CONTENTS
Monday, March 14, 1994
Bill C-201. Motion for second reading 2189
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2194
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2196
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2199
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2204
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2205
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2213
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2216
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2216
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2216
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2216
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2216
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2217
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2217
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2217
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2217
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2218
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2218
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2218
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2218
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2218
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2219
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2219
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2221
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2221
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 2222
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 2222
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2222
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2222
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2223
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 2223
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2223
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 2225
Bill C-221. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 2225
Bill C-222. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 2225
Bill C-223. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 2225
Consideration resumed of motion 2227
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2234
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2241
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2249
Division on Motion deferred 2252
2189
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 14, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester) moved that
Bill C-201, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath
or solemn affirmation), be read the second time and referred to a
standing committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to
introduce Bill C-201, the first Private Members' bill of this
session. It concerns the oath of allegiance we swear to the
Queen, to which I would like to make some changes.
[English]
On October 25, 1993 I was honoured and proud to be elected
to Parliament for the second time. On November 9, 1993 at my
swearing in ceremony I had the honour as an elected member of
the Canadian Parliament of pledging allegiance to the Queen.
Having been elected to Parliament by the electors of my
riding of Carleton-Gloucester by a record 46,800 votes in my
favour, about 35,000 votes more than my nearest challenger, I
felt proud but above all I felt honoured at having been elected to
serve so many Canadians.
(1105 )
For this reason I want to add to the present oath of office, that
is to say the one that pays allegiance to the Queen, a pledge of
allegiance to Canada and its Constitution.
After swearing allegiance to the Queen on my family Bible
and signing the parliamentary documents handed to me by the
Clerk in the presence of my wife and children, I requested that
the Clerk of the House of Commons let me read the following
affirmation:
[Translation]
I, Eugène Bellemare, member of Parliament for Carleton-Gloucester, swear
and solemnly affirm that I will be loyal to Canada and that I will perform the
duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly in conformity
with the Constitution of Canada.
[
English]
I was extremely proud to add this affirmation to my pledge of
loyalty to the Queen.
Since I first introduced this bill in 1993 when it only went to
first reading, I have had many discussions and conversations on
this topic and received many letters from across Canada from
my constituents and colleagues applauding this bill which adds
to our present oath to the Queen. It adds to our allegiance to
Canada. It is with this support that I present the bill to the House
today.
This private member's bill in no way negates or removes our
allegiance to the Queen. Our parliamentary monarchy is part of
our Canadian Constitution, our Canadian history and our
Canadian heritage. The Constitution cannot be amended by
Parliament without the consent of the provinces and territories.
My proposed oath for solemn affirmation to Canada and the
Constitution is a proposed amendment to the Parliament of
Canada Act, not the Constitution, and therefore is in proper
order. It comes as an addition to swearing allegiance to the
Queen.
The wording of my private member's bill was prepared
according to parliamentary rules by the legal experts of the
House of Commons.
[Translation]
Some people think this bill is redundant, in that the oath of
allegiance to the Queen already implies allegiance to Canada
and Canadians and it would therefore be unnecessary to add a
pledge of allegiance to the Constitution. In my experience,
however, what is implied is often interpreted differently by
different people.
I think it is important to affirm what we believe in when we
pledge our loyalty, and in this case, I pledge my loyalty to
Canada and to Canadians, and I am not afraid to tell the whole
country and the whole world.
[English]
Canada, as a member of the British Commonwealth, is headed
by the Queen. The existing oath sworn by members of Parlia-
2190
ment is the swearing of allegiance to the Queen. I was as proud
as any member of the House in pledging allegiance to the Queen
during my swearing in ceremony.
[Translation]
However, the oath sworn by all members of this House is
practically identical to the oaths sworn in all Commonwealth
countries.
I may point out that we were all elected by Canadians in
Canada, and I assume that we all represent Canadians and not
people living in other countries like Australia, Bangladesh,
Ghana, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Tanzania, and so forth. These
are all Commonwealth countries whose members of Parliament
pledge allegiance to the same Queen.
(1110)
Canada is a distinct society and is different from other
countries that belong to the Commonwealth and are represented
by the Queen. The pledge I made to my constituents clearly
indicates that I represent Canadians, not citizens of the whole
Commonwealth.
Since the bill I introduced in the House today is not votable,
this will prevent me and my fellow members from taking a
position and stating whether we feel patriotic about Canada.
I was very disappointed to hear that the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, which is responsible for
deciding what happens to a Private Member's Bill, has judged
that my bill would not be votable.
[English]
Even though my bill answered all 11 criteria for the selection
for votable items as set out in the rules of the House, I had
submitted a positive written reply to all these criteria when
interviewed by the House committee. It told me the interview
would be five minutes. It seemed interested enough to prolong
the interview to over 20 minutes and the attitude was very
positive. I do not know what has happened since the time I left
that committee when it decided in private to make the bill,
unfortunately, non-votable.
I want to make it clear that the bill is an amendment to the
Parliament of Canada Act and is not intended to replace the
current oath but rather to add to it. The pledge to Canada and the
Constitution is in addition to the pledge to the Queen.
Members of Parliament, present, past and future, I am sure are
proud to be Canadians and are proud to serve in the House of
Commons.
Several other Commonwealth countries are presently
studying the need for an oath such as the one I am presenting
today. Members of the national assembly in the province of
Quebec already pledge allegiance to the people and the
constitution of Quebec. They do this because they feel the need
to affirm their loyalty to the people they represent. They also, as
everyone knows, swear allegiance to the Queen.
[Translation]
I would therefore urge all members, who wish to pledge their
loyalty to Canada and Canadians or who feel the need to do so, to
do this in the form of a pledge of loyalty to the Constitution and
to this country. I would be delighted to meet anyone who would
like to discuss the pledge of loyalty to Canada I made when I
swore my oath of allegiance after the last election.
In concluding, I can inform all hon. members that I am proud
that at my swearing-in after the last election, I added my pledge
of loyalty to Canada, to Canadians and to the Constitution.
[English]
I believe that all of my colleagues presently sitting in the
House of Commons would like a chance to individually go on
record and officially tell their constituents that they are proud to
be Canadians. Giving all members of Parliament a chance to
vote on this bill in the House of Commons is the perfect vehicle
for such a patriotic statement.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, in concluding, I wish to say that yes, I was
elected by 46,800 Canadians in a Canadian riding, and I have a
responsibility to my constituents in Carleton-Gloucester.
(1115)
I have a solemn commitment and I am conscious of my
responsibility, to use my judgment to serve all Canadians, and I
would ask my fellow members to do likewise. I know from
discussions I have had with them that in their hearts they want to
pledge allegiance to their country, in addition to pledging
allegiance to the Queen. They want to pledge allegiance to their
Constitution and their people.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-201 which was tabled by the hon.
member for Carleton-Gloucester. Constitutionally speaking, I
have a problem with this bill. Pursuant to section 52 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, ``the Constitution of Canada is the
supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect''.
What exactly is the relationship between the Constitution of
Canada and the oath of allegiance? The provisions respecting
the oath of allegiance are contained in section 128 of the
Constitution Act, 1867 which I will take the liberty of reading.
Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which most of us
know as the British North America Act, reads as follows:
2191
Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking
his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person
authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative
Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before
the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of
Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
The fifth schedule reads as follows:
I, A.B. do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty
Queen Victoria.
Of course, in accordance with the law governing succession to
the throne, the reference to Queen Victoria includes all of her
heirs and successors. This is the sole requirement for sitting in
this House that is set out in the Constitution of Canada. And, as
we have seen, the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada.
The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester is proposing,
through a simple bill, to amend section 27.1 of the Parliament of
Canada Act by the addition of the following: ``No person
holding a seat in the House of Commons shall sit therein nor
shall any funds be made available to such a person for the
carrying out of parliamentary functions unless the person, in
writing, has taken the oath or made the solemn affirmation
provided for in Schedule II before the Governor General or any
person authorized by the Governor General to administer such
oath or solemn affirmation''.
Schedule II of Bill C-201 reads as follows:
I, --, swear that I will be loyal to Canada and that I will perform the duties of
a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly in conformity with the
Constitution of Canada.
Clause 27.1 of this bill states very clearly that no member can
sit in this House unless he or she takes this oath. Enacting a
statutory law is certainly not the way to go about changing the
oath of allegiance. What we need to do is amend the Constitution
of Canada, just as a member of Parliament, Mr. Keyes,
attempted to do during the third session of the 34th Parliament
with Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867
(oath of allegiance).
It is clear that unless the Constitution of Canada is amended,
and since section 128 applies not only to the federal
government, but to the provinces as well, the amending
procedure that applies here is unquestionably the one set out in
section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, that is the 7/50 rule
which requires approval of seven provinces representing 50 per
cent of the population. Curiously enough, we are not moving in
that direction. We therefore have before us a bill that would be
futile at best since it would contradict Canada's existing
Constitution.
(1120)
Some of the comments made by the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester about the merits of his bill surprised me a
little. He told us that the oath of loyalty to the Crown prescribed
in Schedule V of the 1867 Constitution could apply to His or Her
Majesty as head of the Commonwealth. There is a timing
problem. When we look at the situation, we see that there is an
anachronism somewhere for, when the Constitution Act of 1867
was enacted, the Commonwealth did not exist. How could it
have been possible in 1867 to consider a measure applying to the
Queen as head of the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth
was formed almost 100 years later?
It also ignores the whole evolution of the monarchy in
Canada, from the imperial conferences of 1926 and 1930 and the
1931 Statute of Westminster to the Constitution Act of 1982 that
definitely Canadianized the monarchy.
It is now clear that the monarchy in Canada is solely
dependent on the will of the Canadian Parliament and the
Canadian people. We are not subjected to any foreign monarchy.
Our oath of loyalty to the Queen is undoubtedly directed at the
Queen of Canada, and only Canadian parliamentarians can
swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada. This oath is not
required of parliamentarians in Australia, Great Britain or New
Zealand who swear allegiance to their Queen; we are the only
ones affected.
Canada is not a republic where the official oath is usually
directed at the state. It would be rather surprising to see French
parliamentarians, for example, swearing allegiance to President
Mitterrand. They have to swear allegiance to the institutions of
the Fifth Republic. It is the same thing in the United States of
America.
In a monarchial system of government like ours, the
Sovereign, the Queen of Canada, is the embodiment of the state
as the official head of the Canadian state.
Like Louis XIV, Her Majesty the Queen could say, ``I am the
state,'' subject, of course, to the limits imposed by the
Constitution since we live in a constitutional monarchy.
Swearing allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as
Queen of Canada is the same as swearing allegiance to Canada,
everyone having their own definition of Canada. Is it the Canada
of 1867 with its four provinces? Is it the Canada that existed
prior to 1949 without Newfoundland? If this oath had existed,
would it have been possible to allow Newfoundland to join the
Canadian federation if we had sworn to keep the oath's status
quo? Is this a way of singling out the members of the Official
Opposition, who want to promote and eventually achieve
Quebec's sovereignty in a democratic fashion and by respecting
2192
clearly established constitutional conventions and the right of
peoples to self-determination?
Those are questions I ask myself and to which I have no
answer. We have always been comfortable since we have always
said that we would respect the current system as long as it
remains unchanged, as well as its institutions. We are showing it
every day in this House, and such an oath, even though it can be
voluntary, cannot in my opinion encroach on the provisions of
the 1867 Constitution which are unusually clear.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Madam
Speaker, I am speaking today in favour of Bill C-201, an act to
amend the Parliament of Canada Act and not the constitutional
act.
The bill would ensure that all members elected to this place,
before they could sit here and before any funds would be made
available to them, would have to take an oath or make a solemn
affirmation of loyalty to Canada and to the Constitution of
Canada.
This oath seems to be an appropriate step in the process of
recognizing our nationhood. It is only recently that Canada
became a nation in its own right rather than being merely a
so-called dominion of Canada, a part of Great Britain.
As our nation moved through this maturing process, we
acquired our own flag, the beautiful red and white maple leaf of
which we are so proud today. We have chosen as our national
anthem ``O Canada'' in which we sing about having true patriot
love for our home, our native land.
In my dictionary the word patriot is defined as being a person
who is devoted to and ready to support or defend his or her
country. It comes from a word in Greek and also a word in Latin
that means father.
Many people living in Canada today are new Canadians,
people whose fathers and mothers were from some other country
who came here as immigrants or new Canadians to seek a new
life for themselves and for their families. I want to say a special
word of welcome to them and to tell them I hope they will now
become Canadian patriots, devoted to and ready to support or
defend Canada.
I devoutly hope that they will be proud to call themselves
simply Canadians, not Chinese-Canadians or
Lebanese-Canadians or any other hyphenated Canadian.
Personally, I believe there is nothing more racist than saying
that we have English Canadians and French Canadians and new
Canadians. We should all just be Canadians and proud of it. If we
want to celebrate the customs and traditions of the land where
our parents were born, we should be free to do so but we should
first of all be proud Canadians.
Two weeks ago I was in my constituency of
Okanagan-Shuswap. I had been invited to visit the children of
an elementary school in the community of Sicamous. They were
interested in some of the simpler facts about being a member of
Parliament, like where did I live, where did I work. However one
little girl asked a question that had me stumped. She wanted to
know why she and her little classmates do not start every school
day by singing ``O Canada''.
I would be obliged if some hon. member could answer that
question. Why do all our Canadian school children not start
every school day by singing ``O Canada''? When members
assemble in this place, why do we not start our proceeding by
singing ``O Canada''? I believe such a practice should go hand in
hand with swearing our loyalty to Canada as this Bill C-201
would require to show that we are patriots devoted to this
country.
There is a group in our midst in this place who are not devoted
to Canada. No, no, this group brags that it is devoted not to
Canada but instead to the breaking up of Canada, to making the
great province of Quebec a separate country.
Personally I would like to go to each of them and ask how they
can dare come to Parliament to try to break this great nation
apart. Many of us from western Canada have been hit hard by
such legislation as the national energy program which hit
Albertans especially hard. We are paying for official
bilingualism while hospital beds are closing from lack of money
when we do not even know anybody who speaks French.
Many of us westerners think we have grievances, yet we do
not talk of breaking up Canada. The Reform Party has come to
Ottawa to try to right some historic wrongs but we are pledged to
working within Canada. We are each, every one of us, proud
patriots devoted to one federation of 10 equal provinces.
It has been said before and in many ways that a country is like
a big family. When hard times come, it can bind a family closer
together but it can also tear that same family apart.
(1130)
As I mentioned earlier a group in our midst in this place thinks
times have been so tough for Quebec that it wants to tear Quebec
away from the rest of us. This group says there have been wrongs
done to the great province of Quebec. Therefore it wants to
separate from Canada and become a separate country.
Nevertheless members of this group somehow found it in their
hearts to swear allegiance to the Queen when they took their
oaths on becoming members of Parliament.
Many Canadians in Okanagan-Shuswap and all across our
nation have asked: How can anybody be allowed to serve in
Parliament who is not loyal to Canada? How can people be
allowed to serve in Parliament who are not patriots devoted to
doing the very best for the people they represent both in their
own constituencies and for people all across Canada?
2193
Each of these constituencies we as members represent is not
some isolated island, not some little kingdom all on its own.
Each and every constituency is part of one country, Canada.
Therefore I cannot accept it when someone in this place says: ``I
only represent Quebec''. All of us must represent Canada. We
should swear an oath of loyalty to that one great country,
Canada.
All of us must feel some pride in the examples set by some
members of the government recently when they started making
tough decisions about what services, programs, and military
bases should be cut. They did not just think of their own little
backyards; they thought about all of Canada. Much as we on this
side of the House may disagree with some of its overall
philosophies, much as we may disagree with this or that piece of
the budget or with this or that amount being spent or cut, we
must give the government credit for at least trying to look at
what is good for the entire country.
Now it is time for each of us to look at Bill C-201 and ask
ourselves: If we are one country and if we have our own flag and
our own national anthem then why should we not swear or affirm
allegiance to Canada before taking our seats as members of
Parliament?
Personally I think this is an excellent idea which is long
overdue. I believe in it so firmly that before Black Rod opened
the first session of the 35th Parliament, I held a grand opening of
my office back home in Okanagan-Shuswap. I put ads in the
paper inviting the community. With a standing room only crowd
I personally took an oath of loyalty to Canada and had everyone
at the ceremony sign as my witnesses. In conclusion I might add
we started that little ceremony by singing ``O Canada''.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-201, a bill to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act so that members of the House may
pledge allegiance to the country.
I am pleased to support this initiative. It is extremely
important and reflects very much the public opinion I heard
during the previous election in my travels throughout various
parts of Canada.
I come from Yukon which in this federal Parliament is
probably the farthest area away from Ottawa. I recognize how
important it is for those of us who live in regions not in central
Canada to share in that feeling of commonality which exists
among the majority of Canadians.
I certainly do not share in any way the point of view of
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois who want to see Quebec
separated from Canada. However I respect the right of duly
elected parliamentarians to express their views in this
Parliament. That is the essence of democracy. Should we ever be
in a position in this country where we did not have a forum to
express various views we would indeed be losing not only our
democracy but the essence of what we are as a country.
This issue is very important to me as an individual who has
worked in federal politics for a number of years and to all
Canadians. The country is going through a period of uncertainty.
Many people fear for their economic security but there still
remains a pride in what we have achieved together. We can go
further in that and build not on our differences but on what we
have in common.
(1135)
That is where I part company with some of my other
colleagues in the House who have often asked why we cannot all
be the same. As a white female anglophone from an
Anglo-Saxon background I take great pride that Canada
respects different languages, different cultures and that it
welcomes people to its shores. There are only three people in the
House of Commons whose ancestors did not come to Canada
generations before as immigrants.
We must learn to rejoice in the diversity of our culture, not
defile it. It will make the loyalty to and strength of Canada
which the bill expresses meaningfully.
There are two visions of what kind of country Canada is. One
vision was presented by my colleague just before me. Using the
analogy of a field of flowers, he would see Canada as a field
where all the flowers were the same, all pretty and neat. My
vision of Canada is as a field of flowers of different colours,
sometimes chaotic, always difficult but vibrant and providing
excitement to the North American continent.
What have we achieved? We have achieved a political system
with different points of view from social democratic to Liberal
to Progressive Conservative and the Reform Party. We represent
those views in our debates. By presenting different alternatives
we come out with better solutions.
For the cause of our disunity the tendency today is to point to
those individuals who have come to this country and not
accepted what it is to be a Canadian. This is what I believe it
means to be a Canadian. To be a Canadian it means first that we
are loyal to this country. We want to take walls down, not put
them up. Every part of the country from Newfoundland to Yukon
is as important as every other part. When it comes to
employment equity and other issues our goal of social and
economic justice sometimes stands alone in the world where the
tide often goes the other way.
Canada is not a perfect country. Things are not always done
perfectly, but what are the options? An option is to wrench our
country apart, in many ways to rend our democracy apart when
the whole world is moving to work together on major problems
of the day such as unemployment and growing debts. Those are
not just Canadian problems. They are not the problems of the
North American continent. They are problems of the world.
2194
In closing it is with pride that I support the bill. It is a very
important message that we put those constituencies we represent
front and centre in the House of Commons, but that we know and
accept that our first responsibility is to work for Canada.
I hope people will take this debate very seriously and will
support this bill. Canada is worth standing up for and we will all
be better for doing that.
(1140 )
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, in
rising to speak to private member's Bill C-201 I would like to
state at the outset that Reform MPs do support a change to the
oath of allegiance. In fact a separate oath of allegiance has
already been developed by the Reform Party. Many of us used it
in our ridings, as my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap
mentioned.
I held a local swearing in ceremony at my office in North
Vancouver on January 7 of this year. We invited about 175
voters, chosen at random from the voters' list, people we liked
and people we did not. It did not even matter if they voted
Liberal; we had them in our office. Although for the most part
the event was fairly informal we did have a formal part of about
five or ten minutes when I took the oath of allegiance.
I would like to quote from documentation we used that day
which is headed: ``A Statement of Principles and a Pledge of
Commitment by Your Reform Party Member of Parliament''. I
will read some of these principles quickly.
I, Ted White, having been elected by the voters of the Federal Constituency of
North Vancouver to represent you in the 35th Parliament of Canada, do hereby
sincerely pledge that I am committed to the following principles as I carry out
my duties on your behalf:
I am committed to the development of a new and stronger united Canada: a
balanced democratic federation of provinces, distinguished by the acceptance
of our social responsibilities, and the recognition of the equality and uniqueness
of all of our provinces and citizens.
I am committed to equality for all Canadians regardless of race, language,
culture, religion or gender and will give true and faithful representation to all of
my constituents.
I am committed to being your democratic and fiscal conscience in the 35th
Parliament, and I am prepared to demonstrate this commitment by showing
leadership by example.
I believe you have sent me to the House of Commons to present your views in
that forum, not to represent Ottawa's views to you. I believe that the House of
Commons must be the house of the people, not the house of the parties. The
word ``politician'' must mean a representative of the people not a servant of a
party. To that end, I shall not only encourage you to communicate with me, but I
am committed to consulting your views at every opportunity, and shall make
myself available to you regularly, within our constituency. I need your advice
and guidance.
I believe that when decisions are to be made on contentious issues of major
national importance, it is my duty to seek the consensus view of my constituents,
and to represent that consensus in Parliament, even if it conflicts with my own
personal view.
I believe you have placed me in a position of great trust. I shall therefore
conduct my personal and public life with honour and integrity. I shall administer
public funds as carefully as if they were my own. I shall make sure that neither I,
nor my family, will profit from any knowledge or influence I have as a legislator.
Then I took the short oath with one of my peers, the hon.
member for New Westminster-Burnaby taking the oath. The
oath read:
I, Ted White, your Member of Parliament, do pledge, that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to the Canadian federation and to Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth, and that I will faithfully represent the people of the Electoral District
of North Vancouver in the Canadian House of Commons.
The document was then signed and witnessed by 25 of the
people present.
The wording for a new oath as suggested in Bill C-201 is
similar to the suggested Reform oath in that it addresses the
concept of loyalty to the Canadian federation. However I feel
that it does lack the very important reference to the need to
faithfully represent the people of the riding. Bill C-201
proposes that the oath read:
I, Ted White, swear that I will be loyal to Canada and that I will perform the
duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly in conformity
with the Constitution of Canada.
The oath refers to performing the duties of a member of the
House of Commons. However the problem is that there is no job
specification for a member of the House of Commons. If the
duties are not defined then it is meaningless to swear to carry out
those duties. MPs are entrusted to conduct themselves in a
manner appropriate to the position and very few constraints are
placed on us. We must be free to speak and to act on behalf of our
constituents without any controls being placed on us by the
system or the government.
(1145)
It is virtually impossible to define our duties, making the
suggested new oath better than the one presently used. However
I believe it is open to improvement. In the absence of the ability
to amend the bill I do support it. I am sorry it is not a votable bill.
I congratulate the member for introducing it to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Madam Speaker,
many things have been said this morning about Bill C-201. I
cannot comment on all the points raised. Perhaps I could just
correct or qualify a number of remarks like this one, to the effect
that to effectively sustain Canadian unity, all ten provinces must
be equal.
2195
That is the problem, this lack of understanding of the fact that
Quebec is slightly different. We have been trying for a long time
to make English Canada understand that Quebec is not like any
other province. Actually, it was one of the things we tried to do
with the Meech Lake Accord and again with the Charlottetown
Accord. It was in good faith, I think, to seek recognition of the
fact that Quebec is different from the rest of Canada. It is
absolutely obvious to me, even a blind man could see, be it only
at the cultural level, how rich the French language is in Quebec
and how many cultural industries it sustains, as compared to
English Canada.
Quebec is different in many regards, not only culturally, but
also economically. Quebec has been trying for thirty years or so
to be recognized as a distinct society or at least as a province
which is not like any other. That is part of the problem with
Canada in fact. As long as Quebec's distinctiveness is not
recognized-because of the failure of Meech and
Charlottetown-we will find ourselves stuck with an amending
formula which prevents the Constitution of Canada from being
amended to recognize Quebec's uniqueness, and that is a shame,
of course.
It is a shame, but only to a point because it sets us on a course
where we will be forced to readjust our relationship with English
Canada. I think this will do Quebec much good, and English
Canada as well, judging by another remark made this morning,
to the effect that Canada was a distinct society. The fact of the
matter is that Canada is made up of a number of distinct
societies. Just as British Columbia is completely different from
Atlantic Canada, English Canada is different from Quebec. And
I believe that by setting off on this course, by restructuring
Canada, we will be able not only to better define ourselves, in
Quebec, but also to develop better relations with English
Canada, at least that is what I think.
Basically, we must bear in mind that we are part of a truly
great democracy. The Bloc members were elected with quite
substantial majorities. This show of will from the people of
Quebec was not artificial, it was not fabricated. It is not the kind
of thing that happens all of a sudden, by surprise. It must be
recognized that the people of Quebec massively supported the
Bloc Quebecois and this is a reality that we respect and live by.
If we at least want to respect the democratic principle, we must
recognize the legitimacy of the Bloc Quebecois as
representative of the distinct character of Quebec here in the
House of Commons. This is not to insult anyone. This is not to
irritate English Canadian nationalists-on the contrary, I find it
is a very fine thing to affirm the beauties and virtues of English
Canada. Is that opposed to recognizing the distinctiveness of
Quebec? I think not.
(1150)
Someone mentioned the diversity of Canada. I too am a great
believer in it. Furthermore, it is a principle found in nature, all
the diversity found in gardens-there are many examples of it.
Indeed, diversity is a richness. That is what nature teaches us
and of course we in Canada have great diversity.
However, this government, like previous governments, has
tried instead to make Canada uniform. I think that is a bad idea. I
think that it is very good to recognize the diversity of Canada,
since it makes our country richer.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I recognize the hon.
member for Carleton-Gloucester and add that by exercising his
right to reply, he will close the debate.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Madam
Speaker, thank you for letting me reply at the end of the debate. I
would like to challenge the sense of loyalty of all Canadian
members of the House present here today. I ask that we waive
the Standing Orders of the House, as I will move at the end of my
reply, so that we can vote on my bill.
[English]
What a wonderful opportunity to have MPs declare publicly
that yes, they want to vote on my private member's bill, to swear
allegiance not only to the Queen but also to Canada, Canadians
and the Constitution, and that they are loyal and patriotic
citizens.
[Translation]
A few minutes ago, the member for Bellechasse made a
presentation on the legal aspect of my bill. He took us into the
history of Canada in 1867 and spoke about the Constitution and
Queen Victoria and all the regulations of 1867. He overlooked
all the changes to the Constitution since 1867. He overlooked
the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.
Above all, the member for Bellechasse did not mention that in
1976, I believe, in Quebec, Premier René Lévesque wanted to
respect the Constitution, as I do and all hon. members here,
especially the member for Bellechasse and the other members of
the Bloc Quebecois, wanted to tell us they do want to respect the
Constitution. With reference to the Constitution, the
then-premier, who was a member of the Parti Quebecois, added
that once elected to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial
legislature-the Quebec members in the Quebec legislature
would swear allegiance to Quebecers and to the Constitution of
Quebec.
(1155)
I congratulate the former premier for that. Why not?
Members of the Bloc Quebecois were elected to the federal
Parliament. Very often they seem to forget that they are not
members of the Quebec provincial legislature, which I esteem
and respect greatly, but members of the Canadian or national or
federal legislature, let them choose the term they like.
2196
They have come here to help make life in Canada better, and
let me make an aside on this point. I often hear members of the
Bloc Quebecois refer to French Canada, to English Canada, to
Quebec, but what is English Canada? I would say to them that it
includes the province of Quebec. What is French Canada? It
includes Quebec and also Ontario, New Brunswick, the Yukon,
the territories, the other provinces, all of us.
We must be proud of being Canadians and I challenge all
members of this House today to proclaim that pride.
In closing, I invoke the Standing Orders of the House which
allow me, as a member, proud to be what I am, a
Franco-Ontarian, a French Canadian, or if Reform Party
members prefer, a French-speaking Canadian, a
fourth-generation Franco-Ontarian whose ancestors came from
France in the 17th century, and call upon all my colleagues here
in the House to let me have a vote on this bill by overriding the
Standing Orders. We can do so with unanimous agreement and I
call upon the patriotism and loyalty to Canada of all members of
this House.
Long live Canada. Long live Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Can the member for
Carleton-Gloucester move a motion in the House? Does the
House agree to allow the member to present his motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bellemare: Only members of the Bloc Quebecois said no
to the country.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2196
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge) moved:
That this House declare that the budget plan of this government is not a
solution to Canada's debt and deficit problem and therefore requests the
government to:
(a) place a moratorium on all new spending programs announced in the budget such
as Youth Services Corps, Court Challenges Program, Residential Rehabilitation
Assistance Plan, Engineers Program, and Infrastructure Program;
(b) establish effective spending caps in co-operation with all parties of thisHouse;
(c) produce quarterly reports on the progress being made on deficit reduction;
and
(d) commit to immediate corrective action using a spending contingency plan
developed in consultation with all parties in the House.
(1200 )
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today only three short weeks
since the budget was presented to the House of Commons. Those
three weeks have been very significant. Today we want to
evaluate that budget in light of some of the recent economic
changes and events that have occurred. It is on this basis that I
move the motion before the House.
Reformers have objected to the lack of true cuts in the budget.
We have said that it does not go far enough and we still hold to
that criticism. To our ministers currently at the G-7 conference
to attempt to create job opportunities, jobs in Canada, jobs in
North America and throughout the world, the message today
must be very clear to them that it is not the government that will
create jobs but rather a matter of the economy being able to have
the circumstances in which jobs can be created without the
intervention of government.
The budget that was presented to us three weeks ago is already
off track. Assumptions and calculations done in the budget are
no longer relevant. Today in light of that I would like to examine
the budget with three factors in mind. I believe it is time we look
again and rethink our responsibilities in the House of Commons.
First, I want to examine the revenue predictions and ask a
question. Is it prudent today to expect the type of revenue
forecast that is in the budget?
Second, I want to examine interest rate assumptions. I ask is it
prudent today to expect the type of interest rate forecasts in the
budget?
Third, I want to examine the question of what is the true
deficit. Have we been presented with the true picture in the
House and as Canadians?
As Canadians we felt that we were misled. We thought the
deficit was $38 billion; then it was projected to be $45 billion.
Someone is misleading us. Therefore, it is very important that
we ask is it prudent today to believe the deficit numbers that
were presented to us by the Liberal government?
I would like to look at each one of these questions. I am
certain the answer is no to each one, but I believe it is time that
we look at each one with greater detail, realism and sincerity in
this assembly.
First is the issue of the unrealistic revenue assumptions
presented to us. Forecasting fantastic growth in government
revenues is certainly not a recent phenomenon. The former
Conservative government consistently predicted revenues far in
excess of what it ever collected. Knowing this, the Liberals in
the budget promised that their budget would be the end of those
unrealistic assumptions. They pledged to come clean with
Canadians.
2197
What are the facts? Robert Fairholm of the forecasting firm
DRI Canada said recently: ``The government is saying that
revenue growth will exceed the growth in the economy by
roughly 22.5 per cent. This is optimistic''. If we examine the
growth of revenues coming out of the 1982 recession we find
that tax revenues increased just over 8 per cent faster than the
economy. The finance minister stood in the House and promised
that he would come clean with Canadians. He now says that the
revenues will grow 22.5 per cent faster than the economy. That
is unrealistic. It is blatant wishful thinking. I wonder where the
numbers come from.
(1205 )
There is no indication that we will grow out of this recession
as fast as we escaped the recession of 1982. Because of massive
public debt and deficits our growth out of the recession is
absolutely hampered. To expect revenues to grow faster than
they did coming out of the 1982 recession is foolhardy. The
finance minister is playing games with Canadians.
We have not seen a change in the way government predicts
revenue. The finance minister is following in the footsteps of his
predecessors. I am sure if Mr. Wilson or Mr. Mazankowski were
in the House they would be very proud of the way the budget is
playing itself out. They would be very proud and very pleased to
see that the pattern is the same.
It is right to ask: Is it prudent today to expect the types of
revenue forecasts that were in the budget? The answer is clearly
no, it is not.
Second, I would like to look at the interest rate assumptions.
We must understand exactly what an increase in interest rates
really means. For every 1 per cent that interests rates on our debt
increase, that translates into $1.7 billion in increased interest
rates on a yearly basis for the Canadian taxpayer. That is a
significant amount, $1.7 billion per year with a 1 per cent
interest rate.
We must recognize that just a 1 per cent increase would wipe
out the net savings that the Liberals have claimed in the budget.
Also we must recognize we are very dependent on these interest
rates because our debt is so massive.
In the budget the Minister of Finance assumed that short term
interest rates would be 4.5 per cent and that long term rates
would be 6.4 per cent in 1994. What are the facts? Today the
short term rates are just above 4 per cent and are rising and the
long term rates are already one full point above the minister's
predictions. These rates must be sustained. If sustained, it will
cost anywhere between $2 billion to $3 billion in the budget so
that the final outcome will mean a greater deficit for certain.
Where will the minister get this revenue? How will we come
to a point at which we only have a $39.7 billion deficit as
projected when we have not taken into consideration these
interest rates? What are the markets saying about future interest
rates? Are these increases just a temporary measure or an
indication of future trends?
Sherry Cooper, chief economist of Burns Fry, said as early as
last week that the government's projections look suspect. If the
term structure of interest rates is the best indicator of long term
rates, as is commonly understood, then the predictions that long
term rates will fall are clearly hogwash. Our current term
structure would indicate that rates are on a slow but steady climb
up, not down, as predicted in the budget.
One of the other factors we have to consider, and it has not
been talked about in the House of Commons, is the Quebec
factor and the influence it will have not only on interest rates of
the upcoming fiscal budget but certainly on a longer term basis
on budgeting in the future.
I am not any more pleased with the prospect of further
constitutional wrangling than the government or anyone else in
Canada. However I have the courage to stand today in the House
and say that whatever the outcome, the uncertainty created by
the separatists who want to tear our great country apart, who
want to break us down, will affect our markets and will affect
interest rates. We must recognize that uncertainty is the enemy
of the financial markets. Uncertainty is the enemy of the budget
that we are examining today after three weeks.
(1210)
Let us look at some facts about interest rates and the various
effects of constitutional discussions or constitutional
wrangling. How does that type of environment affect interest
rates and the value of our Canadian dollar? I would like to make
a couple of quotes.
First, Scotia McLeod had this to say following the debates:
``During the key weeks of the Charlottetown constitutional
discussions, the spread between 10 year Canada and U.S.
government bonds rose sharply. The rate on 91 day T-bills
jumped from 4.6 per cent to 7.9 per cent and the Canadian dollar
dove from 85.4 to 80.0 U.S.'' This is a significant shift.
If this type of uncertainty and this circumstance were created
and continued and applicable here today, a 3 per cent rise in rates
would translate into $5.1 billion of increased interest costs
because of constitutional wrangling. That would occur over a
one year period in a fiscal budget.
We have every reason to believe that the upcoming Quebec
question will be more severe and more drawn out than the recent
Meech Lake and Charlottetown fiascos. There are two things I
would like to bring to members' attention. First, the potential
separation of Quebec will undoubtedly have a much more
2198
devastating short term effect on Canada than the passage or
failure of the Charlottetown accord. There is no question about
that.
Second and most important, the debate will be more
prolonged and certainly delayed in terms of a crisis
circumstance.
Mr. Parizeau, the leader in Quebec, has said that if he is
elected he would hold a referendum within six months or a year.
That translates into a significant period of uncertainty and, more
important, it will have a significant effect on the 1994-95
budget before us.
As Reformers, how do we feel about this matter? I want to put
on record so that it is very clear that we do not want all that
constitutional wrangling. We believe that Quebec should
continue to be a part of Canada and that we fully expect
Quebecers to see the benefits of staying in Canada. We will do
everything we can to get that message across clearly and
concisely. We reject any divisive message of either the Leader of
the Opposition or Mr. Parizeau. We will do everything on our
part to ensure that Quebec stays as part of this nation.
I ask the Minister of Finance today, considering the potential
of the Quebec circumstance and considering other
circumstances, what provisions he has made for this potentially
explosive and expensive issue in the budget before us in the
House.
When this issue creates a significant jump in rates and if that
jump is sustained, we recognize and we all know that it will cost
our federal treasury untold billions of dollars, not millions,
which we cannot afford at this time. We should take this matter
into consideration. That is the reason that this motion is before
this assembly today. It is so we can rethink our position,
re-entrench what we are doing and be ready for any type of
critical circumstance that may befall us.
I want to make a final point with regard to interest rates and
the interest rate spread between Canada and the U.S. The spread
between Canadian and American rates indicates the confidence
in one economy relative to the other. When investors lose
confidence in Canada or in their Minister of Finance it is
reflected in increased costs of borrowing relative to our major
partner.
(1215 )
The real question is: Did the budget increase the confidence of
markets in the economy of Canada? Despite the reserved
acceptance by the markets these questions should be asked as
well: How are investors voting with their money? What are
investors doing at the present time? Are we watching that? Has
the finance minister got his finger on where our Canadian
investment money is going?
As I examine those questions the news is not good. Canadians
have been investing abroad in increased numbers due to taxation
and lack of confidence in the government's dealing with the debt
and deficit question.
International investors are moving away from Canada to
lower risk investments. This has been occurring with greater
significance in recent years, especially the last quarter of 1993
and into the early part of 1994. We can blame the latter
government for this, and we should, but we also must take
responsibility currently with the budget before us in this
assembly.
What are further facts about this budget in terms of
confidence? What can we say it has done for confidence? How
are the investors voting with their dollars?
I quote a couple of people, first, Robert Palombi, senior
economist with MMS International who said this recently:
The cracks in investor confidence are beginning to show. Despite the increase
in bond yields, buyers were not attracted. This does not suggest the financial
markets have confidence in lower Canadian rates or tighter Canada-U.S. yield
spreads. This is why Martin's deficit projections are questionable.
The
Financial Post pointed out as early as February 24:
Canadian markets have been hit hard by the recent hike in U.S. interest rates,
despite a lower inflation rate and weaker economy. This is a sign that foreigners
are selling our bonds, continuing a trend that started in the fourth quarter of last
year-A post-budget widening of 10 year Canada-U.S. yield spreads suggests
U.S. investors are the ones pulling out of Canada, a big concern since the size of
the U.S. holdings now rivals that of the Japanese.
Clearly the 1994-95 budget is no solution to the confidence
required in the Canadian economy. Despite calm assurances
from the financial community, investors are telling the story
with their money. They are losing confidence in the ability of
Canada to deal with its debt and deficit and the budget gives
them no reason to regain that confidence. I ask this question: Is
it prudent today to expect the types of interest rates forecast in
the budget?
To this question I have to say the answer is no. The market
since the budget has destroyed the interest rate assumptions.
The Quebec question is never raised, never mind dealt with in
the budget, and the budget has done absolutely nothing to build
investor confidence which will create the necessary jobs.
I would like to talk about the fudging of numbers. What are
the facts here? I pointed out very clearly in that section of my
remarks that the government projections of $39.7 billion will
not hold. It will most likely be more like the current budget. The
deficit will be $43.7 billion. I point out that this is not acceptable
and it should be dealt with.
On all three of my questions with regard to revenue
projections, interest rate projections, and whether the deficit
projections are accurate, I want to say no, no, no, on all three
counts. They are unrealistic revenue assumptions, unrealistic
interest
2199
rate projections, and the Liberals have misled the people in
terms of the numbers.
(1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Madam
Speaker, I want to make a brief comment to bring out two points.
First, I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge when he says
that the budget does nothing to reduce Canada's deficit and
excessive debt. Indeed, in spite of unacceptable cuts of $7.5
billion which will affect the unemployed, the poor and the
elderly, we will end up with a record deficit which will probably
exceed even the least optimistic forecasts of about $45 billion.
However, I do not agree with the hon. member when he dares
say that the gap between Canadian and American interest rates,
as well as the difference in the two economies, are attributable to
the fact that there is a sovereignist movement in Quebec. I also
disagree when he claims that our bad financial situation and the
sudden fluctuations in our interest rates are due to the existence
of that movement.
I want to remind him that, during the debate surrounding the
Charlottetown Accord, in the fall of 1992, the rise of interest
rates and the lowering of Canada's credit rating were not due to
the presence of sovereignists, but to the catastrophic situation of
Canadian public finances and the inability of federalists like the
hon. member to control government finances and the economic
future of Quebec and Canada. This is the real problem.
If we go back to 1992 and 1993, we see that the problem is also
due to the chronic inability of the Ontario government to control
excessive spending, which had the effect of hurting Canada's
reputation, and not only Ontario's, with foreign investors. The
problem of interest rates and the economy in general is much
more related to government finances than to the presence of a
sovereignist movement. In fact, this is the real source of the
problem.
To think and speak like the hon. member for Lethbridge is to
bury one's head in the sand. And this kind of excessive talk,
which stirs up emotions and is pure misinformation, will scare
away investors, who will think that Canadians are not serious.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I say to my
colleague that constitutional wrangling in the past has had a
major effect on interest rates, and that is realistic.
The debate on the Constitution will take place in 1994. An
election is going to take place in Quebec in that period of time. If
Mr. Parizeau is successful the sequence will be a referendum
following that and there will be a lot of tug and pull between the
federalists and the separatists.
Investors are going to ask themselves whether they really
want to invest in Canada. Interest rates will most likely increase.
For every 1 per cent rise in interest rates on the debt, which is
over $500 billion, it costs Canadians $1.7 billion. That will
increase the deficit projections in the budget. Other factors have
to be taken into consideration. All of it is stress and strain not
only on the budget but the Canadian economic circumstance.
That is the way it is.
It is not looking at the circumstances if I have my head in the
sand. I am looking realistically at what is going to happen in the
Canadian political system in the next few short months.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I would like to
comment on the hon. member's statements. He is talking about
his sense of realism.
I would like to share with him that yesterday morning at nine
o'clock I received a call from a constituent who said that the
government's budget is working. He is an individual who looks
for investment for Canadian projects. He says we are turning the
corner, that Canadians are showing a strong interest in spending
money here and that the confidence of Canadian investors is
increasing and growing rapidly as a result of the government's
presence and policies.
When it comes to the issue of Quebec, I would say to the hon.
member that we are not looking toward a future of doom and
gloom. We believe the people of Quebec want what every other
Canadian wants: a good job.
(1225 )
By focusing on projects like the Canadian youth service corps
and the infrastructure program we are telling the people of
Quebec that yes, they should have confidence in the government
because we are here to do what it is they want and that is find the
people jobs.
Finally I would like to say that I have had meetings with
people in my riding particularly with regard to the infrastructure
program and the Canada youth service corps. The degree of
interest and desire for those programs is phenomenal. There is a
sense we cannot stand back, do nothing and just look at numbers.
As a government we have to find opportunities to create work in
the short, medium and long term. I believe the programs we have
outlined in the budget are going to do just that.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I certainly hope
there is that optimism and things will happen but the Reform
Party believes that we must deal with the yearly deficit so that
we get the cost of government down. In that way more dollars
will be in the marketplace for private investment. This will
create job opportunities and give confidence that the investment
will be respected after it is made. Then investors will not lose all
their profit and whatever to higher government taxes and higher
government take. That is what has to be stopped and we are
trying to do that.
2200
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask a question of the hon. member. I noted in his
motion that two particular programs are targeted by the Reform
Party. One is the youth services corps and the other is the court
challenges program.
Is the hon. member aware that youth unemployment is very
near the 20 per cent mark? If we cannot provide hope for our
youth then surely we have failed in the tasks we set ourselves as
parliamentarians. I am not sure why the hon. member would
target youth in this way, saying it was not important that
something should be special.
I am not commenting on the particular quality of this
program, but I would say that the youth of our country deserve
better than simply to be told there is no particular problem
concerning youth.
Why does the hon. member ignore youth in this way? Why
does his party not care about the youth of Canada?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, we absolutely
do care about youth so they have job opportunities, so they can
be independent, self-sufficient, and able to have a life outside
being employed by government, or life outside government
coming along after they create a business or have a profession,
whereby 30 per cent of the take is taken by government. We want
to move away from that kind of an environment.
I have had experience with the Company of Young Canadians
and a couple of other youth programs created by government.
They never created long term opportunity for our young people.
It is not the right way of doing things, to say that we are going to
deal with jobs for young people. It just does not satisfy a long
term need.
It is an artificial, government created environment which is
not sufficient and is not the highest priority in terms of job
creation as far as we are concerned as the Reform Party.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Madam Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to respond to the motion put before the House by the
hon. member of the opposition.
Let me say that I appreciate the member's sincerity. But while
his intent may be positive it seems that his view of the
government budget plan, the range of economic challenges we
had to address has been blinkered by deficit myopia. I say
myopia because the real solution to Canada's debt and deficit
situation will not come from short term and shortsighted hatchet
work. Amputation is no way to restore Canada's fiscal health.
We need a co-operative, consistent and comprehensive plan of
action and that is what our February budget delivers.
The motion before us states baldly that ``the budget plan of
this government is not a solution to Canada's debt and deficit
problem''. It follows this up by urging four steps including a
moratorium on spending such as the $6 billion national
infrastructure program. I want to comment briefly on each of the
unnecessary nostrums the motion advances. First let me step
back and remind the House of the concrete plan for deficit
reduction we have put in place.
(1230)
There need be no question about our objective. Our goal is to
eliminate the deficit. Our interim target is to reduce it to 3 per
cent of GDP by 1996-97. The budget puts us on a course to meet
that target. We will reduce the deficit to $39.7 billion in
1994-95, to $32.7 billion in 1995-96 and, with only moderate
growth, to about $25 billion in 1996-97.
The motion before us intimates that these targets do not
represent fast enough progress, but that view simply and
dangerously chooses to ignore the destructive consequences that
more drastic spending cuts would impose. Canada's economy is
still in recovery. Unemployment remains unconscionably high.
Consumer and business confidence, although improving since
the government was elected, cannot be called buoyant.
Industrial restructuring from the fisheries of the maritimes to
the manufacturing heartland of Ontario to the farms and ranches
of the prairies to the forests of B.C. remains a painful reality.
These are all part of the context within which our budget
decisions were framed. These challenges demand that the
government play its part in helping restore economic vigour, in
restoring national confidence and job creation. They also
demand that government continue to assist those in real need.
That is why our budget refused to take a slash and burn
approach to government spending. That is why we are
reallocating funding to the infrastructure program and to
residential rehabilitation, activities that do not merely create
jobs on their own but act as a catalyst to further job creation and
renewed optimism.
The budget recognizes that sustained deficit improvement can
only be achieved in a growing and healthy economy, an
economy that is equipped with the skills and technology to meet
and beat the challenges of global competition in today's
information age. That is why the budget funds programs such as
the youth services corps, the technology network and the
engineers and scientists program that will help small business.
While the budget invests in jobs and renewed competitiveness
it also applies, and I would like to underline this, the most
significant net spending cuts of any budget in over a decade. We
are reducing departmental operating budgets and extending the
salary freeze for Parliament and the public service. The total
savings from cuts in government operations will rise from $468
million in the coming fiscal year to $1.6 billion in 1996-97.
2201
We are closing military bases and reducing other elements of
defence infrastructure. Combined with the cancellation of the
EH-101 helicopter program, savings over the next three years
will total some $3.6 billion.
We are renewing our unemployment insurance system in
order to make it more effective, more fair and more affordable.
Savings here will reach $2.4 billion a year in 1995-96. We are
also looking to change other aspects of Canada's social security
system to produce savings of $1.5 billion annually in provincial
transfers.
Yes, these actions will take time to achieve their full weight,
but we make no apologies for refusing to rush helter-skelter into
cutting simply for the sake of cutting. If that approach actually
worked then the previous government's record would have been
one of sustained deficit reduction instead of exactly the
opposite.
It is the need for consistent, considered and co-operative
action that explains why we have set future targets for savings in
provincial transfers rather than imposing them overnight. Again
this is a lesson that the previous government failed to
understand. There is nothing to be gained by offloading the
federal deficit on to Canada's provinces by unilaterally
changing the structure of transfer payments the federal
government makes to those provinces. That simply shifts the
debt from the federal ledger to a provincial one.
Instead we firmly believe the two levels of government must
approach their respective challenges through co-operation.
That means consultation and deliberations before we act. This is
the strategy the budget embraces.
(1235)
I should also say that we are encouraged by the fact there is an
unprecedented consensus today both nationally and provincially
on the need to bring deficits down. Strong action is being taken
across the country, and this will have a significant impact not
simply on the federal deficit itself but on the national deficit
overall. That in the end must be the ultimate goal.
Some people have said that we should simply cut spending by
5 per cent across the board. In a number of areas we went well
beyond that and the results will be evident. There are other
reasons why simplistic across the board approaches do not work.
This ties right back to a fundamental principle of the budget's
approach to deficit reduction. We do not believe that sustained
success lies in treating symptoms that Canada needs to change.
That is why we have given notice of the need to modernize
unemployment insurance and the federal-provincial social
security system. We believe that a new design can be more
effective and less costly. We have given ourselves and the
provinces two years to succeed and have set out the minimum
savings that must be achieved.
This needed change is not an option. It must happen and it will
happen. There are due dates. There are deadlines. There are firm
fiscal targets. This plan offers a real solution to Canada's fiscal
challenges.
Let me emphasize this by drawing on some recent remarks by
the Minister of Finance. He said: ``We are not doing this simply
to cut spending. We are doing it because Canada needs a new
architecture for a new economy on the verge of a new century.
But in the end the result is also going to be to get the financial
monkey off our back. That is going to be one of the legacies of
this Canadian government to its people''.
To further explain our approach, I ask all hon. members to
consider this. In difficult times would any sensible company
manager simply cut operations across the board or would cuts be
deeper in some facets of an enterprise and less in other areas of
strategic importance for further growth? That requires prudent
planning. It requires strategic analysis and sensible
commitment, and that is exactly what the government has done
in the budget.
I believe my remarks offer real reasons why the motion before
the House is unnecessary and ill-considered. Let me just tie off
some of the particular suggestions that the motion offers. It
urges a moratorium on all new spending, such as the youth
service corps and the infrastructure program. First, the motion
fails to realize that virtually none of this is new spending. These
actions are being funded by savings elsewhere or reallocation of
existing funds.
That is not the real flaw in the suggestion. As I stated earlier in
my remarks, such spending is a bottom line investment in job
creation, restored confidence and long term competitiveness of
our economy. Eliminating this investment would be a classic
example of penny wise and pound foolish. It would hold back
the economic recovery that will be essential to long term deficit
elimination and debt reduction.
Incidentally those who would be hurt by such spending cuts
would be Canada's young people and small businesses,
communities that government and all Canadians should be
doing all they can to nurture. I can hardly believe that punitive
action here is what the hon. member really means by this
motion.
The member's motion also proposes that the government
establish effective spending caps. The budget by definition sets
spending targets that represent the caps the government intends
to apply to spending.
The previous government legislated a more formal cap
process. This did not prevent it from falling substantially off its
deficit track by tens of billions of dollars. Again the real answer
to spending control is a consistent, comprehensive plan based on
credible economic assumptions. That is what the budget
delivers.
2202
(1240 )
The member's motion also proposes that the government
produce quarterly reports on the progress being made on deficit
reduction. I am not sure if I understand or the member
understands exactly what he is looking for. The Department of
Finance already produces monthly and quarterly fiscal reports
covering the most recent data available on revenues and
spending. Perhaps he is not aware of that publication.
I should also point out that the Minister of Finance has
committed to producing this fall a comprehensive statement
laying out changes in Canada's economic and fiscal outlay. This
is a major departure from the past and will help ensure that all
Canadians have a clear understanding of our fiscal process and
whether further action is needed.
Finally, the motion before us refers to committing to
``corrective action using a spending contingency plan''. I can
see no reason why we need corrective action when there are no
grounds to assume our plan will not deliver the objectives we
have set out. The member may not be aware that we did build
into our fiscal projections increased contingencies to ensure that
our fiscal targets would be met.
If the member had been attentive, he would have realized that
our revenue assumptions are very prudent indeed and that our
interest rate assumptions are very prudent as well. The hon.
member stated just a minute ago that political uncertainty is
caused by elections. Surely the hon. member believes in
elections. If we did not have elections none of us would be here
today. However political uncertainty is certainly part of our
democratic process.
In conclusion, all members concerned with regard to
Canada's deficit and debt situation deserve an adequate
response. It is a concern all of us in government share. That is
why the government in its first budget took action that was both
balanced and courageous, action that is delivering results now
but also looks to the future, action that takes aim at spending
where appropriate but also works to strengthen the economy and
job creation.
More people working and paying taxes and a more efficient
government are needed to reduce the fiscal deficit and that is
exactly what the government delivered in its first budget. To me
and to the government the bottom line is clear. We have put in
place a budget plan that is credible, realistic and responsible, a
plan that meets the needs of Canadians today and for our
national future.
There is no reason for the motion with its pessimism, scare
tactics and myopia to pass.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Madam Speaker, some of the
measures identified by the Reform Party to reduce the deficit
and the debt seem quite interesting. As far as the opposition
parties are concerned, we must reduce the deficit.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I rise on a point of order, Madam
Speaker. Is it not the usual custom that following a member's
remarks there is time for questions to that hon. member?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On the
point of order, the Official Opposition has the first priority on
questions. Maybe the member could follow after.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: As far as the opposition is concerned, we must
reduce the deficit, but the latest Liberal budget raises some
doubts as to the government's intentions. Does it deal with the
real problems?
The Liberals ignored the Auditor General's report. During the
past three years, the Auditor General has identified waste and
unnecessary spending, totalling at least $5 billion annually. I
will get back to more obvious cases later on, but I would like to
recall the real problems which the party in power was afraid to
deal with. Former Quebec Revenue Minister Yves Séguin
provided some good examples in an article published in Le
Devoir on February 5, 1994.
(1245)
The way resource profits in the energy sector are interpreted
and defined will cost Revenue Canada more than $1.2 billion,
although a simple amendment could have prevented this tax
loss.
But the worst part is, Madam Speaker, that the minimal deficit
reduction planned by the government will put a heavy burden on
the provinces. It was criticized recently by Pierre-Yves
Crémieux, Pierre Fortin and Marc Van Audenrode, all with the
Economics Department at the University of Quebec in Montreal,
when they discussed this passing of the federal buck to the
provinces. The government reduced its deficit at the expense of
the unemployed who, once their benefit periods have been cut,
will have no choice but to go on welfare. Just 280 million less
for Quebec.
We have to agree with the Reform Party when it condemns the
general level of government spending. Our colleagues, however,
should also respect the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois.
We have already said that we want to reduce government
spending and fiscal spending by $10 billion and inject half of
this amount into job creation.
2203
Getting rid of waste is not just a buzz word, it is a goal within
our reach. Think about it! This government would not have
lasted long in Sherwood Forest! When we say waste, we are
referring to all the shortcomings mentioned by the Auditor
General.
Investment Canada spent $132,000 on a new office with
kitchen and bathroom for its new president, although her
predecessor's office, located in the same building, had the same
amenities. The cost of government travel using the Challenger
jet fleet totalled $4 million, with more than half spent on trips by
ministers.
According to the Auditor General, these figures represent a
total cost per flying hour of $19,650. The federal vehicle fleet is
worth more than $500 million, with an additional 4,000 vehicles
being purchased each year. We could go on for hours with the list
of horror stories, Madam Speaker.
Look at the waste caused by interdepartmental overlap! Staff
and equipment assigned to similar activities could be deployed
more effectively. The government mentioned setting up
one-stop counters in some departments to streamline internal
operations, which is all very well, but watch out for undue
administrative growth that might reduce an agency's
effectiveness.
We all know what happens when bureaucracy gets out of hand.
Take this example from the Auditor General's report concerning
the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy. The
CAED Strategy was to invest $1 billion over a period of five
years. Three departments were directly involved: the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the
Department of Industry and the Department of Immigration.
The purpose was to reduce disparities between aboriginal
peoples and Canadians. The strategy's objective was to help
aboriginal peoples achieve economic self-reliance.
In 1993, $900 million was spent under this strategy. The
Auditor General deplored the lack of co-ordination between the
three departments. According to the Auditor General, it was not
clear who was to provide leadership in implementing the
strategy. The departments concerned were supposed to
co-ordinate the strategy and provide for an evaluation
mechanism.
This mechanism was not put in place until 1993. I agree with
the reduction of all government expenses providing, I repeat,
that the cuts in government and fiscal spending reach $10 billion
and that half the savings are injected in job creation. What I am
saying is stop wasting public money.
(1250)
You want examples? Here are a few. Anyone giving money to
a charitable organization wants to know whether the money is
used to reach the stated goals. This is only natural, Madam
Speaker, and this applies to the government as well. However, in
this case, we are not talking dollars, we are talking billions spent
without any evaluation of the expected return on the investment
in given projects.
I was saying that we are all careful with the way we spend or
give away our money, we want to be sure that it will be used
properly, but grants are allocated by the government without
making sure that the stated objectives are reached. We could at
least make sure those grants to companies will create jobs.
Coming back to the example I was mentioning earlier, the
government spent $900 million, in 1993, for the Canadian
Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy. The Auditor
General is telling us that there are few ways we can measure the
efficiency of the strategy. Would I give a lot of money to a friend
without knowing what he was going to do with it? Not me, but
the government does.
The Auditor General says that it is not possible to determine
the impact of the strategy. For example, in 1992, the Department
of Indian Affairs gave $20 million to 73 economic development
entities in native communities it considers fully developed.
Almost $33 million more were spent on 296 less developed
community organizations.
The Auditor General is asking that program control and
assessment measures be put in place. It is not a mystery, Madam
Speaker. The government prefers to attack the unemployed and
the old people, which is less complicated. Yet, all they have to
do is to better manage public funds so that we can see concrete
results in the whole Canadian economy.
In the aforementioned example, we talked about the
Department of Indian Affairs, but the same goes for all other
areas. We do not know which real benefits came from the
strategy activities. We do not know if funds were spent in
accordance with aboriginal people's priorities. We do not know
if there is a more effective way of getting the same results. Yet, it
is possible to reduce operating expenses.
Let us open the Report of the Auditor General at any page.
Here, in November 1992, a consulting firm did an operational
examination of the Department of Public Works. According to
these experts, the Department could save annually $63 million
to $68 million by March 31, 1997. These savings would come
mainly from business planning and management and support
activities.
The government must stop trying to fool people when it
speaks of cutting the fat. I think there are still a lot of areas
where we could cut spending, and people have had enough of
lies. They know that the government will still take the money
out of their pockets instead of reducing the big government
machine.
2204
(1255)
In conclusion, I would like to examine the last point of the
Reform party's motion. Our colleagues want the government to
develop a spending contingency plan. I suggest they adopt the
Bloc's position concerning the creation of a parliamentary
committee which would examine government expenditures one
item at a time. My colleague, the member for Shefford, will
present another point of view later on, but we have said time and
again that such a committee is absolutely necessary and we will
keep on saying so till the situation is corrected.
It is the responsibility of members elected by voters who
trusted them to represent them effectively and keep an eye on
such brazen squandering of public funds. The members of this
House and of some committees are better suited for such a task
than the civil servants since they are accountable to those who
elected them. They would see to it that the various programs
really reach their targets and that the government manages
public funds with equity, effectiveness and thrift.
I know the present government has some reservations
concerning our proposal for the creation of such a committee
which would examine and review government expenditures item
by item. The Liberals have suggested we expand the mandate of
the Public Accounts Committee. We would agree, but only if the
rules governing the committee are modified.
Our party insists on giving the Public Accounts Committee
the following terms ef reference: to analyze and examine the
whole of government spending, item by item, in order to present
to the House a review of various programs, with the power to
gather any information or financial data necessary to carry out
its mandate. Officials and political staff members of
departments and Crown corporations should be obliged to
testify in front of the committee if asked to do so and give it all
the information requested. I think that would be the fair way to
go about it.
A consensus seems to be possible. The Reform Party wants to
develop a government spending management plan, and we
would accept such a proposal under the conditions I just
mentioned. For once, we should set an example and agree about
it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Before going to
questions and comments to the member for Lotbinière we will
be returning to questions and comments to the hon. Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I have a
question for the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions.
In terms of monitoring the budget as it progresses from today
into the fiscal year, what mechanisms are in place that trigger
the government to come back to this assembly to deal with such
problems as revenue projections off track?
That could happen on the basis of two things. The first is the
cigarette tax reduction and the potential reduction in taxes on
liquor across this nation. There is tremendous pressure for that.
Second, marketplace interest rates increase significantly.
Because of those two factors we would see our deficit moving
from $39.7 billion to over the $40 billion mark.
What mechanisms are in place to trigger a reaction by the
government in the House?
I want to say two more things to the minister. First, I
appreciate we are going to have a review this fall, but that is a
long time into the fiscal year to wait to react.
(1300 )
Second, the concern I have with regard to the government's
approach is that there were much appreciated cuts but at the
same time they were replaced by new expenditures. I do not feel
this really came to grips with fiscal accountability.
I would appreciate the minister remarking on the question and
the remarks.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Madam Speaker, there are a number
of items in the question.
On monitoring the revenue projections and the expenditures,
this is done very easily by the publications put out monthly and
quarterly by the Department of Finance. These are published
and made available widely across the country. Any member can
follow those projections easily.
The question of whether the revenue projections will be off
track is a question that concerned us in the preparation of the
budget. That is why we took a very prudent view of the forecasts
this year. We took the lower end of the private sector forecasts.
The private sector forecasts for this year ranged from 2.9 per
cent to 4.3 per cent economic growth. We took a 3 per cent
number in our projections and we did the same lower estimates
for future years as well.
These are very prudent projections. These are taken at the low
end. It is very likely that our revenue projections will be low, not
high. It is very likely that our spending projections will be in
line or lower as well.
As far as interest rates are concerned, the interest rate
projections we used are again very prudent, we assumed higher
than private sector estimates presented to us in December and
since then by the groups of private sector economists. I have
spent 27 years looking at interest rate forecasts. Believe me, if
the hon. member would like to tell me exactly what interests
2205
rates are going to be over the next 12 months, I would be glad to
listen. If he did know he would not be sitting in the House. He
would be out making himself a few million dollars.
I guess my message is we do not know what interest rates are
going to be over the next year. Nobody does. We make a very
prudent estimate of what they are. We have set aside funds to
look after any errors on them. We will very likely come in on a
deficit number well under the number we have projected.
[Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member. I have one question and
one comment relating to the part where he said that the
government has set firm fiscal targets-I believe these are the
words he used.
Given the debt and the deficit we are faced with, it is of
paramount importance to set firm targets when it comes to
taxation, but at the same time he mentioned revenues. I would
like to ask the member if its really possible to get the debt and
the deficit under control without creating more jobs, since it is
obvious that the lack of revenue is directly linked with the
present unemployment rate.
Does the hon. member agree that it is as important for the
government to set targets, in its forecasts, regarding job creation
and the reduction of the debt and the deficit, and to balance
them, giving people a chance to examine the government's
agenda and its targets concerning unemployment?
(1305 )
[English]
Mr. Peters: Madam Speaker, the question raised by the hon.
member is an interesting one. We did face those questions
squarely in the budget.
There are definitely spending cuts but there are also job
creation programs. It was a balanced approach of both job
creation and fiscal responsibility. It was done because that was
the only way that one could achieve an adequate result in deficit
reduction.
The Reform Party's program that simply slashes and cuts will
not work because it will backfire and we will get higher
unemployment. We need a combination. We need to get both the
jobs to pay the taxes and an efficient government.
As far as providing targets for unemployment, that is an
interesting proposal. It is very difficult to target that item. There
are so many variables that enter into the unemployment
numbers.
We are looking at an unemployment rate that has dropped
marginally since this government took office, but it is still very
high. If one adds to that the discouraged worker effects and the
other effects, one will probably get an unemployment rate close
to 15 per cent which is a terrible number.
The speed with which the discouraged workers return to the
workforce is unknown. It is very difficult to forecast that
number. Therefore we could have a sharp drop in the
unemployment rate and still many discouraged workers or we
could have the discouraged workers moving very quickly into
the workforce and have rising unemployment even though job
creation was growing at a substantial rate.
We do not have a target in that but my personal feeling is that
the only acceptable target for any political party is that every
Canadian looking for work should have a job available to them.
That is a long way off but that is the political target.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to direct the
question and comment session now to the hon. member for
Lotbinière.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, to the hon.
member for Lotbinière, in my remarks earlier today I made the
point that the Quebec election followed by a potential
referendum would have a major effect on the 1994-95 fiscal
budget of the Government of Canada.
The comment of the hon. minister was that we will have an
election and that is the normal process in our democracy in
Canada. I can agree with that. It is true but this is rather an
abnormal and unusual circumstance that would be an aberration
in the election process and how the election process would affect
the budget or the economy of our nation.
I would appreciate a comment from the member on how he
sees the current 1994-95 budget affected by an election in
Quebec and the position of his party with regard to an
independent Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Madam Speaker, obviously
an election is looming on the horizon in Quebec and clearly a
major movement is emerging at the present time in the province.
I listened to my colleague speak of democracy and I believe that
in Quebec there is also a similar process of democracy. In the
upcoming election and referendum, the people will be called
upon to make a choice, through a democratic process.
(1310)
When the hon. member speaks of a strain on the economy, I
for one do not believe that the economy will suffer. The hon.
member must know that the federal government and the
provinces have been examining for some time now the issue of
overlap and duplication. It is not a question of saying that
Quebec wants to separate. That is not the point at all. You can
rest assured that when Quebec decides democratically to
become sovereign-you can forget the word separation because
since coming to this House, all we hear is separation and we are
not separatists at all-you can rest assured that when Quebec
decides to take charge of its own destiny as a nation, an
economic union will be forged.
2206
This fact is never mentioned. It goes without saying that there
will be an economic union and I believe that this will be an
extremely positive development. Let me tell you something.
When I was a boy, my father travelled across Canada, from east
to west, doing business. When he returned from conferences in
the west, from Vancouver and elsewhere, he would say to me:
``Jean, do you know which regions are the most
separatist-minded?'' I would answer: ``No, dad, which ones?''
And he would say: ``The western regions. I have just returned
from a three-day, or one-week, business trip out west''.
Believe me when I say that this is our goal. From an economic
and monetary standpoint, we want to assure you-and this is one
of the reasons why the leader of our party went to the United
States, to reassure the Americans-that there will be no barriers
or borders, as there were between East Germany and West
Germany. Right now, we already have tariff barriers between
Quebec and Ontario or the other Canadian provinces and I would
like to see these barriers removed. Quebec wants to do away
with them.
If we can eliminate these barriers while acting as serious,
honest individuals, and if we can make the people of Canada and
Quebec understand Quebec's economic viewpoint and
resources, we can be good friends and partners. Personally, I
will always work with Canada and Quebec. Rest assured that I
will be honest and frank. If we explain our position clearly, all
Canadians and Quebecers will be reassured.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Madam Speaker, I rise
in response to the challenges which were laid out but sadly not
met by the finance minister in his budget speech and to speak in
favour of the motion that is now before the House.
Canada's federal debt has given birth to the vandals that
ravage the Canadian economy: bankruptcy, ruinous taxation,
crumbling social programs and dehumanizing unemployment.
Interest payments on the debt consume a third of every tax dollar
from taxpayers who are already among the highest taxed people
in the world.
Our level of foreign debt for all levels of government now
approaches 50 per cent. We are particularly vulnerable to
financial chaos should investors grow concerned about our
stability and withdraw their funds. They are concerned. Thus
our soft underbelly lies exposed.
Time after time bond rating services caution us about getting
our spending under control. Two provinces, Saskatchewan and
Newfoundland, teeter on the brink of fiscal crisis. Canadian
investors vote with dollars, and with the stability of our
economy in question they are increasingly looking south, to
Europe and to the Pacific Rim to invest their money or they
move their trade to the underground economy beyond the maw
of the insatiable tax man.
Meanwhile the uncertainty that surrounds the future of
Quebec has driven up the premium that investors demand on
their money to the point at which some analysts say we pay an
extra $6 billion a year in interest on the debt. As always those
investors are ready to flee our country to more capital friendly
regimes at the very first sign of trouble.
This is the grim reality unadorned by the charming optimism
that formed the minister's budget speech. The budget merely
tinkers with the problem of the deficit. Some mild spending
cuts, some tax increases and a lot of luck will leave us with a still
untenable $40 billion deficit. To be kind, it is an effort that is left
wanting.
(1315 )
I hasten to point out that the government deserves
congratulations in a few of the measures it has taken. Apparently
it is no longer politically incorrect as it was during the election
to suggest that social programs need not be universal.
The reduction of UI benefits for some, the targeting of
benefits for others and the subsequent removal of January's UI
premium hike are all welcome moves. In their modest ways they
will improve the economy. However much more needs to be
done to mollify the fears of investors, both domestic and
foreign, and of taxpayers to encourage them to stay in Canada
and to remain in the above-ground economy.
The Reform plan focuses on judicious and humane spending
cuts, cuts first to the top levels of government starting with MPs
and senators. Including but not limited to it would be immediate
and radical reform of MPs pensions. This pension plan is so
unjust and so motivated by greed it is beyond belief that the
Prime Minister has feebly attempted to defend it on several
occasions in this place.
We advocate cuts to grants and subsidies for big business and
special interests. We advocate the targeting of social programs
to those most in need with the retention of the present levels of
funding for education, health care and the core of the pension
programs. We also advocate that unemployment insurance be
administered and funded solely by employers and employees on
an equal basis.
The effect of these cuts to government operations, the
elimination of subsidies and grants and targeted social spending
would be to reduce spending by about $20 billion a year. This
combined with growth in the economy would bring us to a
balanced budget or close to it after three years.
2207
Naturally we therefore support a cap on spending as is
advocated in this motion. We support the elimination of the
infrastructure program and the other measures listed in this
motion.
Let me talk more specifically about a single department and
the measures which can be undertaken in that one area to bring
spending under control. As a member of the Canadian heritage
committee I am aghast that this department was almost
completely overlooked in the government's initiative to cut
spending.
It is no exaggeration to say that no other department has more
vague, nebulous and implausible objectives than this one.
Building understanding, striving for equality, preserving one's
culture and appreciating our Canadian heritage are all noble
goals and things we should all strive for as individuals.
Generally speaking however these are areas where government
is in way over its head.
Despite the billions and billions of dollars spent on official
bilingualism in this country there are no more and perhaps fewer
bilingual Canadians than 20 years ago. This is a failure by any
standard. Because Canadians resent the heavy hand of
government, official bilingualism has served to divide us along
linguistic lines.
Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into
official multiculturalism, racial tensions are hitting new
heights. That is also a failure by any standard. The sense that
government favours certain minorities serves to divide us along
racial lines.
Despite the billions of dollars poured into subsidizing and
protecting Canadian culture, more and more we see Canadians
gobbling up American TV, music and movies. Even CBC TV has
acquiesced. With great embarrassment I am sure, it is forced to
run American sitcoms to capture viewers. This too, by any
conceivable standard, is a failure on a grand scale.
Just as important, Canadians are left to assume that this
government intervention must mean our culture is inferior to
culture from elsewhere. Or again, they simply resent the
government's show of favouritism to the selected few, harbour
their grudges and thus another division is created.
Why in the world does the government continue down this
path that is so littered with failure? The $2.8 billion spent in the
Department of Canadian Heritage could be cut by two-thirds.
Average Canadians not only would not be hurt by it, they would
probably stand and cheer out of gratitude for the tax dollars it
would save them.
The problem is as plain as the nose on the Prime Minister's
face. We have a very serious problem of overspending in the
federal government. Our country is hemorrhaging red ink.
(1320 )
Let us not be fooled by a temporary upturn in our economic
fortunes. The next few months may signal a stronger economy
but to assume that the economic battle has been won is just
whistling in the dark. The debt is always lurking nearby ready to
drag us down at the first opportunity.
I ask the government to acknowledge the obvious problems I
point to and to act immediately to reduce its overall spending in
accordance with the motion before us.
I neglected to mention at the beginning of my talk that I would
like the time to be divided pursuant to Standing Order 43(2).
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Madam Speaker, the
media entrepreneur, Ted Turner of CNN fame, has a plaque on
his desk which reads: ``You can lead or you can follow, but if you
are not going to lead, get out of the way''.
I want to speak about leadership. There is a leadership
vacuum in this country on the issue of compliance with taxation
rules. Canadians have lost confidence in the ability of their
governments to get spending under control. Therefore they have
increasingly turned their backs on tax compliance and instead
have become involved in aggressive tax avoidance. Tax
avoidance takes place illegally and legally, but why would
Canadians have reached the point of being prepared to break the
law and potentially suffer the consequences?
Let me make my position very clear. I am not in any way
condoning or excusing tax avoidance. If the government does
not have the income then providing services to people and even
the servicing of our national debt will become impossible.
Furthermore, if we do not have respect for the laws of Canada,
including taxation laws then we have anarchy. Therefore the
epidemic of tax avoidance is an issue far larger than the issue of
missing revenue.
We need to have leadership by example. We must show
ordinary Canadians that people involved in the political process,
members of Parliament, members of the government, cabinet
ministers, are prepared to lead by example.
Many of us in this House are aware of single income families
where the homemaker babysits one or two of the neighbour's
kids but does not declare the income. There are housekeepers
who clean the homes and toilets of others but again are not
declaring the income. We are also aware of tradesmen who are
avoiding the GST, in fact any taxation, simply by not declaring
the value of their work. These people need to be shown sacrifice
and leadership by members of the House of Commons, including
the cabinet.
2208
That is all part of the so-called underground economy. It is
growing at a phenomenal rate. Yet the vast majority of these
people desire to be law abiding citizens. In all other areas of
their lives they obey the laws of Canada. So I ask: Who is going
to lead them?
Many businesses have a friendly, approachable and helpful
demeanour toward their customers and clients. This helpfulness
is carried out by the staff. Can you imagine that the president of
the company is not also friendly, approachable and helpful? In
other words, the staff takes the lead from the example set by the
chief executive officer. If a firm is open, honest and
straightforward in its dealings with suppliers, the government
and its customers, we can safely assume the leadership of the
firm will also be honest and straightforward.
The bottom line is that Canadians are prepared to comply with
reasonable tax laws, reasonable laws respecting taxation. When
members of this House and the government lead by example,
Canadians will follow. This is the reason the Reform Party has
the unrelenting objective of straightening up the MPs pension
plan.
The Liberal red book specifically states:
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in
society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be
restored.
Whether by accident or design, politicians from the House
have historically told Canadians that the MPs pension plan did
not cost the Canadian taxpayer any money, that it was
self-funding.
(1325 )
Any reasonable individual looking at the numbers concluded
that members were mistaken in their assertions. It would be
impossible to support the luxury of the MPs plan solely from the
members' contributions. Only two weeks ago it was revealed
that in 1992 Canadians forked over $158 million to top up the
MPs pension plan and a further $12 million in 1993. The
Canadian public is rightfully outraged at this excessiveness but
are beyond outrage when they understand they have been duped.
As recently as the election the former member for Kootenay
East was protesting loud and long that his pension plan was fair
and reasonable. Yet the Prime Minister has said in the House he
would correct the situation sometime before the next election.
That is some time in the next four years. Is it only during
elections that members of Parliament are answerable to
Canadians or listen to them?
If Canadians are looking for leadership by example why will
the Prime Minister not immediately alter the MPs pension plan
to reflect a pension plan that would be available to any other
member of the public? There must be leadership by example.
Members of Parliament who choose to stonewall this issue in my
judgment are doing a major disservice to this parliamentary
institution.
We have spoken today about illegal tax avoidance. I would
like to raise the issue of legal tax avoidance as shown in a
newspaper article by Tim Naumetz of Sterling News Service.
This very solidly falls under the issue of leadership by example.
In documents filed under the conflict of interest and
post-employment code for public office holders a cabinet
minister has revealed he has six companies registered in Liberia
among his many holdings.
Let me make my position crystal clear on this issue. I am not
stating nor suggesting or even implying there is any legal
wrongdoing on the part of this cabinet minister. I also recognize
the practices illustrated here may very well be standard
practices in the shipping business. However within the shipping
business I ask why ships are registered in Bermuda and Liberia
rather than in Canada.
That is just one example of legal tax avoidance which brings
into question the whole issue of fairness in our tax system.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would remind the
member that the tack he has been taking is very borderline with
regard to parliamentary procedure and acceptable parliamentary
conversation. Would the hon. member please be careful.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will dispense with
the balance of my speech in deference to your advice save to
conclude if I may.
Canadians rightfully are looking for parliamentarians to lead
by example. At the end of the day, unless there are substantial
changes on the part of the majority of members of Parliament
and members of the cabinet in the next four years, Canadians
will rise up and say in a very loud voice: You can lead or you can
follow, but if you are not going to lead get out of the way.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Madam
Speaker, in response to the two hon. members who have just
spoken I suggest that the 400,000 youth who have been
unemployed for the last two years are looking for employment.
The budget deals with that in creating the youth corps.
The infrastructure program which is in progress arose out of
concerns for municipalities which cannot fund the infrastructure
work alone.
The rehabilitation assistance program has arisen out of the
needs of seniors on fixed incomes.
That is why this budget addresses fair, realistic approaches to
all Canadians. Today's headline is: ``66,000 jobs return''. That
is leadership and it is coming from this government.
2209
(1330 )
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the youth of the
country may very well hold this government accountable for the
fact that it is passing on the spending of today to Canadian
citizens to be paid for out of their income at some future point in
time.
Constant deficit spending absolutely ties down and chains up
the present youth of Canada.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Madam Speaker, before I begin my
remarks in this debate, I wish to convey my sincere
congratulations to you on your elevation to the chair. I wish you
luck in your deliberations over the next number of years.
As you probably recall, Madam Speaker, in another
Parliament I had some familiarity with opposition motions.
While in opposition we would examine the policies of the
government and of course make our pronouncements and our
suggestions to the House and to the Canadian people.
One thing I learned as an opposition member in drafting
opposition motions is that if we have something to say,
something shall we say substantive, we come to the point and we
say it. I do not wish to question the efficacy of the length of the
votable opposition motion here today, but I see it has a
preamble, a part (a), part (b), part (c) and part (d). I see that part
(a) has several subparts: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine.
If one really has something substantive to say to the Canadian
people, it does not necessarily follow that one has to use all
those words to say exactly what one means. The distinguished
member who moved the motion has a long public career in the
politics of this nation and in particular in the politics of one
province. I am disappointed that he would bring forward such a
votable motion. I thought he would have taken the route of
putting something which is very clear, very substantive on the
floor of the House of Commons and then give us his view.
I heard his colleague moments ago. I did not bring into
question the issue of relevancy which is covered by the standing
orders, but it had very little to do with the motion which was
before us. It leads me to conclude, and I may be wrong because I
have been wrong on occasion before-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dingwall: Well, okay, I have never been wrong. Surely an
opposition party wishing to become the national Government of
Canada did not have to put all of those words. It could have been
clear and unequivocal unless of course one is trying to use the
shotgun approach.
I am saddened that hon. members opposite have seen fit to
bring forward this particular motion and focus on an element of
society who look to governments, and note I use the plural and
not the singular word, for assistance. They sit in their wonderful
parliamentary offices. They eat food from the parliamentary
restaurants. They take their fat paycheques home to their
constituencies. They wear their Gucci shoes, their Boss suits
and their tailor made shirts, but they are the first crowd to say to
low income Canadians that they want to do away with the RRAP,
a rehabilitation program for people on low incomes.
(1335)
What sort of intestinal fortitude do members opposite have to
do that? Hon. members have had their say and as sure as God is
our creator, I am going to have my say. They can yell and catcall
all they wish but the point remains that members of the Reform
Party stand in this House and mould expressions with regard to
assisting Canadians on one hand and then stand in their place
and do the exact opposite, which is to take away from those
Canadians who deserve assistance, leadership and the
compassion of the Government of Canada as well as all other
governments across this country.
Part of this mammoth opposition motion that one could never
put on a marquis, that one could never get into a one-line
sentence, says that they want to get rid of the RRAP. That is one
thing they want to do. What is the other? They want to get rid of
the national infrastructure program.
Perhaps hon. members later in the discourse will have an
opportunity to rise in their place and correct the record, but I
thought when the Reform Party talks about democracy and the
will of the Canadian people, that was paramount in their
deliberations. That is what they say on Fridays but on Mondays
it is a different thing.
Today they want to rid us of the national infrastructure
program. Provincial governments, municipal governments,
numerous councillors in every region of Canada, and provincial
MLAs commissioned by votes in the respective legislatures
support overwhelmingly the objectives of the national
infrastructure program, but we have here today the Reform Party
members once again speaking out of both sides of their mouth,
saying on Friday that democracy and the will of the people is
paramount, but when the Government of Canada delivers the
goods with regard to servicing that constituency, it is they and
they alone who protest.
I suggest there is a reason for that confined to opposition
parties, particularly those that are on the rump side of the House
2210
and not necessarily the official opposition, which is to try to
play all sides and cater to all sides whenever convenient.
Hon. members must realize that members on this side of the
House, provincial governments, municipalities, individuals,
construction companies, reasonable Canadians both young and
old support overwhelmingly the national infrastructure
program.
The hon. member will rise in his place and provide us with a
quote that says that so and so from somewhere in Canada is
opposed. However the fact remains that Canadians
overwhelmingly support the national infrastructure program.
I say to the Reform Party members that if they do not want
moneys spent in their constituencies as they relate to the
national infrastructure program and if they have their province
on side, why do they not do the honourable thing? Why do they
not stand in their place and say to the people of their riding that
there are no moneys in this area of Canada for the national
infrastructure program? That is if they have the intestinal
fortitude. I ask the hon. member opposite who reads his book,
reads his ``Quorum'', flips his glasses, who wishes to catcall
from his seat: ``Do you have the intestinal fortitude to turn it
down?'' The hon. member will have an opportunity later to give
us his answer. I say to the hon. member through you, Madam
Speaker, that there are numerous members on this side of the
House who will take that money and spend it on behalf of
Canadians.
(1340)
I am always reluctant to enter into debate, but I have to say on
the floor of the House of Commons in terms of the motion that is
before us that there are two things on which I would like to
comment as they relate to this mammoth opposition motion.
Third is the youth services corps. This is the same crowd that
puts their hands over their chests, stands on guard for Canada,
and says they are all in favour of motherhood and apple pie,
which I am too. However, when it comes to providing some
economic assistance to youth in this country, who are the first to
oppose it? The Reform Party of Canada.
Perhaps I am incorrect. Perhaps it really is not the Reform
Party of Canada. Perhaps it is just the Reform Party that happens
to represent an area of Canada and not all of Canada. That is the
issue.
[Translation]
This government's vision of Canada includes all Canadians,
irrespective of their income, their language or their social
status. Our vision is that of a country where everyone enjoys
some quality of life, a country where we are responsible for the
well-being of others and where people still have hope both for
themselves and for their children.
There is no doubt in my mind that this vision is tied to the
provision of decent housing to all Canadians. Also, there is no
question of excluding certain people from this vision just on
account of the fact that they need help to meet their basic
housing needs.
[English]
I am saddened that members opposite would use this
opportunity, a privilege which I would say to the mover of the
motion is only granted to a select few Canadians who have
earned the right to sit in this Chamber and voice the concerns
they believe to be important in public policy matters affecting
this nation. I for one would never, ever disagree with hon.
members opposite exercising that fundamental right. But having
agreed to exercise that right, do not be fooled into thinking that
those of us on this side of the House are consenting or in any way
agreeing with the public musings nor the contents of the
resolution which have been put forward by the Reform Party of
Canada.
We in the Liberal Party oppose now and will continue to
oppose these Draconian, inarticulate, vague concepts of public
policy as they confront Canada. The hon. member may laugh. He
has that right. I say to him that those who have been elected to
this side of the House also have the right to stand in this place
and stand for Canadians who want assistance, leadership and
economic activity from their government.
In this recent budget we have provided that leadership and we
have provided that direction. I find it unacceptable for members
of the Reform Party to waltz in here and put a motion before the
people of Canada which I suggest is nothing more than griping at
its best. They have not provided alternatives. They have not
spoken to the real issues which affect Canadians. Yes, deficits
are important, but it is not the only thing that confronts
Canadians. To suggest otherwise is being totally irresponsible as
a member of an opposition party.
(1345)
It would be equally irresponsible for those of us on this side of
the House not to talk about deficits. We have talked about
deficits. We said in the campaign, in the throne speech and now
in the budget that all of our commitments in the red book have
now been put into effect and we are moving in the direction we
said we would with regard to deficit control.
I find it unacceptable that a seasoned member who has
experience in public life would raise on the floor of the House of
Commons the chopping of our youth, chopping our senior
citizens and low income Canadians and dissipating and doing
away with the national infrastructure program which is a
program needed, wanted and delivered by the government.
I want to talk about several other issues since hon. members
dared to tread that line. They talked about pensions. They said:
``How terrible it is for members of Parliament to receive
pensions''. The Prime Minister said clearly and unequivocally:
``Yes, that matter will be addressed''. However, was that
sufficient enough for members of the Reform Party? No that was
not
2211
sufficient enough. They continuously raise the issue of pension
reform when they know the matter is being given due
consideration by the appropriate authorities and at that time
they will have an opportunity to address that particular issue.
However, what do we hear? We hear that if this is not
corrected the heavens will fall and the country will disappear.
That is the way in which they paint the issue. That is not to
suggest that the hon. member's points deserve consideration.
Again, as I said with the national infrastructure program, they
should be careful and prudent in the way in which they present
their arguments because a number of Canadians perceive,
perhaps quite rightly and or indeed quite wrongly, that the
Reform Party is nothing-these are not my words and I want to
be very clear because I do not wish to be
unparliamentary-more than a bunch of antis:
anti-immigration, anti-French, anti-regional development,
anti-seniors, anti-women, anti-youth. That may be unfair or it
may be fair, it could be unfair but then again it may be fair. These
are not my words, that is what Canadians tell me from time to
time as I travel the country.
Let us not be unfair. Let us be fair and let us say that the
resolution which the hon. member put down is not deserving of
the support of members on this side of the House. It is not
deserving of support of members on that side of the House.
Certainly it is not deserving of the support of the member's own
political party. I am sure that in exercising their free vote they
want to be fair, not unfair. They will exercise their free vote and
they will vote against this particular resolution put forward by
my colleague opposite.
(1350 )
Finally, in closing-I will probably get a few questions, at
least I hope I will-I want to say to members opposite that when
they are developing an opposition motion they should give it
some more thought, do their homework, go back and think what
it is they want to accomplish. Do not put it in vague
terminology; long, windy, whiny sentences. Do not do that.
Their grade seven English teacher, my grade seven English
teacher, would tell us that when we are writing a composition or
a resolution. Chop it down, be focused, be specific before
bringing opposition motions before the House of Commons for
adjudication by members and ultimately by the people of
Canada.
But to say, as the hon. member did in his remarks, and to
imply in the resolution that somehow it is low income Canadians
who benefit from RRAP, that somehow it is disabled Canadians
who benefit from the residential rehabilitation assistance
program, who are the cause of the deficit, that they, the weakest
members of our society, should not have leadership from their
governments, is a pretty gutless way really to represent
Canadians. I mean there is nothing tough, is there? Is there
anything tough? Is there anything really tough about saying this
to senior citizens who happen to be disabled?
I will close with this message. Today I received a letter from a
lady who has multiple sclerosis, and she is going to be a
beneficiary of the RRAP disabled program announced by the
Minister of Finance. If the hon. member is saying to those kinds
of Canadians that yes, they are the ones that we want to chop off
and that yes, they are the ones who do not deserve any attention
from the Government of Canada, let him say it. Do not do it in a
phony motion, comprised of many words written by some staffer
in the back rooms of his political party. Have the intestinal
fortitude to come to the floor of the House of Commons and say
to disabled Canadians, low income Canadians, the youth, the
municipalities, councillors across this country that the programs
we put into effect are not necessary and are not needed by
Canadians.
If not, the hon. member should do the honourable thing.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Madam Speaker, I
have a very brief question. I am very impressed by the form of
the speech from the minister, maybe not the content but
certainly the form. I was just wondering whether he has recently
made an application to join the Shakespearian troupe in
Stratford.
Mr. Dingwall: I will keep it in mind.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Madam Speaker, I appreciated
very much the presentation of the member opposite. In
particular I enjoyed his lesson on the use of brevity of words.
That was very interesting to me.
I would like to make a comment. He mentioned that we are
here to represent our constituents and he gave us a little bit of a
tirade about how we are misrepresenting this democratic
responsibility. I report to the House that I represent my
constituents when I support a motion like this one. I have had
people express to me great concern about the amount of debt and
deficit. I have had people tell me that they do not support the
infrastructure program but they feel blackmailed by a federal
government which with a $2 billion commitment has forced a
province to match it and the municipalities to match it. They are
opposed to going into further debt and they are opposed to
further borrowing. Consequently I do represent my constituents
when I say we want to put a cap on spending. We want to reduce
it.
(1355)
I had a conversation with one of my constituents this weekend
in which we discussed this point. I did a little calculation and
found that a deficit of $40 billion is taking us into debt in this
year alone to the amount of $500 per family per month and that
is a huge concern.
2212
I believe I have used my time allotment and I will stop.
Mr. Dingwall: Madam Speaker, that was an excellent
intervention by the hon. member for Elk Island. I am sorry,
because the hon. member has just given, and I know it was not
intentional, facts to the House from his particular vantage point.
The hon. member should check the record.
The national infrastructure program was not the creature of
national political parties. The national infrastructure program
came from municipalities en masse in all of the provinces and
territories. The hon. member shakes his head. If his particular
province does not wish to take part in the national infrastructure
program he should have said that to his premier who signed on
the dotted line on December 21, 1993.
Furthermore, the hon. member has made reference to
representing his constituents. I applaud the hon. member for
representing his constituents. I say to the hon. member that he
was not elected to be a weather vane, to check the political winds
to see whether they like this or they like that. Since my colleague
is a great student of Shakespeare, his colleague might be a great
student of one of the great philosophers Edmund Burke who
said: ``You owe your constituency and constituents much more
than your industry. You owe them your judgment''.
It is our judgment as a national political party that a national
infrastructure program is needed by Canadians, wanted by
Canadians and we as a national political party are delivering on
that commitment.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now
proceed to statements by members, pursuant to Standing Order
31.
_____________________________________________
2212
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
my statement today is under the heading ``Good news gets better
with the Liberal government''.
I am extremely happy to rise at this moment to make mention
of a few encouraging points from last month's labour force
survey. The survey has indicated a decrease in the
unemployment rate while an increase in the help wanted index
has grown. The help wanted index of job advertisements rose for
the fourth time in the last five months, the largest increase of the
recovery. I was particularly encouraged by the strong gains in
employment in sectors that had experienced recent declines,
such as manufacturing and retail trades.
The other good news is that all regions of the country
experienced growth in the employment rate. In my province of
Ontario alone 11,000 new jobs were created. The government's
commitment is to put-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of all Quebecers, I would like to extend today my heartfelt
congratulations to one of our own athletes who won the giant
slalom yesterday at the world junior alpine skiing
championships in Lake Placid. I am referring to, you have
guessed it, young Mélanie Turgeon.
(1400)
It was not Mélanie's first medal at the championships either.
She had already reached the podium twice before; first winning
a silver medal in Super G, and then bronze in downhill.
Yesterday's victory puts Mélanie in the overall lead at the
championships. Another event is scheduled for today: slalom. I
want to wish her, personally and on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, the best of luck. We are proud of you, Mélanie. Go
for it!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
since the government's anti-smuggling measures were
announced, several Manitoba border crossings have been open
24 hours a day. This only sends a clear message to smugglers to
avoid these border crossings.
In addition, extra customs officers must be kept on duty at
night at each crossing because of the extra hours. The only
increased traffic at these crossings has been in the form of
vehicles going south to the United States to take advantage of
cheap U.S. liquor, food and gasoline.
Revenue is being taken out of the pockets of Manitoba
businesses and sent over the border. Everyone agrees we should
be concentrating on a decrease in smuggling, but instead the
local RCMP which is already understaffed has to contend with
increased smuggling of not only cigarettes but liquor and guns.
Would it not make more sense to close down the customs ports
at night and increase the RCMP personnel to create better border
patrol? This would show real action against smuggling and
would keep more Canadian dollars at home.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, although last Wednesday was specifically designated
as International Women's Day I would like today to
acknowledge women entrepreneurs.
2213
In 1989 women founded 50 per cent of all new Canadian
businesses. In Atlantic Canada between 1984 and 1990 the
percentage of women owned businesses employing five or more
full time employees increased from 16 per cent to 28 per cent.
Women are also succeeding in existing businesses.
In my riding in 1990 a former bank worker, Lois Robarts, took
over Advocate Harbour Seafoods. She has since expanded her
sales and her processing plant and now employs five people.
That is significant considering that small businesses created 90
per cent of our region's new jobs in the 1980s.
It is imperative that the joint government-business
committees we are establishing to encourage small business be
particularly sensitive to the economic potential of Atlantic
Canadian women.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted the government has declared in its budget that it
intends to review the funding of some 500 special interest
groups which are relying on taxpayers' dollars rather than
raising their own money. The results of this review are to be
incorporated in the 1995 budget.
I hope that this review will result in ongoing cuts where
obviously warranted this year, not next. We must concentrate on
the genuinely needy now, not later.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians I
am encouraged by the reduction in Canada's national
unemployment rate in February. However it is with great
concern I report to the House that the riding of Brant was not so
fortunate.
Our monthly unemployment rate jumped from 11.7 per cent to
14.1 per cent in February, well above the provincial average of
10.7 per cent.
One way that government can address the unemployment
problems of smaller centres is by decentralizing some of its
services. In my riding, for example, we have no unique
post-secondary institution. Our level of post-secondary
education falls well below the national average.
My community could greatly be supported by the location of a
federal research and development centre or some other
technological institute or agency within its boundaries.
While I strongly support the job creation measures taken in
the budget, I believe that decentralization is another proactive
step that governments can take to create opportunities in our
smaller communities.
I encourage our government to take steps in this direction.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, the ``Mining,
an industry to support'' campaign launched by the mining
industry last September has received massive public support in
over 150 mining communities in Canada and Quebec as well as
from many other Canadians and Quebecers who are concerned
about the future of this industry.
The mining industry is one of the driving forces of the
economy and as such requires more serious attention from the
government as well as urgent action.
Canada's mineable reserves keep decreasing. But this country
cannot afford to lose an industry which contributes so much to
the national economy and to regional development. The
government must take steps to revitalize this industry. Time has
come, for example, to look at the possibility of giving
preferential tax treatment to mining flow-through shares as well
as at the need for a definition of ``research and development'' in
the Income Tax Act that would include mining exploration.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
during the last two weekends the resort community of Whistler
in my riding hosted three World Cup skiing events.
They were a great success as a result of the hard work of a
large army of volunteers, the management and employees of the
Whistler Ski Corporation, sports federations, the media and
sponsors from the private sector. Over 12,000 spectators and
many more television viewers throughout the world saw the
events.
In the women's downhill Michelle Ruthven finished third,
Kate Pace fourth and Kerrin Lee-Gartner ninth. In the men's
downhill Cary Mullen finished fifth, Rob Boyd tenth and Edi
Podivinski fourteenth. Cary Mullen also placed fifth in the
Super Giant Slalom yesterday.
Let us thank all those who have made the event such a success.
Let us congratulate those who braved one of the world's most
challenging race courses and send sleds full of roses and a hearty
thank you to those who represented Canada so well by beating
some of the world's best racers.
2214
[Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, the
official opening of the Sixth ParaOlympic Winter Games took
place last Thursday, in Lillehammer, Norway.
[English]
The Paralympic games are the premier competition for high
performance athletes with disabilities.
[Translation]
Six hundred athletes representing 31 countries are
participating in these Games, which are held from March 10 to
19.
[English]
Canada is represented by 34 athletes competing in alpine
skiing, cross-country skiing, sledge hockey, biathlon and ice
sledge racing. These athletes deserve our full support and
recognition for their hard work and commitment to their sport.
Stacy Kohut of Calgary has won Canada's first gold medal of
the Paralympics today. She was victorious in the Super G event.
Lana Spreeman of Calgary has won two bronze medals, one in
downhill skiing and the other in Super Giant Slalom. Ramona
Hot of Edmonton won a bronze in a separate downhill event.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to announce that Canada's athletes have
already won four medals at these Games.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian unity has been enhanced by the unselfish
contributions of many organizations that have worked so hard to
make Canada a better place.
One such organization is Rotary International. I was first
introduced to Rotary 12 years ago by Mr. Allan Shulman and
over the years I have been most impressed by its community
leadership role.
In recognition of Rotarians, I would like to share with the
House the Rotary International four-way test to guide what we
say, think and do:
First, is it the truth?
Second, is it fair to all concerned?
Third, will it build goodwill and better friendship?
Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned?
Rotarians reflect the true spirit of Canadians and it is because
of that spirit that Canada will always remain strong and united.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
some 3,000 people gathered to ask that the Collège militaire
royal de Saint-Jean remain open. This demonstration was truly a
show of solidarity, with residents from Saint-Jean, Montérégie,
the greater Montreal and my own riding participating.
Politicians representing all political affiliations joined in a
common front to convey the message that the French-speaking
military college in Saint-Jean must remain open.
The federal government must not make the mistake of closing
this unique institution in North America, which serves to train
military officers in their own language and milieu. The
government must reconsider its decision and have the courage to
recognize its mistake, to clearly show that French-language
institutions have their place in the federal system.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, charges of
racism have been used all too often as a means of attempting to
undermine the Reform Party. These allegations of course are
completely false and contribute nothing to the daily operations
of the House.
These allegations are based on the fact that Reformers speak
openly and honestly on issues such as Indian affairs and
immigration. The members opposite sometimes seem more
concerned about choosing politically correct words in a speech
or question than with the actual content.
Members should be able to express themselves without
looking over their shoulder for that politically correct watchdog
every time they speak. A return to basic values, including
respect and consideration regardless of gender, race or religion,
is a much needed improvement in the House.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, on pages
94 and 95 of the red book the government made a commitment to
develop a stringent code of conduct for lobbyists under the
auspices of the soon to be appointed independent ethics
counsellor.
2215
The people of Simcoe North and Canadians in general expect
substantial reform in the way lobbying is conducted. I feel the
government must go all the way, making mandatory the full
disclosure of fees, clients and the names of government officials
being lobbied for first and second tier lobbyists.
In addition the government should give serious consideration
to making the costs of lobbying non-tax deductible.
[Translation]
Canadians really appreciate the fact that this government kept
its election promises in the recent budget. With the
implementation of these reforms, they will be all the more
pleased to see that a real effort is being made to reinstill political
ethics in our parliamentary institutions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay homage to the
victims of the 1933 Ukrainian famine and make fellow
Canadians aware of this atrocious historical event.
Last year was the 50th anniversary of the famine and
Ukrainians throughout North America and Europe held special
ceremonies to commemorate the atrocities inflicted on their
people.
The famine inflicted the highest casualties during the winter
of 1932-33. While city dwellers were kept healthy and supplied
with food, the countryside was wiped clean. By the spring of
1933 people were dying at the rate of 25,000 a day. By the end of
1933 it is estimated that between six million and ten million
Ukrainians had starved to death.
Even today as Ukrainians commemorate the 50th anniversary
of the famine, the events are still largely unknown.
I realize that we cannot do anything to bring these people
back. However, we can make Canadians aware of the social and
political injustice that has been relatively unknown for too long
and ensure that such atrocities are never repeated.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend in Toronto, and for the third
consecutive year, Acadia University hockey team participated
in the National University Hockey Championship Tournament.
For a school of 3,000 students, this is a great accomplishment.
While Acadia, the defending national champions, fell just
short against the eventual winners, Lethbridge, I feel the
accomplishment of this year's team must be recognized.
Led by the CIAU's player of the year, Duane Dennis, Acadia
had an outstanding season; a season marked by dedication, hard
work and a commitment to excellence.
I am proud of the young men involved in Acadia's hockey
program and their academic achievements. I believe that the
members of this team have shown themselves to be responsible,
dedicated and hard working on the ice, in the classroom and in
the community.
Congratulations to Acadia. It has every reason to be proud of
its accomplishments.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, last week
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
announced the devolution of his department's responsibilities to
the First Nations of Canada, beginning with a demonstration
project in Manitoba.
All I can say is that it is about time. We have heard a lot in this
House about the need to define self-government.
Self-government will not be defined the same in Yukon as it is in
Manitoba because we must define it in terms of the cultural
heritage, of the various aboriginal groups that are being dealt
with. It must be an item for negotiation.
Each settlement will be defined by the history and culture of
the First Nations people. This is an extremely important
initiative and because of that I ask the minister to place before
the House a plan with clear timetables and, most important, the
financial resources to be allotted to this plan of devolution. That
will determine whether this initiative is genuine or just another
step on the highway of broken promises.
_____________________________________________
2215
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Several members of the government are attending the G-7
summit on employment held in Detroit today. According to a
government source quoted in this morning's newspapers,
Canada intends to submit to its G-7 partners a proposal to put in
place
2216
a tax credit for employers who create new jobs and for those who
save jobs.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that Canada is about to
present such a proposal, and can we expect the government to
put in place such a tax credit for employers who create new jobs
and for those who save jobs that would otherwise be threatened
by technological changes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think that the Minister of Finance will present in Detroit a
proposal on Canadian taxation. I think that the ministers who are
there today want to look with their colleagues at solutions that
could be applied in the Western world and that many ideas will
be debated, but in Detroit, the Minister of Finance will not be
making any proposals concerning Canadian taxpayers. All that
must be done in the usual way, as we did a few weeks ago when
the budget was tabled.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it is very disappointing to hear that so many ministers
went off to discuss and chat without having anything new to
propose.
I ask the Prime Minister what justifies their presence at the
G-7 summit if it is not to come up with new ideas.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
our ministers will talk about what we are trying to do here in
Canada at this time, and I imagine that the other ministers will
explain what they are trying to do in their own countries.
Unacceptable unemployment levels are now a problem
throughout the Western world. That is why President Clinton
convened this summit, so that the ministers responsible in this
area can meet and exchange ideas. And if this summit produces
new ideas that can apply to the Canadian situation, I am sure that
our ministers will be happy to take note and report to
Parliament.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we hope that the representatives at this summit will do
more than compare their respective countries' unemployment
rates. All this is not very encouraging.
Can the Prime Minister tell us today if, after the G-7 summit,
his government will introduce a real policy, a real job creation
strategy to give a little hope finally to the 1.5 million
unemployed Canadians and especially to young people, nearly
20 per cent of whom are without jobs?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that was debated in the budget debates over the last few weeks.
We explained our plans, including the infrastructure program
and the youth program. We want to make sure by changing the
nature of our social programs there is more money available for
creating jobs.
When meeting with others they discuss our approach and we
discuss their approach. That is the reason we meet with them.
We try to have good exchanges with the people involved and
thus have as much stability as possible in the western world.
Everyone agrees it is better when people talk than when they do
not.
It was a good initiative by the President of the United States to
invite all the ministers involved with labour and employment to
get together.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The government keeps saying that its real priority is job
creation. Today, a large delegation of Canadian ministers is
attending a G-7 conference which we thought would deal with
ways to stimulate employment.
In the meantime, the government maintains the
unemployment insurance premium increase which it put in
effect last January 1, and which is truly a tax on employment. In
fact, last week in this House, the Minister of Finance himself
said it was absurd.
(1420)
Does the Prime Minister agree that, if the government wants
to be logical when it talks about job creation, it must
immediately eliminate this premium increase?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this is precisely what the government has done. The previous
Conservative administration had decided that UI premiums
would go up to $3.30. We passed legislation to lower these
premiums to $3.07 for the current year, and to $3 at the
beginning of next year. So, we have done precisely that.
Again, the premiums were set at $3.30 by an act of
Parliament, but we have lowered them to $3.07 for the current
year, and to $3 as of January 1, 1995.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
Prime Minister that he implemented a decision made by the
Conservatives to lower UI premiums to $3.07 as of January
1994. He maintained the decision to set premiums at $3.07 until
next January, in order to get $800 million from Canadians.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that cancelling this
premium increase would have an immediate effect on
employment, and does he agree that if this increase is absurd, as
the Minister of Finance admitted, maintaining it is a lot more
absurd?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we would have preferred to lower premiums to $3 right away,
but we have serious budget constraints. Nevertheless, we did
reduce premiums from $3.30 down to $3.07 for this year, and to
$3 for 1995.
2217
Obviously, we would have preferred to set premiums at $3,
but it is not just a matter of pleasing people, we have to do what
we can with what we have, and the decision made by the
Minister of Finance to lower premiums to $3.07 for the first year
and to $3 for the second year was the best one that could be made
under the circumstances.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Prime Minister.
As has been already mentioned, the government is
represented at the G-7 meeting in Detroit to discuss worldwide
unemployment and underemployment. I would like to ask the
Prime Minister whether his ministers are taking any specific
proposals for job creation at all to that meeting and particularly
whether the private sector's views on job creation have been
included and are going to be presented.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is certainly what the Minister of Finance and the other
ministers will do.
We said that 85 per cent of the jobs in Canada will be created
by small and medium size businesses in the future. That is why
we have passed some legislation and made some adjustments
that will induce the private sector to create these jobs.
They will explain the technique Canada has decided to use. I
hope that others will benefit from our views.
If in the course of the discussions someone were to come up
with the miracle solution, of course we would take it, but it is a
complicated situation all over the world.
We know Canada has a problem. Some will say perhaps we
should reduce or abandon the minimum wage. Canada is not that
kind of a country. Canada does not want to have sweatshops in
order for people to have jobs. We are a civilized nation that
wants to do it the proper way. We have a good regime, but if
somebody has a better idea then we are open to it.
I am a Liberal. I am not a doctrinaire person. I borrow from
the left and I borrow from the right, as long as the solution is
right.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
we appreciate the Prime Minister's answer and we certainly
recognize that the Prime Minister borrows.
The Prime Minister made reference and the Minister of
Finance is now admitting that a $1 billion spending cut in UI
creates more jobs than a $1 billion spending increase on
infrastructure. To be consistent therefore will Canada be
recommending tax cuts as a job creation strategy at the G-7
meeting?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the infrastructure program is a very good program and will
create jobs immediately. It has been subscribed to
enthusiastically by all provincial governments and all the
municipalities, including the beautiful city of Calgary. That
good program is one part of our strategy.
We have reduced some laws passed by the Conservative
government by decreasing the level of unemployment insurance
premiums made by the private sector over the period of two
years from $3.30 to $3. That will put something like $300
million in the hands of small businesses.
However as explained earlier we have to have a balanced
approach and job creation to improve the infrastructure of the
nation. It is a good program, especially at a time when there is a
very high level of unemployment in one country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance and some members of the government
are beginning to admit that reducing tax loads is the most direct
way to create jobs. However the Minister of Human Resources
Development and to some extent the Prime Minister continue to
stress increased government spending on things like
infrastructure as the most direct way to create jobs.
At this meeting are the government ministers singing from the
same song sheet? Which approach is Canada advocating at the
G-7 meetings: government led job creation through increased
spending, or private sector led job creation through tax cuts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
both techniques were used in the last budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, a crowd of
3,000 demonstrated yesterday in Saint-Jean against the federal
government's decision to close the only French-language
military college in Canada. In a complete about-turn on this
issue, the Quebec Premier now says that the Collège militaire de
Saint-Jean must continue to exist and its military purpose be
maintained.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he confirm that
his government is presently negotiating with the Quebec
government to ensure that certain military training activities are
maintained at the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are discussing at this time with the government of Quebec
and, if this college can be used as an institution of higher
learning in the province of Quebec, we will be more than happy
to work together with the government of Quebec. No decisions
have been made. As far as we are concerned, with closures
across the country, we want to try and find ways of helping the
cities and municipalities affected in order to minimize the
impact.
2218
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand that the Prime Minister rejects the plea of the
Quebec Premier who views keeping Saint-Jean in operation as a
golden opportunity to give real substance to the Canadian
linguistic duality.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as I watched images of the demonstration yesterday, it occurred
to me that many of the people protesting were the same people
who, in 1970 or 1971 if I am not mistaken, were demonstrating
against the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean obtaining university
status or offering university certification. There were lengthy
negotiations. The University of Montreal refused under
pressure, and so did the University of Quebec. Finally and
fortunately, the University of Sherbrooke accepted. The
nationalists demonstrating yesterday were the same ones who 20
years ago did not want the Saint-Jean military college to exist
for francophones in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is recognized that science has an enormous contribution to
make to the creation of new jobs for the new economy. Yet there
has been very little reference to the role of science from the
government.
Does the government have a science policy? If so, could the
Prime Minister tell us in a nutshell what this policy is?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member does not need a nutshell; he can read the
budget. In fact we decided to increase the contribution to
science in Canada in the last budget. The hon. member should
read the red book where it says that investment in research and
development is needed to have Canada in a good position to
compete internationally in the 21st century.
(1430)
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): I have
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The previous government tried to set targets for total research
and development spending in Canada in the vicinity of 2 per cent
to 3 per cent of GDP. Could the Prime Minister tell the House the
targets for R and D spending in Canada and specifically for
departments and agencies of his government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member reads the budget he will find that.
I am happy when I see a member of the Reform Party standing
up after four months to ask the government to spend more
money. It is very refreshing to hear that. We hear that every day.
Now the reality is hitting them. So much the better.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Nearly 20 per
cent of young Quebecers and Canadians are unemployed
today-an unacceptable record of 428,000 people under 25. In
the speech from the throne, the government announced that it
wants to better prepare young people to enter the labour market.
Does the Prime Minister admit that his youth apprenticeship
program in no way meets the needs of Quebec since Quebec got
only $2 million out of a total budget of $225 million in 1993
under this program, or less than 1 per cent of the money spent?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
the situation was that bad under the former government, we
intend to rectify it. It is this government's policy to ensure that
Quebec is not treated worse than the other provinces.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Prime
Minister. The reason that Quebec gets less is that vocational
training and the education system do not include apprenticeship
courses or programs as they exist in the rest of Canada. Quebec
has a different system.
Given the failures of this program, can the Prime Minister
promise to give Quebec its fair share of the funds allocated
under this program so that Quebec can use them more
effectively, according to its own priorities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly what we are trying to do now. That is why the
Minister of Human Resources Development is having
discussions with his provincial counterpart to find an
arrangement whereby Quebec can receive its fair share and use
it effectively so that young Quebecers, like other young
Canadians, are as well prepared as possible to enter the labour
market, because it will be very difficult for them as well as for
others.
We must work co-operatively to ensure that all young
Canadians are sufficiently well prepared that we can occupy our
rightful place in the very competitive world which we will have
to face in the coming years.
2219
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The government has committed itself to establishing
aboriginal self-government in the province of Manitoba. Last
week neither the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development nor the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was
able to provide the House with a clear straightforward
definition of aboriginal self-government.
Will the Prime Minister, as head of the government and as a
former minister of Indian affairs, please give the House his
definition of aboriginal self-government, particularly as it
relates to Manitoba?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
will take the question but I know that my minister for
federal-provincial relations gave the answer last week.
When we negotiate with a group of people about what should
be the status of running their own affairs, we cannot give the
final decision before it has been negotiated.
What are the goals of the government? They are not very
complicated. I was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Affairs Development for more than six years. I know that we
need a different regime where we can delegate to them the
authority to make their own decisions. I have said time and again
that we made a lot of mistakes. Perhaps the time has come to let
them make some mistakes themselves by giving them the
authority to decide locally regarding education, welfare,
housing, economic development and not have them wait for
instructions from bureaucrats in Ottawa.
(1435)
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, as a
supplementary question, will the federal government after
having arrived at this definition in some way then allow the
aboriginal peoples and all the peoples in Manitoba to voice their
approval or disapproval of the example through a system of
referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
every member of the House has been elected to make decisions.
There will be a vote in the House of Commons. I do not believe
that every time we have a difficult problem in Canada we wash
our hands of it by having a referendum. That is not my way.
Tough decisions have to be made by government. If we do not
make the right decisions it is up to the electors to tell us in the
next election. It is democracy that is best. It is complicated
enough in that area. If we let a huge majority decide in a
complicated situation like this where there are some tensions
between different races, it is not a good way to solve it. The best
way is for every one of us to take our own responsibility, vote in
the House of Commons and live with the judgment we have
expressed on behalf of our electors in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The takeover of
Ginn Publishing by the American company Paramount
continues to stir up controversy. In the meantime, the
government persists in concealing the identity of the person
who made the verbal commitment allowing this transaction to
take place.
Under his great transparency policy, does the Prime Minister
not find it disturbing and even unhealthy that Parliament cannot
know the identity of the person behind the verbal commitment
that derailed the established policy on ownership of Canadian
cultural industries? Who is the government protecting in this
affair?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, there was a very
complete statement given on the Gin question by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. The
member will find it on page 1838 of Hansard. To summarize, we
had a legal responsibility to enter into this contract and it was
done. It was left to us by the previous government.
What our government did was get a better deal. It improved
the deal by putting in Canadian content requirements, author
requirements and distribution requirements. It was a great deal
for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, I would have thought that a transparent policy means
not having anything to hide and answering the questions that are
asked. We asked for a name. We did not get it.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is trying to hide his
abdication of responsibility in this affair behind the changes to
the Baie-Comeau policy made by the Tories in 1992. To avoid
repeating that mess, can the Prime Minister make a commitment
today to fully restore the provisions of the Baie-Comeau policy
protecting Canadian ownership of cultural industries?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the question that has
been raised is interesting. The decision was made in 1989 when
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was in the cabinet. Maybe he
has some special information on the deal that he would like to
share with the House. That was when the situation arose and that
was the responsibility of the previous government. If the
member is looking for responsibility, look right in the front row
of your own party.
2220
(1440 )
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
There are currently a number of rail lines or subdivisions in
the province of Ontario undergoing an abandonment procedure
through the National Transportation Agency. In my riding,
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, the NTA is to rule on
the abandonment of the Meaford subdivision which runs from
Barry to Collingwood. There are prospective buyers interested
in purchasing the line but they are hesitant as a result of the
Ontario labour legislation known as Bill 40.
What proactive steps has the Minister of Transport taken with
the Ontario government to ensure that rail lines are not torn out
of the ground before this critical issue is resolved in order to
ensure a solid and diversified transportation infrastructure?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I want to be very clear in my answer to my colleague with
respect to any proactive steps we might take with the
Government of Ontario. We obviously have to respect the
jurisdiction of the Government of Ontario in this matter.
However I would like to tell my friend that there were a number
of companies indicating interest for short line operations in the
province of Ontario as well as other parts of the country based on
a couple of reasonably good experiences that we have had in
Canada with that type of operation.
I think it would be fair to say that since that legislation was
brought forward and passed at Queen's Park that interest has
diminished very significantly. It is unfortunate because there
will be undoubtedly many opportunities for short line operators
to take over rail lines in various parts of Canada. It is sad that
they are not going to have an opportunity, I do not believe, to do
it with the same kind of facility in Ontario as would have been
the case had this legislation not been passed.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Transport.
The Vancouver Port Authority recently approved a Las Vegas
style casino project even though such for profit casinos are not
legal in British Columbia. Could the minister explain why a
federal authority is approving tenders for activities that are
currently illegal in British Columbia?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the proposal that has been taken under consideration
by the Vancouver Port Authority is not one that would allow
through any measures that authority could undertake for illegal
activity.
I do want to answer my friend by saying that one of the
policies that we are following in this government, not only with
respect to ports but also obviously as we move toward
devolution of control for airports, will be to allow for local
autonomy. One cannot have it both ways. I am sure that the
people on the ground in the greater Vancouver area who have the
direct responsibility for management of that area, both the real
estate as well as the port, will take into account the best interest
not only of that region but of the province of British Columbia
and certainly would not be prepared to act in any way that would
be contrary to the law.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister
for his answer. I have a supplementary question.
This project has caused much concern among the people of
British Columbia. The federal government clearly has no
mandate to develop casino gambling across Canada.
Could the minister explain to the concerned citizens of British
Columbia and indeed all Canadians, given the complete absence
of public consultation, how and why the federal government
decided to approve this casino project?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
first let me clear up a statement that was made by the member
that I am sure he did not intend to mislead the House with and
that is that the Government of Canada does not approve that
particular situation. There is a local board that is autonomous
and is appointed. It is made up of a number of representatives
chosen in a very broad selection process.
The question of what will happen with that land, in my view,
is far from determined finally because the Government of
British Columbia will have a great deal to say about that. As he
says, the law does not permit casino activities at this point. I
think it is an opportunity for residents of the area to review the
matter and make their views known to the Government of
Canada, to the Government of British Columbia and obviously
to the port authority.
However, there is certainly no final decision on this. I
understand the preoccupation of the member as well as many of
the people in British Columbia with respect to this particular
proposal.
2221
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, before I
put my question, I would like to say that there should be and
there can be transparency when people are aware of current
political affairs. This is not always obvious to the other side.
(1445)
My question is for the Prime Minister. Rogers
Communications is poised to take over the Maclean Hunter
Group. This blockbuster transaction will create a virtual
monopoly in the cable broadcasting industry, a situation which
raises some important questions as to the level of competition
within this industry.
My question is this: Does the Prime Minister recognize that
this takeover will create a monopoly in the field of cable
broadcasting and that this situation will adversely affect rates
and the variety of information available to consumers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that before any approval is given, a submission must be
made to CRTC commissioners. I am not in a position to
comment on a ruling by this commission before public hearings
are held.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I believe
we are here to get some answers.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that this monopoly in
the cable broadcasting industry and Rogers' 32-per-cent
ownership of Unitel shares give this company an unfair
advantage over its cable and telephone industry competitors in
terms of the development of the information highway?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this matter does not come under ministerial jurisdiction at this
time. The Parliament of Canada established a wholly
independent commission to rule on acquisitions of this nature in
such areas. The only power we have, and it is quite limited
considering Parliament's wish that decisions be made by people
outside the executive, is to wait and see what the Commission's
ruling on this matter will be. It is not that we do not want to
answer the question, it is that we are not in a position to provide
an answer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The government has extended the hours of several Canada
customs ports of entry in Manitoba. Smugglers know to stay
away from these ports, but more Manitobans are being
encouraged to go south of the border to take advantage of cheap
food, liquor and gasoline.
Is the minister aware that the only impact of his actions are
Canadian dollars going south and this is hurting Manitoba
business people, not smugglers?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the extra customs activities at the border are having an
effect on smugglers and are beneficial from that point of view.
I do not agree with the hon. member's contention that it is the
job of national revenue to make it difficult for Canadians to
cross the border, whether they live in Manitoba or in any other
place. If Canadians are finding extended hours useful for them
in their activities I think that it is something Canada customs
would regard as a side benefit from the attempts they are making
to curb smuggling.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that answer.
I would like to point out to the hon. minister that on February
25 Manitoba RCMP arrested two men for smuggling $28,000
worth of liquor and tobacco. The truck had been driven across
the border at a point not controlled by Canada customs and was
stopped at Elie, approximately 100 miles from the border.
Would the minister consider making one of those tough
decisions, close these border points at night and transfer the
funds to extra RCMP supervision of these border crossings?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, among the many measures that were announced with
respect to smuggling was the beefing up of patrols by the RCMP.
There will be more RCMP officers involved in this than there
will be customs officers. This was announced by the Prime
Minister, the Solicitor General and myself some weeks ago.
Certainly we do not expect to pick up all smuggled shipments
at the border. We do expect to pick them up either in Canada or
sometimes in the United States prior to reaching the border, as
happened with a large number of semi-automatic weapons quite
recently.
I congratulate the member for pointing out the efficiency of
the RCMP and the customs service in picking up smuggled
goods, but I would point out to him that we do not rely only on
the physical proximity to the border to make such seizures.
2222
(1450 )
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Our red book platform promise was to maintain the Canadian
Wheat Board. There are some groups on the prairies,
particularly one identifying itself as the alliance which is
promoting the idea of a farmer plebiscite on the removal of
barley from the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would ask the minister of agriculture if he has considered the
possibility of consulting the farm community about
strengthening the power of the board by bringing oats back on to
the board and by expanding its jurisdiction to the international
market.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
her question and for her interest in the Canadian Wheat Board.
This question and others that have been asked reflect the
diversity of opinion in western Canada with respect to the
operations and the jurisdiction of the wheat board. I continue to
have a great many consultations and discussions with the board
and with others, particularly with farmers, about the board's
operations and its future direction.
With respect to the matter of a plebiscite, there are many
differing views on the question. Indeed some who had argued
against a plebiscite a year ago are now arguing in favour of one
and vice versa.
In considering the government's position we will keep the
hon. member's representations in mind. My objective, and it is
the objective of the government, is to obtain the very best
possible marketing results for farmers both now and in the long
term. Every action of the government will be very much aimed
in that direction.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Last
February 16, the Minister of Public Works was not able to tell
the opposition what amounts will be spent for the renovation of
the official residences of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the
Opposition, the Speaker of the House, as well as the summer
cottage of the Prime Minister at Harrington Lake.
Since the question was asked a month ago already, is the
Minister of Public Works in a position now to tell us about the
scope of these renovations, or is he still too uncomfortable to
justify such spending in times of budget austerity and salary
freeze?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
quite well that the minister responsible for Canadian heritage
whose jurisdiction this matter falls within is away on
government business.
I will endeavour to ascertain the information requested. I am
certain I can report back to the House and to the hon. member
with the specific information requested.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I will ask my supplementary to the Prime Minister,
because there does not seem to be a great deal of communication
between him and his minister. Why does the Prime Minister not
intervene regarding the money spent on these residences,
particularly Stornoway, the residence of the Leader of the
Opposition, which is not even being lived in?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot speak on behalf of the commission responsible for these
official residences. However, I can tell you that, as regards the
residence of the Prime Minister as well as his summer cottage,
no renovation of any kind will be made, as everyone knows. I did
not buy furniture; instead, I used what was available, in order to
limit spending as much as possible. As far as I know, no major
renovations are to take place.
It may be that a plumber will have to do some work, but I am
not going to throw him out! However, nothing major is
scheduled for 24 Sussex, nor for the residence at Harrington
Lake. There could always be some technical problem.
Unfortunately, I had to answer so many questions today that I
did not have time to study my book on how to solve these
technical problems.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On January 27 the minister announced in the House the
government's intention to introduce amendments to the Human
Rights Act which ``will include sexual orientation as a ground
upon which discrimination is prohibited''.
Could the minister tell the House what is the government's
definition of sexual orientation?
2223
(1455 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, that provision is now in the
human rights codes or statutes of seven of the ten provinces. It
has also been broadly dealt with in the jurisprudence as cases
have come before the courts and tribunals with respect to the
rights of individuals.
I think that in Canadian law there is no question about the
meaning of that term in statutes such as the Canadian Human
Rights Act. I commend the decisions of the courts to my friend,
the hon. member, if there is any doubt in his mind.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice.
Will the minister include a definition of sexual orientation in
the legislation he proposes, and will this definition be clear
enough to prevent pedophiles from launching successful court
challenges of discrimination for acts that are clearly prohibited
in the Criminal Code?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in matters involving the law,
as in so much else in life, we are governed by that which is
reasonable. If I may say so, I do not believe it is reasonable for
anybody to interpret the term sexual orientation as it appears in
human rights legislation as including pedophiles or others who
engage in criminal conduct.
As I mentioned in my response to the hon. member's first
question, it is my belief that judgments of courts and tribunals
across the country interpreting legislation that is already on the
books in many provinces makes the meaning of that term
abundantly clear. We have no intention to make that additional
provision in the proposed amendments.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party of
Canada promised to compensate the families of victims of the
brainwashing experiments using electroshock therapy and
drugs, conducted at the Allen Memorial Institute in Montreal in
the fifties and sixties, but the Minister of Justice has just refused
to compensate these families.
Could the Minister tell us whether he intends to follow up on
his party's promise of financial assistance or are we to
understand that the government has reversed its position?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the role of the Department of
Justice in the program that was instituted to compensate those
who were victimized by the program in question is to assess
each application in terms of the provisions of the order in
council which created the fund and to determine whether the
applicants meet the criteria established by that legislation.
That is precisely what we have done. In each case, many of
which have come to my notice by way of applications for review,
we have carefully matched the circumstances of the applicant
with the parameters of the order in council. I am satisfied that in
each such case we have followed the law to its letter.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and was inspired by Annie du
la Chevrotiere of Brackendale, British Columbia.
Recently the Minister of Finance stated that his ultimate goal
is to eliminate the deficit and balance the national budget. If the
Prime Minister agrees with his Minister of Finance, will he
commit to making a balanced federal budget a requirement of
law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as the sound of the name is French perhaps I should reply in
French because it is not the hon. member's question but was
apparently asked by somebody else.
Every government wants to balance its books. No government
wants a deficit. We have a target that is very well established in
the red book to reduce the deficit in relation to GNP to 3 per cent
and we intend to do that. Of course when we get to 3 per cent we
will try to go lower and the day we have a balanced budget I will
be extremely happy. But I cannot guarantee that to anybody.
Even if we were to pass that law, sometimes things happen
which are completely outside the control of government and we
have to meet those needs. It is a kind of dream to think that
passing a law will balance the books. They have done it in the
United States for how many years? They still have a problem
there too. It is a problem around the world.
In Canada we have the problem but it is no worse than the one
in Europe. Our deficit in relation to GNP is 6.2 per cent and the
average in Europe is 6.5 per cent. I am not happy with that. I
want to reduce it to 3 per cent in the next three years. After that
we will go lower with everybody's help.
2224
(1500)
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
a recent poll shows that Canadians support the government's
initiative to reform social programs. Yet some individuals have
expressed concern that the government's objective may be
solely to cut services and programs.
What assurances can the parliamentary secretary to the
human resources minister give the House that indeed the
government's prime objective is to provide Canadians with
better, more efficient services?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure the hon. member and Canadians that we have no
intention of cutting services for the Canadian people. We are
working with the provincial governments to bring about more
efficient delivery of services.
The single window initiative will improve service to clients,
will eliminate duplication and waste and will increase
administrative efficiencies. As a matter of fact last week we
opened a new employment resource centre in Ottawa that will
merge the two services.
We plan to give Canadians only the very best.
_____________________________________________
2224
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 16
petitions.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day, celebrated annually on
the second Monday in March to mark the establishment of the
modern Commonwealth.
Each year a special theme is attached to this day. The focus
this year is on sports and the Commonwealth. This theme has
special significance for Canada because we will be hosting the
15th Commonwealth Games this summer in Victoria, British
Columbia. For an unprecedented fourth time in the history of the
Commonwealth Games, Canada will have the honour of hosting
the Commonwealth's festival of sports and culture.
The Commonwealth exemplifies unity and diversity and the
strength of multilateralism and co-operation. Almost
one-quarter of the world's population now forms the
Commonwealth.
Through the Commonwealth, Canada is linked with 49 other
countries of various races, faiths, languages, cultures and
traditions. The Commonwealth provides an opportunity for
Canada to enhance its relationships with the member countries
and to advance Canadian foreign policy interests.
Canadians can take pride in the accomplishments of the
Commonwealth to which Canada has contributed greatly over
its long and vital history. Arnold Smith, a remarkable Canadian
diplomat and the first Secretary General of the Commonwealth
who unfortunately died last month, is just one example of the
dedicated Canadians who have helped to build the
Commonwealth and its institutions. Canada will continue to
contribute to the Commonwealth through the 1990s and beyond.
In just over one month Canadian observers will be present
alongside other Commonwealth and international observers for
the first ever democratic elections in South Africa. These
elections are an important step in that country's history.
After having assumed a leadership role within the
Commonwealth and the fight against apartheid and for universal
suffrage these elections also hold a very special significance for
Canada and Canadians. Our efforts in the aftermath of these
elections will not diminish.
(1505 )
I assure hon. members and Canadians that we will continue to
be a prominent member of the Commonwealth to mobilize
efforts to promote fundamental human values. These basic
values lie at the heart of the Commonwealth and were reaffirmed
in the landmark 1991 Harare declaration.
The people to people linkages holding the Commonwealth
family together are numerous and are found in every sector and
we will continue to promote them. It is in this spirit that we
intend to host the Commonwealth Games this year.
I ask all members to join with me today in recognizing the
importance of Canada's membership in the modern
Commonwealth.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for the Bloc Quebecois to join the
government
2225
today in recognizing the importance of Canada's membership in
the Commonwealth. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois remains
vigilant to ensure that resources allocated by the federal
government to the francophonie reflect its importance in Canada
and correspond to the priorities established by Quebec and the
francophonie as a whole.
That being said, we have no intention of neglecting Canada's
relations with the Commonwealth. As the Leader of the
Opposition has said before, the Commonwealth is a very
important forum for Canada to maintain close ties with nearly
50 countries throughout the world and to encourage the exercise
of the rights and values cherished by Canada and Quebec.
On Commonwealth Day, I think it is important to recall that a
sovereign Quebec would wish to maintain those ties. Without
taking on additional financial burdens, Quebec would be able to
maintain and intensify its relations with countries in the
Caribbean, Asia and Africa. A sovereign Quebec will want to be
more open to the world, and I think this should give you a clear
indication of what its position will be.
The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to celebrate this
commemorative occasion under the special theme: ``Sports and
the Commonwealth''. And we are certain that Canada will be the
perfect host this summer at the Fifteenth Commonwealth Games
in Victoria.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, on this
Commonwealth Day we should take a moment to think of the
advantages to Canada of being a member of the modern
Commonwealth.
As the minister said, it certainly gives us an opportunity to
enhance our position in the world as a potential leader of
one-quarter of the world's population. It gives us a chance to
demonstrate our expertise, technology and service to a major
world trading bloc. It also gives us the opportunity to do
something independent of the United States. That has its
benefits for our national unity as well.
It is particularly meaningful this year that the Commonwealth
Games will be held in Victoria. By allowing us to host this
unique event, through the competitiveness of athletics we can
understand our strengths and weaknesses. We can take this
opportunity to understand the customs, traditions and the ways
of thinking of other people in the Commonwealth.
The Olympics has given us a great world hope for the future
and has created an environment for potential greater unity. I am
sure the Commonwealth Games will be an extension of this
goodwill. Our Victoria friends will do the very best job of
hosting them. I think back to when Edmonton hosted this event
and the great associations and friendships made during that
occasion.
I was also interested in the minister's comments on our
commitment to South Africa. I am concerned about South Africa
as well and the democracy taking place there. Before we commit
ourselves to what I understand could be in the neighbourhood of
50 people, we must ask what the cost will be, what will actually
be done and what actual value there is to Canadians. I was
personally asked to get involved in this process. I must admit I
have great difficulty doing so unless I can have those three
questions answered during these difficult economic times.
(1510)
We in the Reform Party recognize the importance of Canada's
membership in the modern Commonwealth and we continue to
support that membership.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-221, an act establishing the office of ombudsman and
amending acts in consequence thereof.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to establish
the institution of a federal ombudsman. This would be an
independent and non-partisan officer of this Parliament who
would supervise the administration, deal with specific
complaints from the public against the administrative injustice
and the maladministration and who would have the power to
investigate, criticize and publicize but not to reverse
administrative action.
A federal ombudsman with his or her wide powers of
investigation, which is something we as MPs do not have, would
be able to handle the flow of complaints for which parliamentary
procedure is less suitable and to strengthen the present system at
its weak point.
Furthermore, a federal ombudsman would be the servant of
Parliament and answerable to it alone.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-222, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extremity
pumps).
She said: Mr. Speaker, some people for health reasons require
a piece of medical equipment called an extremity pump. It is the
supply of an extremity pump that releases swelling caused by
lymphedema of the legs in particular.
I am simply asking that the Excise Tax Act be amended to
allow for this extremity pump.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (air
conditioners).
2226
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-223, which is an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, concerns the cost of an air
conditioner required for health reasons. To be more specific,
people who suffer from multiple sclerosis find it very difficult to
breathe during the hot humid summer months and would like an
air conditioner. As it would be used for health purposes, its cost
would be included as a medical expense under the medical
expense tax credit under the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1515 )
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of
residents of my riding of Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
The nature of the petition is to enact legislation to ban the
selling of serial killer cards in Canada and I support this
petition.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 and speaking on behalf of my constituents, I
wish to present a petition asking the government to fully
reinstate the budget for social housing. This petition, with 293
signatures, is being presented to ask the government to act on its
responsibility to the most vulnerable members of our society by
guaranteeing them the right to housing.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by residents of
the greater Toronto region.
The petition states the response to petition 343-2034 avoided
the thrust of the petition, namely the rights of individuals under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the individual and
dealing with abortion and Bill C-43. The Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms applies to the Parliament and Government
of Canada and article 15(1) states: ``Every individual is equal
before and under the law and has the right to equal protection
and equal benefit of the law''.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to urge the
government to prepare a response to this petition which
addresses why ``individuals within the bodies of their mothers''
are not individuals with rights under the charter for Parliament
to honour.
The petitioners urge the government to honour Parliament's
obligation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and provide equality before and under the law and equal
protection and equal benefit of law for individuals within the
bodies of their mothers from fertilization to the end of the
birthing process. In duty bound, the petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and honoured to
present a petition signed by a number of constituents from
Victoria-Haliburton, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
The petition signed by many seniors who live in and around
the Diplomat apartment building in Lindsay, Ontario, request
that a mailbox be located near the residence to provide them
with better access to Canada Post services.
The petition was circulated by Mrs. Jean Birchard, a resident
of the apartment building, and calls on Parliament to consider
locating a mailbox in the vicinity of 53 Adelaide Street North for
the convenience of the residents of this building and the
surrounding residential district.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I have two
more petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36
requesting amendment to the laws regarding killer cards.
I am aware of the difficulties and the possible restriction on
the freedom of expression with these petitions, but I believe that
because the victims of these crimes are often women and
children and these killer cards are in effect glorifying violence
against women and children I must support these petitions.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. Q-2 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 2-Mr. Taylor:
Who was asked to conduct a review of Canada Post's rural conversion plans,
what resources were provided for the review process and what criteria and
direction was given to those asked to conduct the review?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): For many years, the government has
2227
heard from concerned Canadians across the country in regard to
the closure of rural post offices and, as a result, made the
commitment to review the conversion program put forward by
Canada Post Corporation.
On November 12, 1993, the government declared a
moratorium on the closure of corporate operated rural post
offices.
The moratorium, initially set for a period of one month, was
extended indefinitely to allow for a comprehensive assessment.
During that period, consultations were held with Canada Post,
labour leaders and various community groups.
As a result, on February 17, the government placed an
indefinite moratorium on future closures of all rural and small
town post offices in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: The question as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1520 )
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that,
pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial
statement and replies, Government Orders will be extended by
eight minutes.
_____________________________________________
2227
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Immediately prior to members' statements we had a speech
from the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government
Services. It was very eloquent although somewhat
inflammatory.
I believe that there is still time remaining on the clock and I
am wondering if comments on that matter are possible.
The Deputy Speaker: That is an excellent question from the
hon. member. The procedural expert advises me that if the
minister who made the statement is not here, a member who
wishes to reply may not do so.
Another time perhaps the hon. member would persuade the
minister to come back. However, that was a very good
procedural effort.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I
believe there are two related fundamental questions which must
be considered when considering the motion before the House
today. First, can Canadians continue to live on borrowed
money? Second, should Canadians continue to live on borrowed
money?
We ought to acknowledge that it is very pleasant to live on
borrowed money. Certainly Canada has enjoyed that position for
over 20 years now and it is even desirable if only immediate
benefits are the consideration.
However, I believe that living on borrowed money for our
country amounts to short term gain and a lot of long term paying.
Addressing the question of whether Canada can continue to live
on borrowed money, the answer obviously has to be no, not in
the long term.
We are already starting to drain away money that would
otherwise have been available to fund our health care education
and pension programs by the interest obligation that we have
built up on the half trillion dollars plus that we have managed to
borrow in the last 20 years.
Our interest obligation is this year $41 billion. We are
borrowing only $39.7 billion. Therefore we are not even
borrowing enough this year to cover our interest payment. We
are going to have to take away tax dollars that could have gone to
fund social programs if we had not built up in the last 20 years
this interest obligation.
This means also that for 21 years plus our creditors have
funded an artificially high standard of living for our country. I
would submit that anyone who lives on an artificially high
standard of living for very long is going to have to face reality
one day. That includes our country.
Unfortunately the government says that it intends to put us
even further in the hole over the next three years by borrowing
another $100 billion more than we earn. Even if interest rates
were so fortunate as to stay at around 5 per cent, on the $100
billion the government is going to borrow we will have to pay
each and every year forever $5 billion.
That is a lot of money. The interest today that we are paying
amounts to $1,200 per second and that is money that could be
helping a lot of Canadians if it were not going down the drain in
interest on high living for the last 20 years.
Anyone who has ever run a business or managed a household
budget or even the allowance in their piggy bank knows that if
one keeps spending more money than is coming in soon one will
find oneself in trouble. That is a simple fact of life.
(1525)
Unfortunately our leaders seem to be the only ones who act as
though real life truths need not apply to their decisions. As more
and more of our income is spent each year on interest, we are
going to have less to spend on health care, education and
pensions, let alone on the new programs that governments keep
introducing, 18 in this particular budget.
2228
Every dollar that has to go to government in taxes to pay this
interest and to pay for government programs is one less dollar
that can be invested to build and create business and job
producing activity.
This is not a healthy state of affairs. Sir Roger Douglas, a
former finance minister of New Zealand, stated: ``The only
justification for the government taxing people and then
spending the money for them is if the government can
demonstrate some special skill or knowledge that the average
person does not have in how to spend the money''. He then said:
``I simply do not believe that''.
I think a lot of Canadians would agree that governments in the
past and present have not demonstrated any special skill in
spending our money for us as Canadians.
Saddest and most disturbing, however, are the consequences
of governments setting this great country on a course of living
on borrowed money. It makes future taxpayers the ones who get
stuck with the bill. Sometimes driving down the road one will
see a bumper sticker, quite often on a nice motor home, saying:
``We are spending our children's inheritance''. This is true: in
Canada today we are spending our children's inheritance. We are
spending their future earnings.
This reprehensible behaviour amounts to taxation without
representation. Instead of paying our own way, enfranchised
Canadians today through their elected leaders are literally
spending money that will have to be paid back with interest
obligation by our children and our grandchildren. We have
heavily mortgaged their future so that today we can have
expensive and comfortable programs.
We are not justified in spending the birthright of future
generations of Canadians. I would further submit that we have a
duty to protect the interests of those who have no say in the
burdens that are being placed upon them. They are the ones who
are going to have to live with our mistakes. In 20 short years we
are already worse off than if we had not borrowed a nickel.
The money that we bring in today is now not entirely going to
fund the help that we want to give disadvantaged people of our
society. Some of it is already starting to go to pay interest. As
that increases more and more of our income and our tax dollars
are going to have to go to interest. We will have fewer and fewer
dollars to fund important programs like health care and
education and pensions. Pretty soon those programs are going to
be squeezed out of existence. They are already being eroded
right across the country.
We in the House ought to join together and make the
sometimes tough choices needed to secure our children's future.
The motion before us today makes four modest proposals to take
us in that direction. First, the motion urges us to say no new
programs and, second, to put spending caps on the discretion of
government. The Reform Party has proposed a very modest
spending cap of only 6 per cent. There is barely a household or
business in the entire country that has not cut its spending by at
least 6 per cent and, I would venture to say, a good deal more
than that in the majority of cases. Yet members of the House in
both the Official Opposition and the government parties would
not even support such a minuscule spending cap by the House. I
say that is to our shame.
(1530)
The third proposal we have put forward is to require progress
reports on deficit reduction by those responsible for handling
our finances and our fiscal affairs. That is an accountability
measure which is only prudent in any company or enterprise.
Last, as leaders, as people who have been entrusted not only
with today's affairs but with the well-being of future Canadians,
we have to put together a plan for corrective action where we
should not be moving further in the direction of living on
borrowed money.
For the sake of young and unborn Canadians, I appeal to
members of the House today to show the courage and the
leadership to support the motion before us.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
arguments which were presented very clearly. I am a little
shocked that she and her party would want to cut and not invest
in the youth service corps, something which they threw into
their motion.
My question for the hon. member is: Which is going to cost
the taxpayers of Canada more? Is it the young people between 18
and 25 who are not in school or not working? Their self-esteem
goes down. They will probably get hooked on drugs and steal to
pay for the drug habit. The girls will probably hit the streets as
prostitutes.
Does the hon. member feel that she will save the taxpayers
more money by driving our young Canadians in that direction,
or will we save Canadians more money by putting these 18 to 25
year old Canadian students who are probably dropouts, not in
school, cannot get jobs, by involving them nine months in a
youth corps program where they will work on community
projects, where they will learn skills which will build up their
self-confidence, their self-esteem and hopefully at the end of
the youth corps program be able to find a job?
Which will cost the taxpayers more, her idiotic program of
cutting the youth corps or what we are presenting in the youth
corps?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the doom and gloom parade by
the member opposite in his comment would do the Reform Party
proud, I would think.
2229
I must say I do not think words like idiotic really add a great
deal to the debate. As leaders of this country we have an
obligation to discover and consider serious issues in a serious
and thoughtful way. I would appeal to the member opposite,
through you Mr. Speaker, to do that for the sake of Canadians
who are looking to us for leadership.
In the past 20 years, with a great deal of borrowed money from
our youth, we have put into place, and the government opposite
was responsible for much of this especially in the early days,
program after program after program that was supposed to help
Canadians, young Canadians, increase employment and do all of
the things the government says it is going to do. All it has done is
add to the burden placed on our young folks.
I would challenge not only the hon. member who just spoke
but all members of the government to think about what is going
to happen in 20 years. Are the young people of the country who
are going to be our taxpayers, business people and the people
responsible for our affairs going to stand and say: Good for you
guys, spending this money on a youth corps in 1994? Are they
going to say boy, did you ever turn our country around, or are
they going to say look where you guys put us, look at the hole we
are in, look at the tax burden that is on us, look at the
irresponsible way you handled our future? I ask the member to
ask himself that question.
(1535)
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
when reading the opposition motion I came across two sections
which say``with all parties''. This party has a plan and we want
to get it through with the co-operation of the other parties. I
hope hon. members on the other side will support our plan.
I also mention that statements made today in the House sound
very similar to the statement of the former Prime Minister who
said that there would be jobs for Canadians by the year 2000.
The government does not have the time to wait for the year 2000
to put Canadians back to work. We have to put Canadians back to
work now.
This morning in my constituency office I met two young
people who used to be in a position of giving jobs to others. Now
they are looking for a job. These people cannot wait until the
year 2000 to get a job. We all know what happened to the
previous Prime Minister.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first
comment of the hon. member about developing a contingency
plan in consultation with all parties, I would emphasize that this
is a contingency plan for corrective action, if we read the words
in the motion. We do not consider the present plan put forward
by the government to be the proper plan for Canada for reasons
that I have just expounded on at some length. However the plan
we need to put together is a corrective plan.
I would say again that yes, we can spend whatever money is
necessary to put a few people back to work. Yes, we can do that
and it would be nice for them. What I would appeal to the House
to do is look at the long term and look at what is best over all.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to speak in support of this motion. I and my party
believe that if we do not drastically alter our economic policies
Canadians will be facing an economic crisis in this country
equal to or worse than what was experienced in the 1930s. Many
senior Canadians today still remember the famine, financial
hardship and personal despair of those years.
Today, because of government overspending, ballooning
deficits and accumulated debts of the last 25 years, we could
soon be facing a similar disaster. Clearly, when one cuts through
the rhetoric, misguided optimism and smoke and mirrors of this
recent budget, it does nothing to set a new direction or chart a
new course for economic healing that we must see if we are to
avoid this looming crisis.
Therefore we in the Reform Party are presenting some
constructive actions and offering co-operation to the
government in seizing the window of opportunity before it is
lost for another four or five years.
In the business and non-political community there is general
acceptance that we cannot continue to spend huge sums of
money over and above our income. Why is it then that the
government accepts with many accolades that we should spend
in the next fiscal year $3 billion more than last year, accept
another deficit of $40 billion and accept $100 billion more debt
in the next three years on top of the outrageous $500 billion we
now carry?
In modern history where are the examples of countries where
governments with debt loads of 100 per cent of GDP were able to
stimulate economic growth without becoming involved in
another world war? I submit there are many examples of the
consequences of government overspending and mismanagement
which have brought once prosperous countries to their economic
knees. Sweden and New Zealand are but two of the most recent
examples.
Speakers and writers from these countries do not like to talk
much about the real devastation and hardship that the economic
restructuring of these economies caused. However, if one probes
behind the stories of rebirth and of economic health there are
also stories of despair, bankruptcy and real hardship when there
is a major withdrawal of the social safety net, a devaluation of
the currency and a downsizing of the bureaucracy.
(1540)
In spite of these examples, as I have listened to the debate
since budget day, I have heard one government member after
another praise the Minister of Finance for presenting a budget
that will solve the economic ills we face today. They accuse us
of being uncaring, racist and without compassion because they
say our proposals are Draconian and meanspirited.
The best example of this rhetoric was this morning when we
were accused of abandoning the interests of Canadian youth.
2230
The best example of the abandonment of the interests of our
Canadian youth has to be the mortgage that we have placed upon
the youth of today, offering as an alternative nine months of
community service cutting grass and cleaning up the highways
for students who worked hard and struggled long hours to
achieve university degrees and high school diplomas. It is a
disgrace.
I suggest members opposite pull their heads out from the sand
and stop misleading and deceiving Canadians by telling them
that we can solve our current problems with no hardship or
sacrifice. This might have been true at least to some degree
when Mr. Trudeau defeated Mr. Joe Clark, or even when Mr.
Mulroney defeated Mr. John Turner. However, today with the
debt growing faster and faster and with debt servicing combined
with social spending consuming 90 per cent of government
spending, there is simply no miracle cure and no easy way out.
Therefore let us be honest and, in the best interest of all
Canadians, let us work together to inform Canadians about the
seriousness of this problem and then present to them a credible,
rational, well thought out plan to deal with the crisis.
It is also clear from the debate on the budget that the members
of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have no grasp of the problem
or any rational solution when they suggest that social spending
is untouchable and if we cut the fat from government operations
we can return to economic health. Surely they must realize that
the entire cost of government operations amounts to only half of
the current year's deficit.
I believe that an examination of political history here and
elsewhere would show that it would be in the best interest of this
government to demonstrate some honesty and leadership in
dealing with the deficit. Clearly if a government is dedicated to
improving Canada's economic health and moving it out of these
tough economic times it will have to make those moves in the
first year of its mandate, if it is to reap the benefits of those
measures at the polls in the next election.
If those members opposite continue to mislead Canadians
with statements like ``we don't really have a spending problem,
we have an income problem'', they surely will only incur the
wrath of the electorate when they realize the utter incompetence
of such statements.
I know without a doubt what the consequences would be if I or
any of the members opposite were to go out and purchase with
borrowed money an expensive car, a luxurious home or an
opulent boat and then when the banker presses for payment tell
him: ``I don't have a spending problem; I have an income
problem''. The consequences of such an action would be the
same as the consequences for Canada: bankruptcy and financial
collapse.
In conclusion, I urge these members opposite to remove their
partisan blinkers and for the preservation of our wonderful
country please examine carefully and honestly where we are
heading in this country. With the same care and honesty, I urge
members to examine this motion and our offer of co-operation
before they cast their votes in the traditional partisan political
fashion.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening with interest to speeches from the other side of the
House today, attacking our efforts to assist the young people of
Canada, giving derogatory descriptions of the youth corps
before it has been possible to put the youth corps in place and see
what can actually be done. From what I hear people think it is a
make work project, moving sand and gravel from one place to
another; whereas in fact it is a program designed to help
communities and young people to gain experience which will
bridge the difficult transition between school of various sorts
and the workplace.
(1545)
The member just said that the youth corps program was our
only alternative for these young people. I wonder where the
member has been in the last 10 years, the years in which the
deficit has grown to these astronomical levels.
We think in the United States of Mr. Reagan, in Britain of
Mrs. Thatcher and in Canada of Mr. Mulroney with their slash
and burn policies which not only created these huge debts and
deficits but created in each of the jurisdictions serious
unemployment problems, particularly among the youth who are
being attacked by this motion of the Reform Party today.
What suggestions does the member have other than slash and
burn for helping young people today, next week and the week
after?
Mr. Chatters: Because we on this side of the House have yet
to receive any details about the youth corps program we can only
judge the merits of the program from similar programs
presented by previous governments. In my opinion those
programs were dismal in providing meaningful employment to
students of our universities and high schools. Certainly that has
been the experience.
Further to the hon. member's comments, the best thing we
could do for our young people is to cut the tax burden and allow
private enterprise to create jobs and get the economic engine of
this country rolling. Stop trying to do what governments have
been trying to do since time immemorial, that is create
employment through government spending and borrowing
money.
2231
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, the
previous speaker gave some numbers in the House about the
Liberal Party adding another $100 million to the debt over the
next three years. Other speakers from the Reform have indicated
the same thing as if their financial plan during the campaign
would not have added to the debt. I wonder why there is this
double standard.
In his closing statement the hon. member said we have to stop
spending on these kinds of programs for the benefit of all
Canadians. I wonder if the member might want to consider
whether he is talking on behalf of Canadians who have rather
than on behalf of Canadians who have not.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I am a Canadian who considers
himself to be a have not. I am very much a grass roots Canadian.
I speak for those of my social and economic level.
It would appear to me from what I have heard from the
members opposite that perhaps the government wants us all to
be have not people in our society. We are not saying that many of
the programs proposed in the budget are not good programs, are
not worthwhile programs, our problem comes when we borrow
money and we increase debt to support those programs.
If we can afford these programs we should provide them for
Canadians. At a time when we can no longer afford them we
have to cut back on programs provided for Canadians.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, may I indicate
to the Chair and to the House that government members
speaking on this motion will be dividing their time for the
remainder of the debate.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House and
address this motion. On February 22 the Minister of Finance
tabled the government's first budget. It was a budget based on,
as the minister said at that time, an unprecedented process of
consultation with Canadians.
What we as a government have put before the House and
before the Canadian people in our first budget is only a first step.
It will not solve everything overnight but it will provide a basis
that we can build on. This is not a simplistic unidimensional
step. It is the first step to economic recovery, to the well-being
of individual Canadians and to the elimination of the deficit.
(1550)
We have listened to Canadians. We are pursuing our game
plan and it includes jobs and growth. During the election
campaign we made very clear the solutions we were proposing
and we are following through on these commitments.
Members opposite would have you believe that they somehow
hold some kind of secret solution. Yet their only solution is to
cut. This is a scorched earth policy and we feel, frankly, that
what Canadians said on October 25, 1993 was that they were
burned enough by that approach.
One of the best examples of what can be expected from the
government is a positive, constructive program, the
infrastructure program. Infrastructure Works is a shared cost
initiative which brings all levels of government together
working on opportunities for Canadians, working on job
creation, working on investing in the very foundation of our
economic prosperity for the future.
Each level of government, federal, provincial and territorial,
and municipal will contribute $2 billion for a total of $6 billion
over the next two years. This is what Canadians want to see,
governments co-operating to solve our problems, not
governments at each other's throats, competing with each other.
The program is also open to private sector investment in these
public purpose initiatives, if such investment is useful and can
assist local governments.
A federal share has been allocated to each province and
territory based on a formula melding population and
unemployment shares, a formula I might add that was agreed to
by all first ministers in December. Each province and territory
will match the federal allocation as will local governments.
Infrastructure Works is intended to speed the economic
recovery while meeting the well documented needs of renewing
and upgrading Canada's infrastructure. The program should
help municipalities and communities use new, efficient and
environmentally sound technologies as well as improve our
competitiveness and productivity.
There has been a dramatic decline in what we have invested in
infrastructure over the last few decades. In the 1960s the three
levels of government invested 4.3 per cent of gross domestic
product in infrastructure. This declined in the 1980s to 2.5 per
cent.
Many members in the House and I have substantial municipal
experience. We know from experience that a road not repaired
and maintained today means one spends 10 times as much when
that road falls apart. We know that allowing bridges to rust and
collapse means a much bigger burden for the next generation
than the cost of repairing that infrastructure today. We know that
unhealthy water systems in our communities are neither in the
best interests of this generation or the next, nor is it responsible
of us to leave that burden to the next generation.
We have just started to renew the Great Lakes clean-up
agreement with the province of Ontario. The province has
stressed to us and the International Joint Commission has
stressed the important contribution that this program can make
to cleaning up our lakes and rivers by having sound water and
sewage systems. These are not inconsequential projects now or
for the future. These are a protection of our future.
2232
There are communities right in this region that cannot
develop their industrial parks because they still have old
wooden sewers from the last century. Those are the kinds of
investments that are going to be made under the infrastructure
program. They will allow the communities of Canada to prosper
and grow and provide employment to this generation and
provide a sure economic future for the next generation.
(1555)
This program is going to create jobs immediately. Directly up
to 65,000 jobs will be created in the municipal infrastructure
program and with indirect jobs many more than that. That is
what the desperate people out there wanting employment,
wanting a better future for themselves and their children,
wanting to see the government doing, and that is what we are
doing.
This is a program municipalities have wanted for 10 years. I
was sitting on the national board of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities in 1983. We were gathering information to
demonstrate the deteriorating nature of the infrastructure of
Canada and the negative impact it was having on our potential
for economic growth and jobs and a better future for our
citizens. Ten years ago the municipalities and the provinces
agreed that this program was what was needed across our
country. The government is implementing it and will make it a
success for every community across the country. Yet that is the
program endorsed by every municipality the members on the
opposite side by this motion want to cancel.
They also want to pretend that this is new money we are
spending. Liberals are responsible in government. We know that
if we want to implement a new program, and Infrastructure
Works is a new program, then we have to reorder our priorities
and that is what we have done.
We have not increased spending, no matter what the members
on the other side want to pretend, to create this program. We
have changed other priorities. We have cut other spending
programs because we know that this program is important.
There could be no more ideal time for this kind of investment.
National unemployment is at an unacceptable level. This is a
terrible waste of human talent, a constant stress on hundreds of
thousands of households across Canada. Infrastructure Works
will have a significant impact on unemployment.
The government believes it should keep its promises. We
should put Canadians back to work. We should allow our
communities to use the new and innovative technologies in the
upgrading of water and sewage treatments that are going to
provide new opportunities for Canada in the future.
This program is an investment in the future; in the future of
individual Canadians, in the future of our communities and in
the future of our nation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I would just
ask the hon. member a question. Our concern is not whether it is
new money or old money but whether it is borrowed money.
Does she not agree that we are dumping the burden on the next
generation?
Also does the member not realize that amortizing $6 billion
over the next 10 or 20 or 30 years that we would also pay many
times the original cost of these projects?
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the House and Canadians have
had 10 years of promises that would have slashed, burned, cut
and destroyed programs that would bring the debt and the
deficit down. Has that happened? No, it has not.
We have presented a three-year program toward the first real
reduction in the deficit that this nation has seen in many years.
We are going to do it by cutting spending and we have done that
dramatically in this budget. But we are also going to do it by
increasing the prosperity of the country. That is what Canadians
want us to do.
(1600)
If the hon. member's roof was leaking, would he leave it until
it collapsed and he had to replace the whole roof? If his
foundation was leaking, would he allow it to fall to pieces before
he replaced it? If there was poison in his water supply, would he
allow his children to drink it? Of course not.
If necessary, would he borrow the money to fix those
problems? Of course he would because he knows it costs far
more to replace a broken roof, to replace a basement, or to heal a
sick child than it does to fix the cracks.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I was
surprised to hear the last speaker talk about the quasi rebirth of
Canada under the infrastructure program. Of course new
infrastructures will create some temporary jobs, but the public,
the people of Canada were expecting much more than that in
terms of governmental economic policy. In that respect, the red
book gave the impression something concrete could be
achieved.
When the hon. member talks about spending, why does she
claim to support this budget if it failed completely, except for
promising committees would be set up, to address the tax havens
enjoyed by certain multinational corporations, in particular, and
certain billionaires?
Over $16 billion are reported to be stashed away in tax havens
every year, which could otherwise bring in hundreds of millions
in tax revenue for the government. Why has it not been
suggested that the infrastructure program, this program she
speaks so highly of, be paid for with the money saved by passing
a bill on tax havens and another on family trusts, instead of
making mere gestures, such as the Liberals are making, while
they ranted and raved against family trusts when they were the
opposition?
2233
Why not also collect these hundreds of millions? Why not
accept to review each departmental budget item? We could
easily save, not just hundreds of millions, but a few billion
dollars which could pay for the infrastructure program without
increasing the deficit?
I am surprised that the hon. member only mentions the costs
and benefits of the infrastructure program. She is not looking for
ways, however easy, to get money from those who have it,
namely the rich, the multinational corporations in particular,
who benefit from an overly permissive policy.
One last point. Canada's foreign policy should be reviewed.
Take the Canadian embassy in Tokyo for example. We all know
that the market value of the lot across from it, which is vacant, is
$2 billion and that there are potential buyers prepared to pay $2
billion for a piece of land next to our embassy. Why not?
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I find it the hon. member's
comments rather mean. He knows full well that these things are
not included in the government's budget. It is very nasty of him
to say things like that to Canadians, when he knows the truth.
For example, the infrastructure program is but one phase of our
economic strategy, which also includes investments in science
and technology, as well as measures to help small businesses
create employment.
(1605)
The hon. member also knows that we have launched a project
to review, as he mentioned, each government budget item, in
order to identify what needs to be done to implement effective
programs.
He knows as well that our budget includes many measures to
eliminate the tax shelters he complained about. I do not object to
hearing dissenting opinions in this House but, for the sake of our
fellow Canadians, we must be honest.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to say a few words on what is at the very least a
fairly interesting motion. The motion says in part that the budget
plan of the government is not the solution to Canada's debt and
deficit problem.
I will come back to that in a few moments but I would like to
go to some other parts of the motion. I would have thought the
gentleman from Lethbridge with his long experience would have
known better than to incorporate things in a motion which are
already in effect or have been done.
The member for North Vancouver can laugh. Let me refer him
to section (c) of the resolution and let us see if he will laugh. I
mention him for the very particular reason that his constituents
will know he is identifying with the blatant falsehood contained
in section (c).
The falsehood is it calls on the House and the government to
produce quarterly reports on the progress being made on deficit
reduction. I ask the laughing, much amused member for North
Vancouver: As a member of this House and as a Canadian who, if
we listen to his rhetoric, is very concerned about the deficit,
does he not know there is a document produced regularly? It is
``The Fiscal Monitor'' put out by the Department of Finance. It
reports not just quarterly as called for by the motion, but
monthly.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): The finance minister said the
people of Canada cannot understand it.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am sure in time you will have
the charity to allow my friend from North Vancouver to say his
few words. When he does rise I hope he will realize that
something which is blatantly false cannot be be embodied in a
resolution. It is blatantly false.
He changes his tune now. He says, yes it is there but they
cannot understand it. Well, that is a different issue. Had his
friend from Lethbridge said to produce something that is
understandable, but that is not what he said. By implication he
gave the impression to the people of Canada and particularly to
this House that the progress report is not happening. I say to him
it is happening on a regular basis in a document called ``The
Fiscal Monitor''.
I am glad for this resolution and glad for this opportunity. It
puts into focus two fundamentally differing views on the role of
government.
On the one hand there is this punitive philosophy underlying
the opposition motion. It says that government has little to offer
the economy, that government by its very nature cannot help the
jobless. That is not a perspective I subscribe to. It is a
perspective I can understand. I do not endorse it but I can respect
it. I can respect the gentleman from Lethbridge for having that
point of view. That perspective mixes the worst aspects of do
nothing corporatism with the slash and trash public posturing of
which my friend from Ottawa West talked about a few moments
ago.
More to the point, the philosophy which underlies this
resolution is the very philosophy the people of Canada rejected
outright last fall. It is the philosophy the Tories paraded in this
Chamber for a decade and you know what happened to them. If
you are not sure, have you heard about the Dodo bird? They both
went the same way and for the same reason: They were out of
tune with the times. This slash and burn philosophy has been
rejected outright by Canadians.
2234
(1610)
The member for North Vancouver is seized with the
importance of having a fiscal monitor that is understood by
people who do not have doctorate degrees in economics. I must
say, somewhat sheepishly, that several of my constituents do not
have doctorate degrees in economics but they know what it is to
buy groceries. Let me put it very explicitly for the member for
North Vancouver in terms of buying the groceries.
This is what the resolution of the gentleman from Lethbridge
says in effect in its simplest terms. I will use a little parable.
A family of four has to buy some groceries. I did some
checking and found that a family of four on an income of about
$30,000 a year spends about $7,000 a year on groceries. If they
are a fairly typical Canadian family they spend maybe $600 to
$700 on a mortgage and about $200 to $300 on a car.
One day the breadwinner in that family has a bright idea. The
light goes on and he calls the family together. He or she,
whoever the breadwinner is, calls in the spouse and the two
children and says: ``I have a bright idea. Do you know what is
killing us and why we can never get ahead? We are paying $600 a
month on our mortgage and another couple of hundred dollars on
the car loan. But do you know what is really killing us? We are
spending $7,000 a year on groceries. I have a bright idea. We
will pay twice as much on the mortgage and not buy any
groceries for a whole year. No groceries for a whole year''.
We all agree that would bring down the mortgage a lot faster.
It certainly would. Just buy no groceries for a whole year and
there is an extra $7,000 to put toward the mortgage or to pay the
car loan off.
I see some of the brighter members of the Chamber have
twigged to the problem. They are actually asking: ``What are
those people going to eat for a year?'' There is the rub. That is
what my friend from North Vancouver had not thought about,
what they are going to eat for a year.
As Marie Antoinette said, let them eat cake, but even cake
costs money these days. What are they going to eat for that
whole year while they are rushing madly to pay down their
deficit, their accumulated debt, their mortgage? I think I have
made my point that whether it is a family or a nation these things
have to be done in balance. Those people who say that all we
have to be preoccupied with is deficit elimination to the
exclusion of everything else are not just preaching a very naive
doctrine, they are misleading a lot of people.
Let us go back to section (a) of the resolution of the gentleman
from Lethbridge. Here is his solution. It is the grocery analogy I
mentioned a moment ago. It is the same idea under different
terms: cut out the groceries, do not buy any groceries for a year.
The hon. member says to place a moratorium on all new
spending programs, such as youth service corps which
represents 17,500 new jobs. The infrastructure program
represents 65,000 new jobs. Residential rehabilitation
assistance program represents several thousands of more new
jobs.
Let the word go out. At least one member of the Reform Party,
the gentleman from Lethbridge says in writing so we have to
take the man at his word, would immediately move to aggravate
the job situation in this country by another 100,000 jobs.
This budget is about several things.
(1615 )
Yes, it is about deficit reduction but it can never be about that
alone. Yes, it is about job creation. The gentleman in his motion
has identified three or four particular programs but he identifies
them for the purpose of asking us as a House to wipe them out, to
wipe out those 100 jobs, and to drive up the unemployment rate
another point or two.
As I said before, I respect the other point of view. I have
difficulty understanding why it is being advanced. It makes no
sense. It is a one-track mind approach. We all know about the
mother whose son enlisted in the military. Being a proud mother,
she went down to the parade square to watch him on parade the
first day. Being an insightful mother, she noticed something in
particular. She noticed that when the drums started and the
drummer beat out the left, right, left, right, left, right and the
several hundreds of men and women went down the parade
square, Johnny was the only one in step. Johnny was the only one
in step.
We see in editorials across this country such as in Calgary
``Martin is headed in the right direction'' and in Edmonton ``It is
solemn and thoughtful and full of well worked out details. There
are real spending cuts in this budget''. This is what the
editorialist says in the Edmonton Journal.
From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce we have this: ``I
think it is a doable budget''. I could go to other parts but I have
run out of time. I appeal to my friend from Lethbridge not to be
Johnny on this one. Get in step with what the people said last
fall. Get in step with what the editorialists are saying. Get in step
with what the people are saying.
The people are saying that we should bring down the deficit
but we should give them some jobs.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy
the hon. member's speech, as I always do.
He mentioned the fiscal monitor but the Minister of Finance
said in this House that the people of Canada cannot understand
the fiscal monitor. We would like to see it put in a form once a
quarter so that the people of Canada can actually understand
whether the deficit is being addressed or not.
2235
The problem is that people cannot buy the groceries that the
hon. member was talking about. To buy $7,000 worth of
groceries, they need to have $14,000 earned because of the level
of taxation from each level of government.
Taxes are the problem. Will the member admit that it is
government overspending and government overborrowing that
is the problem? That is what creates the high taxes. Will he
admit that the budget is a fraud, should be scrapped and replaced
with a real plan to get control of spending, to reduce taxes and to
create jobs?
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, on the member's suggestion
about the fiscal monitor, if he wants to bring in a motion that will
call for a simplified fiscal monitor, I will second the resolution
for him. I am with him on that issue.
However, listening to the last bit of juicy stuff toward the end,
he lunched too long today. The subsidized food is getting to him.
He talks about a fraud and this kind of thing. Does he not
understand or have enough charity to accept that even if people
on this side of the House did not do exactly what he would want
us to do at least we have the goodwill to do our best?
To suggest it is fraudulent is an insult to well intended
members of this House. I do not think he meant that for a second.
It was one of those throw away phrases in the heat of debate
which he regrets already. I can tell by the remorse on his face.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I was not
surprised that the Liberal member who just spoke ignored the
concerns of the opposition parties regarding the deficit, because
to the Liberals, deficits are part of their culture. In fact, they
invented them. Our big deficits started with Mr. Turner in 1972,
1974 and 1975, and in 1981, when the Liberals forecast a $16
billion deficit, they waited for 16 months before bringing down
a budget and then produced a deficit of $38 billion by the end of
1983. So it is perfectly normal for the Liberal member who is
part of this Liberal culture and who has been sitting as a Liberal
for a long time to be unconcerned about deficits. To them,
deficits were never something to worry about. It was just too
much trouble.
(1620)
I also wish to tell him that in my riding, after the budget was
brought down, a budget that attacked the unemployed instead of
employment, the unemployed in my riding were asking: What is
the difference between a Liberal member and the unemployed?
And the answer was: the unemployed used to work.
And we could also say, when we hear the Minister of Finance
bring down a budget like this, that in my riding-and you come
from a nice part of Eastern Canada where there are wonderful
oysters, well, we found a new way to open them, and I was
talking to people from Eastern Canada who came down to
demonstrate in front of Saint-Jean-just a minute Mr. Speaker, I
am finishing my sentence-against the closing of the military
college, and they said this-Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish
so that my colleague will have a chance to respond.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe he has clearly
understood the question. The hon. member for Burin-St.
George's.
[English]
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as always I thank my friend from
Richelieu for his spirited participation in the debate. I am in
English for two reasons. My French is lousy and I want to reach
for a metaphor that I cannot translate yet.
We in Newfoundland talk about the pot calling the kettle
black. I seem to remember that there used to be a person with the
same surname representing the same riding of Richelieu who sat
in this House for the Tory Party between 1984 and 1990. As a
matter of fact he had somewhat the same features as the
gentleman who just spoke. If I may just-
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, we have almost
reached the end of the period provided under the Standing
Orders for debate on the opposition motion presented by the
hon. member for the Reform Party, concerning the Budget Plan
for 1994.
I think the motion presented by the Reform Party is only a
partial response to the expectations and policies I am about to
explain, regarding the budget, job creation and cuts in public
spending.
As you know, Canada's economy is the worst among G-7
countries. Recession, deficit and unemployment have become
household words, unfortunately! Canada's monetary policy,
although aimed at controlling inflation, merely exacerbates
endemic unemployment in this country. Lacklustre job creation
and the deterioration of Canada's public finances are largely
responsible for the lack of vigour of our economy. It is not a
pretty picture.
This lack of economic growth which has affected Canada for
many years has led to some very serious consequences for
Canada and Quebec. This lack of economic growth was followed
by budgetary irresponsibility in federal public finances. At first,
the Canadian government borrowed to finance existing and new
programs. Subsequently, it had to borrow to pay the interest on
previous loans, and now we are caught up in this debt cycle.
Interest payments on the national debt have absorbed an
increasingly larger proportion of government revenues. That is
where we are now.
2236
The debt's spiral has slowed somewhat, but this government's
fiscal policy defies all logic.
(1625)
The government is doing more to increase its tax revenue than
to control its spending.
In pre-budget consultations, the Minister of Finance implied
that he clearly understood the financial reality facing the federal
government. It was an especially rude awakening when he
announced a projected deficit of $39.7 billion. The saddest part
is that the public servants whose salaries are frozen, the military
people who are losing their jobs, like the other victims of the
Minister of Finance, the elderly and the unemployed, are being
sacrificed for almost nothing.
We are no further ahead in reducing the deficit. We might as
well say that the effort to reduce the deficit is practically
non-existent. In its 1994 budget, the government wants to
finance its projected budget deficit for 1994-95 by a very clear
increase in direct individual and corporate income taxes. I refer
here to the revenue projections in the finance minister's budget
plan, where direct taxes are the only revenue in the budget which
could enable the government to achieve this deficit objective of
$39.7 billion.
Does the government really think that it can tax the people of
Quebec and Canada more? It is disturbing to see that one of the
solutions adopted by the government is to increase the tax
burden of middle-income seniors and of middle-class taxpayers
in general.
Consumers have lost confidence in the economy. The
financial markets are skeptical about promises to balance future
budgets. In fact, the government has not made the cuts needed to
reduce tax rates in the medium term and to revive the confidence
of Quebecers and Canadians.
It is glaringly obvious: unemployment has not come down
from its high rate. In February, Statistics Canada reported a rate
of 11.1 per cent for all of Canada, while Quebec recorded an
average rate of 12.5 per cent. Young people employed full time
and men employed part time accounted for most of the lost jobs.
Statistics Canada estimates that the labour force declined by
15,000, a sign that many Canadians have given up looking for
work.
The Minister of Finance is continuing the Conservative policy
of lower benefits for most of the people. The measure
concerning low-income people with dependent children only
hides its desire to save. It is a Tory policy with a compassionate
face.
Young people will once again be the victims of reform. These
measures will limit access and push some of these people
towards social assistance. Eastern Canada, including Quebec,
will be hit especially hard by the elimination of regional
unemployment scales above 13 per cent and by the reduced
number of weeks of benefits.
The unemployment problem in Canada and Quebec is that
there are not enough jobs for everyone and that people must go
from one short-term job to the next. It is not with 45,000
temporary jobs that we will give renewed hope to the 1,590,000
unemployed in Canada, of whom 500,000 are in Quebec.
(1630)
Has the time not come to reconsider work sharing for those
who want it, to put all those people back to work and return to a
full-employment policy? Furthermore, it is urgent that the
government turn the situation around to favour the development
of small and medium-sized businesses throughout Quebec and
Canada. Small and medium-sized businesses create jobs and
generate wealth. The government missed this goal it should have
emphasized more.
Today, too many urban centres look like disaster areas. Social
inequalities are getting worse at school and in the labour market,
and we are shocked by the brutal return of physical and moral
poverty. Everyone can see the homeless on the streets but few of
us know that food banks are stretched to the limit. There is no
more space. It is always the weakest who must pay when
economic growth slows to a standstill, as you and I know.
According to the 1991 census data, the Montreal metropolitan
area holds the Canadian record for the highest poverty level: 22
per cent of the population. Behind this figure is a social reality
that Canadian federalism cannot be proud of. It is still possible
to give Canadians the social programs they need if we see them
as a right and a necessity rather than a luxury.
Instead of proposing measures for a healthy distribution of
wealth throughout the country, the government is going after the
middle class and attacking the universality of social programs,
even though this policy promotes social cohesion. In this regard,
the Bloc Quebecois supports investments to consolidate the
existing infrastructure, create jobs and lower the unemployment
rate, provided that Quebec be the main authority responsible.
[English]
Point (a) of the pending opposition motion presented by the
Reform Party goes against these objectives of economic
development for the regions. The moratorium on all new
spending programs announced in the budget is not compatible
with our objective of regional development.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will now turn my attention more specifically to
the public spending cuts announced in the latest budget.
2237
The Minister of Finance recently announced that program
spending would be reduced by restructuring the social security
system, reforming the unemployment insurance system and
reducing transfers to individuals, for example, family allowance
payments. However, the minister also announced that total
budgetary spending would increase by $2.8 billion until 1996.
This increase includes debt servicing charges. In fact, despite
the cuts announced by the government, overall program
spending will continue to increase. In essence, all the
government is doing is reallocating expenditures without
actually reducing government program spending. It is not
tackling head-on cases of waste and mismanagement within the
system. Instead, it is targeting social programs.
The government has not addressed the root of the problem.
Instead, like its Conservative predecessors, it hopes that the
anemic economic recovery-a recovery that it has failed to
stimulate-will get state revenues back on track. The
government's economic growth and inflation hypotheses are
realistic. What is not realistic, however, given the growth of the
underground economy, is the government's belief, as reflected
in the budget, that government revenues will increase at a faster
rate than the Gross Domestic Product. In short, the government
is counting on the weak recovery to bring down the current
deficit.
(1635)
How, under the circumstances, can the government justify
increasing its level of spending, all the more so when we know
that it is currently seeking the authority to borrow $34.3 billion
for 1994-95 in order to meet its financial commitments?
Mr. Speaker, I find it unconscionable that the budget provides
for an increase in public spending up until 1996. It is absolutely
essential for the government to eliminate waste before it can put
public finances in order. The government must give the
example; it must restore public confidence as well as its own
respectability. There are a lot more savings to be made by
eliminating waste than by making cuts to social programs.
Freezing public servants' salaries, restructuring public services
and increasing the middle class tax burden are last resort
solutions. There are other options still.
For the last three years, the Auditor General has identified
waste or unnecessary expenditures totalling no less than $5
billion annually. This year, the Auditor General has discovered
$700 million more in squandering than in the previous fiscal
year.
Merely implementing the Auditor's recommendations would
bring enormous relief, without any tax increase or social
programs cuts. The equation is a simple one.
Taxpayers are fed up because they feel that the government is
wasting public money and is after the middle class, which is
overburdened with taxes. Five years ago, governments were
making the same frivolous expenditures and wasting just as
much, but nobody said anything. Today, because of the pressures
resulting from the appalling state of public finances, such
mismanagement is strongly denounced.
Fiscal consolidation is a must be carried out at the federal
level to restore confidence among Quebecers and Canadians.
The chronic weakness of our economy is not due to a bad
performance of our foreign trade but, rather, to the stagnation of
domestic demand. The deficit must also be reduced because
interest on Canada's foreign debt is the highest among G-7
countries.
Deficit reduction is conditional upon reducing public
spending and waste, as well as eliminating tax unfairness. This
streamlining exercise could result in savings of $10 billion. Of
that amount, five billion dollars could be invested to stimulate
employment, including by building a high-speed train line,
whereas the other five billion could be used to reduce the deficit.
Such an initiative would do a lot to restore taxpayers'
confidence.
The government must give the example and restore public
confidence. A true social contract must be based on a sound and
balanced tax system. Unfortunately, it is a fact that over the last
two decades governments have only contributed to create an
imbalance between taxes paid and services provided by the state
to taxpayers.
In order to eliminate waste, unnecessary spending and
mismanagement within the government administration, the
Bloc Quebecois proposed that the government set up a
parliamentary committee to review each budget spending item,
and it is asking that such a committee be created.
(1640)
Setting up such a committee is justified because the latest
Auditor General's report showed that Quebecers and Canadians
who believed that some public funds were wasted were right.
[English]
That is the reason we want to create an analytical and revision
committee of the governmental spending programs formed by
elected representatives and not by civil servants. We believe
elected representatives are entitled to supervise and ensure that
the objectives of the different spending programs comply and
that the allocated public funds are spent with efficiency,
effectiveness and equity.
We believe that Parliament does not receive the appropriate
information pertaining to the results of the different ministries
and crown corporations wasting thousands of millions of dollars
of taxpayers' money.
Guided by the report of the Auditor General of Canada we
believe that the wasted public funds and the different cases of
mismanagement are drops in the ocean.
2238
[Translation]
A parliamentary committee responsible for reviewing
government expenditures, item by item, could ensure that
Parliament and thus the public be better informed of the
government's financial situation. So, we encourage the Reform
Party to support the establishment of the parliamentary
committee on the item-by-item review of government
expenditures to enable us to keep a closer eye on how public
funds are managed, which will greatly help bring the deficit
down.
I do support point (C) of the motion, regarding the production
of quarterly reports on the progress made on deficit reduction.
With regular status reports, I think we will be able to set realistic
deadlines to achieve our goals.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his remarks.
[English]
I would like to ask his opinion about a particular part of the
motion to which he was speaking. This, as he knows, is a Reform
Party motion and it is an attack on various things, one of which
is the government's attempts to help young people.
As has been suggested earlier, other parties in other countries
which have had the Reform Party approach of cutting and
burning have increased their deficits and debts. They have also
produced very high levels of unemployment. That has happened
in Canada.
One thing that has not happened yet in Canada is although we
have high unemployment, particularly among young people, we
do not yet have the chronic unemployment which exists in these
other countries, for example Britain and the United States.
As bad and sad and tragic as high unemployment is, chronic
unemployment for young people is worse. Chronic
unemployment means that we have a generation which because
during its formative years it has not worked is never really able
to work. I believe that is a real tragedy.
In this motion the Reform Party is attacking our attempts to
help young people now. I believe that it is already late to help
our young people. They want to leave this to the forces of the
economy. I believe that to avoid chronic unemployment among
young people we must act now.
I would like to ask the member what he thinks of the Reform
Party's attempts to cut down the efforts we are making to help
the young people of Canada now.
(1645)
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I worked in education
for many years and I would like to congratulate my colleague
opposite on what he said about Canada's youth.
I fully agree with the hon. member that our young people in
Canada have unfortunately been sacrificed and that at this stage
there does not seem to be a policy in the budget to put our young
people to work-I will not say back to work. I think it is
catastrophic for Canada to have young people who want to earn
their living one day preparing and studying very hard without
even a chance of starting to work or else having to accept work
that is far less than what they could do. I agree with the hon.
member.
What we said and what we are saying is that the budget will
not spur economic recovery. The budget that we debated only
plugs the holes and I think that it is a very conservative budget,
and possibly a Conservative budget as well.
Now I think, as the Bloc proposed-it is an attractive
idea-we should form a committee of the House, not a joint
committee of the House and the Senate, but a committee of the
people's elected representatives to look at the government's
spending item by item, so that we, the people's elected
representatives-because when we go back to our ridings and
when people talk about politicians in Canada, they are talking
about us here in this House, and I think that we have a
responsibility-should be able to review the budgets item by
item and be able to make cuts where required to get the money
and help create jobs.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great eagerness that I take part in this debate
today and welcome the opportunity to present the true picture of
the government's plans to help Canadian young people help
themselves to a more promising and prosperous future.
Let me begin by setting the record straight. Contrary to the
assumption put forward by the hon. member from Lethbridge,
the budget for the youth service corps does not represent new
spending. The youth service corps will, in fact, be implemented
using departmental resources and money from cost saving
initiatives announced in the February 22, 1994 federal budget,
pursuant to commitments made in the red book. The youth
service corps will not put any additional pressures on our
national debt. I can assure the House we will still see a drop in
the deficit, down to 3 per cent of GNP, over the next few years, in
line with our budget projections.
I believe, however, that my colleague from Lethbridge and
other members of his party are being very short-sighted if they
are prepared to short-change our young people.
Investing in young people is more than just a matter of dollars
and cents.
(1650)
Common sense and fairness dictate that the government must
act to respond to the very difficult reality facing young
Canadians. Perhaps the hon. member does not appreciate just
how grave the current situation is.
2239
Let me remind the House that, for adolescents and young
adults, the recession started sooner and is lasting much longer.
The most recent labour force survey shows that, while the
number of unemployed in Canada is down, the youth
unemployment rate is rising. It reached 18.1 per cent last month,
its highest level since last June. These are the official figures on
young unemployed and do not take into account many more
young people who do not show up on UI lists.
Let me put that into context. The hon. member represents
Lethbridge which, according to the latest census, has a
population of roughly 54,000. Compare that to the number of
young people currently outside the job market-at last count
428,000. That is almost eight times the population of the city of
Lethbridge. Young people are searching for relevant work
experience that will give them saleable skills to get their foot in
the job market door. Are these the people the hon. member from
Lethbridge would penalize? Is he prepared to tell them we do not
think they are worth the money?
At this time, I want to digress to pay tribute to a colleague of
mine, Senator Jacques Hébert, for his achievements and his
tremendous dedication to young Canadians. Through
Katimavik, our young learned to help each other. They learned
how to become more confident, more enlightened and more
tolerant. They learned to make sacrifices throughout the world
to help enhance the standard of living of many of our friends in
Southern countries, for whom life is sometimes a matter of
survival.
It is obvious that it is in our collective best interests to nurture
and support the very people who will be tomorrow's workers and
taxpayers. On economic grounds alone, the arguments are clear.
Canada simply cannot afford a lost generation. Demographic
trends clearly demonstrate that Canada will soon suffer a worker
shortage. As baby boomers leave the workforce in large
numbers, as they tend to do more and more, we will increasingly
count on our young.
We will count on our young people to take over from us. They
are our hope and tomorrow's leaders.
[English]
To compete globally in the next century we will need a highly
educated, highly skilled workforce. One needs not be a futurist
to know that our continued growth and prosperity depend on the
workers of tomorrow, the unemployed youth of today.
There is evidence to suggest that young people who do not
form an economic attachment to the labour force today will have
much more difficulty in finding and keeping employment in the
future.
To suggest that we should not place a spending priority on our
most precious resource, our young people, leaves me
questioning the commitment of the Reform Party to Canadian
youth.
Even more convincing than the economic case is the moral
imperative to provide our children with a sense of security,
fairness and hope for their future well-being which is also our
collective future.
(1655 )
It is heartbreaking to see young people brimming with ideas
and ambition, very often far better educated than their elders,
unable to apply their skills, their talents and their knowledge.
How can any of us in the elder generation be indifferent to
their frustration, to their hopelessness, to their despair of today?
It is completely unacceptable that so many young Canadians
today have no place to put their energy to constructive use. I
believe that every member of the House has a duty to ensure that
Canadian youth do not feel rejected or ignored.
We must assure them that we appreciate not only their years of
hard work acquiring an education but also their proven
willingness to work and contribute to the commonweal. We
must clearly demonstrate that we are committed to helping them
achieve their enormous potential and that we will work with
them to accomplish their goals.
The government intends to do exactly that. We will bring the
Liberal vision for youth to life. We are determined to implement
the strategies laid out in the red book which describe our action
plan for young Canadians.
The Youth Service Corps is a key part of the Liberal promise
to create jobs, to restore hope and build a stronger Canada. The
youth service corps will provide productive ways to help young
people through the transition from school to the workplace.
[Translation]
The youth service corps has four main objectives: community
service, understanding Canada, environmental awareness and
personal development.
I hope no one will question how valuable the young are in our
society. It is important to give our young people the tools they
need to prepare a better future for themselves by contributing to
the building of our nation. Significant measures will have to be
taken, and I think the youth service corps is one of them. So, I
would ask the hon. member from Lethbridge: Who would see
anything wrong with the youth service corps?
2240
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. Many of
them I can agree with. Some of them are points that I have
difficulty accepting.
I am in full agreement with the statement that it is completely
unacceptable that young people have no place to put their
energies. However there is a moral imperative for the youth to
have a meaningful place in our society. I agree with those
statements wholeheartedly. I do have difficulty accepting a
statement regarding short term views concerning the rights of
youth and ascribing that to the Reform Party and to the position
that we take.
We are watching from a view of history which we have
watched through the 1970s when the Liberal Party was
governing, through the 1980s when the Conservatives took
charge. We are at a place now where we are economically unable
to continue with those types of policies. To suggest that the
Reform Party at this point comes with this resolution with no
view of history does not make sense to me.
With the statements that the hon. member has made, how does
he square those statements and his condemnation of the Reform
Party with the history of the performance of the Liberals and the
Conservative governments in the past? We are looking for a
means to hold the economy together so there will be hope, there
will be promise, there will be a meaningful future for our
children.
(1700)
As I see it, where the government intrudes, where the
government takes control, where the government creates pigeon
holes and expects people to fit into those pigeon holes, it has
never worked. Therefore we are suggesting that it is time to put
the initiative in the hands of grassroots men and women, to leave
them with the financial resources to do the job that government
has never been able to do and to have the government step back
and leave private industry, individuals, the entrepreneurial
spirit to do the work that has not been done before, to build the
nation.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, this is the fundamental difference
that separates us from the Reform Party and the member laid it
out very clearly.
There was an election in October, as I remember, and our
party ran on a platform that said certain budgets were going to be
transferred to key job creation programs. One of the key job
creation programs which was much more than a job creation
program, it was also a social program of great importance, was
to say that if we look at the situation of our youth today the great
majority of whom are leaving school do not know where to go
for work. There is a shortage of hope. There is complete despair.
I do not know if the member feels the same as I do. When in
my riding I meet all kinds of young people. I could send him a a
pile of CVs from young people, highly qualified, with masters
and doctorates who cannot find work today.
The government has started to say: ``We have to transfer
money, especially from the defence fund at a time when the cold
war is over, into a youth services corps for young Canadians''.
The great majority of Canadians obviously back this theory
because they elected us in large numbers as a majority party.
They did not elect the Reform Party with their view that the
marketplace, the economy, dollars and cents will cure every
problem. If it had been so in the past we would not have had
trade unions. We would not have had reforms of the social safety
net. We would not have medicare. We would have left it to the
marketplace to sort it out.
In all places where the marketplace is paramount and
exclusive the social fabric of the country is in disarray. We do
not say that government intervention is the only way to move,
but surely there is a mix there in establishing constructive,
social policies that can have government take a sense of
direction, and give leadership. It seems to us that if we want to
give leadership the first place to put the accent is on our youth. I
am very proud that we have this program in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my hon. colleague concerning the general position
of the Liberal government and how it compares to the position
taken during the election campaign. As the months go by, I find
that this government is getting better and better at
half-measures. This is clear from the red book, long on theory,
by the way, where it is stated that last fall, there were 1.6 million
unemployed in Canada. And what is the government doing to
solve the unemployment problem? Well, it has set up an
infrastructure program that will create 45,000 short-term
jobs-15,000 in Quebec-in response to a situation where 1.6
million Canadians and 428,000 Quebecers are unemployed.
With respect more specifically to youth unemployment, the
government has come up with another half-measure, namely a
youth service corps. This program will not solve anything or
create jobs. However, on the eve of a referendum, one
component of the program will, judging from what the
government member said earlier, enable young Canadians to
travel and to learn more about Canada. We all know what the
implications of this can be, what a man such as Jacques Hébert
can accomplish. We all know what the implications can be. I
would like my hon. colleague to explain to us how this youth
services corps is not
2241
fundamentally a very political move by this government on the
eve of the referendum?
(1705)
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, last October, we presented to the
Canadian public a very comprehensive program. It did not focus
solely on young people. I used them as an example. Our program
covered the entire social structure in Canada. It outlined our
agenda in such areas as research and development where we
pledged our support to the tune of 25 per cent for environmental
research and development; it announced a comprehensive
apprenticeship program for the next four years, a youth service
corps and an infrastructure program. I would remind my
colleague who speaks of 45,000 jobs that Statistics Canada
reports that last month, 66,000 new jobs were created.
Therefore, his figures are not correct. They should be 50 per cent
higher.
Mr. Plamondon: Not with that budget.
Mr. Lincoln: What I mean is that-
The Deputy Speaker: Order! The parliamentary secretary's
time has expired. Resuming debate, the Chair recognizes the
hon. secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to
speak with you today about the new Canadian Engineers and
Scientists Program announced in the budget.
This government is committed to sharpening Canada's
competitive edge and developing the kinds of technological
capabilities that translate into new business and jobs. With as
much as 85 per cent of new jobs being created by small and
medium-sized businesses, we have placed a very high priority
on support for these enterprises.
One of these measures is the creation of the Engineers and
Scientists Program. As announced in the budget, $10 million a
year have been earmarked to implement the program. To help
Canadian businesses build up technological capabilities, when it
begins early next year, the program will provide salary support
to assist small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in
meeting their needs for technical personnel.
[English]
One of these measures is the creation of the engineers and
scientific program. When it begins the program will provide
support all across the country. It is intended to help firms
develop long term technological capabilities, not just short term
project base needs.
It is designed to fill a gap in technological expertise that often
hinders small enterprises from achieving their true potential
whether in product development, productivity or both. Clearly a
company that has no one with current technological skills or
training has a difficult time introducing the level of innovation
that can help the company to grow and create more jobs.
The federal government can facilitate growth through this
type of national program. We can help set the stage for these
firms to adjust to the significant development in manufacturing
taking place around the world.
The program can provide an important focus for firms that
have a potential to export. I think this is so important. We have
to change the fact that over 90 per cent of Canadian firms do not
export. Innovation and technological transfers are the keys to
success to the kind of economy we need to have for the future.
We have to look for new ways to solve old problems. We have to
make sure Canadian manufacturers develop a high degree of
technology based expertise. It is absolutely vital to any long
term competitiveness and profitability in Canadian
manufacturing.
While technology transfers are often difficult to define and
measure we know that Canada has been weaker than most of its
competitors. We need to work together to turn this around. We
need to develop a program that is easy to use and is responsive to
real need.
Statistics Canada just released a study entitled ``Strategies for
Success, a Profile of Growing Small and Medium Sized
Enterprise in Canada''. In this study it is confirmed that
innovation is a key factor that separates successful small and
medium sized businesses from the unsuccessful ones. To
succeed firms need to be able to innovate.
(1710)
However this is one of the problems we face in Canada. A
recent survey of over 9,000 small and medium sized
manufacturing firms in Quebec shows that slightly more than 10
per cent of the firms employ one or more engineers, with only
2,400 engineers in total being employed. This shows the need
for investment in this area. We must invest so that our small and
medium sized firms can prosper.
[Translation]
We all want to see Canadian companies establish a strong
global competitive position. We want manufacturing jobs to
stay in Canada. The federal government is committed to
working with the provinces, business, labour and Canadian
workers to help the process along.
The Canadian Engineers and Scientists Program will no doubt
be a vital part of that success.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be speaking today to the motion which addresses
some of the problems of the recently announced budget.
2242
Last Monday when I spoke to Bill C-14, the authority to
borrow up to $37 billion more on the backs of the young people
of Canada, I said I wished that government members would vote
against the bill in order to avoid mortgaging the futures of their
children and grandchildren.
Unfortunately my pleas were not heard or they were not
understood or they were not convincing enough. For whatever
reason absolutely not one government member voted against
adding another $1,450 in mortgaged future to every man,
woman and child in the country. Government members refused
to acknowledge or are incapable of understanding the
seriousness of the problem and they voted for Bill C-14.
As one person put it, because of the budget the light at the end
of the tunnel has been turned out until further notice. No light at
the end of the tunnel usually means there is a wall at the end of
the tunnel. We do not have to keep speeding into a dark tunnel on
this train of out of control debt. There is a chance for
government members to help stop the train.
What is needed, among other things, is for them to support the
motion before us today, a motion that would foster
co-operation, to place caps on spending and to develop a
spending contingency plan that will stop piling debt on to our
children and grandchildren.
Of course government members are always worried that our
real plan is to overthrow the government so that we can have
another election. I would just like to say to them that this is
simply not true. We believe in stability in government and we
will support any government at this critical time that is prepared
to address seriously the issues of deficit and debt.
Government members should be placing partisan politics in
second place and start admitting that Reform MPs are telling the
truth about the seriousness of the problem. If they do not believe
there is a problem they should think about what has happened in
Ontario. They should ask themselves: If government spending
was the answer to the problems, how come the premier of the
province of Ontario has had to abandon his program of $13
billion deficits? If it did not work for Ontario, how can it work
for Canada?
The fact is that government deficits kill the economy.
Government deficits lead to high taxation and excessive
regulation. Government deficits suck the wealth out of the
private sector and destroy hopes for the future. Government
deficits turn out the light at the end of the tunnel.
I find it hard to believe that at least some of the government
members have not realized that the government, like ones before
it, has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I find it hard
to believe that at least some of them have not realized that we
have reached tax saturation point, that it is time to abandon these
possibilities of widening the tax base. It is time to realize that
increasing taxes will only lead to a bigger underground
economy. Prior to the 1993 election Reform was the underdog. If
this government does not wake up, it will find that after the 1993
election Reform is the watchdog and after the next election we
will be the top dog.
(1715)
The best way for government members to retain their seats in
the next election and to prevent Reform from winning is to
support the motion before us today. That is another bit of the free
advice I give occasionally to government members to help them
with their re-election.
I know that government members like to say the policies of
Reform are slash and burn. This is ridiculous rhetoric. It really
does not contribute anything to solving the problems. The
people who watch the proceedings of the House of Commons on
television are intelligent, thoughtful people who can see through
that rhetoric. They understand it for what it is.
We on this side of the House try to offer constructive
alternatives. We offer alternatives that are workable and
reasonable. It would not hurt for a government member to
occasionally vote with us on something that we propose.
The evidence that we speak the truth is all around us. The
National Citizens Coalition, which the government would
dearly like to silence, has widely distributed a taxpayers' score
card. If any government member filled it in honestly, they would
have to admit that the government had failed in its budget plans.
More evidence came right from the horse's mouth, so to
speak, when the deputy finance minister admitted to the public
accounts committee on March 9 that the tax burden on
individual Canadians and corporations is higher than in any
other major industrial power except France and has climbed to
almost 40 per cent of the gross domestic product.
Peter Cook in the Globe and Mail on the same date wrote:
Mr. Martin may have convinced himself that economic growth and the
spending cuts he announced will head off a debt crunch, and he has convinced
his boss-
Do we know who that is, Mr. Speaker?
-who is rather easily convinced on this subject. But at the great bar of public
opinion he is not doing so well. Not only has he failed to convince most
Canadian economists and the Canadian media, but he is facing an international
audience that is getting rather peppery and impertinent.
Reports in the financial circles of Germany and the U.K.
criticized the failure to act on the spending and predicted that
the Canadian dollar would continue to slide. The proof is out
there for us all to see; another third of a cent drop in the dollar
last Friday, almost four cents since the election. Is the
government proud of this wonderful achievement?
Can government members not see that this will lead to higher
interest rates, higher inflation and no possibility of getting
control of this deficit? Anyone with a calculator can see that we
are already off the targets that were set in that budget. Even the
government's infrastructure program, which was supposed to
2243
kickstart the economy, has become a scandalous wish list of
pork barrel politics and make work projects.
In a news release on February 18 by British Columbia-Canada
infrastructure works it was revealed that short and long term job
creation are no longer essential criteria. They have been reduced
to only important criteria. The item at the top of the list is now
incrementality and/or acceleration of investment, whatever that
means. Let's face it, it is a mess and it is not going to get better as
a result of the budget.
Our Reform motion today tries to address some of the
problems and it promises co-operation. If I were a betting man I
would bet that the government members will do the usual thing
and vote against it without having any good reason to do so.
The Globe and Mail editorial on the morning after the budget
said:
The budget makes a mockery of Jean Chrétien's promise to return to the good
old days. In the good old days the future was not mortgaged to the selfishness and
cowardice of the current generation.
I am not a coward. I am prepared to tell it as it is, and I am not
afraid to support decisive action.
I am also not selfish about it. I have taken a voluntary pay cut
and refused to sign the form making me eligible for the
gold-plated MPs' pension plan. I have proven that I am prepared
to make sacrifices to avoid dumping more debt on to the next
generation. I can sleep at night because I can say to the next
generation that I tried to stop the debt train in that long dark
tunnel while the government opened the throttle, hoping the
light at the end of the tunnel would reappear only to discover
there was a wall in front of it.
(1720)
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the member's statement and comments. I would
like to ask the member a specific question about this motion, in
particular that a moratorium be put on the court challenges
program.
The motion states a new program. This court challenges
program is not new. It was cancelled by the previous
government but the current government, as I understand it, has
agreed to reinstate it. It is a program that is absolutely essential
to provide a way for disadvantaged groups and equality-seeking
and language rights groups to pursue the rights guaranteed to
them under the charter and the Constitution.
I know the member will agree with me that the rights of
Canadians are sacred to this nation, but rights without the ability
to implement them and to seek equality in those rights are in fact
meaningless.
I would say to the member that I know his party's position,
very often stated, is: Why can't all Canadians just be treated the
same. I would agree, why can't all Canadians just be treated the
same. However, in reality and in the real world women,
disadvantaged groups, persons with disabilities and visible
minorities are not treated all the same.
The intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to
enshrine in our country the importance that we treat each citizen
with equality.
I would ask the member how he can justify this program, a
relatively small expenditure, being wiped off the map by the
Reform Party? Do they not support the equality of all citizens in
this country?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for her question.
We in the Reform Party made it very clear that we support
equality of all people regardless of their race, religion and
province of origin. In fact I gave a speech to that effect this
morning.
Specifically the member asked about the court challenges
program and, as she quite correctly stated, it has been
reintroduced. It was a very expensive program and had been
used widely by special interest groups to press their own agenda
on the backs of the taxpayers who frankly are fed up with this
type of government redistribution of wealth.
We would favour getting rid of that program again and taking
some load off the backs of the taxpayers.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
the motion deals with the infrastructure program. The member
for North Vancouver has indicated nothing in constructive
alternatives to that program.
I wonder what he wants me to tell the people in the town of
Lindsay and the Lindsay police force which is planning to build
a new building under this plan and the people in the town of
Haliburton who I have met with who have plans to spend money
under the infrastructure program. We have 30 per cent
unemployment in the town of Haliburton. What does the
member want me to tell those people who will not get a job
because of that?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question.
Anywhere in this country the portion of funding that comes
from the federal government will be borrowed because the
federal government runs a deficit. The portion of the money
used at the provincial level will be borrowed because all of the
provinces are running a deficit. At the municipal level it will
mean a taxation increase for homeowners to fund their portion.
2244
Reform's answer to all of this is not to keep piling debt on to
people and increasing taxation, but to get control of government
debt so that we can reduce taxation which makes the economy
prosper and everybody is better off.
The infrastructure program is not creating jobs. For the most
part all it is doing is expanding a little bit the current functions
of the municipalities without them employing a single
additional person to their present staff.
(1725 )
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, if
an analogy can be used to describe this year's federal budget, I
would suggest the analogy of a rusted out pickup truck patched
with Bondo and painted the same colour as the red ink book.
The budget is a patch-up job that seems to do very little to
control the source of Canada's deficit problem. New programs
have been introduced that require even more borrowed money.
Each program represents an attempt to avoid the real problem,
which is the government's lack of will to deal with a nation
crippling deficit.
The infrastructure program is a large part of this problem
avoidance. Jobs, jobs, jobs, we heard hon. members opposite cry
on the campaign trail last fall. The promise of permanent jobs in
this program is an illusion. The jobs created will last just as long
as government money flows into this infrastructure program but
not much longer.
By the same token, these jobs will not only cause the federal
debt to rise, they will force the other two levels of government to
increase their debts as well. The finance minister takes credit for
not raising the tax rate. The visible tax rate may not have been
raised but the various arms of government through which taxes
are collected have been extended. The same taxpayer must now
pay for more federally directed programs through the broader
reach of government.
The additional debt to be incurred by all levels of government
involved in the infrastructure program will result in about a
$500 million annual increase in the deficits. This federal
program is demanding that the provincial and municipal levels
of government adopt its policy of increasing deficit spending.
Some provincial governments like Newfoundland may not
fully participate in this program because they are already too
heavily in debt. Other provinces have reluctantly conceded to
the program only because of the pressure they receive from the
municipalities.
Even the municipalities are reluctant to participate because of
the enormous additional expense. These extra costs go far
beyond what they can reasonably add to their budgeted
expenses. However, because of the extra federal cash available
politically both the provinces and their municipalities must
enter this federally contrived competition for more transfer
dollars.
The problem of paying for this program remains whether the
money is accepted or not. Whether we take the cash or not we
have to pay the taxman because the money will be spent. The
money will be borrowed to spend and the burden of paying
interest on that will be borne by the taxpayer.
Some of the largest cities may view this program from a
completely different perspective. For them this may be a
windfall. The federal government has taken on the role of Santa
Claus, granting to them any project within reason that they can
dream up. Some projects likely to receive funding can hardly be
considered infrastructure types.
One project likely to gain approval is the Quebec City
convention centre. Many would question this as infrastructure.
While some communities are in desperate need of infrastructure
upgrading, others will be using these tax dollars for projects that
are ridiculous for financially broke governments to even
consider.
Can we expect more projects as we saw from the previous
government like the Museum of Humour in Montreal which is a
joke of a project, approved and funded by all three levels of
government?
Even if we could afford to undertake the Liberal infrastructure
program, it is still flawed. Municipalities have been provided
only two years to approve and implement projects which must
be completed within just three years.
Any projects currently in place are not eligible and I fear the
least infrastructure-like projects will get priority in the rush for
approval. As well, the haste to completion will result in a lower
quality end product with likely cost overruns to be fully borne
by the municipalities.
(1730 )
I am concerned that this infrastructure program will end up
yielding the same results as the Ataratiri Housing Project in
central Toronto which was reported in the press. The description
of this municipal housing project has similarities to the
infrastructure program. On this Toronto housing project $265
million was spent and not a single residence was ever built.
I would like some assurance from the former Mayor of
Toronto, now the hon. minister responsible for the infrastructure
program, that the mistakes made in this Toronto project will not
be repeated again on a $6 billion scale.
This infrastructure program serves as a reward to many
municipalities that have neglected adequate maintenance.
Rewarding negligence is found in another program adopted by
the budget, the residential rehabilitation assistance program, or
the
2245
RRAP. This program is designed to assist individuals who own
residences that do not meet adequate living standards.
The RRAP provides forgivable grants and loans. Forgivable
grants are loans converted into grants after five years ownership
has passed since the work was completed. The forgivable grant
portion of the program cost the Canadian taxpayer $53.7 million
in 1993. Additional fully repayable loans worth $10 million
were also granted. However, in 1993 almost $1.5 million worth
of previous loans were in default.
The residential rehabilitation assistance program as I
understand it is intended to raise the standard of housing for
those people with low incomes. This in itself is a worthy cause.
As worthy as this may be the main problem with this program is
the same problem we have with the infrastructure program. The
RRAP will take another $100 million of borrowed money to
finance it and this borrowed money will be added to the national
debt and then we and our children can pay interest on that also.
However, there are some other reasons why I resist the RRAP.
They are based upon some knowledge of some of the abuses that
have taken place in the past. Homes have been renovated and
upgraded with the result being an increased sale value which
made selling the house an attractive option that was taken
advantage of.
Another aspect I resist is the arrangement to provide loans
which are simply not being repaid as agreed.
In the budget other costly programs were introduced. The cost
of scientists and engineers program will be $10 million
annually. It is designed to help businesses hire new technical
staff with government subsidies. A similar program is the youth
services corps which also acts as subsidies to businesses hiring
youths.
As admirable as these programs seem they put businesses
which are able to participate in the program at a competitive
advantage over those that do not quality. Lowering the cost of
research and production for a business which normally is not
competitive or viable could force other self-sustaining and
competitive business out of the market. Both these programs
have admirable motives but have potentially dangerous
consequences that could place Canada at a disadvantage in
world markets.
It is always a disappointment for a person who has worked
hard to see his or her business grow and then see a competitor
come in and receive government money that instantaneously
makes them 10 times larger than their years of work have
accomplished and the business becomes unviable because of the
artificial competition.
These programs will have little overall effect on employment
but will force us to maintain current or higher levels of deficit
spending and will not permit any overall lowering of business
taxes which is the greatest stimulus to increased employment.
These programs have the potential of working against the goal
they were designed to achieve.
The court challenges program was reintroduced in last
month's budget. Canadian Heritage estimates show a steady
increase in the money to be provided to the court challenges
program. The amount allocated for the next fiscal year,
1994-95, will be almost double what was provided in the last
full fiscal year before its cancellation in 1992.
(1735 )
We must also take into consideration that the $35,000
available per case represents only a small portion of the entire
cost that each case represents in the entire judicial system. As
well, there are a growing number of people who resent
taxpayers' money being spent to argue for the rights that satisfy
agendas more personal than national.
The goal of the court challenges program was introduced to
help minority groups challenge the sections of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would be reasonable to
expect that after 14 years of the existence of this charter the
number of cases should be tapering off, not increasing.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the hon. member how he would respond to the people in
the municipalities of my riding who have said to me very
enthusiastically that because of the infrastructure program the
municipalities were able to update projects that had to be
delayed in the past because of the recession and that the benefits
will accrue over the next 10 to 15 years, well beyond the time
that the mechanics of the infrastructure program are under way.
I wonder how he would respond to that in making the
statement that this is strictly a temporary thing with an end and
once it is over it is over and gone.
He alluded to that early in his speech.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, the problem of money needed to
rebuild and renovate infrastructure within the municipalities is
not a new one. Municipalities have been short of money for this
type of work for a long time.
However, the difficulty at this time with borrowing money for
these projects is that this is money that will be added to the
deficit and the debt and will increase the burden upon this
generation and future generations to deal with the real problem
of our economy, the number one economic problem of our
nation, overtaxation. Every level of government suffers from
that disease.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, the member
spoke about the infrastructure program.
As the frost comes out of the ground across Canada, hundreds
and thousands of infrastructure projects are going to start
creating jobs, improving our infrastructure and stimulating
local economies. He spoke about the residential rehab program.
Thousands of Canadians are going to improve their basic
investments in their homes.
2246
He spoke about the science and engineering program. Does he
know that whereas in Japan virtually every manufacturing
company with 100 employees has an engineer, virtually none of
our equivalent corporations does.
My question to the member is can he assure us that no
municipality in his riding is going to take advantage of the
infrastructure program?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask all hon. members that
when they are asked to be brief they do not go on indefinitely.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, in a brief answer to the member's
question concerning whether I will ask the municipalities to
assure that they will not accept the money, of course I will not do
that.
The reason for that is we are going to be taking part in paying
for this project whether we use the money or not. Regardless of
whether we are philosophically ready to approve this type of
thing, which we are not, we must take advantage of it because we
are going to be paying for it anyway. We are going to be there
with our tax money like everybody else.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. I would remind
the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin that he is not supposed
to answer a question or put a question unless he is sitting in his
seat.
I remind all hon. members of that.
(1740 )
Mr. Mayfield: I am ware of that, Mr. Speaker. I will try to
contain myself in future.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise today to applaud the government's decision
to reinstate the court challenges program.
The original court challenges program began in 1978 when
the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice announced the
establishment of a fund to provide financial assistance for legal
expenses of litigants seeking clarification of the scope of
protection afforded to official language minorities under either
section 93 or 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867.
Following the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in 1982 the Secretary of State and the Minister of
Justice reaffirmed and updated the court challenges program.
The program was expanded to include sections 16 to 23 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1985 section 15 of the
charter came into effect and the court challenges program was
expanded to include equality rights protected under that
provision. At the same time, administration of the program was
assigned to an arm's length organization, the Canadian Council
on Social Development, which administered the program until
1990 when the responsibility was transferred to the Human
Rights Research and Education Centre of the University of
Ottawa.
The termination by the previous government of the court
challenges program was severely criticized. It was seen by many
as an attack on human rights. Former Supreme Court Justice
Bertha Wilson wrote to the Minister of Justice at the time,
expressing here dismay and distress over the cancellation of the
program. She wrote, in part: ``I have on numerous occasions
publicly expressed the view that it is totally illusory to confer
rights on people who do not have the means to enforce them''.
The program has been commended for making the critical
difference between access to charter rights and no access, and
this government is committed to ensuring access for Canadians
to a judicial system that would otherwise be beyond reach.
We agree with Madam Wilson that rights for people who do
not have the means to enforce them are totally illusory.
[Translation]
The program funds precedent-making cases that are national
in scope. While it subsidizes individuals and groups, it is
concerned with issues that affect many Canadians. It is not a
general legal aid program. To guarantee impartiality of
decisions on cases with financial implications, the government
has transferred responsibility for the program to independent
organizations.
Since its founding, the program has been unique in Canada
and has attracted praise from outside the country as well. It
bears witness to the fact that enshrining rights in legislation has
no impact if the people they are supposed to protect lack the
means to enforce those rights.
In fact, people have been very critical of the Charter because
it is not accessible to the average Canadian. In the past, the
Court Challenges Program has ensured access to the courts for
all individuals who want to defend their language or equality
rights.
The program has made it possible for all Canadians to be full
participants in the Constitution of our country. It has been
instrumental in making charter rights accessible to francophone
parents, aboriginal women and the disabled, to name only a few.
[English]
In addition to language and equality rights, the new court
challenges program will fund test cases of national significance
involving challenges to fundamental freedoms as outlined under
section 2 of the charter.
2247
[Translation]
These basic freedoms are as follows: freedom of conscience
and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other
communications media, freedom of peaceful assembly and
freedom of association.
(1745)
I am also pleased to say that the program, as reinstated, will
continue to provide financial support for legal tests that are
national in scope and concern federal and provincial statutes
covered by sections 93 and 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867,
section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, and sections 16 to 23 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The program will also continue to provide financial support
for court challenges of federal statutes, practices and policies,
under sections 15-equality-and 28-gender equality-of the
Charter, or when an argument relating to section 27 of the
Charter- multiculturalism-supports arguments based on
section 15.
The new program will be administered independently by a
non-profit agency, whose board of directors will include
representatives of the Canadian Bar Association,
non-governmental organizations and universities.
[English]
Proposals and discussion papers on the new program have
been received from a number of groups. Officials are reviewing
these carefully as they continue to work on the modalities of the
program. A number of parties have expressed an interest in
working with the department to ensure the expedient
reinstatement of the program.
This government recognizes and values the experience of
individuals and groups involved with the former court
challenges program. It is committed to seeking their views prior
to making a decision on the legal structure and operating
principles of the new program.
As a result of the broad range of interest, experience and
expertise which will be taken into account by the government, I
am confident the program will be implemented as quickly as
possible in a manner accountable to the government and the
people of Canada.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise once again on an opposition day.
The last time I stood on an opposition day was February 21.
We were speaking on petitions. The Reform Party was
advancing the notion it wanted this House to listen better. It
wanted to show that we listen better to Canadians and to each
other.
Interestingly enough when my time expired one of my
colleagues on that side of the House moved a motion that the
time be extended so I could answer some questions. Members of
the Reform Party were the ones who voted against it. That is
important for us to note.
In terms of dealing with this budget, one has to wonder
whether the opposition perhaps is being a little sanctimonious. I
say that because there was an election. We can talk all we want
about petitions or referendums, but there was an election on
October 25.
We went to the public with a plan. It was outlined in the red
book. We said that we were going to follow that plan if we
formed a government. Now that we are in government that is
exactly what we are doing. We are following that plan. For
members of a party that says it believes in petitions and
referendums to turn around and tell us we should ignore our
campaign promises to Canadians certainly is the height of
cynicism and sanctimony.
Let us look at what was contained in the budget. We talked
about what we would do in the fiscal framework of present day
realities.
(1750 )
It is in the budget that there are $5 of spending cuts for every
$1 of revenue increase. Over 80 per cent of the net fiscal
improvements achieved by the government through 1996-97
comes through spending cuts. The net savings of $17 billion
achieved in spending cuts come after paying for our new
initiatives.
Some $6.7 billion in current federal program spending is
being reallocated to encourage growth, create jobs and find new
priorities. Those same programs are criticized in this motion.
We are talking about the infrastructure program that was the
subject of such debate in the last election. In my riding of
Waterloo the Reform candidate ran in the previous municipal
election. When I won the seat to represent the Waterloo federal
riding in this House, my seat on council became vacant. During
the course of the campaign the Reform candidate was saying that
the infrastructure program was pork barrelling. It was a make
work project and had no redeeming value.
The Reform candidate now occupies my seat on Waterloo
municipal council. And guess what? Last week they laid out the
infrastructure program for the city of Waterloo. Waterloo is
spending all its allocation. What happened with the Reform
candidate who spoke so strongly against it? The Reform
candidate voted in favour of the infrastructure program. It was
unanimous.
I raise that because just like every other new Liberal member
and I am sure most other members of this House I honestly and
truly wanted to believe this Parliament was going to be
different. We wanted to believe we would not be playing
sanctimonious games, that we would be working together to
improve the operation of this House.
2248
That is not the reality. And it saddens me because every new
member on my side of the House is a reformer and they are
acting a lot different from the Reformers. We have to keep that
in mind.
Staying with the infrastructure program, they say it is a make
work project. One of the infrastructure programs deals with the
inventory and repair of failing sewer lines throughout the city.
Sewer lines are pretty important to any municipality. As a matter
of fact, sewer lines make us a civilized country, along with water
and other infrastructure. It is the elimination of inflow
infiltration to the sewer lines.
Another program is to extend the Northland 4 industrial
subdivision pumping station. There are sewers, water mains and
road construction projects. They are doing that so they can have
new industry locate. New industry will generate jobs and pay
taxes.
Tell me the last time private enterprise built a sewage
treatment plant. Clearly that is something government has to do.
It is a responsibility belonging to government.
Infrastructure: Look around the world at countries that do not
have infrastructure and you are looking at countries in the Third
World. Look at the G-7 countries and the money they spend on
infrastructure. They are spending it because they are investing
in the future of their countries. We are investing in the future of
our country. We as Liberals believe in that.
Prior to the tabling of the budget many Reform members and I
had occasion to attend a workshop by the Fraser Institute. Do
you know what was said? It was said that our proposal to get our
goal of 3 per cent of the GDP in terms of reducing the debt
within three years was a responsible approach. It was a rational
approach.
(1755 )
We all knew that the deficit was going to be $32 billion this
year. The previous regime told us that. The reality is we are
looking at a much higher deficit this year.
The Reform Party in the last campaign said it was going to
eliminate the deficit in three years. What Reform members say
and how they act impacts on all of us and on the legitimacy of
this Chamber. For the sake of their own credibility and that of
this House I would love to see them stand in this House and
present to us how they would eliminate the deficit. I put to this
House that they could not do it. I challenge them to stand
up-which they will not-and say they were wrong and they
cannot do it.
One of this country's tragedies is what is happening to our
youth. In 1992, 100,000 young people who graduated from high
school were qualified to attend college or university but there
was no place for them in our educational institutions. Reform
Party members would chop out the youth services corps which is
meant to address the drastically and shamefully high
unemployment rate among our youth. To see their opposition to
this corps has to sadden every member who cares about those
neglected youth who are part of our constituencies.
My friend made a very able presentation on the court
challenges program. Since I have been in this House I have
listened to Reform members tell us they are in touch with the
needs of minority groups. I can only say after listening to them
for four months that I find them compassionately challenged
when it comes to those issues.
What does the residential rehabilitation assistance program
mean? It means those seniors who are unable to make repairs to
their houses and move on to costlier institutions would be
assisted so they could stay in their homes and thus maintain their
dignity. How anyone could oppose that is incredible.
There is the engineering program. The University of Waterloo
in my riding is the biggest supplier of workers to Microsoft in
the United States. This has to be a brain drain. We want to keep
our brightest graduates in whom we have invested so much in
Canada. This will afford us an opportunity to do that.
In wrapping this up, I was looking forward to this motion
today but I find it is very much challenged in terms of reality. I
can only say I am very proud of the budget and the responsible
plan we came down with in presenting that budget.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richelieu has the
floor, very briefly please.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Very briefly as usual,
Mr. Speaker. I always follow your precious advice.
I was very surprised to hear the previous speaker, a member of
the Liberal Party, express astonishment that a member of the
Reform Party may have changed his mind or acted differently
after an election. It is a distinctive feature of the Liberal Party to
say one thing during the election campaign and something
different after the campaign. The most conclusive evidence is
the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance, which is exactly
the kind of budget tabled by former Tory ministers.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member talk about
contradictions as, when the Liberals were in opposition and the
Conservatives dealt with unemployment through Bill C-113, I
was also in opposition as a member of the Bloc Quebecois and I
heard Liberal members cry out against that change. The last
budget is doing worse things to the unemployed but they have
not said a word. In closing, I am very surprised to see that when
they were in opposition, they attacked the changes to old age
pensions proposed by the Tory government, but now that they
are in office, they do not hesitate to assail old age pensions.
2249
(1800)
I was very surprised when I heard the hon. member say that
sewers are the solution in Canada and the distinctive
characteristic of civilized countries. I thought it was culture,
respect for young people, the right to work, and a finance
minister who made the right decisions.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, may I say that on Friday with a
number of my colleagues I had the opportunity to look at the
social programs in my riding. Everyone who participated came
up with very good suggestions about our social programs and
how we have to reform them as we head into the next decade.
Everyone who came from the baby-boom generation would
have some concern about old age pensions. We are going to have
the biggest revolution when the baby boomers become senior
citizens. Demographically it is going to be like everything else.
When the boomers got to university, the university education
system exploded. Therefore, we have to plan for that.
I really regret that the Bloc Quebecois would not want to look
at this to make sure that in the future we will have a pension
system that is supportable, viable and will be there for people in
need. There has been absolutely no talk about cutting pensions.
In terms of sewers and infrastructure, even this Chamber has
to have sewage service, probably more than most other places.
Any building, whether it is a university building or an industrial
building has to have a sewage system and a water system. Those
systems are very important in protecting our environment as
well.
The Deputy Speaker: The debate is over at 6.23. I wonder if
the two members from the Reform Party want to cut into the
time of their own members, two of whom are the next speakers.
Assuming not, the next speaker is the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak against the budget and in support of our motion to do
something about the current deficit and debt that we face as a
country.
I do not know if members have ever heard a million dollar
speech, but I am about to give one. Members may not agree it is
worth that much, but the fact remains that by the time I
conclude, with our current debt accumulating at $78,000 per
minute, we will have slipped another million dollars into debt.
This is the ticking time bomb we are sitting on.
Mr. O'Reilly: That is enough to make you lose your hair.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): I cannot afford to do that. I
appreciate that this is a two part budget and nothing in the first
part will correct the problem. Given the track record on
promises for the future on the second stage I have no optimism.
We have been living beyond our means for over 20 years and
over that same period each budget would acknowledge how
serious the problem was, yet we still overspent and the debt
continued to grow.
In spite of this history of year after year of failed budgets we
continue to go down the same road. Apparently no one is asking
the question: ``What are we doing wrong? Why have our plans
not worked''? The problem to me is the fact that we place all of
our emphasis on those things that we have little control over;
interest payments and growth in the economy.
The one area where we do have complete control is spending
and yet we ignore it in the hope that we can grow our way out
with optimistic growth projections and pray that interest rates
will remain low. The government has a spending problem. There
is no other variable available that we can control.
If we are serious about eliminating our deficit and then
reducing our debt we must attack spending. Make no mistake
about it, this is a war of Canada's survival. I am not talking about
nibbling around the edges like this budget. I am talking about
serious spending cuts, not next year or the year after but now.
(1805)
From my background in small business I know how important
the bottom line is. If you want to stay in business and employ
people you must make a profit or at least break even. As a
manager of that business if you fail to make a profit you fail the
employees who lose their jobs. The bottom line is profit for
people. Government is a business, not a business for profit but a
break even business and the government is failing our people.
You cannot lose money year after year. You can borrow to a
point. However, governments have gone far beyond the point of
good business sense. Our lenders do us no favours by allowing
us to go deeper and deeper into an abyss of debt. The pain and
suffering that will come will not be any easier as we delay the
inevitable as the budget does.
During the first few days of the 35th Parliament I heard the
phrase ``lean but not mean'' many times. In some ways those are
meaningless words of comfort. You cannot be lean but not mean.
You are speaking with a forked tongue. To those who are going
to be affected by your decisions to cut or reduce you are mean.
To the 16,000 military personnel in the defence cuts plus the
thousands of jobs lost in the cancellation of the EH-101 contract
without debating the merits of those decisions, you were mean.
2250
Unfortunately due to excessive spending by former
governments there is no painless way out of the current mess.
The budget has only delayed the day and continues to play a
cruel hoax on Canadians by pretending there is an easy way out.
There is not. We have 20 years of history to prove it.
It is ironic that on the first day of this Parliament the federal
budget reached half a trillion dollars, a national disgrace for a
country of 27 million people, a personal debt of $74,000 for each
family of four living in the country, $18,000 of debt for every
man, woman and child.
As shocking as these numbers are, the government is prepared
to add almost $40 billion this year toward an additional $100
billion over the next three years to a total of $600 billion or
$22,000 per person by 1996. It is madness. We cannot afford the
programs we have and yet we are prepared to add more.
The 35th Parliament set three targets. The first is the largest
deficit in our history, the largest number of new members, and
the largest debt ever. What a great opportunity with so many new
faces with fresh ideas to turn this place around and leave it in
four years a better place than we found it, fiscally responsible
and economically sound.
In 22 years of Liberal governments the debt soared from about
$25 billion to $180 billion with an absolute freefall starting in
1975-1976. After losing to the Conservatives in 1984 the debt
plunged to a record $500 billion in 1993, almost triple in nine
short years. This in spite of the fact that each and every budget
announced the intention of attacking the deficit and the debt.
Where is the credibility? We have had 20 years of failed
budgets, 20 years of broken promises, 20 years of tax increases,
and 20 years of declining services. Is there any wonder that
Canadians have lost faith in their politicians?
There is a frightening similarity between overfishing and
overspending. For years we were warned that our fish stocks
were in danger and that continued fishing at current rates would
deplete them, costing thousands of jobs. We ignored that advice
at our peril. We have the same scenario today in out of control
government spending. We have been warned it cannot continue
yet we ignore the warnings.
(1810 )
With our situation deteriorating by the minute as it has done
for the past 20 years no one is asking why. What are we doing
wrong? How do we stop this addiction to spending? Like drugs
or alcohol in many ways it is an addiction. Like an addiction the
first step toward a cure is acknowledgement that we have a
problem.
This budget fails that test. Much worse, it says very clearly
that our finance minister does not understand.
Unless we face and solve these problems now nothing else
matters, not health care, not education and not our ability to
compete.
The headline on the cover of this week's Maclean's magazine
asks the question: ``Are we cheating our kids?'' While the story
deals with education, the same question applies to this
generation's overspending and the terrible debt load we are
leaving on their young shoulders.
The reason I am here today is my deep concern for my
children and my grandchildren. I am ashamed of my part in this
spending binge that has mortgaged their future. Sitting back was
not good enough. I had to get involved and do what I could to
save their future, and in saving their future we would be saving
Canada from the terrible prospects of bankruptcy.
Some politicians will say that deficit and debt are a problem
but not to worry. Those politicians are burying their heads in the
sand. We have been told for 20 years that things are going to get
better, yet our situation has never been worse.
In the next three years we will add $100 billion more debt and
we will still be overspending by $25 billion.
For 20 years I ran a small business in Barrie providing
employment for some 20 people. Each month and each year I
worried that we would maintain a profit or at least break even so
I could protect their jobs and mine. It is no different from any
other business, large or small. It is no different than the
taxpayers across this great country making ends meet, living
within their means.
Why is it that governments think they can do otherwise? A big
part of the answer is the fact that governments have been able to
come back to us for more taxes, never cutting spending, just
increasing taxes. The day of tax increases being productive is
over.
My constituents told me very clearly they have no more to
give. Any further attempts at a tax grab would ignite a tax revolt.
Many of our citizens have expressed their disgust in past
increases and broken promises by joining the underground
economy which is costing honest taxpayers billions of dollars.
As part of our zero in three plan we outlined a savings of $500
million in subsidies to special interest groups that have been
living off all taxpayers when they should have been getting
funding from those they supposedly represent. We are doing a
further study on this issue.
Governments do not create jobs. The private sector does. The
$6 billion infrastructure program outlined in the budget to kick
start our economy was described by Sir Roger Douglas, former
finance minister of New Zealand, as taking a feather duster to
the Eiffel Tower. Those few jobs will disappear after the funding
runs out and we will be a further $6 billion in debt.
2251
The private sector will create the long term jobs our children
and grandchildren need. The private sector is not looking for
government handouts. It is looking for governments to get off of
its back and out of its pockets and out of the pockets of its
customers.
The reduction in UI premiums is a step in the right direction
and I applaud the government for that.
In closing, let me say that all of the problems we face are pale
by comparison. If we fail to attack this overspending, this
mortgaging our children's future, we will fail Canada. We are
facing a battle that is greater than any our country has faced
before. Working together we can make the tough decisions to
bring back fiscal responsibility.
This budget is not the answer. We cannot delay. We can pay
now or we can pay much more dearly later.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. speaker,
the speech was not worth a million dollars to me. He asked for $1
million.
On this motion paragraph (a) asks for a cut in the budget for
the youth service corps, the court challenges program, the
residential rehabilitation assistance plan, the engineers program
and infrastructure program. That is one paragraph.
(1815 )
Paragraph (c) says that we should spend money to produce
quarterly reports. We are going to spend money to produce
reports but we will not spend money to create jobs. How does
one explain this in the motion?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, item (c) where
we are asking that money be spent on quarterly reports on our
progress ties in very nicely with a recommendation that was
made in the Auditor General's report.
One problem we have faced over the years is that the Canadian
public is not being kept aware of the magnitude of this program
and our progress or lack of progress in solving it. Our reference
to that is for information, to keep this Parliament and all
Canadians aware of the progress that we are making toward
attacking the deficit and the debt.
I do not think that is wasted money. It is money well spent. We
will be keeping in touch with our progress in addressing this
most serious concern that we face and indeed that all Canadians
are going to be affected by.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I realize the time is short and I will not be able to give
the entire load that I intended to deliver to the House on this
occasion in speaking in support of our motion put forward by my
colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge.
I had intended to relate to this House the effect that I felt the
federal government's budget would have on the agricultural
industry. Perhaps when another day provides the opportunity I
will be able to give this presentation in a little bit more detail.
I would like to make a few points in the short time that I have
available, especially in light of the fact that the Minister of
Agriculture is in the House. It would have been a great pleasure
and a privilege to discuss agriculture at quite some length
because agriculture has been an issue that has strangely been on
the back burner. It has received very little attention in the House
from the government side.
I know that my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster and
Canadians in rural areas are quite concerned that the
government does not have a handle on federal spending. Federal
agriculture programs are not only in jeopardy but our very
standard of living is in jeopardy and will affect all communities
in this country as well as agriculture.
By not taking the necessary steps to deal with the deficit now
the government is sacrificing the future of government services
to all Canadians, including people in the agricultural field.
Rather than taking these essential steps the government has
decided to create more spending programs.
We would encourage the government to place a moratorium
on new spending, including the new spending requirements
announced in the budget namely, and we have talked about them
today, the youth service corps, the court challenges program and
the engineer's program but particularly the infrastructure
program.
I was quite saddened to hear comments made by the Minister
of Public Works mocking Reform's position that Canadians are
not as excited about the infrastructure program as the
government would have us believe.
The minister challenged members on this side of the House to
have their constituencies refuse infrastructure funding. It
seemed like a very unfair request to make in that constituents
who are represented by Reform MPs are being raped and
pillaged by high taxes and then are expected to give up the
morsels that the government would offer by way of inadequate
infrastructure programs.
More seriously, what is really the heart of the matter is that
instead of having a few new programs, what is really going to
happen is that we are not going to have security for the programs
that Canadians rely upon including federal support for health
care for those seniors that the government side seems to be so
concerned about, if they have a few programs that have nice
frills around the edges. However we lose the core of our health
care program. What good are these programs?
If we have a youth corps program but we do not have quality
education for our young people in this country, of what value is a
youth corps program? Finally, if our seniors lose their old age
security pensions and low income assistance, of what value are
some of these frills that the government would put forward in
the way of new programs?
2252
Reformers have been talking about priorities. We have been
talking about what is really important to keep this great country
of ours together with a high standard of living that we can all be
proud of. Whether we are people in the private sector who are
small business people, farmers, whether we are seniors who
have committed a great deal of effort and energy into making
this a great country, or whether we are the youth of this country
who would like to think they have a bright future where they can
contribute to a great land and to a society that they can make
better, I and many Canadians are concerned that this will not be
the case in light of the fact that the government has not been able
to control its spending. In fact, this debt may be a ticking time
bomb that will explode on future generations and deny them the
standard of living and the lifestyle that we have enjoyed as
Canadians who have lived beyond our means. They will not have
that same opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the short time you have allowed
me to speak. As I mentioned, perhaps I will be able to unload the
entire load at some future occasion.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.23 p.m., in accordance with
the provisions of Standing Order 81(16), it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question!
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been asked by the government whip to defer the division
until a later time.
[English]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until tomorrow at 6.30 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Colleagues, it being 6.25 p.m. the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.)