with Canada is it has
responsible government. I was giving them immense amounts of
money and they used it to perpetuate their power so they didn't
have to listen to me. They were responsible for me, but they did
not have to represent me''.
The current income tax system in Canada is outdated, overly
complex, and overburdens Canadian taxpayers. Many people
have lost respect for this system because they cannot understand
it. They do not perceive it as fair and as a result they are quietly
resisting paying taxes by both legal and illegal means.
The underground economy is evaluated at between $10 billion
and $100 billion. High taxes stifle economic growth in every
sector of our society, decreasing private sector productivity,
increasing unemployment, and above all tempting governments
to keep spending at current unsustainable levels.
That is why so many Canadians are angry at politicians and
what politics and government have come to represent. For me
personally, rhetoric, regulation, waste, and arrogance are just a
few words that come to my mind when I think about the Liberal
government and the opportunity it has to effect change.
The reality outside this fish bowl is that some people grin and
bear PSTs, GSTs, income taxes and sin taxes while others choose
to go underground to increase their purchasing power. All these
people have to do to justify breaking the law is pick up a daily
newspaper and read one of the many stories of government
waste on things like grants to study blueberry jam,
parliamentary junkets, MP pensions for life, and the list goes on.
It is this type of negative reinforcement that encourages many
honest Canadians to pay cash for goods, negotiate deals or trade
their services, anything to avoid paying excessive taxes to
wasteful governments.
These are not simply my views, but those reflected in one of
the first speeches made by our Minister of Finance in 1994. He
stated: ``The rise in the underground economy is what happens
when the population of a country no longer believes it is heading
in a direction where we all benefit. The underground economy is
not all smugglers. It is hundreds of thousands of otherwise
honest people who have withdrawn their consent to be governed,
who have lost faith in government''.
12822
(1755)
He is aware of that. What is he doing to change it? Nothing.
They still spend $40 billion more than they bring in every year.
Unfortunately, Motion 382 is an example that the Liberals have
done nothing to restore a sense of faith, equality, and equity in
our tax system.
Not only are these people avoiding Canadian taxes, many are
moving their capital completely out of Canada to invest in
foreign countries. According to the Bank of Nova Scotia, in
1993 unaccounted for capital that left Canada was estimated at
$7 billion. The estimated figure for previous years was
consistently around $700 million. It went from $700 million to
$7 billion in just a few years. That is frightening.
The former attorney general of Bermuda puts this into
perspective. I read this in a book by Diane Francis, Underground
Nation, where the attorney general of Bermuda is quoted as
saying: ``People in huge numbers are hiding money offshore
because they feel overburdened or feel so unfairly treated that
they think there is no point in keeping their money captive at
home. What is happening is that high tax rates in Canada and
elsewhere are turning what used to be hard working honest
businessmen into tax evaders. The feeling I get from Canadians
and certain island institutions is that they are getting a lot of
Canadian money invested outside of Canada which is not there
legitimately''.
Why will the government not wake up? The best way to solve
the problem of the underground economy is by making cheating
not worth while, similar to the smugglers' bill: take away the
profit from the smugglers and get rid of that tax and smuggling
will end. Lower taxes are the answer.
When people see governments like this one blow their hard
earned tax money, increased enforcement from a government
standpoint is an exercise in futility. Motion 382 calls for
voluntary compliance measures to bring these people back into
the mainstream economy. Voluntary compliance measures will
have little effect on people who truly feel they have been
wronged by the government. It is human nature.
Although I do not condone those who knowingly break the
law, the reality is that if governments do not play by the rules,
what incentives are there for their citizens to play by the rules?
Why is there a double standard that when you are a politician
you get a pension plan that is three or four times as good as that
of the private sector? Do as we say and not as we do is fast
becoming the new Liberal slogan, replacing jobs, jobs, jobs.
Although the Liberals campaigned on integrity and a new
philosophy of governing, I along with many Canadians feel that
we are watching the same play in the same theatre with different
actors playing the same roles. The names have changed but it is
the same old script.
For example, with Motion No. 382 a member of the
government is calling for additional tax dollars to be spent on
advertising to inform Canadians of the importance, the
incentives, and the obligations to pay taxes. Where is the
importance and the incentive and the obligation of the
government to justify how it spends money and to eliminate the
waste in government spending? Why is that not addressed in the
motion?
If the government has to offer incentives to comply with its
policies then there is something wrong with those policies. Like
the Tories, however, the Liberals do not get it. Rank and file
Canadians are protesting the tax system in Canada and their
concerns are not registering with this administration. Surely the
estimated size of the underground economy and nationwide tax
protests should have sounded some alarm bells within the
Liberal caucus. Apparently not. Motion No. 382, for example,
has an amnesty clause to encourage people to come clean and
pay taxes they have avoided without fear of punishment by the
government. Where is the common sense logic in this
suggestion? An amnesty will only get people to pay the taxes
they refused to comply with in the first place. How is that an
incentive?
It is time for the Liberals to stop these nickel and dime,
band-aid solutions for problems with our tax system and begin
the long overdue process of tax reform and tax relief. Attack the
disease, not just the symptom. The Reform Party understands
the difference between the two. That is why we have committed
ourselves to spending reductions and tax reform, including the
development of a simple, visible, flat system of taxation for
Canada. The single most important aspect of this system is that
it would be fair, removing the incentive for many to go
underground in the first place.
It is interesting to note that Motion No. 382 is targeted at GST
avoidance, which indicates that the Liberals have truly
backtracked from the campaign promise to scrap the GST.
Our whole process of tax reform and relief would come under
the umbrella of spending reduction and restraint. A Reform
government would legislate balanced budgets. We would
protect taxpayers dollars by reducing the size of the federal
House,not increasing it to 301 as this administration plans to do.
(1800)
We would pass more responsibility on to provincial
governments as well as individual Canadians. The time has
come to put money back into the hands of those closest to the
problems facing Canadians and, most important, those who will
spend it best.
12823
In conclusion, a Reform government would mean effective
government, a transparent government with full disclosure. We
would introduce proactive legislation to clean up the fiscal
mess in the country which many Canadians are doing their best
to avoid.
The Liberals on the other hand will continue to propose
band-aid solutions like Motion No. 382. I have a message for all
angry Canadian taxpayers out there when they come to the end
of their financial rope: ``Tie a knot, hang on, a Reform
government is just around the corner''.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always so nice to follow the doom and gloom party.
It is a pleasure to speak today on Motion No. 382 introduced
by the member for Mississauga South. Basically the motion
calls on the government to consider establishing initiatives to
address the massive underground economy that exists in Canada
today.
The issue is of concern to me and should be of concern to all
Canadians. I have even managed to address the matter while I
was vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts. I had the opportunity to ask one witness, a deputy
minister at Revenue Canada, about Canada's underground
economy. He said that a lot of the situations which caused the
underground economy were for elected representatives to
discuss and address. This is what we are doing today. My
colleague from Mississauga South has proposed ways to address
the problem I spoke about before the committee.
The underground economy has a great deal of strength in
Canada. The exact size of lost revenue is unknown, with
estimates ranging from $20 billion to $140 billion a year. What
is known is that each time someone participates in the
underground economy money to help pay for our programs such
as health care or education is lost and will most likely never be
recovered.
It is safe to say that we are taking money from ourselves by
being part of the underground economy. We must ask ourselves
what is causing this type of economy, one the Minister of
Finance does not want to see grow. It could be the threat of taxes.
It could be the problems with the Department of National
Revenue. It could be the perception that the system is bogged
down in bureaucratic red tape. It could be a lot of things. Is it the
hated GST? For whatever reason it is real. The underground
economy is alive and well.
I hear stories in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton about
welding shops which have gone out of business and now operate
out of a truck and only collect cash. I hear of car body shops that
only deal in cash, buy their materials in cash and pay their
employees in cash. It has been said that there are restaurants
which pay students cash and tell them not to report it. Some
people have told me of contractors who continually give two
quotes, a quote for cash and a quote for the legitimate way.
Furthermore, some people have actually removed their business
listings from the phone book so they can work in cash.
I know a lot of these people were never tax cheaters in their
lives, but they may have been forced into operating this way or
feel they have to operate this way because they have been doing
it for so long and penalties would be too harsh if they come out
and operate honestly.
One part of the motion is designed to address the situation
precisely. The second part of the motion is designed to give
some relief or limited forgiveness on interest and other penalties
payable when a taxpayer voluntarily declares previously
undeclared income.
Be honest and you won't be punished is the message in the
motion. Another part of the motion suggests educating the
public about the problem and encouraging its participation in
solving the situation.
Our tax system is based on taxpayers voluntarily filing and
paying their taxes. It is probably the least expensive way for the
federal government to collect taxes owing. However there are
some who do not pay which gives some businesses an unfair
advantage. In the long run, if every Canadian paid their fair
share, we would be further ahead. Most important, we would be
paying in a far fairer way.
Nothing is more frustrating for small businesses such as
contractors bidding for a job to lose the bid because the
competition put in a low bid and an under the table bid.
(1805 )
Another part of the information campaign deals with ensuring
people realize the federal government, in particular the
Department of National Revenue, is addressing the problem of
the underground economy. In the future more people will be
exposed for contributing to the underground economy and once
caught there are some serious consequences to consider.
Furthermore the information campaign must stress that jobs are
lost when the underground economy flourishes.
Canada must begin to realize that doing things above board is
in the best interest of everyone involved. At the same time this
part of the motion calls upon us as a government to help to create
an atmosphere in which doing things above board is acceptable.
There are other ways to encourage people to do things above
board and the third part of the motion touches on them.
The third and last part of the motion deals with giving tax
credits to people who are doing home improvements or
renovations. The idea is to diminish the two-quote system
which already exists. It also creates a paper trail that can serve
as a primary vehicle for the information campaign I mentioned
earlier.
12824
We as a government must make sure that society is not
punished for being honest. We must create an economy in which
hard work and dedication are rewarded. We do not want to send
out a message that it is all right to operate in the underground
economy because everyone else is doing it.
One of our priorities when we were elected was to focus on
jobs and growth. The motion helps to maintain that message and
I urge all members to support the idea of the hon. member for
Mississauga South.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak to both sides of the motion
presented by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
One positive side is that the member is looking for solutions
to a problem. I endorse that. I encourage members to do that type
of thing. The other positive side to the motion is that it reflects
what many constituents are thinking. There are constituents who
are saying that the present situation is unfair to legitimate
business. There are other constituents who are saying that we
can work our way out of it.
I refer to a letter from a constituent who came to see me in my
constituency office in Nanaimo some weeks ago. His name is
Gary Chandler. His thoughts were to give each taxpayer a new
deduction on income tax which would represent 5 per cent to 10
per cent of taxable income for improvements to a principal
residence. Canadians have more savings per capita than the
people of most countries. The measure would free up enough of
that money to reduce unemployment. It would also cut into the
underground market as legitimate receipts would be required.
When I read the letter and talked with the gentleman I thought
it was an attractive idea, that it was something positive to
undercut the burgeoning underground economy. I am not an
expert in this regard so I decided to find out what my colleagues
in the Reform caucus thought. I passed it on to them and the
caucus financial committee discussed it. They went at it in some
detail. However they found that they could not support it for the
following reasons.
First, they said the taxes that would be forgone by this type of
exemption would make it quite costly. The next point they
brought to my attention was that it would therefore be necessary
to extend the same tax privilege to other areas such as car repair,
small appliance repair and household appliance repair. All sorts
of areas would stand in line and say: ``Us too''. Before we knew
it we would have a whole series of exemptions that would affect
the way we do business.
(1810 )
The third reason they gave was that it would move us,
certainly as a party, away from our proposal for a flat tax system.
A lot of Canadians are complaining about the tax system. We
have to make it simpler and easier to understand. The forms
have to be simpler and so on. This type of exemption would
move us away from that area.
The final reason they could not support it was found when
examining the reason for having the underground economy. This
is the principal one. The reason we have an underground
economy is the same reason my colleague pointed out a few
minutes ago. The government's spending level is too high.
Therefore the taxation level is too high. We keep pounding at
that over and over again. We realize we have a $550 billion debt
and it is growing. We have to do something about it.
The government is now taking some small steps toward
reducing deficit spending. We do not feel it is enough, but it is
the basic reason behind the fact that we have an underground
economy. Unless we tackle that first we will not solve the bigger
problems.
I compliment the member for Mississauga South for raising
this initiative and for trying to solve the problems. While it is
reflective of the thinking among constituents asking how to
solve the problems, nevertheless overspending and the high
taxation rate on the part of government must be overcome first.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the member for Mississauga South for his interest in
bringing this important subject to the House. There is absolutely
no question our Minister of National Revenue and members on
both sides of the House are very concerned about the direction of
our underground economy. The issue has the focus of all
Canadians and is very important to all Canadians across the
country.
The greater the activity in the underground economy, the less
revenue there is for governments. Underground economic
activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs
are lost and honest taxpayers are forced to pay more of an unfair
system in taxes when the underground economy flourishes.
For many individuals and businesses the underground
economy has become a convenient way to avoid paying taxes,
not to pay their fair share. When these people take their financial
transactions underground they are failing to support Canada's
social and economic programs. These people do not pay for the
services they use. Instead other Canadians are forced to pay
more. Other Canadians are forced to pay for those who
participate in the underground economy.
I am very surprised the member for Calgary Centre suggested
and almost condoned the underground economy and gave
reasoning for it. It is serious to all Canadians that no one
condone the practice. It is certainly not morally sound or fair to
Canadians.
People who deal in the underground economy may feel their
financial situation justifies the actions. It may be because they
have not had a raise in several years. It may be because they feel
the taxes are too difficult for them to comprehend. It may be just
because of basic greed. They see it as cheating the tax
department. It is not a simple matter of cheating a victimless tax
department. It is cheating friends, the people who live next door
12825
and the people who do business in the community. It is cheating
every Canadian, forcing them to pay more in an unfair system.
(1815 )
I ask members as well as all Canadians to consider the real
cost of the underground activity. The cost is large. It shows up in
reduced essential services, higher taxes than we would
otherwise be paying, unfair competition and a reduced standard
of living to the honest taxpayers.
How does the underground economy affect the legitimate
businessman trying to be competitive? The Canadian
Homebuilders Association is concerned. Home renovators who
evade taxes have an unfair advantage over other home
contractors. Right from the start, honest businesses are at a
competitive disadvantage because they cannot offer the
consumer the same deal offered by someone who will not collect
the taxes. The end result is that legitimate businesses face unfair
competition and jobs are lost.
We must not forget dishonest consumers. Dishonest
consumers who take a lower price and pay cash are cheating the
system. They are becoming party to the evasion of taxes. These
same consumers benefit from a full range of government
services but are not paying their fair share. All they have done is
take part in the transaction which jeopardizes our health,
education and other essential services. This is simply unfair and
very short sighted.
The motion before us suggests the government educate the
public and encourage its participation in addressing the
problems. I agree Canadians need to know the facts about the
seriousness of the underground economy and what it is doing to
hurt Canadians. I also agree governments cannot solve the
problem alone. We all must take part and fulfil our
responsibilities.
The government has recognized solutions to this problem it is
now facing are not in isolation by themselves. We must
understand the problem and its consequences. It is for this
reason that in November 1993 the Minister of National Revenue
made education a fundamental element to address the
underground economy.
During this past year, officials of Revenue Canada have
actively been consulting with individuals and associations
across the country. Revenue Canada is seeking support of groups
and individuals throughout the country. With the Canadian
Institute of Chartered Accountants, for example, the department
established a working committee to investigate the causes of the
underground economy, to examine audit techniques and identify
training that would assist in tracking down unreported or under
reported income and identify the opportunities for reducing the
cost of the administrative burden for compliance for businesses
and individuals.
These groups are taking the message of the risks of dealing in
the underground back to their memberships. Every citizen and
every business has a role to play in eliminating the underground
economy. Individuals can start by refusing to deal with
businesses and trades people who ask for cash payments.
Businesses can do their part by turning down demands to do
work off the books by making sure that does not happen.
To ensure everyone is aware the government is serious about
prosecuting those who deliberately defraud the system, the
Minister of National Revenue is publicizing convictions for tax
evasion. The increased publicity has had a deterrent effect. The
number of voluntary disclosures received by the department in
which people have come forward to correct their tax affairs has
doubled in the past year. In addition, the number of referrals
received from people each year providing the department with
leads on potential tax fraud has risen to about 19,000.
I am confident we are making the right progress in dealing
with the underground economy and I am hopeful all Canadians
and all members of the House will applaud the efforts of the
member for Mississauga South for stimulating this debate in the
House.
I urge members of the House to carry the message back to
their constituents. I urge the members of the House to actively
seek solutions for the underground economy and create a better
and fairer nation for every business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 6.20 p.m, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)