CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 6, 1995
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13286
Bill C-330. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 13287
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 13287
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13288
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13288
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13288
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13288
Bill C-76. Motion for third reading 13289
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 13306
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13313
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13314
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13318
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13321
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13321
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13321
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13321
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13322
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13322
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13322
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13322
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13323
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13323
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13323
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13323
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13323
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13323
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13324
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13324
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13325
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13325
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13326
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13326
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13326
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13327
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13327
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 13327
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13328
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 13329
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 141; Nays, 85 13348
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 13349
Bill C-277. Motion for second reading 13350
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13350
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13353
13285
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 6, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
15 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Madam Speaker, six years ago the world watched in
horror as the tragic events of Tiananmen square unfolded. For
many Canadians these events changed our lives forever. They
propelled us into action. We rallied, we spoke out and we made
the difference.
To commemorate those who lost their lives in Tiananmen
square, on May 28 I participated in a democracy walk at the
University of British Columbia. I paid tribute again on June 4 at
Forest Lawn cemetery in Burnaby, British Columbia. At both
locations there is a statue of democracy erected by Canadians to
remind us about the tragedy.
My decision to run for political office was in large part due to
the events of June 1989, for as I watched Chinese men and
women risk their lives for something we all too often take for
granted here in Canada, I realized that I needed to give back
something to the country that welcomed me with such open arms
in 1969.
I am proud to say I am still fighting for human rights
improvements, both in China and around the world.
Unfortunately the human rights situation with regard to human
rights advocates in China has not improved significantly since
1989. The recent arrest of several Chinese dissidents in the run
up to the sixth anniversary of the Tiananmen square crackdown
and the strict surveillance imposed on others once again
demonstrates that China continues to violate international
standards of human rights.
One of the most enduring values uniting Canadians is our
common commitment to freedom, democracy and human rights.
Respect for human rights is a key to international peace and
prosperity and it contributes to a global environment within
which we Canadians can best pursue our interests.
As I have long believed, the issue is how to promote most
efficiently good governance and the rule of law in China.
(1010 )
There are a number of ways to help influence and encourage
China to better respect human rights. Multilaterally we take
steps in organizations such as the United Nations to make our
point. Bilaterally we discuss human rights issues with our
Chinese counterparts. Development assistance lets us work with
China to strengthen areas vital to human rights development.
Trade is also a powerful tool. It encourages co-operation, and
co-operation leads to understanding and appreciation, with
which we can better manage concerns such as human rights
development.
Furthermore, initiatives undertaken by people like ourselves
continue to emphasize to all concerned that Canadians care
about human rights. Rest assured that I will continue to work for
the improvement of respect for human rights and democracy in
China.
As I tell both my cabinet colleagues and my Chinese
counterparts, I am a friend of China. I will continue to speak out
against human rights violations in China, but at the same time I
will continue to work within my means as a federal minister to
help China develop in a meaningful way.
Pointing out violations of human rights is essential. So too is
dialogue between Canada and China. Dialogue lets China and
Canada share concerns and provides the foundation to address
13286
important issues such as human rights proactively. This is the
effective way to promote change in China and this is the cause
my government and I will continue to follow.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the official opposition
to mark the sixth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre
in which thousands of people, most of them students, died for
democracy and the advancement of human rights in China.
On June 9, 1994, the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific stated
in this House, and I quote:
Surely there is evidence that increased political flexibility is a byproduct of
economic liberalization, and governments that have opened their markets to
international trade are more sensitive to the views and reactions of other
countries.
The federal government's policy of giving priority to the
economic aspect in its relations with China, in the belief that
China would then become more sensitive to Canadian human
rights concerns, has been a monumental failure.
Even as China is seeking full membership in the World Trade
Organization and after Team Canada paid that country a visit
last November, we learned last December that nine Chinese
dissidents had received sentences ranging from three to twenty
years in prison.
According to Chinese authorities, the only crimes committed
by these people were membership in unauthorized political
organizations and planning the distribution of leaflets marking
the third anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
By coincidence, at least 12 other Chinese dissidents were
recently arrested in the run-up to the sixth anniversary of the
bloody crackdown on the Beijing Spring in Tiananmen Square,
which, as you may recall, left hundreds if not thousands of
people dead. Yet, as the hon. Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific
so eloquently said earlier, China continues to openly violate
international standards of human rights.
The secretary of state even told us that the situation of
Chinese human rights advocates has not improved since 1989.
Despite government claims that trade liberalization is the best
way to promote respect for human rights, we must recognize that
the secretary of state's admission points to the failure of the
government policy in this regard.
If-as the federal government maintains-its policy is
credible, why were there no improvements in the human rights
situation in China? As the secretary of state mentioned, if trade
is a powerful tool that leads to co-operation and, in turn, to an
improvement of the human rights situation, why have the
Chinese authorities remained so inflexible?
Furthermore, how can the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific
claim that Canada influenced the course of events following the
tragic events in Tiananmen Square?
(1015)
How could we have any influence on events when, during his
trip to China, the Prime Minister of Canada himself turned a
blind eye to what the Chinese leaders are doing?
It is not by whispering quietly in his Chinese counterpart's ear
that the Prime Minister of Canada, or Canada for that matter,
will prompt the Chinese leadership to change its unacceptable
attitude toward human rights. As we can see, this new policy did
not produce the expected results; it was, to say the least,
ineffective.
However, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said recently,
instead of opening its eyes and taking direct, consistent and firm
action against countries that violate human rights, the federal
government would rather pay court to them in order to establish
trade relations with them.
Expressing discontent with the laissez-faire attitude of
Canada with respect to human rights, the minister announced a
while ago the Canadian government's intention to embark upon
a series of trade initiatives with a number of countries,
regardless of their human rights record.
This is a fine example of double talk on the part of the
government. To add insult to injury, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs went as far as to propose to ASEAN nations, some of
which have a long tradition of openly violating human rights,
that Canada represent their interests at the G-7 Summit in
Halifax, next week.
In closing, I hope-but I am not holding my breath-that the
government will not go on addressing human rights issues
behind the scenes, as in so doing, it is playing into the hands of
the dictators and tyrants of this world.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to the message of the secretary of state on
China and Tiananmen square.
Certainly all of us have the memories imprinted on our minds
of the horror and the terror and disbelief of what happened some
six years ago. We need to think about what we have in Canada,
freedom of speech, freedom of association and all of the good
things that are part of our democracy and what it really means
when we think back to those days.
Those people did not die in vain and China is moving forward
as slow as it may be. China has a very major future in the world.
It is a time to think of China and look at what that country means
in the big picture of the world. I remember my visits in the late
1970s and in the early 1980s. I think about a country that was
very agrarian, backward to our western way of looking at things.
I think of all the people in their blue and green clothes, the
thousands and thousands of bicycles. I think of going to the
movie theatre where I spent six cents to get in and where in the
middle, because there was a Canadian there, they played ``Red
River Valley''. Somehow they thought that was the national
anthem of the country.
13287
I remember the curious way people dealt with us as westerners
but how friendly they were and how important their family and
social structure was to them. I think back to being in the schools
where education is such an important part of their society, where
they go for six days a week, where they start at eight in the
morning and finish at six at night and how they do not have text
books so they have to read it on the blackboards outside the
school. The people are very industrious, hard working.
Commerce is important and there is a hidden power, a so-called
sleeping giant in China.
China has changed a lot in the last 10 or 15 years. It now has
double digit growth rates, unemployment, a massive movement
from rural to urban, a dismantling of the state owned business,
an aging leader who sort of keeps it together, but it will change
dramatically.
For those of us who have been watching closely I do not think
we can believe the speed at which this change will occur. There
is a new era for China coming. It is hoped there will be a
peaceful change to democracy from the chaos that might
otherwise occupy that country.
The government still operates in the old way but I believe the
new government will look toward the true power of China and so
will come democracy in the 21st century. There is a great
opportunity for China and for us in dealing with China.
(1020)
The Chinese government must control corruption. It must
solidify economic reform and it must carry out democratization
not just from the communes but on through the villages, the
towns, the cities and ultimately in the national government.
With all of this I believe firmly that human rights will come
and that human rights reform will be part of that movement. I do
not believe there is any way the Government of China will be
able to stop that.
What is our role? Our role is to speak out against violations.
This gives the people both in and out of China an opportunity to
feel strength from our opposition. We need to provide assistance
in developing governments and so on. Above all, the isolation of
China will not accomplish the goals we all hold for China in the
future.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (review process and disclosure by prosecutor).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this
private member's bill for first reading. In essence it introduces
or enacts the recommendations of the Donald Marshall inquiry,
now some years in passing, for a better, more open and
independent procedure for dealing with those who claim to have
been wrongfully convicted.
At the moment that process is done in house by the
Department of Justice. It is a very time consuming process. It
seems there is no sense of urgency. There is no easy disclosure to
those involved. Those who are claiming to be wrongfully
convicted are pleading to their adversary for some mercy
essentially.
We have had the cases of Milgaard, Marshall, Morin, Kelly
and Morrisroe. Many cases have been taking two, three and four
years to address. This bill would speed that process up and make
it more open. It would be a distinct improvement in the process.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have five petitions to present. The first
is to improve the provisions for the diagnosis of breast cancer,
the care for those who have breast cancer and for all the women
in Canada. This petition comes from the university women's
club.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the second petition is for a public
inquiry to be held at the earliest possible time. This inquiry is to
be wide ranging into the operation, costs and morale of the
armed forces.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the third petition is on VIA Rail. It is to
preserve services and to review these services so they may be
improved for the Sarnia, London, Stratford, Toronto corridor,
now one of the heaviest travelled train areas in Canada
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the fourth and fifth petitions are against
granting same sex rights.
13288
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise again to present another petition in this course of
action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the
early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for citizens.
(1025 )
They are opposed to the current practice of early release of
violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their
sentences.
The petitioners pray our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
the following petition which comes form all across Canada and
contains 969 signatures, making a total of 5,069 to date.
The undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a
six-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of
Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of
Parliament.
These petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to
change the justice system to provide greater protection for
children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of
offenders.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions today from
constituents in Langley, Aldergrove and Abbotsford, British
Columbia.
The first petition asks that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with
section 718(2) as presently written and in any event not to
include the undefined phrase sexual orientation, as the
behaviour people engage in does not warrant special
considerations in Canadian law.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition asks that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the final petition requests that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing order 36, I am presenting a petition signed by
constituents in my riding of Lincoln asking that Parliament
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the charter of rights and freedoms which provide for the
inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
They also oppose the inclusion of this phrase in proposed Bill
C-41.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions duly
certified by the clerk of petitions.
The first one bearing 39 signatures primarily from the
Gouldtown district in my constituency requests that Parliament
not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights
Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the second petition
signed by 163 constituents scattered throughout my riding
humbly requests and calls on Parliament to desist passing
legislation legalizing the use of BST
rBGH in Canada.
The petitioners further request legislation be passed requiring
all imports produced from BSTrBGH treated cows be so
identified.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have a 25
signature petition asking Parliament not to enact legislation to
amend the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination to include in the prohibited grounds
of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I agree with this petition.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will once again remind
members we do not comment on agreement or disagreement in
petitions; we present only.
I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
33(2), because of the ministerial statement government orders
will be extended by 12 minutes.
13289
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
13289
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1030)
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of
the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
lead off debate on third reading of Bill C-76, an act to
implement certain provisions of the February 1995 budget.
The bill seeks to give concrete reality to the non-taxation
measures announced in the budget, a budget of reform and
renewal that has been described as historic.
[Translation]
This means that, over the next three fiscal years, this budget
will translate into cumulative savings of $29 billion, $25.3
billion of which will be the result of spending cuts. This is by far
the most ambitious series of measures proposed in a budget
since demobilization, after the Second World War.
The objectives set are extremely important, but so are the
means used to achieve them. Indeed, in order to achieve lasting
fiscal consolidation and then fiscal balance, it is essential to
change the role and the very structure of the state. We will
continue to reap the benefits of this budget in 1997-98 and
beyond.
These measures will have a very significant impact on future
levels of federal spending. By 1997-98, program spending will
total $108 billion, compared to $120 billion in 1993-94.
[English]
Although it was a tough budget, Canadians approve it. They
approve it because they know we have to stop writing IOUs and
get on with the business of building the 21st century economy.
[Translation]
By 1996-97, our financial needs, that is the new money which
we have to borrow on financial markets, will go down to $13.7
billion, or 1.7 per cent of the GDP. Canada will fare better than
any other G7 country.
The public debt will stop growing faster than the economy.
The debt to GDP ratio will start decreasing. This is the key to a
manageable financial situation, and it is the reason why we are
not merely trying to reduce the deficit. Indeed, we are also
determined to start the Canadian debt ratio on a downward trend.
[English]
Let me emphasize that these projections do not rest on rosy
assumptions. On the contrary, prudent assumptions that were
more pessimistic than the private sector average were used. The
assumptions were backed up with substantial contingency
reserves. We will continue to rely on prudent assumption. We
will continue to set short term targets that make impossible to
postpone action. We will continue to take whatever action is
needed to meet our objectives. This is the course we will stay
until the deficit is eliminated entirely.
Let me turn now from the budget background to the specific
elements of the bill before us today. As the provisions of the bill
have already been discussed at some length in the House, I will
focus on a few highlights and draw the attention of members to
the one amendment that is more than a technical amendment.
(1035)
[Translation]
I am referring to the transfers to the provinces. We will never
have the kind of structural changes needed if we do not reform
our system of transfers to the provinces.
We must implement a system which will better meet today's
needs, and we must also be able to fund that system over a long
period.
As regards the first requirement, we feel that the conditions
set by the federal government for transfer payments in sectors
which clearly come under provincial jurisdiction should be
reduced to a minimum.
Currently, the Canada assistance plan transfers come with
many needless conditions that restrict the provinces' capacity
for innovation and increase administrative costs. In short, the
costsharing method no longer helps the provinces which are
clearly responsible for designing and delivering social
assistance programs and for implementing them as efficiently as
possible, in accordance with the needs in the community.
This bill will deal with the situation by providing funding for
the Canada assistance plan in the same way as the established
programs financing did in the areas of health and
post-secondary education. As a result, the current breakdown
into three
13290
transfers no longer has any basic justification. That is why we
are combining them into one single block transfer program
called the Canada health and social transfer, starting in
1996-97.
[English]
The Canada health and social transfer represents a new, more
flexible and mature approach to federal-provincial fiscal
relations but the physical situation demands that the new system
also be less costly than the current one. That is why when the
CHST is fully implemented in 1997-98 the total of all major
transfers to the provinces will be down by about $4.5 billion
from what would have been transferred under the present
system. However to put this into perspective, the reduction will
equal about 3 per cent of aggregate provincial revenues.
We believe our approach to provincial transfers passes three
very important tests. First, the federal government has hit itself
even harder. Second, the provinces have been given ample
notice of the government's intentions. Third, the reduction in
transfer payments is equitable across provinces.
In addition to the introduction of the Canada health and social
transfer, the bill also includes other measures that will help to
reduce the cost of payments to provinces. One of these measures
is the reintroduction of a 5 per cent eligibility threshold to the
fiscal stabilization program. This will restore the program to its
original function of compensating provinces for revenue losses
in the event of severe economic downturns, that is, where
revenues decline by more than 5 per cent.
I want to turn now to a number of allegations about the CHST
which members of the official opposition and the Reform Party
have made in the debate on Bill C-76. Some opposition
members have been confused about the additional flexibility
which the CHST will offer provinces in the area of social
assistance.
(1040 )
The hon. member for the riding of Quebec alleged that the
government was misinforming Quebecers when it said that
federal conditions on social assistance transfers were being
reduced. Let us be clear on what is happening here.
[Translation]
This bill is a major reform of the system of federal transfers to
the provinces and territories that will lead to the Canada health
and social transfer, the CHST.
Starting in 1996-97, the EPF and the CAP will be replaced
with one single mechanism, the CHST. Contrary to the existing
system which is based in part on costsharing agreements, the
CHST will be a block funding mechanism, like the EPF.
Accordingly, transfers will not be determined by the provinces'
spending decisions as they are under the cost shared programs.
The new arrangement will eliminate inherent limitations of
the former cost shared programs and reduce longstanding
irritants.
Provinces will no longer be governed by rules determining
which expenditures are eligible for cost sharing and which are
not. They will be free to find innovative approaches thanks to
social security reform. Administrative costs of cost sharing will
be eliminated. Federal spending will no longer depend on the
provinces' decisions concerning delivery of their welfare and
social services programs and the identity of recipients.
The Canada health and social transfer is a new vision of
federal-provincial fiscal relations which gives more flexibility
and freedom to the provinces while increasing their
accountability, and provides more stable fiscal arrangements to
the federal government.
This approach will bring about more mature fiscal relations.
[English]
The hon. member for Calgary North has been giving us
contrary advice on how we should deal with transfers to the
provinces. First she says there has been no consultation with
provincial governments about the future of federal transfers and
that the federal government has been too hasty in setting out
important parameters for the health care system which will
affect Canadians for years to come. However, in the next breath
she attacked the government for precisely the opposite error.
She asked how provinces in the health care sector are supposed
to plan if the federal government will not tell them how federal
transfers will be structured in the future and how much the
provinces can expect to receive. The hon. member cannot have it
both ways.
The government has taken a very sensible approach in dealing
with the provinces. In the 1994 budget the government gave the
provinces a two-year breathing space prior to making any cuts
in transfers. In the 1995 budget, transfer restraint does not take
effect until 1996-97, even though action is being taken in the
federal backyard in 1995-96. The provinces have been given
two years to manage the reductions and adjust their programs.
At the same time the CHST provides more flexibility for
provinces to make the necessary adjustments.
In addition, the government will soon begin consulting with
the provinces and the territories to develop a permanent method
of allocating the Canadian health and social transfer among the
provinces from 1997-98 onward.
The federal government remains committed to a co-operative
and productive approach to federal-provincial relations.
13291
(1045)
[Translation]
Third, under clause 13 on the new CHST, the Minister of
Human Resources Development shall invite all provincial
governments to work together to develop, through mutual
consent, a set of shared principles and objectives that could
underlie the new Canada health and social transfer.
The official opposition is trying to depict this quest for shared
principles and goals as an artificial issue.
Its members would like the House and Canadians to believe
that this whole process is nothing but a plot to underhandedly
impose new conditions, methods or penalties. This is what I
have to say about such comments.
``Mutual consent'' means that no government in Canada can
be subjected to new principles and objectives against its will.
In other words, only the governments that freely agree to new
objectives and principles will be bound by them.
Governments that do not agree would not be bound by those
objectives and principles.
So, if some provinces, including Quebec, do not agree, they
will not be bound by the objectives and principles approved by
other governments. Things cannot be made any clearer.
Indeed, this is usually what ``mutual consent'' means, an
agreement made by consenting parties. The wording of the
legislation is quite clear on this issue. I do not see the need to be
more explicit than that.
[English]
Fourth, the Reform Party has proposed eliminating cabinet's
role in enforcing the Canada Health Act as well as considerably
reducing the role of the Minister of Health. Instead it would turn
over this job to the federal court.
Hon. members should recall that Bill C-76 makes no
substantive amendments to the Canada Health Act, only
consequential amendments required by the ending of the
established programs funding and introduction of the CHST.
The five Canada Health Act criteria whose enforcement will be
affected by these motions relate to universality,
comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public
administration.
The current procedure for applying penalties to a province is
as follows. The Minister of Health initiates the process by
consulting the province. If the province has not given a
satisfactory undertaking to the minister to remedy the default
within a reasonable time, she refers the issue to the governor in
council. The governor in council decides whether penalties are
appropriate, how much they should be and whether they should
be reimposed.
Under the Reform proposal, the minister would instead apply
to the federal court. The federal court would decide whether
penalties were appropriate, how much they should be and
whether they should be reimbursed.
This government strongly supports the Canada Health Act, as
does an overwhelming majority of Canadians all across this
country. The member for Winnipeg North is here. He has spent
his whole life advocating and supporting the Canada health
system. I am sure he would agree with the view of the
government and my own view that if we should turn the
decisions on enforcement over to the courts, we would pull away
one of the most fundamental principles behind the act, which is
that we as politicians and as a government must take
responsibility for the Canada Health Act.
It is the cornerstone of this government. We will not accept
any amendments that weaken the ability of the federal
government to enforce the delivery of a system that Canadians
find is one of the most attractive features of living in this
country.
The provisions of the Canada Health Act which the Reform
Party object to have served Canadians well since that act was
passed over a decade ago. Reformers are seeking to water down
the enforcement of national medicare standards, but we will not
waver from our commitment. The Reform amendments would
have the courts decide how the Canada Health Act is to be
applied. Canadians have elected us as parliamentarians to do
this job. We do not intend to shirk that responsibility.
(1050)
Fifth, some opposition members seem to suggest that all our
problems would disappear if only the federal government would
abandon health care and other social programs and give the
provincial governments more transfers of tax points.
[Translation]
The Canadian government has no intention of giving up its
responsibilities in terms of funding major social programs. The
Canada social transfer will help to subsidize the programs which
are essential to all Canadians, including Quebecers, and its
contribution will reach almost $27 billion by 1996-1997.
Canadians all know how important these programs are, and to
suggest that the federal government should withdraw from them
is preposterous, as preposterous as the suggestion that Ottawa
should replace these transfers by giving up tax points. The
Canadian government needs all of these tax points to fulfil its
obligations towards all Canadians, including Quebecers.
Everyone knows that, because they mean more for the have
provinces than for the have not provinces, tax points put the
underprivileged provinces at a disadvantage.
13292
[English]
Another issue raised in the bill and in further debate has been
subsidies to business. In the course of program review,
departments across the government took action to reduce
business subsidies. Overall we are proposing to cut business
subsidies by 60 per cent. This includes agriculture and
transportation subsidies that were designed decades ago.
The bill proposes to repeal the Western Grain Transportation
Act and to terminate the western grain transportation subsidy
paid to railways effective July 31, 1995. The reform of the
WGTA will result in savings of $2.6 billion over the next five
years.
This is much more than a deficit issue. The elimination of the
subsidy will encourage the development of value added
processing and the production of higher value crops. It will
result in a more efficient grain handling and transportation
system. It will help maintain our market access for grain sales in
foreign countries and comply with our obligations under the
agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.
A number of further initiatives will facilitate the transfer to
the new system. These include a payment of $1.6 billion to
owners of prairie farmland plus a $300 million transportation
adjustment fund. The bill also provides for the regulation of
maximum freight rates that can be charged by railway
companies to move grain from the prairies.
There is an amendment to the bill on the matter of freight rates
that I would like to point out to the House. Clause 21 of the bill
has been amended to strengthen the provisions governing the
review of the maximum regulated freight rates. Instead of an
automatic sunsetting provision for maximum rates, the Minister
of Transport will be given the authority to determine whether the
rates should be fully deregulated during a review in 1999. These
amendments are designed to provide greater rate protection to
shippers. Should the benefit of full rate deregulation become
apparent during the period leading up to the review, the Minister
of Transport will have the authority to remove the maximum
regulated rate protection.
The bill also proposes the elimination of the Atlantic freight
subsidies under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, the
ARFAA, and the Maritime Freight Rates Act, the MFRA. These
subsidies which have proven inefficient in reducing shipper
costs are of marginal and declining importance to regional
economic activity. This measure to take effect this July will save
nearly $100 million a year. To help ensure that the elimination of
the subsidy contributes to a better transportation system, the
budget announced a five-year $326 million transportation
adjustment program.
(1055)
I would like to respond to some of the specific criticisms
made about the Western Grain Transition Payments Act. First,
the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, the critic for the
official opposition, during his speech on May 31 stated that the
transition payment of $2.2 billion is tax free. The payment being
made by the government to owners of prairie farm land is $1.6
billion and is taxable. The payment is neither $2.2 billion nor is
it tax free.
The hon. member has also suggested that transition payments
will be made to beef and hog producers in western Canada. The
payments are being made to owners of land which in 1994
produced grain or land which was in summer fallow in 1994 and
which in 1993 grew grain. Payments will not be made to western
beef and hog producers.
I know the hon. member has a long history of being interested
in grain transportation. In committee he gave a very eloquent
defence of his position. He told me he had worked on the issue
many, many years ago. I very much appreciated his comments
and I simply wanted to put on the record some of the
perspectives of the government on the issue.
On behalf of the NDP, the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake stated that with the repeal of the
WGTA, elevator points would lose $1 million annually in
income. The repeal of the WGTA will result in increased
transportation costs to producers. This will encourage producers
to move from being oriented on exporting grain to increasing
local consumption of grain to increase diversification in the
economy on the prairies.
This diversification will in turn create more jobs on the
prairies. For example, the construction of a new canola crushing
plant in Moose Jaw was recently announced. This plant will help
diversify the local economy by producing value added
processed products.
The same member has suggested that we as members of
Parliament need a chance to study the effects of the removal of
the WGTA. Ever since the WGTA was enacted in 1984 it has
been the subject of studies and ongoing reviews. There were
numerous studies conducted before the WGTA was passed. As
well, there have been an extensive number of studies on the
WGTA reform conducted by industry, academics, various
consultants, as well as by the federal and provincial
governments over the past decade.
This is not the time to study nor to continue delay. Now is the
time to act. I am sure the member from the New Democratic
Party understands how dramatic these changes will be on the
prairies. We are all looking forward to a responsible,
co-operative attitude among the producers, shippers, rail
companies and provincial and federal governments to make sure
this works. It is no longer the time to study.
There are also a number of amendments in the bill on the
public service. The measures I have outlined so far, along with
other initiatives arising from the program review, mark the
transition to a more focused, effective and frugal federal
government. Reducing the public service was not an objective of
the
13293
program review. Such a reshaping of the government's role and
the spending cuts it entails will unfortunately have an effect on
the employees delivering services to Canadians on behalf of the
federal government.
By the time the 1995 budget actions are fully implemented,
federal employment is expected to decline by some 45,000 or
about 10 per cent. Natural attrition and the programs currently in
place are inadequate to deal with changes of this scope. The
government appreciates the valuable service its employees
provide. We are committed to managing the reductions in a fair
and orderly fashion.
In keeping with this commitment the bill proposes changes to
the Public Sector Compensation Act that will allow for an early
departure incentive. This incentive could be taken by as many as
13,000 to 15,000 employees in the most affected departments.
We estimate the cost of the program for the public service, the
military, certain separate employers and the crown to be about
$1 billion which will be included in the 1994-95 fiscal year.
(1100)
Other proposed changes to the act will allow for cost neutral
changes to non-salaried terms of employment and for certain
new kinds of leave. In addition, we are proposing amendments
to the Public Service Employment Act that will give public
sector managers more flexibility in staffing arrangements.
Employees affected by the downsizing who decide not to take
advantage of the departure incentives will have a reasonable
period to find employment elsewhere in the public service, but
that period cannot be indefinite. The government simply cannot
afford to pay people for not working.
Accordingly the bill also includes amendments to the
workforce adjustment directive so that surplus employees in
most affected departments who decline departure incentives
will cease to be paid after six months and will be laid off after
one year unless alternative employment is found.
The President of the Treasury Board recently signed an
agreement in principle with the public service unions to assist
employees affected by downsizing. He will be working through
joint labour-management adjustment committees to assist
affected employees in making the transition from the public
service.
Our goal in introducing these and other transition measures is
to be fair to the taxpayer as well as to the federal employees
affected. We believe the program balances the objectives.
Today's legislation will play a key role in setting the country
on the course of fiscal responsibility and government renewal.
These measures are absolutely essential if we are to meet our
deficit targets and refocus the government on its priorities and
on the country's needs.
We have drawn directly on the advice of Canadians from
whom we heard several months before the budget and who
subsequently gave us advice after the budget. Canadians in turn
have shown their strong support for the budget. They know it
will promote better public finances and a stronger economy.
To secure the savings that will lead to the improvements we
must pass the legislation as quickly as possible. Anything less
will compromise our ability to reach the objectives we have
promised Canadians and our commitment to a secure and
prosperous future for ourselves and our children. I therefore
urge all members to give the bill final approval in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak at third
reading of Bill C-76, which implements certain provisions of
the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995.
I was listening a little while ago to the parliamentary
secretary who spoke about the hearings held by the finance
committee and I had the impression that we did not attend the
same hearings. People did not come to tell us that they were in
favour of the budget measures. They did not come to tell us that
these budget measures put the country on the track that they
wanted to see the government follow. On the contrary, the vast
majority of witnesses said that in the last two years, since the
tabling of the Minister of Finance's first budget, the federal
government always targeted those in the greatest need.
What people will remember, and what they said at the finance
committee hearings, is that the government, in the last two
years, has continued to make cuts in what we believe to be
fundamental, Canada's social programs. What people will
remember of the last two budgets is that there were cuts of $5.5
billion in unemployment insurance in the first budget and that
the number of weeks of benefits to which claimants are entitled
was reduced by a tightening up of the eligibility criteria. That is
what people will remember.
(1105)
What will stand out from the last budget and Bill C-76 in the
mind of Canadians is that the government went one step further.
The last budget added $700 million to the $5.5 billion in cuts
already announced. This is what the Minister of Finance did, and
Canadians will not forget.
People will also remember the tightening of the
unemployment insurance eligibility criteria, especially those
who had to turn to that last resort program because they lost their
job. They will remember that it is this government that tightened
the
13294
eligibility criteria and reduced the number of insurable weeks.
What happened to those people? I have seen many of them in my
riding office since last year and they have had to go on welfare.
These people, already disheartened and depressed by the
economic situation and the loss of their job, have had to apply
for welfare benefits.
Do you know how many people the Liberal government is
responsible for shifting from unemployment insurance benefits
to welfare? In Quebec, 50,000 more people joined the already
impressive ranks of the 800,000 on welfare. This is what people
will remember of this government, and what they have been
blaming it for since the tabling of the first two budgets.
I will also add this: for the last two quarters or so, for the last
five months, no jobs were created in Canada, there was no net
creation of jobs. The economy is stagnating. Do you know what
that means on a technical level? It means that our economy is
slowing down and that we may be headed faster than we think
toward another recession. That is what this government is
offering us and that is what Canadians will remember.
The measures taken by the Liberal government over the last
two years have led to more poverty in Canada. Do you know
that, during the last two decades, the number of poor families in
our country has increased 41 per cent? Forty-one per cent in two
decades.
Do you know that the poverty rate among single parent
families headed by a woman exceeds 52 per cent? It is a
catastrophe. A 52 per cent poverty rate among single mother
families.
Do you know what that percentage is in Sweden? We tend to
forget that. In Sweden, the poverty rate among single mother
families is 6 per cent. Fifty-two per cent in Canada compared to
6 per cent in Sweden. There is a problem somewhere, and I
understand perfectly why women in Quebec have had enough of
this situation.
I understand perfectly why, two weeks ago, women have
started marching to demand that their rights be recognized, to
demand that they be treated fairly, to tell both the Quebec and
the federal governments that they have had enough of this
poverty, that they have had enough of politicians who promise
them the moon during the election campaign but who, as soon as
they come into office, start taking away what little bit these
women have. That is what people are saying today and what
women were saying when they marched on Quebec City.
Do you know what kind of hourly wage for a normal 37 1/2
hour workweek a single mother with a child needs to survive? I
figured it out a few times because several women in tears came
to my constituency office to tell me that they could not make
ends meet. To survive, they need the equivalent of a minimum
hourly wage of $10 for a 37 1/2 hour workweek.
The $8.15 minimum wage demanded by the women who
marched on Quebec City was symbolic. They wanted to see
government decisions take a new direction, and this was the
direction they were looking for as part of a new social covenant
for Quebec. They wanted the government to change its course,
to review the entire income security program, and they wanted
the program to include not just training but re-entry into the
labour force. This was the fundamental message these women
were trying to get across when they marched on Quebec City last
week.
(1110)
I was pleased with the response of the Quebec government. It
did not take the approach that seven demands out of nine had
been met. I do not want to get into a numbers game, but the
important thing is the direction adopted by the government of
Quebec in response to these women. The direction of the
response by the government of Quebec on Sunday is more
important than any numbers and that direction is clear.
One thing is certain, the Quebec government has not lost sight
of the real world. We can see this in its approach to the economy
and also in its compassion for its citizens. The message Sunday
from Premier Parizeau was clear: the government of Quebec
will work to improve the lot of the least fortunate, taking rapid
and direct action in seeking to respond to all of women's
demands. This is only normal, it is vital for 52 per cent of
Quebec's population, the proportion represented by women. The
government of Quebec will address these areas that are key to
the survival of lone parent families headed by women.
The Government of Quebec will be all the better placed to
meet these needs once Quebecers have decided to stop frittering
away their energy arguing and complaining about the
constitution, which is what they have been doing constantly for
50 years, in an attempt to carve out for themselves a decent
place-nothing more than what anyone else has-just a
respectable place within the system, and for all that we have
tried, they not only refuse to let us take our place, but they also
refuse to even recognize our differences.
Once we have settled this issue over the next few
months-yes, it is a question of months-all of our energies, all
of our tax money will be devoted to helping these women, and
these men, the most needy Quebecers, who will be able to at
least have hope that their situation will improve. I think that the
message that the Premier of Quebec delivered Sunday was clear
and I think that the comparison is easy to make. When we see
that the Government of Quebec is holding out its hand, when we
see the federal government's partial answers to the neediest
women of our society, its general orientation and its actions over
the past two years, I think that the situation is clear.
13295
Just look at what Quebecers are choosing between: a federal
system which has brought public finances to ruin, with a current
debt of $548 billion and a forecasted total debt of about $800
billion in another four and a half years; a federal government
which has introduced two consecutive budgets cutting
unemployment insurance, federal transfer payments and which
could eventually make cuts to the old age security system; and
the Government of Quebec, which is orienting itself towards
helping the neediest Quebecers, I think that the choice to be
made in the fall is clear. We must get out of this system, which is
all about cuts like the ones contained in the last budget and like
those they are bringing in through Bill C-76, a system which
will continue in that vein over the next few years.
I would like to digress and pay tribute to these women who
marched on Quebec City, pay tribute to their courage,
perseverance, their faith in a brighter future for Quebec and for
all Quebecers. I think that they have demonstrated that if we are
determined to make society a better place, if we stop depending
on power hungry politicians like the ones we have faced across
the way for 18 months to make a change, we can make progress.
When we see people coming to Quebec City to face their
politicians, who actually want things to change themselves and
give people hope that things will fundamentally change under a
sovereign Quebec, that is already a great victory for the women
who marched all the way to Quebec City.
I had the opportunity to tell these women, when they were
passing through my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe, how beautiful they
are, simply beautiful, how they were beautiful in spirit and
beautiful in heart. They expressed their heartfelt concerns and
the Government of Quebec answered that things would change,
that they could hope for a fundamental change in their case,
because they and others like them should not be held responsible
and made to pay for the 52 per cent poverty rate. It is inhumane.
A society with any sense of dignity should be ashamed of
perpetuating this poverty, especially among women who are
single parents and have had to put up with this for decades.
(1115)
One wonders why these women did not march on Ottawa as
well. Why not? They could have marched on Ottawa, but these
Quebecers realized they would be wasting their time marching
on Ottawa. They would be wasting their time, because this
government is bankrupt, has no vision and has shown no
compassion during the two years it has been in power, despite its
commitments in the red book. That is why they did not march on
Ottawa.
This government gives us nothing but cutbacks. It does not
talk about controlling public spending, improving the economy
or improving social justice in Canada. It just keeps cutting
blindly, although this will have no visible impact in four years'
time. Unless this big federal machine stops overheating,
billions and billions of dollars worth of cuts every year will have
no impact at all.
Speaking of cuts, the latest budget brought down by the
Minister of Finance, as implemented in Bill C-76, cuts away at
transfer payments to provincial governments. In Quebec alone,
and this we cannot accept, 32 per cent of federal transfers will be
cut over the next three years. This is very serious: 32 per cent of
federal transfers will be cut in Quebec.
Predictably, every time a decision is made in Ottawa, a
decision over which the Government of Quebec has no control at
all, in Quebec City they have to cut not only the fat but the lean
as well. It may be predictable but it is intolerable that the
Minister of Finance in Quebec City does not have full control
over the money that comes in and the money that goes out every
year.
How can you expect a government to be able to plan ahead for
the next three to five years? It is impossible. Because the
Canadian government cuts 32 per cent of its transfers to the
Government of Quebec, the Government of Quebec is being
saddled with a number of financial problems because the federal
government is not doing its job. The federal government is
offloading its problems with the deficit by cutting transfer
payments.
The federal government is delighted when it sees a nice flag
flying over an infrastructure project in which it invested 20,000
or 30,000 dollars. On those occasions, you will see not just the
minister but his assistants and his parliamentary secretary right
up front at the sod turning ceremony. But when it is a matter of
being responsible and controlling the public spending, they are
not interested.
An hon. member: They are good at shovelling.
Mr. Loubier: They certainly are. Cuts in federal transfer
payments to the Government of Quebec will cost Quebec $650
million next year. This offloading of the federal deficit will
mean that next year, the Government of Quebec will have a
shortfall of $650 million. Ultimately, we will lose $2.4 billion
because of federal decisions over which the Government of
Quebec has no control.
But there is more than that in this bill. The bill contains
another instance of strong arming by the federal government.
This is the kind of tactic we have come to expect from the
present Prime Minister who was the right-hand man of Pierre
Elliott Trudeau in 1980 and in 1981, when the Canadian
constitution was patriated against an almost unanimous decision
of the National Assembly to veto patriation unless Quebec's
historic demands were met.
13296
The present Prime Minister was also the chief instigator of the
demise of the Meech Lake accord in 1990. No one will forget
that. We all remember how he walked up and down the hallway
with his cellular phone while inside, the Leader of the Official
Opposition in Manitoba, Mrs. Carstairs, was taking her cues
from him and doing his dirty work.
(1120)
He is the one responsible for the collapse of the Meech Lake
accord. Quebecers remember that too.
Now, another blow is being struck by the federal government
with Bill C-76. The blow comes from our national expert, who
is making his right hand man, the Minister of Finance, do his
dirty work.
Bill C-76 provides for the continuance of national standards
for health care and the introduction of new ones for welfare and
post-secondary education. And if the provinces-for these
people, Quebec is just another province-fail to comply with
these standards, they will be cut off just like the unemployed and
the people on welfare were cut off and like seniors soon will be.
Permit me to contradict the parliamentary secretary. No, the
provinces are not being given greater autonomy. It gives me a
pain in my stomach to hear talk of provincial autonomy, when
welfare, post-secondary education and health are already
provincial matters, within Quebec's jurisdiction. Giving greater
autonomy in areas of provincial jurisdiction-now I have heard
it all.
The parliamentary secretary talks of greater autonomy and
greater flexibility. On the contrary. Not only will federal
intrusion into areas already established by the constitution
continue, but the provinces will be bound and gagged and told
that, if they fail to meet the Canada-wide standards established,
the government will find one way or another to cut them off, to
not give them any transfer funding.
This is the sort of flexible and co-operative federalism the
government is offering us with a simple bill on public finances.
When Bill C-76 was initially tabled, there was a great outcry
in Quebec. Imagine setting national standards in
post-secondary education for Quebecers, in particular. You can
bet there was a reaction in Quebec when that came out.
Quebecers were outraged. They understood that, if this bill were
implemented, 75 per cent of people of Canada would be
deciding about education in Quebec. Imagine the effect on the
backbone of our culture, of what makes us distinct and of what
makes us a people if our education were determined by the other
founding people.
No people in the world would accept such conditions. It
makes no sense. So here we have the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Finance, our worthy representatives of
Quebec,-and I see the member for Brome-Missisquoi with a
smile on his lips-closing their eyes and concerns to the
development of Canadian standards for post-secondary
education and making Quebec toe the line on pain of being cut
off. This is their idea of federalism.
Given the general outcry provoked by his initial project, the
Minister of Finance, at one point-I think it was during the
debate at second reading-proposed, in a move which is very
unusual on the floor of the House, to table amendments
following speeches by the Leader of the Opposition who
opposed this measure, by the critic from Mercier and myself. He
threw them out just like that, saying that they could meet
Quebec's demands. We did well not to react right away because,
when we received in writing the amendments which were passed
yesterday by the government side, we realized that not only did
the minister not solve anything but that he made things even
worse. The second version was worse than the first one. They
were laughing at us.
Some hon. members: They get everything wrong.
Mr. Loubier: Absolutely. No wonder this country is in such a
mess.
Madam Speaker, the amendments passed yesterday by the
liberal majority say the following: ``The Minister of Human
Resources Development shall invite representatives of all the
provinces to consult and work together to develop, through
mutual consent, a set of shared principles and objectives for the
other social programs referred to in paragraph (1)(d) that could
underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer''. Other social
programs include not only health but also post-secondary
education and welfare.
First of all, what is meant by ``mutual consent''?
(1125)
We have heard it over the past 15 or 20 years; ``mutual
agreement'' has meant that as soon as seven provinces with 50
per cent of the population agree, there is mutual agreement. Not
only is the agreement mutual, but it becomes a Canadian
consensus, no matter what Quebec believes.
This is the route we are going with Bill C-76, and the
provisions regarding the Canada social transfer if they are
adopted under their present form. Mutual agreement could mean
the agreement of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the
population. The federalists opposite with their blinders on will
see it as a Canadian consensus. They used to be called the 74
fools. I do not know how many of them there are now, I did not
count them, but I do not think anything has changed. Even they
will accept that Quebec is made to toe the line if there is mutual
agreement with seven provinces accounting for 50 per cent of
the population.
This is what is meant by mutual agreement, it becomes a
Canadian consensus and must be abided by, and it says right here
that if it is not, they will cut funding. ``Canada health and social
transfer may be provided for a fiscal year for the purpose of-''
Among the listed purposes are the following: ``promoting any
13297
shared principles and objectives that are developed, pursuant to
subsection (3), with respect to the operation of social programs,
other than a program for the purpose referred to in paragraph
(b).''
What this means is that because these types of consensus have
been arrived at through mutual agreement, as I explained earlier,
if one province does not abide by these mutual agreements,
these sorts of Canadian consensus, its funding will be cut in a
drastic manner and without warning.
Picture this. A Canadian consensus is arrived at regarding
post-secondary education, with seven provinces accounting for
50 per cent of the population, excluding Quebec, and they say:
``From now on, this is the way education is going to be, and this
is the route all provincial governments are going to follow''. If
Quebec refuses to toe the line, because of its distinct culture and
because it is a distinct nation, it will lose billions of dollars in
transfer payments. This is what is called co-operative
federalism according to Bill C-76.
We have a suggestion to make to the government: it should
immediately abolish all provisions concerning the Canada
health and social transfer and, before anything else, meet with
the Quebec government to discuss its withdrawal. It should
withdraw from any area of provincial jurisdiction like health
care, post-secondary education and welfare. It must leave those
areas to Quebec. It must transfer tax points to the Quebec
government as a compensation and stop annoying Quebec with
those darned national standards, those Canada-wide standards.
That is what Quebec wants and that is the essence of Quebec's
message.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: There is also another message that we could
send to the federal government, given what we heard at the
finance committee. We could certainly add another message.
Some Canadian provinces want national standards; they want
standards for everything. The federal government should meet
with these provinces and determine the standards with them and
with all the Canadian groups outside Quebec who want such
standards. Let them choose and implement the standards, but
they should leave Quebec alone. That is the second message we
want to convey to the government about Bill C-76 and the
Canada health and social transfer.
There is another point we must make in the context of this bill
and it concerns the Crow's benefit. That benefit raised passions
in Quebec in the past. Do you know why? Because, in 1982,
another Liberal government was in office at the time and they
understood strictly nothing about that issue. I remember that, in
1982, the actual minister of International Affairs was
responsible for the Crow's Nest rate issue in Quebec. He was the
only french speaking member of the group who could
understand what a crow, a nest and a train were. At least, it was a
beginning.
There was a terrible fight in 1982. Do you know why? Because
the Crow rate, a grant for western grain transportation, a
preferential rate structure for the shipping of grain products
from the prairies to the various export points, was established in
1897.
(1130)
Since 1897, we have built a balance between east and west,
between grain production in the west and livestock production
in the east, especially in Quebec. We also grow grain in Quebec,
but mostly for animal feed, while in the west wheat is grown for
export. This balance evolved over the years: grain in the west,
livestock in the east.
When you eliminate the preferential rate known as Crow's
Nest, when you eliminate the subsidies paid year after year by
the federal government to railway companies, to allow them to
charge below cost, you are breaking the balance. The
disappearance of the preferential rates will mean a local price
for grain in the west that is $8 to $15 a metric tonne below the
international price.
Do you know what that means? It means that by breaking the
balance you are giving a competitive advantage to western
producers who, with a price for grain of $8 to $15 a metric tonne
lower than the international price, will be able to produce more
meat animals. This situation is accepted by eastern producers
and in particular those in Quebec. They reason that things have
changed since 1897, and they accept that the subsidized rates
known as the Crow's Nest rates must disappear.
However, we should not go too far. That is the way it was in
1982 and that is the way it is today, but we should not go any
further. In other words, when you eliminate this advantage, you
must simply do away with it and bring transportation rates to the
level at which they should normally be, that is to say the real
transportation cost for the hopper cars which carry grain to the
various export points.
If you go beyond that, if you give a federal compensation-24
per cent of which is being paid by Quebec taxes-to increase
livestock production in the west so that they can compete with
Quebec hog producers, for example, we no longer agree. We
cannot accept that federal money be used to help western
producers compete against their Quebec colleagues. It would be
totally unfair. Not only do they subsidize, but they subsidize in a
big way.
13298
They ask everybody to tighten their belts while giving $1.6
billion in compensation to western producers. And contrary to
what the parliamentary secretary said earlier, this $1.6 billion is
tax free, which means that, in fact, we are giving $2.2 billion to
western producers in compensation for the fact that the
preferential tariff is going to be eliminated within the next five
years.
Nobody warned the Quebec milk producers when milk
subsidies were cut, $35 million in one shot. There were no
transition measures, they did not offer any when our markets
were opened up under NAFTA and, afterwards, the GATT
agreement which is now the World Trade Organization
agreement. They did not compensate them at all. Nor did they
compensate the unemployed when they cut UI funds by $2.5
billion annually.
In a period of fiscal austerity, a time when it is said that the
federal system is bankrupt with a debt of $548 billion, they are
ready to give what amounts to $2.2 billion to western producers.
It is totally unfair because, as I said earlier, Quebec's money will
be used to increase the competitiveness of western cattlemen
who are going to compete with Quebec hog and beef producers.
This is why we are against this part of Bill C-76.
If we must amend the Crow rate, let us eliminate it and the
subsidy that goes with it; we must let the free market set the
tariff and leave it at that. This is what we must do when we are
bled white because of the state of public finances and when
everybody is asked to make sacrifices. Moreover, they do not
even recognize that the elimination of the Crow's Nest rate will
have considerable impacts on Quebec. According to an analysis
done by Professor Garth Coffin of McGill University, Quebec
will have to absorb between $24 and $46 million per year in
losses because of the government's policy.
I think that the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and the current Prime Minister forgot what the Crow rate did for
Quebec in 1982.
(1135)
It would be in their interest to remember that, because Quebec
producers remind them, either here or in their riding office, of
what the Crow rate means for them, of what it means for them to
have their dairy subsidies cut again and again. They were asked
to make greater sacrifices than other classes of population in the
last budget; their dairy subsidies and various income
stabilization plans were cut and they were especially concerned
when our borders were opened, as we did here a bit over
zealously-if you will allow me the expression-by opening our
borders wider than anywhere else in the world. Americans, who
are in favour of free trade in the milk industry, are the second
most protectionist in the world after Japan. That is something.
Madam Speaker, I have only a few minutes left, but I would
like to add a last point. Veterans affairs is another issue that I
consider important. Bill C-76 contains clauses that are hitting
veterans very hard, but even more so their families. Speaking of
veterans, we can go back to World War I or II, but we must not
forget those who fought recently. Soldiers were sent by the
federal government to represent Canada in peacekeeping forces
and some of them died while in the performance of their duty.
Their families however must go on with their lives.
Concerned with justice, my colleague and friend, the member
for Châteauguay, presented amendments to Bill C-76 to prevent
the federal government from acting unjustly towards them. His
colleague for Chicoutimi made a brilliant plea in favour of the
amendments yesterday. I thank him for that, since the member
for Châteauguay had pressing obligations elsewhere. Yesterday,
the member for Chicoutimi presented the analysis made by the
member for Châteauguay and I will comment on it, since the
Bloc Quebecois considers that in no case must a budget lead to
social injustices, as this measure would do for veterans.
Briefly, in Bill C-76 the government gives up its obligations
and commitments towards veterans despite historical promises
made on their honour by this government and its predecessors.
The government knows very well that these cuts will add to the
plight of the families of these veterans and force them to turn to
other public services, provincial in this case, for the help they
need. Someone said earlier that the federal government had
become an expert at shovelling. Well, this is another case of
shovelling.
This government not only shows disrespect for veterans, their
memory, their families and all they had to go through, but it
passes on to Quebec responsibilities which were initially that of
the federal government. For example, clause 42 of Bill C-76
amends the Children of Deceased Veterans Education
Assistance Act. This amendment is the first step in the gradual
elimination of a benefit giving children of deceased veterans a
chance to pursue their studies. The 85 orphans who presently
receive this benefit are all, except one or two, children of
deceased soldiers who participated in Canadian peacekeeping
missions. We are not talking here about the two world wars but
about recent peacekeeping missions in which Canadian soldiers
died.
Not only did those children lose their fathers who died while
defending peace, democracy and freedom, but they are now
being deprived of a chance to further their knowledge.
According to Bill C-76, students who were receiving the benefit
up to the day the budget was tabled will continue to be entitled to
it, but the department will accept no further applications. In
1993-94, that assistance program cost $315,803. It is not so
much, but that is the Minister of Finance's great initiative, his
masterpiece.
Not only are the poorest in our society being attacked, but now
the children of those who lost their lives fighting for peace are
being attacked also. We oppose this. Clauses 68 to 72 amend the
War Veterans Allowance Act by putting an end to the payment of
allowances to veterans who were involved in the resistance. We
are talking about allied resistance fighters who made the same
contribution as official soldiers, as official armies, to bringing
13299
about peace and freedom during the First and Second World
Wars.
(1140)
These clauses are aimed at gradually eliminating the
allowances payable to these veterans who were military allies,
who immigrated to Canada at the end of their service and who
lived here for at least ten years before asking the government for
assistance. The government is cutting off their allowances
simply and brutally.
Clause 69 repeals sub-section 6.1 of the Allowance Act. This
sub-section 6.1 provides that allied veterans who took part in
the resistance will continue to receive the allowances
established according to their financial circumstances, as long
as these allowances were awarded on March 2, 1992 or before.
With this provision, by repealing this sub-section, the
government is cutting off allowances to more than 3,000 people
in Canada. This provision will also have the effect of taking
away the allowances of more than 1,000 resistance veterans
whose Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan benefits put
them just above the income level that would normally qualify
them for health care benefits.
And speaking about health care, a few weeks ago, I received a
letter from people in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe that was
quite meaningful and may illustrate the awful and disrespectful
treatment we give to veterans and their families.
Mr. Hervé Bélanger, the secretary of branch 102 of the Royal
Canadian Legion in Saint-Hyacinthe wrote the following: ``The
executive committee of branch 102 learned recently that
veterans living in the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue
Hotel''-veterans injured in active duty-``will have to pay
more for their rooms, as rates will go from $547 to $703.80 per
month this year, or a 28 per cent increase'', all because of a
decision taken by this government.
Do you know how much rates have gone up for these veterans
since 1990? They pay 198 per cent more. But because there are
very few of them, and they do not have the energy and strength to
get organized, after having served their country, and in some
cases lost a limb-some families were left fatherless-, they
cannot get organized, their numbers are dwindling, and they are
not a force to be reckoned with, so the Liberals have no use for
them. The Liberals do not see them as an organized lobby, so
they think nothing of slashing their assistance. This shameful
slashing is taking place because they do not have names like
Bronfman or Desmarais, and because Liberal ministers never
visit them as they visit the Desmarais and the Bronfmans, even
if it means going as far as California. So, they are not accorded
fair and just treatment.
For all these reasons, not only during the vote, but also after,
and during the referendum campaign in Quebec, the official
opposition will strongly and firmly reject Bill C-76 as well as
this government which is more centralizing than any other
government-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, but his time has
expired.
Debate resumes with the hon. member for Kootenay East.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the round of applause from my Bloc friends very
much.
Coming to the House, I have come to the conclusion that one
does not have to be crazy, but it helps. It makes me think of the
situation where the inmates are in charge of the asylum.
The government came here on a promise of openness. The
government came here on a promise that we were going to be
able to get into debate, get into a situation where the people of
Canada were going to be represented in the Chamber. As
opposed to openness, what have we had? Closure.
I refer to a very profound one-minute statement made by my
colleague from Calgary Centre yesterday, and I know that
Liberals would want to hear it again:
In opposition the Liberals howled at Brian Mulroney with righteous
indignation over his government's use of time allocation to ram through
legislation. With such sincere compassion for democracy, one would expect this
Liberal government's record in the use of time allocation to be squeaky clean
compared to Mulroney. Let us compare.
Mulroney used time allocation 35 times to pass 200 bills. That is 17 per cent
of his bills. Shame on him. Counting today's time allocation motion, the little
guy from Shawinigan has used time allocation an unprecedented 11 times in
only 59 bills. That is 19 per cent of his bills passed using time allocation, 2 per
cent more than Mulroney.
Congratulations, Liberals. A parliamentary record. Does this mean that this
Prime Minister is less democratic and even more arrogant than Brian Mulroney?
Is that possible?
(1145)
It is a very good question. Time allocation is absolutely
inexcusable in that the Liberals have on Bill C-76 turned 180
degrees from their red book. There is no mandate on the part of
the government to be able to bring forward Bill C-76.
Why would we be into a situation of time allocation? The
House might be interested. The list is moderately exhaustive but
it is important to get on record how the government has either
exhibited poor management and planning or, in the alternative,
legislation by stealth.
13300
Poor management and planning would say it is impossible to
understand that the following bills in the Commons are awaiting
start or completion of second reading, all of which are supposed
to be completed by June 23: Bill C-62, an act respecting the
achievement of regulatory goals; Bill C-71, an act to amend the
Explosives Act; Bill C-78, an act to provide for the
establishment of a program to enable certain persons to receive
protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or
prosecutions; Bill C-81, an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort
Erie Public Bridge Company; Bill C-82, an act to amend the
Royal Canadian Mint; Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor
General Act; Bill C-84, an act to provide for the review,
registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of
regulations and other documents; Bill C-88, an act to implement
the agreement on internal trade; Bill C-90, an act to amend the
Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act; Bill C-91, an act to continue
the Federal Business Development Bank under the name
Business Development Bank of Canada; and Bill C-92, an act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is not all. The next list is of bills in committee: Bill C-7,
an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors
and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal
the Narcotic Control Act; Bill C-58, an act to amend the Public
Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act; Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of
administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the
Canada Agricultural Products Act; Bill C-64, an act respecting
employment equity; Bill C-66, an act to amend the Western
Grain Transportation Act; Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms
and other weapons; Bill C-72, an act to amend the Criminal
Code on self-induced intoxication; and Bill C-85, an act to
amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
I might have something to say about that act in a couple of
minutes.
The list continues: Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian
Dairy Commission Act; Bill C-87, an act to implement the
convention on the prohibition of the development, production
stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their
destruction; and Bill C-89, an act to provide for the continuance
of the Canadian National Railway Company under the Canada
Business Corporations Act.
Then we have bills awaiting or in report stage: Bill C-41, an
act to amend the Criminal Code on sentencing; Bill C-45, an act
to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the
Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and
Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act; Bill C-52,
an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services; Bill C-65, an act to recognize and
dissolve certain federal agencies; Bill C-70, an act to amend the
income tax application rules; Bill C-75, an act to amend the
Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act;
and Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 27.
Just to top it off, bills awaiting start or completion of third
reading: Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act,
the Canada Pension Act, the Children's Special Allowances Act
and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(1150 )
It begs the question of why the backlog is sitting there. Is the
government actually in a situation of such poor management and
planning that it would be expecting the House to be working
exhaustive hours and that it would be expecting to be able to
shove this kind of legislative package through in such a short
period of time because of poor management and planning? Is
that the reason, or is it legislation by stealth?
Legislation by stealth happens when a government decides it
will regularly and frequently use time allocation, as pointed out
by my colleague from Calgary Centre. One interesting things
happens when we get into legislation by stealth. We end up with
legislation by exhaustion.
The standing committee that considered Bill C-68 finally
rose at 1 a.m. I sat in on a few sessions which were very detailed
and thoughtful. I commend the chairman of the committee for
listening to all sides of the question, treating the motions by the
opposition as serious motions, and allowing time for discussion.
To show the House how we end up with legislation by
exhaustion, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister
brought in no less than 79 amendments to the legislation on
behalf of the justice minister. Why in the world would a bill be
so flawed, so full of holes, so badly drafted that the government
would actually have to bring in 79 amendments to its own
legislation? That is unheard of.
It is really hilarious that in committees there are a few rogues
but as a general rule we find members vote the party line. The
parliamentary secretary who sits in the meeting will say: ``I
really don't think this is good''. Guess what? We end up with
party members voting the party line. That is the way it happens
in the House too.
In this instance I am happy to report that under legislation by
exhaustion, as is being practised by the government, 2 of the 79
amendments brought forward by the parliamentary secretary
were rejected by members of his own caucus. That is how
disorganized the Liberals are. That is what happens when we end
up with legislation by stealth and hence legislation by
exhaustion.
13301
It permits rushing bills through the House such as Bill C-76.
The government has no mandate to bring it to the House. It
allows the government to push it through under time allocation.
It will also be able to push through Bill C-68 and Bill C-41, two
of the more contentious bills, under the whole ruse of time
allocation and pressure because there is so much legislation. It
could have and should have been properly planned so the people
of Canada and their points of view would be properly
represented.
In a couple of minutes I will talk about the relationship of high
taxation to Bill C-76 and the lack of understanding on the part of
the Liberals with respect to high taxation. Before doing so, I
quote the from an article in the Calgary Sun on the weekend
entitled ``Tax cheats grow'' about the frustrations of Canadians:
COMPAS' survey of 820 adult Canadians last month showed respondents
frustrated by corrupt politicians, government waste, overpaid officials and high
taxes, in that order.
It's a common sense moral view that says if our leaders cheat I'm going to
cheat.
I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting for one
minute anyone in the House is cheating.
(1155 )
However I am talking about the perception of many
Canadians in casual situations around the kitchen table or in a
coffee shop. Common sense says that they do not understand
what politicians are doing and think they are out of control. That
is why I find legislation by subterfuge, legislation by pressure,
to be completely unacceptable particularly when it comes to the
issue of MPs pensions.
MPs pensions are a focal point or a pressure point the
government chooses to completely misunderstand. Just because
a few high paid people are at the front end who are in for the
millions of dollars, the majority of backbenchers are prepared to
go along with it. It is absolutely outstanding. In this case we
have pressure on parliamentarians to bring the matter forward. I
predict the MPs pension plan will be slid into the House and out
of the House just as quickly as possible. Therein lies the
frustration of people with coffee shop common sense.
I will deal with the bill specifically. Clause 38 of Bill C-76
gives cabinet far too much arbitrary power and discretion to
decide how much to withhold and when and why transfers to
provinces should be withheld. More significant, it allows
cabinet to withhold any federal transfers, not just transfers
under the CHST.
Clause 48 is probably the single most troubling clause. In the
departmental briefing our researchers attended, officials told
them their legal interpretation of section 13(3) was that it would
be possible for the federal government to unilaterally impose
national standards. If the government cannot provide us with a
guarantee that any national standard must be arrived at with
unanimous provincial consent, we could not possibly support
the clause.
We have a tremendous amount of difficulty with clause 50 and
clause 51. They deal with the whole Liberal mindset of giving
the government executive power, giving the government power
that actually puts it in a position where it no longer has to refer to
the House.
I think back to last June when we were in the pressure cooker.
The government jammed through legislation on the Yukon
Indian land claim settlements and Yukon self-government. It
was jammed through the House. The difficulty is that although
there were 14 land claims settled, only 4 were covered by the
legislation. It means that kind of thing can come back to Ottawa
and never see the House. There can be further settlements on
behalf of the people of Canada by a closed group of people in the
executive of government. It will never have the transparency
that it must have in a democracy. It is just absolutely
unacceptable.
We really have a lot of difficulty with clauses 50 and 51 in Bill
C-76. Basically they give cabinet too much authority with
respect to determining what is or what is not a violation of the
CHST. They allow the government to withhold any federal
transfer, not just the CHST transfer, if it concludes there has
been a violation.
This raises the question of why they would do it. Why would
they have this executive power? Why would they put this clout
in the hands of the federal government? One of the main reasons
is that it is a confused attempt to control social expenditures.
The government is famous for saying that it will be preserving
health care. What an empty threat. As it keeps on diminishing
the amount of money that is transferred to the provinces to
administer the program, how in the world will they have any
clout to preserve health care? The difficulty I have is the basic
question that if the government is talking about preserving
health care and if the government is doing away the ability to
transfer funds to the people, how will it do it? It will do it by
having the legislation and being able to point to the legislation.
It is basically like saying we know we will not be transferring
any money but if we could, we would not. It is an absolute joke.
(1200)
It also gives rise to concern about what is happening in
Ontario where Lyn McLeod with her Liberal red book has
absolutely laid an egg. The provincial red book being brother of
big red book is seen for what it is, basically empty promises.
I and every person in Canada with the exception of members
on the other side have seen from the time that Lyn McLeod
introduced the red book her popularity started to slide. It is
because people said they will not be taken in again.
13302
With the will of the people of Ontario talking about workfare
and with these clauses that give the ability to the federal
government to withhold funds, is the will of the people of
Ontario to be thwarted by the people in Ottawa who will say they
will not be transferring sufficient funds for a workfare program?
It has to be considered.
I talked earlier about tax increase. One of the wildest ones was
the roll back of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.
Capital is capital, money is money; whether public or private,
money is money and should be treated exactly the same way.
This was a direct slap to the people of Alberta. I am absolutely
astounded the Minister of Natural Resources of all people did
not have the fortitude to stand up to this onslaught on people and
industries in Alberta. It is really shameful she backed off and
was not there to be counted.
Perhaps I should explain my understanding of what the Public
Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act is. Crown corporations such
as B.C. Hydro and Ontario Hydro are not subject to certain tax
provisions from the federal government, whereas private
corporations that might be in the same utility business such as
Trans Alta and other corporations like that are.
The purpose of the PUITTA was to give a credit. In other
words, the public utility privately owned would then end up
paying the taxes and receive a credit back from the federal
government. By rolling it back the government under a different
guise and under a different name basically gave a tax increase to
the people who rely on the utilities in Alberta. It was not only
Alberta, it was Nova Scotia and Labrador, two areas that can
least afford that kind of subterfuge in terms of a tax increase.
In the case of Nova Scotia, one of the most interesting things
is that there was an attempt on the part of the provincial
government to turn around and get out of the hydro business. I
suggest it is something that might be considered by Ontario
Hydro, B.C. Hydro and the rest of the public utilities. There is a
place for government and there is a place for private enterprise
and the efficiencies that come with private enterprise.
Now if it does we can count on the fact that the federal
government will have its hands in the wallets of the people of
any other jurisdiction who choose to make what could be a very
sound judgment otherwise.
I see two fundamental problems. I combine the issues of
integrity and leadership. From the Financial Post: ``High taxes
turn Canadians into cheats''. I will quickly address the question
of integrity and leadership. From a June 3 article concerning a
poll done recently for the Financial Post: ``They cheated
because they were disgusted with governments, politicians,
regulations, the welfare system, bureaucrats and excessive
taxation. Excessive pay to officials and politicians, government
waste and especially political corruption are the main drivers of
citizens' desires to tax cheat. The message for politicians is
they should focus on their own personal conduct if they do not
want citizens to destroy the welfare state through the silent
rebellion of tax cheating.
(1205)
``Besides documenting the degree of outrage and
dissatisfaction with the government in this country this poll
reveals that Canada's current levels of taxation are simply not
collectable from a large segment of the population. Put another
way, it means that most Canadians are unwilling to support the
current level of government spending''.
That is instructive because in the Reform Party's taxpayers
budget we recognize that. We balance the budget. We stop the
overspending within three years without one dime of a tax
increase. This survey absolutely underscores that. I repeat: ``Put
another way, it means that most Canadians are unwilling to
support the current level of government spending''. There is
absolutely nothing to give me any cause for comfort that the
government has that message yet.
What happens when the government does not listen? What
happens to taxes and tax cheats? Here are a few of the points
discovered by this survey. Two out of five or 42 per cent
admitted paying cash for goods or services in order to avoid
taxes, GST or provincial sales taxes. One out of five or 20 per
cent admitted they have hidden income in order to evade income
tax.
Another 14 per cent said they have either smuggled or bought
smuggled cigarettes or alcohol to avoid paying taxes on these
commodities; 72 per cent said they would pay cash to avoid
taxes if given the opportunity; 56 per cent said they would hide
income if they could; 34 per cent said they would buy smuggled
cigarettes or alcohol or smuggle them into Canada if they had
the opportunity; 13 per cent admit they cheated whenever
possible by paying cash; 5 per cent hid income whenever
possible; 3 per cent bought contraband goods or smuggled goods
whenever possible.
Further on in the survey it was pointed out that 15 per cent of
Canadians said they will definitely tax cheat in the future by
paying cash under the table; 8 per cent said they would hide
income; 5 per cent would buy contraband or smuggle goods. Of
all surveyed, 53 per cent said they personally know people who
pay cash under the table; 37 per cent said they know cigarette or
alcohol smugglers or buyers of contraband; 36 per cent said they
had knowledge of people cheating by hiding their income.
A staggering 77 per cent of those polled said they have
become more determined to avoid taxes than before. Of this
percentage, 42 per cent said they are much more determined to
avoid taxes; 35 per cent said somewhat more determined. Only
16 per cent are less or somewhat less determined to avoid paying
taxes in the future.
13303
This comes about in my judgment through the lack of a clear
exhibition of integrity and leadership on the part of politicians.
We have a core problem, integrity.
I have come to know some of the government members and I
appreciate them, their friendship and their integrity. In the last
election under the red book and under the promises and under
the whole political process, were they ignorant that they could
not fulfil the promises or did they get into government by
stealth?
There is one person in my mind in the House who stands out as
being a person of quite exceptional integrity. This person was
joined by the member for Halifax and the member for
Beaches-Woodbine in a press conference clearly setting out
his objections to Bill C-76. All three of them were absolutely
decrying Bill C-76, how it could not work, how it should not
work, how it was turning its back on the principles under which
the government was elected. All three did it and only one of
them still stands to this day, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
(1210)
Let me make my position really clear. There are very few
things which the member and I would find in common. I totally
disagree with his position on gun control. I completely disagree
with his position on criminal sentencing and the rest of those
provisions, and I absolutely reject his position on Bill C-76. He
came to the House, elected by the people of
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to represent them as their member of
Parliament. He said he would stand up for what he knows to be
right.
In a quote from the Ottawa Citizen today, under the member's
name who will vote against the budget:
Accusing the Liberals of betraying their principles and reneging on
campaign promises to protect social programs, the veteran member is planning
to vote against his government's budget today.
``I cannot contribute to tearing down a system which I for 29 years in the
House helped build up with the Liberal Party'', (he) told the Commons during
final debate Monday on a bill to implement last February's budget.
The bill contains provisions to cut $7 billion from federal transfers to the
provinces for welfare, post-secondary education and health care and role those
transfers into one block fund.
(He) predicted the social program cuts will hit those in need the hardest,
``widen the gap between the rich and poor'' and lead to ``social unrest and
increased crime''. And he said they could ``quick start or aggravate a recession
that might be coming on''.
I want to reiterate I do not agree with the member's point of
view. I would find it impossible to stand with him when he votes
against this bill on the same matter of principle. I think he is
completely wrong. It even borders on being immoral when the
government of the day turns around and says to members on the
gun control bill: ``You did not vote our way, you are out''.
This member has been an outstanding chair of the justice
committee. What will happen? Is the Prime Minister to oust him
as well? What happens when he does? What he does then is
undermine the whole issue of integrity and leadership on the
part of politicians.
In 1994 the government had a unique opportunity. It is true
that its members came to Ottawa either in ignorance or stealth,
misunderstanding the reality of what was involved with the
economics of the day, totally missing the mark, decrying the fact
that the Reform Party had the audacity to tell people the biggest
single problem was the debt and the way it was eroding social
programs.
In 1994 they missed the opportunity. They arrived here with
unrealistic expectations, and clearly the budget of 1994 showed
that. In Bill C-76 and under the budget of the finance minister
for the first time in 25 years we saw a real cut in spending of a
net reduction of approximately $10 billion. Unfortunately
because the government arrived here with unrealistic
expectations, in the intervening period from October 1993 until
February 1995 guess what? Interest charges had increased $10
billion. Here we have this government taking $7 billion out of
social spending, a total reduction in expenses of $10 billion,
which will impact everyone in Canada, only to pay the extra
interest on the money that they have had to borrow in the same
period of time. It is called treading water.
(1215)
At the moment under the government we are giving away our
sovereignty. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Right now we
are turning that tune over to foreign investors who are coming in
and in their own wisdom are continuing to fund the expenditure
binge of the government.
The government is taking Canadians $110 million further into
debt every single day. That is $1,800 per second. We are further
and further into debt. We are destroying our ability to sustain
health care and pensions.
I decry the government's lack of leadership and its offloading
on to provinces. It fails to realize that there really is only one
taxpayer.
I also draw to the attention of the House and to Canadians the
fact that it is bringing pressure and through that pressure are
bringing interesting ways to be able to push legislation through
the House.
I call on Canadians to make the government accountable. Do
not give it the free ride it is getting at the moment. Make it
accountable in its constituencies by phone.
13304
Finally, in bringing forward Bill C-76 the government shows
a lack of integrity, because there is no mandate for it to bring
forward Bill C-76. As a consequence, I will be voting against
Bill C-76.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate.
This is not an easy budget and it certainly has been the subject
of a great deal of discussion. It does signal some fairly
significant changes in the way government in this country
carries out its business and its service to Canadians.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding what the member who just spoke
had to say, I think we realized very well when we ran for election
in 1993 and when we made certain commitments to Canadians as
part of that election that this country was facing a difficult
economic situation.
Certainly a good part of the commitment we made to
Canadians was a commitment to deal with that very difficult
economic and fiscal situation. This budget is stage two of doing
that and of continuing our two prime commitments to the
country: one, jobs and economic growth to provide a more
prosperous future for all of us and for those who come after us;
and as part of that, deficit reduction to a target of 3 per cent of
GDP by 1997, half of what it was when we took office.
It is really important to remember that without achieving that
target many of the other things that we want to do as a
government and that I believe Canadians want to do as a nation
will not be achievable.
Let me speak of a couple of things in particular on which I
have been receiving a great deal of feedback from constituents
and from others. One thing is the Canadian health and social
transfer, which is certainly a cause for significant concern. It is
one of those major changes I talked about in how we carry out
our responsibilities as a government in this country. I do not
think it helps to pretend that it is not a significant change when it
is. However, it was a necessary change in order for the federal
government to maintain some influence and some impact over
health and social programs and post-secondary education.
(1220)
By combining the transfers to the provinces to cover those
three fields of post-secondary education, health, and social
services, what we are doing is maintaining the ability with
smaller amounts of money to have some influence on all three
areas of expenditure.
I think we are also getting rid of some rigidity in the system.
As one who has worked closely with a number of agencies in my
community, I am well aware of the frustration that has been
there with the stringent requirements of existing social
programs and the existing Canada Assistance Plan Act, which
prevents really innovative and often preventive programs from
being funded under the current act and under the current transfer
programs. As a former municipal councillor, I well remember
the frustration of some very good programs not being eligible
for federal funding.
The combined transfer allows the provinces to be more
innovative. I expect and hope to address prevention in the
delivery of all three of those programs. It also signals very
clearly that those three programs are very much linked.
Education is very much a part of solving some of the social
problems this country has. Health is very much a part of solving
both educational and social problems that we have.
I would like to provide some information that will make that
point very clear. Let us look at the poor children in our country.
It is a shame for a country with the wealth that Canada has to
have well over a million children living in poverty. A poor child
is four times as likely to become seriously ill, die, or even
commit suicide. Poverty has a direct impact on our health
services and of course on the quality of life for those families
living in poverty. A poor child is only one-quarter as likely to go
to university as the average Canadian child.
I learned a long time ago that these issues are not separate
from each other. There is not much point in treating an elderly
woman for bronchitis and then sending her back to a damp
basement apartment because she cannot afford adequate housing
and does not have enough money in her purse to feed herself
properly. She will soon be back, if not with bronchitis then with
something more serious, unless the whole problem of her social
environment and the amount of money she has to live on is dealt
with.
With the combining of these payments I certainly hope that
the provinces will start recognizing the link between these three
fields of public policy and public spending and start to set the
priorities so that we are dealing in preventive ways. We are
concerned about the extra cost of our health care system. Yet I
believe that unless we deal with the social problems, in
particular the issue of poverty, which tends to contribute to ill
health, then we are never going to solve the problems of an ever
growing cost of health care.
People are concerned about national standards and so am I.
Very clearly we are setting the residency principle that no matter
where you live in Canada, people cannot be required to be a
resident of a province to be eligible for social assistance.
(1225)
There are two other principles, which are not incorporated in
the legislation and which I am concerned about and have heard
concerns about. It is all the more important to recognize that the
combining of payments to the provinces is a way of keeping
some clout in all three fields as our share of those expenses
diminishes. That has been happening under the existing
agreement and will continue.
13305
I hope we will endeavour to negotiate as national principles
with the provinces that need be the basis of
establishment-anybody in need would be eligible for
assistance-and that there be an appeal process to the social
welfare system.
Another issue of great concern to my constituents is the
significant and dramatic changes we are making in the public
service.
We have taken a thorough look at what government does, and
in virtually every area of government activity we are looking for
better and more efficient ways to serve Canadians at less cost.
The result of that over the next three years is going to be a
substantial reduction in the number of people working for the
public service.
There are measures in the bill that will make it easier for those
affected by the downsizing to get on with their lives in a number
of ways. We expect a vast majority of people will take advantage
of the early retirement incentive, which has already been passed
in regulations. It will enable them to leave the public service on
full pension and remain in their communities as contributing
members.
The second measure in the legislation is the early departure
incentive, which will allow people to voluntarily leave the
public service and get on with other opportunities or another
job.
I compliment the President of the Treasury Board for showing
some flexibility on how the downsizing is being managed and
for doing what appears to have been resisted a few months ago:
allowing people who are interested in leaving the public service
to vacate their jobs and make room for somebody else who does
not want to leave at this time.
As long as we are spending one third of the taxes we collect
from Canadians just to pay interest on the debt, there will
continue to be pressure on our social programs, pressure on the
services government can deliver. It is extremely important
therefore that the primary direction of the budget is to reduce the
deficit, reduce the amount we are wasting on interest. I regard it
as a waste because it accomplishes nothing for us. Yet the
amount continues to spiral every year and will continue to eat
away at everything we want to accomplish as a government and
as a nation.
I encourage the finance minister to continue with greater tax
fairness, as he has done in the budget. I encourage him to look at
every way possible of reducing the foreign debt, because it is
money going out of our economy and not being taxed in Canada
There are things that many of us do not want to see in the
budget, but I believe that fundamentally it is heading in the right
direction.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask some
questions today and to make a comment or two.
I listened thoughtfully to the member's comments regarding
Bill C-76, the matter before us today for third reading. I found
her remarks quite interesting.
(1230)
I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask. The first
question relates to the farm subsidies that are important to the
people in my constituency. The second question relates to the
health transfer. These are matters I addressed yesterday at report
stage.
I am quite concerned about the long term implications on the
prairie economy, particularly on those communities that are
affected by the elimination of the Crow benefit as a result of this
legislation. It has been estimated that each delivery point on the
prairies served by the Western Grain Transportation Act will
lose approximately $1 million annually as a result of this
legislation.
Within my constituency are some 40 to 45 elevator points that
could be classified in this category. This means that the farm
communities in my constituency will lose $40 million to $45
million a year in funds that are currently in those communities.
For example, $1 million every year out of the town of Glaslyn is
quite significant.
This is the first question I want to put to the hon. member
opposite. In any of her discussions with her colleagues, whether
they be members of the cabinet or just members of her caucus
about support for this bill or in any of the research she has done,
has she seen or investigated any reviews that look at the
implication of the removal of the subsidy on the farm
communities of western Canada?
This money is supposed to be replaced by investments for
value added production. I wonder if she knows of any study that
has been done of where the investment capital is coming from to
support the value added production on the prairies?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time for questions
and comments should you wish an answer is nearing an end.
Would you please give the member time to respond if you wish
her response.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.
Although I have other questions for the member, perhaps if I
could have an answer for those two, it will satisfy me for the
time being.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I do not represent an
agricultural community although the preservation of the
agri-food industry and the preservation of strong agricultural
production in this community is of great concern to me and to
my constituents.
13306
I am not an expert, as the member well knows, although I
understand his need to make these statements and ask these
questions in the House. He knows this is not an area of expertise
for me and it would be unfair of me to even try to provide an
answer to the kinds of questions he has asked.
I am sure the minister would be more than happy to share with
him any reviews that have been done to provide whatever level
of briefing he would like to have provided to him and to answer
any questions he has.
I am quite surprised he is asking these questions in the House
of somebody he knows does not have expertise in that field
instead of already having sought those answers from the
minister. After all he has had over two months to follow up. I
would encourage him to do that since I know the minister would
be most happy to co-operate in providing him with any
documentation and any explanations he needs for his
constituents.
(1235 )
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, could you
clarify for me how much time was used on questions and
comments?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): A little over five
minutes.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with
pleasure I rise to debate third reading of Bill C-76. As you know,
I am a member of the finance committee and have been
inextricably intertwined with the development of this bill for the
last nine months.
Nine months ago the Minister of Finance came to the
committee and directed its members to begin the first ever
prebudget consultations. This was the first time the finance
committee went out in advance of the preparation of the budget
to talk with Canadians about their will, their concerns, their
interests in the preparation of what is possibly the most
important aspect of the legislative year.
During the debate committee members talked with over 600
members of the Canadian public about the budget. Despite what
the member for Kootenay East said in his reference to time
allocation, I can say unequivocally that this budget has probably
had more discussion, more debate, more consultation than any
budget to date in the history of the Parliament of Canada.
When we talked with our fellow citizens it was clear and
interesting the level of consensus that we were able to build. The
message from the Canadian public, from region to region, was
very similar. In effect, they agreed that the government must
take responsibility, that the deficit must be reduced and the debt
managed. There was agreement to that. There was agreement by
and large that the method of reduction should focus on
expenditures as opposed to revenue or tax measures.
The people of Canada said to the committee, as members of
government and members of Parliament, to take a message back
to the minister that said start with government and then move to
program reduction, but please start with government, get your
own House in order. That made sense to us.
It was in December when the committee reported to the
Minister of Finance. Then as an individual member of
Parliament I went to my riding of Brant and had lengthy
discussions with the constituents there. I had public forums and
individual groups of Canadians actually took it upon themselves
to think about the issue of budgetary management and fiscal
responsibility. I congratulate them for the time they spent in
preparing briefs that were subsequently presented to the finance
minister.
After that we waited. The budget was presented in February
and in the interim we know what the international community
was like. Things were upset financially. The international
community challenged us to make sure that a tough budget was
brought in. We watched with trepidation, with worry but
knowing all the time that the minister would respond directly to
the information he received from the committee and from those
of us who as members of Parliament provided him with our
points of view and the points of view of our constituents.
In February the minister did proffer a budget that responded to
the needs of Canadians. He clearly indicated a direction so that
we will move to a deficit of GDP ratio of 3 per cent as we
promised in our election platform and in the red book. He has
listened to Canadians because the deficit is being reduced
primarily through expenditure reductions versus revenue
measures in a ratio of seven to one.
Finally he responded to the issue of getting government right,
saying that cuts will be made in government first and then move
to programs. When this is looked at we find a new structure has
been created for the federal government. We are embarking on a
change in the role of the federal government.
As the system of legislative review progressed the finance
committee took the budget bill into committee and continued its
deliberations and its open consultations with the people of
Canada and talked further about the details as they had been laid
out in Bill C-76. It was interesting that the focus of the debate in
committee shifted. People feel that the government has taken
fiscally responsible initiatives.
(1240)
The nervousness in the public marketplace has quieted and we
are now looking at the thing which we call new government
structure. We spent a lot of time talking about the structural
changes, because they are different.
13307
I have to make the analogy that we have given birth to
something which is quite new. It is significantly different from
what the people of Canada have seen in the past. Government
has been restructured. Many departments have been downsized.
There will be a physical downsizing of staff to the tune of 45,000
individuals. Longstanding Canadian assets, CN for one, will be
privatized. Finally, but not exclusively, the way that some
transfers to the provincial governments are made will be
changed.
We have something which is distinctly new and something
which is very different. Our job now as a government is to
recognize that we have created a fiscal framework which is
fiscally responsible and under which we as a Liberal
government must continue. We must develop our baby in a very
Liberal way.
We looked at the strategies which the government has
planned. The Minister of Human Resources Development will
be presenting a new strategy for unemployment insurance in
September. The government is undertaking and will over the
next year begin discussions on pension review, looking at the
CPP and all the bits and pieces that go into providing a safe and
secure retirement for Canadian citizens.
The new block transfer to the provinces has to be looked at
very carefully. It is quite a different transfer than in the past. It is
a block transfer. It contains the same standards of requirement
for health care, but it addresses education and social assistance
as well. We have to be very careful with that transfer because it
does talk to our future as a country.
I was fascinated by the witnesses as they came before the
committee and encouraged us to maintain national standards, a
federal presence in the continuing development of those
programs, while recognizing the need for flexibility and control
in the provinces. With that transfer we have provided an
opportunity to do just that.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will be
working very closely with the provinces to build a mutual
consent on the development of new principles and guidelines.
That speaks volumes about a new structure, a new role for the
federal government, and its responsibility to facilitate
discussions among the provinces to find the best possible
strategies to provide health care, solid post-secondary
education and social assistance. It gives the government a new
opportunity at the federal level to use different strategies and
not just the control of cash, which continues to be very
important.
In the report to Parliament at report stage the finance
committee indicated that it would prefer that the Canada health
and social transfer continue as part of the federal responsibility
over the next number of years. However the government must
facilitate discussion. It must consider using new technologies
and new techniques, perhaps like a social audit, comparing
provincial successes in these different areas. That is the job
which we as parliamentarians take.
One of the critical situations which will occur is the loss of
45,000 public servants. I recognize that our public service is the
best public service in the world. As did my hon. friend from
Ottawa West, I would like to mention that the President of the
Treasury Board did respond to the very good submissions made
by the public service unions and has put together a labour and
management committees to ensure that the downsizing is done
in a humane, fair and equitable manner.
(1245 )
These kinds of activities speak volumes to the kind of
government we are. It will be important for us as a government
to now work within a new fiscal framework, to continue the
Liberal tradition of providing fairness, equity, compassion and
understanding so that we continue to be the best country in the
world in which to live.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my comment relates to my earlier intervention. I
did ask the member who spoke just prior to this member some
questions about the farm economy. The bill in fact addresses the
farm economy quite significantly. Whether or not members of
this House are from farm constituencies, they have an obligation
to understand the implications of legislation on all Canadians
regardless of where they live.
I would have thought that a bill that has such substantial
impact on rural Canada would be something that all members of
the Chamber would be able to address. It seems to me that we as
MPs have an obligation to Canadians as well as our own
constituents.
The member indicates she is a member of the finance
committee. Is she aware of any studies relating to the long term
implications of this legislation on rural communities?
Specifically where will the investment to replace the lost
income come from to ensure that these communities are able to
continue to exist?
Keeping in mind what I said earlier, in my constituency alone
income that presently exists, up to some $40 million a year will
be lost as a result of this bill, all from rural communities. A
considerable investment will have to be made in order to make
that up.
My other question deals with the health care part of the bill.
The member will recall that earlier this week the Canadian
Hospital Association expressed what it said amounts to a call to
arms against the plans in this bill for health care. Essentially the
Canadian Hospital Association president said that the
reluctance of the federal government to match its moral
commitment with a financial commitment is inexplicable.
13308
Can the member of the finance committee explain what has
happened to the federal government's fiscal commitment to
health care?
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, the member spoke
directly to the comments I made earlier. The point I was making
is that this budget creates a whole different structure for the
federal government in terms of what it looks like and the role it
plays.
When we look at the implications for agriculture particularly,
I represent a combined rural and urban community. I am very
sensitive to the needs of rural Canada. I can tell the hon. member
without a doubt that the rural members in our caucus have talked
long and hard about the implications here as we have done with
health care, with education, with downsizing, with all the
structural changes that are occurring as a result of this budget.
The minister who is responsible for agriculture and agri-food
is from Saskatchewan. Rest assured that the issues facing rural
people are front and foremost in our caucus, in our cabinet. We
do recognize that we have to watch the implications of this
budget in the long term and plan to ensure a strong and healthy
future for rural Canada.
When we talk about the health issues, the government is fully
and totally committed to the five pillars that currently exist
under the Canada Health Act. That has not changed and will not
change. It is a hallmark of our government to maintain full and
solid health care for Canadian citizens.
(1250)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, to
speak on this bill to implement the budget is a challenging task,
as it forces us to put in plain words the sweeping changes
proposed in this budget, changes which will affect provinces
with the largest percentage of underprivileged people more than
the others, and Quebec in particular.
The federal government announced its intention to bring
about deep structural changes in Canada and that is what it is
doing with this budget, without any debate except for this
budget debate. This budget is choking the provinces which are
the worst off by reducing transfers dramatically. At the same
time, the central government keeps making surpluses on the UI
fund. Now, the government wants to retain the ability to impose
on all the provinces common direction and principles.
I will start with this latter aspect. First of all, let me remind
you that, as soon as this bill was introduced, the Bloc Quebecois
denounced the excessive powers the federal government is
giving itself with this bill, presumably to implement as required
national standards to other social programs.
Since social programs are later described, in clause 53, as
including programs in respect of health, post-secondary
education, social assistance and social services, it is obvious
that the government intends to use transfer payments to impose
standards regarding other social programs as required.
Our interpretation was endorsed by many. But when the
Official Opposition held an opposition day on the budget and
Bill C-76, the Minister of Finance furiously criticized this
interpretation. Strangely enough, to be able to criticize us for
our misinterpretation, the Minister of Finance himself had to put
forward amendments to his own bill. That is right, Madam
Speaker.
An hon. member: Himself?
Mrs. Lalonde: Himself. We, in the Official Opposition, have
not been sitting in this place for very long, but from what we are
told, it is quite unusual for a finance minister to put forward, just
to prove his point, amendments to his own legislation,
amendments which in this case were submitted in writing only
weeks later.
When the Minister of Finance takes the trouble to prepare
amendments well in advance, you figure that this time, he is
going to try and fine-tune the bill and incorporate what he says
into the act. So, what did he say?
He said: ``We want to give flexibility to the provinces.''
Great! Now, what does his own amendment to his bill say?
Basically, it says the following. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to
the finance minister that the Official Opposition can read bills.
(1255)
Clause 13 essentially says this: Subject to this Part, a Canada
Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province [-]for
the purposes of: (a) establishing interim arrangements to finance
social programs [-].It has been said that the provinces should
enjoy greater flexibility. (b) maintaining the criteria and conditions
in the Canada Health Act [-]; (c) maintaining the national
standard, set out in section 19 [-]; (d) promoting any shared
principles and objectives that are developed, pursuant to subsection
(3), with respect to the operation of social programs [-].
Again, what are these social programs? They are those we
identified earlier: post-secondary education, social services and
welfare. This clause can only be read as follows: ``A Canada
Health and Social Transfer may be provided for the purposes
of'', among other things, ``promoting any shared principles and
objectives that are developed, pursuant to subsection (3)''.
13309
The government will use the transfers to promote these
principles. Ah! Whenever the central government uses its
transfers to promote something, there is cause for concern. As
the old saying goes, ``Old habits die hard''.
What does subsection (3) say? It says this: ``The Minister of
Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of
all the provinces to consult and work together to develop,
through mutual consent,''-not unanimous consent but mutual
consent-``a set of shared principles and objectives''-for the
social programs being referred to, namely post-secondary
education, social services and welfare-``that could underlie the
Canada Health and Social Transfer''.
The only good news is that the Minister of Human Resources
Development would invite representatives of the provinces. Yet,
since the minister was elected, he has not seen fit to invite the
provincial employment and human resources ministers. It says
that he would invite them, but it does not say when.
That clause, with its various paragraphs and sub-paragraphs,
can only be interpreted as reflecting the federal government's
intention to use transfers to promote principles which are not
unanimously approved-thus leaving the possibility that
Quebec, and perhaps other provinces, might not agree-, but
which are common principles. The idea is to use transfers to
promote common principles.
Considering how careful the Minister of Finance was before
submitting his amendments, it is clear that the government
intends to meddle even more in provincial matters. The goal is
crystal clear: to ask the provinces to follow common principles
and objectives regarding post-secondary education, social
services and social assistance.
However, the provinces are fed up with the cuts announced.
What are these cuts? I will repeat them, but I will use a different
perspective. We were told on numerous occasions that these cuts
would total $7 billion but, in fact, it is more than that and those
who are listening to us realize that.
When someone's salary is reduced-for example, if a person
earning $450 a week is told by the employer that he or she must
accept a $150 cut per week so that the company will
survive-that person knows that the cut is either temporary,
which means that he or she will lose $150 multiplied by the
number of applicable weeks, or permanent, which means that he
or she will lose $150 every week.
(1300)
However, when the provinces are faced with a $4.5 billion cut
one year, followed by a $2.5 billion the next, the total is not just
$7 billion. From 1994-95 to the end of 1997-98, the provinces
will have been deprived of $12.3 billion. This means that the
cuts which they, in turn, have to make are not temporary ones.
They have to be structural cuts, since they do not even know
what to expect next.
Quebec is particularly affected. It will lose at least 27 per cent
of those $12.3 billion. This is an enormous amount, given that,
from what we hear, the reform announced in Montreal, which
raises so many concerns, will result in savings of only $180
million. I say only, because that is the sad truth. So when we hear
members singing the praises of renewed federalism, I think they
have a lot of nerve-and I hope ``culot'' is not
unparliamentary-because the truth of the matter is that these
changes will bring about major disruptions in the services that
people receive. And thanks to federalism, these disruptions will
be blamed on the provinces.
The provinces will have to cut spending, and the public will
suffer the consequences this will have for health care, education,
social services and welfare. National standards for health care
will be maintained but the provinces will have to cut back
drastically, perhaps not so much on health care but on education,
welfare and social services.
The government announces reforms but makes these cuts
without considering the consequences, because it wants to
cultivate this image of a responsible government, and so it
transfers the problems to the provinces and the private citizens.
Meanwhile, and this is not in Bill C-76, it is in the budget but is
not mentioned because it has separate legislation and the
government is not going to meddle with unemployment
insurance just now, the government is letting the Unemployment
Insurance Fund run a surplus. Five billion dollars this year
alone. Five billion dollars next year.
Soon there will be another recession, and people are
predicting one, although we are right in the middle of a
so-called upturn, but it is not a good time for everyone. It is not
a good time for a lot of people, and now they are predicting
another recession. When? Who knows? In a few months, in a
year or two years, but the fact remains that the provinces, which
have seen their welfare rolls increase even now, during this
economic upturn, and it was like that this month in Quebec, the
provinces will be stuck with dealing with an increasing number
of people on welfare and the accompanying increase in social
needs, while the federal government has this fund, so that it will
not only be able to maintain unemployment insurance benefits
but will also be in a position to lend a helping hand to the
provinces while intruding on their jurisdictions. It will no longer
have to set certain criteria for programs. It will make the
decisions itself. The government itself will intrude into fields
that are not its own.
(1305)
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are changing Canada. Much more surely
than if we amended the Constitution, but not in terms of
flexibility. No. The only flexibility in this is the flexibility to
cut. Some flexibility. All the rest gives the central authority-as
in Bill C-76 and other legislation-the central government
powerful means to change the structure of Canada by making
Ottawa even more the brains and operational centre of Canada,
13310
to the point where the provinces will soon hardly even be
regional structures, they will be branches of Ottawa.
Quebecers are a distinct people and form a distinct society.
They have repeatedly tried to make a place for themselves in this
country. Their demands were modest. Inadequate would be a
better word than modest in terms of what Robert Bourassa asked
for at Meech Lake. Quebec kept getting ``no'' for an answer.
Now, reforms are being made, but not the reforms Quebec
wanted. These reforms are in completely the opposite direction
and they are leaving Quebec much worse off.
Quebecers now know that their only hope lies in solidarity, in
combining their tax dollars so they can plan, be prepared and
invest where they want rather than have the course of the
province's development imposed by a central government,
which cuts where it feels like it and collects money where it
feels like it.
Those of us on the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development heard repeated calls for strong national standards
across Canada, except in Quebec. We have nothing against
generous social services for everyone, quite the opposite, but we
want to establish our own standards, because peoples and
nations organize themselves, run their economy and do business
according to their own priorities and objectives.
Under existing conditions, Quebecers have no choice, if they
want a future, but to gather up their money and their means and
make their own laws and treaties.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity at third
reading to discuss the federal budget and specifically the
implementation legislation that we have before the House today.
There is no question in my mind that I fully support this
budget. I fully support Bill C-76, the implementation bill that
will bring it about. I believe that the actions the Minister of
Finance has taken and the actions this government has taken are
appropriate and necessary.
(1310 )
I understand that not everybody in Canada is happy with
everything in the budget. However, the important thing is that
most Canadians, although there are things in the budget they
might not like, realize that the action that was taken was
necessary, given the fiscal situation the country found itself in.
The average Canadian out there understands what members of
the opposition do not understand. That is, if we are to have the
government act responsibly and if the government is to cut back
expenditures, then there will be an impact on individuals.
Canadians understand that and know that is to happen. Because
they realize the necessity of it, this budget has widespread
support in the country.
This is a good budget because in it government recognizes
that it has two basic responsibilities and that both
responsibilities have to be fulfilled if the country is to operate
efficiently and with a social conscience. Those two
responsibilities, quite simply put, are fiscal responsibility and
social responsibility.
We have a fiscal responsibility. We have a responsibility as a
government to operate in a prudent manner. We need to be
businesslike but remember that we are not a business. We must
ensure that each Canadian taxpayer receives full value for each
dollar that is spent.
However, in addition to this fiscal responsibility, the
government understands and Canadians understand that
government also has a social responsibility. We do things not to
earn a profit from doing them but because they are the right
things to do. We fund medicare as a federal government not
because we can make money at it but because it is appropriate to
provide Canadians with medical care. We have an old age
security system not to make a profit on it but because we
believe, as Canadians, that it is appropriate that we collectively
provide for the security of those in our society who have reached
65.
It is important for us to understand that government has this
social responsibility in addition to this fiscal responsibility. It is
also important for Canadians to understand, which I believe they
do, although I do not think the opposition understands, that we
cannot have one of these responsibilities without the other.
Before I came to the House I had a job in the private sector. I
had the opportunity to work with people who were in financial
difficulties. In a large sense what we face as individuals in our
family budget is not a whole lot different from what the country
faces today. The options on how to deal with it are frankly not a
whole lot different. I have had individuals who have come to me
in financial difficulty. Perhaps they bought a house that was
larger than they should have and their mortgage was bigger than
it should be. Perhaps they bought a larger car or a second car and
went into debt more than would have been prudent. Perhaps they
ran up their credit cards on things that maybe they should not
have bought. At the end of the day they find themselves
overcommitted financially, much like Canada today finds itself
overcommitted financially.
There are a number of options you can take as a financier, just as
there are a number of options the government can take. You can be,
as some members in the Bloc have suggested, like the bank and
13311
say: ``Oh, you are in difficulty. You are having difficulty with
your finances. I will tell you what I will do, I will just increase
your credit card limit by another $5,000 so that you can go out
there and maintain the level of expenditures you have always
had.'' This might work for a month or two, but it is not going to
work in the long term and it is not the fiscally responsible and
for that matter the socially responsible thing to do, either as a
government or as the individual banker who might be dealing
with that client.
Or you can take a different approach, the approach the Reform
Party has often talked about in the House in terms of how to
handle an overcommitted debt situation. We can say to a person:
``You are going to absolutely stop spending now. We will go
down your budget and hack out. It does not matter whether you
are going to have enough money to feed your family or to keep at
least one car on the road so you can get to work, or whether you
will be able to buy clothes or pay for your kids' education. No.
The only thing we are going to think about is that you are
overcommitted financially. We will cut that all out right now
and at least balance your budget. You might starve and you
might not have any shelter, but by Jiminy Cricket, we will have
your financial situation in order''.
(1315)
That is what the Reform Party suggested in its counterbudget.
It said we should slash everything and get it all down into a nice
neat package in three years. It just does not work that way, just
as it would not work for the bank client to simply cut everything
at once.
There is an appropriate middle course to take. It is one we
would take as individuals and one we have taken as a
government. It is simple. We would come to an understanding
that we have spent too much, that we are overcommitted
financially and that we do need to put our house in order, but we
must do it in a responsible way. In the case of an individual the
debt would probably be consolidated and the payments spread
over a number of years so the payments could be made according
to the level of income. In time the problem would be resolved.
A fiscal regime is not imposed that is impossible to live with.
The federal government has taken this approach. It is
understood that our expenditures were too high. It is understood
that we were spending too much money. It is making the
adjustments in a gradual, prudent, responsible way that
Canadians can afford.
This is the essence of the budget. It is what makes the budget
work. It is why the budget is accepted across the country.
Canadians instinctively understand that we have taken an
approach they would have taken in dealing with their own
family budgets.
I want to compliment the minister and the government for
having seen clear to take this approach. We will move ahead in
the next fiscal year and the following fiscal years. We will
improve our financial situation and improve Canada's fiscal
situation year after year. We will do it in a manner that
understands our social responsibility and which maintains the
social safety net for Canadians. It will maintain the Canada we
have built over the last 50 years, a Canada we are proud of and a
Canada which the Liberal government is committed to protect.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to compliment the member opposite on his
speech, particularly since during his speech he referred to the
Reform Party as the official opposition, which is what really has
been happening in the House.
The member went into detail on his private life, particularly
in terms of private individuals who are overly committed
financially and how he would fix their situation. I find it rather
ironic that if the federal government were in the same position
as any business or individual, it would have been bankrupt a
long, long time ago.
At a time when the provinces are balancing their budgets, one
after the other all the way down the road, the member seems to
think that the federal government is somehow different, that it
does not have to balance its budget. It is off somewhere after a
future election, off into the sunset somewhere, which is very
much the old style promises of the old style politics.
Why does the member think that the federal government is
different from the provinces which are balancing their budgets
one after the other all the way down the line?
(1320 )
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, if I referred to the Reform
Party as the official opposition, I certainly apologize for that. I
certainly did not mean to provide that party with a status it does
not have and never will.
No one is suggesting that the federal government does not
need to balance its books. It needs to eliminate its deficit and in
time bring its debt down. Similarly, as individuals if we were
overcommitted at some point in time we would want to bring our
individual debt down and to spend only what we were bringing
in in a given year. The Reform Party is suggesting that we do this
at a pace and in a manner which totally ignores the needs of
individual Canadians.
I can go to any budget for a business, an individual, a
government or a province and I can look at certain lines, rip
them out and come to a balanced budget. That is easy. It is
simple. However, we have to remember that behind each line on
the budget, behind each stroke of the pen, there will be an impact
on people. We have to remember the impact it will have on
people and not simply do a number punching exercise.
13312
The same thing holds true for the government as holds true in
our personal lives. We have to be responsible, we have to be
prudent and we have to remember the consequences of our
actions. The government will balance its budget. It will bring its
financial house in order, but it will do it in a responsible manner
which will recognize the needs of individual Canadians.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member began his comments today by
saying that the budget measures were necessary. I wonder if he
could clarify that.
This move today takes approximately $1 million per elevator
point away from communities in western Canada. The budget
bill essentially withdraws about $400 million worth of federal
commitment from the province of Saskatchewan alone with no
plans in place to manage what is left behind. Can the member
tell us today how it is possible that he thinks it is necessary?
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, it is very important that we
remember that all Canadians, all parts of our society are going to
share in it. Have there been reductions in Saskatchewan? Surely
there have been, as there have been across the country.
Everybody has to pitch into this equally everywhere. Provinces,
individuals, businesses, agriculture and industry, we all have to
work together on this.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
commend the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. As a
fellow member in the northern Ontario caucus under his
chairmanship I know he is an excellent member of Parliament
for his riding. In his short but effective speech over the last few
minutes we have seen a side of the member which is not
surprising but is very inspirational. I would like to tell the
member publicly that his comments were right on the mark. He
said many very important and true things.
I will reiterate something which the hon. member said, and I
may be paraphrasing him. We have our Reform colleagues and
thankfully they are not the official opposition. His apology
should have been to Canadians, not to the Reform Party. The
Reform Party is constantly calling upon us to run Canada like a
business, like a bank or like a large corporation. It is one thing to
run a country in a businesslike fashion; it is another matter to
run a country like a business.
(1325 )
The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka hit it right on the
head when he said that a government is first about people. In
February the Minister of Finance presented a budget that was
about people, about Canadians. While wanting to preserve those
things in our society that make Canada a special place, he also
presented things that deal with the concerns Canadians have that
we respond effectively to our deficit.
We know that each year our national debt is growing. We have
made a commitment as a government to deal with the growth in
the debt. We made a commitment as a party competing with
others to govern this country back in the fall 1993 election to get
the annual deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP. If we listen to
the Minister of Finance carefully and analyse the kinds of
results that are available, we will meet our 3 per cent target and
quite possibly do better than that.
As my colleague said in his speech, the government is first
about people. It is not just a business. Along with several other
members of this House, I am a member of the finance
committee. I had the opportunity to hear and read hundreds of
witnesses and their presentations last fall as the finance
committee undertook the prebudget consultations and prepared
its report for the minister as part of the overall guidance he was
seeking in preparing for the budget.
With very few exceptions, the witnesses we heard did not call
for massive slashing of programs. They did not call for
draconian measures that would turn back the clock and bring us
back to the middle ages. Consistently we were told to deal with
the deficit, not to raise personal income taxes and not to forget
the importance of this country's social infrastructure. The
infrastructure ensures that all Canadians have a fair stake in the
future.
The natural resources of the country belong equally to all. We
expect mining companies to find minerals and metals and to
extract those resources. In so doing they pay a share to the
community at large to the provincial treasuries and to the federal
treasury. We expect forest companies to harvest our forests. At
the same time we expect them to give something back in terms
of stumpage fees and taxes because all Canadians own those
trees. All Canadians can benefit from our resources.
This is why a Liberal government has proven to be the most
effective in doing this over the decades. Liberal governments
have consistently been able to find the way to balance the needs
of industry and business to be profitable. That is important for
job creation.
On balance with that there is the need to ensure that all
Canadians have equal access to the benefits of the country. We
can hardly blame Parliament or finance ministers for doing great
damage to the country when we have the best country in the
world.
Even though we can criticize past governments for mistakes,
the Canadian attitude which is one of balance, taking care of
those who have and those who have not in a fair and balanced
way is the kind of country the world admires. That is why
Canada is in its way so much of a leader. Other countries look to
us for examples. As I mentioned, in the prebudget consultations
last fall we heard a call for balance, deal with the deficit, do not
raise personal taxes and make sure that everybody is treated
fairly.
13313
I do not think any of us can say that as a country we do this
perfectly. Sadly, the rate of illiteracy is still too high. The rate of
poverty particularly among children is still far too high. We still
have household and family violence. We still have crime.
(1330 )
All we can do is work together to do better and to improve our
communities and the quality of life. Liberal governments have
consistently been able to find the way to do that. The budget as
represented in Bill C-76 takes us a long way down that road.
I pick out one example of the kind of leadership Canadians
have come to expect and can continue to expect from this
government. I pick out an issue that became a hot issue in the
lead up to the budget, the possibility there would be taxation of
employer paid health benefits. Those are the benefits provided
to those in the workplace for drugs and dental care, paid fully or
partially by the employer.
There was a notion that perhaps the government was thinking
about taxing these employer paid benefits. Many people spoke
out against this. I received numerous cards and letters from
constituents. The minister heard from the finance committee in
its report that at this time no such measures should take place.
The finance committee suggested what had to be in the mind
of the minister, because it makes sense. That is, the current
system is unfair to the working poor, who must pay for their
health benefits out of after tax income. We called on the
industry, the insurance companies, dental providers, and asked
if they would work together to help us find a way so all
Canadians can be covered when it comes to drug benefits and
dental care. I was very impressed, as I am sure my colleagues in
the committee were impressed, by the very positive response
from the insurers and from the dental providers that they would
try to find a way in which all Canadians can be covered in some
fashion for drugs and dental care. I am not saying we are there
yet, but I have in the last two weeks seen some very strong
evidence that this challenge is being responded to in a very
positive way.
The Minister of Finance responded thoughtfully and carefully
and decided not to move on that. This will give us some time in
this country to find a way to make sure all Canadians are treated
fairly when it comes to those particular benefits.
There are elements of unfairness on the subject of RRSPs as
well. The more income you have, the more you can contribute. If
you are poor, you are not as likely to be able to contribute to an
RRSP. There tends to be an imbalance toward Canadians with
higher incomes. Here as well reform is in the wind.
The whole issue of aging and pensions needs to be rethought
in this modern era. The minister has wisely deferred on this
issue pending further research and consultation.
I emphasize to my colleagues in the House, to my
constituents, and to all Canadians that the public support for Bill
C-76 and the budget is tremendous. It is a fair and balanced
approach.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have listened very carefully this morning and this
afternoon to the arguments presented by my Liberal colleagues
across the way. I am surprised that they continue to argue we are
not in a serious situation, that they are somehow being more
compassionate than we are in what they are doing, that they are
not seriously addressing the debt and deficit situation.
Is balancing the budget not the most compassionate thing we
could ever do to preserve our social programs? Is it not the fact
that we must stop borrowing more money, that we must
immediately come to a situation where we stop increasing the
interest payments? Are these interest payments not the most
serious threat to our social programs?
(1335 )
If they are the most serious threat, is not the most
compassionate thing we can do to get our house in order to
balance the budget as quickly as possible, decide on what is
important and get there as quickly as possible?
Mr. St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I appreciate his suggestion that Liberals are more
compassionate, although he put it in the form of a question. I
would like to answer his question with a resounding yes.
The member fairly asks if it is not more compassionate to deal
with the deficit. That is the essence of his question. It is logical
to deal with the deficit. It is not an issue of compassion. I submit
that if we were to have taken an approach as proposed by the
third party, the Reform Party, compassion would have gone out
the window.
When we are undertaking an operation as difficult as putting
the finances of the country back on track, that is not something
we can do overnight. It is like moving a huge ship. They have to
have a number of little tugboats that work diligently to get the
ship turned around in the harbour.
The finance minister recognizes, if the Reform Party does not,
that you cannot do this overnight. With the draconian measures
the Reform Party proposed in its own prebudget budget, the
numbers frankly did not add up. It is something like the Harris
budget plan for Ontario, for which there is a very indecipherable
bottom line.
13314
The issue of compassion must be balanced certainly by logic.
That logic must lead us to a conclusion that is fair to all
Canadians. For example, let us just say we are going to have a
massive tax cut and that would be fair. It is more fair to the rich
and less fair to the poor. If taxes are slashed 30 per cent, as Mr.
Harris pretends he will do, then certainly if I were rich, which I
am not, I would have a greater benefit than a poor person.
While the member's question in the context of his own party's
philosophy might seem fair, I go back to my comments in my
speech that a country is not a business. While it might need to be
or should be run in a businesslike fashion, it is not a business. It
is first about people. There is no way we can close our eyes, turn
the pages of the budget, and stroke out items with a pen without
considering their impact on people.
This government has taken action. The program review
undertaken by the ministers of the crown has resulted in
measures that will be effective. The result is in the reaction of
Canadians and the reaction of the marketplaces around the world
to the budget. There has been an extremely positive, balanced,
and well considered response to this budget. That is the proof
that the budget has hit the mark.
With that I suggest the member go back and look at his own
prebudget plan. It would be too generous for me to say it was
compassionate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, today I would like to tell a story, the story of Nibor
Dooh, a mythological character from history who landed on the
shores of the great country of Adanac. Adanac was a peaceful,
prosperous, and tolerant place when he arrived. The people had
no complaints, other than those that are inevitable in life. Nibor
Dooh went about the land telling the people of Adanac that their
lives could be much better than they were. They could be richer,
more tolerant, and more prosperous. If they followed his scheme
they would be much better off.
The good people of Adanac scratched their heads in
bewilderment. ``We already work the land'', they said, ``and we
look after our families and we look after the less fortunate in our
communities. How can we all do so much better?''
(1340 )
``It is very good news'', said Nibor Dooh. ``You all remember
that awful Xram, who said we have to steal from the rich to give
to the poor. You were right not to listen to him. Stealing is
wrong. I can make you all rich without any of that''.
The people scratched their heads a bit harder. How could this
work? ``Well'', said Nibor Dooh, ``it is all a bit complicated.
First we take from the rich to give to the poor and then the poor
are rich, or they are richer. So we can take from them and give
back to the rich. Then the rich have even more, so we can take
more from them and give to the not poor any more, and so on''.
The people of Adanac scratched their heads some more. They
really did not understand how this all could work. ``Look'', said
Nibor Dooh, ``it is all in this wonderful book by the philosopher
Sen Yek. It is called The General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Free Money. I can't say I quite understand it
myself'', said Nibor Dooh, ``and I am sure you wouldn't, but
trust me. It will all work out''.
Nibor Dooh assembled the elitist class in the country to help
him rule the land. He explained that this way it would not be so
bad that initially he had to take from them. He was to hire a lot of
them and they could all get together, look very clever and rule
the ordinary people. They would have to adopt his ideas, some of
which were actually very odd. After a few years, they would
even claim that it was their culture and that it was what made
their country great and gave it its identity.
Nibor Dooh was able to convince some of the tribe of Aidem
to explain his scheme to everyone in the land. Aidem had a lot of
influence and most of his tribe were part of the upper elite class.
At first the whole thing seemed to work to perfection. The
elite class paid more, but not much more. They got to be rulers
and talk in very clever and compassionate sounding ways. The
tribe of Aidem praised them with great praise and Nibor Dooh
went up and down the great land of Adanac taking small
amounts of money from the people to give back to the rich but
also giving them large amounts of money that he said he had got
from the rich without taking much from them.
``Look how well it is working'', he told them, and the Aidem
echoed him. ``I take a small amount of money from you and I
increase it. I do more with it than if you keep it yourself. I
provide free health care for you. I will pay you a pension when
you get old. I take care of the poor among you better than you
could. I provide work for those without jobs, and if I cannot
provide work I pay them anyway. There is no need for any of you
to concern yourself with your neighbour's well-being, for I,
Nibor Dooh, take care of all those who have problems''.
Every once in a while some village idiot would ask how he
could defy the laws of economics, but Nibor Dooh would just
smile patronizingly and wave copies of the works of Sen Yek and
Htiarblag. Nibor Dooh was so clever and so urbane that the
people just laughed at these idiots.
13315
Other quite vicious people spread rumours that Nibor Dooh
was actually borrowing from the rich and promising to pay them
back with the money of the poor. No one listened, because if it
were true he was making the poor richer and they would easily
be able to pay for what they had consumed now.
No one worried about tomorrow. Adanac became known as
one of the best countries to live in. As the years went by there
was a gradual but marked change in society. People did not take
as much responsibility for their own affairs. They did not save
their money for when times were lean or when they got to be
older. People did not take as much interest in helping their
neighbour as they did previously. A saying became common in
the land: ``Don't worry, Nibor Dooh will take care of us'', and
Nibor Dooh became a very popular person in the land of Adanac.
Another gradual change began to occur. The poor people had
to always pay a little more to Nibor Dooh every year for the
services he provided. Every year there were more and more
people who did not have jobs. Some of the people began to
murmur and ask questions. It appeared as though they were
paying more to Nibor Dooh than they were getting back in the
services he provided. Some of the people from the Aidem tribe
came to Nibor Dooh's rescue. They told the people Nibor Dooh
was doing what was best for them. They told the people of
Adanac they were becoming a more caring and compassionate
society, kinder and gentler than they used to be.
(1345)
Meanwhile, Nibor Dooh was looking more tired and worried
than he once had and had less time for the common people. ``See
how he wears himself out for us'', they said. They did not know
he had to spend more and more time begging the rich to lend him
more and more. They knew that Nibor Dooh kept saying the rich
would have to pay more, but somehow it was always them who
had to pay more.
They began to listen to people criticising the whole
arrangement. Some were the old time village idiots like Reklaw
and Namdeirf, and others were new voices like Notserp
Gninnam. Notserp really annoyed Nibor Dooh with his
impertinent questions like where is all this money coming from
to provide all these services? Why are we paying almost half of
our hard-earned money to Nibor Dooh? Why are the services
declining but the amount we give Nibor Dooh keeps increasing?
Also about this time Notserp made the discovery that Nibor
Dooh was actually taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Notserp discovered that Nibor Dooh had an agreement with the
wealthy in the land whereby they would give Nibor Dooh money
if he gave them a portion of what he collected from the poor
every year. Aidem came to the rescue of Nibor Dooh again but
the word got out to the people he was taking from the poor to
give to the rich. Some of the poor people saw they were not rich
enough to afford what he demanded of them and they began to
demand that this stop.
Nibor Dooh began to accuse Notserp of being heartless and
cruel for making such a suggestion, but Notserp contended that
we must not keep giving more to the rich because it would
enslave the poor. In return Nibor Dooh accused Notserp for
wanting to slash and burn these wonderful programs. If we went
back to allowing people more control over their lives the
country would fall apart.
The Aidem tribe also contended that if Notserp had his way
we would lose our identify as a nation. Nibor Dooh said the poor
would be unable to defend themselves from the adversities of
life. When people asked Notserp about this he explained that we
are all becoming poorer because we were giving so much of our
hard earned money to the rich. He said it was wrong to steal from
the rich and that since we have borrowed from them we have to
pay them back. He said going into debt to them had not made us
richer and would not so we should stop borrowing and just pay
them back.
Notserp became more and more popular with the poor people
as they began to realise he was telling the truth. The trust the
people had in Nibor Dooh began to disappear. The Aidem people
tried valiantly to defend Nibor Dooh, but the stranger their
explanations became and the wilder their attacks on Notserp the
less convincing they became. People asked Notserp how he
could keep attracting larger and larger audiences even though
Aidem and Nibor Dooh called him such terrible names. You
cannot fool all the people all the time, he told them.
Finally the people became so angry that they sent Nibor Dooh
back to the land of Larebil and proclaimed Notserp their new
leader. Notserp told them clearly he was not a magician, but
neither was Nibor Dooh. He said: ``There are simple answers to
your problems, but they are not easy ones. Nibor Dooh has made
us poor and we will have to go back to working hard to fix the
damage he caused. It will take years but at the end you will feel
better not because of what I have done but because of what you
have done''.
That is what happened. The people worked hard but they felt
proud of the work and they learned a great lesson. They could
take care of themselves better in the long run than Nibor Dooh
could with his grand scheme of taking from the poor and giving
to the rich.
That is the end of my story. One observant person realized
Nibor Dooh is Robin Hood spelled backwards. Just like Nibor
Dooh was Robin Hood spelled backwards, what he did was
backwards. All his great schemes that had the effect of stealing
from the poor to give to the rich were backwards. We are doing
the very same thing in Canada. The government, like Nibor
Dooh in my story, has convinced the people it can do more for
the people than they can do for themselves.
13316
(1350)
I listened to the arguments all morning and I heard them
repeated over and over again. The government is taking from the
poor and giving to the rich. We borrow from the rich and they get
richer. Every year the situation deteriorates.
A parallel to this story can be found in the history of Canada
for approximately the past 25 years and it is still unfolding.
What is the answer? Get government less involved in the lives of
people. Let them take care of themselves; stop interfering.
Reduce the size of government and government programs and
reduce taxes so people have more control over their lives.
Like the people of Adanac, Canadians are becoming
increasingly cynical of government and politicians. They need
to realize there is absolutely no compassion in doing what we are
doing, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. They need to
realize there is nothing noble about being told they cannot take
care of themselves, their families and the less fortunate without
the help of a wise, all seeing government. That is the great
lesson of this story.
Like the people of Adanac, we have the will, the imagination
and the energy to live well and to share generously all by
ourselves and that is what we need to do.
What are the key points in this story I created? Governments
have created the impression that by borrowing money, by going
into debt, we are being compassionate and caring. Nothing could
be further from the truth. We are enslaving our people,
especially our children. We are taking the money from the
hardworking, ordinary, not wealthy people of Canada and we are
giving it to the rich by our schemes.
People pay over one-half of their money to the government.
What tactics does the government use to transfer this money
from the poor to the rich? It convinces the people it can take care
of them better than they could if they were allowed to keep their
hard earned money, which is a myth. Many people in Canada are
beginning to realize this myth. Another tactic government uses
is to keep telling the people: ``Trust us, even if you do not
understand it all. The government is doing what is best for the
country''. This too is a great myth.
All the names in this story are spelled backwards. For
example, the tribe of Aidem that helped Nibor Dooh and the
elites to spread their lies across the land is the media. Aidem,
like Nibor Dooh, was able to get some of the elite tribe to help
him convince everyone that being left wing is more
compassionate than being right wing, but it proved to be a myth.
Before these left wing Liberal ideas were spread across the land
of Adanac, Canada spelled backwards, we had strong families
and communities to give support to those in society who were
less fortunate. When these ideas of Senyek were spread across
that land it began to erode the strength of our families and
charitable institutions.
Notserp, whose name I will let others decipher, began to tell
the people these ideas of Nibor Dooh would not work. The
agreement Nibor Dooh had with the rich to borrow money was to
destroy the land. That is happening in Canada today. By
borrowing money we are destroying our country.
The grand experiment this country has undergone for the last
25 years or so has not worked. Hard work, strong families,
community organizations, values that emphasize responsibility,
these have made our country great, not this idea that big
government programs have made our country great and make us
a great society. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is a
myth. The government still creates the impression it can take
better care of us than we can take care of ourselves if we were
allowed to keep our hard earned money.
Nibor Dooh created the impression that he could multiply the
money he took from the people but in the end it was a myth. The
opposite actually happened. He impoverished the people. This is
happening in Canada. My hope is that we can learn a lesson from
the story I have told. We cannot keep taking from the poor and
giving to the rich.
(1355)
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have been listening to this fairy tale and I think there
is a fairy tale within a fairy tale; some rather strange myths
articulated by the member opposite.
I ask members present if they agree with the myth that perhaps
the member is right about us interfering too much and that,
following his logic, a person without food and shelter should be
left without food and shelter.
The member is very much a proponent of the marketplace. I
ask him if he believes that begging on the street is the
marketplace's answer to helping people in vulnerable positions
to find enough food and wherewithal to support themselves.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening all morning to the same type of reasoning, the big
flaw in what is happening in Canada today. We are trying to
convince the people these big government programs, the
borrowing of money to sustain all of this, are the answer to our
problem. This absolutely is not the answer.
We have to run government in a businesslike manner. We have
to be more responsible. We have to allow people to assume
responsibility for their lives. If the member is suggesting that if
we remove this from them and we have big government
programs we are solving the problem, she should take a look
around her. She should open her eyes.
13317
The interest we are paying on our debt and the interest that
continues to grow and multiply is doing more to destroy what we
can do for the people than any other factor. You missed the entire
point of the story I told. The time will come-
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements
by Members. I remind all hon. members to address the chair at
all times in the matter of debate.
_____________________________________________
13317
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the diplomatic discussions between the governments of
Ireland and Great Britain are apparently moving to a successful
conclusion. There are new structures and processes to ensure
full religious tolerance and co-operation within a new, plural
Irish constitutional system.
In congratulating the political leaders involved, the Canadian
government might help with our acquired historical experience
in international peacekeeping in any transitional governmental
arrangements.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
wish to draw attention today to the sixth anniversary of the sad
events that took place in June of 1989 in Tiananmen Square,
where thousands of students were massacred in the violent
crackdown on their democratic movement by the Chinese
leadership.
Despite the hopes that this widespread movement had raised,
democracy is no further ahead today in China.
All the while, this government just turns its back on the
promotion of human rights by concentrating exclusively on the
economic aspect of its relations with China.
By repudiating a well-established tradition of promoting
human rights, the government reduces the status of Canada to
that of a minor and petty market power lacking vision, with a
foreign policy based on double talk.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the special senate committee on euthanasia and
assisted suicide will table its report detailing its findings and
outlining its recommendations. I applaud the committee for its
careful consideration of euthanasia and physician assisted
suicide.
Of importance is the emphasis on palliative care which must
be addressed by the medical community and all levels of
government through its promotion of public health policy. This
was a consistent theme presented by witnesses before the
committee.
Canadians are asking what control they and their families
have in the direction of their own care. Certainly all issues
surrounding the withholding and withdrawal of life support need
very close attention with public education and input.
It concerns me that judges may be given leniency in handing
out mercy killing sentences, once again calling into question the
integrity of our justice system. Respect for life and the
protection of the most vulnerable in our society should be
paramount in public health policy and the law.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently I had the wonderful opportunity to present
a new Canadian flag to the children at Wentworth Consolidated
elementary school.
As we stood around the flag pole in the beautiful spring
sunshine, we talked of the importance of the flag as a symbol of
nationhood, the respect and care that our flag deserves, and the
great price paid by our veterans to make our nation so great and
free.
Inside the school the children showed me a giant aquarium in
which they watched baby fish grow from eggs caught from the
nearby fish hatchery. When these young fish are big enough the
school children transport them to the Wallace River for
restocking.
Today I congratulate the principal, Dr. Gordon Jeffrey, the
dedicated staff, and the students of the Wentworth Consolidated
elementary school for their environmental awareness and their
community projects.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize three young
people from the city of Mississauga: Jane Lea, Michelle Lo and
Frank Luisser. All three secondary students have been named
athletes of the year for outstanding participation and ability in a
wide variety of sports.
Today when the media seems to focus on troubled youth it is
important to recognize adolescents who, from small children,
have enthusiastically refined their skills to a superior calibre
that is recognized by all. As individual athletes and successful
13318
team players they have been recognized not only for their skills
but for their positive outlook on life.
I congratulate their families who have spent many hours
supporting and encouraging these superstars. I congratulate
Jane, Michelle and Frank for being the best they can be.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I rise today to praise the students of
Maple Leaf Public School.
I have received two different projects from the students who
expressed their concerns about the environment. I commend the
work done by Jillian Morris and Maria Locht on their project
entitled ``Oil Spills''.
I also commend the time and effort that Lauren MacKenzie
and Jennifer Mairn put into soliciting names for their petition on
acid rain.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow is the opening in Toronto of the first official round of
negotiations on the inclusion of Chile in NAFTA, which,
according to the Minister of International Trade, will make this
agreement more vigorous, flexible and open. We are pleased to
note this sudden conversion to free trade on the part of the
Liberals, who so fiercely opposed the signing of the free trade
agreement with the U.S.
Today, the federal government is in favour of every free trade
initiative: free trade with Asia by 2025, free trade with Europe,
free trade here, there and everywhere. That is Canada's new
motto. A sovereign Quebec will make an economic association
offer to Canada. Given our current commercial ties, this is an
offer that can hardly be refused.
With a volume of trade with Canada 150 times that of Chile,
Quebec certainly has at least equal merit.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Expo 2005 has ground down into an unpleasant east-west tug of
war in which the west appears to be shafted yet again in a
decision rigged to favour Ottawa over Calgary.
The foot dragging Minister of Canadian Heritage
demonstrates how the momentum of mediocrity can sustain a
faltering political career as his indecisiveness cripples the bid
process.
How did a process based on integrity and fairness become so
tainted that Ottawa is now lobbying more fiercely than ever
before? The Mulroney way is back. Once it appeared that
Calgary was going to be awarded Expo 2005, the backroom
politics of the Mulroney years took over the process, and an
incompetent minister was the perfect foil by which the emergent
controversy could gather momentum.
(1405 )
The Liberals are faced will a real dilemma for not only did the
independent review committee unanimously recommend
Calgary but this fact was also widely reported. Although
choosing Ottawa over Calgary will be a difficult public choice
for the Liberals, the confidence exhibited not only by the
lobbyists but also by cabinet reveals that the Mulroney way is
still very much a part of Canadian politics.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an extraordinary
individual. Mr. Taher S. Madraswalla has been on a peace
mission for 14 years.
In October 1981, at the age of 18, he left his homeland of
Ahmedabad, India, on a bicycle tour and now 14 years and some
116,000 kilometres later he has visited 30 countries spreading
his message of peace.
Throughout Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Australia
and now Canada he has spread the word of international
brotherhood, peace and understanding. Fittingly the last stage of
his mission will be to cycle to the headquarters of the United
Nations where he is hoping to bring his message to the
secretary-general.
In tribute I must quote Mr. Madraswalla:
I have seen too much fighting because of religion and I don't believe that
religion and skin colour should keep people apart.
On behalf of all members of the House I congratulate him for
dedicating the past 14 years to an honourable goal.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I protest the cuts being planned for the Freshwater Institute in
Winnipeg, not just with respect to the Freshwater Institute in
Winnipeg but also with respect to the experimental lakes project
in and around Kenora which is apparently threatened by the
same set of cutbacks. I say to the government that these kinds of
cutbacks are acutely shortsighted.
13319
There is not just the fiscal deficit. There is what we sometimes
call the human deficit. There is also what we call the
environmental deficit. A lot of very good research having to do
with acid rain and other environmental problems has gone on
under the auspices of the institute.
It is shortsighted in the extreme to cut off this research. We
may well regret many years from now that the government saw
fit to do away with this research. I urge the government to take a
second look at its plans in this regard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week is National Transportation Week. In a country as vast
as Canada, the transportation network-with all its railways,
highways, ports and airports-is very important.
Most of the largest Canadian port, the Port of Vancouver, is
located in my riding of Vancouver East.
[English]
In addition to fast growth of its traffic in the movement of
goods, the port of Vancouver has a very dynamic cruise industry
which in 1994 delivered an estimated $140 million in benefits to
the British Columbia economy and over 580,000 passengers.
Recently the Ballantyne pier, built in my riding in the
twenties, reopened its terminal to help serve the cruise industry.
This season the Ballantyne terminal will greet 64 of the 292
sailings calling on the port of Vancouver.
The terminal is now a state of the art facility for new cruise
ships, boasting passenger loads of 2,000 to 3,000 people, thanks
to new gangways that have the capability to be set up in a record
seven minutes.
This is a unique way of protecting the past while serving the
future. The Vancouver Port Corporation deserves to be
congratulated for its vision.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, more than a week ago we lost one of
Carleton-Charlotte's most noted entrepreneurs with the
passing of Mr. Clifford Corey.
For many years Mr. Corey was a distinguished leader in New
Brunswick's forestry industry. He resided and established
several businesses in the Southampton-Nackawic areas of my
constituency. Not only was he a business leader but he was also
well respected as a community leader.
The country and indeed the world need more Clifford Coreys.
He was admired as a leader by family, friends and the entire
community. On behalf of all members of the House I extend
sincere condolences and sympathy to Mr. Corey's wife Evelyn,
son David, daughters Marion and Margaret; to the entire family
and their many friends.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, National Transportation Week provides an excellent
opportunity to thank all the men and women in the transport
sector. These people work to ensure the free movement of goods
and people throughout Canada at any time of the day or night,
putting food on our tables and taking us home after work.
(1410)
Quebecers are fully aware of how important the transport
sector is. To the workers at Orléans Express in Montreal, at the
Viens bus company in Farnham, at Transport R.P.R in
Cowansville, to the independent truckers across the country, to
CN, CP and VIA employees, to airline and shipping company
staff, to the industrious taxi drivers, to the dispatcher's
secretary, to all the people of Brome-Missisquoi who are
associated in any way with the transport sector, to all the people
from coast to coast who maintain all kinds of links between each
province and the rest of Canada, I join with my parliamentary
colleagues in saying, ``Thank you for all you do for us, and I
wish you all a great National Transportation Week''.
* * *
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
1,400 Quebec taxpayers gathered at the Place des arts to
denounce a decision made by Revenue Canada. Indeed, after
allowing a research and development investment tax credit for
four years, Revenue Canada is suddenly changing its mind and
asking 15,000 Quebecers to refund amounts three to four times
higher than their tax savings.
This about-face by Revenue Canada may force thousands of
Quebecers into bankruptcy. Taxpayers should not have to pay
for a mistake made by the federal revenue department. How can
you expect to restore taxpayers' confidence in Revenue Canada,
when that department is asking them to retroactively repay
amounts which they invested in good faith?
Not only does this government refuse to undertake a complete
tax review, it also makes taxpayers pay for its own
incompetence.
13320
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a very poor record of
keeping its promises on open government, independence of
members, and the integrity of Parliament. We will soon see if the
Liberal brass respects the right of members to vote freely in the
House, or if it considers them to be nothing more than trained
seals expected to show up just to make up the needed members
and then bark yea or nay as they are told.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has expressed
some real concerns about the federal budget. While I do not
share his specific concerns I support his right to vote freely in
the House to keep the promises he and the Liberals made in the
red book, the promises the Liberals are now breaking.
It is unfortunate the Liberals do not support this right. We
have already seen three Liberals punished for not toeing the
party line. Page 92 of the failing Liberal red book talks of
parliamentary reform. It says that open government will be the
watchword of the Liberal program. It would be a shame if the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was punished by his
own party for keeping his promise when his Liberal masters are
breaking theirs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in two days, Ontarians will go to the polls to elect a new
government.
At this point in time, French-speaking residents of the
province must think carefully about the choice they will make.
They must ensure that the new government will protect their
community's acquired rights, while also promoting its vitality.
The Ontario Liberal Party has shown that it is a good protector
of the rights of French-speaking Ontarians. Just think of Bill 8,
or the establishment of the Cité collégiale, where young
French-speaking Ontarians already receive training. In fact, it is
party leader Lyn McLeod who reached an agreement with the
federal government regarding the Cité collégiale, when she was
education minister.
Since the past is often indicative of things to come, when
French-speaking Ontarians go to the polls in two days, they
must make sure to vote for the party which will best serve their
interests.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
province of Ontario has had constant slides to the left under the
NDP. Now the Conservatives are offering a four-year slide to
the right. This province needs balance and the Liberals offer that
balanced approach.
The Conservatives offer unattainable promises of 30 per cent
tax cuts with no cost to our health care system. Ontarians know
that is not possible. They know that a 30 per cent tax cut would
mean a tax on health care. They know it would mean punishing
the average Ontarian while rewarding the rich.
People of Ontario have a choice between a balanced approach
that builds on the hopes of Ontarians for the future and a
misleading radical approach that plays on the fears of people.
On Thursday Ontarians should protect their health care,
protect essential services in the province, and vote for the
balanced approach. Vote Liberal.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, numerous
studies have shown that poverty is the biggest cause of poor
health. By ending national standards for social welfare and by
cutting financial support for all major social programs including
UI and social housing, the federal government will not only
create more poverty but will put more pressure on the health
care system. Bill C-76 moves us closer to the model which is
being followed in the United States.
(1415)
One only has to visit any relatively large urban centre and see
the many homeless people, the level of poverty, to realize that
cutting social programs and giving more power to the provinces
will not work without consultation.
We have always believed that Canada was a country where
people cared about their neighbours, where we work toward
equality and where universality meant that everyone had access
to social programs.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider
these negative impacts of Bill C-76 when they vote.
13321
13321
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at a meeting in Paris Saturday, European and
NATO Defence Ministers agreed to create a new rapid reaction
force that would be responsible for protecting and assisting
peacekeepers in Bosnia. Now it seems that Russia, a member of
the contact group on Bosnia, is opposed to the creation of this
rapid reaction force.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether his government
officially supports the creation of such a force and whether
Canada will contribute in a specific way?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs have made it clear that Canada supports the
initiative taken by the British and the French, but so far, the
Canadian government has made no decision on whether to
contribute troops or equipment. Our consultations are
continuing, and a decision will be made, either positive or
negative.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if this kind of force were to be limited to a
Franco-British expeditionary unit, it would lose much of its
credibility and effectiveness. The Dutch have already agreed to
support this force and may participate. We know that Dutch
peacekeeping missions have a profile similar to those led by
Canada. Perhaps Canada should consider this in a favourable
light.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether in his opinion,
Russia's opposition may lead to some second thoughts about
setting up the rapid reaction force proposed by the United
States, France and Great Britain?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think Russia's position makes any difference in
the arrangements made by the British and the French. We are
continuing our consultations with other countries that may
participate in this force.
I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition would be in
favour of Canada's participation.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I said that we will consider favourably the
possibility to consider it, to use diplomatic wording.
The Prime Minister should also consider the possibility that
Russia will use its vote to exercise a right of veto at the security
council of the United Nations. If it does that it would be very
difficult to consider the force.
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of Foreign Office
Secretary Douglas Hurd to the effect that unless a rapid
deployment force is created the peacekeepers should withdraw
from Bosnia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to extract from the Leader of the
Opposition a yes that he is not ready to say at this time. I know
another yes that he is very keen on. I am very keen on a no.
My view is that the presence of Canadian troops and others
under the UNPROFOR group is still extremely useful in
maintaining some peace in many parts of the former Yugoslavia.
While they are there they are available during emergencies
supplying drugs and food.
They have done this very well in the last three years and have
saved a lot of lives. Canadian participation is still very good. We
favour what the Brits and the French are proposing but that does
not mean we have to participate necessarily. We have made a
good contribution.
We are very far away from that part of the world and in many
ways, it is somewhat more a European problem than a Canadian
problem.
* * *
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
During his visit to Ottawa, the chairman of the International
Chamber of Commerce urged G-7 countries to get their finances
under control in order to guarantee solid economic growth. To
arrive at this end, he suggested cutting social programs,
decreasing the minimum wage, reducing minimum working
conditions and restricting pension plans.
As host and chairman of the G-7 Summit in Halifax, does the
Prime Minister share the views of the chairman of the
International Chamber of Commerce, Arthur Dunkel?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Dunkel is one of the members of the delegation,
not the chairman. I find his recipe is a little strong for my taste. I
think that there is a way to get public finances under control, in
Canada for example, without cutting social programs
excessively. This is, by the way, the position which the Minister
of Finance took in the budget tabled in February.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Prime Minister make the commitment that, at
the G-7 Summit, amidst the recommendations made by the
International Chamber of Commerce and the wind of
conservatism blowing on this Parliament, he will not defend
conservative economic policies even farther right than his first
two budgets,
13322
in which he unabashedly hacked at the social security net of
Quebecers and Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a few days earlier, I had had the privilege to meet with
some of the leaders of the trade union movements in G-7
countries. Our meeting lasted several hours and, obviously, their
positions differed from that of the International Chamber of
Commerce. Like the good Liberal that I am, I found myself
squarely in the middle, between these two positions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has done it again.
Last year he attended a select $2,000 a plate fundraising dinner
in his honour to help pay off 1993 campaign debts.
The dinner was held at the Montreal home of Richard Gervais,
a Liberal bagman who has received at least $110,000 in
contracts from the minister's office since the gathering. It was
attended by individuals who have direct business dealings or
regulatory dealings with the heritage department. It is not the
dinner that concerns us but the conflict of interest which it
represents.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Does he
recognize that by putting himself in such a conflict of interest
situation he undermines the integrity of his department and the
government?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did participate in a number of fundraising
events, including the one that our colleague is talking about.
However, he is making a lot of allegations.
There is nothing secret about anything that I have done and
about the contributions I have made to special fundraising
events.
In addition, I am informed that all the procedures concerning
both the Liberal Party procedures and the Election Canada
procedures were followed with a great deal of
conscientiousness.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not talking about secrecy but conflict of
interest. This is just the latest in a long series of ministerial
missteps. This minister has intervened with the CRTC on behalf
of a constituent. He helped re-jig the government's satellite to
home policy to benefit the Liberal connected Power Corp. He
lunched with Edgar Bronfman Jr. on the eve of Seagram's
takeover of MCA.
This minister has violated the spirit and the letter of the
conflict of interest code on a number of occasions and has put
the integrity of the government in question.
Therefore I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, will he
now do what he should have done months ago and resign?
(1425 )
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have respected every directive of the
Liberal Party and Elections Canada. With respect to contracts, I
am also informed all treasury board guidelines were adhered to
when letting out contracts.
When one respects the rules I expect this would be recognized
as the proper behaviour.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the actions of the minister of heritage are part of a
disturbing pattern. The justice minister places the principle of
merit on the shelf to hire the minister of revenue's friends in
Victoria. The minister of public works has diverted over $26
million of highway funding to feather his political nest in Cape
Breton.
Despite the government's promise to restore integrity to
government, its actions prove it is no different than the Tories it
replaced.
Will the Prime Minister live up to his red book promises on
integrity and ask for the resignation of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the minister said earlier, all the regulations have
been followed. All the contributions have been made public. We
have the list of all contributions that have been made to the
Liberal Party, to the Conservative Party, to the Reform Party.
Some of the contributors to this function had contributed in
1993 to the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the fundraising dinners organized
by the firm of the lobbyist Mr. Gervais, we discover that the
Minister of Canadian Heritage has just contravened a directive
from the Prime Minister aimed at avoiding any possible conflict
of interest. This directive was given as the reason the Minister of
International Trade declined to attend a fundraising dinner in
Toronto last year.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can the Prime
Minister allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to yet again
contravene one of his directives on government ethics?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has contravened none of our rules or
directives. He did not use any list from his department. The
people he met were people who had contributed voluntarily to
the Liberal Party. This is the way it works in all parties.
Everything we do in the Liberal Party is public knowledge.
Receipts are issued, people can check.
13323
This is very different from what happened in the 1993
elections, when members of the Bloc Quebecois refused to
provide, they were not obliged to do so, but they refused to
provide the list of contributions they received in the 1993
elections, and the law did not require them to. When the press
asked them to disclose their contributions, they decided not to.
They were not obliged to do so at the time. Only this year they
will be obliged to do so.
In the matter we are discussing, however, the contributions
are public and the receipts are public. Everything is public. The
minister did only what every member does and what every
minister does: during party fundraising campaigns they make
themselves available so we may do our democratic duty, which
is to have enough funds that the public knows about available for
an election.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, we do
not need a lesson from him or his party on funding political
parties.
An hon. member: Right on. We know why he is rich.
Mrs. Tremblay: So, given that the Prime Minister seems to
have stretch ethics, would he tell me how he can give different
ministers different directives-telling one not to attend an event
in Toronto and exonerating the other who attended an event in
Laval-Ouest?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the
legislation on transparency was tabled in this Parliament by the
former Liberal government, of which I was a member. It is a law.
Although the law did not oblige them to, if the Bloc
Quebecois has nothing to hide, why did it refuse, after the 1993
elections, to disclose the contributions it had received?
In our case, all contributions we received we made public. We
were required to do so and we were happy to do so, because we
comply with the law that the Liberal Party adopted in this
House.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Francis Fox, the chairman of Rogers, attended the minister's
fundraising dinner. His law firm received heritage contracts
worth $150,000. Serge Joyal attended the dinner. He received a
heritage contract worth $45,000. Phyllis Lambert of the
Museum of Architecture contributed $2,000. The museum
received $300,000 in heritage grants. Andre Chagnon from
Videotron was invited. Videotron has received heritage funds.
This has the makings of a Stevie Cameron sequel.
In 1987 the Liberals demanded and got the resignation of
Roch LaSalle in a similar situation. Will the Prime Minister now
do the right thing and ask for the resignation of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said that everything has been done according to
the rules and regulations of the government and the laws of
Parliament.
I am involved regularly. I was in the city of Calgary this year
and it was the biggest fundraiser we ever had in Calgary. I was in
Edmonton and it was the biggest fundraiser we ever had in
Edmonton. We do that all the time. It is the democratic way to
raise money. We had a great dinner in the riding of the Deputy
Prime Minister not long ago. It is all public. The press is invited.
Everybody is there and can take notes. We do that.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is like other ministers.
When he is invited to a fundraiser he attends. It is absolutely
normal to do that because the contributions are public. Nothing
is hidden. It is according to the law, according to the regulations
and according to the directives I gave to the ministers.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us focus on the home of Richard Gervais where the fundraising
dinner took place.
Serge Joyal attended the dinner. He said yesterday that the
dinner was to have been an opportunity to discuss with the
minister his priorities on the future policies he wanted to
implement. Serge Joyal is an official of Power Corporation.
How can the minister deny that this paid access to the minister
directly benefited Power Corporation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Joyal said his ticket was paid for by Madam
Lambert.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Yesterday, some 1,400 angry taxpayers gathered at Place des
Arts to denounce Revenue Canada's decision to make them pay
back retroactively, and with interest, investments made in good
faith and claimed as a scientific research and experimental
development tax credit. Revenue Canada's decision affects
15,000 Quebecers and could bankrupt approximately half of
them.
13324
(1435)
Does the Minister of National Revenue undertake to make a
decision before the end of this session, bearing in mind that,
while he and his officials are reviewing the case, thousands of
taxpayers in Quebec are facing the prospect of bankruptcy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It
is true that hundreds of companies were established by
promoters interested in investing in scientific research. It is also
true that, in many cases, the fact that no research was carried out
caused problems in a number of regions in Quebec and in other
provinces as well.
At present, there is litigation between investors and
promoters. This is a very complicated situation, and I can assure
the hon. member that a decision will be made by the end of the
session, if at all possible, and hopefully before the end of June in
any case.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister recognize that it is totally unacceptable for Revenue
Canada to change the rules after a few years and ask Quebec
taxpayers to pay back large amounts retroactively, thereby
driving thousands of them to the brink of bankruptcy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada did not change any rules.
The rules have been in place for a long time and have remained
unchanged. The real question is: How did it come about that the
Canadian government put in place a system allowing promoters
to do such things?
Since the decision was made in 1989, the question would be
better put to the Leader of the Official Opposition, who was a
government member at the time.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
my six years as an MP I have seen government patronage and
corruption at its very worst. I listened to Liberal howls of
outrage and calls for integrity, competence and honour when
they were in opposition. Now they are sitting on the other side of
the House and of course the tune has changed. This government
is showing the same arrogance as its predecessor and it thinks
that popularity polls can justify patronage appointments,
backroom deals and political payoffs.
My question for the Prime Minister is why the double
standard? If Roch LaSalle resigned, why will not his minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, everything has been done according to the
rules, the legislation and the guidelines which we have initiated.
Fundraising is an occupation of all parties. I have a list of all
the contributions the Reform Party has received. I will not read
it. It is legitimate. I am not complaining. That party received the
money. The list is public. The people who contributed to the
Reform Party have contributed to the Liberal Party, to the
Conservative Party and sometimes to the Bloc Quebecois. It is
normal.
If you have an accusation to make, if you can link a
contribution to a contract, make the accusation-
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members to please address
the Chair when they are speaking.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are not talking cash or contributions, we are talking contracts
which arise out of those fundraisers.
The Liberals in opposition would have demanded the
resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I watched
them and they would have demanded it for sure. Their disgust
and outrage would have echoed through these hallowed halls
and in the press. The Liberals in government however dismiss
the minister's dinner for dollars as harmless and then they send
out the spin doctors to minimize the damage. Brian Mulroney
must be smiling as he watches this as he may soon be appointed
the Liberals' patron saint.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, the honourable
thing which happened years ago and ask the minister to resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member is able to make a precise
accusation that someone paid for a contract, I will do what I have
to do. I have been around here for a long time. I know that they
are chickens. They make broad statements, never being able to
pin down any contract relating to contributions. When they do
that we will do what is the right thing to do. With respect to
innuendoes made by people who cannot make an accusation, I
do not spend a lot of time on chickens of that kind.
(1440)
Some hon. members: Cluck, cluck.
Mr. Speaker: With respect I would remind all hon. members
that this is the House of Commons, not a barnyard. I would
please ask you to deal with each other with respect.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Public Works.
13325
Barely two years after the EH-101 helicopter contract was
cancelled, the Minister of National Defence is said to be on the
verge of recommending to cabinet the purchase of at least 47
new helicopters, 32 of them equipped for antisubmarine
warfare.
How can the minister justify the fact that the government is
about to acquire 47 new helicopters at a cost of $2.6 billion,
when it is still negotiating the compensation to be paid for
cancelling the current contract with Agusta, a firm which is the
subject of very serious accusations of corruption and bribery in
Europe?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that cabinet is seized with the subject matter to which
he refers. No decisions have been made with regard to that
subject matter.
With regard to compensation, no compensation is being paid.
I have stated this repeatedly in the House and outside the House.
What is being done at the present time is the termination costs
which have to be arrived at pursuant to the contract which was
duly consummated by the previous administration. That has to
be followed and will be followed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the Deputy Prime Minister refused last Friday to make a
commitment to exclude Agusta from any bidding process, can
the Minister of Public Works make this commitment until the
inquiry into the accusations against Agusta gets to the bottom of
this matter? Is the minister ready to make this commitment?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your
wishes but I believe the question is somewhat hypothetical in
view of the fact that cabinet has not made any decision with
regard to the procurement of the items in question.
With regard to the specific company he raises, it should be
noted that there are two separate entities at play here. Cabinet
has not made the decision in terms of what it will do. When
cabinet makes the decision I am sure the hon. member will be
well informed. He will then have an opportunity to ask questions
of myself as well as of the Minister of National Defence.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
During the 1993 election campaign our government made a
commitment to the people of Canada in particular to Canadians
with young families to work with the provinces toward
expanding existing child care spaces. Furthermore we
committed to working with the provinces and the business
community to identify appropriate incentives for the creation
and funding of child care spaces in the workplace.
Would the minister please tell the House what steps this
government is taking to meet this commitment?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for a question that is very important to many people across the
country.
This government is still very much committed to the child
care commitment we made in the red book. We have already
committed $72 million for a major child care program with
aboriginal first peoples. We are negotiating those and we hope to
have that program implemented by this fall.
We are very interested in continuing discussions with the
provinces to see how we can arrive at a joint matching
agreement for child care spaces according to the commitment
we made during the election. We certainly would be interested in
responding to any provinces interested in talking to us.
* * *
(1445 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister claims there have been no rules broken.
Let us be very specific. I quote from the conflict of interest
code: ``A public office holder shall take care to avoid being
placed or the appearance of being placed under any obligation to
any person or organization that might profit from special
consideration on the part of the office holder''.
The dinner in question today is clearly a breach of this section
of the code and the minister deliberately ignored this code. My
question is for the Prime Minister. What will he do to hold this
minister accountable for this breach?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained earlier that this fundraising exercise by
every party in the House and every member of Parliament is a
normal act of democracy.
If someone is proposing that the government pay all the
expenses of all the candidates, I will entertain that possibility,
but it is not the way we are functioning here.
We ask the people to contribute, but there is a clear rule that
everybody who contributes $100 or more has to be known by the
public. This week, every contribution received by every member
of this House will become public. The amount of money that
every member of Parliament has contributed will be known. It is
13326
the way we operate in Canada. It is the most open system there
is.
Ministers and members of Parliament meet with people who
want to contribute to the party. That is very open, very public,
and there is no conflict of interest because everybody is
informed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the question is
not one of secrecy or being public. If I rob a bank in public, does
that now mean that I am not guilty?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Epp: I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can
defend and differentiate between normal fundraising and an
activity that resulted afterward in specific contracts being let
without tender. That is not acceptable.
My question for the Prime Minister is what good is this code
of ethics if there is no accountability for it when someone breaks
it? It has clearly been broken here.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member just said something. If he can make an
accusation according to the rule of the House that there is a
contract that has been attributed because money has been paid to
the Liberal Party, he should make the proof and not chicken out
from that. That is the rule of decency. They cannot prove it
because the contribution is public.
I am going to fundraisers across the land every week. I have
more rubber chicken in my body than any other Canadian. I do
that because I believe that what my party believes in is the right
thing for Canada. These years, the people are coming in the
thousands to give money to the Liberal Party. Good for them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Ogilvie Mills workers in Montreal have been deprived of their
jobs since a year ago today, when the company started using
scabs with impunity, due to the laxness of the federal
legislation. The apathy of the minister regarding this issue is
simply unacceptable.
Considering that this labour conflict has been persisting for
too long, and given the many public commitments made by the
minister, how can she justify that, after a whole year, her
government still has not taken any measure to solve this unfair
dispute for the workers concerned?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, clearly, it is indeed deplorable to see a labour conflict
persist for so long. Ogilvie Mills workers are obviously
experiencing a very difficult situation.
(1450)
Some time ago, the union asked to meet with me. A meeting
took place and the union asked to go back to the negotiating
table, with a special mediator. A mediation meeting took place
on May 25 and 26.
That meeting resulted in some noticeable progress.
Consequently, the two sides, including the union, decided to
hold another mediation meeting on June 20 and 21.
I do hope that the parties will reach an agreement.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it must be pointed out that the conflict is not due to the state of
negotiations but, rather, to the fact that there is no anti-scab
legislation.
How can the minister explain that, after claiming that such
legislation was a priority, she has yet to do something about it?
After all, she is well aware of the benefits of the Quebec
anti-scab legislation.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the conflict is related
to collective bargaining. Today, I urge both sides, the union and
management, to reach an agreement.
As regards the use of replacement workers, I made it clear to
the union that the issue was being examined as part of the overall
review of part I of the Canada Labour Code currently under way.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister says he wants specifics. How much more
specific can we get, with an inappropriate diversion of funds
from a federal-provincial agreement as defined by the auditor
general of Nova Scotia?
This diversion of funds has been called illegal, immoral, and
misappropriation. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to have his
ethics chairperson look after this thing and investigate it.
An hon. member: Lapdog.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): My question is for the
Prime Minister. Since at least one person has called the highway
104 scandal a misappropriation of taxpayers' funds for which
someone will be held accountable, why has the Prime Minister
silenced not only that member but the minister responsible for
this unethical diversion of funds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have explained many times in this House, the
priorities for highways within a province are decided by the
13327
minister of transport or highways within that province. In the
case of Nova Scotia, the Government of Nova Scotia had other
priorities, so we did what we have done with many other
provincial governments. When there is a need to change
priorities, we oblige the provincial governments, as a good
government in Ottawa should do.
We can impose our will all the time, but everybody would tell
us that we are not being respectful of the wishes of the provinces
and are being the big brother deciding for them. When we oblige
them they blame us.
For a good situation in Canada, it is good that my ministers
listen to the provinces whenever possible.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think we are looking for good government in Ottawa. We have
yet to find it.
Listen to the concerns here in the House, which have been
going on since last year. Ethics, integrity, honesty, and openness
are all gone out the door with this government. These are all
broken promises of the Liberal red book. It is Liberal, Tory,
same old story, right across the row here.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Since
we are now seeing the arrogance of Brian Mulroney over here
with a new red book face, just how bad does it have to get before
the Prime Minister sees fit to assign his ethics counsellor to this
situation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when it is time for the next election all our promises
listed on page 111 of the red book will have been met. I can
guarantee that.
We were elected for five years and we have only been here for
a year and a half so far, yet we have already met two-thirds of
these election commitments. That is not bad. We will keep
working to meet our commitments.
(1455)
As far as the hon. member is concerned, he has been up a
dozen times with this question, and every time it has been strike
one, strike two, strike three.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
More funding is required to support efforts to establish breast
cancer support groups across northwestern Ontario. This
funding is especially warranted in light of data indicating the
federal government committed greater amounts of funding on a
per patient basis to other diseases than to breast cancer research.
Does this government have any intention to increase funding
for breast cancer research, education, and support groups?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, despite the fiscal challenges we face as a government,
much is being done in terms of breast cancer.
Among other things, we have formed partnerships in order to
have more dollars to put into a broad range of research projects.
We have among others the Canadian breast cancer research
initiative, which is a broad partnership of Health Canada, the
Medical Research Council, the National Cancer Institute of
Canada, and the Canadian Cancer Society.
Additional funds are also being invested by the corporate
breast cancer fund started by the Royal Bank. It is estimated that
this partnership will generate approximately $55 million toward
breast cancer research in the near future. Is it enough? It is never
enough, but we will continue to work very diligently toward
finding more dollars to look into this very serious disease.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Bloc Quebecois has affirmed many times in this House
that the Minister of Agriculture must treat all producers fairly,
including Quebec producers, regarding the Crow rate issue. The
minister remained vague on the issue and, when the 1995 budget
was tabled, we saw that the compensation offered to eastern
dairy producers was not fair.
Does the Minister of Agriculture realize that western
producers will be compensated for the loss of the Crow rate
subsidy, but that eastern dairy producers, who will also be hit
with cuts, will have to face the consequences of the budget
without compensation?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget clearly
demonstrates that we are handling transportation issues across
this country in a way that is even handed and fair minded. We are
dealing with all of those transportation programs in a consistent
fashion, whether it be the WGTA in western Canada or the feed
freight assistance program in various other parts of Canada or
the maritime freight rates assistance program or the Atlantic
region freight rate assistance program.
All of those transportation subsidies are in the process of
being eliminated, and in every case there is an adjustment fund
or a transition program being put in place to ease the adjustment
from the old subsidized regime to a new economic order without
the degree of subsidization that has existed in the past.
13328
The compensation measures with respect to the WGTA are
very explicitly laid out in the legislation that was dealt with at
report stage yesterday. In addition to that-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Toronto
Star today printed a story that is nothing short of
shocking. They reported that last year our immigration minister
personally, with his own signature, gave permits to nine
members of terrorist and revolutionary organizations to enter
Canada.
These are not campus protesters. These are people from
groups that have claimed tens of thousands of lives in civil wars
and uprisings.
Is this bizarre story true? Did the minister give entry permits
to members of terrorist organizations? If so, what will he now do
to remove them from this country?
(1500 )
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a ministerial permit is a tool
that is used by officials across the country and internationally to
try to assist individuals in various situations.
Almost 7,000 ministerial permits were granted last year. Nine
individuals received ministerial permits who were members of
organizations that are automatically excluded from Canada.
These individuals came here for periods of two days to a few
weeks.
An example is an individual from Rwanda who was invited by
the standing committee on human rights. Another individual
was from the Middle East and was involved with foreign affairs
in multilateral peace discussions. Another individual from an
organization that has been defunct since 1970 came to give
testimony on the human rights situation in Central America.
It would be very irresponsible for the member to try to
intimate that these individuals were here and had gone
underground, had asked for asylum or permanent residency.
These individuals were allowed to come here for a short while
and there was nothing untoward to the Canadian community.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
We know from press comments this morning that the G-7
summit in Halifax is going to cost taxpayers about $36 million
to host. We all appreciate how important it is.
Since the conference is yet to be held, how is it that I have in
my hand the Halifax summit communique, the final comment on
the actual Halifax conference, which has been leaked to me. It is
11 pages of detailed commentary about all the agreements that
the G-7 nations have taken. Could he explain that please?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is
sufficiently experienced to know that prior to any international
conference, the sherpas, the various delegations get together and
basically attempt to narrow the issue.
The member is also sufficiently experienced to know that the
discussions take place when the leaders gather. That is when the
decisions are made. The ultimate decisions may well bear no
resemblance to whatever document the member happens to
have.
I am sure the Minister of Foreign Affairs would agree with me
that ministers of finance and ministers of foreign affairs would
like to control their respective leaders and get them to say what
they want. However it is my experience that rarely happens.
The Speaker: That will conclude question period. I have
notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary
Northeast.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
allow me to provide just a bit of background to my point of
order.
Last Friday, June 2, in Oral Question Period I asked a question
of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in which I
brought to the minister's attention the case of Mr. Victor
Sumbley, who has had enormous difficulties securing a visitor's
visa for a family member to come to Canada.
In reply to my question the minister of immigration
responded with the following: ``Today he,'' meaning me,
``decides to do some constituency work after all because there
have been a lot of complaints from Canadians in Calgary,
Alberta who cannot get the time of day on immigration matters
from members of Parliament. It pleases me, finally, to see the
member of Parliament stand up for his constituents.''.
I have no quarrel with the accusations made by the hon.
minister of immigration. I am quite accustomed to his style of
debate. However, in the interests of accuracy I must insist that
the Speaker ask the hon. minister to recognize one very impor-
13329
tant point. Mr. Sumbley, a successful Canadian for whom I have
made an intervention is not my constituent. He is, in fact,
represented by the member for Mount Royal, the Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.
Mr. Sumbley turned to me for assistance in his immigration
case because that member refused to Mr. Sumbley's face to
assist.
(1505 )
The Speaker: I would rule that the hon. member surely does
not have a point of order. It is a point of debate.
_____________________________________________
13329
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read the third time
and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville had the floor when we interrupted the debate
for question period.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I will
briefly conclude my answer.
The hon. member opposite continues to perpetuate the myth,
the fairy tale, that there would be fewer poor people if we
continued having more and more big government programs and
big government bureaucracy.
If we borrow money year after year we will be driving our
children into the poor house. Who does he think pays for big
government? It is the poor people of Canada who right now are
being driven into the poor house to pay for it. The government
keeps saying that Canadians need to have fairer taxes. All that
does is raise the taxes of everyone. The government has raised
the taxes for the poor, for the hard working, for the labourers of
Canada.
The people of Canada are not being fooled by all of this. This
is simply a fairy tale, a myth, which the government is
perpetuating, that it is kinder, gentler and more compassionate.
In fact, the most cruel thing it can do is to continue to borrow
more money so that Canadians have to pay more interest and
continue to impoverish the people. We are borrowing from the
poor to give to the rich. That is the point I want to make.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise a question
with my colleague and friend from Yorkton-Melville.
His earlier comments to the House were quite well received.
However, I want to bring to his attention some comments which
were recently made in a committee of the House by the
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities concerning
the future of agriculture and rural communities on the prairies.
One of the comments made by the Saskatchewan Association
of Rural Municipalities was with respect to the government's
claims that crop diversification and value added production will
be a direct result of the elimination of the Crow benefit. The
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities said this in
its opening remarks:
It is difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy whether the elimination of
the Crow benefit will expedite the move toward diversification and value-added
opportunities.
It goes on to say:
It must be mentioned-that lack of capital is a significant obstacle to the
realization of many successful value-added businesses.
It concluded the section by saying:
Our association has made consistent statements to federal and provincial
governments that the establishment of equity and/or capital venture funds is
necessary for Saskatchewan to fully realize growth in value-added processing.
I believe very strongly that the position brought forward by
the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
represents the view of many communities in rural
Saskatchewan. They realize that with the withdrawal of the
Crow benefit their communities will lose income and will need
to find alternative sources of income to maintain not only their
tax base but their quality of life.
The development of equity funds is one way to ensure that
investment capital will exist. However we all know that the
number of communities that will lose significant amounts of
money will never be in a position to attract all of the investment
necessary.
(1510)
Will the member for Yorkton-Melville inform the House
whether he supports the Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Municipalities' position in this matter and what sort of
investment opportunities he thinks will result because of the
loss of the Crow?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Very briefly, Mr.
Speaker, I have a hard time making the connection between what
I had to say previously on this question but I will offer some
comments anyway.
We have clearly stated that a transition period should have
taken place before the Crow rate was pulled out. This transition
would have allowed much of what this member talked about to
take place. If it is suddenly pulled out it is going to be much
more difficult for people to adjust to the changes that will take
place.
13330
We had a plan to do this. We would have taken the Crow
subsidy and rolled it into a farm program that would have helped
farmers make the transition. That should have taken place. As it
stands now farmers will probably have a very difficult time.
The changes that have been made probably eventually would
have had to come but because of the way it was done by the
government it is going to put farmers in a very difficult
situation. I hope that is an appropriate answer to the member's
question.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I am pleased today to speak on third reading of Bill C-76. I
begin by reading from page 16 of the Liberal red book which was
the book we campaigned on during the election. It establishes in
many ways the mandate of the government. It states:
A Liberal government will adopt a two-track fiscal policy, matching a drive
for jobs and growth with a comprehensive approach to controlling debt and
deficits. The two tracks run parallel: fiscal discipline will support economic
growth, while growth and jobs will enhance government revenues.
That is the basis of our platform and of our budgets.
The 1995 budget pursues both the goals outlined in that
statement. Infrastructure projects are creating jobs across the
country. I am certainly pleased to have them creating jobs in
Halifax West. This program is an excellent example of job
creation activities as one side of the two track approach.
The other side is also very important. We are attacking the
debt and deficit. This attack is an important step toward a
healthy economy, toward job creation. It creates the best
possible climate for job creation.
For instance, since the budget interest rates have come down a
bit. We would like to see them come down a lot more. Everyone
who has a Visa account, a mortgage or a loan would like to see
interest rates come down. We hope they will. However it has to
be remembered that if the cuts in the budget had not been as
large as they were interest rates would probably have risen.
Last year over 430,000 new jobs were created. That is largely
due to the fact that interest rates were lower than they had been
at times in the past.
If interest rates had been raised right after the last budget a lot
of jobs would have been lost. In my area of Halifax West there is
some concern because of the large civil service presence in the
Halifax area. People who are being affected by the reduction in
the civil service are very concerned.
The number of civil servants being cut is 45,000 across the
country. When we recognize how many jobs that were created
last year, over 430,000 jobs, you can see how much you can lose
by having interest rates rise. What we lose in civil service jobs
we hope to make up for by keeping interest rates low. That is a
very important point.
Keeping interest rates low is very important in terms of the
disposable income that people have to spend on things. If they
are paying more for their mortgage, paying more for their Visa
account, paying more for all their loans they have less to spend
on consumer items, less to keep the economy going.
(1515 )
As we all know, expenditure reduction is a key to reducing our
deficit. We cannot reduce our deficit without reducing our
expenditures. That is why the government will reduce
cumulatively over the next three years $25.3 billion. We are
doing this without increasing personal income taxes.
We are maintaining our assault on the deficit with
fundamental changes to the structure of government.
Government must still be active but we have to find ways to
reduce duplication. We have to realize the things that are the
most important, find the priorities for government and reduce
activity in other areas. We cannot afford to be in all areas all the
time.
We are making tough choices in the budget. There is no
question about it. It was not an easy budget to work out. There
have been difficult decisions made. Program review involves
some of those decisions; it involves going through the whole
government department by department and analysing which
activities and programs of government we should maintain and
which we should reduce or remove. We have to maintain the
most important ones. It is all about sustaining the most
important activities of government. Those are the reasons we
have to do this in terms of government reduction.
For those in my area and for those people who are affected by
the cuts to government programs and the civil service, it is very
difficult to accept and to receive those cuts. That is why it is so
important we achieve our reduction in the civil service in a
humane way. I spoke to the President of the Treasury Board
when he was in Halifax some weeks ago about this matter, trying
to maximize the flexibility so civil servants could move between
the departments where there were possibilities of openings.
We are also merging and commercializing many programs of
government in order to reduce our costs. We are also doing some
other things I think are very positive. Most people recognize it
as part of the balancing act that happened in this and the very
important balance provided in the budget. We have cut business
subsidies by I believe $60 million; that is important in terms of
balance.
We are trying to achieve better management of government.
We have also made changes in the new Canada health and social
transfer. The Reform Party is telling us we have not made
enough cuts. I do not think it has a real understanding of what the
13331
effect of those cuts are on regions like mine. There will
definitely be a real challenge in places like Halifax and
throughout the Atlantic because of some of these reductions,
especially in the metro area of Halifax-Dartmouth. We will
rise to meet that challenge. We can do it and we know we have
to. At the same time, to say we should go much further right now
makes no sense to me at all. It fails to realize the impact these
reductions will have in regions like Atlantic Canada.
The people in my riding of Halifax West have told me in their
view the budget struck a good balance between the two tracks of
our approach. There are enough cuts to get us on track regarding
the deficit, to get it down where it should be quickly. At the same
time we are maintaining the important principles of our
government, the important Liberal principles of maintaining
social programs.
I mentioned there is no hike in the budget in personal income
taxes. There are new measures to ensure that taxes owed are
collected. That is very important in terms of improving fairness
in our tax system. There are also tighter rules for tax deferrals
and for foreign and family trusts. It is certainly time the tax
holiday for family trusts came to an end.
The red book platform focused in many ways on small and
medium size businesses. The 1995 budget contains many
continued efforts to support small business which we all know is
the engine of our economy and which provides so many jobs. So
many of the new jobs in our economy are being created by small
business and so it is very important to continue to support small
business activities.
The government looked to members of Parliament for input in
terms of what we should be doing to help small business, which
is why last October the industry committee came out with its
report ``Taking Care of Small Business''. In November, 1994 the
small business working committee came out with its report
``Breaking Through Barriers''. Many of the recommendations in
those reports were adopted by the Minister of Industry when he
gave response entitled ``Building a More Innovative Economy''
which contained among others key initiatives measures to
reduce the paper burden for business. We all hear about the red
tape and the number of forms people have to file and deal with
when they are in small business. It is overwhelming for them.
I was talking recently to a friend who operates a small
engineering business in my riding. He was talking about how he
is always filling out an endless array of forms. It is important to
reduce some of these forms. Also in those initiatives I
mentioned there was a strategic procurement initiative which is
very important to see that some of our government procurement
comes more and more from small business across the country.
(1520)
We are seeing the expansion of the Canada business service
centres across the country to provide more services to help small
businesses getting started or that need help with advice in terms
of expansion. We are seeing the reform of the regulatory
systems which will help to reduce red tape. We are also seeing
new export financing initiatives targeted toward small business.
The Export Development Corporation has been instructed very
strongly to not only help the big companies but to focus its
attention toward helping small business.
That is very important. Small business told us the most
important obstacles to growth and jobs and to its growth, which
means growth and jobs, is the debt and deficit. That is why we
attack those obstacles. The budget reaffirms our commitment to
small business as the engine of growth and job creation.
I am pleased that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is
assisting in those efforts and doing important work. It is one of
the most important financing tools in Atlantic Canada.
The OECD has advised countries that if they want to provide
for a strong future they should support the development of
self-employment skills in our populations. I am pleased to
recommend support of this bill.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again put a question
to a member on the government side.
Members have had an opportunity to review the bill, to study
it in caucus, to talk to cabinet members about it, review it in the
finance committee and examine it in their own ways.
The hon. member comes from a part of eastern Canada with
some agricultural base. Therefore he should have some
understanding of rural life in Saskatchewan. As a member of
government he has an obligation to review the effect this
legislation will have on rural Canadians right across Canada.
The hon. member talked about small business. When we in
Saskatchewan think about small business we think not only
about those who are entrepreneurs selling or manufacturing
products but also those who are producing products on the farm.
In all fairness to the government to have claimed otherwise,
this bill and the budget in general will have a more devastating
effect on rural Saskatchewan than on any other part of the
country.
With regard to the bill, the legislation and its effect on the
farmers through the reduction of the Crow benefit, I ask the
member if he can identify any studies that will back up his
government's claim that this legislation will lead to increased
crop diversification and enhanced value added production.
13332
At the same time, given his commitment to small business,
can he tell us and the farmers of western Canada what transition
measures he believes are necessary to secure the future of rural
communities given the immediate withdrawal of federal support
for grain transportation?
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not familiar with
my riding and its nature. There is very little agricultural activity
in my riding.
The member mentions rural Saskatchewan and that I should
have some understanding of these issues. My grandfather would
agree because he, my mother's father, was the member of
Parliament for Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan and spoke often of
the concerns of agriculture in the House in the 1950s.
The budget is balanced. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware
that in last year's budget Atlantic Canada took quite a strong hit.
We lost a lot of military bases. Close to my riding, the base in
Shearwater was cut by 40 per cent. We lost the base in
Cornwallis and have had other cuts across Atlantic Canada in the
1994 budget. It was gratifying and satisfying to see a greater
balance in this budget.
(1525)
The hon. member talks about the problem of diversification in
agriculture. Canola, invented in western Canada, is one of the
products being grown more and more in western Canada and is
providing a real good cash crop for western farmers. The area is
also seeing more development and work in terms of bio-fuels.
Both of these commodities are the kinds of things that can
provide for western diversification and allow farmers to keep
operating in western Canada, which I think is very important.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to Bill C-76 for the second time. While previously
I spoke on the total content of the act, today I wish to speak to
part V of the act and particularly on social transfer and social
programs.
While I understand the concept behind the change of payment
of social services to the provinces and the need for taking some
drastic steps, I am concerned about the application of the funds.
We all know the importance of social programs and the high
rate of acceptance by Canadians for such programs, amounting
to over 70 per cent of our population.
The legislation for the Canada assistance plan was passed in
1996, but since then over 14 million people either were born in
Canada or came as immigrants. Provinces in the meantime have
become more progressive and have asked for more autonomy.
The new legislation will offer greater flexibility to the provinces
to deal with the distribution of social programs.
[Translation]
All this would be fine if the government did not have to cut
payments to the provinces. These cuts are necessary to deal with
the debt and the deficit. If payments were to continue on the
same basis as in the past, they would soon have to be phased out
altogether.
Although these are sensible decisions, we cannot forget those
who will suffer most as a result of these cuts. When Canadian
taxpayers asked us not to raise taxes, I often explained this
would mean cutting services and programs, which would not
help the poor and those who need social assistance.
[English]
Being on welfare has become a stigma. Society has a tendency
to label people without taking into consideration that life is not
treating everybody in the same manner. We know that as long as
there are rich there will be poor, but it is up to the rest of society
to make sure the needy are treated fairly. People on welfare are
very vulnerable and have to struggle to keep afloat.
Too many people are poor in Canada. One child out of five
lives under the poverty line and where there are poor children
there are poor parents. Statistics do not mean much. They are
just numbers and behind them there are real people. Every
percentage point means several human beings, each one of them
with rights and privileges like everybody else.
In my riding many of the children in the inner schools eat only
one meal a day provided by the school board. They wear clothes
donated to them and never want to go home because they do not
have a home, they have a house, often empty, where there is no
warmth or affection. Often children look for affection elsewhere
with the consequences we all know.
Last week the Minister of Health was in an inner school of my
riding to announce the head start program for aboriginal
families. The children in the school, many aboriginal, gave the
minister a great welcome. She spoke to the children. She spent
time with them and this, for the children who spoke to the
minister, was probably the highlight of their school year and was
a great shot in the arm for the parents who were present and for
the teachers and the principal who live with all the difficulties
day in and day out.
Some say God made mothers because he could not be
everywhere. Long ago I added to the word mother, intended for
parent, the word teacher because of the hard work many of them
do with many of our children, especially with those who need it
the most.
These children are not mere numbers. They are individuals,
our men and women of tomorrow. What an opportunity we miss.
They could be the professionals and the tradesmen of tomorrow
and a lot of potential is going to waste because of the lack of
resources they are faced with. These children represent
one-fifth of the population of tomorrow.
13333
(1530)
[Translation]
The other day I visited skid row in Vancouver. In one of the
hotels I met a young aboriginal man, and we had a conversation.
This young man, who is very intelligent, had finished high
school, went to college for two years and to university for three,
and had lived a decent life until he started using drugs. What a
shame and what a waste.
There was also a very young woman who was coming out of
the hotel. She was too young and too vulnerable to be going to a
hotel on skid row. What a shame and what a waste.
[English]
This misery can be found all over the world, but in Canada we
should not allow it to happen. CAP exists to try to give some
dignity to people who would otherwise live in sheer poverty.
My concern about the new system is the loss of the five rights
which up to now have been imposed on CAP: the right to income
when in need; the right to an amount of income that takes into
account budgetary requirements; the right to appeal; the right
not to have to work or train for welfare; and the right to income
assistance regardless of the province you are from.
Part V of Bill C-76 only maintains the fifth right requiring
that ``no period of minimum residency be required or allowed
with respect to social assistance''. Maintaining only this right is
not enough. Each province could go in a different direction and
deny welfare for other reasons. This would increase poverty and
crime and would put even more people on the street. If a
province denies individuals welfare, it is possible to move to
another province, but if all the provinces do the same, where
would people go for help? South of the border?
[Translation]
Poverty is everywhere. Last week, my opposition colleague
said that in a separate Quebec, there would be no more poverty,
but I think we will have to think very seriously about all of us
working together, if we want to reduce poverty and improve the
circumstances of so many Canadians. I believe that united we
stand and that together we can get the best results.
I know that the bill provides for consultations with the
provinces to reach mutual agreement on social programs. But I
also believe that if we maintain the five principles of the welfare
program at the federal level, we can at least have a discussion
based on these principles.
[English]
The House finance committee in its recent report has backed
the right of appeal. This is a very sound decision and an
important recommendation. I would like, as would many other
people, to see this recommendation implemented and the
remaining rights maintained.
Let me go back to my riding where there is the only
emergency day care in the city of Vancouver. The greatest
majority of children in day care have drug related and alcohol
related syndrome. The reason: poverty. In my riding, there is the
food bank where tons and tons of food are distributed on a
regular basis to hundreds of people. The food bank is not alone
in offering this service; other good hearted people do the same.
This is found all over Canada. If we abandon the rights of CAP,
we also abandon these people creating a new category of poor.
Because of this action we will have many more program
disparities than we have now.
I have met several people since budget day. These people have
the poor at heart. They are those who work on skid row, those
who teach in the inner schools, those who deal with people with
disabilities. I thank these people for their assistance to me over
this month. They really hope that when the minister of human
resources meets with his provincial counterparts they will find a
consensus and will keep the five rights.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was not sure I could take part in this
questions and comments period. Thank you for recognizing me.
I would just like to ask my hon. colleague a question.
She talked about poverty in general, mentioning Canadian
unity and Quebec sovereignty of course, and finally, quoted the
principle of strength through unity. That is a principle often
quoted even in my riding. However, based on fact rather than
principles, in 1980, the Canadian debt was approximately $90
billion and unemployment was much lower than it is today. In
Quebec alone, there were half as many people on welfare in
1980 as there are now.
(1535)
So it was decided in 1980 that Canadian unity should be
maintained. Fifteen years later, the debt has skyrocketed to
nearly $550 billion and will reach $700 billion in just a few
years, we are told; it is growing very fast. Unemployment is not
double what it was, but almost. We now have 808,000 people on
welfare. During these 15 years, we have come to realize that the
gap between rich and poor is widening. The middle class is
disappearing before our very eyes. Could the hon. member
please explain how the strength through unity principle applies
in that context?
Mrs. Terrana: Mr. Speaker, I think that what my hon.
colleague just said is incorrect because, as you know, this matter
has implications not only in Canada but also throughout the
world. I also think that in 1980, when Quebec decided against
separating from the rest of Canada, the battle for separation was
not over and this has been a source of major instability across
the country. I think that while it may not be the only cause of
poverty, it certainly is a contributing factor.
13334
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East, like the hon.
member from Halifax before her, has an obligation to all
Canadians to review and ensure that their support for legislation
is fair.
I am wondering if the hon. member for Vancouver East
understands that if the bill before us cuts $1 million from
various rural communities that it will result in the loss of
elevators, increased input costs for farmers and decreased prices
for farmers. I have newspaper clippings galore here that indicate
all sorts of problems will result in agriculture trade as a result of
this legislation.
How can the hon. member in all good conscience support this
legislation when these immediate and long term impacts will be
so devastating on prairie people?
Mrs. Terrana: Mr. Speaker, not only the prairies and the
farmers have been hit in this budget but many other people have
as well. This budget is not good at all for the people in my riding.
They will suffer.
We have subsidies and subsidies were cut which of course is
not a pleasant thing to do. However they had to come to an end.
There is a transition period and $1.6 billion is being offered to
the farmers to adjust to the new situation. In my duties as a
member of the transportation committee I also asked a question
about the effect of Crow for instance on transportation. It seems
they are not very concerned about it. I would like to see the
situation adjust. It is tough we have had to do that, but we have
taken great care to be equitable in our cuts.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to inform you right away that I will share my time with my
colleague from Terrebonne.
I am very happy to speak again today to Bill C-76, which is a
major bill allowing this government to implement various
provisions of the hon. finance minister's budget.
As everyone will agree, one of the key elements of Bill C-76
is the planned cuts to the federal government's transfers to the
provinces. With some $7 billion in cuts to be spread over the
next three years, $2.5 billion will be cut in Quebec alone. For the
Quebec government, this is in keeping with its relations with the
federal government, which, in the last 12 years, has deprived
Quebec of $14 billion. This represents over $1 billion a year,
which easily explains why the Quebec government is in a
difficult financial situation. This can be seen throughout the
health care sector. In the Montreal region alone, there is talk of
closing between seven and nine hospitals, if I remember
correctly.
(1540)
We must be aware that the cuts imposed on Quebec by the
federal government are at the heart of the problem, particularly
as far as hospitals are concerned. It is too easy to blame the
messenger for the bad news. Real courage means taking
responsibility and facing the situation, as the Quebec
government is doing, unlike the people here who prefer to hide
their decisions.
All the cuts made in recent years have led, as my Vancouver
colleague pointed out, to the proliferation of food banks, which
unfortunately have become increasingly important in the daily
lives of too many Canadians and Quebecers. Cuts are therefore
the first element of the Canada social transfer.
The second element is implementation. To add insult to
injury, the federal government is not only cutting transfers to the
provinces but also imposing its own standards. The provinces
will not be free to use the amounts still available as they see fit.
We know that in a few years cuts will not even be an issue, since
there will be no more federal transfers. Yet, the federal
government dares to impose standards.
As the provinces already have to comply with federal health
and welfare standards, they will now be required to conform to
federal standards in social services and post-secondary
education. Federal involvement in these areas violates the
constitution.
The rules for running the country are set out in the Canadian
constitution. Section 93, in particular, provides for this kind of
thing. For a great many years, we have been aware that the
federal government contravenes the Canadian constitution, in
particular section 93, by disregarding provincial jurisdictional
claims in the areas of health, post-secondary education, social
services and welfare. Despite its cuts, the federal government
dares to impose and expand standards in areas that are none of
its concern.
The third and last element, which is related to the Canada
social transfer, is the fact that the UI fund is currently growing.
Need I remind members that contributions to this fund are made
by those workers lucky enough to have a job and by their
employers?
Thanks to the insight of the hon. member for Mercier, who is
the Bloc critic on social issues, we feel, and rightly so, that the
federal government is preparing its strategy against the
provinces by letting the UI fund grow, while at the same time
going after the provinces by imposing cuts in the transfers made
to them.
Soon, the government will be offering to the financially
strapped provinces money-that is money which does not
belong to it but, rather, to the workers and companies
contributing to the UI fund-to help meet new needs, or to
implement readjusted manpower training programs from coast
to coast.
13335
The government will tell the provinces: We have money. You
do not have any, but we do. However, that money will not be the
federal government's money. It will be money contributed to the
UI fund by ordinary workers and by the companies which
employ them. There is something immoral in all this, something
which we will denounce as long as we are here.
Our position regarding the Canada social transfer is very
simple: It should not exist. The federal government should mind
its own business; it should comply with section 93 of the
Constitution and withdraw from provincial fields of
jurisdiction. The savings thus made could be used to reduce
taxes, and the federal government could give the tax points to
the provinces, including Quebec. The situation would then be
much clearer and certainly more normal.
(1545)
Bill C-76 was the subject of debate on the last opposition day,
last Thursday. The official opposition denounced the operation
that it saw taking shape, the scheming, and that is perhaps just
the tip of the iceberg, with Bill C-76 that we are looking at
today, Bill C-88 on internal trade, Bill C-46 on the new
Department of Industry, and Bill C-91, an act to continue the
Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business
Development Bank of Canada.
We see in this bill, and that is our right, a scheme first to stop
Quebec in its tracks and surround it and then to quietly lay the
groundwork for a post-referendum scenario in which Quebecers
will have decided to stay in Canada. And, in that scenario, the
other provinces will find themselves in the same boat as Quebec,
whose decision not to leave will be disastrous.
We denounced this scheme last Thursday. At that time the
member for Edmonton Southwest applied some, I would think,
rather unparliamentary terms to us, and I quote: ``The Bloc
Quebecois is suffering from tribalism, with its constant
harangue that certain federal policies are centralist and target
Quebec''.
I would simply like to remind our colleague for Edmonton
Southwest that we are doing our job, that we are perhaps
showing some vision of the Canada of tomorrow, and that it is
also the responsibility of the members of the Reform Party to
help preserve the integrity of this Canada, because we are
witnessing an insidious move by the federal government to
centralize Canada to the detriment of the provincial
governments that they are supposed to be representing, which
will soon become regional governments. That is what the future
holds. They perhaps have the right to see it this way, but this
view is certainly not unanimous throughout Canada. It is
disastrous for Quebec. If this scheme succeeds, a nation that has
the right and the desire to exist may disappear.
To be accused of tribalism is rather insulting. I wonder
whether it was ignorance or bad faith that made the hon. member
for Edmonton Southwest and his colleagues use such language
and show so little understanding and respect for the position of
the Bloc Quebecois on the future of the people of Quebec.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to a recent
initiative that hardly reflects the intent of Bill C-76. I am
referring to a flyer distributed recently in Quebec under the
auspices of Power Corporation-friends, and we know who they
are-and to all Canadian homes. This flyer, and we do not know
how much it cost, describes the attractions of Canada Day.
To spend that kind of money now is rather obscene. I may
recall that the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is
responsible for publishing the flyer, had a budget of $1,066,000
for community groups which lost one million to cutbacks. This
leaves $66,000. Imagine how much this flyer costs, compared
with the remaining $66,000?
This seems rather unethical. Furthermore, after the flyer was
sent to all Canadian homes, a poll was taken, and my wife had
the privilege of being called by the Comquest firm, always at the
expense of the public purse. While vaunting the merits of the
National Capital, some leading questions were asked with the
emphasis on Canadian unity, while pretending there was no
connection at all with the referendum, certainly not.
You get people like the ineffable President of the Queen's
Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal,
who make fun of the Government of Quebec and its public
consultations on the future of Quebec, a government that wants
to provide information and find out what people think and still
has a 1-800 line to give this information to the people of
Quebec.
Instead of sending these flyers, perhaps the federal
government should write to the citizens of Canada and explain
its vision of and its plans for the Canada of the future. That
would be a lot more democratic than this miserable little flyer.
(1550)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a brief comment and put a question to the
hon. member with regard to the social transfer.
As the member well knows, under the Canada Health Act the
federal government is empowered to enforce the provisions of
that. Those provisions are that our medicare is universal,
portable, accessible, publicly administered, and
comprehensive.
13336
The transfer presently to the provinces with regard to health
care is in the form of both tax points and cash. The member will
well know from the current example with regard to the clinics in
Alberta that the Minister of Health has indicated that in the
event that the Alberta government does not respect and uphold
those principles of the Canada Health Act there will be a
withholding of the cash amounts relative to the extra billing in
Alberta.
Under the Canada health and social transfer, the government
has combined the transfer mechanisms primarily because of the
cash component. In the event that there was no cash component
with individual programs, the government would have
absolutely no leverage whatsoever to help to protect those
standards and those principles of the Canada Health Act and of
the other programs.
The member will well know that the provinces do not
necessarily spend the moneys transferred to them. Whether it be
post-secondary education, health, or social programs, they do
not necessarily direct those funds received for the purpose for
which they were given. In fact the provinces have the latitude.
Since the provinces are already spending the money in a form
they believe is appropriate for their province, how would
combining the transfers for all the programs under one impact, if
at all, the present operations of the provincial governments?
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, what struck me in my
colleague's question is that, in the spirit of the Constitution, a
jurisdiction like health falls strictly under the purview of the
provinces. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to
intervene in the way it does, exchanging assistance for
adherence to standards. From an historical perspective, this is an
abuse of its power to spend. And historically, it has also always
granted itself the corresponding powers to tax, and this has been
going on since the end of the second world war.
This allows it to intervene today, some might argue in a
responsible way, but I must say that we in Quebec have no need
for this. We are stuck with the federal government, stuck with
paying it $30 billion each year and stuck with its standards in
areas for which Quebecers already have institutions. We have no
pretensions, but we also have nothing to learn from it regarding
social democracy and sound social organization principles.
This order of things may well suit the rest of Canada. We see
that the Canadian government holds a larger place in the hearts
of Canadians than Quebecers: our first allegiance is to the
government of Quebec. Therefore, the internal logic of Canada
may make a central government in Ottawa work well. That will
be your decision to make in the post-referendum context. But,
now, the logic of Canada contrasts with the logic of Quebec, and
we ask Canada to withdraw from this kind of thing and to let the
government of Quebec keep its tax points in order to administer
health, all social issues and education.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in this House to speak on a bill that,
according to the government opposite, gives the provinces more
decision making room, while taking $7 billion away from them,
in the space of two years.
With absolute seriousness, the Liberals are proclaiming for
all to hear that this is new flexible federalism. The provinces are
not being given the right to withdraw; the federal government is
clearly opting out financially with the aim of reducing its debt
and balancing its budget, if possible. In reality, the federal
government is cutting off the provinces and giving itself more
right to supervise and to intervene.
(1555)
During the course of this debate you have heard words like
demagoguery and bilge. I am going to quote documents of the
present government, not documents of the Conservatives and
not documents of the wicked separatists, but documents of the
Liberals, who lacked the courage to note in their red book that
they would drop the most disadvantaged after cutting them off.
They also failed to note that they would make students in
Quebec and Canada meet national standards after they cut off
their financial support. I am going to quote documents from
members and documents from ministers, who are present today
in this House. The $7 billion cuts are contained in the latest
budget. It provides for $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion
in 1997-98; 2.5 and 4.5 add up in my books to $7 billion in cuts,
as set out in the budget.
As regards the national standards, which cause the Minister of
Finance to say, and I quote: ``[I] will be inviting all provincial
governments to work together on developing, through mutual
consent, a set of shared principles and objectives that could
underlie the new Canada Social Transfer''. This is a quote from
the minister, the member for LaSalle-Émard.
What happens if there is no agreement, no mutual consent? It
seems to me that, in 1981, there was agreement and mutual
consent in the case of nine provinces out of ten. Since that
agreement, Quebec has suffered the shame and affront of
unilateral patriation. Our motto is: ``Je me souviens'', and we
remember.
We must also bear in mind that the current Prime Minister was
a major player in this coup against Quebec, and that he is now
promising to be reasonable, as he told this House. But if the
future is anything like the past, in Quebec, we are in for more
unilateral encroachments.
They talk about agreement, respect and mutual consent, while
at the same time federal officials are producing documents that I
would describe politely as somewhat centralizing. The report of
the national education standards committee, a 130 page report
submitted to the Prime Minister recommends among other
things-this is recommendation No. 1-that standards of excel-
13337
lence be defined at every level and in every field of education
and training. These standards should reflect the highest national
and international levels of performance and should be regarded
as the primary objective to be achieved by students.
This recommendation, made in a report dated May 1994,
under the Liberals, clearly shows the direction taken by this
government even before any consultations were conducted: cuts
and growing interference in an area which, I remind you, has
been under exclusive provincial jurisdiction since 1867. That
gives us an idea of what to expect from Bill C-76 and mutual
consent.
That is not all; there is more. Recommendation No. 2 states
that a higher percentage of education spending should be
directed to research and development. What spending? Who will
control that spending? Every one in Quebec, including Ghislain
Dufour and the Liberal MPPs, wants control over manpower
training to be returned to the province.
Further in the report, it is recommended that the federal
government provide assistance for the development and
administration of tests on every basic subject. It should be
pointed out that we are talking about a provincial jurisdiction
here.
Another recommendation: That every level of government
make it a priority to earmark sufficient funds to analyze and
make maximum use of the results and implement recommended
changes.
It so happens that, in Quebec, we have a Ministry of Education
with 5,000 employees. Other provinces also have ministries of
education. In addition, in Quebec, we are currently holding a
summit conference on education. That shows how little respect
the federal government has for local and provincial authorities.
Why is it so bent on increasing costly duplication and overlap?
Through Bill C-76, the federal government makes $7 billion
in cuts here and there. As was mentioned with regard to the
report on national education standards, its presence is being
intensified in exclusive local or provincial jurisdictions.
(1600)
This report refers to an annual conference on national
education problems, to a national review organization, and so
on. From the outset, I have been trying to demonstrate that Bill
C-76 provides for national standards, that the federal
government's centralizing approach has led us to expect the
worst as far as the definition of these standards is concerned.
The only report on national education standards reflects the
education policy contemplated by this government.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to address the issue of
social services or that of health care, which, as my colleague
from Trois-Rivières said earlier, has also been under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction since 1867. Other reports by the Bloc
Quebecois have demonstrated the federal government's
irresponsibility in these areas in connection with Bill C-76.
In conclusion, I would like to quote two excerpts from an
editorial by Michel Vastel. The first excerpt relating to Bill
C-76 reads as follows: ``Any province that does not mention the
federal government's contribution will be fined. The financial
penalty, to be recommended by the federal minister, can go as
far as withdrawing the total contribution under the Canada
social transfer. Such a penalty could amount to roughly $7
billion''.
A Liberal member asked earlier why we objected to putting
social programs, health and education in the same bag. Failure
to comply with a given agreement may lead to the loss of the
whole package. For Quebec, this would translate into a $7
billion penalty simply on the recommendation of the federal
minister.
The second excerpt from the same editorial is this: ``Notices
saying something like ``This service is provided thanks to a
contribution from the Government of Canada'' will now be
displayed in hospital lobbies and on Quebec health insurance
forms''. The size of letters, the colour of the maple leaf will be
determined by memorandums of understanding, mutual
agreements and umpteen meetings of federal and provincial
officials.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to
speak to Bill C-76.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga
South, for a question or a comment.
As the hon. member may know, I always try to give the floor
to a member from a party other than the one represented by the
previous speaker.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
expect that another hon. member would also like to comment.
13338
With regard to the social transfers, the question has been
raised as to whether they should be going into one pool. If the
Bloc has a problem with grouping them together, knowing full
well that the provinces spend the funds wherever they want
anyway, would the member agree to mandating that all dollars
transferred for health care be spent on health care, that all
dollars transferred for education be spent on education, that all
dollars transferred for social programs be spent on social
programs, and that the provinces would have absolutely no
discretion in that spending?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I find that, when it comes to streamlining this whole
transfer process, Quebec probably has the ideal solution: we pay
our taxes to the province and we make our laws in the province.
This is what we call sovereignty. This is what we want to do, so
as to avoid all these problems.
The reason why we oppose these national standards and these
costs is very simple. As I said earlier, the number one
recommendation of the committee on national standards for
education provides for basic national standards on all subjects
taught and on all training programs. The federal government
also says in the report that it wants to see more science and
technology courses. Sure, but if, for example, Newfoundland
would rather offer more courses related to fisheries or social
issues, what will happen if national standards are in place? That
is my first example.
Let me give you another. Do we really want to allocate the
money earmarked for education to education, and the budgets
for health care to health care?
(1605)
I am personally convinced that the Canadian provinces as a
whole are responsible and that they will allocate the funds where
it is necessary.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member for Terrebonne, who wants
certain powers. It is said that all the English provinces are
getting together to demand more autonomy, that they are also in
favour of decentralized government. Mr. Johnson says he keeps
hearing the same message when he travels across Canada. And
Mr. Bourassa said the same thing.
Everyone wants more power. No one is satisfied, and
especially not Quebec. Why do we go on making these demands
year after year? Why do we keep saying we must do something
that is very worthwhile and make Quebec sovereign?
My colleague talked about education, and we realize that
Quebec is lagging behind, because they wanted to create a lag in
research and development. In the Gaspé alone, 10,000 students
have left the region. I want to ask the hon. member: Why is
Quebec not, and never will be-in my estimation-satisfied
with the situation in post-secondary education?
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for Matapédia-Matane for asking me this question.
Education is my specialty, and although I do not think I have the
answer, I may have part of the answer.
First of all, as he said earlier, at the post-secondary level
students, like workers who have trouble finding a job, have to
cope with overlapping programs and duplication, whether we
are talking about federal or provincial programs.
I believe that as members of the Bloc Quebecois, we are more
interested in education, which is a provincial jurisdiction, than
members on the other side of the House, and I know why. They
have other things on their minds, so let the government render
unto the provinces what belongs to the provinces, like
education, so they can get on with other business.
Now I would like to explain why young people are against
national standards for education. As my colleague said, in
Matapédia-Matane, for instance, they might need special
emphasis on a particular sector, and that is what the états
généraux de l'éducation au Québec are bound to conclude.
But how can we have national standards in an area that, when
the Fathers of Confederation signed their agreement, was a
provincial responsibility? Or so we are told. But how can we
have similar standards for health care in Quebec, Ontario and
Newfoundland? The federal government has imposed national
standards for health care. What Bill C-76 wants to impose is the
same medicine-no pun intended-this time for education.
They want to set national standards for education.
When? Just when the government is going to cut funding. In
other words, it gives less money to a province, gives more
orders, and the province has to fall in line, otherwise funding for
all programs will be cut: social assistance, education and health
care. That is why we object.
[English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
approximately a year ago Canada began an incredible
transformation, a change that has had a profound impact on all
of us in this Chamber and on Canadians everywhere.
I am talking about finally coming to grips with our national
debt, which over the years has now reached the unconscionable
level of $550 billion and which demands so much of our interest
that one-third of all of the tax revenue paid by Canadians to the
federal government goes just to pay the interest. One-quarter of
all federal government expenditures today are simply to pay the
interest on our debt, let alone not paying it down at all. We have
had to come to grips with that, and ever increasing annual debt
adding to it. It has not been easy.
In the past governments have always been in the mode of
giving things to people, of increasing programs, of increasing
expenditures. Maybe it does not come easily to a lot of us to start
to look at the reality and come to grips with our debt and deficit
crisis. We have done it. One of the amazing things that we on the
finance committee learned as we travelled across the country is
that Canadians, from the richest to the poorest, all said we must
get the deficit and debt under control. There was a lot of
legitimate debate on how to go about it, but as we opened up the
13339
public hearings Canadians were committed to the reality that we
had to find a new way of doing things.
(1610)
In the budget bill before us, Bill C-76, we have really
attacked what in the past have been three sacred cows in
Canadian government. The first is the western grain
transportation subsidy, which for all of this century has given an
incredible subsidy to grain farmers in the west to help them get
their grain to market and to help them be competitive in what is
really a dirty international market wracked and plagued by
subsidies of enormous quantities in many countries.
It will not be easy for our prairie farmers. There are
transitional provisions to help ease the burden and help them
find ways to bear some of the brunt of the burden. It is not easy
for us to have to say that this can no longer be the way we do
business.
The second sacred cow we have had to gore is our public
service. We have had to cut 14 per cent of our public service, or
45,000 public service jobs over the next three years. This is not
easy for us. Those of us who have been in government for a long
time realize that we are fortunate have a highly competent
public service, with people who could be earning much more in
the private sector but who feel they have a pride in actually
serving their government.
This tradition was built up in Canada over this century, a
position of great pride in our public service. Names that come to
mind are the Robertsons, the John Holmes, and people who gave
Canada a name internationally because of their intelligence and
their commitment. They were the ones who got us into
international peacekeeping. We can find individuals like this in
every department.
For us to say we have to cut them, let us say to our public
servants that we recognize that maybe they do not deserve it.
They do not. We recognize they have made a great contribution
to our country, and it is with heavy hearts that we have to put
45,000 people on the street.
There are a couple of ways you can do it. We went through a
program review. Every program was looked at to see if it could
be eliminated or whether it could be done better elsewhere or
whether it was really necessary in order to eliminate
expenditures and bring down the deficit.
The normal way to go about making the cuts is that all those
people in a program that is axed would be asked to leave the
public service. There are severance packages. We are
contributing a large amount of money to ease the burden of
transition from public to private life. However, we would be
losing many very competent public servants if that were the way
we were to proceed. From a management point of view it is
quick and certain. After we on the finance committee listened at
length to many of the public service unions we thought there
might be a better way. We learned from them that there are
people in many departments who might want to take the early
retirement package and leave the public service, even if their
program or department was not going to be axed.
The concept of substitution came out. The government tried to
negotiate with the public sector unions and they almost had an
agreement on how all the cuts could be made on a voluntary
basis. At the last minute the agreement did not come about.
(1615 )
In listening to the witnesses we determined it would be very
important to approximate some type of voluntary substitution
program. Those who wanted to avail themselves of the early
retirement package could, and people could switch from one
department to another.
We were told all of these 45,000 jobs could be replaced on a
voluntary basis and we therefore have encouraged the ministers
and the finance committee to do that recognizing that in many
cases this might not be practical. We have also asked the public
sector unions to work with the minister in not only the
promulgation of the guidelines for alternates but also in their
carrying out.
The minister has been very responsible in responding to these
entreaties on our behalf and the unions. From what I understand
we are to have a much more humane and practical way of
downsizing the public service than if we took the easy way out.
It may take longer but we will have public servants who want to
stay in the public service.
The third sacred cow we have had to take on is transfer
payments to the provinces. By way of brief background, under
the current regime that has existed up until now we have four
types of transfer payments from the federal government to the
provinces. One is for equalization to the poorer provinces to
give them a certain level of public service. In the budget we have
not cut any of these equalization payments.
The second type of equalization payment is under the Canada
assistance plan from the federal government to match the funds
put forward by provinces to deal with Canadians who are in need
or who suffer from disabilities, the most disadvantaged and the
poor. The province establishes the program and we match its
funding. There are very few controls or strings over this money
right now.
The third area is established programs financing which has
two components. One is for post-secondary education where
there are no federal strings attached whatsoever. The second is
for health. We have a number of strings on this. The Canada
Health Act says a province has to meet the five criteria of the
Canada Health Act or else we can cut back the funding.
13340
We are cutting back the $7 billion of transfer payments over a
two-year period. We do not do this with alacrity because we
know how important expenditures in these areas are. If anybody
thinks we can cut the deficit without cutting in this area, they are
wrong.
Under this new regime there will be a combination of the three
programs, the CAP, the EPF for post-secondary education, and
the EPF transfers for health, into one transfer payment instead of
the two; combining the two into one, called the Canada health
and social transfer.
We have not touched equalization. In the bill we have
mandated the Minister of Human Resources Development
through mutual consent with the provinces to develop principles
and objectives for social assistance and post-secondary
education.
Members of the opposition and many Canadians who
appeared before us said that if we continue on the trend
established in the budget for the next two years we will run out
of cash payments. There will be no more cash payments to the
provinces. In some cases it will be after 4 years; in some cases
maybe after 11 or 12 years.
How can the federal government have any voice? How can we
have any voice if we do not have cash? This is why our
committee recommended in the future there must be a cash
component. What will this do?
(1620)
For the first time where we have very few standards today the
provinces will have a major voice in determining the standards
applied.
Because the amount of the cash transfer under the Canada
health and social transfer is to diminish by $7 million over two
years, people say we will have less clout with the provinces to
force them into national standards, objectives, shared principles
or whatever.
The object is not to force the provinces into anything. We have
said we want the minister to sit down with them and develop
through mutual consent. That means talking with them about the
principles they want. This does not mean we are imposing them.
In the future, supposing we agree on shared principles or
objectives, we will still need some money as part of the cash
transfer to the provinces to enforce standards such as with the
Canada Health Act which we are not touching. This is why we
went beyond the budget and did something which a finance
committee has not done in the past to my knowledge. We not
only reported Bill C-76 back to the House but we did so with an
additional report, report 16 of the finance committee wherein we
said that in future years future Ministers of Finance-we know it
will be this one for a long time, many decades perhaps-must
have a cash component in order to ensure the standards under the
Canada Health Act or new standards developed with the consent
of the provinces are enforced.
Another concern related to the most disadvantaged
economically, those at the bottom of the heap, those who do not
have jobs, single parents whose children are living in poverty,
those who are not working and the working poor, those referred
to as the ones who get welfare or social assistance which were
part of the Canada assistance plan in the past.
In the Canada assistance plan we matched transfers but we are
no longer doing it. It is all combined in one payment. We heard a
tremendous amount of testimony from the National
Anti-Poverty Organization, from community groups such as the
one here in Ottawa working with the poor, giving them health
care and other assistance through a number of volunteers, many
right across the country.
The federal government is cutting its transfers to provinces
that are not the neediest, those with the least political clout, the
provinces that will stop giving them the money. We have no
control now over whether the provinces give support to the
needy. If they do, we will match it.
When the finance committee set out last fall to prepare for the
budget, we reported we would have to make massive cuts. We
said we did not want these cuts to be made on the backs of the
poorest because they are already down and out. They are the
ones who in many cases cannot stand more cuts.
This is why in our report to the House of Commons we urged
the finance minister and particularly the Minister for Human
Resources Development when he talks to the provinces to make
sure the most in need are not the ones who are cut out of the
programs, children in poverty, the working poor and the others
who are not there.
(1625 )
We heard testimony from the National Anti-Poverty
Organization that according to its best estimates only about 3
per cent of those who are on welfare today are abusing the
system. Even if its figures were twice what it us they were, are
the abuses of a few people sufficient to bring down our wrath on
all of the people?
We have to be very careful when we are making these cuts that
we have our priorities straight and that we do not prejudice those
who are already the most vulnerable, those who are most
deserving of our support in what we consider and always want to
consider to be a compassionate and caring society.
Because we are combining the two or three transfers into one,
even though it is smaller there will be greater economic clout in
the short term to enforce standards that might be agreed to and to
protect the five principles of the Canada Health Act.
13341
Over the longer term and in the more distant future we are
urging that future budgets retain a cash component so these
principles can be observed.
I started off by saying our national debt is a crisis we could not
ignore. Past governments have overspent. It is not for us, I
believe, a fruitful course to say-
[Translation]
``It was the Liberals, it was the Conservatives, or because of the
NDP's support''. It is up to us, to all Canadians, all Members of
Parliament from all parties to deal with crises and to do better to
build a better future.
We have begun our all out battle against the deficit. We must
do it fairly, humbly and with the knowledge that by doing
something about it today, we can build a stronger and more
prosperous Canada for our children and our children's children.
Such is our duty, and we will do our duty.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was very appreciative of the comments the member made
referring to the Canada Health Act and other social programs
like that. He said, and I agree with him, if anybody thinks we can
cut the deficit without cutting in this area they are wrong. I am
being quite serious, not sarcastic. I hope he and other people
who are responsible in the Liberal caucus get that message
through to certain backbenchers like the member for Halifax or
Beeches-Woodbine.
I wonder if the member would agree that in the case of the
Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act and the doing away
with the PUITTA grant, that very specifically was a tax increase.
The second question is with respect to the downsizing of the
civil service. The member will recall that in committee I was
trying to draw the minister out about the reverse of the hiring
quotas or numerical targets. Does the member understand there
will be absolutely no attempt on the part of the Liberal
government to achieve its numerical targets under employment
equity when it is laying people off by using that process
selectively to simply do a reverse hiring procedure on the way it
is planning on doing the hiring procedure to gain its balances?
(1630 )
Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, with respect to the public
service, we will not do away with the public service act or the
protection which any public servant has through the Public
Service Commission and the rules regarding employment
equity. If the hon. member thinks we are, he is wrong.
The beauty of the way we are going about the layoff is that it is
being undertaken in consultation and in co-operation with the
public sector unions as well as with management in Treasury
Board and the various departments. That is why we have
something which can work and which will achieve the level of
substitution on a voluntary basis that we were hoping for.
In terms of PUITTA, members will understand that in the last
budget year we spent $249 million reimbursing public utilities
which had been privatized and which were in the provinces. We
were reimbursing them for the income tax we collected.
How did they get into the private sector in the provinces
anyway? They were privatized originally by the provincial
governments in order to make them more efficient and in order
to create capital funds for deficit reduction for the provinces.
Now they are working in the private sector. They were a function
and a creation of the provincial governments.
These utilities and the provincial governments were insisting
that we continue to give them $249 million a year. Were the
provinces prepared to rebate the corporate taxes collected by the
provinces to these utilities? Not one was, even though they were
creations of the provincial governments. If the provincial
governments are not prepared to rebate the corporate taxes to
them, why should the federal government? It is a real anomaly.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would like to take the floor to briefly thank my Liberal
colleague for so respectfully listening to all of our speeches. I
would like to make a few comments before asking him my
question.
As he said at the beginning of his speech, he shed some
crocodile tears because of the abolition of 45,000 public service
positions in Ottawa and across Canada. I have half a mind to ask
him where the Liberals boasted about cutting 45,000 positions
in the red book they talked so much about during the election
campaign. Since everybody already knows the answer to that
question, I will not ask it.
However, I would like to say that public servants probably
have more reason to fear a Liberal federalist government in
Ottawa than to fear the sovereignists who promise that they will
be integrated into the Quebec public service-a promise that
will be kept-in their draft bill. These public servants have
much more to fear, and we now hold the proof-45,000 jobs
cut-from the other side of the House, because that is where the
cuts are coming from, and not from our side.
I would also like to mention something that my colleague did
not deem worth repeating in his speech. The cuts for the next two
years will be in the order of $7 billion, I repeat $7 billion. If we,
on this side of the House, are mistaken, if this is not truly what is
written in the Martin budget, perhaps they could give us proof
and give us other figures than those that the Minister of Finance
already gave us.
13342
Now to my question. Earlier in your speech, hon. member,
through you, Madam Speaker, you said to us: ``There are no
strings attached whatsoever to post-secondary education. Of
course, we have a number of strings attached on health''. So,
why does a committee on national education standards exist and
why has this committee already issued a 130 page report on
national education standards?
Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for Terrebonne for his questions. First, as regards the
public service, the minister and the committee insisted on some
form of co-operation between the unions and the government
concerning substitution, that is that the retirement arrangement
must be accepted by individual public servants. Perhaps, and I
hope so, in the next three years, all government retirees will
follow the course of substitution making use of the generous
benefits offered by the government.
(1635)
Secondly, as concerns national standards in education, neither
our committee, nor the minister nor the budget will require
national standards in education. This is surely part of the
negotiations undertaken by the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
In listening to all the witnesses, we were very grateful to a
group that suggested the standards in the area of education be
not national, but international, standards of knowledge and
excellence, given the area is a competitive one.
And we, like all Canadians, in Quebec, in British Columbia or
in any province or territory, must take international competition
and our own system of education across Canada into account, if
we are really to take advantage of it.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member opposite apologized twice. First, he
admitted that the Liberals and the Conservatives were
responsible for the national debt. I thank him for admitting that.
Of course, everyone agrees that we must reduce the deficit.
The hon. member also referred to three sacred cows, but he
forgot one. He forgot the multinationals. Again, everyone agrees
that multinationals often enjoy tax shelters which are far too
generous. The same goes for banks. It is a disgrace when banks
hardly pay any taxes.
The cuts in transfers hurt the poor and the young. Our young
people have almost lost all hope, since they basically have two
options, particularly in rural areas: unemployment or income
security. This situation hurts them a great deal. I wonder if we
could provide more help to these young people.
The hon. member did not mention the cuts affecting the
Eastern Quebec Development Plan. The plan had a budget of
$6.5 million. That money will not be available next year. The
provinces will have to pay. Our farmers will have to put up with
a 15 per cent cut this year, and another one next year, which will
amount to a 30 per cent reduction in their subsidies. Again,
Quebec will have to pay.
I know that everyone must make sacrifices. People back
home, and elsewhere, are prepared to make sacrifices. However,
this does not mean that the poor have to make the biggest
sacrifices. I ask the hon. member: How could his government
provide a little help in rural areas and give some hope to people?
Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was right
when he said that the poor should be a concern for every party
and every member in this House.
He also referred to the deficits. Indeed, the federal deficits
were the responsibility of the Conservative and Liberal
governments, just like the Quebec deficit is now the
responsibility of the PQ government, whose last budget did not
do much to solve the problem. I urge all provincial governments
in Canada to rise to the challenge and do what we are trying to do
now.
(1640)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, nuclear
non-proliferation treaty; the hon. member for Bourassa,
immigration; the hon. member for Essex-Kent, agriculture.
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question for
my colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. The time for
questions and comments on the last debate has expired.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is an
honour to stand again in the House, this place where Canadians
look for leadership, for the proper fiscal management of the
country, to speak to Bill C-76, the budget implementation act.
I must share with everyone that I have considerable
frustration in this place. Since being elected to the House I am
convinced that one reason we have the huge problem of debt is
that we lack an effective mechanism to control it. The reason is
simple. Governments basically respond to their election
platform and rightly so.
Taking it back one step, unfortunately during election campaigns
we have trained Canadian voters to be very selfish. Over the last 30
years we have assisted Canadian voters to not make prudent fiscal
decisions but simply ones that appeal to their greed. My observa-
13343
tion is that this has happened at all levels of government. I know
it happened in Alberta for a number of years. Albertans were
persuaded by politicians to vote in favour of spending their
money in order to put the party into power that promised the
most using the taxpayers' money.
It never made sense to me. I feel to this day that politicians
who engage in that practice somehow are being unfair to the
Canadian public. What kind of an option is it to give a person
when one party says: ``Vote for us and we will give you these
benefits'' and another party says: ``If you vote for us we will not
give you those things''. People will vote for the party that will
give them the most.
I am very happy that has now turned around. I am happy that a
sizeable proportion of Canada's population is beginning to face
reality. People are voting for and electing members who stand
on a policy of fiscal responsibility, of reducing government
spending, of reducing the amount borrowed each year, of
reducing the debt and hopefully in the long run of reducing the
amount of taxation.
It is a false assumption that if the government stops taxing the
taxpayers or borrowing against the future taxes of our children
and grandchildren somehow our economy will suffer. That very
process erodes our economy more than if we were to stop doing
it.
We need to stop and think what happens when we as a country
borrow money. We borrow a certain proportion from ourselves
and it stays in the country. Presumably it stays in circulation and
aids the economy. When people clip coupons from their Canada
savings bonds and collect the interest, they may use the money
for goods and services which adds to our economy.
(1645 )
Canada also borrows a great deal of money offshore. Every
year it sends large amounts of money for interest out of the
country. It is only logical that if it did not have a foreign debt
then that money would stay in the country and would not just
disappear.
Members need to be very serious in responding to what is the
new fiscal wisdom of Canadian taxpayers in electing
parliamentarians who are committed to reducing government
expenditures and taxes. In the west where many Reformers were
elected, it was the pivotal point in the platform which attracted a
lot of voters. I hasten to add that to a certain degree it was what
attracted voters who voted Liberal because the Liberals also
included in their red book promises of more honesty in
government, more openness and better fiscal responsibility.
They promised it but what needs to be asked is whether they are
actually delivering it.
Here again I want to be as gentle as I can but I must also as
honestly as possible, level with the Canadian people on what is
actually happening.
I have referred to some of these numbers in a previous speech
but they bear repeating. When speaking of millions of dollars
some people understand, but when speaking of billions a lot of
people do not have the insight on what a number of that
magnitude means. A good way of explaining it has to do with
what happens if a person has a lot of money and is able to spend a
dollar every second.
If I had a million dollars it would take approximately 11 and a
half days to spend it at one dollar per second. If I had a billion
dollars and I was spending it at the same rate it would take 32
years. When you put that into perspective you realise that the
government is still overspending this year in the budget which
we are being asked to approve, more than $32 billion. That is
how much the government is borrowing in addition to the
present debt. People need to grab hold of the magnitude of the
problem, its severity and its urgency.
If you have ever done any boating you will know that if you
have a hole in the hull the water will come in. Depending on the
size of that hole, it may be insufficient to take a little cup to bail
out the water because the water may be getting too deep to bail.
Maybe what you need to do is to plug the hole. You need to put
something into the hole to prevent the water from coming in.
The same thing is true with the national debt. The debt is so
large and the interest payments on that debt are increasing at a
rate over which we have no control. It is true the government is
borrowing less now than it did last year. Can I be so brave as to
commend the government for borrowing $32 billion this year
instead of the $40 billion that it borrowed the year before?
Let us also put this into perspective. A good way to compare
this is to use straight ratio and proportion. Let us consider the
debt picture, the expenditure picture and the borrowing picture
as it might relate to a family. I have used some of these numbers
before.
A $120 billion expenditure, which is approximately what the
government spent on programs three years ago, might equate to
a family expenditure of $48,000. At that time the government
was borrowing $40 billion, which equates to $16,000 borrowed
by the family. Everyone understands this family is in trouble. Its
income is $48,000 but it has spent $64,000. It has borrowed
$16,000 in order to make up the difference.
(1650)
It is true that the picture is now a little better. Instead of
earning $48,000, this family is now earning about $52,000. Lo
and behold, the borrowing, which has gone down to $12,800,
results in a total value of $64,800. It has actually gone up.
However, the frightening thing is that in proportion, this
family, with an income of $48,000 per year in 1992, would have
had a debt in proportion to the Canadian debt of $168,000. The
government was elected in the fall of 1993. After one year the
debt had grown from $168,000 in proportion for this family to
13344
$184,000 and now in proportion to $220,000. Clearly we are not
heading in the right direction.
Somehow I wish we could impress the government with a
better sense of the urgency of attacking government spending
faster than it is because the water is still coming into the boat at a
rate considerably faster than it is able to bail it out. The budget
needs to be balanced and it needs to happen fast.
One of the problems is the mechanism of approving the
budget. In my view and I believe in the view of most Reformers
and probably a number of Liberals and some of the members
from the Bloc, certainly many constituents have expressed to us
that it is just not good enough. Is it not then regrettable that we
have an inability to actually represent that?
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has made the news
because he has had the courage to stand up against the
government's policy on the budget and is voting against it. He is
voting against it for completely opposite reasons from where I
am coming from, but he believes that he is representing his
constituents. That puts a finger right on the problem. The person
who says this budget is not good enough ought not to be making
news. He should be simply applauded because he is in the
majority.
I do not often dream at night because I have late nights and
early mornings here, as we all do, and usually when I hit the
pillow I am unconscious, but I had a little dream last night. This
is a fictitious dream, because I do not want to tell a lie.
I dreamed that in the House we actually had individually the
freedom to vote on the budget as we really believed. I wonder
what proportion of the members in the governing party would, if
there were absolutely no ramifications to their decision,
honestly express themselves and actually say: ``No, this budget
is not quite good enough''. I really wish that members could
have that freedom in the House. If they did, with that would
come a mechanism which would force the bureaucrats, those
who drive the agenda here in Ottawa, to go back and say: ``Look,
we need to do some more cutting. We can be more efficient. We
can save money''.
Members of my party have identified many areas where there
is rampant wastage. It is not attributable to the government now.
It is just the way it has always been done. The government, with
its majority, have it in its power to fix it if it would only have the
courage. I wish it would. Perhaps my dream will come true.
Perhaps tonight there will be sufficient numbers of the
governing party that will say: ``I will stand on principle and I am
going to vote the way I really believe''.
(1655)
I will respect those people who vote in favour of the budget if
they honestly, truly believe that this is the best way to manage
the fiscal affairs of the country. I have no problem if they vote in
favour of the budget because of that honest and sincere belief.
I have a tremendous problem with people who believe that it
is not good enough but who do not have the freedom to so
express themselves. To me that is an aberration of the
democratic process and is the root cause of the huge debt, the
deficit, the huge interest payments, payments of $40 billion plus
per year. These payments would be more than adequate to
provide a wonderful health care system, to subsidize adequately
the post-secondary education and give Canadians the ability to
invest in the future of our country and in the future of these
young Canadians.
It is a missed opportunity. Let us blame the past. Let us say
that it was the governments of the past that did this to us. That is
fine. It does not really matter who did it. As it says in the good
book, the borrower is a slave to the lender and we have become
slaves to the national debt. The member for Willowdale who just
spoke pointed out very clearly-he did not use the word
obscenity, but I will use it-the obscenity of the fact that $1 in
$3 is used for paying the interest on the debt. I really wish we did
not have that.
The politicians of the last 30 years, which is before most of us
were here, so arranged the affairs of the country that we now
have the problem and we have to deal with it.
I sincerely hope that my little three-year old grandson can
some day say: ``My grandpa when he stood in the House of
Commons was able to persuade members on the government
side to have courage and he thereby helped to save this country
from going even deeper and deeper into debt''.
We would set a tremendous precedent if this happens tonight.
If enough members of the House of Commons would have the
courage to vote against the budget I believe it would be the first
time that it would have ever happened. It would be headline
news tomorrow. It would say we finally have in Ottawa a group
of people who stand on principle, who do what is right.
The government has failed to attack the problem of
government spending. Instead it has replaced that by adding
additional revenues. I am very much offended by measures like
the rescinding of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. I
believe it is very unfair.
This is a country where we believe in free enterprise, where
we know that business has built this country. It is extremely
unfair to think of two Canadians standing side by side, one of
them buying natural gas or electricity from a utility that is
owned by a government and another buying utilities from a
privately owned firm. Because one of these Canadians buys
utilities from a government owned organization he or she pays
no income tax but the other one pays income tax. To me that is
unfair.
13345
Members can stand up and try to defend that. I do not want to
sound just like a person whining about my region. That is not the
total picture. We need to look at all of Canada. I submit very
seriously that if it is good for one province, it is good for the
country. We need to seriously ask ourselves the question
whether such an inequitable tax is good for the country because
it differentiates between Canadians based on their situations.
(1700)
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on this matter. I
would be delighted to respond to any questions members have.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member used some words that seemed a little contradictory.
In one instance he was admonishing the members to vote the
way they believe, yet depending on some other questions, the
member is admonishing members to vote along with their
constituents. I simply raise this contradiction. If the member
really believed that, then he along with at least the other three
Reform Party members who are supporting gun control would
also represent their constituents and vote for gun control.
The Reform Party took the liberty to produce a pro forma
budget to put on the table what its plans would be. As we all
know, they were basically to trash social programs and
particularly to tax seniors. In the hypothetical situation that the
Reform Party did form a government and did have that budget,
would the member admit here and now that the Reform Party
would have to borrow at least $100 billion before the deficit
would be reduced to zero over the term of the mandate?
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to what is indeed a very good question.
The hon. member used the word that our prebudget suggested
trashing the social programs. Those were the words he used.
There is a huge difference between trashing something and
replacing it with something better. There is a huge difference
between breaking down a house and leaving a hole in the ground
and breaking down an old house in order to make room to build a
new and better one.
If we were to analyse what the Reform Party is proposing for
social programs, it is proposing a better system. We believe in
individualizing social security so as to do away with all of the
problems which arise when UIC and social security are
competing.
The poor person on UIC or social security has to refuse a job
at $8 an hour because if he or she makes a little money in effect
they are taxed 100 per cent on it. There is a tremendous
disincentive to taking a part time job because of the loss of
benefits. If that were individualized according to our plan, then
the individual could take a part time job, supplement their
income and use their personal retirement and their personal
security plan only as needed to top up in order to meet the needs
of the day.
If the member would like to take the time to do the arithmetic
on it, I would be pleased to sit down and help him with this. If he
were to do the actuarial math on how the money grows, if he
were to look at the employer's and employee's contributions he
would see how they grow. He would see how quickly the total
benefits substantially exceed what can be given through a
bureaucratically driven and inefficient UIC program. Perhaps
then the member would have a different view of what it means to
replace a social assistance program that is not working with one
that is logical and defensible.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I feel constrained to rise because of the
comments of the hon. member opposite about this wise and
logical social program for Canada that his party is suggesting.
(1705 )
I would suggest to the hon. member that the program the
Reform Party seems to be proposing is a program that would
work for the rich and not for the underprivileged or for people
who just need a leg up in our country. It is a program intended to
put more money in the pockets of people like the hon. member,
people who have an upper middle class income and is not a
program to support the people who need our assistance.
There is another interpretation for the fact that Liberals are
voting together on the budget. As Liberals, unlike members of
his party, we have the same common goals. We have the same
common core set of beliefs and we do agree on this issue.
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this question and
would like to answer it by asking another question.
A good economic system will benefit all Canadians. If we
look at the history of the industrial world going back over the
last 150 or 200 years, there have been some very rich people. It
is also true when there are some rich people that it generally
provides many good jobs and a good livelihood for a lot of
people.
What is better, for everybody to be taxed to death and we try to
help a few people with handouts, or to allow those with good
leadership abilities, good business skills to set up an economic
environment in which they could thrive? Maybe they would do
fairly well and perhaps the people in the neighbourhood who had
been on UI and social welfare and were making $12,000 a year
could now have jobs with the new firm at $30,000 a year. That
happens. If we look at history, that is the way the economy
works.
13346
When businesses are excessively taxed there is the exodus
which has been experienced and observed in Ontario. Excessive
taxation and a bad economic climate are not a promotion of
business. Ultimately everybody, not just the rich, but the
working class as well suffers more than they would under the
other regime.
At the same time we need to be very careful here. Over and
over I hear Liberals saying that we are a compassionate society.
I believe that too. I believe in individually helping people who
need help. If that is really true and a government system is taken
away, we can count on individuals and organizations moving in
to fill the gap and they will do it more efficiently.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I carefully listened to the speech made by
the member from the Reform Party. He talked abundantly about
the debt. He used good images to explain it, especially when he
used the family as an example.
I realize today that no matter what the debt is and no matter
what the cuts are, the debt will go up anyway. My friends from
the Reform Party very often say that we are going to hit the wall,
which is what I think also.
My friend says that the situation is urgent, that we have to
move rapidly and find a solution to the problem because water is
getting into the ship. At the same time, my friend tells us that he
has dreams and wishes, but the dreams and wishes will not lead
to a solution. It does not matter what solutions we bring here, if
they are not accepted by the government, they mean nothing.
Does my friend have the sensation sometimes that he is
doomed to paint the ship while the ship is sinking?
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, it definitely does seem sometimes
that the ship is going down, but I am not totally pessimistic. I
believe there is a window of opportunity. That is why I am so
sincerely urging that government members set a precedent
today. Defeat the budget in order to force it to take more
dramatic measures to balance it quickly so that the ship does not
go down. My dream is for the individuals to do that based on
their own conscience.
(1710)
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the twilight moments of the
debate on Bill C-76. If I may say, the House is in a mood of
detente and relaxation which it is not always in. I have
appreciated the comments made on both sides of the House in
the last hour or so.
Bill C-76 represents a translation of the undertakings made
by the government when it was elected and basically its program
that it would conquer the deficit, reduce the national debt by a
dynamic program of creating new jobs, generating new
revenues. This is essentially the thrust of the budget.
Members will notice the attention to prudent economies, the
cutting of government operations, new approaches to federalism
and federal-provincial relations. At the same time there is a
redefinition because it inevitably follows in the
federal-provincial balance.
I think this was the basic promise made by the Prime Minister
and it is reflected in the budget, that in approaching the
economic crisis our emphasis would be on job creation.
We have also undertaken to maintain the integrity of the
social services structure, in particular medicare; to maintain the
Canada pension plan, the social security structure that
distinguishes Canada from the United States and other countries
committed to the free market economy; and interesting and new
approaches to unemployment insurance. We are getting away
from the static approach intended to present a situation of
continuing dependency by a new emphasis on job training and a
new emphasis on training people for a better future and giving
them some confidence in their ability to achieve that.
Last, in the area of federalism the approach to
federal-provincial transfers in some senses redresses a balance
in federalism that had occurred by glosses on the system
established by the federal government entering what we could
say in retrospect, were areas of provincial constitutional
responsibility. There the argument was and it was a necessary
one, that if the federal government had not moved in these areas
the provinces would not have moved either and there would have
been a vacuum in terms of important areas of social policy.
I will have something more to say on each of these particular
issues at a later moment.
I do note that Bill C-76 will implement a savings of $29
billion over the next three years: $5 billion in 1995-96; $10.6
billion in 1996-97; and $13.3 billion in 1998. We think this is a
responsible, realistic way to go. It sets out a program. A budget
not less than any other type of law is itself a system of law in the
making. It is a dynamic system and we build upon the
achievements of one year in the next year. We have set up those
goals on the basis of a three year period.
I think this is a very important part of the government
economic structure. We have honoured the undertaking of no
increases in personal income tax rates. We are closing the tax
loopholes and we look for continuing guidance from Parliament
and members on that. We are trying to improve tax fairness. That
is an objective. At the same time the incentive to get the
economy moving again will be to avoid increases in personal
income tax rates. I mention in social services the maintenance of
the integrity of the pension system because this has been a very
important part of retirement planning for senior citizens and
13347
others approaching that condition. That is maintained and it is
very important in terms of-
(1715)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I regret to interrupt the
hon. member.
Pursuant to order made Monday, June 5, 1995, in accordance
with Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put all the questions necessary to dispose of the
third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that
government orders were extended by some 12 minutes because
of a ministerial statement made earlier in the day. I am
wondering if perhaps we are not ahead of ourselves here.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The clerk tells me that
you are indeed right.
The hon. member may continue. Government orders have
been extended by 12 minutes.
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for that very graceful reprieve, if I may call it that. It gives me an
opportunity to continue the dialogue. I think I can pick up from
the middle of the sentence if I can recall the beginning of the
sentence. Here it is, in any case.
We have tried to emphasize a policy of fairness to all regions,
which brings me into the area of federal-provincial powers. One
of the great dilemmas in establishing the new system of
transfers to provinces is you are recognizing that these are areas,
constitutionally, of provincial responsibility. They are in
essence moving back. One is in effect cutting through the gloss
of custom that has been established over the last 20 or 30 years.
In fact the general feeling in Canadian political circles is that if
the federal government had not acted the provinces would not
have either and this was the reason for the federal initiative. If
the power returns effectively to the provinces, it will be done
through the system of the block transfer, the new Canadian
social transfer.
Some statistics are relevant and important. The average cut to
the provinces in terms of transfers will be 4.4 per cent, which is
less than the 7.3 per cent the federal government is imposing on
its own programs, and there is a period of two years' notice built
into that, which becomes very important in areas such as
education, where planning far ahead is very important to
individuals entering the structure, not merely to
administrations.
One issue raised here is the ability to maintain national
standards. Can it be done solely on a matter of reliance on the
good faith of individual governments? Will there not be
somebody out of step? I think this is a matter on which we are
still waiting for the work the minister of intergovernmental
affairs is doing, but let me say that I think there is no doubt that
constitutionally in certain areas we still have the power to
impose and enforce the national standards. Enforcement, as
such, is an ineffective system of social control. ``Friendly
persuasion'' and ``example'' are the bywords. I think in this
particular area we will find a large and increasing degree of
federal-provincial co-operation because of what are, after all,
the common goals.
I was examining on the weekend, in the constituency of one of
my colleagues, in Richmond, the area of intergovernmental
co-operation, not merely federal-provincial but federal,
provincial, and municipal. The process of co-operation can
work. It is not our belief, in any case, in contrast to
prognostication of gloom and doom, that in making the block
transfers to the provinces the national standards will disappear
and we will get an anarchic system of different standards such as
Voltare described with the situation of the French civil laws. As
he said when he left Paris, every time he changed his horse he
would be under a different system. I do not think we are dealing
with that.
(1720)
Our message on this is that the status quo of the
federal-provincial arrangements, the practice that had grown up
over the last 30 years, was bound to come to an end as provinces
accepted their own obligations of maintaining common
standards throughout the country and not falling behind. Here
the finances are related directly to the power and there is the
two-year building in period in which federal and provincial
governments can work out and eliminate any contradictions.
There in essence is the budget. It is best to finish on the
general philosophical note that it does reflect the promise the
Prime Minister made during the election and it would not be a
negative, give it up approach to eliminating the deficit. We
would expand the economy and would generate new revenue by
creating new jobs. The budget cannot be divorced from our work
in manpower. It cannot be divorced from other activity in other
departments directed toward this goal, and it does rest on a large
degree of faith in the ability to manage federal-provincial
relations in a renewed spirit of co-operative federalism.
I think this is one of the keynotes of the present government,
that it is reviving attitudes of co-operative federalism that for
various reasons and for various attitudes of political parties
have been dormant for some years.
On this basis, I am happy to commend Bill C-76 to the House
for adoption.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks, but I must
take him up on the fact that the day after the Reform Party issued
its alternative budget we were together on a radio program in
Vancouver, at which point he hammered me because in that
budget we had similarly proposed the maintenance of standards
through co-operative agreements among provinces. This is very
13348
consistent with Reform Party policy that we should have less
power at the centre.
I will never forget the hon. member saying that as an expert in
constitutional law he would tell me that it will not be possible
for the central government to either create or enforce such
arrangements because there is no leverage. I am now very
pleasantly surprised to hear that he has come around to the
policy the Reform Party had pronounced before this budget
came out and which he now feels is doable.
I have a practical question for him. Even though the Reform
Party says that it would support this kind of an effort, does the
hon. member really believe that a maverick province like
Alberta would slow down its efforts to privatize and rationalize
medicare by for example allowing more of the services to be
provided by the private sector? Does he believe he could get
from Alberta agreement of the nature he thinks is necessary if
even at the present time, when there is a threat of withholding
funds, this province, according to the minister, apparently is
doing all those nasty things?
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond
to the learned hon. member. He has, in spite of his dour mien, a
delightful sense of humour for those who know him very well.
I do recollect this debate conducted at a distance of 3,000
miles with bad telephone connections. I feel his telephone
connection was not as perfect as mine on this. When he
presented his shadow budget I did suggest to him that perhaps he
had not paid enough attention to structural problems of
government, that he had to spell it out.
(1725)
By the way, I should never be as egotistical as to suggest in a
public debate or elsewhere that I was an expert in this or in
anything else. The hon. member will remember Lord Justice
Denning's reply to somebody who quoted to him somebody and
said ``This is an expert''. Lord Justice Denning replied ``Is he
dead?'' The answer was ``No, milord, he is among the living''.
Lord Justice Denning said ``Well he is not an expert. The only
expert accepted by the common law is somebody who has been
dead for 20 years.'' This status will undoubtedly occur to the
hon. member at a certain period in his career.
What I did try to suggest was that he needed more work on
examining the unstructured approach to co-operative
arrangements between the federal government and the provinces
he was presenting. I think the hon. member will recognize that
there are gaps in his armour. I know he is an expert on the South
Seas, on skiing, and on very many things, and I respect his
knowledge of economics. However, on this thing I did suggest
that the Reform Party program was rather light.
To return again to his basic question, I think it is a matter of
changes in attitude. The attitude of federal-provincial relations
is different from what it was 20 or 30 years ago. One sees the
arrangements in the province of Quebec, a province where the
government is committed to a program of separation from
Canada. But if we look at the structure of administrative
arrangements developing between the two governments, there is
a good deal of solid empiricism in that. I would predict that the
Premier of Alberta will also recognize the advantages of
co-operation.
We have no objection in this government to privatization. In
fact if one examines the budget there is great emphasis on
privatization. Getting rid of the CNR is something the hon.
member himself has proposed in the past. If one in looks at it, we
are very much into privatization too. However, in the
examination of national standards, we will use friendly
persuasion to ensure co-operative-
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In accordance with the
order made Monday, June 5, 1995, and pursuant to Standing
Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of
the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 243)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
13349
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-141
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Althouse
Benoit
Bergeron
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-85
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bélisle
Cauchon
Dhaliwal
Fry
Gaffney
Godin
Guay
Hubbard
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Maheu
McGuire
Ménard
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Robichaud
Skoke
Stewart (Northumberland)
Verran
Wells
de Savoye
(1755 )
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
13350
13350
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved that Bill
C-277, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genital mutilation of
female persons), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, my heart is filled with emotion as I
open debate today on Bill C-277, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (genital mutilation of female persons). It is filled with
emotion because this bill deals with a cruel practice to which
millions of women are subjected in the name of a so-called
cultural value.
What I am trying to do today is help prevent mutilation of
female genitals at least in Canada and Quebec. My heart is also
filled with emotion because I realize that I am speaking for a
great many women who will never get to speak publicly. I am
referring to the victims of this practice.
Finally, I will be delivering my speech with great respect,
respect for immigrant women, foreign cultures and ethnic
communities. This respect should underlie every word spoken
on the subject of traditions, for traditions are part of every
human being's make-up and respect for human beings is what
my bill is all about.
The purpose of this bill is twofold: to deter and protect; to
protect innocent victims, and deter any would-be offender. That
is why the bill has two parts: criminalization of the act per se,
and punishment for anyone involved.
Moving to the heart of the matter, allow me to set the problem
in context by briefly recapitulating the facts and figures
regarding genital mutilation of female persons, then
summarizing arguments in favour of such practice and, finally,
setting this practice in the Canadian sociopolitical context.
First, the facts. To give a better idea of what genital mutilation
means, let me describe briefly the three different operations
currently performed. The first one is circumcision, or sunna, in
which the tip of the clitoris is removed. The second is called
extended circumcision, and involves the complete excision of
the clitoris or partial excision of the labia minora and labia
majora and the stitching of the genitals except for a small
meatus. As for infibulation, it is similar to extended
circumcision, with the added feature of suturing with a product
supposed to fasten the wound.
Depending on the country, the act is performed by a barber, a
midwife, an elder, or a health professional. It is estimated that
there are currently between 80 and 120 million excised women
and young girls, mainly in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
In October 1994, La Presse reported that 6,000 girls between
the ages of 7 and 22 are excised everyday. Six thousand per day,
Madam Speaker. This is a situation of concern to me and I hope
that it will be of concern to other members as well. On May 22,
the international press reported the case of a ten-year old
Egyptian girl who died after being excised; her 12-year old
sister was admitted to hospital in serious condition.
Having heard the technical description of the operation, we
can easily imagine the serious effects it must have on the women
on whom it is performed. Here are a few among those on record:
haemorrhaging, infections, obstetrical complications,
cysto-vaginal or rectovaginal fistula, cysts, violent pain,
impaired sexual response, psychological disorders, and death.
(1805)
In addition to this long list of possible consequences, there is
another specific problem affecting excised women who
immigrate to Canada. When these women realize that they are
``different'', they may experience problems in their social and
love lives. For example, during a medical consultation with
female practitioners who were not aware of that practice, a
social worker helping immigrants told of many mutilated
fiancees or wives who were abandoned by their partners after
these men had sexual relations with women who had not been
excised. Imagine the double trauma experienced by these
women who are mutilated and then abandoned, which is of
course contrary to the expectations generated by their
traditional family environment.
Because this operation is still common in many regions of the
world, there are many explanations justifying it. Some are more
esoteric than others, but all are objectively wrong. I will
mention a few of the more surprising ones, without
commenting.
Childbirth is easier for the excised woman. Female genital
organs produce smelly and unsanitary secretions. Male
circumcision is done for aesthetic reasons; consequently,
women should undergo a similar type of operation. The clitoris
could kill a first child, especially if the child's head touches it
during delivery. Women whose clitoris is intact become
nymphomaniacs. The clitoris generates too much excitement for
the man. Virginity is preserved. Fertility increases, since female
genital secretions kill sperm.
Those are the arguments most often used to justify these types
of genital mutilation. I want to point out that, contrary to
popular belief, no religion prescribes genital mutilation of
female persons.
Although genital mutilation may seem a problem occurring
far away from us, according to some witnesses, it happens here,
in Canada and in Quebec. Since our society is open to
immigrants, this tradition that goes against our values has
unfortunately been imported along with other values more
similar to ours.
13351
Between 1986 and 1991, Canada has accepted 40,000
immigrants from countries where mutilation is an accepted fact
of life. In 1992 alone, 3,245 persons from countries where
genital mutilation is tolerated or encouraged have settled in
Canada.
As I said earlier, we have been told that little girls are subject
to genital mutilation here, in our country. These last few years,
health professionals and people working with some cultural
communities have been able to confirm this situation. It is hard
to put a figure to such a taboo. However, physicians have
reported being asked by parents to perform mutilation on their
young daughters. Other physicians have had to operate on
children to repair the damage caused by such mutilations.
Social workers have been in contact with victims or families
of victims who have told them about this practice. Recently, in
May 1994, the director of the Ottawa African Resource Centre
stated that many African immigrants manage to subject their
daughters to mutilation in Canada, despite a directive to the
contrary from the College of Physicians of Ontario. He said that
families were sending their daughters overseas to be mutilated.
We know that several Canadian physicians have been asked to
perform genital mutilation. He adds that the fears publicly
expressed by a Somalian woman were founded, since the
African community checks whether the girls have undergone
this operation.
This is a serious issue that calls for action in the name of the
moral and human values we share. One of the reasons why no
action has been taken against this practice may be the Canadian
multiculturalism policy, which has been rejected by Quebec and
is highly controversial in English Canada and also among the
Liberal members themselves. Some people attribute the lack of
legal action to the confusion experienced by social workers,
community stakeholders and the police. Others feel that they
should respect the traditions of the various groups now living in
Canada, since all cultures are equal, whatever their customs.
In the current multiculturalism context, more than a few
people are paralyzed by the fear of being labelled as
ethnocentric or racist.
(1810)
Moreover, it would appear that this uncertainty, which is the
direct result of the multiculturalism policy, is far from being
removed. For example, we recently read in the daily La Presse
that, because of this policy, Canada was identified by the world
Islamic movement as an ideal place for Muslim immigrants to
be exempt from the application of civil laws and instead be
subjected to the sharia which, as you know, does not respect at
all the principle of equality between men and women.
When you read things like that, the feeling of helplessness of
social and community stakeholders comes as no surprise. In
fact, these workers might be reluctant to sue members of
immigrant families perpetuating the practice of female genital
mutilation.
We talked about the Multiculturalism Act. Let us now take a
look at the overall legislative framework related to genital
mutilation. This is an important issue, because the Minister of
Justice refuses to amend the legislation. Currently, there is no
legislative provision which expressly prohibits that practice.
However, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, proceedings
could be instituted under some sections of the Criminal Code
which relate to assault and bodily harm. It should also be
mentioned that this practice violates the provincial acts
protecting children, various charters of rights and freedoms and
international agreements.
Our bill would complement the existing legislation by
reinforcing it. As I said at the beginning, the bill is twofold. By
adding another provision to the section dealing with dangerous
bodily harm, we would officially recognize that this practice is
harmful and dangerous to the individual. Also, the operation
itself would be criminalized, and a penalty is provided for those
directly or indirectly involved in the procedure.
To include that clause in the Criminal Code would leave no
doubt as to the legal status of the practice. It would become a
criminal act carrying a term of up to five years imprisonment.
The members of cultural communities which promote this
practice will immediately be informed and warned officially
that in our country, genital mutilations are considered
mutilations, not just a tradition. There is no reason for us to
hesitate about adding a section to the Criminal Code regarding
this issue.
In fact, the Code already contains sections prohibiting acts
which are foreign to our culture and no one ever formally
complained. I cite as examples sections 290 and 293 which
prohibit bigamy and polygamy. In my humble opinion, these
acts are much less harmful to the health of women, yet they have
already found their place in the Code. This refutes, I believe, the
minister's argument that we should not unduly encumber the
Criminal Code.
Another reason the Minister of Justice says there is no need to
act is that charges can already be laid under existing sections in
the Code. Theoretically, the minister is correct. However, for the
reasons invoked to explain why to this day no lawsuits have been
filed, in particular those I mentioned earlier, I am of the opposite
opinion and I firmly believe that we must adopt a very precise
section which unequivocally sets out the nature of the prohibited
act and prohibits participation in such an act.
In addition to this need for judicial precision, adopting a bill
would meet another need which the government rarely
addresses: defining the social policy of multiculturalism. We
must bear in mind that the act is not just applied and interpreted
in this House, but well beyond it. Acts are written for the whole
public, and the public is feeling the concrete effects of this
problem. We have this problem precisely because of the big fuss
that our
13352
governments have made over the wonderful multiculturalism
policy.
(1815)
To correct this problem we must formally define the limits of
government policy by clearly stating which cultural practices
are not acceptable and are against the principles of our society.
Finally, the Minister of Justice believes it is preferable to
concentrate on educating immigrant communities instead of
introducing special legislation. I agree with the minister that
public awareness campaigns and educating the public are
important. They have their place in this case as they did when
Parliament passed legislation on drunk driving. Members will
recall the massive advertising campaign that accompanied these
amendments to the legislation. The government did a good job.
Why could it not repeat the exercise, this time to prevent
genital mutilation? Why not pass Bill C-277 and at the same
time organize a public awareness campaign targeted to health
care and social workers and immigrants from countries where
mutilation is practised?
Canada would not be the first country to adopt specific
measures in this respect. Other countries like Great Britain,
Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy and one Australian
state have already done so. Two American states are considering
similar action. Like Canada, these countries are host countries
that have to deal with cultural practices that differ from theirs
and are against their principles. They have responded to this
challenge.
Before I finish, I would like to mention the many instances of
support for legislation against genital mutilation. First I would
like to mention the now defunct Canadian Advisory Council on
the Status of Women which in March 1994 published a detailed
study on the problem in Canada and firmly recommended
adopting such measures. There is also the resolution passed by
the international conference on population development, which
I attended, and the Canadian Council on Refugees; also the
resolution passed by the International Federation of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and by the Canadian
Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs.
The following organizations have also spoken out in favour of
legislation: the Association of Country Women of the World, the
Commission des droits de la personne du Québec, the Quebec
Minister of Justice, the Conseil multiculturel des femmes
professionnelles, the Service d'information en contraception et
sexualité du Québec, the Cercle des fermières du Québec,
Violence Info, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Rights Associaton,
the Mouvement des femmes chrétiennes, Quest for the
Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation and the Réseau des
femmes noires francophones de Toronto. When the minister
declares in the House that groups concerned do not support the
legislation, I really wonder where he got his information.
Here is one example. In her letter of support for my bill, Janis
Burgaski, the chair of the Conseil multiculturel des femmes
professionelles wrote the following: ``We have come to realize
that not all traditions are to be encouraged and that some are
even cruel and undesirable. From having spent time in certain
communities and being of the same sex, we discover that stories
we considered part of the past are still true today. Under the
circumstances, we believe the bill is a step in the right direction.
Women oppose this type of abuse''.
The Liberal Party has promised to make up time lost in the
area of health and women. This government prides itself on
being one of the most ardent defenders of the rights of women on
the international scene. In September, it will proudly send a
delegation to the conference in Beijing. I invite it to use the
opportunity to announce that it has put words into action and has
adopted legislation making it a criminal offence to mutilate
women's genitals, as other countries have done.
I would also invite the Minister of Justice to take time to
reflect. For the past several months, he has been working to
criminalize certain behaviour involving the possession and use
of firearms in order to protect the public and resolve certain
problems. Why would he not do the same thing in another area,
that of genital mutilation?
I would also invite the members of this House to support my
bill and thus reaffirm women's right to bodily security. We have
a responsibility to all women, regardless of where they come
from or their culture of origin. In choosing a country, women
should be assured that they will find there the protection to
which they are entitled. This is the intent of my bill.
(1820)
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her initiative
in bringing forward the motion today. This is an issue like many
horrors that is easily ignored, an issue we must face and about
which I feel very strongly.
This is not an issue, however, that the government has
ignored. The hon. Minister of Justice assured me in discussions
we have had that it has been on the agenda for approximately one
year, that he has taken the time to meet with members of cultural
groups and to meet with women in Canada concerned about the
particular issue, and that he has studied it carefully. He also
indicated to me and to members of my caucus that he will
13353
continue to listen on the subject. That is obviously witnessed by
the fact that he is present for the debate today.
In 1991 by a unique set of circumstances I made the
acquaintance of a young professional couple who was fleeing an
extremely oppressive situation in a north African country. I will
talk a bit about them and about my indirect personal experience
with this terrible subject matter.
These people were secular Muslims. They were persecuted by
a fundamentalist regime for expressing their more moderate
views and for associating with persons who shared those
moderate views. I am straining here not to invade their privacy
and I am of necessity therefore being vague about details of their
professions, nationalities and other identifying features.
In any event, I am happy to say the Canadian immigration
system worked. It delivered for this couple. They became
refugees and then immigrants. Now they are citizens living and
working in the freedom of our great country. They became
friends of our family and particular friends of my daughter who
is the same age as the young woman.
Shortly after achieving refugee status they came to see me.
The woman needed to consult a doctor because she wanted to
have children and she needed advice. She had been the victim at
the age of 12 of female genital mutilation. Her clitoris had been
crudely removed, her labia minora excised and her labia majora
incised to create raw surfaces so they could be stitched together
forming a cover of skin and scar over the vagina. There is in this
type of mutilation a small opening left to allow for urination, for
menstruation and for the pleasure of the man who would
ultimately become her husband.
Like most Canadians I had never been confronted with it
before although I knew about it. We were able to find a surgeon
who was of assistance and who performed a procedure that gave
some relief and ultimately allowed my friend to more
comfortably perform bodily functions and happily to bear two
gorgeous children who are Canadian citizens. One of them was a
Canadian before her parents were.
I was struck then and I remain struck now by the image of this
beautiful young woman, the same age as my daughter,
intelligent, alive, youthful and because of our system politically
free.
Even with what we have done for her we can never put things
back the way they should be. She can never, ever enjoy sexual
relations with her husband. She bears scars and will suffer
physical side effects for the rest of her life. She will have pain
both physical and spiritual that we can only imagine. She will
bear this pain stoically, with dignity, and thankfully with the
support of her husband. She bears the terrible memory of the
mutilation act, of the midwife with a razor, of no anesthesia, of
her mother and others holding her down, of the blood, the pain,
the fear, the convalescence, and to what end? The end to be
served was that of her own oppression.
They mutilate women, damage them. In this rite women are
treated like chattel, like livestock. They exist to be used for
labour, to bear sons and for sexual gratification that they cannot
share. They mutilate them so they will be faithful, so they will
not enjoy sex, so they will not run away, so someone else will not
take them. It is done in the name of manhood, in the name of God
or religion, in the name of the preservation of a way of life and in
the name of a culture; but nothing comparable is done in these
cultures to men.
(1825 )
I believe passionately in the diversity of this country; in the
right of Canadians and of people who come here to display their
religions, their cultures and their ethnic origins; in the equality
of the sexes; and in respect for religious and cultural practices of
others.
I believe religious headgear like the keppah, the turban and
the Muslim veil should be accepted by Canadians in our
everyday life. I believe we should be colour blind in our
policies. I believe in employment equity.
As much as I believe in all these things, I also believe that
practices like female genital mutilation cannot and must not be
tolerated in Canada. Throughout the world between 85 million
and 115 million girls and women have suffered this tragedy. Its
defenders say, quite incredibly to me, that it is a right of passage
like ear piercing or the male right of circumcision. The
mutilation of female genitalia cannot be compared to these other
minor procedures. It has no purpose but to suppress.
I do not want to impose my views unilaterally on foreign lands
or cultures, but I believe that we can and must come to grips with
this practice within our own borders.
I know and I accept the assurances of legal experts that female
genital mutilation is covered by the more general sections of the
Criminal Code concerning assault. However, as a woman, as a
mother, as a sister, as a daughter and as a citizen of the global
village, I do not think that is good enough.
I urge the government and all members of the House to take
the extra step to help to educate others, to help to educate across
the world and to educate within our borders so that people
understand that if they participate in the act of female genital
mutilation we believe it is wrong. If it takes an amendment to the
Criminal Code in the final analysis after we have studied it, after
it has perhaps gone to committee and after we have looked at all
factors, I will rise in the House and support it.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is with respect that I rise to speak to Bill C-277
presented by my colleague for Quebec.
13354
I will read the bill as she has presented it to bring the impact
once again of the horrible mutilation to the public view. The
amendment will include:
A person who
(a) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia
minora or clitoris of a female person; or
(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any
of the acts described in paragraph (a),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years.
In 1992 the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons
expressed concern over a rise in the number of requests for
infibulations, which is the cutting off a young girl's genital parts
including the clitoris and the subsequent sewing together of the
opening leaving room for only urination and menstruation. We
are addressing the issue today because the increase is reason for
concern.
Canada has been cited by the World Health Organization as
being one of 40 countries involved in the practice of what has
euphemistically become known as female circumcision but is
more correctly referred to as female genital mutilation or FGM.
FGM causes any number of both short and long term problems
including excruciating pain; hemorrhaging; occasional death;
exceptionally high rates of infections to the urinary tract,
bladder, reproductive organs and bowel; menstrual and
pregnancy problems; anaemia and disfiguring cysts which not
only reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure but often result in
extreme pain during intercourse and can even prohibit it.
Unlike male circumcision there is no dispute within the
medical community as to the benefits versus the harm of female
genital mutilation. The medical community judges FGM to have
no benefits and is harmful in many ways with both the short and
long term implications already cited.
Charles Kyazze, head of Ottawa's African Resource Centre,
believes that FGM is being performed primarily by members of
African communities where it is accepted and perpetuated as a
legitimate cultural practice. It is also being performed in
hospitals by doctors who argue that if they were not performing
the procedure in a controlled environment, the child would be
exposed to a much higher risk of infection and would suffer
much more pain during and after the procedure. In some cases,
Kyazze says, families are sending their children to Africa for the
procedure.
(1830)
That Canada has been recognized as a state in which this
procedure is practised, in private homes as well as in hospitals,
validates our argument to codify female genital mutilation in
Canadian legislation.
Christine Hodges cited recently in the Globe and Mail the
story of a Chadean woman who, reluctant to have her daughter
suffer the procedure and despite pressures from her mother and
grandmother to have it done, had decided not to have the
procedure performed on her children. However, because her
daughters became so distraught and unhappy at being singled
out as different because they were the only women in their
cultural community not to be so altered, she agreed.
She chose the least mutilating of the procedures which would
not carry with it the high risk of infection and would not result in
the inability to have normal pleasurable intercourse. Despite her
western ideas about the procedure, she recognized that her
daughters had to live in this cultural context, remaining
supported by the community and sharing many of the same
beliefs. As appalled as Ms. Hodges was at the idea and action of
FGM, she had a better understanding of the motivation behind it
as it was presented within the context of the community in which
it was practised.
The point of this story is not that culture and ideas of what is
right and wrong are relative but that within their own context
cultural practices can be understood, tolerated and at times
respected and admired. We certainly have no power as a nation
to impose our own ideas and beliefs on other nations. We may
voice our displeasure, concern or even contempt but we cannot
expect another nation to abide by our laws and practices on their
own soil any more than someone coming from another nation
should expect to impose their laws and practices on Canadian
soil.
When a cultural action is taken from its original context and
placed in our own, it is therefore our obligation to examine it and
rightly judge whether it conforms to Canadian social and
cultural norms.
I may not wish to judge FGM as an action that is inappropriate
in Africa, but I do condemn it as an action that is inappropriate
within the context of Canadian culture. With that in mind I
would like to pose the following questions with regard to not
only this particular bill but how we address and judge the
cultural practices of residents and citizens coming from
countries with sometimes different and even conflicting beliefs
and ideas.
Where do we draw the line on how much of each culture we
are willing to promote? What criteria do we use to judge the
appropriateness of an action of an ethnic group? If we are not
able to use our own cultural and state criteria then how do we
justify prosecuting some men who claim that physical abuse of
their wives is a cultural thing? It is one thing to allow people to
promote their own cultures, but at what cost? Do we
compromise what we as Canadians hold to be worth preserving
and maintaining in the name of cultural diversity and cultural
tolerance?
13355
Canadian laws and values should not be so cheap that we are
willing to make compromises for the sake of not offending the
sensibilities of others. That should not simply be with regard to
female genital mutilation but with regard to any cultural
practice that contradicts Canadian laws as well as social and
civil practices.
In answer to the above questions I suggest the following: that
the only criteria which we as Canadians can use with regard to
the judgment of an act are the common beliefs and laws of our
land. If this were not the case we should be willing to tolerate all
cultural practices from FGM to the cutting off of someone's
hand when he or she is caught stealing or the physical abuse of
women and children because it is culturally accepted elsewhere.
One might wish to argue at this point that clearly the above
acts are either directly or indirectly in violation of our laws and
cannot be permissible; therefore, the point is moot. I would
suggest, however, that it is inconsistent to fund and encourage
some cultural practices while criminalizing others. What we are
saying to new Canadians is: ``We encourage you to continue to
live according to the standards and beliefs of your country of
origin, but only those that we find palatable''.
A Somali family may wish to have its daughter's genitalia
removed because in its culture such a practice meets religious
standards or preserves a sense of identity to their community or
it is believed to help maintain cleanliness and health or it is
believed to preserve virginity and family honour and prevent
immorality.
(1835 )
As Canadians do we support such views? I suggest we do not.
If we continue to advance the current multicultural policies that
we do, we are facilitating a platform from which practices such
as FGM can be justified.
I am not trying to imply that we prevent people from
promoting their culture of origin privately. It is important in life
to have continuity, to know where you are from and who and
what has been instrumental in shaping the person that you are
and will become.
By making the promotion of foreign cultures a matter of
public policy, we are essentially saying that although we have
values that are Canadian they do not need to be embraced by
those immigrating to Canada as they already have cultural and
moral framework that we encourage they uphold.
I wish to applaud the hon. member for coming forward with
the proposed bill. I applaud her not only for what the bill means
for the women who are subject to what I believe to be an
inhuman act but also for the implicit statement it makes about
Canada's values and beliefs.
As Canadians we must be clear in our condemnation of a
practice that is so mutilating. We cannot continue to stand by as
the international community perceives us as a nation which
tolerates such abuse.
Finally, the Reform Party suggests that the current bill as
proposed does not go far enough in its condemnation of the act.
We recommend amending the bill at committee in the following
manner, that Bill C-277 become an addition to section 267,
rather than of section 244, of the Criminal Code. The bill would
then read:
Bill C-277 is amended by adding the following after section 267:
267.1 A person who
(a) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia
minora or clitoris of a female person; or
(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any
of the acts described in paragraph (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
The hon. member put forward five years. As it stands the bill
will codify the act of female genital mutilation as an offence
carrying a lesser charge that it might currently carry not
codified. Presently a person performing the procedure in Canada
could be charged under sections 267 or 268, assault causing
bodily harm, but there is no codification.
I thank my hon. colleague from Quebec for having brought
forward this most important piece of legislation.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.
The perpetuation of the practice of female genital mutilation,
while it may be confined to certain communities, has serious
implications for all Canadians. Ultimately this is an issue of
human rights. As such it concerns us all and we all share the
responsibility for putting a stop to it.
When I came to Parliament Hill a year and a half ago I would
never have foreseen myself speaking to such an issue. Today I
stand here with my blinders removed, having been made to
understand in some measure the brutality of this procedure and
the devastating physical and emotional impact on the victims. I
have risen in the Chamber to speak out on this issue before, as I
did in Copenhagen at the interparliamentary union last fall.
It is imperative that we take the strongest possible stand
opposing violence in all forms against women, both in Canada
and around the world. Female circumcision, as it is so
euphemistically called, is the manifestation of an oppressive
patriarchal philosophy. It physically mutilates girls and young
women, destroying their capacity in the future to enjoy normal
sexual relations in order to ensure that they reach a marriageable
age in the state of virginity.
13356
It is estimated that 80 million women around the world, 600
every day, undergo this torment, often in the most primitive and
barbaric circumstances, frequently without anaesthesia or
properly sterilized equipment. The pain and the loss of blood
may lead to shock, permanent injury, both physical and
physiological and in some cases to death.
The physical manifestations, although seldom reported to
authorities, are still well known. Less is known about the
psychological and emotional effects of the operation.
This practice is not restricted to the third world. It is today an
increasing concern for Canadians. For example, between 1986
and 1991, 40,000 people immigrated to Canada from northern
and eastern Africa. In these areas the practice is routine enough
that it is naive to think it has not been imported. It is naive and is
in fact dangerous to ignore.
At the same time the argument has been made that we have no
business imposing our cultural values on Canadian
communities, especially Canadian ethnic communities. Canada
is a society premised on the foundation of tolerance. Culture
cannot and must never be used as an excuse to perpetuate
criminal acts and violate human rights.
(1840 )
As a multicultural society, we must balance our respect for
cultural variation with protection of the rights of children,
women, indeed all humanity. Female genital mutilation is a
cultural practice, nothing more. It is not and has never been
sanctioned by any religion. Let us be emphatic on this point
when we say that no religion sanctions such practice. As great as
our concern for cultural freedom, greater is our concern for the
lives of our young immigrant and refugee women.
The very fact of this debate indicates clearly the development
of our understanding and our concern about this important issue.
Our legal structures are evolving to accommodate the changing
needs of Canadians. For example, I note the gender related
persecution provision used by Canada in its refugee
determination process. Members will recall the new guidelines
being applied to a woman whose daughter faced potential ritual
genital mutilation in their homeland. Canada in that case
granted them refuge.
At the same time, it is critical that in addressing this problem
we must target our legislative response to bring about the most
effective prevention. We must move with care in order to
prevent the practice from moving still further underground and
we must be sensitive to the communities involved.
I commend the member for her intentions and for her work in
bringing this bill forward. I fully recognize the critical
importance of the principle. However, at this point, I also want
to bring out the reservations that I have about the bill, not the
issue.
The bill essentially proposes to amend the Criminal Code to
create a specific offence of genital mutilation, punishable on
indictment, and carrying a term of up to five years'
imprisonment. Compare this to the existing code provisions
which contain, among the various assault provisions, the
offence of aggravated assault which applies to everyone who
wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of another
person and carries a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment.
Moreover, section 21 of the code makes it clear that any party
who aids or abets in the commission of an offence is guilty of the
offence. As well, it is an offence under the code to remove a
child from Canada who is ordinarily resident in order to commit
any of the listed assault offences. Any person performing such
an operation is also liable to prosecution.
Certainly then the existing code already covers these
offences. Let us make no mistake, the Criminal Code when
properly applied can be a formidable tool in this battle.
Bill C-277 is not tough enough. If the police were to charge
under the specific offence, such as is stated in this bill, they
would not be entitled to the stiffer penalty that we have now in
the code.
I am concerned about driving the practice still further
underground. This practice is very well entrenched and hidden
and we must ensure that it does not slip entirely from view. I
have been advised that there has not been a single prosecution in
Canada of this practice. Is this just because it does not go on? I
do not think so. We are not catching it.
Why are we not catching it? It is a brutal practice and it has
been entrenched by the passage of time. In some communities
the practice has great social prestige, marking the girl's
transition to womanhood. Believe it or not, many girls look
forward to this procedure with excitement and terror. They have
been coerced by social pressures, the desire to please parents
and communities or the fear of not finding a husband, into
undergoing this brutal torment.
It will come as no surprise that even in those areas of the
world where the practice is common, there are still women
working against it. The Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women notes in its brief on the subject:
Women from various African countries now living in Canada who had the
operation as children remember sheer agony. They speak bitterly of how they
were held down by several women despite their resistance. They strongly agree
that they will not circumcise their daughters, would never inflict such pain upon
them.
As the document notes:
13357
-there tends to be agreement that young girls put pressure on mothers to do it.
As long as such social pressures continue to exist, the
Criminal Code is of limited value in this fight. I understand the
argument that a specific provision of the code would draw
greater public attention to the offence, but we must recognize
that education is the best tool to make Canadians understand the
barbarity of this custom.
To recap, the existing Criminal Code provisions are adequate
in so far as the problem can be addressed through the code. A
progressive and an aggressive campaign of public information is
crucial.
(1845)
The attorney general in Ontario has a task force on female
genital mutilation. We have to study the recommendations and
at this point I look forward and will not rule out having a specific
Criminal Code offence on this issue.
I am very grateful to the member for allowing me to add my
voice with women and men in this country and around the world
and say this is a barbaric practice that has to be stopped. I am
very glad we have people willing to stand up and talk very
openly about these issues which have been for too long left
undebated.
I really appreciate being able to stand in a public forum like
this to discuss something so normally sensitive an issue and say
with conviction this is an issue that violates our human rights. I
am proud Canada is speaking out about this. I put my support
behind whatever tools are out there to eradicate this offence.
I will give very hard thought to how I will vote on this issue
because I have not yet made up my mind as to whether I will vote
in support of the existing Criminal Code amendments. I know
they are useful. I have concerns about limiting the length of time
and I wish the members opposite to know those concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I wish to commend the hon. member for Québec for
putting forward this bill and convincing the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to make it a votable
item. This issue speaks to our fundamental values. I also wish to
thank the hon. member for providing me with extensive
documentation on the subject.
This issue concerns me as a citizen and a parliamentarian, of
course, but also as the father of a 16-year old daughter. I shudder
at the thought that, had she been born in a different country, in a
different culture, she could have been subjected to the same
treatment.
It is surprising and even astounding that the Canadian
Criminal Code criminalizes cockfights but contains no specific
provisions against female genital mutilation, because it is
indeed a form of mutilation. We should not fool ourselves or try
to hide behind euphemisms. Female circumcision is simply a
euphemism designed to take the edge off a cruel reality. There is
no comparison between male circumcision, which can even be a
religious rite in some regards, and female genital mutilation. We
talked earlier about the full or partial excision of the clitoris. We
talked about infibulation, in which healthy organs are mutilated
on purpose.
There is something absolutely outrageous about this
procedure, and I was surprised to hear my colleague, the hon.
member for London West, say earlier that the current provisions
of the Criminal Code may be adequate, since they cover bodily
harm and assaults causing bodily harm. The problem is that
these provisions have been in the Criminal Code for a long time.
They have been there for so long that people from other cultures
who come to Canada and engage in female genital mutilation do
not feel at all that they are guilty of causing bodily harm or of
assault causing bodily harm.
These people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are acting in
accordance with their culture. The time has come to send them a
clear message. We certainly have no mandate to become cultural
imperialists, but we can say: ``From the moment you cross the
Canadian border, here is what the Parliament of Canada has to
say. As long as you are on Canadian territory, you must adopt the
following value, which we have adopted as our own-if you
mutilate the genital organs of a woman, you are guilty of an
indictable offence''. I will come back later to the penalty which
could be imposed.
(1850)
This is the message that we should first and above all send, a
clear, cultural message that, although we accept certain
multicultural values, and many are acceptable, we have to draw
the line somewhere, and we draw it here. We must say: We do
not want any of this going on in our country. All the better if
others follow our example and take the same legislative
approach as we have. But we must send the message loud and
clear that we have zero tolerance when it comes to the mutilation
of female genital organs. We must make sure that everybody
gets the message, because we are not only targeting people from
other cultures; we are also targeting people on the inside, people
who are culturally already Canadians and who, for one reason or
another, are looking for excuses for shirking their
responsibilities.
The criminalization of genital mutilation of female persons
would involve the application of section 21 of the Criminal
Code under which everyone is party to an offence who actually
commits it, which includes conspiring to commit the offence,
being an accessory and attempting to commit the offence. This
13358
would cover far more people, in fact all those who willingly
observe the so-called omerta, the law of silence, which is
unacceptable in this context, and they will realize that as soon as
Bill C-277 is passed. They ought to know that now, and in fact
they do. There is an element of wishful blindness on the part of
members of the medical profession who agree to engage in the
genital mutilation of female persons because they say that if it is
done by lay people there would be a risk of infection.
This does not make sense. It is like people who say that at
least if we do the excision or infibulation, it is under anaesthetic.
There is something very wrong with that type of reasoning.
Whether it hurts or not is not the point. The point is whether we
are prepared to tolerate such a brutal, I would even say bestial
act.
The hon. member for Québec said earlier that 6,000 young
girls or young women undergo this horrifying operation every
day. I saw it on television once. It was very painful to watch, and
it turned my stomach to see a girl of ten or not even that, tied up
with a piece of wood in her mouth to keep her from screaming or
to stifle her screams. It was awful. These images were horrible.
And I think no Canadian who would see this violation of the
integrity of the human body could remain unmoved.
I have no problem supporting the bill sponsored by the hon.
member for Québec, for the reasons I just mentioned. We must
put an end to this because, by tolerating or claiming to tolerate
genital mutilation, we are merely giving further credit to a status
that for a long time was and in some respects still is the lot of
women in Canada and in the western world, to be a second class
person.
Remember that female suffrage in Canada only came after the
First World War. The first woman to sit in this House, Agnes
Macphail, was elected in 1921. For a long time, members of the
female sex were considered mere subordinates. It has not always
been easy. It is still not easy in this country to take one's
womanhood and assert it right to the top.
The reason you are in the chair today is not because you were
given the position, but because you and your parents and your
grandparents fought to put you there. What a vibrant symbol to
have a woman in the chair. We could set an example in various
ways, but the point should be made in another respect that, in
terms of the status of women, major changes are still required in
areas where this still applies.
(1855)
Equal treatment for women, obviously not only equal under
the law-we already have this pretty well everywhere now-,
but equal in fact. Equal in fact means having people understand,
from the earliest age, that men and women are born, live and die
equally-not only in law but in fact. When we accept these
principles, we will then be able to advance the status of women
in Canada.
One comment on the proposal by my colleague for Québec:
the punishment for the offence she proposes to make of the
mutilation of genital organs is, in my opinion, not nearly severe
enough.
Since a charge of assault causing bodily harm can result in a
maximum term of 14 years' imprisonment, I will suggest in
committee, because I am sure the House will refer this bill to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that the
maximum sentence be at least 14 years as well.
The maximum sentence must be the sentence given the worst
criminal in the worst situation. In the case of a repeat offence or
multiple offences, the five year sentence seems inadequate. This
can easily be done in committee. On the principle of the matter, I
will support Bill C-277 when the vote is taken.
[English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to lend by support to the private members'
bill of my colleague for Quebec. The issue is extremely
important and deserves the attention of all of us in the House.
During the recent hearings by the standing committee on
citizenship and immigration we discussed and heard evidence
on gender based immigration. Canada was the first country to
recognize gender based persecution, and women who fear
genital mutilation have been granted refugee status. Experts say
over 100 million women have been subjected to genital
mutilation-what horror.
[Translation]
In Montreal, the Human Rights Commission is threatening
legal action against anyone performing such an abomination on
young girls. The mutilation is practised on young girls for
religious and cultural reasons.
We know how difficult it is to change traditions and customs,
but we can at least forbid such violent acts in Canada, thus
protecting naive young girls who do not have access to other
cultures and traditions. The amendment to the Criminal Code
will ensure that such a practice is neither accepted nor justified
in our society.
The procedure is carried out by a woman who does not even
need to have the necessary expertise or instruments to operate
on the young girls.
Even though we cannot intervene in other countries, we must
make sure that such tragedies do not occur in Canada where
multiculturalism protects us, but does not condone practices
which are contrary to human rights or criminal in nature.
[English]
Multiculturalists can help with educating Canadians on this
and other issues. Nowadays new surgical techniques are being
developed to undo the damage so that women who were
subjected to infibulation can have children without having to
suffer excruciating pain and can have almost the same type of
life an
13359
adult woman is entitled to. This is only a way to cure and we
need to be proactive.
We are learning more and more about genital mutilation. We
are also learning that in some countries it is inflicted on all
young girls. It is known that after an extremely painful operation
conducted without anaesthetics or proper surgical tools the
young girls will never be able to enjoy a full life as an adult and
they often die.
[Translation]
Because of the facts I just mentioned and for many other
reasons mentioned by my colleagues, I will support Bill C-277
regarding the genital mutilation of female persons. I also want
to thank the member for Québec for bringing this piece of
legislation forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hour 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.
_____________________________________________
13359
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1900)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, on May 11 I asked the Minister of Foreign
Affairs what was being done to assure the extension of the
non-proliferation treaty, which was then being negotiated in
New York City. In particular, I asked what was being done to
oblige the nuclear weapon states to respect article VI of the
treaty.
According to article VI, the nuclear weapon states are obliged
to reduce their nuclear weapons. That was part of the
non-proliferation treaty bargain. The non-nuclear weapon
states agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, while the nuclear
weapon states committed themselves to reducing their nuclear
arsenals.
What happened? Since the treaty was implemented in 1970
the non-nuclear weapon states, Canada included, developed or
acquired no nuclear weapons. In other words, the non-nuclear
weapon states totally respected the treaty. On the other hand, the
three nuclear weapon states, the United States, the Soviet Union,
and the United Kingdom, ignored their obligations under article
VI.
In 1970, when the treaty was brought into force, the United
States and the Soviet Union had 8,000 nuclear weapons. By 1990
they had 50,000 nuclear weapons. Not only did they not reduce
their nuclear weapons, they increased them in a spectacular way.
Since the treaty was limited to 25 years, until March of this
year, was necessary to renegotiate its continuation, and that is
what was being done this spring in New York. However, one of
the major problems with many of the countries that were
brought to reconsider the treaty was the failure of the nuclear
weapon states to live up to their obligations under article VI.
Many non-nuclear weapon states asked why they should support
the extension of a treaty that was not respected by the nuclear
weapon states.
That was the question I put to the minister on May 11.
Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did not answer that
part of the question. He told me, and I was extremely pleased,
that on that very day there had been an agreement to extend the
non-proliferation treaty for an indefinite period of time. He did
not, however, mention the conditions. He did not say what was
being done to oblige the nuclear weapon states to reduce their
nuclear weapons in accordance with article VI.
I have since learned that review conferences will continue to
be held every five years to promote full implementation of the
treaty and that there was a commitment to approve the
comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996 as well as the
establishment of certain nuclear free zones.
Once again ask the parliamentary secretary what measures are
being taken to assure that the nuclear weapon states will comply
with article VI of the NPT. Also, what is being done to assure
universal adherence to this important treaty?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is to be congratulated for his work
nationally and with international organizations in bringing
about security and stability to this planet.
A few weeks ago the 176 member nations of the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, or the NPT, together took a historic
decision to extend the life of this key international treaty
indefinitely, which is unquestionably the most important
international arms control agreement in existence.
The indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT was a
key Canadian objective. This treaty is vitally important to
Canada for three essential reasons. First, the NPT establishes a
barrier to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is
the treaty's most fundamental purpose and its most outstanding
success. Canada and the world are more secure as a result.
13360
Second, the treaty commits all states to work toward
disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. Our long term
goal is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
Third, the treaty provides the framework for the peaceful uses
of nuclear energy by establishing a system of effective
international safeguards. Our exports of nuclear technology
under safeguard agreements have helped to sustain an industry
that employs 20,000 Canadians directly and 10,000 Canadians
indirectly.
Canada played a leading role at the NPT review and extension
conference by marshalling the support of over 100 countries
from all regions of the world for a resolution to indefinitely
extend the treaty.
(1905 )
With the continued existence of the NPT no longer in question
we have laid down the basis for long term security and stability,
the essential elements necessary for further reductions in global
nuclear inventories.
We have now turned the corner. The cold war is over and we
are on the road to a world with fewer and fewer nuclear weapons.
We have a long way to go, but we are on the right track. Without
the NPT the world would be a much more dangerous place and
Canadians would be much less secure.
We can be justly proud of the key role Canada played in
securing the benefits of the NPT now and for future generations
to come.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on may
11, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about
the enormous number of rejected applications for landing made
by immigrants and refugees unable to pay the $975 immigration
tax at the Mississauga claims processing office alone.
The minister denied the figures published in the media but
recognized that 3,800 applications were returned because the
required fee was not attached and that 400 loan applications
were made. He failed to say however how many of these
applications were rejected.
In fact, both the minister and his officials refuse to see how
serious the situation really is. His department has refused to
provide us with accurate information. In the coming weeks or
months, the minister will no doubt realize and be forced to admit
that this problem is taking disastrous proportions.
The only figures available so far are for Mississauga. But
what about the Végréville centre, the largest claims processing
office in the country? The fact is that only 38 per cent of all loan
applications are accepted. Rejections are motivated for the most
part by the fact that processing officers believe that claimants
are not solvent.
A few weeks ago, I visited a number of agencies that provide
assistance to immigrants in the Montreal area. Among them
were the Bordeaux-Cartierville support centre for immigrant
communities, which is located in your riding, Madam Speaker,
and the Service d'aide aux réfugiés et aux immigrants du
Montréal métropolitain, or SARIMM. The people I met there
told me they had seen people desperately looking for money in
order to pay this tax. Some abandon the idea of having their
spouse or children join them in Canada because they cannot pay.
How can the minister ignore this reality?
Immigrants contribute more to the public treasury than
citizens born in Canada, says Professor Ather Akbari, from St.
Mary's University in Halifax, who recently testified before the
immigration committee. His studies show that in 1990
immigrant families paid on average $22,528 in taxes while they
received only $10,558 worth of public services.
Why should immigrants have to pay a tax even before they
land here, on top of the $500 fee required to have their record
processed? In most cases, this is cruel, immoral, unfair, and
discriminatory.
Many recognized refugees cannot get permanent residence in
Canada because they cannot afford to pay the tax. What is their
status, then? Nobody seems to know. In the meantime, they are
not eligible to social benefits because they are not Canadian
residents. How, then, are they supposed to become part of the
Canadian society?
In 1988, a new program was initiated to help female refugees,
especially from countries at war. Up to 1993, Canada has
admitted only 655 women under that program. One of the
barriers is that many of those refugees do not have the money to
pay their fare to Canada. As a matter of fact, the government has
refused to lend them money because they are deemed incapable
of paying that money back.
The least the minister could do is make loans available to
recognized refugees when they request that kind of assistance
and want to bring their family to Canada.
(1910)
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
greatly disappointed by the remarks made by my colleague from
Bourassa. It is too bad, but what can you do?
[English]
The hon. member means well but his acquaintance with the
facts is still at best nodding. The numbers that he quotes are very
preliminary. The numbers in the press were not correct and even
were they correct, too preliminary to create any kind of a trend.
It will take some months before we see the consistency of rate
that can give us some idea of the trends. What is important, très
important pour mon cher ami de Bourassa, is that since the
13361
February budget announcement the number of requests for
landing has gone up, not down.
Since the announcement 18,000 applications for landing have
been processed. Of the 18,000 applications, less than 3 per cent
have requested loans. Sponsors who have had their applications
returned because they did not include the new fee are
resubmitting applications very quickly and with the correct fee.
Any applicant who does not initially qualify for a loan may
reapply at any time without penalty. In addition, as the member
well knows, refugees have had permission to work since
February 1994.
The important thing for the member to know is something I
have said to him before. The minister has said it to him. We will
say it again. No refugee will be denied protection. That is the
important thing.
The other important thing for the hon. member is that he
should not believe everything he reads in the papers.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in
rural Canada there is a tremendous concern about agriculture
employment services. These services do a great deal to make
certain that agricultural communities throughout Canada can
provide labour and work in those communities.
Farms very much depend on this service. Through federal
government studies, we see that 55 per cent of our farm
communities feel there would be a large problem within the
sector if they did not have some type of agricultural employment
service.
In my riding of Essex-Kent, in the Leamington office alone
we have approximately 3,670 placements annually. The office
expense is approximately $189,000. The cost per placement or
per job for the federal government is $50. In my community it
generates $4 million worth of labour earnings.
That $4 million justifies those placements dramatically and
certainly cuts back on the cost of government across the board.
The Chatham employment office has very similar statistics with
2,500 job placements annually.
This service is extremely important to both employees and
employers. As the federal government has done studies on
seasonal work it realizes that people with $15,000 incomes will
draw on the federal and provincial governments in excess of
$5,000 in support payments. With seasonal work, each dollar
that is paid to a worker is reducing both the federal and
provincial costs. This is extremely important to all in Canada.
The agricultural service provides quick placements for labour
when a crop is ready to be harvested, planted or when some other
service is required. People have to be readily available and
placed into those jobs.
In my riding of Essex county and in Kent county it is a
12-month a year service with greenhouses operating all winter,
dairy farms with crops having to be harvested through the
summer, in the spring and the fall pruning and harvesting. These
are very important and add diversity and part time labour all
year round.
The minister's working group has cited that this is one of the
most successful examples of meeting seasonal labour demands
in the country in its studies. It cites that it is a very timely,
important industry for the agricultural market to make our
seasonal industries operate properly.
It is very clear that as CEC is in transition at this time it would
be unable to pick up the slack if agricultural employment
services were withdrawn. I think it is very important that the
minister review this scenario and attempt to meet the rural
needs.
There is absolutely no question when I look at the minister's
approach that I am pleased he has decided he will set up a
committee to investigate and operate within the structure and
possibly reinvestigate the funding that may be possible for the
agricultural employment service. It is important that we look at
this for all rural communities throughout Canada and make
certain our agricultural industry is successful and prosperous.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of human
resources development services to rural communities across
Canada.
As announced in the budget, HRDC is carrying out a thorough
review and reorganization of programs and services to reduce
overhead costs and find new ways of delivering services more
efficiently and effectively. Every effort is being made so that
services are accessible relevant to local needs and service
oriented.
As the minister of HRD has previously stated, there will be
more points of service in rural communities after reorganization
than there currently are. Priority will be on ensuring that all
clients including those in smaller communities will not have to
travel for more than one-half hour to have access to basic
services. The addition of 300 to 400 electronic kiosks means that
HRDC will have the potential to reach 97 per cent of the working
age population in all areas, including those in smaller
communities.
In the context of that reform the minister is looking at
developing new partnerships with the private sector, the unions
and local stakeholders in the delivery of our services.
13362
One specific area in which this approach is being pursued is
the area of agricultural employment services. The minister has
already announced that his department will continue to provide
these services for the next year. At the same time, he has
announced that AES and CECs will be involved in the
development of transition plans at the local level to involve
more players in the delivery of agricultural services.
Regions will work with industry partners to recommend
co-operative agreements that will continue to serve employers
in the agricultural industry. CEC is exploring options to handle
the labour exchange function currently provided by AES. HRDC
remains committed to the agricultural community and will
continue to provide the best services possible.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.19 p.m.)