CONTENTS
Monday, January 24, 1994
Consideration resumed of motion; and the amendment 197
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 200
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 208
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 212
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 215
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 222
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 224
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 226
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 227
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 227
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 228
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 228
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 228
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 228
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 229
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 229
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 230
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 230
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 230
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 230
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 231
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 231
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 231
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 231
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 231
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 232
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 232
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 233
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 233
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 234
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 234
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 234
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 234
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 235
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 235
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 235
Bill C-2. Motions for introduction and first reading deemedadopted 235
Consideration resumed 236
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 236
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 236
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 238
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 239
(At 4.17 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.) 246
(The House resumed at 4.19 p.m.) 246
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 248
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 254
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 254
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 50; Nays, 208 256
197
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, January 24, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to make a
brief statement regarding a letter I wrote in 1989 and other
issues which have received widespread media attention in the
last few days.
The letter was written at a low point in my life when I was
under tremendous stress relating to my career and my family.
The letter contained irresponsible statements which have been
widely reported and need not be repeated in this House. My
personal problems did not justify or excuse the insensitive
words that I used and I deeply regret what I did.
Over three years ago I apologized in writing on more than two
occasions to both the staff and the chair of the board of
education for the city of Toronto. I had hoped that this sorry
chapter of my life was over when I wrote the apologies in 1990.
However, I now believe that it is appropriate for me to
apologize to the Prime Minister, to my caucus colleagues, and to
all members of the House for any embarrassment these letters or
any other statements or letters I may have made or written have
caused.
More specifically, I wish to apologize to the people who live
in the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
(1105 )
At this juncture I ask my colleagues in the House for their
forgiveness. I hope they will allow me to prove that I can be a
hard working, responsible and effective member of Parliament.
Once again I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all
members of the House for the inexcusable acts which I most
profoundly regret having done in 1989.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. This is, as the House
knows, a point of personal privilege. The House has heard the
statement. It is not debatable and the record will show that he did
make the statement and that it was accepted by the House.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from January 21 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to advise hon. members
that Telesat Canada has successfully transferred the cable
parliamentary channel to the Anik E1 satellite. In consequence
the televised proceedings of the House will again be available to
cable companies across the country. It may however be a few
days before all of the cable companies can get their systems up
and operational, as we always are.
[Translation]
I am sure hon. members will wish to join me in thanking the
staff at Telesat Canada and the cable parliamentary channel who
worked during the weekend to rectify this problem.
[English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, may I take
this opportunity in my first speech in this 35th Parliament both
to congratulate you as Deputy Speaker and to congratulate the
Speaker of the House on his election. I look forward to a very
fruitful working relationship. I know that both the Speaker and
the Deputy Speaker will bring great fairness and openness to this
House. Again, I congratulate you and give you my sincere
commitment to work with you so that we can productively work
for the citizens of Canada. Again, congratulations.
I would also like to congratulate the other members who have
been elected to the 35th Parliament. During the election
Canadians said that they wanted to see us work together
constructively for the future of this country. I know that will be
the aim of all members. We owe it to ourselves, our constituents
and to all
198
Canadians to deliver on this expectation. We must acknowledge
when the government has done well and hold the government
accountable when it has not kept its promises.
That is the elementary essence of our democratic system. I
want to assure all Canadians that the New Democratic Party will
be there both to work constructively and to ensure that the future
of this country will be preserved. We will go forward into the
21st century with confidence and with a new vision.
As I said, I want to congratulate all members of the House on
their election. In particular, I want to congratulate the right hon.
member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister of Canada. As
we have an unprecedented number of new members it will be
extremely important that we all work together.
Finally I want to thank the constituents of Yukon for their
continued support. I pledge to honour that support with my
representation in the House of Commons and in promoting the
issues of northern Canada which are far too often overlooked.
[Translation]
I mentioned the challenges to us as members of this
Parliament. First, the public elected us to find specific and
practical solutions to the problems facing us as a nation.
Second, Canadians want to feel that their government has a
vision, that it knows where we are going as a nation, and that it
not only has a map but a destination, a vital sense of identity, a
vision that brings us all together as Canadians.
(1110 )
[English]
The next couple of years will be absolutely crucial to the
future of this country in defining who we are as a nation and
where we will go as a nation. We have in this House one political
party that says we cannot go forward together as a nation, one
which would see us dismantle the country. I want to say in this
speech today in response to the speech from the throne that the
New Democratic Party is absolutely committed to the future of a
united country that all Canadians want to be a part of and we will
fight for that vision of this strong country.
Key to the future of our country, key to those of us who want
to build the country not destroy it, is that we address the
economic issues that face so many Canadians today, that we
bring about not just words of hope to Canadians but a real vision
and real hope. Without real jobs there can be no real hope.
The speech from the throne had many words about restoring
hope. We heard other speeches from previous governments that
did the same thing. What is needed now are real targets, real
timetables to bring down the high rate of unemployment. We are
told it officially stands at 11.2 per cent but there is surely not one
person in this country who believes that is the actual and real
number of unemployed in this country. We must address it
realistically and we must always address it with the view that
unemployment is not just simply an economic problem. It is a
social issue as well and will have an effect on every Canadian in
the very real future of this country.
Employment targets would give real teeth to the words that we
heard in the speech from the throne and provide accountability
for the government to the public on its performance. The
government has given us no targets and I want to ask why.
Unless we know where we are going, unless we can see if there is
a real objective Canadians will very quickly lose their faith in
this parliamentary process.
One only needs to look back at the last nine years and the
devastation that was wrought on this country to know that it is
not a continuation of the policies of the previous government
that will make Canada a stronger nation. It is a change in those
policies.
I must ask whether the speech from the throne shows that
change, that clarity of vision. Let the government really indicate
that it is prepared to take that change that is necessary. I have to
say that in two crucial areas we see not a change but simply a
government that is prepared to follow the failed policies of the
previous government.
In some ways this government is on the road to failure before
it begins but I want to mention two crucial areas. The first area is
around the North American Free Trade Agreement. The
governing party campaigned very strongly about real changes to
NAFTA. It along with the New Democrats stood up and showed
the devastation that the free trade agreement has done to Canada
in the number of lost jobs. In fact what happened was that the
government on January 1 did nothing to fundamentally change
those sections of the North American Free Trade Agreement that
work against Canada but went forward with the agreement,
sadly saying that Canada is prepared to join the race to the
bottom in the North American continent, not to work more
strongly for workers' rights, not to work to improve trade
agreements that would be truly in the interests of all workers in
all countries that are partners in those trade agreements. Canada
must improve its trade both in the Pacific Rim and in Latin
America, but we must do so aggressively from our strength and
not from our weakness. What this government has done in going
forth with NAFTA is again to work from our weakness.
Monetary policy is certainly an extremely important
ingredient in the future of a country and how its economy is
determined. In the famous red book the government makes the
following statement about Canada's previous government. It
states: ``The Conservative single-minded fight against inflation
resulted in a deep recession, three years without growth,
sky-rocketing un-
199
employment, a crisis in international payments and the highest
combined set of government deficits in our history''. I agree.
(1115)
However, do we see a signal for real change in the
government's appointment of the Governor of the Bank of
Canada? I would say we do not. Sadly what I see in these two
crucial areas in this era of globalization of markets and capital is
that once monetary trade policy is determined, the economic
direction of the country is determined. Sadly in these two crucial
areas the government has chosen to follow its failed predecessor
rather than to lead Canadians with a new vision.
Job creation is the number one problem in Canada today and
yet major sections of the economy are not mentioned,
agriculture and the resource sector for example. These
industries account for 21 per cent of our gross national product
and close to a million jobs in our economy.
The New Democrats' full employment plan included items
such as the infrastructure proposal, and we support that, and
investment funds to stimulate the growth of small and medium
sized businesses. We agree on the need for research and
development and the kind of new technologies that will bring us
into the 21st century.
I want to particularly mention the government's reference in
the throne speech to a youth corps. We will be looking very
carefully at what the details of this will be because the tragedy of
youth unemployment in this country is incalculable. We know
the high rate of statistics but we have not calculated the social
cost to the future of this country and we must do that.
I urge the government to very quickly move on youth
unemployment, to develop the youth corps and give us the
details because we must show the youth of this country that we
who have been elected take their concerns and their future very
seriously.
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest places his major
emphasis on debt and the current deficit of this government. Let
me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no debate
about whether debt and the deficit are serious problems to this
country. As we reached the half trillion mark on the debt last
week, there certainly can be no question that it must be a
preoccupying part of our deliberations.
The debate therefore is not about whether it is a problem but
how we address that problem. We must come to terms with a
number of realities, the first being that unemployment is not
free. We have to stop assuming that it is.
Last fall we saw the Department of Finance say that lost
revenue and income support means that every unemployed
worker costs government an estimated $17,500. That is simply
the economic cost. It is not the social cost. We see that the
department projected that deficit projections would not be met
because of a shortfall of revenue, not because of overspending
on programs. Simply capping expenditures is not the sole way to
address the debt. Certainly efficient management is. Unless we
can create employment and create growth we will never address
the real serious debt in this country.
[Translation]
Another important area this government must examine is our
unfair tax system. The middle class is saddled with the largest
share of the tax burden, while the wealthy and the large
corporations can take advantage of legal loopholes to avoid
paying their fair share of taxes.
Personal income tax now represents 48 per cent of federal
revenue, and only 7 per cent of that revenue is contributed by
large corporations. Tax expenditures like private family trusts,
set up by Canada's richest families to shelter their money for a
period of 21 years, should be eliminated. We should also
eliminate budget items that allow deduction of expenses like
business lunches and entertainment, estimated to cost one
billion dollars in lost revenue annually.
(1120 )
[English]
There is no doubt that the GST has failed in its objective. We
have said for some time that we must eliminate the GST, that it is
an unfair and regressive tax. It is not enough, as the government
is suggesting it is going to do, to simply review and hide the
GST. It must eliminate it. We are witnessing a near tax revolt in
this country with a new underground economy.
The government has signalled its intention to overhaul
Canada's social security system. In essence, social security is a
definition of who we are, how we treat each other and the values
that we in this country support.
There is no doubt in my mind that the social security system
must be looked at in light of the realities of today's society. One
of those realities is that more women are in the work force and
there is a greater need for child care than there has been in the
past.
While there was much rhetoric in the red book on child care, it
is absolutely missing from the throne speech. There is no
mention of the necessity and importance of child care which I
see not just as a social program but an economic program in
developing our future economy.
I say to the Liberal Party that it is a great loss to Canadians if
they do not follow through on a national child care program
which is essential to the development of our economy.
In the proposed review of social security, it is suggested that
there will be a process that takes place. I urge the government to
listen not just to the academics or the business community but to
200
those who are affected and who have been victims of
unemployment in our country.
Finally there are many things that I applaud such as the review
of members' pensions and remuneration. I proposed that in
February 1992. As well, I applaud the government saying that it
would like a new relationship with aboriginal peoples. Such a
partnership must be based not only on the right to inherent
self-government but speedy settlement of land claims.
I urge the government to put into practice the rhetoric, the fine
words that were said in the throne speech and bring forward as
an early piece of legislation the Yukon land claims settlement
and self-government legislation.
We face many challenges. We have the ability to make this the
best country in the world in terms of equality and our economy.
I urge the government to remember that Canada is not just a
great nation internally but that we have a great role
internationally. We cannot forget the concept of common
security. We cannot build our security on the insecurity of
others. In fact, we must move forward to be a strong advocate in
the international community as well as here at home.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): The hon. member for Yukon
said earlier-and I felt somewhat under attack-that some
members of this House want to destroy this country while others
want to build it.
The point is that the federal system has been destroying this
country for many years. It is not the members of this House but
the federal system itself which is destroying the country through
duplication of government programs and services. According to
the Quebec government, this duplication costs between $2
billion and $3 billion a year. The inefficiency and inconsistency
of these programs are very costly as well; the same can be said of
contradictory legislation in many cases.
To those who maintain that we are here to destroy the country,
I reply that our goal is to help build two countries, but two
countries that will work well.
The question I would like to ask the hon. member for Yukon is
this: As a member of this House, does she intend to favour and
encourage small and medium sized businesses instead of trying
to destroy them? It is in that sector that jobs are created.
(1125)
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, of course, during the election
we proposed to set up programs for small and medium sized
businesses because it is very important for the future of this
country.
With regard to the statements on the future of this country, it
is clear that there are problems with the federal system. That is
why I supported the Charlottetown constitutional agreement.
This agreement would have allowed us to make certain changes
for all provinces and territories.
I would also like to repeat that the New Democratic Party
fundamentally believes in the future of Canada, a Canada which
includes Quebec.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say hello to my good friend and almost seatmate in the
last Parliament, the member for Yukon. I listened with interest,
as always, to what she had to say. I congratulate her on her
election and on the vigour and dignity she demonstrated
throughout the campaign.
I got the impression toward the end of her remarks that maybe
she had run out of time. Could I give her the opportunity to be a
little more specific on what she had in mind with respect to our
international role?
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his kind words. We were almost seatmates then. I had to give
him a lot of coaching and I will continue to do that even though
he is across on the other side of the House.
I would like to say a few words. As some people will know I
have just returned from the east and had an opportunity to speak
in India, Nepal and Thailand with business people, some
political people and so on. One is really struck by the potential
for Canada in trade relations in those areas and our ability as a
non-super power to be a real force for peace and progress in
those countries. We will be having a debate later this week on
several aspects of peacekeeping and other similar issues.
It is extremely important that we not forget, as we deal with
the very crucial issues in our country, we have a responsibility to
those outside our shores. As I said in my remarks, when we think
of what will make us a secure nation it is certainly not to build on
the insecurity of others but to reach out in a spirit of
co-operation to help other nations become self-sufficient in the
way that is in their interest and ultimately in the interests of the
world.
In that relation I would like to say that we talk a lot about the
global economy, but we in Canada have a very important
opportunity given our size and our past to be a real player in the
development of international institutions which become more
key as we move into this continuing global economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the leader of the NDP on her election and tell her
that, like my fellow member from Longueuil, I was a little
surprised by her remarks on Canadian unity.
201
If I remember correctly, Quebec said yes to Canada when it
said no in the 1980 referendum. Quebec was told no by Canada
when the 1982 Constitution was signed without it. But Quebec
again said yes by electing the Bourassa government, and the
government also said-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the main
features of our democracy is the right to speak. I am surprised
that the Liberal members opposite are trying to cut me off while
I am exercising what seems to me to be the most basic
democratic right.
(1130)
Then we had the Meech Lake Accord and some members, one
or two in the NDP, voted against it. The leader of the NDP was
among them. When it was time to give Quebec a chance to enter
the Canadian federation, when it was time to take a first step
toward Quebec, she said no and today instead of engaging in a
new historic debate, they prefer a prehistoric debate.
[English]
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, while the member talks about
a prehistoric debate I think he would want to talk about the
Charlottetown accord which was the most recent constitutional
discussion. It is pretty clear that the majority of Canadians
certainly do not want to see us preoccupied in the House with
constitutional matters only.
It is the responsibility of all members of the House to ensure
the security of all Canadians, particularly in terms of economic
security. I am surprised the member would want to use his
question simply to deal with that matter when he sees the high
rates of unemployment in Montreal and other parts of Quebec. I
would like to see the member fighting here for his constituents,
for better economic and social programs, as is being done by the
New Democratic Party.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, may I begin by
congratulating you on your new post. We have all taken on
different responsibilities in the House. As we in the opposition
offered our full co-operation to the last government, I am sure I
can expect the same kind of co-operation from opposition
members in a few weeks to come.
Nonetheless I am thrilled to be here on the government side of
the House. Some of us have come here as new members. Some of
us have been around this place for some time, and some of us
have spent a lot of years in opposition. I have spent precisely 13
and a half years in opposition, 4 years working as an assistant to
a member in the opposition, for a total of about 17 years fighting
against governments. Mr. Speaker, if you see from time to time
that it takes a bit of time for me to make the transition please
bear with me.
I cannot help but look around the House and see how things
have changed in the last 25 years. Twenty-five years ago there
was only one woman in Parliament. When I was first elected to
this place in 1984 there were 26 women. Today that has more
than doubled. Of course I was very happy to see my hon. friend,
the member for Yukon, back with us. We have taken steps rather
slowly but we are getting there. I have to feel particularly proud
of the work and the support given by our Prime Minister to the
arrival of more women in our caucus. In 1984 we were five. In
1988 we were 13. This year there are almost as many women in
the Liberal caucus as there were in the whole of Parliament: 37
Liberal women. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to be
hearing more and more from these very strong women in the
days and weeks ahead.
I am proud that our Prime Minister led the charge, in fact to
some public criticism, in ensuring that this particular
Parliament was more representative of Canada as a whole. When
I see my colleague, the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, my
colleague for Bramalea-Gore-Malton and other colleagues in
this place, it is clear this is one Parliament where we are
beginning to reflect the real face of Canada. For that I think the
governing party can take some credit.
[Translation]
As the Prime Minister said, all government policies are aimed
at creating a just, fair, human, decent and prosperous country.
Ultimately, the government is serving people and it is by making
use of everyone's skills in this country and by giving all
Canadians an opportunity to realize their full potential that we
will succeed as a nation.
[English]
With 205 new members of Parliament reflecting a broad range
of issues we have a chance to deal effectively with issues which
affect all Canadian families. In this International Year of the
Family we have a duty to deal with the issues that can help
safeguard Canadian families and ensure that they are healthy,
secure and prosperous.
(1135 )
The government will address issues in particular relating to
women's health, breast cancer, osteoporosis and heart disease.
The government will introduce a program for prenatal nutrition
to help ensure that when babies are born they are born healthy.
We will address the staggering problem of poverty among
aboriginal children through a specific head start program. The
Prime Minister intends to personally chair the new national
forum on health.
We believe a strong national health care system is essential
for the dignity of our country and for the dignity of every
202
individual Canadian. We will act to make our streets and our
homes safe. We will act to protect Canadians from hatred and
harassment.
The government will take these measures because it is only
through these measures that every Canadian has a fair chance to
play a role in restoring our country to economic health.
Canadians want to see the health of our country restored, and
that is the top objective of the new federal government.
As Minister of the Environment I have heard loud and clear
that Canadians understand economic prosperity can and must
flow from a healthy environment. Yes, Canadians want to see
our fiscal deficit cut down and they want the job deficit wiped
out, but they know that can only happen when we attack the
environmental deficit.
[Translation]
I am firmly convinced that, with the support of my colleagues
in the House, we will succeed in making environmental changes
which we, as Canadians, must make. The leader of the
Opposition was once the Minister of the Environment. He and I
sometimes have different opinions on some issues, but we agree
on the need to show leadership when it comes to the
environment.
[English]
The leader of the Reform Party has already said during the
election campaign that even when it comes to cutting costs he
obviously believes the environmental budget is one that should
be kept intact.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Yukon represents a region of Canada
where good jobs depend on a healthy environment.
[English]
The leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for
Yukon, comes from a part of the country that obviously depends
very much on environmental health.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Sherbrooke was also Minister of the
Environment and he knows how important sustainable
development is to Canada.
[English]
I have had a chance to meet a number of our new members. I
was very pleased to hear the commitment that a great many of
them had to environmental issues.
[Translation]
Regardless of our political views on other issues such as the
Constitution, the environment really matters to everybody,
because all Canadians want to leave their children a more
healthy and prosperous country. As Canadians, we care about
our lakes and rivers. Let us not forget the song ``Mon pays ce
n'est pas un pays, c'est l'hiver''.
We also care about our Rocky mountains, our Arctic region
and about the air we breathe. We are adamant about leaving our
children and grandchildren a cleaner environment. We know
that good jobs and economic prosperity depend on a healthy
environment. Guided by these principles, I am convinced that
we will, in this Parliament, co-operate to ensure an improved
environment and economy for our country.
We know that, for our country as well as for the whole planet,
the environmental limits will soon be reached. Human activity
has increased tenfold and the earth is less and less able to absorb
the damage and to recover from it. In some cases, we have
already gone the point of no return.
The environment is one of the basic features of our national
identity. In some cases, this heritage is already in jeopardy.
[English]
The failure of the fisheries industry to be able to sustain itself
is just one example of how environmental degradation can have
serious and indeed devastating economic impacts. Literally tens
of thousands of fishermen and fisherwomen have nothing left to
fish because we have not been the guardians of this sustainable
resource nationally and in particular internationally.
[Translation]
Sometimes we do not heed warnings.
(1140)
For instance, for about a month it has been pretty frigid in this
country, but nevertheless global warming is a very real threat.
The same goes for the thinning of the ozone layer: skin cancer is
on the rise, and even wildlife is threatened. Our beautiful lakes
are being poisoned by toxic substances. Soil degradation and
loss of biodiversity are also serious problems. The birds and the
air we breathe have no passports, and that is why we all have a
responsibility, whatever our political persuasion, to concentrate
on finding solutions to these environmental problems. We are
going through a crisis, but there is still hope. The answer is
sustainable development.
[English]
We can aspire to a better life for ourselves and our children by
understanding that sustainable development must provide a
sound basis for Canada's long-term prosperity.
Individual Canadians have learned that lesson well. They are
biking where they once would have driven. They are protecting
wildlife habitat on their property and cutting down drastically
on household garbage. Many businesses have switched to envi-
203
ronmentally friendly products and are reaping benefits. Our
children regard blue boxes and composting as a fact of life.
Canadians expect the government and Parliament to do our
part. That is why the Prime Minister made sustainable
development a central theme of our election red book.
The Prime Minister, as members know, is a person who lives
up to his commitments. He understands that environmental
improvement and economic development go hand in hand. He
believes that by making Canada a world environmental leader
we will ensure prosperity for Canadians.
If we use our resources wisely, we will have resources for
future generations. If we promote research and development and
environmental technologies, we will create good long term jobs
and protect ecosystems. If we make Canada a leader in green
industries, we will create more products for Canadians to market
throughout the world, products that can help clean up this world.
Also, we have the benefit of a Minister of Finance who is a
strong environmentalist already on the record on these
important issues. Personally, I am pleased that the Prime
Minister asked the former minister of the environment of the
province of Quebec, the member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, to become my parliamentary
secretary. The hon. member is a committed environmentalist
who has a great understanding of the delicate balancing act
between federal and provincial jurisdictions.
The Liberal caucus is full of talented and energetic members
of Parliament. I have personally heard from more than four
dozen Liberal members of Parliament who are interested in
spearheading environmental issues on the local, national and
international levels. We intend to move from words to action
and to make Canada a model of environmental responsibility.
The Prime Minister has already done that with the
infrastructure program which will be signed in Ontario today
and which has already been signed in a number of provinces
across the country.
This key initiative is a wonderful example of how we can
create jobs and clean up the environment. Untreated municipal
raw sewage is one of the main causes of water degradation in
Canada. Now the federal government under the infrastructure
program will assist provincial, regional and municipal
authorities to finance new or renewed facilities for sewage and
water.
What is more, we are ensuring that our investment lays a firm
foundation for economic development and pollution prevention.
We are doing this by insisting that municipalities receiving
funds encourage water conservation and develop sound
financial plans to keep that infrastructure in place.
It is with that same spirit that the government is pursuing the
action plan for clean-up of the Fraser River, the Great Lakes and
the St. Lawrence River.
We ought to be a showcase for the world of economic growth
in tandem with environmental enhancement.
[Translation]
I am pleased to inform you that we are about to sign phase two
of our action plan for the St. Lawrence River, a vital part of our
environmental heritage.
[English]
Sound environmental planning is not an impediment to jobs.
It is a potential source of tens of thousands of new jobs.
Environmental technology is the fastest growing business
sector in Canada today, growing this year at a rate of 15 per cent.
We must tap the ingenuity and drive of Canada's workers. These
are qualities that have made us one of the most successful
trading nations in the world and they can make our country the
world leader in sustainable development. Incredible.
(1145)
At present Canada still imports 60 per cent of the
environmental technology it needs. We plan to reverse the
situation and make Canada a net exporter of eco technology and
eco know-how. We plan to have the private sector seize this
market advantage at home and internationally.
The government will help Canadians by directing 25 per cent
of all new government funding for research and development to
technologies that benefit the environment. We will consolidate
incentive and support programs into a co-ordinated strategy to
promote environmental industries.
[Translation]
That is why this week, the secretary of state for science and
the parliamentary secretary for the environment will travel
across the country from Halifax to Vancouver via Montreal,
Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton, to meet representatives from
the various sectors and environmental groups and promote a
joint development strategy for environmental industries.
Small and medium sized businesses in the environmental
industry will benefit from improved access to funding
assistance for capital investment. Canada Investment Funds will
be created to help leading edge technology firms. The strategy
for implementing an information highway and the creation of a
technology network designed to improve the diffusion of
innovation are essential elements of this two-pronged approach:
job creation and environmental protection.
204
The government is aware that by targeting assistance to small
and medium sized businesses that are active in the
environmental sector today, we will create the jobs of tomorrow.
The government will also review the tax system and federal
subsidies to identify barriers to sound environmental practice.
We want to ensure that at the national level, government
expenditures and taxes are used to promote social equity, protect
the environment, conserve resources and develop new green
industries in order to create future prosperity.
The government will promote energy efficiency which can
quickly generate economic and environmental dividends. We
must extract maximum value from the energy we consume. It
makes sense, both economically and environmentally, to use our
precious resources wisely.
We will also adopt an industrial policy to promote the value of
our natural resources and the processing of these resources into
finished goods that can be sold on international markets.
Increasing jobs and prosperity without depleting our natural
wealth and resources is a vital part of the Liberal national
employment policy.
More and more environmental problems have a global
dimension, and that is why we must work together. These
problems cannot be solved without international co-operation,
and that is why we will make sustainable development a key
element of Canada's foreign policy.
The Prime Minister has already shown the way. He was the
first political figure to ask for the inclusion of environmental
guarantees in NAFTA. He realized that this was a unique
opportunity to promote both economic prosperity and a healthy
environment. His approach showed great vision.
[English]
Under the NAFTA the North American Commission for
Environmental Co-operation will be located in Canada. To that
end we are engaged in an open and transparent process to select
the host city for the commission. We have commissioned an
independent consultant to provide selection advice based upon
objective criteria.
For the first time ever in the history of the Canadian
government the environmental record of the applicant cities will
be taken into consideration in choosing the site of this important
international institution.
[Translation]
Significantly for the first time in Canada's history, an
environmental record is requested of each city that wishes to act
as host to this international institution. At the Seattle summit,
the Prime Minister invited all Pacific Rim countries to
contribute to sustainable development.
(1150)
It is in response to this invitation that foreign and Canadian
environment ministers will meet in Vancouver next March with
my colleague, the secretary of state responsible for Pacific
affairs, to consider solutions to common concerns. The Prime
Minister thinks that our trade partners must also become our
environmental partners.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, permit me to congratulate the Prime Minister on
his choice of the new ambassador for the environment, your
predecessor, Mr. John Fraser, who had a reputation for cleaning
up this House. It should serve as a model for how we can clean
up the country. We will move in the spirit of John Fraser very
quickly to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. However, I want to assure you that we will do more than
that. We intend to establish a concurrent process for
amendments to strengthen that act as it is being introduced. Our
goal is an assessment process that is comprehensive and
effective.
Environmental assessment is not a stumbling block to be
circumvented. It is a powerful tool to promote sound decision
making to prevent environmental damage and to avoid costly
mistakes.
At the request of the Prime Minister, I am also working
personally to analyse the requests in the red book for an
environmental auditor general and for an independent
environmental assessment agency. If we as Parliament and
government are going to encourage others to clean up their act
we have to start by putting our own House in order.
At the Prime Minister's instruction, I am examining the most
effective means of ensuring that our own practices are held to
rigorous environmental scrutiny. We intend to work very
co-operatively with provincial ministers.
[Translation]
I already had a very fruitful discussion with my counterpart
from Quebec on several issues, including proposed
harmonization measures.
[English]
We have already signed an administrative agreement with the
province of Alberta to make sure when we get into the business
of environmental regulation that we do it in a way that protects
the environment and at the same time ensures that we use
taxpayers' dollars wisely. That is the spirit in which we will, as
Parliament, be reviewing the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. I know the parliamentary committee will be
working very hard to hear the concerns of all Canadians and I
welcome input from all sides of the House.
205
[Translation]
More and more Canadians take the environment into account
in their daily decisions.
[English]
I draw confidence and hope from the positive changes that I
have seen in my own community. Hamilton harbour is now a
place where children can swim.
[Translation]
I will repeat it. Hamilton harbour was one of the worst places,
but it is now a place where children can swim. I invite everyone
to come and visit my riding in the spring to see for themselves
how sustainable development can work.
[English]
People and wildlife are the beneficiaries. Canadians want to
see co-operation between levels of government and political
parties. We want to avoid possible overlap and duplication but
we also want Parliament and the Government of Canada to start
taking sustainable development seriously. It is an opportunity
we can seize. We must keep the faith of Canadians. We can and
we must make sustainable development not simply a concept but
a way of life starting right here in Parliament so that we can
show Canadians that as we speak so we do.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime
Minister because she began her speech by saying that we need
women. I do not know her personally, but I think that she is a
woman of action. We need women like that. She is in authority;
she is now the Prime Minister's right arm. Right now, she is
probably the most influential woman in Canada.
I also listened closely to her speech. She mentioned a country
with values of justice and fairness and so on. However, like me,
she must admit that even though we have very good intentions,
right now, unfortunately, the country is not fair and just.
(1155)
The Deputy Prime Minister must know that at least one family
in five in Canada lives below the poverty line. I am now on the
first subject that I want to raise, which is also the poverty of
Indians living on reserves and in the far north; in their case, not
one in five but one in two families in the far north and on Indian
reserves lives in poverty. These are very disturbing statistics.
We must deal firmly with these issues. There is a lot of
discrimination in Canada and I think that is an example. Shortly,
I will be asking her to say just how her government intends to
proceed on these matters.
I also come back to the environment because I know that it is a
subject which particularly interests her. With respect to the
environment, we also know that the food chain in the far north is
deteriorating, and I think that is one of the few places where an
environment which was protected by the very nature of things is
deteriorating. My first question is this: can she state what her
thinking is on how to deal with this poverty, out of concern for
justice and equity, for Indians on reserves and in the far north?
Second, does she with her government intend to put forward
specific issues and ways to deal with the deterioration of the
food chain in the far north as such?
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will first answer the second
question. The member for Saint-Jean is absolutely right about
the serious problem of the food chain degradation in the far
north.
I personally had the opportunity to visit part of the Arctic
circle where mothers have an unacceptably high level of PCBs
in their milk. These women were wondering if they ought to
breast feed their infants or instead buy milk at $7 a litre. The
latter option is not a very good one for people who already live
in poverty. This situation reflects the importance of the work we
are doing right now in co-operation with the Government of
Quebec and all the other governments across Canada in order to
improve air quality. A committee was set up to harmonize our
regulations regarding CFCs and all other pollutants released
into the atmosphere by industries and others.
In March, my counterparts, the provincial ministers of
Environment, and I will try to find a way to harmonize some
laws related to the environment. For example, the release of
CFCs comes under provincial jurisdiction. Yet, if a problem
occurs in Toronto, it ultimately will affect the air people breathe
in Montreal and even above the Arctic circle. Therefore, we
must work in co-operation with the provincial governments to
develop a national policy which will garner the support of all the
stakeholders.
I am very pleased that the member raised the issue of poverty,
especially among aboriginal people, because the government
has already announced, in the speech from the throne, its
intention to be directly involved in a program called Head Start.
This school program was first conceived by the Americans in the
sixties and was targeted to the poor of a certain age group. It is
our intention to implement this program which will serve as a
model for aboriginal people. In fact, my colleague, the Minister
of Health, is presently monitoring the development of that
program.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to applaud the transparent nature of the minister in
assigning or trying to determine which Canadian city is going to
get this much coveted NAFTA environmental secretariat.
206
(1200 )
After the decision has been made will the selection criteria
and the respective bids by the respective cities be made public?
Who makes the final decision?
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, we intend to have the process public
and transparent throughout. The final decision will be made by
the Government of Canada.
I should also point out that in doing the analysis the
independent consultant will be working without political input
by any of the ministers. The assessment rating areas that have
been set out, including environmental record, infrastructure, et
cetera, will be done without identifying the individual cities.
[Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to start by congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on her
election.
I think that what the hon. member said about the environment
in her speech is very important, but she mentioned earlier the
importance of the family and the United Nations International
Year of the Family, as well as the importance of equality for
women.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question on
plans for a national child care system because it is absolutely
fundamental when dealing with the issue of the family and
especially for women. I would like to ask her what plans exactly
her government has regarding a national child care system?
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it certainly goes to show what good,
considerate people we are in this country when you see the hon.
member for Yukon ask a question to the member for Hamilton in
the other official language, and I thank her for that.
With regard to day care, of course we have a specific policy.
As soon as the economy has grown by 3 per cent, we plan to open
150,000 new day care spaces within 3 years. That was clearly
indicated in our red book, and there is no doubt that the Prime
Minister will fulfil the promises made in that book.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I am humbly aware of the great privilege bestowed
upon me by the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt in
electing me to speak for them in this venerable Chamber. I
congratulate the 66,000 voters of my riding for taking part in
Canadian history with the arrival of 52 Reformers to this place.
On behalf of the people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I wish to congratulate you,
Mr. Speaker. I would also like to congratulate members of the
government and all hon. colleagues on their election to the
House of Commons to represent the voices of their constituents.
Canadians have become cynical about their government. They
have become suspicious of their representatives who have too
often ignored the voices of their constituents. We in this 35th
Parliament have a duty to restore their faith. On January 6, in a
ceremony in my riding, I swore an additional oath to represent
my constituents faithfully in the House. It is my earnest
intention to do just that.
The people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt look to us
for prudence, wisdom and fairness in our decisions. They look to
us to work together for the benefit of all Canadians. They look to
this Parliament for the vision to create a future for them, not of
bankruptcy or division but of promise and opportunity.
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt is an area of honest,
industrious and hardworking Canadians. The riding extends
from the rolling ranch lands of the Nicola Valley, through the
lush orchards and vineyards of the Okanagan, through the rich
forests of the boundary country. It is an area of ranches, farms,
orchards, mountains, lakes, peaceful towns and small quiet
cities. Traditionally we have benefited from the bounty of our
minerals, forests, agricultural lands, tourist attractions and of
course the best climate in Canada, something which I have come
to greatly appreciate this past week.
(1205)
Today however the riding faces many challenges. It suffers
from high unemployment, as much as 2 per cent higher than the
provincial rate. We face changes in the structure of our economy
as technology and global competition impact on our industries.
We see our young people leaving in search of employment. The
bright spot in this picture has been our small businesses and the
jobs they have created.
Today I am choosing to comment on the government's
legislative program from the perspective of Canadians who are
looking for economic hope and recovery. These are issues of
great importance to the people of my constituency. I commend
this government for talking about job creation which Canadians
so clearly need. I support this goal.
I do not however believe that government is the best vehicle
for this job creation. For some time now small business has
created the majority of new jobs in Canada. For example, in the
decade up to 1990 while big business was busy downsizing and
laying off employees, Canada's small businesses created 85 per
cent of the net new jobs in the country. That represents 2.2
million jobs. In the future small business will be even more
important as our economy restructures.
However it is often government that stifles this very job
creation. Overregulation, onerous taxation, poorly conceived
and administered programs all have drastic effects on small
207
business, sometimes fatal ones. We must ensure that
government does not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
An example of that is the recent hike in UI premiums. This is a
tax on employment. It not only takes money away from small
businesses but it penalizes them for expanding their staffs.
Every cent taken away from small business hurts job creation.
As I mentioned earlier, job creation in the
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt riding depends very much
on the entrepreneur and the small business person. These are the
ones who take the risks, make the commitments and put
everything they own on the line to make this happen. These are
the people who create jobs.
To be successful small businesses do not need grants,
subsidies and handouts. Instead government must create and
sustain a climate that encourages their development and growth.
Let us remove the road blocks and get out of the way of these
entrepreneurs. Let us free small businesses to create prosperity
for the nation.
Government subsidies and grant programs do not help
entrepreneurs who have sound business plans. They do not need
them. These programs are a part of our deficit problem. They
lead to high taxes that siphon off the investment dollars that
could be going to the creation and expansion of successful and
viable enterprises.
Propping up dying industries with subsidies and tax
concessions can no longer be justified in today's climate of
global trade. Our businesses must be able to compete. We should
be looking to the future and the emerging new industries in the
areas of high technology, information and knowledge services.
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt small businesses just
want to get on with business. All they ask is that government not
make their task any harder than necessary.
Tax burdens in this country are reaching unsustainable levels.
Taxes have risen from 24 per cent of the gross domestic product
in 1950 to almost 43 per cent in 1990. For the last 10 years we
have been promised by our governments that they would get
spending under control and that eventually taxes would be
reduced. Instead the spending each year exceeds the previous
and taxes rise again.
It is time for action. We must stop pointing the finger at
previous governments and act on a plan to reduce spending.
(1210 )
Our tax system has spawned a burgeoning underground
economy and has made criminals out of ordinary people. The
resulting loss in tax revenue transfers more burden onto the
shoulders of the remaining taxpayers, including small
businesses.
Another concern of small business is overregulation, cost of
compliance and the cost of dealing with the ever growing
bureaucracies. In some cases the costly delays can jeopardize
the viability of a business before it gets off the ground.
An example of this is an entrepreneur in my home town of
Summerland who faced three years of bureaucratic delays in
importing llamas and alpacas for which there was a
demonstrated, ready market.
The government is to be commended for its intention to
reduce the regulatory and paper burden on small businesses and
to streamline the delivery of services. This is much needed. As
well, it deserves to be commended for its progress in the matter
of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers.
The major issue that businesses are concerned about is the
deficit. The federal deficit is the biggest monkey on the back of
all Canadians, not just small businesses.
Now the hon. members of this House have an opportunity to
restore the faith of Canadians in our fiscal management. The
defeat of our Reform Party's subamendment which proposed
limiting spending to $153 billion sends a confusing signal to the
Canadian people, especially to small business people.
On the one hand the government has spoken, albeit somewhat
vaguely, about controlling the deficit. On the other hand, it
refuses to commit itself to a specific reduction target only 6 per
cent below last year's runaway levels.
What are Canadians to think of that when it comes to doing
their own household budgets? We must all address the issue of
reducing the deficit and make it a high priority. We must
unshackle small business so that it can get on with getting
Canadians back to work and making our economy grow.
The people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and all the
people of Canada are looking to this 35th Parliament to chart a
new course for Canada. The future of the nation depends on the
wisdom and fairness of these hon. members in deliberating the
issues before us. Most important, it depends on the diligence
with which we listen to and present the views and concerns of
our constituents in this House.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's presentation with great
interest and was very much in accord with some of the things he
said.
I am very much aware as we are on this side of the House,
particularly my friend who is the member for
Broadview-Greenwood, of the difficulties that small
businesses have en-
208
countered in the past few years. I will not put a political
perimeter on it because I would be accused of being partisan,
which of course is not in these days.
If we cannot take credit here, it is safe to point out that we are
focusing on the difficulties that small businesses have
encountered in all seriousness and with great enthusiasm and a
certain amount of hope.
While indeed small businesses are very concerned about the
deficit, a major difficulty they have, they are primarily
concerned about moving ahead in what we hope will be a
growing economy.
Just this weekend I participated in an economic conference in
my riding. I pointed out that people should not be waiting for big
buildings and large industries to be brought in because 55 per
cent of our gross national product in the last two years was
related to businesses of five or less.
We on this side of the House are convinced that small business
is important. However, I would ask the hon. member if he could
give me some indication in outline form, as time does not permit
him to reveal perhaps all the ideas he may have, what he might
consider a good initiative or measure to take for small
businesses to give them the kinds of breaks and the hope that I
believe he is looking for.
(1215)
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
I believe that what this country is missing as we look and
ponder what can be done for small business is the realization of
the importance of business initiatives and the increase in jobs
that will be stimulated by that.
I think one of the biggest business initiatives we could have is
to elevate the feeling of the small businessman to that of a
hockey player in this country. I think that they feel left out. We
elevate and make national heroes of other people when really the
heroes in this country are the people who create jobs and they are
in small businesses.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I would
like the hon. member for Okanagan to explain briefly what he
has in mind when he says that the government should create a
climate that is favourable to job creation instead of lending
money to businesses. What does he mean exactly by that?
[English]
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
I feel it all relates back to the whole issue of deficit reduction.
In order to stimulate the economy and give the entrepreneurs
who would create this new employment for Canada we must first
address our financial situation in this country which is an
immediate reduction in spending by this government.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, while
listening to the hon. member's support for small business I
could not help feeling that he must have taken extractions from
our red book. I think it is clearly emphasized how job creation
and small business is an integral part of our program.
I was more concerned when he turned around and said that
deficit reduction is the main and most important issue. If I am
not mistaken I think in the greater metro caucus we have twice
had people before us from the business community. There were
two major banks as a matter of fact. We have pushed them to
extremes to start co-operating with small businesses.
The member indicated that we must reduce the deficit and that
it is the main priority. If people are not working then we cannot
reduce the deficit. If they are not working then we are supporting
them. We are draining our already depleted revenue. The
emphasis is on getting the people working. Let us bring some
dignity to the House as the Prime Minister has often said and let
us reduce the deficit accordingly.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
First of all I would like to say that all good ideas should
always cross party lines. It makes no difference where they
come from but as I mentioned in my speech we have made
Canadian history by electing 52 Reformers to this place.
However, over the last few days I have sensed that there are
more Reformers or more ideas to reform in this Chamber than
just the 52 sitting here.
We feel deficit reduction is a very important part. Subsidy
programs and initiative programs have a dismal rate of success
in this country. It is evident from all statistics we have where the
jobs are coming from. Eighty-five per cent of all jobs came from
the small business sector. We need to stimulate this.
I have talked to the business people in
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and around this country and
they all point to one thing. People do not have confidence in a
country that is as mired in debt as we are.
(1220 )
We have to address this problem soon so that Canadians will
have a feeling of goodwill and the spirit to invest in their country
and create the jobs through small business.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by
congratulating you on your new responsibility.
I would like to begin my address by also thanking my
constituents of Broadview-Greenwood for giving me a second
term in this Parliament of Canada. I grew to have a deep sense of
respect and appreciation for this Chamber, especially in the last
three years of my first term. I found it a bit intimidating the first
209
year and I did not enjoy it as much. As a result of that I shied
away from the Chamber.
However, after my first year of being a member of Parliament
I made up my mind that I would work at trying to make a
contribution to debate in the House of Commons in exchanging
views and ideas. At that time I was on the opposition benches but
I discovered if I worked at that many members on the
government side were as interested in trying to achieve the same
results as I was. I say to all members of this House that I am
going to continue the same approach of trying to present ideas in
a constructive way and listen to their ideas so that together we
can advance real debate. From real debate I believe we have a
shot at making real reform happen.
The danger that one has to be aware of in this town is that most
of this town is in the hands of the bureaucracy or the paper
pushers. I believe we have become a nation of paper pushers. I
think one of the reasons why it has become like that is because so
many of us who are elected by the people have not used or have
not exercised our political will to transmit to the public service
the fact that the ideas that we bring to this Chamber are not our
ideas but those of our constituents, the people who elected us
and sent us here. We are going to have to work forcefully to
make sure they are implemented because ideas just do not
happen automatically.
I put my energy into two very specific areas during the last
Parliament. I want to begin my remarks this time by going back
to those two specific themes of small business and tax reform.
As I said repeatedly during the last Parliament I believe
passionately that the greatest hope for putting Canadians back to
work rests with the small business community. We have close to
900,000 small businessmen and businesswomen operating
across this country and they have been suffering incredible
difficulty over the last few years. They have been suffering
because of very poor tax design. It was exacerbated by the
poorly designed goods and services tax which caused an
incredible paper burden at a time when they did not need it.
However there is another area in which small business has
been suffering and it has to do with the area of capital. Unless we
address the issue of capital for small and medium sized
businesses then this country and this House of Commons are
going to continue to flounder.
I was just thrilled during the election campaign, even before
the election was called, when the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Finance called a press conference in Ottawa in the
early part of July. They told the people of Canada that one of the
central themes of the red book would be built around trying to
move or shift the attitude of the financial institutions of this
country toward small business.
(1225)
There is not a member of Parliament in this House who could
not stand up and tell horror stories of how small and medium
sized businesses in his or her riding have been terrorized by the
local branch manager. Are there any members who could stand
up and say they have not had that experience? I see all members
in this House are nodding their heads.
The problem is that somehow as a House of Commons
collectively-not just the government side, this is not just an
issue for government members, it is an issue for all members in
this House-we have to communicate forcefully to the financial
institutions, the 57 charter A and B banks, the trust companies,
the pension funds, anybody who has large pools of capital. We
have to tell them that if they are so hung up on deficit and
debt-and we are concerned about it too-if they really care
about this community and this country, then they have to start
figuring out ways of getting capital into the hands of small and
medium sized enterprises.
I stand up here today, not just as the member of Parliament for
Broadview-Greenwood, but thanks to the Prime Minister I also
have the responsibility of being the parliamentary secretary to
the Minister of Industry. I want to assure all members that just
because I am on this side of the House I will not stop for a second
in campaigning on behalf of small businesses, that banks must
start coming to their assistance.
I want to be fair about this as well. We are beginning to hear
signals from some financial institutions. I want to be very fair
when I talk about financial institutions in this sense.
Two weeks ago the Toronto caucus listened to a senior
vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. Charlie
Coffey. He admitted to all of our members that the banks have
really been falling behind in changing the attitude of
commercial loans officers toward small business and that they
were working aggressively and quickly to try to rectify this
problem.
Mr. Coffey stated that until this problem was solved he would
take calls from any member of Parliament. He gave us his fax
and phone numbers and encouraged us to circulate them. There
is one institution that has publicly declared it is committed to
join us in this campaign. I can only hope that this country's other
56 financial institutions will be just as aggressive.
I want to go on to the next area that also affects small and
medium sized businesses. It is an issue many members of the
Reform Party have talked about during the campaign and in the
House of Commons. It is the issue of tax reform.
210
Our Prime Minister has stated unequivocally that we as a
government are committed to comprehensive tax reform. He
stated clearly in the Speech from the Throne-I believe it is on
page 4 at the second paragraph-that he is going to set up a
finance committee that will first of all do away with the goods
and services tax. That committee will also look at the idea of
comprehensive tax reform.
I want to declare publicly my particular bias for a specific
aspect of the Reform Party's platform. It has to do with the
whole area of tax reform. As a Liberal I am committed to tax
reform and I know many other Liberals share that commitment.
This is the Tax Act of Canada. This is the document that really
decides how the economy of Canada is run. This document is
approximately 15,000 pages of rules, regulations, exceptions
and exceptions to exceptions.
(1230)
To all members of the House I want to say that even the best
tax lawyers and best tax accountants in Canada will admit
privately that this no longer works. We all know this. Canadians
know it and they are showing their total lack of trust in this
particular act first of all by going underground.
As members know the GST exacerbated the underground
economy. Even before the GST we had the largest underground
cash economy of any country in the world, after Italy. That is a
statement from Canadians that they have lost trust in the system.
It is not working and it is time to go back to the drawing board.
Fortunately we are a party that encourages open and
constructive debate. Because of that I have been allowed with a
lot of support to advance an idea called the single tax system. It
is not too far off the idea that the Reform members campaigned
on. To all members of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois,
this is in both official languages. The single tax is an exercise a
group of us undertook in the last Parliament after the first year
when the government asked for a constructive alternative to the
GST. It is a simple, fair, efficient, workable alternative to the
current tax act of Canada.
I want to say to all the Reform members and members of the
Bloc as well that I am happy to share the research and the
experiences I have had because I believe that Canadians really
do want us to work together. Canadians want us to act now.
Canadians, as do all members of this House, believe that this
cannot be a Parliament of consultation. We have been consulting
to death. We have been consulting and the consultants have been
consulting the consultants. The last thing we need to do so early
in this Parliament is to get back into the consulting business.
Canadians are fed up with consultation. They want action now.
They want us to move now.
When I say they want us to move now, it is not that people
want us to move irresponsibly. One very specific thing we can
do immediately is we can phone the leaders of the financial
institutions and tell them we are all together on the issue of
banks supporting small business. If every member in this House
just made one or two calls to a leader of a bank and said that we
were all together on that issue, that would be immediate action.
If we did that to all the financial institutions they would move
quickly. Members in this House should not forget that they are
the designers of the law that governs how the banks function. I
can say if I were a bank president and thought that a united
House was going to start looking at other ways of regulating my
business because the banks did not come to the party on their
own, I would probably move quickly.
However we cannot do that job alone. Everyone must
participate in this and I plead with all members to get involved
in the issue.
Another thing which must be dealt with is the whole hangup
on the deficit. I am as concerned about abuse and paper burden
and duplication as any other member of this Parliament, but we
have to be very careful. If we become so fixated on the deficit
and if we become so fixated on cutting costs and cutting
programs just because we want to meet some magic number of
cutting, I am afraid we are going to exacerbate the already
serious crisis of confidence we have in this country.
(1235)
I get very concerned when I see the emphasis on deficit versus
the emphasis on putting Canadians back to work. As the member
for Yukon, the leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out
in her remarks, for every unemployed person we have in this
country today it costs the treasury $17,000 directly, not counting
indirect costs like health care, crime costs and so on, not to
mention the fact that we lose a revenue source to the treasury.
I personally believe the best way to handle the deficit and
ultimately the debt is by getting Canadians back to work. If we
have to go through a short period where there might be a little bit
more of the same deficit and debt, but if ultimately it means we
can get Canadians working so that a year or 18 months from now
we have more taxpayers and therefore more revenue coming in,
that is the approach I support. I hope members understand that.
Of course that is the design and the objective of the
infrastructure program which is totally supported by the
Minister of Finance. It is a fine balancing act but we have to
remember as I said the other day that our ultimate responsibility
in this House is not for the people who are advantaged. We come
to this House as people in government for the people in our
communities who are disadvantaged: the unemployed father
who does not have enough money to buy his kid a hockey stick;
or the unemployed single mom who sometimes just does not
have enough money to
211
give her child proper nutrition. That is our bottom line
responsibility.
I hope we will not put human capital on the back burner in the
name of the deficit, when it really should be on the front burner.
Again I want to thank my constituents, especially all of the
volunteers. We all have very special volunteers who helped us
come here. A young man, 32 years old, comes into my office.
Nick Lamacchia is unemployed and has been for the last six
months. He comes into my office every day from about ten
o'clock in the morning and stays until about seven at night. He
listens to other people's pain and frustration.
As long as we can keep in touch with the reality of what is
going on in all of our communities we can overcome whatever
we have to in order to make sure the people we are sent here to
serve are ultimately being served.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience and time. I am going
to do my best to advance my support for small business and tax
reform. I will be happy to share any research I have from the last
Parliament with anyone.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: To make your job easier, Mr. Speaker, and to
clarify matters for the House, I would hope to obtain unanimous
consent that beginning with the next speaker on the government
side, the 20 minutes allotted be split into two 10-minute
periods, followed by two 5-minute periods for questions and
comments. This would not apply to ministers who would
continue to speak for 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for
questions and comments. Is the House prepared to give its
unanimous consent?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
(1240)
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, part of the proposal put forward
by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard has eluded us. We do not
reject his proposal but we would like him to repeat it so that
everything is clear.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I proposed that all government
members starting with the next speaker talk for 10 minutes, with
five minutes for questions and comments, except for the
ministers. The ministers will continue to have 20 minutes at
their disposal, with 10 minutes for questions, since they must
talk about specific projects mentioned in the throne speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Does anyone else wish to speak on this
point of order?
I believe there is unanimous consent for the government
whip's proposal.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the hon. member's comments very much, particularly
when he stressed the importance of small and medium sized
businesses, and I would like to ask him several questions.
Before I do that, however, I would like to make two brief
remarks, as it seems to me that the hon. member reacted very
negatively when the Bloc Quebecois announced its sovereigntist
stand in this House. As I recall clearly, he reacted very openly
and very negatively.
He noted at the outset that most of his ideas came from his
constituents. I would like to remind him that I, and all Bloc
members, were elected to this House to represent the views of
our constituents.
Late in his statement, he also said that he was tired of
consultation and wanted action. Well that is precisely how
Quebec feels. We too are rather fed up with consultation and
want action on the sovereignty issue.
I want to broach the subject of small and medium sized
businesses because it is dear to me and affects Quebecers and
Canadians equally. I realize it is an important issue, one that you
have addressed at considerable length, as did a member of the
Reform Party who made some timely comments. I ask the hon.
member if he would be prepared to support measures which
would enhance the climate conducive to the development of
small businesses?
We know that the deficit, taxes and all of the government
forms that small and medium sized businesses must contend
with impede initiative. Would the hon. member support
eliminating family trusts, trimming the fat from government
and setting up a parliamentary committee to reduce government
waste and duplication in order to lower the deficit and promote
the development of small and medium sized businesses?
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I want to
begin by thanking the member for his question.
The member used to be a former resident of Penetanguishene,
Ontario. I remember his presence there. He always made a great
contribution to that community. I talked to some of his
supporters from Penetang-Midland Coach Lines this morning.
They asked me to convey a hello to him.
I want to deal with the question of the Bloc Quebecois before I
get to small business. One has to try to understand that this is the
Parliament of Canada. There has been a traditional view I have
always supported that when one comes to this Chamber the
objective is to make a better Canada. There have been times
when I have struggled, and I still struggle, with the idea of
coming to this House of Commons of Canada saying basically
that I want to separate from it.
212
(1245)
Please bear with me as I try to understand how that fits
logically. I have not been able to figure it out yet but I have
tremendous personal affection for their leader when he was
Minister of the Environment and I was a member in opposition.
He came to my riding and supported my people's summit on the
environment so none of my feeling is of a personal nature. It has
to do with an ideological difference we have. I am already seeing
signs that the Bloc is shifting its position.
When I hear members of the Bloc stand up and passionately
care about the image and the play of Team Canada I say there is a
spark of hope because eventually their interest in Canada will
probably expand to other areas.
I have less than a minute. I want to deal with the subject of
family trusts. One can check Hansard. I spoke against the
government three times on that bill. I voted against the bill. I
personally think it is obscene that the richest people and the
wealthiest families in Canada, some of whom actually happen to
be friends, have billions of dollars that have gone untaxed for 20
years when we have people living in poverty and people making
less than $50,000 a year who are paying tax because of the
complexity and other complications related to the tax system.
There is no argument from me and we will be fighting for
reform.
I call that comprehensive reform and we are with them on
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): I will be
very brief, Mr. Speaker. I have a question and a few comments
for the hon. member who just spoke.
I for one consider that what the hon. member just said is fair
for any one who still believes in the Canadian system and its
effectiveness. Personally, I believe everything has been tried
over the past few years. How long have we been telling the
federal government that duplication between Ottawa and
Quebec is horribly expensive?
The hon. member himself admits that even accountants do not
trust the Income Tax Act any more. He himself has lost
confidence in it. We, in Quebec, have understood that the
Canadian tax law was working against us. It is too expensive.
The entire Canadian system is too expensive, starting with the
size of the public service, our embassies and the very operation
of the Canadian government. That is why the national debt has
reached $500 billion in Canada, creating a $40 to $45 billion
annual deficit. I respect what the hon. member said, but as far as
I am concerned it is nothing more than pious wishes.
I do not believe that in the present system the federal
government can solve the problem with studies and analyses.
I do believe, however, that it can be solved. My question is the
following: how would the hon. member feel about Quebec
opting out of the Canadian Confederation, bringing along its $28
billion in taxes to administer on its own? I would put more faith
in that approach that in the one the hon. member has put forward.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary to
the Minister of Industry. You have two or three minutes
remaining.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by saying that I am a naturally optimistic and
hopeful person but let me say why I believe we all can be more
hopeful.
With the exception of 60-odd members this is a totally new
Parliament. I happen to believe that one of the reasons I am back
here, aside from the red book and the great performance of my
leader and my colleagues, and that I have had such support is
because I stood for a couple of causes people believed in.
(1250 )
I am from Ontario, as you are. We have the same problems you
have in terms of duplicate-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know this is a new
Parliament, but would the hon. member please address the
Chair?
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, my
apologies to you. Through you to the member, I am much more
optimistic obviously and because we have new members we can
address these issues quickly.
Concerning the people of Quebec, through you Mr. Speaker to
the members of the Bloc Quebecois, we must never forget that
they do have 50-odd members and two million votes, but there
are seven million people in Quebec. I think the challenge for all
of us in this House who want to keep Canada together is for us to
address some of the legitimate problems that are brought to this
House. I say that there are some real legitimate beefs. If we can
address those things then ultimately it is our responsibility to go
over the heads of the separatists right to the people and tell them
to stay in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions and
comments. The next speaker will be the member for Medicine
Hat. I might say before recognizing our new colleague that an
error was made. It was my error that you did not get recognized
earlier. You now have 10 minutes with 5 minutes of questions
213
thereafter before we go to the member of the Official
Opposition.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker and hon.
members, first of all I offer my sincere congratulations to all
who won election to the House of Commons. To serve as a
member of Parliament is a great responsibility and a great
honour.
Mr. Speaker, yours is certainly a double honour. You were
honoured by your constituents in Edmonton in becoming a
member of Parliament once again and of course now by your
appointment as a Speaker of this place. Please accept my
congratulations.
To the government and to the Prime Minister in particular I
extend my wishes for every success in solving the problems that
stand before us. They are problems that really cut across party
lines, provincial boundaries, cultures, genders, institutions and
even the generations. If we are to solve these problems it will
require the best efforts of all Canadians. It is my sincere hope
that we will all together apply ourselves to that task.
To the people of the Medicine Hat constituency I give my
gratitude for the warmth, friendship and support they have
shown toward me as their member of Parliament. I thank them
for the great trust they have placed in me as their servant and
representative to the Government of Canada.
I begin that job by offering advice to the government on its
intention to bring reform to the unemployment insurance
program. The government is to be commended for recognizing
that unemployment insurance as it is presently constituted is a
destroyer of jobs and a ravager of initiative. Likewise, the
government is correct in asserting that more emphasis must be
placed on improving training and that business should play a
major role in providing training.
Who could know better than businesses themselves what
skills are required for their future success? Certainly not
government. I am concerned, however, when the Prime Minister
talks about a training tax to coerce business. If the government
would instead cut spending and ultimately lower taxes one could
be sure that business could provide its own training because it is
in the best interest of businesses to do so. Nonetheless, simply
recognizing that a problem exists is the first major step in
resolving it. For that alone I give the government full marks.
I am also profoundly concerned when the government fails to
outline the process by which it will shape the unemployment
insurance program of the future. It is no exaggeration to say that
the present unemployment insurance program has not only
failed Canadians, it has wounded us. In ignoring pleas for
change from both businesses and those people who are sincerely
looking for work we have cut the soul out of entire regions of the
country. If this is the type of help that comes from government
then Canadians should run from government as fast as they can.
On the other hand, if the government is prepared to share the
decision-making power to involve those who fund the program,
to design it for the long run to ensure that it is in line with what
other levels of government and the private sector are doing, with
the current fiscal reality, if it is prepared to set clear measurable
objectives, if it is committed to making the program more
accessible and user friendly, if it is committed to promoting
equal access and benefits for all, if it promotes and rewards
personal responsibility and initiative, if it commits itself to
following that process in designing an unemployment insurance
program, it will succeed beyond our greatest hopes. Contrarily,
if it is a program that is designed and implemented and
controlled solely by government, it will fail. If it invites greater
public input but then ignores that input, it will fail. In failing it
will again crush the initiative of the unemployed and business
creating economic and human carnage of tragic proportions.
(1255)
Specifically how should we go about redesigning the UI
program? The first decision-making principle is that all
stakeholders must have a voice in designing this program. That
includes business, particularly small business which pays most
of the premiums. It should include of course the workers who
pay into the fund. It should include the federal government as an
adviser and a junior stakeholder. Although this may seem
obvious, governments I find often ignore this advice. The
process should not include those groups which have a vested
interest in not resolving the problem.
It is a great truth that incentives matter. If a group or an
individual receives funding so that they can protest high
unemployment levels do not expect them to propose solutions
that will make their position or group unnecessary. Even though
they are often well-meaning and claim passionately that they
want to solve the problem, I point out that they have a powerful
economic incentive to perpetuate the problem. These two
competing forces can never be completely disentangled.
The second principle is that decisions must be made with the
long term best interests of the country in mind. Too often
decisions are made without considering their long term
implications.
In 1971 the Liberal government chose to regionally extend
unemployment insurance benefits. Today we reap the rotten
fruit of that hastily planted seed. Governments must always
consider the effect of their decisions over the long run.
The third principle is that decisions should always be made
with complete awareness of the current environment. By that I
mean the current economic, social, cultural and political
environment, both within and without the country. Unless we are
all pulling together in the same direction on every front even the
best designed programs will ultimately fail. Today's
environment is one of tight fiscal constraints, freer trade and
greater public participation in the democratic process. A newly
de-
214
signed unemployment insurance program must be sensitive to
this and reflect these trends in its design.
The fourth principle is that all government programs must
have clear measurable objectives. What is the point of designing
a program whose effects are not measured or cannot be
measured because the objectives are never made clear? In those
instances when the effects are obviously counterproductive why
have a bureaucracy? Why even have a government if it will not
fix the problem?
For 20 years the evidence against high benefits, regionally
extended benefits and training boondoggles has been mounting.
Every government in that 20 year period has cowered from
fixing the problem.
The fifth principle is that all government programs must be
designed to be user friendly. Today the myriad programs offered
by human resources development are hopelessly complicated.
As one field level bureaucrat told me: ``Our job is to make
poorly designed programs run efficiently''. What a damning
indictment of the system that is.
In the introduction of the 1985 Forget commission report
there is a touching letter from a lady who decries how hopelessly
complicated getting a UI benefit can be. Sadly that is still true
eight years after that report was tabled.
Governments' failure to solve problems can be traced back
directly to the process by which they make decisions. Without
public input in the design of these programs they will never ever
be able to respond to the needs of the public.
The sixth principle is that all government programs must
always treat all Canadians the same. Choosing to live in a
particular area of the country should not be a reason for
receiving greater or longer benefits. The government must
recognize that in attempting to correct what are sometimes
inequities in the natural resource wealth of the country it only
succeeds in corrupting the human resource wealth of the same
area of the country it originally set out to help.
(1300)
That is the malady of large tracts of Atlantic Canada and it is
the legacy of a government that did not understand that
government has its limitations.
The seventh principle is that all government programs should
promote and encourage personal responsibility and initiative.
Of course this should be demonstrated at the top by giving
business and employees the responsibility for setting premiums
and determining benefits. Those premiums will reflect more
accurately than any government decree what businesses and
employees can afford to pay in premiums and pay out in benefits
while maintaining and strenghthening the viability of
businesses and the purchasing power of employees, thereby
strenghthening the economy.
Those who are chronically unemployed because they lack
experience or training should be the beneficiaries of an
integrated program of training and income support provided
jointly by the provincial and federal governments. That,
however, is a speech for another day.
Before we can reform unemployment insurance or social
programs or anything we do in government, we must first reform
how we make decisions including all the stakeholders looking at
the long run, being aware of the current environment, having
clear measurable objectives, designing programs to be user
friendly, treating all Canadians equally, encouraging personal
responsibility and initiative. This is the framework within which
unemployment insurance should be reformed.
The $20 billion Canadians spend on unemployment insurance
is not play money. It is not the government's money. It is the
product of the hard work of millions of Canadians. It is their
money. It is their right to have a say in how it is spent. If we
respect that most basic right we will produce a responsible and
sustainable unemployment insurance program. If we respect
that right in all of our deliberations we will have a government
that works within its limits and lives within its means.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate my friend from Medicine Hat for his first
speech in the House. I just got the last part of it because I was so
busy stuffing my face.
Mr. Nunziata: With what?
Mr. Simmons: Food. My friend from York South-Weston is
here. Anything can happen now.
The member for Medicine Hat talked about the
unemployment insurance program. Certainly I would be the first
to agree that there is a need for change. I want to scrutinize some
of the suggestions he made. One that caught my attention I will
come back to in a moment. But let me make a basic point about
the unemployment insurance system.
It is not a bogy. It is a system that has served this country very
well. Let us not, to use a cliché, throw out the baby with the bath
water. This is a system that has served this country very well.
The issue I want to come back to is the one of the variable
entrance requirements. I say to the member kindly that if we
were to extrapolate and take to its logical conclusion his point
that one ought not to have a different entrance requirement
depending on where one lives in this country, he is also
espousing that all automobile insurance plans ought to be
identical and that there ought not to be any variability in the type
of coverage that is needed by different individuals.
215
(1305 )
Of course he does not believe that. I ask him to examine a
little more closely his thesis that where one lives in the country
makes no difference.
I submit that it makes a whole lot of difference. For example,
it makes a difference in the ability of one to work in construction
activity. I would suggest that it would have been much more
difficult three days ago to do construction activity when it was
-30 degrees in Ottawa than in Newfoundland where it was 12
degrees above that day.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a
couple of issues.
First, he wants to know whether unemployment insurance as it
is presently constituted has been a boon or a problem in the
country.
Certainly the premier of Newfoundland would suggest that as
it is presently designed it has not served the interests of
Newfoundlanders very well. He points to the fact that a
generation of people have become dependent on unemployment
insurance as it is now. That is not only an economic tragedy but a
human tragedy. We must work quickly to change that so that we
can save yet another generation from that type of situation.
It is very important to recognize that there is a great
difference between an insurance program that puts the onus on
individuals to show that they are trying to stay in the work force
and setting up different benefits depending on the
unemployment rate in particular areas of the country.
I point out that before regionally extended benefits we had
unemployment rates in Newfoundland of around 7 per cent.
Since we have regionally extended benefits they have gone up,
up and up to 20 and 25 per cent. It is very important that we not
ignore the lessons of history lest we be doomed to repeat them.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Before recognizing the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, I think the hon. member for
Bellechasse has something to say, am I right?
Mr. Langlois: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of
order. The next speaker for the Official Opposition is the hon.
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. Like every woman sitting
in this House, she is very active and only sickness or some
mishap would slow her down just a little. Unfortunately, she
broke her ankle during the weekend. So, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask you to show some leniency and allow the hon.
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata to stay seated while she
makes her speech.
The Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. member that I see
no problem whatsoever. Now, the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today in this House, the
symbol of Canadian democracy.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all
members of this House who were elected or re-elected,
especially the right hon. Prime Minister, the honourable Leader
of the Opposition and the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
My first words will be directed to the constituents of the
riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata. I want to thank them for the
confidence that they have shown me by choosing me to represent
them in the House or that they have expressed to me since I was
elected. I will do everything I can to meet their expectations and
they can count on my co-operation for any individual or
collective project that could contribute to their well-being.
My speech will be made up of two parts. In the first part, I
want to remind you of the reasons that brought me to Ottawa
and, in the second part, I want to express some comments and
questions I have about certain aspects of the Department of
Canadian Heritage, of which I am the official critic for the
opposition. I will come right to the heart of the subject by
reminding you, Mr. Speaker, that you have before you a true
sovereignist, one who is determined to work relentlessly in
order to defend Quebec's interests. You have before you a
sovereignist who, on behalf of the people of
Rimouski-Témiscouata, feels that she has the legitimate right
to be here in order to claim what is owed to that region and to see
to it that it is treated fairly.
(1310)
Whether the Prime Minister or the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest and their parties like it or not, I came here to speak
about Quebec sovereignty.
I came here to fight for the MRCs of Mitis, Témiscouata and
Rimouski-Neigette and their 37 municipalities in my riding
which includes Rimouski, the regional capital of eastern
Quebec. Besides government services, you can find in Rimouski
one university, the Institut national de recherche scientifique en
océanographie, the Institut de marine, one CEGEP, the Quebec
Telephone head office, the Rimouski regional hospital and the
archdiocesan offices.
I am also here to fight for the five eastern Quebec ridings and
all Quebecers.
I stand here as an advocate of Quebec sovereignty. I grew up
in Montreal, started a teaching career in Laval University in
Quebec City and spent the last 25 years working in a region that
honoured me by making me their elected representative. That
region is well known for its vibrant cultural life, but it is plagued
with deep and lingering economic problems. Up to a few years
ago, the citizens there thought they could count on vital
communication links for its development, but it had to weather a
216
devastating attack by the previous government which deprived
it of its public television services and cut back its postal and
railway services. Ever since that sombre day when
Radio-Canada closed its doors there, that region has hardly had
any means left to voice its concerns, and its protests have gone
unanswered. Everyone knows that we have reached a point
where communications are essential community rights.
The people of Rimouski-Témiscouata have had enough of
cuts, closings, unemployment, welfare, poverty, bankruptcies,
tax increases, not to mention the underground economy,
smuggling and violence. These proud, courageous and
hard-working people have had enough of a centralizing
government which denies that there are differences and
disparities between communities. They have long understood
that their future depends on appropriate and concrete solutions
to their problems. They understand that their sovereignty,
Quebec's sovereignty, is the key to their future. In the
meantime, they will have the opportunity to say yes again like
they did the first time in May 1980. They want the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to fairly fulfill his mandate, a mandate which
is to protect the cultural and natural heritage so that when the
new era comes Quebec can find its heritage untouched. I will
now turn briefly to some issues before the Department of
Canadian Heritage, that is amateur sport, the National Film
Board, official languages, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation and copyright.
Now that the winter and summer Olympic Games alternate
every second year at the request of American broadcasters and
their sponsors, amateur sport will be on the forefront of current
events and could be widely talked about in a rather bad light, as
we saw recently in the case of Team Canada and figure skating in
the United States.
In the present context of economic austerity, Quebecers want
more than games, in any case something other than a flag war.
They demand, among other things, a review of the athlete status
in order to put an end to dubious practices whereby so-called
amateurs stash away the thousands of dollars they earn while
continuing to receive their amateur sport grant. These grants
should go only to those who really need them.
Moreover, since the main decision centres for participation in
the Olympics are in Toronto and Calgary, Quebec is asking, and
rightly so, for a review of selection procedures in some olympic
sports, to do away with discrimination and inequity toward
Quebec athletes and others.
Over the last four years, Canadian taxpayers have given some
$4 million in grants to Team Canada. Selection of athletes is
entirely left to the various coaches and, according to
information given in this House by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage himself, Team Canada will reveal the names of athletes
selected ``a few days only before the first match''. Why pay for
four years if, on the eve of the Olympic Games, we cannot make
public the names of the 23 players selected?
Team Canada needs more than a token French speaking
assistant coach in charge of relations with the French media. We
have to make sure that people like Mario Lemieux will not be
eliminated because they are ``not good enough''; that those like
Alexandre Daigle will not be excluded because they are ``too
strong-minded''; that those like Sylvie Fréchette will not be
disregarded because they refuse to train in Calgary; that those
like the Duchesnays-who gave France the gold-will not be
considered ``too avant-garde'' by Canadian judges; finally, that
those like Eric Lindros will not be given the red carpet treatment
and selected against the rules.
(1315)
Finally, one has only to think about fencing or figure skating
to realize that all amateur sports are not equal. We must
recognize that and adopt a grant policy which will protect those
sports and ensure an equitable distribution of funds.
As far as official languages are concerned, it is essential that
interventions be targeted properly, that they be distinct, that
they fulfill specific needs and that they take into account the
special situation of each of our two solitudes.
Let us not forget that the Bloc Quebecois came to Ottawa to
deal with sovereignty; we are not here to promote bilingualism.
For Quebec, the sole purpose of official languages is the proper
operation of federal parliamentary and judicial institutions.
However, for the francophone and Acadian community of
Canada, the Bloc Quebecois is simply asking for the
implementation of section 23 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms entrenched in the Constitution Act of 1982.
[English]
I want to make this clear to all Canadians from one ocean to
the other and to the other, as our colleague from Yukon likes to
say Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen carefully. As you know the
English speaking minority of Quebec has always been well
treated. These people have a complete guarantee that under a
sovereign government in Quebec they will keep all their historic
rights.
As critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition I want to make
sure that the minority known as la Communauté francophone et
acadienne du Canada receives the same treatment and that its
rights guaranteed by the Constitution are respected without
217
having to take legal proceedings and going as far as the Supreme
Court of Canada.
[Translation]
Even though it is a magnificent concept, the cinerobotheque
recently opened in Montreal has not increased the NFB's
market.
Over the years, the NFB has strayed more and more from its
original course which was to produce documentaries. The NFB
seems to be looking for its raison d'être. It produces fewer films
on its own but rather uses the funds it manages to co-produce
films in co-operation or in competition with the private sector
or Telefilm Canada, as was the case with ``The Decline of the
American Empire'', ``Night Zoo'' and ``Léolo''.
On the other hand, the NFB neglects its regional role and
budgetary restrictions forced it to reduce the resources and
services which regions normally had access to. Preferring
glamour to thriftiness, the NFB announced it was closing its
regional offices in Rimouski, Chicoutimi, Trois-Rivières,
Sherbrooke, Rouyn-Noranda, Charlottetown, Calgary, St.
John's and Sydney, but that it will be keeping open those in
Paris, London, and New York to distribute its films, something
which could be done at a lesser cost by the private sector.
I am asking that the NFB's mandate be re-examined in light of
the taxpayers'ability to pay and the need to support a growing
film industry in Canada.
As for Telefilm Canada, one can well wonder why it is
maintaining at great expense offices in Paris, London, and Los
Angeles.
Moreover, through the years-thanks to a lack of control and
too much opulence-several of Telefilm's employees have
gotten into the habit of attending, sometimes in great numbers,
numerous film festivals including the one in Cannes and the film
and television fair, as well as the Marché international de la
production en télévision and the Marché international de la
production et des communications which are held for the same
audience and the same market, twice a year in Cannes.
Before considering slashing financial support for the creation
of original works, we should review the mandate of Telefim
Canada, and ponder the judiciousness of keeping those offices
abroad open instead of giving the responsibility for film
distribution to the private sector.
As far as the CBC is concerned, we know that in 1990, it was
left with a shortfall of $108 million as a result of a decision by
the previous government. The president announced
unprecedented cuts, closing 11 local or regional TV stations,
including those in Rimouski, Matane, and Sept-Îles, and
causing the loss of 1,100 jobs, 280 of which were reclassified or
lost in eastern Quebec.
These cuts, which had and are still having a negative impact
on regional development, did not improve the corporation's
financial situation.
It should be noted that, without taking into account the cuts
announced in the April 1994 budget, the CBC will have a
shortfall of around $42 million in 1993-94; around $32 million
in 1994-95; and around $79 million in 1998-99.
It is therefore urgent that we tackle the issue of the financing
of the CBC public radio and TV networks.
(1320)
I am concerned that the CBC is thinking about using the
surplus generated by the employee pension fund to offset its
deficit for the next two years. You can surely understand that we
will oppose any attempt to resolve the CBC's financial woes by
shutting down regional stations or by using pension funds for
bailout purposes.
Moreover it is all the more important under the circumstances
that the next CBC president be selected on the basis of ability
rather than on the basis of partisan considerations.
Lastly, the mandate of the CBC must not be viewed strictly in
terms of available funds, but equally in terms of the country's
linguistic specificity, that is to say in terms of the cultural
specificity of the country's two founding peoples.
The Crown corporation is straying from its mandate of public
broadcaster because, on the one hand, of the shortfall it must
make up and because, on the other hand, of the increasingly
commercial approach it is being forced to take. It has modified
the content and level of some of its programming to get the
viewer ratings it needs to attract advertisers and in turn erase
part of its revenue shortfall. It is dipping into an already limited
pool of advertisers, especially in Quebec, and getting into
questionable competition with private broadcasters.
It is critical that the government review the Crown
corporation's mandate and be very vigilant as the CRTC
prepares to hold important hearings on speciality services and
digital radio broadcasting. The CRTC's rulings will have a
major impact on the operation of the radio-television industry.
The government must ensure that in making its ruling, the CRTC
takes into consideration the country's linguistic specificity and
extracts a commitment from cable operators to abide by
Canadian content rules and make services available to all
Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that the CRTC's rulings
will have a considerable impact on the world of television. They
will affect cable subscription costs as well as the way
advertising revenues are shared at a time when broadcasters are
already worried about their future.
218
Moving to the complex issue of copyright, I would like to
point out that creators are currently out in the cold and that the
government will have to act quickly by tabling as soon as
possible a bill to correct this unfortunate situation.
As I far as I know, there are two ways of looking at this issue.
You can view copyright as a right to reproduce a concrete piece
of work-a view commonly held by the Americans and
Anglo-Saxons-whereby the higher the quality of the work, the
more it is reproduced and the more profitable it is.
Or you can view the very act of creation as taking precedence
over any concern for protecting the work that will be produced.
This is the view which allows creators to earn money as soon as
their work is used, the view favoured in francophone circles.
The Bloc Quebecois believes we should favour the latter and
protect copyright for 50 years after the death of the artist on all
types of work.
However, we can neither stop progress nor ignore it. So, we
must recognize the right to copy privately, but at the same time
grant royalties to creators for every blank tape sold as well as for
the recording medium. The Société de gestion des droits
d'auteur, a collective, could be in charge of administering the
royalties.
Further, Mr. Speaker, we should protect neighbouring and
residual rights. France recognizes the former. That is how
Céline Dion can receive royalties every time they play her
rendition of ``Power of Love''-to which she has given a
personal touch and which she has made famous around the
world-in France but not in the US nor in Canada, because
neither recognizes neighbouring rights.
As for residual rights, they should be included in this act and
also protected for 50 years. These rights relate to the royalties
paid to artists as their works are sold to successive owners. This
entire area of residuals will have to receive due attention out of
fairness for the artists and to sustain the art production market.
The last point I want to get across to the government is that
culture is a sensitive area and a financially profitable industry of
vital importance to the development of communities. Just
thinking about how much the Riopelles, Vigneaults, Voisines,
Adams, Sutherlands and Forresters have done for the reputation
of Quebec and Canada, it is easy to see that the return on
investment in the cultural industry far exceeds that of any other
economic activity.
(1325)
The Bloc Quebecois reiterates that, to promote the cultural
identity of each of the founding nations, the government must
put an end to costly overlapping in culture and communications,
while ensuring the transfer of the budget envelopes for these
items, in accordance with the traditional demands of Quebec.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to follow through
on the suggestion of the Official Opposition requesting that a
committee be struck to review extensively, item by item,
expenditures of the Department of Canadian Heritage and of all
federal corporations or agencies that come under it.
The Deputy Speaker: Before going on to questions and
comments, I would like to add for the television viewers that you
remained seated because of a broken ankle.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for her speech. I would
like to make a short comment and then ask two questions.
The comment is very straightforward. I believe that it would
be useful, if possible in the near future, to give a comparison of
the services anglophones have in Quebec and those
francophones have outside Quebec.
I understand your point and I fully agree with the basic
premise, but I believe that could help to educate some people. So
if the occasion arose and I could assist you, I would be pleased to
do so. If you can do it, it would be very useful.
I also note that the hon. member made the following
comment, that if Quebec became a sovereign state, the
anglophone minority could be assured of having the historic
rights which they had and which they enjoy today. I hope that it
would be so, but why did so many anglophones leave Quebec
during the referendum crisis several years ago and why are so
many still leaving, according to the statistics and information I
have? If this objective of sovereignty were realized, no doubt
more would leave. Obviously, some of them must be wondering
if it is true or not.
Secondly, I listened carefully and I heard nothing about what
a Bloc Quebecois government would do with respect to native
people if Quebec were sovereign. Nevertheless, the First
Nations have historic rights. Would you have something to share
with us on this subject?
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by making
a comment and thanking the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services for his
question.
First of all, minority rights in Quebec have always been
guaranteed and protected. You asked me to draw a comparison
between francophones and anglophones. I will take only one
example, that of the school system.
Anglophones have always managed their own free public
school system. They even had a school system managed by
English speaking protestants, so that they would not have to mix
with French-speaking catholics.
Although the 1982 Constitution guarantees the right of
Acadians and other French speaking Canadians to manage their
own schools in every province where numbers warrant, those
com-
219
munities had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to force
their provinces to merely implement the terms of the 1982
Constitution.
So when Acadians and other French Canadians are treated the
same as the anglophone minority in Quebec, I think that Canada
will be entitled to sing the national anthem of its choice. In the
meantime, I think that the rights of Quebec anglophones are
protected by the program of the Parti Quebecois. This is not the
place to list their potential rights in a sovereign Quebec. We will
leave that to Quebec and Mr. Parizeau when he comes into
office, as we all hope.
(1330)
As far as natives are concerned, I am not the designated critic
on this issue. I will leave it to the official critic on aboriginal
affairs to state our views on the subject. But it is clear that our
native minority has always been treated well in Quebec, too.
They have not experienced nearly as many difficulties as in the
rest of the country, as the courts can testify to.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): I would
also like to congratulate my colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata for her comments. However, Mr.
Speaker, I thought that, during the last election campaign, the
party which forms the official opposition had promised
Quebecers that it would primarily talk about economic recovery
and job creation. Yet, since the opening of this session, that
party has only raised the issue of sovereignty.
Is the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata prepared to
fulfill the mandate she received from her constituents and
co-operate with our government to put Quebecers and
Canadians back to work? Otherwise, will she tell them honestly
that she is here for one reason, and that is Quebec's
independence, rather than its sovereignty?
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question, but I want to remind him that I am not here to promote
Quebec's separation, but rather its sovereignty, and in French
there is an enormous difference between those two concepts.
As regards economic recovery, it just so happens that I am
involved in a sector which is absolutely extraordinary for the
recovery of the economy. The budget for Canadian Heritage is
roughly $3 billion but that sector brings in $22 billion to
Canada. Each dollar invested in the cultural sector brings in one
dollar in revenue. In some fields you sometime have to spend
$200,000 to create one job, but in the cultural sector one dollar
will have a return of one dollar. In fact, this sector is the one with
the highest return in the economy and it also creates 500,000
jobs across Canada.
What I emphasized throughout my speech was that we must
revise mandates, cut the fat in the federal administration, and
put an end to trips made three times a year by civil servants to
Cannes as well as to the film festival in Berlin at
taxpayers'expense. I have rarely seen any civil servant at the
international film festival for youth in Rimouski. It does not
cost much to go to Rimouski. Yet, no civil servant shows up at
that festival, even though it would really not be an expensive
proposition, with hotel rooms at $40 a night. But 60 civil
servants go to Cannes three times a year and stay in hotels at
$200 a night. This is why we must set up a House committee so
that members of Parliament are the ones who decide where to
cut, instead of relying on suggestions made by civil servants,
because they will never cut in their own fat. Have you ever seen
anything like this? Therefore, this issue must absolutely be dealt
with by a House committee, so that we, members of Parliament,
are the ones to decide where to cut out the fat. We must be able to
find funding so as not to reduce the budget of Telefilm Canada
producers but rather that of those who sell our films and not
passively watch the private sector sell our films. This is the kind
of sound decision we must make, and not once again go after the
performers and the creators. The throne speech is silent on this;
there is not a single line about promoting economic recovery in
that sector in spite of the fact that we know it has the best
performance.
So, I hope the government will prove serious and take proper
steps in this direction.
The Deputy Speaker: There are three and a half minutes left.
You can share this time. The hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): First off I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata who reminded this House of the first
objective Bloc Quebecois members have set for themselves
during the last campaign.
Listening to her speech, one or two questions came to my
mind. However, given the question of the last speaker I will
rephrase it, to make it clearer to the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, and to the House. As a member of this
House, how does she interpret the mandate she received on
October 25?
(1335)
Mrs. Tremblay: I hope I interpret it the same way as
everyone else in this House. I came to pave the way for Quebec
sovereignty, to explain to all Canadians what we are doing here
and what we will be doing afterward. We did not come here to
destroy Canada, we came to rebuild it differently by going our
own way and making it better, because there really are two
countries in Canada. We have to shed our blinkers and face the
facts. We have two countries. We say: ``Let us leave. Let us try
220
to negotiate something which would allow our two countries to
live side by side and everything will be better for Canada''.
I have just remembered the hon. member's question. He wants
to know why the anglophones are leaving Quebec. They are
leaving because they are scared. It is just fear, because there are
English speaking Canadians of other origins coming to Quebec.
Even Americans come to Quebec, because life is good there. The
food is good, accommodation is good. People who are scared
leave Quebec, those who like a challenge are coming in.
The Deputy Speaker: I will recognize the parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues on having been elected to
the House.
[Translation]
Congratulations to all my colleagues. At the same time I want
to thank my constituents for giving me the honour of
representing them in this House.
[English]
I thank my constituents for having given me the opportunity
to return.
[Translation]
My speech has three parts. Part one will be about government
that takes an active role. Part two will concentrate on the
priorities in the throne speech, and finally part three, the
conclusion.
[English]
The government has been extremely busy undertaking a
number of actions, actions that are good for Canadians, actions
that are in fact part of its electoral program. Let me mention a
few.
The government has downsized cabinet; it is one of the
smallest ever in the history of Canada. It has cancelled the
controversial EH-101 helicopter contract. It has as well stopped
a bad deal to privatize terminals one and two at Pearson
International Airport. It is pushing ahead with its $6 billion
national infrastructure program. It has replaced the Governor of
the Bank of Canada. It has passed NAFTA and finalized the
terms of the new GATT. It has announced a plan for the review of
defence policy. It has sent a clear signal on the need for integrity
and frugality in government and it is opening the books to reveal
government finances. Those are a number of actions the
government has already taken.
As parliamentary secretary I have had the good fortune to
make a number of announcements in my own riding that respond
to the need to create jobs in Canada. It so happened because I
was from the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba that I
was given this task.
For example, Peerless Garments Limited received two
contracts totalling $541,000 for newly designed materials for
National Defence to protect Canadian forces personnel from
cold and wet weather. This will create four jobs and maintain up
to 30 employees in Peerless Garments Limited.
Another announcement involved Century 21st Apparels
Limited that won a $526,000 contract supplying National
Defence with parkas and trousers for wet weather. This will
create up to 20 jobs and maintain 45 more jobs at this particular
company.
A third announcement involved Standard Aero Limited that
won a $725,000 contract for repairing and overhauling aircraft
cooling materials. It will maintain six jobs at this particular
company.
Those are the kinds of announcements that Canadians want to
hear. Those are the kinds of announcements that create jobs and
maintain jobs, that make sure our fellow Canadians are working
or going back to work.
[Translation]
I also had the privilege of announcing a grant of $261,000 in
my own riding for maintaining a six-room residence to provide
temporary shelter for victims of family violence.
(1340)
It is too bad that in today's society, we need establishments
like these, but unfortunately, we do. I was glad to make this
announcement, which responds to a real need in our society.
I will now discuss the highlights of the throne speech. First, I
would like to deal with job creation.
[English]
Job creation which during the election was our major priority
continues to be our major priority.
Most members will have heard about the infrastructure
program that is going forward rapidly. That is an immediate
response to Canadians who have been unable to work. Then
there will be the response to small and medium sized businesses
which are those enterprises that have created 85 per cent of the
new jobs in Canada during the last decade. They will have more
access to capital. There will be less red tape. There will in fact
be research and development which will permit them to grow,
create and simply make sure there are more jobs in Canada.
[Translation]
Now, I would like to speak about integrity or ethics, if you
prefer, in public life.
221
[English]
The Prime Minister has indicated that integrity in government
is absolutely essential and in that vein he has cancelled the
Pearson airport deal which was a very bad deal for Canadians.
He has cut political staff for a saving of $10 million annually and
he has outlined cuts to MPs' perks and benefits of over $5
million annually. There will be a review of MPs' pensions and
there will be additional reductions and changes to that which is
happening in this government in this Parliament because the
Prime Minister and his government believe that integrity in
government is an absolute necessity.
[Translation]
There were also references in the throne speech to economic
recovery.
[English]
We have talked about changing Canada's social security
system within two years so that it responds to more needs more
effectively, replacing the goods and services tax, ending foreign
overfishing and making sure that we have an elimination of
internal trade barriers.
Finally, there is perhaps a fourth major point. We have talked
about strengthening the fabric of Canada.
[Translation]
About strengthening the social fabric in this country.
[English]
We will proclaim the Canadian environmental assessment act.
The Prime Minister will himself chair a national forum on health
to foster a public dialogue on health care. We will introduce
measures to enhance community safety, especially the safety of
women and children, and we will move to implement the
inherent right of aboriginal self-government. We will consult
widely with Canadians as we conduct major reviews of foreign
and defence policy.
As I indicated initially, this is a government of action. This is
a government that said during the election campaign that it
would do things and this is a government that has reiterated a
number of those particular points in the Speech from the Throne.
[Translation]
I would like more or less to summarize the throne speech
which reflects our determination to keep our campaign
promises. To me, this is absolutely essential. Economic
recovery and job creation are the main priorities of this
government and of all Canadians.
We will meet the commitments made in our campaign
program, the little red book which is becoming increasingly
popular. The government's priorities are clearly identified, both
in this little red book and in the throne speech.
And finally, the Minister of Finance will put figures to the
measures announced in the throne speech in his February
budget. The budget will contain measures designed to control
the debt and the deficit while turning around the unemployment
situation.
There are two final comments I would like to make. The
throne speech contains one paragraph which to me is very
important, and I quote:
Our cultural heritage and our official languages are at the very core of
Canadian identity and our sources of social and economic enrichment. The
government will announce measures to promote Canada's cultural identity.
(1345)
Is this throne speech perfect? Of course not. But I think it
gives us a chance, if we are willing, to work together to create, to
build, and to improve what we already have. On many occasions
I have heard members of all political parties make comments
such as that this is an excellent country. We live well. We eat
well. We have fun. So when we like something this much,
something that may be the best of its kind in the whole world,
why are we looking for radical solutions? To me, this is the best
country in the world, and I want to ask my colleagues to help
make it even better.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I just heard
the hon. member make some very interesting comments about
job creation. But I also read this morning that the Minister of
Finance said he would cut expenditures by twice the amount of
any hike in taxes. We know Canadians, Quebecers and others
alike, are taxed enough as it is. We also know that if we reduce
expenses we will take away the income of many who will end up
on unemployment. How can the member not see the
contradiction between what his minister said and what he just
told us?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
questions. Naturally, before we get the details, we will have to
wait for the February budget. But I see no contradiction. If we
examine all the reports received to date we see that the Minister
of Finance is trying to establish a larger taxation base because
we are short some $46 billion. It is very normal therefore to try
to find taxes in areas that were not taxed or not sufficiently taxed
before.
I do not think cutting certain expenses will necessarily have
adverse effects on jobs. It depends on where we make the cuts.
Remember that here, in the House of Commons, our program is
based on two fundamental principles, on two very important
programs, the first being the infrastructure program which has
already been launched and budgeted. That measure has been
implemented and it will immediately create jobs for people.
As far as long term development is concerned, we talked
about replacing the GST, about ensuring better access to capital
for small businesses, since they were responsible for creating 85
per cent of new jobs over the last 10 years, and about giving
them additional help for training and updating skills, more help
for research and less forms to fill. All that is very normal. I see
no contradiction there. I think the Minister of Finance is trying
222
to strike a balance between deficit and debt reduction and job
creation. I admit this is quite a challenge, but I am very willing
to wait until February for the details.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the member for St. Boniface on his remarks.
(1350)
I will also take this opportunity to greet all the French
speaking Manitobans living in his riding. He just described the
state of the Canadian economy and we are all in agreement with
what he said.
One thing is certain now, everyone in Canada knows what is
going on. People understand the difficult situation we are in.
They are now expecting action. Making a diagnosis is not
enough, the government was brought to office to take concrete
and positive steps to stimulate the economy.
The member also mentioned French speaking Canadians
across Canada. Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that
francophones outside Quebec have always relied on the
Canadian government for services whereas for us, in Quebec,
our motherland, our government has always been primarily the
government of Quebec, and that is a big difference.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to ask the member, in
his capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public
Works, what his government intends to do, apart from the
tripartite program, to create stable and long lasting
employment.
Mr. Duhamel: I want to thank my hon. colleague for his
comment and question. First off, it is a fact that the nearly one
million men, women and children who make up the francophone
minority outside Quebec have relied to some degree, and at
times considerably, on the federal government to help them
establish certain institutions.
One fact that is sometimes forgotten is that this minority has
often looked to Quebec, an important reference point, for the
necessary resources to grow and develop.
Moreover, it should also be remembered that we have long
relied on our own resources and waged our own fight to preserve
our language and culture which we hold so dear.
Regarding long-term stable jobs, as my hon. colleagues in
this House know, the program which we are putting forward to
encourage in some ways small and medium sized businesses
will create this kind of well-paid, sustainable employment. Our
long-term plan is to reduce government red tape, to ensure that
taxes-
I see the Speaker is signalling to me that my time is up, so I
will conclude on this note.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, allow me to
add my words of congratulations to the many you have received
since your appointment as Deputy Speaker.
I also want to congratulate the hon. members for Bruce-Grey
and Madawaska-Victoria for their eloquence in moving and
seconding the Speech from the Throne.
I am pleased to have in common with all members of this
House the responsibilities of this office. There has been much
talk of the need for greater civility here. I believe that members
of all parties can help give this place a more productive and
positive atmosphere.
Allow me to thank the voters of Halifax West once again for
giving me and this government something very precious and that
is their trust and confidence.
It is with a great sense of pride and humility that I stand in this
House to speak on behalf of the people of Halifax West. I am
here to serve them and give voice to their concerns but I
recognize that I am also here to serve the best interests of
Canada.
It is also with a sense of history and responsibility that I stand
in this House where my father and grandfather stood before me.
I note from Hansard that when my grandfather, Jack Harrison,
made his maiden speech in this House some 44 years ago the one
member to intervene during his speech was Mr. Stanley
Knowles. What a remarkable pleasure it has been to see him here
sitting in front of me these last few days.
I have great respect for the best traditions of this House. At
the same time we are all aware of the need for change and the
urgent need to restore hope and confidence to Canadians.
(1355)
[Translation]
I am encouraged by the changes to the rules of the House
announced in the Speech from the Throne. I detect a fresh, new
attitude in this place and it augurs well for Canada.
With nearly 93,000 voters, Halifax West is the biggest riding
in Atlantic Canada, the fastest growing one and perhaps the most
diversified as well.
[English]
It has urban, suburban and rural components. It includes a
large part of the city of Halifax along the hills from Fairmont
and Fairview to Clayton Park and Wedgewood. It includes
223
bedroom communities like the town of Bedford, the Timberlea
area and Sackville, the third largest community in Nova Scotia.
Halifax West also contains a long list of smaller communities
from the hamlets of Goffs and Oldham in the northeast to the
fishing villages like Terrance Bay and the picturesque Peggy's
Cove in the south and the glorious beaches of Queensland and
Hubbards in the west.
Throughout my years of growing up, working and
volunteering in Halifax West I have seen the challenges facing
its people. As we all know Canadians face many challenges. We
face challenges like unemployment. We see friends desperately
trying to find work. We see neighbours in danger of losing their
homes, their hopes and their dreams. We face the challenges of
cleaning up our environment. We see our lakes and rivers dying
from acid rain and other pollution.
We smell our landfills overflowing. We have witnessed the
ravaging of our ocean resource. We see other challenges. We see
the poverty of single mothers and their children. We see women
bruised and battered. We see families destroyed by drugs and
alcohol.
At the same time as we face these and other challenges we are
confronted by a national debt of over $500 billion.
[Translation]
These are but a few of the enormous problems we are facing.
No government could solve them all, and none could do it
overnight.
Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers, but I look
forward to working with all my colleagues to find them.
[English]
Last summer and fall I visited over 12,000 households in
Halifax West. As I did, I heard the concerns of many people. I
want to mention today a number of issues they have brought to
my attention.
Transportation is a constant concern. Overcrowded and
inadequate highways and access roads are a safety problem and
a hindrance to business. Many communities in Halifax West
have sewer and water systems that are inadequate or in need of
upgrading. They pose a real threat to health and the
environment.
In light of these concerns I am pleased the government has
moved so swiftly to complete the Canada-Nova Scotia
infrastructure agreement that was signed January 14 in Halifax.
I am confident the private sector will play a role and will
respond to the call to play a role in this national program. I am
encouraged that this job creation program allows local
governments to set the priorities.
Unemployment is a major problem throughout Atlantic
Canada. There are those in Halifax West who live in very
difficult conditions. After seven years of involvement in food
banks I feel a particular obligation to those in our society who
are hurting. These people want to move away from dependency
to become full participants in society. They want to work.
I look forward to the coming review of our social programs
with the hope that we can make them fairer, simpler and
stronger.
[Translation]
I am happy about the reintroduction of the residential
rehabilitation assistance program because it will allow many
seniors to stay in their own homes. I also find it is a good idea for
the government to focus on small and medium sized businesses
in its long-term job creation plan.
[English]
As a past president of the Bedford Board of Trade I am
familiar with the frustrations of the small business sector. By
cutting red tape and improving access to capital we can give
small business a better shot at success. No other segment of our
economy has the same potential for creating jobs.
I spoke a moment ago about transportation. The Halifax
International Airport is located in my riding and many residents
are employed either at the airport, in the nearby aerotech park or
in the airline industry. In light of the current airline industry
crisis in Canada these airline workers in particular are very
concerned about their future. They are looking to the
government to help stop the feuding. I wish the Minister of
Transport every success in this regard. I offer my support and
assistance to him.
(1400)
Then there is the railway. The maintenance of an efficient and
competitive rail link to the Atlantic provinces and the port of
Halifax is a crucial economic issue for Halifax West and the
entire region.
Halifax has a long and proud history as the east coast home of
our navy. I look forward to the coming review of foreign policy
and defence policy. I am confident it will highlight the need for a
strong, effective and flexible naval force for peacekeeping, drug
interdiction and resource preservation. There is no more
pressing problem in Atlantic Canada than the collapse of the
groundfishery which has caused the largest layoff in Canadian
history.
The vast majority of my constituents are not directly involved
in the fishery but they know the importance of the fishery to the
entire Atlantic economy. I welcome the government's pledge to
assist those affected to become self-supporting. I stand with all
members from Atlantic Canada in my concern for this vital
sector.
Canadians will take hope from the speech from the throne. It
demonstrates that this government is keeping its promises. The
224
Prime Minister and cabinet have been true to their words in
cutting $10 million from their staff budgets. I am pleased that
we in the House will help save another $5 million.
The Speaker: Order. It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to statements
by members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
224
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, on November 26, 1993 a serious rock burst occurred at
the Maccassa mine in Kirkland Lake, trapping two miners
underground and injuring many others. To this date recovery
efforts have not been successful and the two miners are still
missing. With each passing day chances of finding these two
men alive become less and less likely.
Such tragedies are unfortunately a common occurrence in our
mining communities. I would like the families of these two
miners and the communities of Kirkland Lake, Larder Lake,
Virginiatown and Matachewan to know that our thoughts and
prayers are with them.
This government is committed to participate in further studies
on how to prevent and anticipate these rock burst occurrences
which are the major cause of mining fatalities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, the Greater
Montreal area is the economic heartland of Quebec. There you
find the greatest concentrations of industries and jobs. Eighty
per cent of the province's R and D activity is conducted in the
Montreal area.
But for decades now, the federal government has been
neglecting the funding of research and development in Quebec,
with the result that Quebec's economy has suffered.
In my capacity as a member from the greater Montreal area, I
want this House to know that I will continue to keep a watchful
eye on this because Montreal should be getting its fair share of
federal R and D funds for employment and equity.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to commend Senator Douglas Everett of Manitoba who has
announced that he will be resigning his seat in the upper House.
Senator Everett conducted himself in such a way as to
enhance the credibility of that institution. He favoured freer
votes in the Senate and chose to sit as an independent Liberal
when he found himself at variance with the Liberal Party on the
issue of free trade. When he dissented from the tactics used by
the Liberals in the Senate in the GST debate he crossed the floor
to sit as a fully independent senator.
In his resignation speech, Senator Everett's last advice to the
government was that the upper chamber should be elected like
the House of Commons.
I pay tribute to Senator Everett today and recommend that the
government heed his advice for restoring public trust and
confidence in the upper chamber.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I want to express my
appreciation and that of my hon. colleagues in the House for the
opportunity last Thursday to attend a special screening of the
film ``Schindler's List''.
(1405 )
Many hon. members and senators along with staff members
took advantage of the kind invitation of the hon. member for
Ontario. In his welcoming remarks he warned us that
``Schindler's List'' is a powerful film which makes explicit the
facts of the holocaust and the lessons to be learned from it.
As we prepare for a special debate on peacekeeping in Bosnia
it is appropriate that we reflect on the genocide, violence and
inhumanity of the holocaust. Similar evils seem rampant in
Bosnia.
In conclusion I again thank the hon. member for Ontario for
his timely initiative.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
under section 745 of the Criminal Code many murderers of
police officers and prison guards are coming up for review of
their eligibility date for parole. Such individuals are serving life
sentences with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. The review
proceedings could allow this 25-year period to be reduced to 15
years.
225
I ask that all members join together to review this condition to
determine whether this procedure should be available to
murderers of police officers and prison guards or whether it
should be eliminated completely as soon as practically possible,
thereby making murderers of police and prison guards serve at
least a minimum of 25 years.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, Quebec is the
third largest producer of aluminum, with 10 per cent of world
capacity.
The workers employed by the four aluminum plants located in
the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region account to close to 30
percent of the direct manufacturing labour force in the region.
This industry is going through a crisis caused by the
Commonwealth of Independent States, which is dumping
massive quantities of aluminum on the international markets
and making world prices tumble.
Aluminum-producing countries have tried without success to
convince Russia to reduce its production. The United States
wants to protect itself by imposing anti-dumping duties on all
foreign producers including Quebec. That would only aggravate
the crisis hurting Quebec aluminum workers. Canada must act
immediately to persuade Russia to limit its exports and also to
prevent the United States from imposing anti-dumping duties
on aluminum from Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
my riding and indeed the whole country have many residents
who choose to own and use for competitive or recreational
purposes legally owned firearms. Competitive shooting is in
fact an Olympic competition that has won many medals for
Canada.
The previous government passed legislation that severely
restricted the legitimate use of firearms without addressing the
criminal use of them. The Liberal government has indicated its
intention to introduce new firearms legislation.
If it is the government's intention to deal seriously with
prevention of illegal activities I would hope its legislation is
straightforward and realistic. Legitimate owners stand ready to
assist the government in any way possible.
If on the other hand it is the government's plan to pass
regulations intent on forcing these legitimate owners to give up
their legal property in frustration, I hope the government will at
least be honest enough to state that its real intention is to take
firearms away from all citizens of this country.
Legitimate owners would like compassionate legislation, but
above all else they demand honesty from their government.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to make colleagues in the House of Commons
aware of a serious situation developing with student loans.
The former Tory government abolished the initial six months
of free interest on student loans.
[Translation]
Many Canadian graduates now find themselves without jobs,
without money and with student loans of $30,000 or more. How
can we ask these young people to pay back their loans right away
when they are unemployed?
[English]
Jobless graduates have become discouraged, even desperate. I
urge my colleagues to support youth employment programs and
a fair repayment plan of student loans.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to be the first female MP from Newfoundland
and Labrador to speak in the House of Commons.
(1410 )
On October 25, 1993 the people of both St. John's ridings had
the wisdom to elect me and my friend from St. John's West as the
first women to represent our fair province in this honourable
House.
The issues brought to my attention by my fellow
Newfoundlanders during the campaign are clear.
Unemployment is dangerously high. Our young people are
beginning to lose hope and many families are finding it all but
impossible to cover their basic needs.
However Newfoundlanders are at their best when times are
the hardest. We continue to have the lowest level of income in
the country but we give to our charities the most. This is the type
of character that makes me proud to represent the people of St.
John's East. I would like to thank the voters who have put their
trust in me, in the Prime Minister and in this government team to
address the issues of their concerns.
226
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, let me offer
you my personal congratulations and those of my constituents of
London West.
There are many challenges facing this government, but one
which we must address quickly is the 17.2 per cent level of youth
unemployment. Approximately 355,000 young people remain
unemployed in Canada. These youth have become innocent
victims after years of economic hardship. With them we will
work toward forging a new economy founded on information
and knowledge based industries.
I am confident that in its promised priority for job creation
this government will assist in a productive school to work
transition and work co-operatively with business, labour and
other levels of government to achieve our objectives.
I ask all members of the House to strongly endorse measures
including the establishment of the Canadian youth services
corps and the formation of new apprenticeship programs. We
must support our human resource of young talent and energy as
we head into the 21st century.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, I am
amazed at the lack of interest shown by the federal government
and its lack of co-operation in helping the provinces stop the
illegal sale of cigarettes once and for all.
Despite its promises to take action right after the election, the
Liberal government is dragging its feet on the increasingly
serious problem of smuggling. Instead of helping provincial
governments to tackle the problem, it is passing the buck.
This government is not doing any better than the previous
Conservative government that was rejected by the population. It
is in this government's interest to help solve the problem instead
of aggravating it.
How long will small businesses have to protest to make the
authorities understand that the two kinds of justice dispensed by
the present system cannot be tolerated?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, in 1979 I
emigrated from New Zealand where the government of the time
was immersed in a policy of tax and spend with overgenerous
social programs and widespread reliance on welfare.
In 1984, as many members will be aware from the ``W5''
television program, New Zealand experienced a debt crisis. The
tough decisions that should have been made by the politicians
turned into drastic decisions when New Zealand could no longer
deficit fund its spending.
Unless all members of the House learn from the experiences
in countries like New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden which
have all experienced debt crisis in the last 10 years, Canada too
will soon be on the brink of a debt crisis.
The new free enterprise, unsubsidized, minimally regulated
economy of New Zealand today is proof that there is a great
reward for gaining control of government spending.
* * *
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, today the
Government of Canada has taken another step toward fulfilling
its commitment to job creation.
Federal and provincial colleagues assembled in Toronto this
morning to sign the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works
agreement. This undertaking paves the way for Ontario
residents to benefit from more than $720 million of federal
funding to be matched by provincial and local authorities to
build and upgrade our infrastructure services.
(1415)
As a result of this initiative jobs will be created immediately.
Roads, sewers, water mains and other services will be improved.
It will enhance our economic growth and create jobs today and
well into the future.
This government's commitment to jobs through programs like
this one and upcoming strategies such as the youth corps
apprenticeship initiative will act as a catalyst for the country's
economic development.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, as was
mentioned in the House on Friday, the
Irving Whale sank off the
coast of P.E.I. some 23 years ago. It remains there today, with
3,100 tonnes of bunker sea oil in its tanks. Federal officials have
tried for years to assure Islanders that the barge does not pose an
environmental risk, however after 23 years few Islanders share
that confidence. This is increasingly evident in recent weeks.
It has been reported that the Canadian Coast Guard has
recommended the oil be pumped out. I am pleased the Minister
of the Environment agrees that it is not a question of whether or
227
not to remove the oil but is a matter of finding the financing and
is a matter being discussed within government.
It is my intention and that of my colleague, the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, to continue the pressure
to resolve the issue and to have the oil removed from the Irving
Whale. It is time, as one committee is named, to ``bail the
whale''.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, there have
now been two meetings on pre-budget consultations. This is the
opportunity for the new government to show that it is really
prepared to take a new direction and to listen to all Canadians.
Recently the hon. member for Willowdale voiced surprised at
the tighten the belt attitude that has dominated pre-budget
meetings, but I ask if one has predetermined the results by the
invitation list and by virtually ignoring all presenters who
present an alternative view, should one really express surprise at
the result?
I urge the minister and I urge the government to ensure that
these pre-budget consultations, unlike the ones of the previous
government, show new direction that all Canadians are listened
to and that we have a budget which reflects the needs of every
Canadian, not just simply one group.
_____________________________________________
227
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The shopkeepers' revolt against smuggling is growing in
Quebec, with the regrettable decision of store owners in the
Saint-Eustache region to sell cigarette cartons for $20 today in
order to fight the unfair competition from professional
smugglers.
In a statement he made yesterday in Granby in reaction to this
revolt, Premier Johnson of Quebec made the following urgent
appeal to the federal government: ``The plan to sell cigarettes
without collecting taxes should first of all bring a reaction from
the federal police''.
Given this appeal from the Premier of Quebec, asking him to
assume his responsibilities and enforce the law, what is the
Prime Minister of Canada waiting for to order the RCMP to
dismantle the smuggling rings?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
this is a serious situation and I wish to assure my hon. colleague
that the RCMP is prepared to lay charges where the evidence
shows that federal law has been broken.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given this vague
answer, which is only a statement of intentions that have never
been carried out so far, does the Prime Minister not realize that
all this is reinforcing everyone's impression that the
Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have in effect
ordered the RCMP to turn a blind eye on smuggling?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): As the
Solicitor General indicated, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
have received orders to make all citizens of this country obey the
law.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, do the government and the Prime Minister not
recognize that there is something extremely unhealthy for the
citizens of a democracy and a society based on law to see the
state come down harder on small shopkeepers who are the
victims of smuggling than on the real smugglers, the
professional traffickers, who for many years have been acting
with complete immunity, in broad daylight and on a very large
scale, thus depriving the federal and provincial governments of
huge amounts of money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have nothing to add except to say that of course the federal
government and the governments of Quebec and the other
provinces must act to enforce the law. That is what the Solicitor
General instructed the RCMP to do and I hope that the provincial
governments will give the same instructions to their police
authorities.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the
Throne Speech last week, the government announced its
intention to monitor the behaviour of ministers and members.
We just heard that the Liberal member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville was fired in 1989 from his
teaching position, after he sent a series of 17 threatening letters
to his colleagues, the last one containing death threats-
The Speaker: Order. We had several questions on the subject
last Friday, and today the hon. member in question made a
speech in the House. Perhaps the hon. member would care to
rephrase his question?
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to my question.
228
How could the hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville run for the Liberal Party,
if the party executive was aware he had been fired because of
these death threats?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think I have anything to add to the statement by the hon.
member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville who
apologized before the House this morning. We have a tradition
in the House that applies when no criminal charges were laid.
I remember when I was a member here, one of the members
rose in the House and admitted that in the past, he had served a
prison sentence, but since that time he had been a member in
good standing of his community. After this admission he was
given a standing ovation by the House, because he had become a
very good citizen.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I realize apologies were made this morning, but
according to House security regulations, any person who had
made such statements, whether or not he apologized, would be
prohibited from entering Parliament Hill.
The Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for the government
to deal with, and I think it is rather difficult to answer the
question because it is not up to the government to take action in
this respect. Perhaps the question could be rephrased somewhat?
Mr. Duceppe: This was my preamble, Mr. Speaker. How does
the Prime Minister intend to deal with the case of the hon.
member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the members of this House have their private lives like anybody
else. There are members who in the past faced criminal charges
and sat as members until their problems were resolved before
the courts.
In the case of the hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, no charges were laid
before any court whatsoever. There was no judgment. The hon.
member in question apologized to Canadians, and in this House,
it is the rule that when a member apologizes for making a
mistake, those apologies are accepted.
If every member in this House who made a mistake in the past
were obliged to leave the House, there might not be many
members left who would not have to rise in the House and say: I
made a mistake at some point in my life.
The hon. member admitted he made a foolish mistake, and he
apologized. I think the Standing Orders of this House indicate
that one accepts the apologies of a member of this House.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Prime Minister.
As he knows, Senator Everett from Manitoba, after providing
many years of independent-minded service in the upper House
has resigned his seat and called for an election of future
senators.
(1425 )
Will the Prime Minister today assure the people of Manitoba
that if their legislature were to pass legislation providing for the
election of a Senate nominee that he would appoint the winner of
such an election to the upper chamber?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Constitution makes provision for the appointment
of senators. We will amend this procedure when all of the
provinces agree to an elected Senate. We cannot have some
elected senators and some appointed senators. We have to
amend the Constitution, but it is clear that the members of this
House are not willing to do so.
[English]
I do not intend to change the Constitution at this moment. We
will respect the Constitution. It is the basic law of the land. It is
the way the Constitution is written. I will respect the
Constitution until it is changed.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister well knows that Senate nominees can be
elected without any constitutional change. Almost three months
ago the Prime Minister received a letter dated October 28 from
Premier Klein of Alberta touching on this same subject.
He sought assurance from the Prime Minister that if a Senate
vacancy were to arise in Alberta and a Senate nominee were to
be elected in accordance with the provisions of the existing
statute, the Alberta Senate Selection Act, that he would appoint
the winner of that election to the upper chamber.
Can the Prime Minister now give the premier of Alberta that
simple assurance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
the premier of Alberta is completely convinced that we need an
elected Senate, he should convince his colleagues.
229
If the leader of the Reform Party is convinced that we need an
elected Senate in Canada, why did he vote against the change to
do that which was in the Charlottetown accord?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a further supplementary to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister well knows that the objections of the
Reform Party and other members to the Charlottetown accord
and its provisions for Senate reform were not objections to
election to the Senate but to an ineffective Senate which that
provided.
In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister made a
commitment to restoring integrity and public trust in the
institutions of government and enhancing the credibility of
Parliament.
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to trust the judgment of
the public in the selection of senators by what means other than
by changing the Constitution does he propose to restore public
trust in that institution and to enhance its credibility?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the best way to gain the trust of the Canadian people is very
simple.
It is not to vote against a constitutional proposition to have
senators elected and then, on the first occasion the leader has a
chance in this House of Commons, ask to do what he voted
against only 12 or 15 months ago.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Unlike the previous one,
my question, Mr. Speaker, is not about constitutional change,
but rather about the application of the present Constitution by
the government.
Last Friday, a Canadian forces helicopter on a rescue mission
was shot at while flying over the Kanesatake reserve. Since this
incident could have had extremely serious consequences, is the
Prime Minister prepared to change his attitude and to take steps
to ensure that the law is respected and the firearms smuggling
now going on between the United States and Canada is stopped?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
should inform the House that last Friday a national defence
beacon went off in the Oka area.
A Labrador helicopter and a Hercules plane came from
Trenton as part of the search and rescue operations. The
helicopter, clearly marked ``search and rescue'' and coloured
yellow, landed at Oka where it was confronted by members of
the reserve who said that they had been shooting at the
helicopter and to get off the territory. This was a normal search
and rescue operation.
(1430)
I should say that la Sûreté du Québec is wondering why a
national defence beacon went off in that area when it obviously
appears there is no plane missing. That is a question that is under
investigation by la Sûreté du Québec.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my question
concerns the responsibility of the government to stop the
horrible smuggling of firearms between the United States and
Canada.
I will put my question to the Prime Minister once again, as he
is supposed to be responsible for his government. When does he
intend to act to put an end to the smuggling which has led to a
number of incidents and, instead of calling an emergency debate
to discuss cruise missiles, would he agree to a debate on the
Kanesatake problem?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian army acted properly in this matter. There was some
concern about loss of life. They flew over the area and landed as
they had the right to. Therefore, there was no incident.
Some people claimed to have fired some shots, but there is no
evidence that this in fact occurred. The army landed-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Look, surely no one used a
slingshot. If gunshots had been fired at the helicopter, some
marks would have been found, but none was. The army did not
break the law, they landed as they were authorized to do.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
This past weekend the minister met with several prominent
economists, business people and ordinary Canadians to discuss
the issue of deficit reduction. The vast majority of participants
believe that the key to deficit reduction is through spending
reductions rather than tax increases. Yet the government
continues to float ideas about increasing tax revenues by
limiting RRSP contributions.
My question for the minister is this. Will he treat the deficit
problem as a spending problem and immediately set targets to
reduce and limit spending or does the minister regard this as a
revenue problem? Will he then tell the Canadian public what his
230
real plans are to increase their taxes and how much this will cost
individual Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the
member objects to a discussion of ideas in this pre-budget
period. I find that quite surprising because I have found that
these consultations have worked very well.
The bulk of the discussions have in fact been directed toward
numerous approaches to reduction in the deficit, certainly
cutting spending, conceivably increasing government revenues
and most clearly by creating jobs. That is certainly the way we in
this government look at the situation.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, last week and
again just now the Minister of Finance refused to tell this House
that there would be no increase in taxation. Canadians therefore
have no choice but to believe that taxes will be increased in this
upcoming budget.
Will the minister tell the House today whether he plans to
raise tax revenues by changing the income tax regulations
regarding RRSPs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the member's question
referring to my refusal to divulge the budget now indicates
perhaps that he is new to this House. The Minister of Finance
reveals the budget when he reveals the budget and not ahead of
time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
All of Quebec, beginning with their Premier, is scandalized by
the federal government's refusal to begin negotiations on job
training before reform of the income security system has been
completed. In Quebec, industry, labour and government came to
an agreement a long time ago and put the Quebec labour force
development agency in charge of managing training, using the
same model as the one found in the Liberal Party's red book.
(1435)
Here is my question: would the Minister of Human Resources
Development not agree that, all things considered, nothing
serious is stopping them from making a deal right away with
Quebec on job training?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I met with Mr. Bourbeau from
the Government of Quebec before Christmas to discuss this
issue.
We talked about training issues as well as more general
aspects relating to reform. I am also hoping to meet with his
successor, Mr. Marcil, next week to discuss this and any other
subject Mr. Marcil and Mr. Johnson may want to bring up.
I will gladly report to the House the outcome of that meeting,
but for the time being, no decision has been made and we are still
discussing with the Government of Quebec as well as with all
other governments.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, that is the
problem. Nothing has been decided. A decision must urgently be
made because we have an emergency in Quebec, where 26,000
people are waiting to get training and this may be their last
chance.
We have learned that for the first time in history, Quebec has
won the poverty award. The Liberal Party ran on an employment
platform, and when you have jobs for a slogan, you have no time
to lose.
My question is as follows: does the Minister not agree that the
only explanation for such an unacceptable and costly delay is
this government's resolve to impose a Canadian solution rather
than the one suggested by Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, we share very much the concern
about unemployment, so much so that the Canadian people gave
us a very strong mandate last October to do something about it.
That is the reason we said in the throne speech that we will be
bringing in programs that will help young people get
employment. We have a major program of apprenticeship
training that will be announced and brought forward to this
House very shortly.
Most important, I think the hon. member would recognize as
does a broad consensus of Canadians that we will never be able
to effectively tackle the embedded structural problems of
unemployment until we make some fundamental changes in the
system.
It is not working now. It is not working effectively. To do that
we cannot simply fractionalize a program. We cannot take one
piece out called training and give it away in perpetuity. We must
look at the broad context.
Fortunately at the first ministers meeting all the provincial
governments including Quebec agreed that must be the priority
for all Canadians and that is to make fundamental changes to our
systems of employment training and our systems of social
security so we can have a broad-based attack on the
fundamental issues that concern Canadians.
231
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the Prime Minister exactly when he was made aware
of the comments made by the candidate for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville and how the decision was
made to withhold that information from the public.
The Speaker: We basically had that question asked. I will
permit the Prime Minister to answer, but this is not in the
administrative responsibility of the government.
We had a statement this morning. Perhaps if the hon. member
could rephrase her question it would be acceptable.
Mrs. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to bring a
different focus to the question and I would ask the right hon.
Prime Minister to respond please. I will bring a supplementary
on this point at this moment if you wish.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think it is proper to continue to ask this question. There
was a statement by the member in this House. There is a rule
here that when a member explains it is his fault, it is not for the
Liberal Party to decide if this gentleman should or should not be
a member of the caucus.
We decided that everybody can make a mistake. He has
apologized. There was no charge laid against him, no
foundation. I explained earlier in French that some members are
sometimes subject to actions in court and they still keep their
seats in the House of Commons or even in their caucus. It
depends on the nature of the offences and in this case there was
none.
(1440)
To reply to the specific question, I read it Friday morning in
the Toronto Sun. However, I do not want to run away from my
responsibilities. The party organization had been made aware of
that after the candidate had been nominated. Since there was no
criminal action they decided this was a man who had won the
confidence of the party members in his riding. He had no record
and he was acceptable.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question. I am bringing a different focus to this
particular issue.
I acknowledge the comments made this morning by the
member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. It is not the
member but his actions that are in question and this leads to the
broader issue.
Since the electors of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville
did not have all the information they needed to make their
decision-
The Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. member has another
question we will go to the next questioner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
last weekend in Montreal I attended a pre-budget conference
that was a sham as it was clear that the participants, including
former Liberal advisers and other advocates of the welfare state,
had been carefuly selected by the Minister of Finance first to
justify the need to slash social programs and second to attack
RRSPs and the capital gains exemption on the first $100,000,
which are the only measures benefiting the middle class
smothered by excessive taxes.
Not a word was said by either the finance minister or any of
the participants about the real tax breaks enjoyed by the
wealthiest.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Has he decided
that, in addition to singling out the poorest, he would completely
smother the middle class by attacking RRSPs and capital gains
exemptions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, all
the relevant details will be disclosed in the upcoming budget.
Until then, I think it is really worth discussing what might be in
this budget, because the process must be open.
The hon. member was commenting about the conference
participants, who were chosen by the Institute for Research on
Public Policy and not by the government. That said, I saw Pierre
Paquette of the CNTU, Henri Massé of the FTQ, Nancy
Neamtam of RESO, Richard Langlois of the CEQ, as well as
FRAPRU representatives. If the hon. member who was in
attendance does not know them, I will happy to introduce him
next time.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): As usual,
Mr. Speaker, this is a period for questions but not for answers.
My supplementary question is this: Does the minister intend
to eliminate the real tax breaks enjoyed by very wealthy
Canadians such as family trusts and tax shelters available to big
business or, as Le Devoir was reporting this morning, to bow
down to the rich friends of the Liberal Party who contribute to
their electoral fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no sense in
repeating the same question as a supplementary. This question
was also posed by the hon. member from the Reform Party.
232
So listen up, sir-
An hon. member: Yes but-
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Absolutely not. You have no
right. No, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to listen.
An hon. member: He understood the first time.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Okay, he understood.
The Speaker: Go on.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): I am sure that you, Mr.
Speaker, listened.
I will present my budget when I present it. It will certainly
contain measures that were recommended during the meetings
in question. That is why we hold these meetings.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister.
On Thursday the Prime Minister refused to consider relaxing
party discipline to permit members of Parliament to represent
their constituents. In explaining his stand, the Prime Minister
said that his party sticks together because it has all the right
policies. Surely if this is the case he does not need the
confidence convention to pass his legislative programs.
(1445)
Does this mean that the government does not intend to honour
its promise to allow more free votes in the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
of course there will be more free votes. Tomorrow something
will be done in this House that has not been done for a long time.
Before the government makes a decision, every member of
Parliament will be invited to express his or her views about the
Bosnia situation. This will not be done after the fact as it was in
the past but before so members will have input.
I hope the hon. member appreciates the way we want to
operate. We will have some free votes. Of course we want to do
this, but it is probably also better to do what we are doing and
give a chance to everybody before we decide. Members can
speak on Bosnia and there will be no confidence vote on that.
There will be the views expressed by the members before the
government reaches a decision.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, there was considerable
music from the other side of the House when I was asking my
question.
I would like to point out that I had the freedom to vote in
respect to my constituents' wishes. I wonder if any of the
members on the government side had that same option.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Of course, Mr.
Speaker. Yes, a big yes. They were all elected by very good
majorities in the last election.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, in view of
the fact that there is considerable interest among Canadians
about the report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive
Technologies, entitled ``Proceed with Care'', published last
November, and in view of the fact that several European
Parliaments have already passed legislation on this subject, my
question, which is either for the Minister of Health or for the
Minister of Justice, is the following: could the responsible
minister indicate whether she or he intends to introduce a bill on
reproductive technologies and if so, when? Does she or he plan
intensive consultation with interested Canadians and other
levels of government?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
As he is no doubt aware, this report has some 293
recommendations, many of which have to do with provincial
jurisdiction. I intend to discuss this report at an upcoming
federal-provincial meeting of health ministers.
Also Health Canada is actively looking into bringing forward
recommendations dealing with those issues we can deal with
right away.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec Est): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
On several occasions, the minister said before all the
agricultural organizations concerned that supply management in
the agricultural sector would be fully protected. Even after the
signing of GATT, the minister explained that this protection
would be in the form of a higher tariff system.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: can we now conclude that the
minister is still trying to protect supply management while he is
currently negotiating with Americans the complete abolition, in
the next seven years, of tariffs on yogurt and ice cream?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what the source
of the hon. member's question might be, but if it is based on
233
some of the speculation in the media about what may or may not
be under discussion between Canada and the United States I
would advise the hon. member that speculation is not entirely
well-founded.
I would assure him that to the extent the ongoing discussions
with the United States bear upon questions that have to do with
supply management, the Government of Canada is acutely
aware of the interests of all Canadian producers in this subject,
especially the interests of producers in the province of Quebec
where supply management forms a very large part of the
agricultural industry in that province. In whatever discussions
we may have with the United States the interests of those
producers will be front and centre in our thinking.
(1450)
When we are in a position to announce some conclusion to our
discussions with the United States, members of the House will
be the first to know.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has yet to admit to the negotiations but it is not a well
kept secret. Everyone is well aware of the details and the
Minister of Agriculture is surely aware that yogurt and ice
cream represent a substantial percentage of Canadian
agricultural production.
If these sectors are now sacrificed, is it not crystal clear to him
as it is to everyone else in this country that we are asking
Canadian farmers once again to pay the price for a global
agreement in agriculture with the United States?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question. These discussions with the United States bearing on a
number of agricultural commodities are presently ongoing. I am
sure the hon. member will understand that I must for obvious
reasons be rather guarded in what I say publicly.
I do not think it is appropriate for us to bargain long distance
and perhaps in that way do some things that would potentially
impair the Canadian position. I hope the hon. member will
understand the need for some confidentiality.
I can say that ever since Canada unfortunately lost a GATT
panel decision on its import quotas on ice cream and yogurt in
1989, all of us with the interests of agriculture at heart-and I
am sure that includes members on both sides of this
House-who sincerely want the best for agriculture have been
very aware that this particular issue, because of that previous
GATT panel ruling, would have to be resolved in one manner or
another at some future date with the United States as we go
about attempting to arrive at a solution.
Again I assure the hon. member and all farmers that the vital
interests of Canadian agriculture in all parts of this country are
very much on the top of the government's mind.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, on Friday
the Prime Minister said that members who do not wish to
participate in the MP pension plan could opt out. I refer to
Hansard, page 151. The right hon. Prime Minister said:
The member should not be worried at all if he does not contribute.
He mentioned this to my colleague from
Kindersley-Lloydminster. However, in the Members'
Allowances Manual, chapter F-2, volume II, it clearly states
regarding retirement benefits:
Members contribute 11 per cent of their sessional indemnity toward the cost
of their retirement benefits.
This contribution is mandatory, Mr. Speaker. When does the
Prime Minister intend to allow MPs to genuinely opt out of the
MP pension plan by making contributions optional, as he
already apparently stated last Friday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I said in this
House that we will make sure that those who do not want to
participate in the plan can opt out. In the past I have seen some
members voting against increases and taking the increase after
that. We will make sure this time they will have to put their
money where their mouths are.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Well, Mr. Speaker, if
we talk about future tense I will make mention again that he said
the member should not be worried at all if he does not
contribute.
My supplementary question for the Prime Minister is this.
Has the Prime Minister informed the comptroller of his decision
to allow members to opt out, as he just said, and when will he
decide when this decision will be implemented?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as soon as the legislation is passed members who opt out will be
reimbursed for the money they have contributed because the
legislation will be retroactive to the beginning of this
Parliament.
I am informed that the comptroller has to follow the law. But
we will pay back the contribution and the member will not
qualify any more. And, of course, the government will not pay
its share of the contribution to the benefit of the members either.
234
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, I initially
intended this question to be for the minister of fisheries but I am
going to ask it of the minister of human resources.
(1455 )
Both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of
Human Resources Development have stated that the fisheries
training and adjustment programs will be designed to meet the
needs of people living in Atlantic Canada's coastal
communities.
What steps will be taken by the minister of human resources
to improve program design and delivery? What long-term
benefits does the minister foresee from government assistance?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
The first step in developing a different approach to the serious
problem in the fisheries is to talk to the people directly affected
by the crisis. Both the minister of fisheries and myself have
already held several meetings in the Atlantic provinces.
Our first commitment would be to ensure that before any final
decision is taken we have serious dialogue with the various
groups in the Atlantic provinces directly affected by the
moratorium on the fisheries. In saying that, we also want to hold
true to the spirit of our campaign mandate, the red book, to use
these programs to enable people to get back into the work force,
to build a future for themselves, to have the dignity of work and
not simply to have income security with a short-term end.
We really believe the best solution to the crisis in the fisheries
in Newfoundland, Atlantic Canada and Quebec is to once again
restore hope for people that they can have an important viable
occupation, something that gives them a good reason to get up in
the morning.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. The
commission on environmental co-operation under NAFTA is
scheduled to be set up soon in Canada and the Minister of the
Environment is expected to announce very shortly the name of
the Canadian city which will welcome this important
international organization.
My question is the following: Given the commitment made by
her own party to make of Montreal a major world centre for
environmental technology, in addition to making an all-out
effort to convince international organizations to set up their
head offices in Montreal, can the Minister of the Environment
tell us why she is not yet making her decision public?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I want to take this opportunity to tell all the hon.
members that the new federal government will use an innovative
approach regarding decisions affecting commissions such as the
ones which will be set up under NAFTA.
I announced, and in fact this week we signed a contract with a
private company, with no politics involved, to review the
applications submitted by 11 cities, including Montreal,
Camrose, Edmonton, and several others, and I am very pleased
to inform the hon. member, who is the critic on environmental
issues, of that development.
For the first time in the history of a government, the selection
will be made based on the environmental performance of those
cities. I believe this a good approach and we expect to receive in
the very near future the report of a consultant who will have
reviewed the applications of all the cities, based on their
environmental record and their infrastructures.
I know that Montreal is a strong candidate and will, along
with all the others, be considered in a non-partisan fashion.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary. By setting up such a committee, is the minister
not weakening the commitment made by her own party during
the last election campaign to make Montreal a major world
centre for environmental technology?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the
hon. member shares my interest in this very cosmopolitan city
and agrees that Montreal is truly an asset for all of Canada. This
approach is very well received.
(1500)
We have also promised to distance ourselves from the
previous government in that we want to implement a process
which is open, transparent, public, and objective and one which
can be subjected to scrutiny.
I believe that Montrealers, like all Canadians, want a process
free of politics, which is precisely what the federal government
is providing.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. It comes from Mr.
235
Raymond Watts of Surrey, British Columbia and has to do with
the chronic inaccuracy of federal revenue estimates.
Allow me to quote Mr. Watts. ``History shows that one of the
first acts of any new government is to condemn the accounting
practices of the previous government. This invariably leads to
cries that the deficit is far worse than we thought it was''.
Mr. Watts' question is: ``Will the government pass into law a
standard system of accounts that requires the federal
government to issue revenue budgeted forecasts and annual
reports in a standard format?''
The Speaker: The Chair is having a little difficulty with
questions posed by persons other than members of Parliament.
Hon. members are able to put any questions they want in this
House. It would probably be better to have it as their question as
opposed to someone else's. I will permit the minister to answer
the question.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the
concept, the philosophy behind the question is one that we on
this side of the House, and I would think anybody interested in
responsible administration, would share.
It is for that reason that when we took power, what we did in
terms of the government's numbers, the deficit estimates at that
time, was to follow the recommendations of the public accounts
committee and the Auditor General which had not been followed
by the previous government and come out with a set of numbers
based on generally accepted accounting principles.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is
unfortunate that I cannot put questions directly from the people
in my constituency. However if that is your ruling-
On November 25, 1993 the Liberal government of Nova
Scotia enacted a law which allows the Auditor General to review
and report on the reasonableness of that government's revenue
estimates. Would the government be supportive of such a law at
the federal level?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is some merit in the
suggestion and I am sure that we on this side of the House will
look at it.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, that in line with the philosophy of
the openness of Parliament and giving Parliament every chance
what we really want to do is to make sure that the committees of
Parliament have a very good shot, a far better shot than they ever
had before, at looking at the estimates of the government.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, President of Haiti.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to rise on a point of personal privilege and take exception
to the comments made by the hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia in his questions regarding
free votes in this House.
(1505 )
This hon. member was suggesting that I as a member who
chose to vote for my party was somehow not representing my
constituents in Haldimand-Norfolk. I take exception to the
tone of his question which suggested that all members on this
side of the House, because we choose to support the policies of
this government, are somehow not representing our
constituents.
I want to assure the member that every time I vote it is a free
vote. At the same time my constituents are being represented
very well because before I vote I look at the issues very-
The Speaker: The hon. member probably has a point of
debate and it is recorded.
_____________________________________________
235
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Department of National Revenue Act and to amend certain other
acts in consequence thereof.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would request that all questions be allowed to stand.
236
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
236
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an
address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his
Speech at the opening of the session; and of the amendment.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, my speech
began at 1.52 p.m. and was closed off at two o'clock. I would
like two additional minutes to conclude my remarks before we
have questions and comments, if I may.
The Speaker: All right. Finish off.
Mr. Regan: As I was saying, I am pleased that we in this
House will help to save another $5 million by doing our part. I
am also in favour of reforming the MPs' pension plan.
Canadians are watching to see whether we are here to serve
ourselves or our country. I believe we are on the right path.
(1510)
What a thrill it is to be here to serve my country, Mr. Speaker,
for I believe that politics is and must be about building a better
Canada. In spite of all the challenges we face I still see Canada
as a beacon to the world. I still see Canada as a country that
shows the world how to live in peace and harmony. It is plain to
see that right now the world needs the shining example that is
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the hon. member and I certainly have some comments
and especially a few questions for him.
I listened to the speech of the Minister of the Environment,
but as I did not have the opportunity to ask her a question, I will
ask it of the hon. member who dealt with the same issue, that is
the conflict between the Environmental Quality Act passed a
few years ago in Quebec and the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act passed a few months later. Because of the
differences between the two acts, whenever an environmental
assessment is required, we must make two, one for the Quebec
government and one for Canada.
Here is another example. The top executives of
Hydro-Quebec, who want to go ahead with the Grande-Baleine
project, realized that they cannot bring to the same table Quebec
and federal officials when discussing the environmental
assessments to be made. I would therefore like to ask the hon.
member whether he could seek from the Minister of the
Environment amendments to the act to make it more flexible, so
that environmental assessments could meet the needs of both
acts, in order to help our companies to expand and go ahead
faster with their projects? That way more jobs could be created
in Quebec more rapidly.
[English]
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a question for the
Minister of the Environment. I am not the minister but I am
aware of many cases of provincial-federal overlap in
legislation. There are many areas, for example, in Nova Scotia
that we are concerned about. I am sure we would like to see
legislation changed in both places. We know this government is
committed to working with provincial governments to find ways
to bring our systems together so that they work more reasonably
and rationally and do not have the present overlap in legislation.
If the hon. member wishes to ask the minister the question in
question period tomorrow, she would be happy to answer.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax West. I
too grew up in Halifax West and went to Halifax Municipal High
School. I have relatives all through that area.
With regard to the infrastructure program, I would like to ask
how much do you think the program will add to the economy of
your area. Will it get people working-
The Speaker: Order. All questions should be directed
through the Chair.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I think I got
my question across. I would like to find out how much
employment the hon. member thinks this infrastructure program
will actually add to long-term employment in Halifax West.
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, I had discussions with municipal
and provincial representatives in my riding about this very
question and about the things they feel are needed in the area,
obviously not just for a short-term boost but to lay a long-term
foundation for business to succeed in our area.
It is my view that some of the projects I would like to see
come forward in Halifax West would respond to that need and
help business be more successful. For example, there are a
couple of business parks that do not have adequate access to
highways. If they had that access they could be much more
successful because transportation needs for any business are
absolutely essential.
(1515 )
If trucks on the road are going over potholes all the time or if
they cannot get access to highways quickly, that is a cost they
are paying.
237
In fact, one should be looking for ways to minimize those
costs and improve the ability of business to do business. That is
what I am looking for in these programs. I will try to push
forward the things that will help my area.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in my reply to the speech from the throne to first of all
congratulate you for being elected as Speaker of this House.
Second, I would like to congratulate the right hon. Jean Chrétien
as Canada's 21st Prime Minister.
My special thanks go to the people of Okanagan Centre who
elected me. I consider it a real honour to be able to represent
them. I will do the best I can to honour the trust they have placed
in me.
The primary question facing this Parliament is how do we get
the Canadian economy going again? I will address that question
from three perspectives: first, by recognizing the need for
innovation; second, the acceptance of research and development
as an engine of economic growth; and finally, to begin the
answer to the question, how can we get that job done?
This Parliament can be Canada's defining moment of the 20th
century. As members of this Parliament, we have the
opportunity to raise Canada's social and economic aspirations to
higher levels of individual social responsibility and
accountability.
To do so the government must establish an environment in
which the wild government spending of the past is tamed and
brought under control. If the government fails to bring its
spending under control, it will also fail to motivate individual
Canadians to act responsibly and be willing to be held to
account.
As a society we are in danger of falling into a kind of cultural
tyranny in which minds uninformed by traditions and standards
are easy to shape by whoever is driven by a strong ideology.
They may not be sympathetic to unity, honesty, integrity and
fiscal responsibility. Those were the values that made Canada
great.
To become more specific, in order for Canada to stimulate
new momentum in the economy, some fundamental changes
must be made in organizing our economic pursuits.
First of all, we need to understand that we have a new
economy in which huge profits are no longer possible simply by
making and moving things. The main producers of wealth and
economic production have become information and knowledge,
specifically biotechnology, artificial intelligence, the business
of space and the creation of new materials, including ceramic
composites and combinations of metals or plastics with fibres.
Second, we must note the accelerating development of
knowledge and its application in various sectors of the economy.
We need to realize that Canada's electronic industry is bigger
than its pulp and paper industry, that the computer services
industry employs more people than the auto industry and that
more people in B.C. work in communications and
telecommunications than in forestry, that more Ontarians are
employed in business services than in the construction industry
and more people in Quebec have jobs in the health and medicare
fields than in construction, textile, clothing, furniture, auto,
forest and mining industries combined.
These realities demand we give high priority to the
acceptance of research and development as an engine of
economic growth. What is required to do so? First of all, it
would require utilizing the results of systematic studies of
material sources, administrative structures and organizations.
New sources and applications of capital must be found and
employed. It will be necessary to adopt new ideas about the
relationships between public and private organizations, between
various levels of government and between private organizations
and government. Second, it will require a government that
establishes an entrepreneurial attitude toward politics.
Last week our leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest,
challenged this Parliament to be a House beyond precedent. It is
in that spirit that we require entrepreneurial politicians who will
undertake innovations that promise substantial political profit
while running the risk of potential loss. With such an orientation
the major requirement of government is to do what is right, just
and fair. Then government is in a position to create an
environment that encourages and provides for the exercising of
initiatives by private citizens to apply their individual and
collective skills, creative talent and knowledge in making
Canada the successful nation that it can become.
(1520)
What must be done in order to achieve that job? First, we need
a change in attitude. We need to establish and maintain an
educational system that trains entrepreneurs. We need a
government that will establish and maintain an economic, social
and political climate that assists Canadians to become able and
successful entrepreneurs without removing all the risks.
Our families need to develop an attitude that will encourage
our children to become resourceful and self-sufficient. We must
nurture an attitude that supports community leaders who
understand, speak and demonstrate personal responsibilities and
accountability. These are leaders who know and accept the need
to balance reward with the cost of taking risks and who are
willing to pursue a new approach because it promises greater
success.
Second, we need to think big. We need to think in the longer
term which means long enough to permit the innovations a
reasonable chance for success but short enough to discourage
lethargy and bureaucratic stonewalling. We need to think
beyond our respective families, friends, associates,
shareholders and subsidiary companies. We must think beyond
our constituencies, regions and perhaps even beyond the
boundaries of
238
Canada to ensure that as many people as possible will benefit
from the new approaches.
We need to develop a new role for government. We need a
government that acts as a facilitator and not a benefactor and
regulator supreme. We need a government that adopts principles
of development that encourage growth and the application of
private efforts as opposed to pandering to the pressures of
self-serving special interest groups.
We need a new role for the federal government that rejects the
insidious pressures to centralize power yet provides leadership
and guidance for all Canadians in their pursuit of harmony,
health, happiness and financial independence.
By changing our attitudes, thinking big ideas and establishing
a new role for government we are building on a solid foundation
that some have called ordered liberty. By that I mean a state of
peaceful harmony and a constituted authority that provides for
each of us the freedom from captivity, imprisonment, slavery or
oppressive control.
It is this ordered liberty that has given us excellence in art,
discovery in science and has undergirded the ethic of work and
the ethic of service. It has tempered freedom and internal
restraint, inspired public virtue and the inner impulse to do good
and has sent legions into battle against disease, oppression and
bigotry. It has built hospitals and orphanages. Finally, it has
given mercy a human face.
To preserve that ordered liberty Parliament must regain its
sense of duty and moral, as well as legal, obligation and accept
its responsibility to do what is right.
With that sense of duty intact we must sharpen our focus and
perspective by looking beyond the confines of this House. We
must have a vision that is bigger than balancing the budget,
extends beyond social and economic safety nets, embraces new
ideas and arouses creativity. It is a vision that not only brings
about reparation but also progression.
It is such a vision that will establish hope and instil a renewed
sense of confidence in Canadians who will carry this country
forward to a prosperous and new economy.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I join with
other members of this House in congratulating you on your
election as Speaker. I also extend my congratulations to the
government and to all other members who were successfully
elected in this 1993 election.
I would also like to publicly thank the voters of North
Vancouver for placing their trust in me as their representative in
Ottawa.
(1525 )
Prior to and during the election campaign I distributed more
than 20,000 pieces of survey cards to North Vancouver residents
so that I could find out what their concerns were on a wide range
of national issues. The number one concern by at least 10 to 1
was a desire for the government to eliminate the deficit. The
people of North Vancouver clearly understand the relationship
between government deficits and high taxes and they understand
the relationship between high taxes and the lack of job creation
by the small business sector.
There are a significant number of home based businesses in
North Vancouver in addition to the established base of light
industry, shipbuilding and wheat, lumber and coal export
facilities. The owners and workers of these North Vancouver
businesses will be searching the throne speech looking for signs
of fiscal responsibility and future tax relief. The small and home
based business sector in particular will be looking for signs that
this government will facilitate the availability of capital that is
needed in order to establish new businesses and to foster growth
and employment.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood mentioned this
earlier today and I am pleased to offer some additional
suggestions for capital for small business in my speech. The Red
book accurately points out on page 48 that a major problem
facing small and medium sized businesses is that they cannot
find capital or that the capital they find is too expensive. I
applaud the recognition by this government that capital
availability is a problem for the small business sector and I
commend it for its efforts to try to find a solution.
However, one of the solutions proposed in the red book on
page 49 would place taxpayers' dollars at risk by eliminating
personal guarantees for loans under the Small Businesses Loans
Act. Instead of encouraging bona fide business ventures and
viable businesses this policy could encourage the funding of
poorly researched projects and even scams. We will have
difficulty convincing our constituents that we are responsible
guardians of the public purse if we approve such a measure.
The second proposal, on page 49 of the Red book, confirmed
in the speech from the throne is to use $100 million of our tax
dollars to help establish a Canada investment fund to ``seek out
projects and technologies in which to invest''.
239
This approach has all the trappings of yet another government
agency which would concentrate on spending as much of our
money as possible in the shortest possible time.
If this project goes ahead I would urge the government to first,
advertise openly across Canada for experienced private sector
fund managers and not make political appointments and second,
make sure the managers are held accountable for the
performance of the fund and that they will be expected to deliver
a profit back to the public purse.
There are those who would say that it is easy to criticize
without offering alternatives and for that reason I offer a number
of distinct alternatives for considerations by the government.
First, the single most important action that could be taken by
this government is to gain control of its expenditures and
eliminate the deficit. This would bring the promise of future tax
relief and future tax reductions for both companies and
individuals in Canada. The result of tax deductions would be the
freeing up of billions of dollars each year for use as investment
capital by the business sector. There would be no need for
government funds or the elimination of personal guarantees on
loans. It is quite likely that $100 million in tax cuts would yield
more wealth producing economic activity than $100 million of
taxpayers' money targeted for a Canada investment fund.
Second, the government could support changes to the RRSP
investment rules which would permit individuals to invest their
RRSP contributions into private financing and investment
companies which specialize in funding for small and home
based businesses. Such companies are already familiar with the
market and could act as a vehicle for the encouragement and
development of new business. The government would of course
be involved in the setting of maximum interest rate levels and
could require that a set percentage of the funds be committed to
research and development. This would help deliver on other
promises in the red book regarding research and development.
No taxpayers' money would be required for this alternative.
(1530)
Third, the government could permit the establishment and
licensing of RRSP qualifying mutual funds which would lend
part or all of their capital in leases and loans to home based and
small businesses. Since banks appear to be reluctant to become
involved in the provision of venture capital this area of new
business financing should be opened up to investment. The
banks would probably quickly follow suit and establish their
own mutual funds when they saw the response to competition for
RRSP and other investment funds.
Fourth, the government should actively seek and act upon
input from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian
Federation of Independent Business and other coalitions of
small business which have already brought together banks and
business people to discuss concerns over the supply of capital.
These organizations should be encouraged in their initiatives to
help small business become aware of sources of financing other
than banks.
Finally each member of this House could seek input from the
home based and small business community as to the best ways
for government to facilitate the availability of venture capital. A
simple advertisement in our local newspapers in each riding
requesting input could produce a wide range of practical ideas.
The government could then base its final decision on feedback
from business groups and individual members representing their
ridings. There would be no need for expensive commissions to
tour the country and yet all interested in Canadians could have
an input into the process.
There is ample evidence that voters want a say in the way they
are governed. They should be encouraged to become involved.
We should take more direction from their input and we should
properly represent their position on issues before this House.
I urge the members of this House to support freer votes so that
a legislative direction more in keeping with the wishes of the
constituents can be possible and I urge them to support more
creative ways of improving capital availability to small
business. These two measures together would contribute toward
finding solutions to the great problems which face us as
legislators in Canada today.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, I begin by congratulating the
member on his opening remarks in the Parliament of Canada and
I would like to respond to his constructive ideas.
First, the objective of eliminating the 25 per cent personal
guarantee under the Small Businesses Loans Act at that time was
to try to put further stimulation into a reluctant bank sector
which already had in my view a very generous government
support provision under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
The member's point is one that we will discuss. Perhaps if we
can get the banks to shift their attitude and start lending money
to small business then maybe that provision will not have to be
touched.
I want to deal with another aspect of the hon. member's
speech which had to deal with getting private funds either
through RRSPs or just private funds, not financial institutions,
that might be used to help small business. Under the Small
Businesses Loans Act if someone with a private fund wants to
lend money to small businesses eligible under the act then there
is a provision in the act for such funds to be considered by the
governor in council. In other words this means they are decent
people who meet the approval that they are solid operators. I
applaud this idea because it would be a way of providing more
competition to the reluctant banks.
240
(1535)
On the specific notion of the RRSPs as a possibility being
shifted into small business as a part of the program, we will
make sure the Minister of Finance and his staff hear the
member's remarks and we will look at it.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I wish to
thank the hon. member opposite for his comments and the
suggestion this morning that each of us as members should
phone our bank managers and request that they help the small
business sector.
I think it is a great suggestion. I am sorry I did not mention it
earlier, although I should say as a small business person prior to
coming to the House I wonder whether my bank manager might
think I had other things in mind when I ask him to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I would like to react to the speech of the first Reform
member who spoke during the 20-minute period.
He seems to think we need a new federal economic leadership.
I have my doubts on that matter. I could mention many examples
in my riding of situations where when the federal government
took part in an operation, it became more complicated and less
efficient.
I referred to a few such cases in my speech as critic for
regional development. Let me stress the importance of reducing
duplication in this issue. The best leadership the federal
government could show would be to withdraw from certain
areas in which it has been floundering for years while doubling
the costs.
During question period we spoke about training. I think
manpower training is one of the best examples. But there are
also many areas of federal jurisdiction to consider. For example
piers along the St. Lawrence. The federal government reneged
its responsibilities in that area for over 20 years while spending
money on matters that should have come under provincial
jurisdiction. I think that it could easily have spent the necessary
money to ensure that we have installations that meet the
required standards instead of the opposite.
I therefore feel that it is important, when reflecting on the
throne speech, to make sure that this government really has the
will to reduce overlapping of jurisdictions. The issue is
mentioned in the throne speech, but without any details on how
this would be done. I believe it is very important for the House to
seriously consider ways to reduce overlapping.
As far as I am concerned, in the end, real initiatives are taken
at the local level. I would like to point out that, in some areas, we
should give ideas a chance to bloom. For example, in La
Pocatière, in my riding, there is a research centre on public
transportation and a centre specializing in physical technology.
If those centres had been planned by national thinkers, they
never would have been located in La Pocatière, but probably
somewhere in the Montreal area, or worse yet, outside Quebec.
So, what I wanted to tell the member is that, ultimately, the
federal government might best show leadership by staying
within its own jurisdiction.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time for questions
and comments to the member for North Vancouver have
terminated. Because the Chair neglected to give the five-minute
allocated time to the member for Okanagan Centre and since the
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup directed his
question to that member, the member may give a five-minute
response, if he wishes.
Mr. Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I was totally unaware that
those questions were being directed to me. I thought they were
to the member for North Vancouver. I was really diverting my
attention to other matters and therefore cannot immediately
respond to those questions.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order. Since the hon. member did not take up all his
allotted time, may I respond?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): No. The hon. member
may ask questions.
Mr. Fillion: I will ask a question with a preamble. Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the first member who spoke
for the Reform Party.
In his speech, he mentioned seven or eight points, and I
certainly share some of his opinions. He indicated the need for
renewal through the infrastructures program. He also mentioned
increasing government funding for research and development
and also said that the government should control-this was very
important in his speech-its spending to create the right
economic climate for creating jobs.
He also said a few words about education and manpower
training.
He referred to the feelings of freedom and sense of duty
Canadians should have if they were to be more progressive and
creative. He also asked this government to provide the requisite
funding for small and medium sized businesses to invest and
create jobs.
However, and that is my question, the hon. member will have
to admit that to meet these objectives, which are quite
praiseworthy as such, we need a compassionate government that
does not attack those who are less well off or the neediest in our
society or the middle class to get all the money it needs to boost
the economy. We need a government that is not afraid to cut the
tax shelters enjoyed by some families and corporations. I want
to ask the members of the Reform Party to support and join the
Bloc Quebecois in asking this government to guarantee that
241
Canadians will be able to keep their vested rights with respect to
social housing, health-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I regret to interrupt the
hon. member, but the question and comment period for both
speakers of the Reform Party has expired. Resuming debate. The
hon. Minister of Public Works has the floor.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Madam Speaker, let me begin by
joining with other members of the House in conveying to you
and to Mr. Speaker my best wishes in your election as Speaker
and deputy speaker of this Chamber.
In the weeks and months ahead, Madam Speaker, there will be
many challenges you will have to face, but I hope you will be
comforted in the knowledge that members of all political parties
have demonstrated quite clearly their desire to maintain civility
without having to sacrifice anything as it relates to our ideology.
There is no greater honour in a democracy than to be elected
to represent one's fellow citizens. There is no greater obligation
than to work together to try to create a better life for every
person in the country.
I do not share the political philosophy of members opposite
but I respect their right to hold their beliefs and to enunciate
those beliefs. I hope that on many issues we can find common
cause and common ground as we seek to build a better future for
our children and our grandchildren.
May I say a special thanks to the people of my constituency of
Cape Breton-East Richmond who have granted me the
privilege in four general elections of representing them as their
member of Parliament in this the highest court of the land. I
acknowledge that privilege but I remind them, as I do all other
members of this prestigious House, of the words of Edmund
Burke when he said:
You owe them much more than your industry; you owe them
your judgment.
(1545)
The communities in my constituency were established by
people who dared to dream. My constituents are the descendants
of men and women who faced adversity and persecution, men
and women who came to Canada seeking opportunity, tolerance
and a better life. They sought a decent standard of living and
they sought a fair chance to play their role in building a better
country.
In 1994 the challenges are different but the dreams remain the
same. The residents of my riding and indeed all Canadians seek
economic growth, compassion, social programs and a
generosity of spirit. Canadians want a government that shares
their concerns, a government that respects their views and their
dollars, and a government that helps them to fulfil their dreams.
In the speech from the throne the government did not promise
miracles. We cannot solve all the problems overnight, but we
can and we must take steps to foster new economic growth. We
can and we must take steps to ensure integrity and openness in
our actions. We can and we must move to solve problems with
creativity and co-operation. We can and must treat individuals
all across this country, regardless of their differing political
philosophies, with dignity and with respect.
The Prime Minister made clear throughout the election
campaign his belief that we need to kickstart our economy. We
are attempting to do just that with the new national
infrastructure program which was announced by my colleague,
the President of the Treasury Board. This program will create
thousands of new jobs in a matter of months. It will help build
the roads and bridges we need to link our country together and to
move our goods and produce. We need modern infrastructure to
compete in the modern world.
What is so encouraging about this particular initiative is the
degree of co-operation shown by provinces and municipalities.
To my knowledge this is the first time in our country's history
when we have crafted such a complex economic program with
such speed and indeed such goodwill. I hope this is a hallmark
for future efforts in which all of us in government work together
to achieve effective and efficient results for the good of the
country.
As an Atlantic Canadian I want to note the significance this
government attaches to the fixed link. The fixed link is a
transportation initiative which will integrate the economies of
Prince Edward Island with those of New Brunswick and
thereafter the rest of the country. This, the largest of the building
projects, will provide short-term jobs and long-term economic
growth for that area of the country. I may say in a personal way it
will provide hope to an area which suffers from unprecedented
levels of high unemployment.
The whole thrust of the government's agenda is to give every
region, every province, every community and every person a
chance to be part of the economic mainstream. We want to knock
down the barriers that keep Canadians from having a fair chance
at success. That is the simple principle behind our plan, Madam
Speaker, something to which you have spoken yourself
personally in the House and indeed across the country, the
introduction of a prenatal nutrition program. We think that
babies have a right to be born healthy. Frankly I find it shocking
that in a country as rich as Canada we have infants born sick just
because their mothers were too poor to eat properly during
pregnancy.
242
Equally distressing are the conditions of poverty in which so
many aboriginal children live. Is it any wonder that children fall
asleep at school when they do not get one decent meal a day let
alone three, when they live in rooms without heating, when they
do not have proper winter clothing? I hope all members of
Parliament, regardless of political ideology, will support the
implementation of an aboriginal head start program so that we
can end this national disgrace.
(1550 )
We cannot expect people to make a meaningful contribution
to our society if we do not create the conditions that allow them
to make that contribution. Surely it is the responsibility of
Parliament to show forceful leadership in creating those
conditions.
I cannot help but reflect upon some words spoken by the new
Speaker of this House in 1981 when he said: ``I want Canada to
excel in spheres in which we are particularly gifted. I want us to
produce goods better than anyone else. I want us to celebrate the
forms of artistic expression that best reflect our soul. I want us
to pioneer to branches of knowledge and to develop an even
more humane social system''.
It is wrong that one million children use food banks in
Canada. That is why the Government of Canada will announce
an action plan for major reform of the social security system in
this country. It is wrong that senior citizens are afraid to walk
down the street. That is why my government will bring in
measures for community safety and crime prevention.
It is wrong that large numbers of women and children are
battered and abused. That is why my government will introduce
measures to combat that high level of violence. It is wrong that
law-abiding citizens are victimized just because they look
different, sound different or act different. That is why my
government led by the right hon. Prime Minister will act to fight
racism in hate crimes across this country.
The notion that every Canadian is entitled to certain basic
standards of life is central to our identity as a nation. I am proud
to live in a country where we take it for granted that we actually
care about one another. I am proud to live in a country where
universal health care is regarded as a right and not as some sort
of specialized service for the wealthy of this country.
The decision of the Prime Minister to create and to chair the
National Forum on Health is based on the belief of our party, the
Liberal Party of Canada, that medicare is the cornerstone of
social programs in this country.
Only when all Canadians have access to decent health care do
all Canadians have an opportunity to forge a decent life for
themselves and for their families.
As the minister responsible for housing, I am pleased to say
that the government will immediately reinstate the residential
rehabilitation assistance program. This was a commitment that
we made in the election campaign and a commitment that was
reaffirmed in the throne speech given just a few days ago.
Over the next two years, the Government of Canada will
provide $100 million in loans and grants to allow low income
Canadians to bring their homes up to health and safety
standards.
The emergency repair program will furnish assistance in rural
and remote areas of Canada. RRAP for the disabled will allow
Canadians with disabilities to make changes they need to their
homes to guarantee their fuller participation in the mainstream
of Canadian society.
I have asked the provinces and territories to share the cost and
to deliver RRAP in a spirit of partnership and co-operation. It is
my hope that we can create more jobs and provide more help to
hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this land.
We are announcing this quick action in order to gain the
immediate economic benefits that the renovation program will
provide. Later this week I intend to propose improvements in the
program to provincial and territorial housing ministers.
Our aim is to put Canadians back to work. Our aim is also to
invest in short-term projects that provide the foundation for
long-term economic growth. Our aim is to introduce policies
and programs that allow all Canadians to benefit from that
long-term economic growth.
The government's fundamental view is that we can only solve
Canada's deficit problem when we are on track with creating
long-term jobs. I am perfectly aware that money for any
government programs comes from hard-earned taxpayers'
dollars. As the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, I intend to respect that fact. I will do my best to
eliminate waste within my departments as well as other
governments. I look forward to receiving the suggestions of hon.
members which I am sure will be made in a very constructive
way.
(1555)
Canadians are entitled to cost effectiveness and
accountability for how their money is spent. We are moving
toward greater fairness through open and electronic
procurement systems. My officials and I will work with the
provinces and others to establish an open purchasing policy
across our respective governments.
What is equally important is to ensure that small and medium
sized businesses have a fair opportunity to do business with the
Government of Canada regardless of where they may come
from.
On that note, a small business for instance in my riding has a
difficult time knowing where to get the application forms or
even who to call. Anyone who has ever flipped through a
government phone book knows what a frustrating process this
243
must be for small and medium sized businesses. That is why we
will work to bring centralized business service centres to each of
our regions. Small businesses should be able to get all of the
information, all of the help and all of the forms in one place.
My hope is that we can work with the provinces and business
groups to provide information for them at the same locations.
Small businesses in Atlantic Canada, the west and the north
pay taxes too and they deserve a fair opportunity when it comes
to bidding on contracts paid for by the taxpayers of this country.
I do not pretend that the new government procurement
policies will on their own revitalize the poorer regions of this
country, whether they be the north, the west or indeed the
Atlantic. We know that our problems are much deeper than that.
The truth is that the economic problems confronting, for
instance, the four Atlantic provinces are powerful. However, I
am absolutely convinced that the will of Atlantic Canadians to
overcome those problems is far, far more powerful. I can say
that the Government of Canada will show the leadership to make
Atlantic Canada prosper indeed in the years ahead.
I know that members from other parts of Canada face difficult
economic adjustments in their communities as well, but I point
out to Atlantic Canada, which has been doubly hit and doubly hit
hard, the recession of the last few years took an especially harsh
toll on my region because of our narrow economic base and our
competitive gap with the rest of the country. What is more, the
collapse of the east coast fishery is wreaking havoc on the
livelihood of thousands upon thousands of families. Six hundred
communities in Newfoundland and in Cape Breton are losing
their economic mainstay and some feel they may even lose their
dignity.
The groundfish have disappeared but the will to survive has
not. The federal government will work tirelessly with the
provinces and the industry to help the people affected to find
new job opportunities. We will put an end to foreign overfishing.
In that regard, I salute the Prime Minister and my colleague, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has assumed
responsibilities for this particular dossier and is showing
leadership both domestically and internationally.
We are going to need goodwill from other Canadians. I urge
Canadians to understand the difficulties which interprovincial
trade barriers pose not only to Atlantic Canadians but to all
Canadians. The Atlantic provinces for instance face a $5.7
billion trade deficit with the rest of Canada. We need your
support for the Government of Canada's commitment to
eliminate barriers to trade within Canada and, if so, it will
benefit all Canadians.
The lack of equity capital remains one of the most serious
road blocks facing Atlantic businesses and indeed all businesses
across this country. The private venture capital industry is
virtually non-existent in Atlantic Canada. We need to work with
the private sector and investors to find means of allowing
entrepreneurs from the Atlantic region the same access to
capital as other Canadian businesses.
(1600)
Each province in the Atlantic has exciting possibilities for
creating and trading new products and we will work with each
province to build upon those various strengths.
My province of Nova Scotia for instance has a rapidly
growing software industry that stretches from underwater
acoustics to support centres of higher education.
We are modernizing and upgrading our tourism in Cape
Breton and Halifax, if members do not know it by now, has the
potential to become the hotbed of music in North America.
Like every other Atlantic Canadian I am a realist, a realist
about our problems we face but an optimist about the future.
Like other Atlantic Canadians I believe that the Government of
Canada has a major and constructive role to play in justifying
that optimism and helping us reach the future.
If we are to become world-class traders and if we are to build
upon Atlantic Canada's potential in knowledge-based
industries, we need to implement the programs as outlined in the
speech from the throne.
I know that as I speak here today other members of this House
of Commons do not believe in an activist government, do not
believe in job creation programs, and do not believe in our task
to help generate new employment for our constituents. But I
believe.
Like many others of my generation I came to maturity as an
admirer of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy who once said:
``Have you ever told a coal miner that what he needs is
individual initiative to go out and get a job where there isn't
any?''
This government believes it must support job creation and it
must provide people with the tools and skills to create new jobs
and to obtain those new jobs.
If we want Canadians to seize the opportunities of the future
this Parliament must seize the opportunities of today. If we want
Canada to tap its full potential we must allow every Canadian to
tap his or her full potential. If we want to restore respect for
government we must make government a force for economic and
social renewal. We must make government a force for growth
and, as the Prime Minister has said so often, we must make
government a force for good.
244
We are very blessed in this country. I look forward to working
with all members of Parliament to use those blessings wisely
and to make certain that each and every one of our citizens from
each and every part of our country has a chance to share in those
blessings.
Madam Speaker, may I close my remarks by thanking you,
congratulating you, and congratulating new members of this
House.
For those who have spoken in this debate I am certain they
have spoken with sincerity and with conviction. Although we
will attempt to practice civility in the weeks and months ahead I
assure hon. members opposite that that should not be interpreted
in any way as a consent for sharing the ideologies which they
may and I may pronounce from time to time.
I seek your respect. I will give you the civility which it
deserves but in turn, Madam Speaker, I expect no less than those
members opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Madam Speaker, I
would like to start by thanking and congratulating the Minister
of Public Works for his speech. He gave us his opinion on a
number of questions of public interest, but he kept rather silent
on other issues of direct concern to his department.
I would like to ask him first about questions directly related to
his portfolio and then talk about infrastructures, which involve
several departments, and finally ask him a question about
parliamentary life.
(1605)
I will start by asking him why, as minister responsible for
public housing, he does not try and reassure the people of my
riding and many other ridings in Quebec and Canada, many of
whom have signed petitions reflecting their concern as to the
governments's intentions regarding social housing? Will the
present government follow in the footsteps of the previous one?
Among the issues he did not deal with, although they are of
direct concern to him, there is the recent decision of Canada
Post, for which he is responsible, to buy Purolator. I would like
to know, given the various ideological trends, where this
decision fits in the larger government strategy.
Also, I would like the minister to tell us whether, as a member
of cabinet, he feels that the infrastructure program will be
enough to bring about a significant reduction of unemployment
in Canada?
Finally, something about the last few words of the minister
regarding respect towards members on the other side. I would
like to know whether he is among those, on the government side
and in cabinet, who seem to doubt from time to time the total
legitimacy of Bloc Quebecois members in Ottawa, who were
sent here by the will of the Quebec people expressed during the
elections of October 25.
[English]
Mr. Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member
asked four questions.
First of all let me congratulate my colleague and thank him for
this kind of intervention. Perhaps I can respond to his four
questions in reverse.
When the hon. member talks about the legitimacy of the Bloc
Quebecois and their interventions in this House, I want to refer
him, not to some rhetorical speech I gave outside of this
Chamber, but to Hansard. If he were to check Hansard, he would
find that in my capacity as the opposition House leader I
defended on the floor of this House the right of members of the
Bloc Quebecois in opposition to speak in this Chamber and to
express their views no matter how difficult I found those views
to accept. I believe Hansard will report that in 1991 in response
to Jean Lapierre, a former member, I outlined this very clearly.
I respect the rights of all duly elected hon. members who
come to this Chamber to have the opportunity stand in their
places and to echo the sentiments they believe in. Equally hon.
members opposite should not be fooled into thinking that
because they make these statements, by a certain process those
of us on this side will somehow concur with their ideology. That
is not the case. I believe that Hansard will probably prove that to
the hon. member. I will probably send him a copy so he can read
it for himself.
The third question concerned the national infrastructure
program. It will provide an economic benefit to Canadians
across the country and will provide economic benefits in the
province of Quebec. It will not be the panacea for all the ills in
Quebec or in Canada. However it will provide a good solid base
on which governments can build upon. That is why the President
of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister initiated this
particular program on December 21 with the first ministers. As
well, the treasury board has signed agreements with provinces
across this country.
The second question the hon. member asks is with regard to
Purolator. The hon. member is obviously a very wise, seasoned
and intelligent individual. Far be it for me to question a
quasi-judicial body which reviewed evidence for an extended
period of time, called witnesses, examined them under oath and
made a decision which it believed to be in the public good,
which we as a government and as an opposition party would
subscribe to now as we did previously.
(1610)
Finally, I think the hon. member quite rightly made
reference-I want to underline that-to social housing. Social
housing is not just the prerogative of the Government of Canada.
It is part of the jurisdiction of provincial governments, it is part
of
245
the jurisdiction of municipalities and it ought to be the cause of
many individual Canadians across this land.
My government, as confirmed in the throne speech, has put
$100 million into social housing under auspices of the RRAP
program. I have had discussions with ministers of housing
across the country on ways to find additional moneys. At the
present time I am dealing with my colleague, the Minister of
Finance, other ministers of the Crown as well as provincial
governments to see if we can ascertain additional dollars to
address those kinds of situations.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. member for his sound and wise
intervention. I hope that my answers fulfil some of the queries
he has to some major public policy issues.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Madam
Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on his
appointment to the cabinet. Having worked with him for the last
10 years I know he will serve the people of his constituency and
the country well. I should also say how deeply honoured I am to
be often mistaken for the hon. minister and it is only because we
share the same barber.
I was encouraged by a statement the minister made. He said:
``Every citizen is entitled to a minimum standard of living''. The
minister knows that at every national Liberal convention over
the last 25 or 30 years the Liberal Party has endorsed the concept
of a guaranteed annual income. The minister seems to be
suggesting that is the direction this present government will go.
I would like the minister to expand upon the statement he
made about every citizen being entitled to a minimum standard
of living. Is he suggesting this government will finally fulfil a
commitment or a position taken at national conventions over the
last 20 years? Is he suggesting this government will finally
move toward amalgamating the myriad of social programs in
this country to guarantee every Canadian a certain standard of
living?
Mr. Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question and assure the House that I am honoured from time to
time to be mistaken for the hon. member. In fact I have had the
pleasure of using his name on a number of occasions of which I
will not bring the details to the House.
The response to the question is no in terms of the guaranteed
annual income.
The hon. member asks, how does a government which has a
limited fiscal capacity achieve its overall objective of
enhancing the opportunities of every Canadian. I want to say to
the hon. member that although this has been passed by party
resolution, as he knows, it is still under active consideration.
However I think I would be misleading him if I told him that
tomorrow announcements were going to be made with regard to
the guaranteed annual income; hence my response of no.
The government is proceeding in many ways to achieve that
particular objective. First and most important, the Government
of Canada under the auspices of the Prime Minister has
recognized that the major economic and social problems facing
the country today is the creation of economic growth, not just in
small pockets of the major centres but indeed all regions in all
quarters of all provinces. So we would be working toward trying
to create economic activity in all regions of the country.
(1615)
A list of things are contained in the throne speech. Perhaps at
another opportunity the hon. member would raise this kind of
question so that I could give him more details, such as the
pre-natal program, the aboriginal head start program, the RRAP
program which has provided much needed housing in all regions
of the country. There will be a variety of other programs
ministers will be announcing in the course of this debate as well
as in the debate when the Minister of Finance announces his
budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Madam Speaker, for one
who appreciates history, to be making a maiden speech in the
House of Commons is definitely a solemn moment. We
members of the Bloc Quebecois intend to create history and I
think this is a very good time for it.
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your
election to this very important position you now occupy, let me
offer you my best wishes and assure you of our total support.
I would also like to thank my constituents of Ahuntsic, a
riding in the northern part of the island of Montreal where some
eminent Quebecers from both political camps, federalists as
well as sovereignists, have played a great role in the democratic
debates over the Quebec issue.
Let me mention Mrs. Jeanne Sauvé, who was a member and
then a minister representing our riding during a great many
years, and the hon. Raymond Garneau, both federalists. Mr.
Jacques Parizeau twice was a candidate in our riding and so was
Mr. Jean Campeau who will certainly be the next Minister of
Finance in Quebec. It is therefore a great honour for me to
represent that riding.
As a critic for the Official Opposition on the infrastructure
program, I would like to share with you some of my concerns on
this program implemented by the new government. Everyone is
saying the Liberal Party was elected because of the platform
presented in the red book. That is where the infrastructure
246
program took form. But it is also in that same document that one
can see clearly the confusion surrounding that project.
Indeed, since the government announced that infrastructure
renewal program, those concerned do not know what to expect
from the federal government. When you think about what the
population expects in terms of economic development, you can
rightfully speak of-
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, a point of order. We are not
getting the translation. I want to bring that to the attention of the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We will check the
matter right away. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there consent to
suspend the sitting for a few minutes to look into the problem
with regard to interpretation?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(At 4.17 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.)
_______________
(The House resumed at 4.19 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The Chair will be
expecting a report from the Clerk regarding the interpretation
problem. I want to advise the member for Ahuntsic that he is still
entitled to his full allotted time of 20 minutes. He now has the
floor.
(1620)
Mr. Daviault: Such an interruption during a maiden speech is
rather startling. I will start again then, Madam Speaker. Once
more, I wish you all the best in your new position. You may be
assured of our full co-operation.
I will also remind the House that the riding of Ahuntsic, which
I represent, has always been at the heart of the national debate in
Quebec. It was represented by prominent federalists such as
Jeanne Sauvé and Raymond Garneau. At the provincial level,
prominent sovereignists such as Jacques Parizeau and Jean
Campeau, whom I hope will be our next finance minister in
Quebec City, ran for election in that riding. It is therefore a great
privilege for me to represent it.
As opposition critic for infrastructure, I would like to voice
some of my concerns regarding the program being implemented
by the new government.
The Liberal Party of Canada was elected on the strength of its
red book. The infrastructure project took form in that same
book. And it is clearly from that policy paper that stems the
confusion regarding this project. Indeed, since the
infrastructure program was announced, those concerned have
not known what to expect from the federal government. When
you are aware of the people's expectations in terms of economic
development, you are fully justified in asking the government
for more details on what it intends to do in that particular area.
The tough economic times we are experiencing put all levels
of government in an uncomfortable position. Given these trying
circumstances, it is extremely important to look at how the
needed funds promised by the federal government will be
allocated and where the money will come from.
To begin with, I would like to refer to a statement made by the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and which was reported
in La Presse last November 21. Mention was made of the fact
that the provincial governments were in such a weakened
economic state that their powers to negotiate with the federal
government were virtually non existent.
The minister stated the following: ``So far, I have met with
most provincial representatives and I have observed that their
fiscal problems make them much more open to reason than they
ever were during the last two or three decades''.
This kind of statement by the minister leads one to believe
that might is right and that the federal government intends to
take advantage of the economic hardships of the provinces to
once again infringe upon provincial areas of jurisdiction.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the infrastructure program
could lead to constitutional infringement and our party will
denounce any kind of interference in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
Traditionally, the principal area in which the federal
government has intruded to a significant degree for many
decades is spending power. Spending power is linked to the
federal debt which has surpassed the critical $500 billion mark.
We object to this spending power and will continue to do so.
May I remind the government that section 92(8) of the
Constitution Act, 1867 gives the provinces jurisdiction over
municipal institutions.
The federal government is forever reminding us that the
provincial governments will be responsible for implementing
the infrastructure program. Why then is the federal government
taking so much time to negotiate with the provinces to ensure
that the money invested in the program will satisfy its criteria
and requirements?
In his address in reply to the throne speech, the minister
responsible for the infrastructure program, the President of the
Treasury Board, emphasized the need for some elements of
consistency and I quote: ``All the provinces the federal
government will review projects in relation to broad program
criteria''. The conclusion is obvious. In fact, the government is
interfering with project management.
247
(1625)
If the federal government wants to give good, solid proof that
it will have no involvement whatsoever in this program, why not
just give the provinces the money they were promised?
Madam Speaker, the federal government also keeps saying
that the infrastructure program will stimulate job creation and
boost the economy in Quebec and Canada.
By making this program the focus of their economic recovery
policy, the government is displaying a glaring lack of vision and
sensitivity to the real, basic needs for improving the economic
performance of the provinces and Canada as a whole.
How could the Liberal Party think that such an ad hoc program
could have a structuring effect on the economy while a more
serious and carefully thought-out approach would have had a
much stronger structuring effect by creating steadier
employment?
I am thinking for instance of the HST project which is
particularly promising both in terms of development for the
economy of Quebec and Canada and in terms of industrial
consolidation in high-tech sectors.
Another strategy which would have had a structuring effect
for the consolidation of the industrial fabric in Quebec and
Canada would have been to develop a national defence industry
reconversion program. In these industries, production is already
technology intensive and for the federal government to provide
them with assistance through a reconversion program would
have demonstrated a more structuring view toward brightening
things up as regards the economy and the manufacturing
industry.
I would be remiss to address the issue of infrastructure
without mentioning the need for oneness in light of the recent
negotiations between the federal government and the provinces.
Over the past few weeks, I have had to tell constituents who
were enquiring about the state of the negotiations on
infrastructure that the government was keeping us in the dark.
These hidden negotiations have led to confusion for which the
federal government must assume responsibility. The umbrella
agreements being drawn for each province-and we will revisit
the issue after the Minister tables these agreements-contains
grey areas on aspects as simple as the definition of
infrastructure.
In fact, what constitutes an infrastructure? For some,
infrastructure must be narrowly interpreted in terms of roads,
sewers, drainage ditches and sidewalks. That is how this basic
infrastructure project was defined. Others favour a wide and
vague definition including cultural and community facilities,
telecommunication highways, even congress centres.
This wider definition suggests that the moneys to finance this
infrastructure could come from various government
departments such as Public Works or federal regional
development offices.
The nature of the projects chosen under the infrastructure
program could not only confuse existing federal departments
but also lead to a duplication of departmental efforts and to a
waste of public funds.
In this regard it is conceivable that the federal government
will be tempted to use the money already allocated to these
departments, thus weakening the notion of new money invested
by the Canadian government.
The Liberal Party cannot use old money to keep its election
promises, or else its program amounts to a mere accounting
exercise.
In fact, is the federal government willing to pay the grants in
lieu of taxes in full to municipalities?
According to the UMRCQ, the Union of Quebec County
Regional Municipalities, these grants amount to some $125
million. How much is it for all the provinces?
It is also easy to assume that the government will be tempted
to reduce public spending in terms of transfer payments to the
provinces and social programs.
(1630)
The Bloc Quebecois denounces such practices, because the
budget cuts to be made in the federal government must not be at
the expense of the poorest people.
Together with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, again I
invite the government to set up as quickly as possible a
committee to review public finances. This committee could
identify major cuts that would provide the funds required to
support needy people.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the infrastructure program must not
be used to reward the government's friends. The government
must not intervene in the process of recommending and
selecting applications for financial support under the program.
When we met with the minister on January 12, 1994, I
proposed consulting all members of the House who are directly
concerned with local projects, regardless of their political
affiliation.
I also wrote to the minister on January 17, so that he could
explain this point which was missing from the document
received by all members as of Friday, January 14.
So I am satisfied, I admit, that the minister took this
recommendation into account in his address on the Speech from
the Throne on January 21.
248
Madam Speaker, I would like to make a final clarification on
the true nature of the infrastructure program and its economic
impact on the provinces and municipalities.
The federal government is championing this program. It
pompously announces its absolute leadership in setting up this
program.
It is important to recall that the Liberal government did not
instigate this program; in fact, it was initiated by the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities, whose report addressing the
renewal of basic local infrastructure was adopted in 1985. In
reviewing the documents, we will see how far it goes. It was a
project re-evaluated in May 1993 at nearly $20 billion over five
years.
For example, the basic infrastructure renewal needs of the
city of Montreal alone are estimated at about $1.7 billion.
I also wish to remind people that the federal government only
pays one third of the total program cost. The provinces pay one
third, as do the municipalities.
Madam Speaker, the federal government has not yet
demonstrated, I remind you, that the money it uses will all be
new funds, nor has it demonstrated that it will not use spending
cuts in social programs and transfer payments to free up the new
money needed to pursue its program.
The 33 per cent that the federal government invests is likely to
be much less when the above-mentioned issues are taken into
account.
By intervening in provincial jurisdiction, the federal
government is unbalancing the municipalities' three-year
capital works plans. To free up the money needed to start work in
the next two years, will the municipalities have to draw on funds
that were to be spent in later years, in 1996, 1997 or 1998?
In so doing, they will face chronic underfunding for future
projects on later agendas, thus creating a sort of dependence that
will of course suit any centralizing government.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to show in my first speech in the
House one of the wrongs of federalism as traditionally practised
by Liberal governments. Here is where the second part of the
mandate we sought and received from Quebecers comes in,
namely promotion of Quebec sovereignty.
In this statement on Canada's infrastructure program, I
wanted to show the indescribable administrative mess we are
living in as Canadians. This example in just one field of
government activity is matched in almost all other areas.
Duplication and infringement have become the rule and no
longer the exception.
English Canada recognizes the primacy of the federal
government over the provincial governments and that is no
doubt why this same English Canada is less sensitive to federal
infringement in provincial jurisdiction.
(1635)
We are a long way from the spirit of equality, balance and
mutual respect which characterized the Constitution in 1867.
Although it respects the will of its partners, Quebec must not
pursue that route.
In my opinion, Canadian federalism has become a model of
administrative inefficiency, an inefficiency which undermines
the system and severely affects the groups which should be
served.
Political systems are tools used by communities to
co-ordinate their actions. There is no doubt in my mind that we
have to adopt a new regime if we want to get out of this situation.
And this is why the Bloc Quebecois will, during the next
referendum, ask Quebecers to patriate its tools by proclaiming
its sovereignty.
In the last week, we have heard a lot about the famous red
book-probably as much as the Chinese people heard about
Mao's red book during the cultural revolution-but I want to
remind the government that people in Quebec voted
overwhelmingly in support of the Bloc Quebecois and not the
Liberal government's red book and, as such, gave their federal
representatives the very clear mandate which we had sought,
that is to defend Quebec's interests and promote its sovereignty.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, I can see
from the speech the hon. member for Ahuntsic just made that he
understands full well what the infrastructure program put
forward by the federal government is all about. First of all, we
have asked and we continue to ask that the money the federal
government wants to spend be directly sent to Quebec. Hence,
the provincial and municipal governments in Quebec would be
able to effectively and responsibly manage this money
according to their priorities. Maybe then there will be some
money left for the real infrastructure needs of Quebec.
Again, the federal government is directly impinging on a
jurisdiction of which it has no knowledge and on which it has no
right, since, according to the Canadian Constitution, the federal
government has no right over municipal affairs. But now, in a
roundabout way, it will succeed in meddling directly in
municipal affairs. For the first time in Canadian history, the
federal government will directly impinge on municipal affairs.
It is a shame, but the federal government keeps doing it.
The Liberal government at that time was the most centralist of
all federal governments in Canada's history, and again, with this
policy, this program, it will manage to stick its nose in the
249
sewers and under the bridges of our municipalities. Moreover, it
will continue to line its pockets by awarding its own engineers
and contractors all the small infrastructure contracts for the
municipalities.
It is outrageous and unacceptable. So, the members of the
Bloc Quebecois, just like the hon. member for Ahuntsic I am
sure, will denounce the fact that the federal government is
directly encroaching on the management of municipal
infrastructures. One of these days, the federal government will
have to recognize that the best way to achieve efficient
management and to make municipalities accountable is to
withdraw from municipal affairs to avoid overlapping and
duplication. As you know, overlapping and duplication are very
costly to manage and also very costly in lack of efficiency, in
confrontation and other such things.
I do not understand why the federal government, which
should know and should understand this, still gets involved in
areas that are not of its concern.
It is a shame, Madam Speaker. I denounce it today and I hope
that we, as Quebecers, will continue to work hard together so
that this does not happen again, considering how terribly high
the deficit now is. We have a $500 billion deficit and we know
full well that it is due to the fact that the federal government is
constantly interfering in areas that should be under provincial
jurisdiction, that it is due to the centralization of powers in
Ottawa. Canada's deficit began to grow under the Liberal
government in 1970 and it has become outrageous. It went from
$2 billion in 1970 to about $35 billion in 1984 and now stands at
$45 billion. Nevertheless, the federal government insists on
centralizing everything and it has even come to the point where
it interferes in areas of municipal jurisdiction.
(1640)
It is absolutely outrageous and I want to ask my colleague
from Ahuntsic what he thinks of all that. I think he agrees with
me, but I will let him explain in his own words.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I would ask the
hon. member to address his questions and comments to the
Chair.
The hon. member for Ahuntsic has the floor.
Mr. Daviault: I totally agree with my colleague, Madam
Speaker, but I will not elaborate further on that so the hon.
member for York Centre has enough time to make his
intervention.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Madam Speaker,
I want to make a couple of observations and then ask a question
of the hon. member.
The 35th Parliament is only a week old today and I think a lot
of us on this side of the House are getting a bit tired of the Bloc
members harping on sovereignty. Bloc members should be
mindful of the fact that they have been elected to the opposition
and that the task they fulfil is an important one. They should be
here representing all provinces, not just the province of Quebec.
The hon. gentleman was complaining about certain aspects of
the infrastructure program. He is suggesting that we in the
federal government should just send bags of money to Quebec
City: no accountability, no questions asked, no thought given as
to how the money is going to be spent in the province of Quebec.
Surely those members should get serious. If we are going to be
responsible to all Canadians, if the federal government is going
to be responsible to federal taxpayers, it should take its full
responsibility with respect to expenditures of federal money
under the infrastructure program, whether the money is spent in
the province of Quebec, the province of P.E.I., the province of
Manitoba or anywhere else in the country.
Is this member really serious when he suggests the federal
government should abrogate its responsibilities and not show
any concern whatsoever on how money is spent in the province
of Quebec?
If this member is really preaching sovereignty-and that is
what I hear-perhaps he would like to tell us whether he might
like to forgo the federal share altogether. We are going to see
hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the province of
Quebec under this program. Would he like to forgo this money
and let Quebec go on its own?
[Translation]
Mr. Daviault: I thank the hon. member for his speech. He
made it clear that the notion of accountability was central to the
problem. Every time the federal government gets involved, this
government, which initially was intended to co-ordinate and
equalize, steps directly into provincial areas of jurisdiction.
When looking at the agreement with Ontario released this
morning, I find it as vague as the others in this regard. It states
that the federal-provincial management committee, made up of
two members from the federal side and two members from the
provincial side, will set up unspecified subcommittees, and that
it will be responsible for establishing subcommittees as required
in order to manage the agreement; for delegating to these
subcommittees every power required to carry out their mandate
and for setting every procedure applicable to these meetings and
to all the subcommittees, in particular the rules of conduct of
meetings and of decision-making.
(1645)
Once more, accountability will be an excuse for interfering.
Municipalities will be faced with expenditures that will alter
their three-year plans and as a result the problem will not be
250
addressed because this program is supposed to deal with basic
infrastructure problems.
Initially, that was the program proposed by the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities. Today, Ontario is even accepting
school boards as local administrations. This means school
boards as well as municipalities will be eligible.
The first project in the program, the convention centre in
Quebec City, is not a renovation project or basic infrastructure
or even locally-based infrastructure. How much will there be
left of the $6 billion for the FCM's project? There will not be
enough left. They said $20 billion was needed. In 1985, it was
$12 billion, and now this has been revised upward to $20 billion.
Where is the critical mass of this program? In its agreement,
the government never gives carte blanche for any kind of
project, and I am sure the President of the Treasury Board is
going to be very happy because for the first time in perhaps 20
years, he will not be just a budget cutter. He will also be able to
dole out subsidies, but these agreements contain no restrictions
on what the federal government can do. Just read the
agreements. If you look at them from the provincial point of
view, you will see they contain everything the federal
government needs to get involved in all stages of the project.
The hon. member also mentioned the Bloc's position as the
Official Opposition. Yes, we are. I spent most of my speech
talking about the infrastructure project because I take that
position very seriously.
We will get back to this if necessary, but as far as I am
concerned, when Quebec's interests are at stake, and I
mentioned the mandate we sought and received from the people
of Quebec, when our interests do not coincide with those of
other Canadian provinces which may prefer to let the federal
government interfere with certain jurisdictions, we will
consider Quebec's right to object to this kind of interference and
will always defend the interests of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): Madam Speaker, on this
first occasion that I have had to speak in the House I want to
begin by thanking the constituents who put me here.
I have been elected twice provincially. This was my first time
running federally but never in an election campaign have I been
questioned as closely and as carefully as I was in this one. The
people in my riding wanted to know what I stood for, what I was
going to do if I got here, and what I am doing every day I am
here.
It is passing strange to me that it was such an unusual move to
put a party's platform in a book. It is stranger still that people are
surprised when the government acts on the promises it makes.
I also thank my wife, Karen, and my daughter, Sarah. The
hardest thing I have to do as a member here is be away from
them. It is something we are all going to have to adjust to. They
make a big sacrifice. All members make that sacrifice and I do
not think people realize that.
I thank the 1,400 volunteers who worked thousands of hours
over the last 18 months so that I could get elected. They did not
ask for anything in doing that. All they wanted and all they want
today is a government that reflects their values. They are still
coming around to my office. They are still looking for ways in
which they can volunteer their time and energy to share in the
process of governing. I am honoured by their participation.
(1650 )
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you and the Speaker
and all members who were elected to serve this House, and
through you I want to thank all of the staff that serve this House.
As a rookie member here I have been remarkably well treated
everywhere I have gone. I really appreciate the support of all of
those who do not get recognized in the work that this House
does.
I also want, through you Madam Speaker, to thank the many
thousands of people who work for the federal government.
There was a time not too long ago when the previous Prime
Minister stood in front of a scrum and said that all he had to offer
the civil servants of Canada were pink slips and running shoes. I
thought then that that was a shameful experience.
How do you expect people to carry out the programs if that is
the way you treat them? No company on earth would survive if it
treated its employees the way the previous government treated
the public service of this country. I caution some of the members
opposite because I hear some of that same language coming
through, as though somehow the people who carry out the work
of this House are the enemy. We need to reflect on that.
I also want to thank Dorothy Dobbie and Mark Hughes.
Dorothy was the member for Winnipeg South in this House prior
to me and Mark was the Reform Party candidate who ran against
me. We debated 20 times during the course of the election and
we managed to keep every debate on the issues and never once
resorted to personalities. I really want to thank them for that.
I come from the province of Manitoba. We talk a lot in this
House about the upheaval that has happened in Quebec, the
election of the Bloc Quebecois, or the upheaval that took place
in Alberta and British Columbia with the massive election of the
Reform Party. Well, an upheaval took place in Manitoba. We
elected 12 Liberals. In fact we elected 21 Liberals in the
prairies. Back when I was working for the Liberal Party in the
seventies there was only one Liberal in all of western Canada.
But it is no surprise that we did not elect a single Conservative in
the prairie region.
251
I want to share a couple of facts with the House. They are facts
that I hope members from the prairie region will reflect on and
work with me on helping to right this. Do members know that if
they look at the share of national wealth that is held in the prairie
region, in the three prairie provinces of Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta, that if we just held the same
percentage of national wealth that we held in 1984 there would
be $26 billion more economic activity in those three provinces
today? That is a staggering figure. That is more than the entire
gross domestic product of the province of Manitoba. That is a
fact.
In truth, a big chunk of that is the decline in oil revenues. But
in my province of Manitoba, a small province, less than 4 per
cent of the total population of the country, no oil revenues, we
are $1.6 billion poorer and 42,000 jobs poorer today than we
were in 1984-85. I believe that is because we had a federal
government that had no understanding of the regional character
of this country, no understanding of how to use government as
an instrument in the regions of this country.
The people in my province are not blaming anybody. They do
not even blame Ontario.
An hon. member: They could.
Mr. Alcock: They could. They are approaching this new
government, they are approaching the year 2000 with great
optimism, and they are working very hard to meet the challenges
that they are confronted with.
I spoke the other day in the House about a young business in
my area. Four young graduates from the University of
Manitoba-that is Manitoba, in the city of Winnipeg-had built
a super computer. Not a good computer, a super computer, a
10-gigaflop massive computer. Not only have they built it from
scratch in the city of Winnipeg, but they have successfully sold
it to Korea, Japan, China, Brazil, Sweden and the United
Kingdom.
There is a tremendous amount of energy and optimism and
work going on in the province of Manitoba. But when I talk to
people there, as I do every night from my office here, when
talking about the problem with Canada, unlike the Leader of the
Opposition who says the problem with Canada is Quebec, they
tell me that Quebec is one of the great strengths of Canada. They
tell me that it is the Canada we have built, the Canada that
embraces diversity, the Canada that stands up for minorities, the
Canada that has created a code of human rights, the Canada that
embraces multiculturalism. It is that very diversity that gives
them the strength to go out into the world and compete.
(1655)
Out of these debates I take a couple of things that stick in my
mind. There are two little statements that come to mind. One
was told by the current Speaker who was recounting his first
days in the House many years ago when he was taken aside by
the Hon. Paul Martin Senior, the father of the current finance
minister who told him: ``Young man, whether you are here for 5
years or 20, remember that you are just passing through''. I think
about that statement and I think about a comment that the leader
of my party, the Prime Minister, made in his speech when he
spoke about about Canada as being a great work in progress.
Think about the work that we do here: pass some laws, amend
some laws and rescind some laws. To tax or not to tax. We spend
or we do not spend or we modify spending. Those are the
tangible things we do. Those are the buttons we push or the
levers we push.
However, there is an intangible thing we do in this Chamber
and that is provide leadership to the rest of the country. I hear the
talk about greater decorum and a more positive attitude. But
when I read carefully through the speeches that I see coming out
of the third party, I see very much the same kind of criticism I
heard when I sat in the provincial legislature. They did not look
at the throne speech and ask: ``What is there and how should we
discuss the things that are being committed to''. They saw what
was not there. They did not see the glass half full, they saw it
half empty.
I hope that over the months and years to come we will have the
kind of debate that is talked about. I hope we will have a
competition in this House for good ideas. I hope we will
challenge each other to see who has the best idea to solve a
problem.
Would it not be wonderful if when our constituents watched
television they went away saying: ``Gosh, I learned something. I
have been enlightened''. I do not think that is the way they walk
away from it now. It is going to take all of us to do that.
I hope that in the time I am passing through this Chamber that
I can contribute in some small way to this great work which is
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I am not at my
desk, could I ask my question from here?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The Standing Orders
require that you be in your seat to ask a question.
I already recognized a member, but after him, if you wish, you
could have the floor. The hon. member for Charlevoix.
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Speaker, I would like to
start by congratulating you, personally and on behalf of my
constituents from the riding of Charlevoix, the riding of the
former Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Mulroney, for your
appointment to the chair.
(1700)
Like my colleague from Ahuntsic, who spoke about
infrastructures, I would like to say that in a riding like
Charlevoix, where unemployment is high, and where the income
level is low, the mil rate is nevertheless quite high. If I
understand correctly what was announced by the President of
Treasury Board regarding infrastructures, a grant of $527
million would be paid to Quebec. For Quebec, $527 million and
$700 million for Ontario. Granted, we elected a very small
number of Liberals in Quebec while Ontario sent quite a few
Liberal members to the House,
252
but I hope we will not be penalized because of the October 25
election.
Several municipalities in Quebec cannot afford to pay a third
of the costs. Will the government include, in the agreements
with Quebec, rules or specific clauses in order to help small
municipalities, maybe through the labour market, maybe by
allowing them to pay on a half-time basis since, in some cases,
spill-overs from the tourist industry bring additional revenues
to municipalities, but only six months a year. For the smaller
municipalities, it could also mean-one third, one third-if they
want to take advantage of the program, it could force them to
borrow the necessary money. Already they cannot support their
poverty rate. Will the government think of additional revenues
that could help small municipalities? Will each municipality be
the local project manager, will they be able to encourage the
local economy and local workers?
[English]
Mr. Alcock: Madam Speaker, I am not going to begin to
respond to the specific question about some municipalities in
the member's riding because I am not the minister responsible
for the infrastructure program.
I would like to point out a couple of things to him. The
previous member for his party who spoke on this issue made a
comment that this sort of tripartite arrangement,
federal-municipal-provincial, was unheard of. Certainly that is
not the case in my province.
This kind of arrangement where the three levels of
government come together to jointly share responsibility for
major public works is quite common. Municipalities, Indian
reserves and others are all participating in it.
On the allocation of funds, the one thing that is different about
this government from the previous government is that these
decisions are made on an open rational basis. In this case, it was
a mixing of population and unemployment. There was a criteria
set and not: How many Liberals did you elect?
This is unlike the previous government. I think we are further
ahead for that kind of decision-making.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Time has terminated for
questions and comments.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand
in the House today as the member for Essex-Windsor.
First and foremost, I would like to thank the residents of
Essex-Windsor for giving me the privilege to represent them in
the House of Commons. Indeed, it is a privilege to have this
opportunity.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to
congratulate you on your appointment and to congratulate the
Speaker on his election. You have your work cut out for you to
reform this House and I pledge my full support to those efforts.
One of the primary reasons that I decided to run for public
office was that I was concerned and I believe that Canada's tax
system needs to be reformed. That is not just our tax policy but
our collection system as well.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Revenue, I have been given the opportunity to be closely
involved in such reforms. I want to thank the Prime Minister for
that opportunity and for appointing me. I intend to make the
most of it.
During the election, we all know that we promised to replace
the GST. The throne speech repeats this commitment, the same
commitment I made to the residents of Essex-Windsor. This
tax which was introduced by the previous government has been
disastrous for Canadian businesses. It has fuelled an
underground economy that threatens to destroy Canada's social
fabric. Some critics have expressed concern that the throne
speech fails to identify the GST replacement. But for the throne
speech to identify the replacement would be a betrayal of the
Canadian public.
(1705)
The Prime Minister told Canadians over and over during the
election that in the first session of this new Parliament he would
mandate an all-party finance committee to consult Canadians
and provincial governments on all options to the GST. That is
exactly what the Prime Minister has done.
I would encourage all residents of Essex-Windsor who want
their views on tax reform to be made available to the committee
to send their letters, their briefs, their charts directly to myself
and I will make sure they are presented to the standing
committee.
I mentioned that one of my primary reasons for running and
entering politics was to tackle tax reform. I would be remiss if I
did not take a moment to acknowledge and pay tribute to the
people who, through example, showed me the value of public
life. I speak of my parents.
My father, Eugene Whelan, as many members know, spent a
considerable part of his life in this House. Indeed, some of the
members in the present House served with him. I want you to
know that my father was not alone in his endeavour. My mother
was always at his side. They were truly a team. Both were raised
253
on a farm yet both are quite different. My father is second
generation Canadian born. My mother was born in Yugoslavia
and came to Canada when she was nine years old. However,
both were raised during lean times and both understood the
greatness of this country and what can happen when we put hard
work forward.
As a child, I saw day in and day out the commitment my
parents had to Essex-Windsor and to Canada. I was raised with
a sense that we had a duty and an obligation as citizens to serve
this great country and to keep it great. It is that responsibility
that brings me to the House today. It is a responsibility that I
intend to keep.
However that responsibility cannot be kept by any member in
this House unless we put our House in order. On December 1,
1992 when I sought the nomination in my riding I made a
commitment, a commitment to work to restore integrity to our
political system. I am pleased to see from the throne speech that
this party and this government is not backing away from that
commitment. I want to impress on the House and my
constituents that this is not the easy thing to do but it is the right
thing to do.
My riding of Essex-Windsor, in many ways, is a microcosm
of Canada. It is a reflection of the country as a whole. Like
Canada, the riding of Essex-Windsor is ethnically diverse. We
have over 70 different cultures peacefully co-existing in my
riding. Pluralism and multiculturalism, the fact that we can be
different and yet all be Canadians, are fundamental
characteristics both of Essex-Windsor and of Canada itself.
[Translation]
I too recognize the importance of bilingualism and of
protecting linguistic rights in Canada. I hope to become
bilingual to better serve my constituents.
[English]
Like Canada, Essex-Windsor has a diverse economy based
on a mixture of heavy industry, light industry, small and medium
sized businesses and farming. For example, my riding hosts the
largest mould making industry in the world. As well, we have
three large automotive companies in Windsor, Chrysler, Ford
and General Motors.
Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, the auto industry in
Canada owes its very existence to past Liberal policies under
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, ministers Paul Martin Senior,
Walter Gordon, Mitchell Sharp and then backbenchers like the
hon. member for Windsor West and my father, Eugene Whelan.
Without the auto pact that industry would be nearly dead. Now
the auto industry is one of the economic generators of Canada. It
is alive and well because of Liberal foresight.
However, like the rest of Canada, Essex-Windsor is still
recovering from the current recession. Economic suffering has
social consequences and in Essex-Windsor we have a lot of
work to do.
The throne speech commits the government to concrete
measures to deal with problems and restore Canada. These are
measures that will affect, help and assist Essex-Windsor. To
stimulate the economy, the government will immediately
introduce the infrastructure program based on recent federal,
provincial and municipal agreements.
I have been in contact with all the municipalities in the riding
of Essex-Windsor and they are all looking forward to joining in
and participating in this program. As well, to assist in long-term
job creation the government has committed to work with this
country's financial institutions to improve access to capital, to
allow small businesses to expand and prosper.
(1710)
I cannot help but note that during the election campaign this
plan was criticized as being unworkable. Yet last Thursday night
I read in the Ottawa Citizen: ``Another flurry of small business
lending initiatives is under way as Canada's big banks try to stay
on the right side of the new federal government''. That was
accomplished without a single piece of legislation or a single
decree.
We finally have a government that understands the future of
this country. As we all know, the future of tomorrow is based on
the youth of today. Therefore one of the most important
initiatives in the throne speech is the youth service corps, a
service corps that will begin to put young Canadians back to
work. It addresses youth unemployment. As well, we are
looking at a national apprenticeship program.
For 125 years Canadians have worked together to build a
strong, united nation. In spite of the economic difficulties we
face, we are what the rest of the world wants to become: peaceful
and prosperous, diverse yet tolerant, educated, strong and free.
If one looks at the situation in the former Yugoslavia and if one
was to ask the people there what they wanted more than
anything, I believe they would ask for the two things that we
have in great abundance in Canada: bread and peace. The power
expressed in the idea of bread and peace is fundamental. It was
the promise of bread and peace that allowed the Bolsheviks to
take over Russia in 1917. It is our abundance of bread and peace
that underpinned our economic prosperity in the past. We must
never forget its important to our future.
Madam Speaker, I want you to know that my riding contains
some of the most productive agricultural land in Canada. As
Canadians we must protect and strengthen our agricultural base.
A country that cannot feed itself is soon not a country and is at
the mercy of every other nation.
There are many difficulties facing agriculture. One is the new
GATT agreement, that while successful in many areas was of
mixed success in terms of agriculture. Like the producers of this
country I would have preferred a strengthened article XI. I know
the importance of supply management. If we allow our dairy
and poultry production to be destroyed or damaged, the entire
agricultural industry will be negatively affected and the quality
of our food will suffer. Over the next 18 months I will work to
254
ensure that supply management is adequately supported under
comprehensive tariffication.
The Liberal Party has always been at the forefront of social
change in Canada and always will be. The throne speech lays the
ground work for continuing that vision. The Prime Minister
himself will chair the national forum on health to foster with the
provinces a renewal of Canada's health system. The government
will also undertake, with the consultation of individual
Canadians and the provinces, a major reform of the social
security system. This will be completed during the next two
years. I again encourage the citizens of Essex-Windsor to
participate.
Further the throne speech commits the government to fiscal
discipline necessary for sustained economic growth and deficit
reduction. As the member for Madawaska-Victoria stated in
her eloquent reply to the throne speech on Tuesday: ``A lean
government does not have to be a mean government''. The
Canadian dream that built Canada on principles of sharing,
fairness and compassion has all been forgotten over the last 10
years. We as Canadians must remind ourselves of the greatness
of the Canadian experiment and return our energies to
endeavours which reflect our collective values and our desire to
work together.
The throne speech that we are debating today is the blueprint
for Canadians to work together to build Canada's future success.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, first of all, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member on her appointment
as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Revenue.
I am somewhat surprised by the fact that she has failed to
mention that the Liberal Party has just increased the tax burden
of small wage earners, when for years, they have been
criticizing the party in power for imposing taxes on the poor.
Shortly after they were elected, we realized that they were
increasing the tax burden of the unemployed, and particularly of
small businesses.
I do hope that as assistant to the revenue minister, the hon.
member will remove this unfair burden on small wage earners
due to the increase in unemployment insurance premiums. The
government squeezes a further $800 million out of workers and,
the next day, announces that it is going to give municipalities
$995 million for their infrastructure. What is the government
doing? It is reducing the purchasing power of the people, that is
what it is doing. Consequently, it is slowing down economic
growth while putting an equivalent amount into the
infrastructure program.
(1715)
The government toots its own horn, bragging about this great
program which is going to create jobs, stimulate the economy,
while it increases the burden of workers by about the same
amount by raising unemployment insurance premiums.
Madam Speaker, I have this question for the member: where is
the government going with that process I would call dishonest?
[English]
Ms. Whelan: Madam Speaker, I believe some of the
comments the hon. member made should be directed more
readily at the leader of his own party when he was minister and
the things that he did in the past government.
We have to pick up the pieces and start over, and that is what
this government is doing. We are going to have an all-party
finance committee to deal with the question of the GST and
other questions. That is where fairness will start. It will start
with this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): At any rate, Madam Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to congratulate my hon. colleague on her recent
election and I should mention that she is the youngest member of
our party, at least on this side of the House. I would also like to
point out that I am proud to sit next to a woman who reflects the
renewal our government is undergoing, a government which is
striving for profound renewal by putting in the foreground, so to
speak, the wishes of the young generation which is shaping this
country for the next century.
Of course, Madam Speaker, the opposition is not too happy to
hear about young people like us being the future of this country.
Not that I absolutely want to quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier who so
aptly said a century ago that ``the next century will belong to
Canada'', but the speeches and the presence of my colleague in
front of the opposition prompt me to say this: Canada is in very
good hands and thank you for a great speech.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, let me
extend my congratulations to you on your appointment to the
chair and to the hon. member for Welland-St.
Catharines-Thorold on his election as Speaker of the House. I
sincerely believe that both of you will be just and wise in
conducting the business of the House. I also congratulate all
members of the House on their election victories.
255
I am very pleased to take this opportunity to thank the people
of Vegreville constituency for their strong show of support on
October 25 and for their communication with me since then. I
understand well that I represent all constituents and each must
have equal access to my ears, my effort and my voice.
The greatest strengths of this area are resourceful and highly
motivated people and an abundance of natural resources
including oil, natural gas and rich agricultural land. Through
living and working with the people of this area I have learned
there are common threads that bind them. They are kind,
generous and forgiving to a point. They are hard working, treat
people fairly and expect to be treated fairly. They like to face
problems head on and are frustrated that their governments
refuse to do the same. They are a way ahead of government in
recognizing the problems and the solutions to the problems the
country faces.
(1720)
These people have told me what they expect of this
government. They want democratic and parliamentary reforms
which will make me and the Government of Canada more
accountable to them. They want reform of the justice system to
restore the balance between the rights of victims and society as a
whole and the rights and rehabilitation of criminals.
They want government to spend less, much less. My
constituents have sent me here to ask these questions of each
spending proposal. Is it necessary? How much will it cost? Can
it be done for less? The Canadian public and members of the
House have heard and will continue to hear Reform MPs ask:
Can we spend less?
As I listened to the throne speech I was disappointed that
agriculture was not mentioned. However my concerns were
somewhat alleviated by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in his
response to the throne speech. I was pleased with some of the
objectives the minister outlined and will be thrilled, as will my
constituents, if my interpretation of what he said and what he
actually meant are the same.
I will list briefly what I see as the major problems in
agriculture today and outline some of the Reform solutions. My
colleague from Fraser Valley East will discuss the supply
managed sector.
The problems then are subsidies both domestic and foreign
which encourage overproduction and lead to unfair competition,
a lack of co-ordination of programs further distorting market
signals and causing inappropriate production, and programs
which threaten access to markets. For example, the national
tripartite stabilization program for beef and hogs has caused
export problems to the United States. Then there are problem
which encourage environmental damage. An example is the
gross revenue insurance plan which encourages crop production
on marginal and easily degradable land.
The Crow benefit costs taxpayers approximately $700 million
a year and leads to the exports of value added in industries and
jobs. The future of grain farming may very well depend on
keeping those value added industries in Canada.
Next would be marketing agencies which prohibit
competition. For example, the Canadian Wheat Board controls
all sales of wheat, barley exports and domestic milling wheat
sales. I am not suggesting that we eliminate the Canadian Wheat
Board but rather that we reform it.
Another problem is very poor anti-combines and fair
competition legislation and even poorer enforcement. Finally
are interprovincial trade barriers.
All these problems and others must be dealt with in a
co-ordinated way. Are farmers ready to accept the necessary
change? I believe they are. Farmers are astute business people
who do not want to depend on subsidies which prolong the
problem. They want to depend on less subsidies and more on the
marketplace. Although the new GATT agreement may open the
gate it will not solve the problem. It is up to Parliament, in
consultation with farmers, to make the necessary changes.
I will outline briefly the vision of the Reform Party for
agricultural reform: more specifically reform of safety net
programs, the transportation system, research, education and
training, government regulations, and the Canadian Wheat
Board.
(1725 )
Concerning safety net programs, our plan is to consolidate the
mess of over a dozen unco-ordinated programs into three
programs to protect farmers from natural hazards, unfair foreign
trade practices and other income fluctuations which are beyond
their control.
First, there is the creation of a trade distortion adjustment
program to compensate farmers for unfair trade practices in
other countries.
Second, an income stabilization program will help protect
farmers against price fluctuations and cycles which occur in an
open market environment. This program will ensure a minimum
of interference in the marketplace by using the whole farm
approach. That means all commodities would be eligible and all
commodities produced on a particular farm would be included in
the plan.
Third, an improved crop insurance program would help
protect farmers against natural hazards but not encourage
overproduction.
This package of three safety net programs will be better for
farmers and less expensive for taxpayers.
Concerning transportation reform, agricultural products
should move to markets by any route, any mode of
transportation and in any state of processing that farmers and
their customers agree on. Transportation subsidies should be
eliminated and the money put into the safety net program. The
256
railway system should be deregulated and options such as
privatizing CN Rail rolling stock to enhance competition in the
system should be considered. Grain handlers should be deemed
an essential service during labour disputes if alternate routes
which are cost effective cannot be found.
A policy environment which encourages private sector
participation in research, education and job training must be
developed. Research funds should be better targeted to meet the
goals set out by farmers and agribusiness.
In the area of government regulation we must ensure that
imported products meet the same safety and environmental
standards as those produced in Canada. We must strengthen and
rigorously enforce anti-dumping laws and dispute settlement
mechanisms. We must protect against unfair business practices
by strengthening and enforcing anti-combine legislation and by
creating stronger licensing and arbitration regulations.
Finally, a priority of this Parliament must be reforming the
Canadian Wheat Board. Allowing a continental barley market,
though certainly a move in the right direction, is only tinkering
with a system that needs major reform. Let us make the
following improvements. Make the Canadian Wheat Board
accountable to the people who pay the bills and they are western
Canadian grain farmers. Allow the wheat board to handle any
crop it wants but permit farmers and grain companies the right to
compete with the board. Continue loan guarantees as long as
other countries do and give farmers the right to choose between
a pool price and a daily cash price.
These changes will provide a win-win situation for farmers,
taxpayers and for us in this House. We have strong support, as in
no Parliament before, to make these positive and substantial
changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. The farmers of this
country are way ahead of us politicians in being ready for and
demanding these changes. Let us catch up. Let us lead. Thank
you.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Madam Speaker, I
very much appreciated what the hon. member of the Reform
Party said about agriculture, because agriculture is very
important in the West as well as in the East.
I would like to find out from the hon. member if he knows
about the negotiations on durum wheat now under way between
Canada and the United States.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon.
member that I am aware of the negotiations. I can only go by
what is reported by the government but I understand
negotiations are going well and that the probability is not very
high that we will have interference in shipping our durum wheat
to the United States.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Madam Speaker, I
would like to register my objection to the recommendations
made by the hon. member with respect to the privatization of CN
rolling stock and with respect to the further deregulation of the
transportation industry, particularly rail and, I might add, with
respect to eliminating the Crow benefit. The member did not
make it clear whether he wants to eliminate it altogether or
whether he wants to pay it to the producers.
In either event, all three of the things that the member spoke
of would have the effect of further weakening the role of rail
transportation in not only the transportation of wheat but the
transportation of goods, period.
As the member for Winnipeg Transcona, I would like to say
that I object to that. The throne speech called for green
infrastructure. There is nothing greener in terms of
infrastructure than railways. What we need is policies in this
country to encourage the use of railways, not discourage the use
of railways.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time has lapsed.
[Translation]
It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
50(5), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every
question required to dispose of the amendment.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 2)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
257
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-50
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young -208
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bergeron
Canuel
Dhaliwal
Gerrard
Hubbard
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Paré
Wayne
Zed
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
The House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.